I couldn't be sure, but this youtube post looks like a replacement for your dead video.

To deal with what? bad TV programming?

Hamas has been trying this for years to no avail. It has no support now internationally, its isolated and the Palestinians people are overwhelmingly backing the Fatah party which now reconstituted after being ineffectual and losing the election to Hamas. Hamas was formed on the secret basis of a perpetual war against Israel, it won the election because unlike the corrupt Fatah at the time it provided social assistance programs and had a deep strategic political machine that won the elections. However criticizing fatah and the PLO was easy, but actually running the PLO areas proved far harder leading to internal strife and the division of power we see today in that area.

The only reason people post this shit is because out of actual on the ground context this only justifies Israeli military actions against the Palestinian people, they just don't have the same AIPAC propaganda machine to do anything about it. Stupid shit. As I said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3IQ7OCkUI8 - IDF Report from CBC News Canada.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq6ccvwbvfY - IDF Forces violently attack civilians document by Human Rights Watch.

If Americans Knew

The influence of AIPAC on US foreign policy

"The public opinion in the US, is the most powerful weapon that the IDF ... Israel possess..."

If Americans Knew

The influence of AIPAC on US foreign policy

"I don't think it is necessary for you to pre-emptively post your standard disclaimers on every video that is critical of some part of Islam, although overall I appreciate your posts a lot."

I appreciate your comments too jwray - and as far as I remember you have never been anything but civil. I don't put a 'disclaimer' on all videos but I do put one on most Memri TV videos. I think that you and I got off on the wrong foot because two of your early videos were from Memri TV and I voted against them and posted my disclaimer. If you type Islam into pretty much any video search engine on the web the first videos that pop up will be those from Memri TV. I have a big problem with Memri TV because it is effectively a propaganda machine for the Israeli government/AIPAC/PNAC/the neocons. I think that people should be aware of that fact before they decide to help spread its videos. I do comment on most - if not all - videos about the Islamic world on the Sift because that is a world I know well, and it is a world which is very badly misunderstood and misrepresented in the majority of the media/press. I do try very hard to be objective, and to provide Sifters with some historical/theological/political context for the videos and the issues that they raise.

"You sometimes see bigotry in every corner when it isn't really there"

Maybe I do sometimes - and if I do I apologise. I try to be objective and fair, but there is so much ill-informed hatred out there - on both sides - that I occasionally misread a posters intention.

"HARMLESS, FRIENDLY, GOOD" - you might add rational to that list - but you seem so convinced that it impossible to be religious and rational.

Yes, I might add that, moderates ARE religious AND rational, which is why they dont take the quran or bible literally.

Ask yourself this Why does Islam exist? Answer: The quran was written. Had muhammed died as a child, and thus never written that book, Islam wouldnt exist, right? So Islam is based on the quran, in some way, you can say Islam IS the Qur'an. Now, ever since the Qur'an, Muslims have argued and thought about what it means, (theology) and reasoning, thought and rationality have produced the version of islam you follow. What I am saying is this is equal to simply watering out the Qur'an, there is nothing, or atleast very, very little in the Qur'an that suggests you should take this book any other way than that it is the inerrant, complete word of the one true God, a statement it continually repeats. So in other words the moderate view is a result of OUTSIDE influence, influence from the real world we live in.

"Terrible dogmas are always involved, whether its communism , nationalism or christianity." - you might add secularism and atheism to that list!

No. Name one crime committed in the name of athiesm and I might consider it. And no, before you try, atheism was not what drove the likes of Stalin. it was Marxism.

Now as far as 'suicide bombing' is concerned I have a few points to make.

(1) I condemn 'suicide bombing' and have had many arguments with extreme imams, religious scholars, and Islamic leaders about this issue.

I have never thought otherwise, and never claimed otherwise.

(2) You continue to bad mouth Islam when you derogatorily refer to the Qur'an as "their winged horse-riding dead hero's perfect book".


Do i get a prize? I think the Qur'an is one of the most mind-destructive, intolerant works of fiction ever produced. Feel free to disagree.

(3) Once again you reveal your complete lack of knowledge about the Islamic world when you say that such a large percentage of Muslims in Lebanon and Turkey believe that it is "ok to murder innocent people". That is complete rubbish!!! They believe that 'suicide bombing' is a legitimate strategic tactic which can be used as a last resort in order to prevent the death and destruction of Muslims at the hands of a hostile invading force that seeks to wipe Muslims out. The vast vast vast majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars would completely condemn the kind of indiscriminate 'suicide bombing' that you see in Iraq today, and the cult of the martyr that has sprung up. But far less of them would condemn the use of 'suicide bombing' as a strategic weapon against Israeli imperialism in Palestine (and Lebanon) - where suicide bombing began. Unfortunately, America's unobjective support of Israeli aggression against Palestine (and Lebanon) for over fifty years, coupled with the illegal invasion of Iraq (heavily promoted and supported by AIPAC), neocon policy in the middle east and greater islamic world (again heavily influenced by AIPAC), and the subsequent heavy handed tactics of the American forces in Iraq, mean that many in the islamic world view the American presence in Iraq as an oppressive imperial occupying force - and hence a legitimate target.

Wrong again, read the study, the question was "Can suicide bombing be justified to defend islam" Not an oppressive occupant, not as a means of self-defence or last retort to prevent suffering, but to defend Islam, the religion, the word of the prophet, the Quran. Had it been for the reasons you mentioned, it would still be disturbing, but those numbers represent an intellectual disaster. There is NO question what can possibly drive people to adapt such a view, and that thing is faith.

(4) Suicide bombing is not irrational. Almost every study conducted in the West has concluded that suicide bombing is a strategic weapon used by people to achieve political objectives. Furthermore, and rather unfortunately, it is a strategy which has proved successful in the past - often leading to the withdrawal of the targetted troops or peoples.

Yes, this is true, but there are only so many ways you can get your "tool" to do this kind of volunteer work, the less sophisticated way is by kidnapping a mans family, threaten to chop their heads off one by one.

Can you guess what the other, easier, less messy method is? Get the numbnut to actually believe the nonsense in the Quran letter-by-letter. How can ANYONE be coerced into a literary interpretation of that thing??? Well.. he could read it...


Once again let me repeat that I totally condemn suicide attacks.


And again, I know, and I have never thought otherwise. and again, I know millions of muslims feel the same way.

"You must not allow Islam to become the world's biggest bully and perpetrator of violence."

The biggest bully and perpetrator of violence in the world is America. The reasons many Muslims think that the crusades are still happening is because of the neo-imperialist foreign policy which America has aggressively pursued in the Islamic world (highly influenced by AIPAC) - including over fifty years of unobjective support for Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. Couple this with the enduring legacy of the colonial era in the Islamic world and you will understand better the objection that many Muslims have to American interference in their domestic or foreign affairs.

When you say: "Hope he and his wife remain non-violent." you simply perpetuate a highly innacurate stereotype about the relationship between Islam and violence. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. The percentage of that total involved in violence is no greater than the percentage of Christians, or people of other faiths - be they religious or secular - involved in violence. Yes there are extreme elements in the Islamic world - fascists, misogynists, intolerant bigots, etc. - but there are just as many in other countries and in other faiths.

No Wumpus - only a small minority of ignorant, intolerant, idiotic fools with no knowledge of history or international relations, whose opinions are highly influenced by the propoganda of the neocons and AIPAC - like you and quantumushroom - are thinking that. The vocal minority who support an attack on/invasion of Iran are the same bunch of ignorant idiots who are responsible for the illegal invasion or Iraq - and look what a bloody disaster that has been! Thankfully - inshallah - the influence of this detestable minority is coming to an end.

Matisyahu FTW

This documentary is ridiculously skewed to show the Arab people as lunatic fanatics, he doesn't say anything at all about it. So what about AIPAC? And http://www.ifamericansknew.org/? And using MEMRI clips... please...

So let's hold hands and fight another set of people? By not saying anything at all, that is his statement. QM will love this.

Great post!

On this topic also see: What is AIPAC ;
Illegal Israeli Settlements - British press v American media ; Jimmy Carter on Israel's apartheid policy and the power of the Israel lobby ; If Americans Knew

Great post!

On this topic also see: What is AIPAC ;
Illegal Israeli Settlements - British press v American media ; Jimmy Carter on Israel's apartheid policy and the power of the Israel lobby ; If Americans Knew

I'm the first person to admit that the UN has some great flaws, is sometimes "a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism", and is in need of major reform - including the security council which is a relic of the Cold War.

There are two major causes of the UN's ineffectiveness. The first is the unilateralist attitude adopted by the US - particularly under the current administration. The second is that anytime that the the UN adopts a resolution condemning Israeli action the US will automatically veto the resolution (thanks to the power of AIPAC) regardless of whether the condemnation is justified or not. The un-objective use of the veto by the US in support of oppressive, unjustifiable and illegal Israeli government policies has severely damaged international perceptions of the UN. When Israel illegally steals Palestinian land, subjects the Palestinian people to daily abuse and humiliation, and collectively punishes the Lebanese people for the actions of Hezbollah, the US automatically vetoes any UN resolutions condemning these inexcusable actions. It is not just the Arab or Islamic states that support such resolutions - very often it is only America and Israel who condemn the resolution. The unobjective use of the American veto in favour of Israel is undermining the entire UN. For many people it symbolises the need for UN reform - particularly reform of the security council.

The problem with this clip is that while there are important objective criticisms to be made of the UNHRC and the UN in general, UN Watch is not actually making them. The speaker carefully disguises pro-Israeli government policy propaganda as objective criticisms of the UNHRC - this is why the Council President rejects the speech as inadmissable.

The speaker is a representative of UN Watch a pro-Israel organisation with close links to the neocons and AIPAC. While most people would accept that Assad, Ahamadinejad, and Khaddafi use the appalling treatment of the Palestinians to justify antisemitism, and to draw attention away from their own repressive regimes, this does not mean that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is any less appalling or any less condemnable. The UN has condemned Israel on many occasions precisely because on a daily basis Israel steals Palestinian land, and subjects the Palestinian people to appalling abuses. Pro-Israel groups like UN Watch would like to argue that none of these abuses occur and that UN resolutions are purely a result of antisemitism - this is simply not true.

Although they advocate a “just application of UN Charter principles,” UN Watch's preoccupation with Middle East affairs is almost exclusively focused on violations committed by Islamic extremists and anti-Semitism. Among the 13 joint letters and statements posted on its website between April 2004 and September 2006, nearly half are concerned with issues of anti-Semitism and threats to Israel. Not one mentions abuses committed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories or Lebanon.

"Morons like QM and Wumpus are thoughtless authoritarians"

Well said - and you could also add warmongering champions of hatred and intolerance!

"Even in a best-case scenario, withdrawal from Iraq will not lessen the threat of islamofascism to American lives anywhere. Iraq is one battle in a very long series of wars to come."

What a heap of crap - typical QM nonsense. America is only a target because of its blind and unobjective political and financial support for Israeli government policy, and a large number of undemocratic tyrannical regimes throughout the Islamic world - Egypt, Pakistan, etc. The biggest threat to American security and democracy is the power of AIPAC (and other special interest lobbies) who's activity ensures the continued support of militant zionism and the oppression of the Palestinian people.

" I love the way QM has been taught to talk about liberals - in a McCarthy-esque tone drummed into his head by talk radio day in and day out."
'
I am continually amazed by the way the Republicans have successfully turned 'liberalism' into a dirty word. It seems that now politicians who are liberal do not wish to be classified as such for fear of a voter backlash.

And you see the exact same kind of taboo against discussing the American relationship with Saudi Arabia, even beyond the financial ties of the Bush family. Only in the last 2-3 years have I seen a growth of pro-Palestinian media, but mostly on the web and notably still lacking in the academy. Jimmy Carter certainly helps to move the discussion (following in the steps of Edward Said) and the untenable and inhumane conditions in Palestine since the collapse of talks in 2000 requires foreign intervention.

The interesting thing about the Harvard article is that the pro-Israel groups seem more disturbed by the fact that it is a Harvard publication than the actual content of the article itself. I believe that they are seeking a control of media and academic outlets that can no longer realistically exist. You are correct that I don't think much of the Harvard article because there do seem to be large gaps in the substantiation of its sources and I believe that it fatally falls sway to the simplistic "Jewish Lobby is the root of evil" mentality.

At the same time, I am extremely happy that Harvard published it because it does shed light on some of the evils of AIPAC and it fosters discussion about both the article and the inevitable reaction. It also keeps Palestine in the public eye and provides political traction to relief organizations within Gaza and the West Bank.