One random example of the civilised world, George Bush (there, I can say nice things about him), responds by indicating that the Saudi government can carry on doing and saying whatever it likes.
So instead of conspiracies where nefarious Jews control everything, you see conspiracies involving the nefarious Bush. No wonder you asked me about tin foil...you evidently need some to make yourself a hat to protect you from Bush.
From NNN's conspiracy-theory-laden link:
Given the many business and personal ties binding the president, his family and his associates to the House of Saud, George W. Bush's see-no-evildoer attitude toward the Saudis is a vulnerability...
Not surprisingly, the site doesn't name any of these ties, rather adopting the a-lie-repeated-often-enough... approach. But one can assume that it is the same lie peddled by bin Laden's speech writer, Michael Moore. In Mooreon's Moore's fictional Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore claims over a billion dollars was given by Saudi Arabia to firms connected to Bush.
Newsweek, however, found:
90% of that claimed amount was from contracts in the early to mid-1990s (I forget, who was President then?) that Saudi Arabia awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM for defense projects. BDM was, at the time, owned by the Carlyle Group. This private-equity firm's advisory board once included the president's father, George H.W. Bush. (One more degree of separation and I could have gotten to Kevin Bacon!)
Former President Bush (#41) didn't join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998...5 months after Carlyle had already sold BDM.
Current President George W. Bush (#43) stepped down from the board when he ran for governor of Texas, before the Saudi contract was awarded.
The Carlyle Group has a cross section of many people in Washington. Says Newsweek, "Its founding and still managing partner is Howard Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm's senior advisors is Thomas McLarty, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton's former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Cannard, Clinton's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission."
What conspiracy? It's all in the open. That site does give some specific connections - ' Saudi investment in the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm whose rainmakers include George Bush Senior; the Saudi bankrolling of Poppy's presidential library; the lucrative contracts the Saudis doled out to Halliburton when Dick Cheney was at the company's helm. The main law firm retained by the Saudis to defend them against the 9-11 families is Baker Botts -- as in James Baker, the Bush family consigliere. And, of course, there's oil, the black glue connecting all these dots.'
Besides that, Bush's comments about what a wonderful ally Saudi Arabia is are a matter of public record, as are Saudi Arabia's anti-semitism, religious intolerance, mediaeval laws, and links to militant Islam.
(Yes, other administrations have also kowtowed to the Saudi royal family. This was also questionable. The world is not black and white - we are allowed to disapprove of actions of politicians from all parts of the political spectrum.)
"None of this is to suggest that there aren’t legitimate questions that deserve to be asked about the influence that secretive firms like Carlyle have in Washington—not to mention the Saudis themselves (an issue that has been taken up repeatedly in our weekly Terror Watch columns.) Nor are we trying to say that “Fahrenheit 9/11” isn’t a powerful and effective movie that raises a host of legitimate issues about President Bush’s response to the September 11 attacks, the climate of fear engendered by the war on terror and, most importantly, about the wisdom and horrific human toll of the war in Iraq.
But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke."www.msnbc.msn.com
Yes, Moore seems to have misrepresented the facts on that Carlyle money. Other facts remain however: the Bush family and people in their circle have benefitted financially from links with Saudi Arabia; and various US administrations' attitudes to Saudi Arabia could be described as obsequious, despite that country's clear links to violent Islamic fundamentalism, and its objectionable record on human rights.
The Bush family connections to Saudi Arabia needn't be a conspiracy - they arose almost inevitably as the Bush's are an 'oil family', but the links do raise questions about influence on the President and mutual back-scratching:
'George W. Bush. George W.'s oil career started in 1978 -- 12 years after his father first entered Congress -- when several of his father's friends invested in his firm, Arbusto ("Bush" in Spanish). Unlike his father, George W. spent much of his oil career in the red. As Joe Conason pointed out in Harper's last year before the election, the company's original investors and others bailed out his firm at least three times. But after a final act of corporate CPR -- a merger with Harken Energy in 1986 -- Bush's connections to power really paid off. Two years after the merger, Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, a former director of Saudi Arabia's income tax department, purchased an 11 percent stake in Harken through his company Traco International. That same year, Harken won a contract for oil-drilling in Bahrain.
"Harken had no international experience at the time," says Eisner at the Center for Public Integrity, which published a detailed account of Bush's rise to power titled "The Buying of the President: 2000." "It was their first out of country contract."
Press reports at the time questioned Bahrain's motivations. Even the normally reserved Wall Street Journal reported in 1991 that the contract "raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son."
The Bush family countered that the contract was well deserved. Regardless, the deal in the Persian Gulf gave Bush a direct tie to the Saudi elite and set Bush on a suddenly successful path.
"It's not just the matter of a single contract," Eisner says. "It also has to do with converting Harken into a player that was then converted into a stake in the Texas Rangers and a run for governor. It's not incidental. The Bahrain deal is central to Bush's life."'www.salon.com
Now this, on the other hand, is classic conspiracy theory - the 28 pages on Saudi Arabia censored from the 9/11 report.
The Saudi government wanted them published, so it could defend itself. For once, Bush said no - www.cbsnews.com - saying that would compromise security.
Some who have read the pages disagree - www.thenation.com - saying they were redacted to hide Saudi government ties to the hijackers.
Not having the 28 pages, of course, the internet conspiracy theorists can go wild.
Going back to the original post; the simplistic idea of bad-guy Arabs/Muslims and good-guy Israelis is naive. The world is a much more complex place.
Number of terrorist attacks by Israelis or Jews since 1967: 1
Which was..?
I've been wondering about this one. I guess its validity depends on the defintion of terrorism used;
'Four Arab Israelis shot dead by a soldier opposed to the closure of the Gaza Strip settlements are not victims of "terror" because their killer was Jewish, Israel's defence ministry has ruled, and so their families are not entitled to the usual compensation for life.
The ministry concluded that the law only recognises terrorism as committed by "organisations hostile to Israel" even though the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the killings by Private Eden Nathan Zaada, 19, as "a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist."' www.guardian.co.uk
I suppose actions taken by the military aren't counted as terrorism either - even bombing residential buildings at night: www.haaretzdaily.com.
Number of "hot war" shooting conflicts in the world: Approximately 30
I suppose this also depends on definition. What are these thirty 'wars'? The lists of current 'wars' I can find on the Internet give about half that number. What does "shooting conflict" mean? (Does it include US cities?)
That second link has details on each war - so we can consider the significance or otherwise of Islam in those that happen to involve Muslims. Personally, I think they're basically about resources, turf, blood-feuds, or competing 'tribes' like all wars always have been.
Number of Muslims in the world: More than 1 billion
Number of Muslim demonstrations against Islamic terror: Approximately 2
In this particular 'statistic', the mechanics of the selectivity are showing. Why not contrast "the number of Muslim demonstrations against Islamic terror" with "the number of non-Muslim demonstrations against Islamic terror"?
Because there aren't many of either.
Demonstrations exist to change people's minds, to show by what numbers something is supported or opposed. Everyone already knows that, except for a few crazies, everyone opposes terror, and that no amount of marching is likely to change terrorist's minds.
There have been anti-terrorist marches with some hope of success, but they are few.
So, instead we get the spurious 'billion Muslims' vs '2 demos' comparison. What is it supposed to imply? That a billion Muslims quietly support terror? We've been over the Islam - is it peaceful debate several times on this board. It's clearly no more peaceful or violent than any other religion.
A quick search on the net:
There was a large demonstration against terror in Spain, which wasn't particularly identified as Muslim.
Muslim demos -
Thousands of Muslim Algerians demonstrated against terror in 1997.
200,000 people demonstrated in Karachi against terrorism in 2001.
There have been demonstrations against terror in Iraq, of course.
It's not clear how many people demonstrated, but there were spontaneous anti-terrorist demonstrations against terror in Somaliland. (A little background)
This was more of a rally than a demonstration, only 200 students, but it was the first ever in Saudi Arabia (I have to say that the Saudis I've actually met - I've taught English to a few - have been charming, polite, gentle young men. All men of course, though.)
'Approximately 2' becomes 5, in the course of ten minutes googling.
Look for alQuds, and for Beit alMuqaddis, the Arabic names of the city. There's not a lot of point to looking for "Jerusalem" if they don't call it that. You might as well look for a German map identifying the capital of Austria as Vienna.
Alan Moore
Alan, Telling me that it would be in Arabic is an insult to my intelligence. If you think that I am so ignorant that this wouldn't have occured to me, frankly I don't know why you bothered responding to my post.
As I said before, I can't find it. First, I looked in the Dictionary of Religion, as per my post above. It says that Jerusalem is not directly mentioned but in Muslim tradition is considered to be the "distant place" of the night journey. The Dictionary of Religion is a pretty good resource, not preferring any particular religion, and I highly doubt that its authors are too dumb to realize that they should look for Jerusalem in Arabic if they're talking about the Quran.
Second, I came home and looked in my Quran (Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall translation). At the back is a handy list of important terms, people, places, and ideas in the Quran, so that a person can look them up and find where they are written about - from "A'dd, the tribe of" to "Zeyd." "Mecca" and "Sinai (Mount)" are there, but there is no "Jerusalem" listing, nor is there a listing for "alQuds" or for "Beit alMuqaddis".
I looked up the passage about the Night Journey, and here is what it says:
quote:
"Glorified be He Who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of Worship [footnote, added by translator, says "Mecca"] to the Far Distant Place of Worship [Footnote, added by translator, says "Jerusalem"] the neighborhood whereof We have blessed, that We might showhim our Tokens!"
The name of that Surah is "The Children of Israel," and I just read the entire Surah - can't find any mention of Jerusalem except the one above, which is in a footnote added by the translator.
Alan, your statement that he "obviously hasn't read the Quran" implies that "Jerusalem" (in any language) is mentioned several times. Have YOU read the Quran? If so, please tell me where the word "Jerusalem," in any language, appears.
As far as I can tell, it isn't there, except, as the Dictionary states, as something believed by Muslims to refer to Jersualem. I agree that it may, since they are talking about Jews - that is the logical city, but perhaps Muhammed didn't know the exact name or exact details about the city, knowing only that there was a place far away that was holy to the Jews, so he remained quite vague in his description of this "Far, Distant place" that he had supposedly visited. (I say this as a non-believer of all 3 Abrahamic religions).
That doesn't mean that Jerusalem isn't important to Muslims - it obviously is. But I think its importance to Muslims exists because it is important to Jews. It is of primary importance in the Jewish faith and that is where it's importance in the Christian and Muslim faiths stems from.
It does not demonstrate that people who say Jerusalem is not in the Quran are ignorant, as you imply. It certainly is not in the Quran in the clear, unequivocal sense that it is in the Bible. Did the Hebrews of Biblical times know and love Jerusalem as their holy city? There can be no doubt of this, based on their scriptures. Did the Muslims of Muhammed's time know and love Jerusalem as their holy city? I think that is highly doubtful, based on their scriptures.
That has nothing to do with who should have the land, but it's a fact, nevertheless.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sarai,
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
Percentage of Palestinians who have praised Islamic terrorists: Approximately 90
I wonder where this figure came from, and what it means exactly by 'praised Islamic terrorists'.
A recent poll of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (The top figure is the total, the middle for the West Bank and the bottom one for the Gaza Strip):
'36) Do you believe that armed confrontations so far has helped achieve Palestinian national and political rights in ways that negotiations could not achieve?
1) Definitely yes 19.6 14.7 28.1
2) Yes 47.1 47.5 46.3
3) No 25.2 29.1 18.4
4) Definitely no 5.5 5.3 5.8
5) DK/NA 2.7 3.4 1.4
37) Do you support or oppose the mutual cease fire which has been reached with Israel?
1) Definitely support 20.1 15.0 28.9
2) Support 62.7 64.4 59.7
3) Oppose 13.4 15.8 9.3
4) Definitely oppose 2.8 3.2 2.1
5) DK/NA 1.0 1.6 0.0
38) Two weeks ago, a bombing attack took place in Tel Aviv leading to the death of four Israelis and the injury of 50 others in front of a night club. Do you support or oppose this attack?
1) strongly support 6.5 6.7 6.2
2) support 22.6 23.6 20.9
3) oppose 53.3 53.6 52.9
4) strongly oppose 13.8 11.9 17.1
5) DK/NA 3.7 4.2 2.9
39) The PA is currently taking steps, such as arrests, to prevent attacks like this one in Tel Aviv and to punish those who committed it. Do you support or oppose these steps?
1) strongly support 7.1 6.4 8.3
2) support 33.3 35.1 30.2
3) oppose 44.0 43.2 45.5
4) strongly oppose 12.5 11.6 14.0
5) DK/NA 3.1 3.7 2.1
40) Do you support or oppose a return to negotiations with Israel on a comprehensive settlement to the conflict?
That doesn't show 90% support for Islamic terror, although it does show worryingly high support for terrorist acts. Could Prager have been Michael Moore-ing his figures?
A site very critical of Palestine Authority reproduces a Public Opinion & Marketing Research of Israel (PORI) poll:
'In your opinion, were the people who flew planes into New York's World Trade Center ____.
[Palestinian response] Terrorists 37%
Martyrs 22%
Freedom Fighters 14%
Don't know 27%
Terrorism is NEVER justified under any circumstances.
There's also a response later on in which 79% of Palestinians say that 'bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants' are not terrorism. That's the closest to the 90% figure I can find. Another opinion poll (not of Palestinian opinion) gives what might be the 'rationale' (if you can have a rationale for random murder) behind this -
'Here is a statement in support of the view that such attacks are justifiable: For over thirty years, in violation of UN resolutions, Israel has occupied Palestinian territories, confiscated land, and killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians. Faced with an overwhelming military power, the Palestinians' only option is to attack Israeli civilians to press Israel to stop killing Palestinian civilians and end its occupation. Under international law, a person who is under occupation has a right to resist the occupier. Do you find this statement convincing or unconvincing? Would that be very or somewhat (un)convincing?'www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Number of patents registered to all Arab countries as a group between 1980-2000: 370
Number of patents registered to Israel in that same time period: 7,652
And what is this supposed to tell us? That Arabs are stupid? Or that Arabian countries (many of them short-sightedly depending on oil exports for wealth) are not as industrialised as Israel which, like natural-resource-poor Japan or Korea, needs to innovate to compete globally? Are these numbers for patents registered in the US? Could that maybe explain some of the difference?
Problems with using patents as an index of national innovativeness: www.haaretzdaily.com
The switching between 'Arabs', 'Muslims' and 'Palestinians' in the numbers given is another example of statistical sleight of hand. If this statistic were about 'Muslims', as some other statistics are, Turkey would have to be included:
“There is a notable increase in those who receive patents compared to previous years. In Turkey, the number of patented inventions was 3,000 in 2004 and will be close to 4,000 in 2005, but this is no where near the United States and Japan.” www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
Prager's figures are evidently selective and manipulated - therefore unconvincing.
Frankly, I'm not sure what the importance of the Jerusalem being or not being in the Koran is. Rome, while mentioned in the New Testament, is probably never mentioned as a holy place (I'll admit I have not done any research to back that up aside form my potentially faulty memory). Does that mean Catholics have no right to view St. Peter's Basilica or other parts of the Vatican as places of particular importance? Beyond that, is it really important whether Palestinians seeking the 'right of return' believe their birthplace to be sacred ground, or is their forcible ejection a more important issue. It seems to me that the latter has been the case put forward (after all, it is not just Palestinians from Jerusalem, but Palestinians from other parts of present-day Israel).
As for the rest, I'll admit that, as an analytical chemist, bare-bones statistics appeal to me. But, even in a field such as mine where the real goal is often only a few numbers from a complex sample, we recognize that numbers cannot stand alone. They need to be defined, they need to be supported, and context needs to be provided - this list fails miserably on all three counts.
'Jewish claims to this land are based on the biblical promise to Abraham and his descendants, on the fact that this was the historical site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel (which was destroyed by the Roman Empire), and on Jews' need for a haven from European anti-Semitism. Palestinian Arabs' claims to the land are based on continuous residence in the country for hundreds of years and the fact that they represented the demographic majority. They reject the notion that a biblical-era kingdom constitutes the basis for a valid modern claim. If Arabs engage the biblical argument at all, they maintain that since Abraham's son Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs, then God's promise of the land to the children of Abraham includes Arabs as well. They do not believe that they should forfeit their land to compensate Jews for Europe's crimes against them.'Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer
Number of Arab refugees who fled the land that became Israel: approximately 600,000
Number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries: approximately 600,000
This one does seem to be an illuminating statistic. The Jewish refugees arriving in Israel were, eventually, successfully integrated into Israeli society, as full citizens, without UN help. Palestinian refugees have remained refugees - although there's little real prospect of them getting their homes back. How much bloodshed might have been spared if the fact of this mutual 'ethnic cleansing' had been accepted as a fait accompli and the Palestinian refugees allowed to settle properly in their 'temporary' homes?
(Iraq, and other Arab League nations, initially forbade Jews to leave for the newly created Israel, fearing this would weaken them and strengthen Israel - en.wikipedia.org)
Number of Arabs Israel allows to live in Arab settlements in Israel: 1,250,000
Number of Jews Palestinian Authority allows to live in Jewish settlements in Palestinian Authority: 0
"Arab settlements in Israel"? What does this mean? Arabs who live in Israel live under Israeli laws, as Israeli citizens.
Jewish settlements (there's a complex story behind behind the term 'settlement'), on the other hand, did not involve Jews living as Palestinian citizens under the Palestine Authority, but were seen as extensions of Israel into 'disputed' or 'occupied' (more terminological problems) territory.
