From: "steve" <steve365@btinternet.com>
> That wasn't exactly the point I was making. What I was trying to hint at was
> that the religious fanaticism of the Taliban and other Muslim groups is
> largely funded and encouraged by the Saudis (and to a lesser extent the
> UAE). In Pakistan for example the "fundamentalist" mullahs are funded almost
> entirely by Saudi money - the same here in Britain. (I have personal
> knowledge of this as I was married for eight years to a lady whose family
> were Pakistani by origin and with connections to the elite in that country-
> her grandfather had been a close friend of Jinnah). Mike Lorrey asked why
> Saudi or Gulf Arab dissidents don't attack their own countries' rulers
> directly. The answer is (a) they don't fancy tangling with the secret police
> (b) there is a kind of implicit deal being done in the Saudi/Gulf states:
> radicals are allowed to attack the U.S./Israel so long as they don't openly
> attack the Saudi regime. Those who are too honest to accept this are allowed
> to go into exile but continue to get funding from "charitable donations".
So besides being deranged suicidal religious fanatics, the perpetrators of the
9-11 attack might also have been radical dissidents afraid of their own
countries' secret police... or expatriates too honest to accept the fraud and
deception of their homelands.
OK, I think I know why they hate us now: They're totally fucked-up, that's
why.
Stephen Schwartz sez:
> Wahhabism. This
> is a strain of Islam that emerged not during the Crusades, nor even at the
> time of the anti-Turkish wars of the 17th century, but less than two
> centuries ago. It is violent, it is intolerant, and it is fanatical beyond
> measure. It originated in Arabia, and it is the official theology of the
> Gulf states. Wahhabism is the most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism.
Well, if it's the official theology of the Gulf states, then it's the official
responsibility of the Gulf states (especially, one might say, Iraq) to pay for
the 9-11 attack.
> Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all Muslim suicide bombers are
> Wahhabis - except, perhaps, for some disciples of atheist Leftists posing as
> Muslims in the interests of personal power, such as Yasser Arafat or Saddam
> Hussein. Wahhabism is the Islamic equivalent of the most extreme Protestant
> sectarianism. It is puritan, demanding punishment for those who enjoy any
> music except the drum, and severe punishment up to death for drinking or
> sexual transgressions. It condemns as unbelievers those who do not pray, a
> view that never previously existed in mainstream Islam.
So, if Saddam Hussein uses Wahhabis as misguided missiles (a term coined by
Richard Dawkins), then Saddam Hussein should pay for the 9-11 attack.
> The founder of the Saudi kingdom, Ibn Saud, established Wahhabism as its
> official creed.
Now that's world class cognitive dissonance:
making a cult that hates you the official creed of your kingdom.
Whew! These guys are all brain diseased.
Entering this conflicting data into machine intelligence would set the
Singularity back decades.
> Much has been made of the role of the US in "creating" Osama
> bin Laden through subsidies to the Afghan mujaheddin, but as much or more
> could be said in reproach of Britain which, three generations before,
> supported the Wahhabi Arabs in their revolt against the Ottomans. Arab
> hatred of the Turks fused with Wahhabi ranting against the "decadence" of
> Ottoman Islam. The truth is that the Ottoman khalifa reigned over a
> multinational Islamic umma in which vast differences in local culture and
> tradition were tolerated. No such tolerance exists in Wahhabism, which is
> why the concept of US troops on Saudi soil so inflames bin Laden.
>
> Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his
> Egyptian allies, who exulted as they stabbed foreign tourists to death at
> Luxor not many years ago, bathing in blood up to their elbows and emitting
> blasphemous cries of ecstasy. So are the Algerian Islamist terrorists whose
> contribution to the purification of the world consisted of murdering people
> for such sins as running a movie projector or reading secular newspapers. So
> are the Taliban-style guerrillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus. The Iranians
> are not Wahhabis, which partially explains their slow but undeniable
> movement towards moderation and normality after a period of utopian and
> puritan revivalism. But the Taliban practise a variant of Wahhabism. They
> employ ancient punishments - such as execution for moral offences - and they
> have a primitive and fearful view of women. The same is true of Saudi
> Arabia's rulers. None of this extremism has been inspired by American
> fumblings in the world, and it has little to do with the tragedies that have
> beset Israelis and Palestinians.
>
> The Wahhabis have two weaknesses of which the West is largely unaware; an
> Achilles's heel on each foot, so to speak. The first is that the vast
> majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful people who would prefer
> Western democracy in their own countries. They loathe Wahhabism for the same
> reason any patriarchal culture rejects a violent break with tradition. And
> that is the point that must be understood: bin Laden and other Wahhabis are
> not defending Islamic tradition; they represent an ultra-radical break in
> the direction of a sectarian utopia. Thus, they are best described as
> Islamo-fascists, although they have much in common with Bolsheviks.
>
> The Bengali Sufi writer Zeeshan Ali has described the situation touchingly:
> "Muslims from Bangladesh in the US, just like any other place in the world,
> uphold the traditional beliefs of Islam but, due to lack of instruction,
> keep quiet when their beliefs are attacked by Wahhabis in the US
**Wahhabis in the US?? **
OK everybody... time to take your local Wahhabis downtown for a little
therapy.
(Special prizes for neighborhoods that turn in the most.)
> who all of
> a sudden become 'better' Muslims than others. These Wahhabis go even further
> and accuse their own fathers of heresy, sin and unbelief. And the young
> children of the immigrants, when they grow up in this country, get exposed
> only to this one-sided version of Islam and are led to think that this is
> the only Islam. Naturally a big gap is being created every day that silence
> is only widening." The young, divided between tradition and the call of the
> new, opt for "Islamic revolution" and commit themselves to their
> self-destruction, combined with mass murder.
>
> The same influences are brought to bear throughout the 10-million-strong
> Muslim community in America, as well as those in Europe. In the US, 80 per
> cent of mosques are estimated by the Sufi Hisham al-Kabbani, born in Lebanon
> and now living in the US, to be under the control of Wahhabi imams, who
> preach extremism,
If that's really true, then what's wrong with requiring these murderous
lunatics to register with law enforcement agencies, and treating them as
severely as we treat sex offenders?
> and this leads to the other point of vulnerability:
> Wahhabism is subsidised by Saudi Arabia, even though bin Laden has sworn to
> destroy the Saudi royal family. The Saudis have played a double game for
> years, more or less as Stalin did with the West during the Second World War.
> They pretended to be allies in a struggle against Saddam Hussein while
> spreading Wahhabi ideology, just as Stalin promoted an "antifascist"
> coalition with the US while carrying out espionage and subversion on
> American territory. The motive was the same: the belief that the West was or
> is decadent and doomed.
Where's Barry Goldwater, now that we really need him...
"So tonight I want to speak about freedom. And let me remind you that
extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/speeches/sp
goldwa.htm
> One major question is never asked in American discussions of Arab terrorism:
> what is the role of Saudi Arabia? The question cannot be asked because
> American companies depend too much on the continued flow of Saudi oil, while
> American politicians have become too cosy with the Saudi rulers.
>
> Another reason it is not asked is that to expose the extent of Saudi and
> Wahhabi influence on American Muslims would compromise many Islamic clerics
> in the US. But it is the most significant question Americans should be
> asking themselves today. If we get rid of bin Laden, whom do we then have to
> deal with? The answer was eloquently put by Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, professor
> of political science at the University of California at San Diego, and
> author of an authoritative volume on Islamic extremism in Pakistan: "If the
> US wants to do something about radical Islam, it has to deal with Saudi
> Arabia. The 'rogue states' [Iraq, Libya, etc] are less important in the
> radicalisation of Islam than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the single most
> important cause and supporter of radicalisation, ideologisation, and the
> general fanaticisation of Islam."
>
> From what we now know, it appears not one of the suicide pilots in New York
> and Washington was Palestinian. They all seem to have been Saudis, citizens
> of the Gulf states, Egyptian or Algerian. Two are reported to have been the
> sons of the former second secretary of the Saudi embassy in Washington. They
> were planted in America long before the outbreak of the latest Palestinian
> intifada; in fact, they seem to have begun their conspiracy while the Middle
> East peace process was in full, if short, bloom. Anti-terror experts and
> politicians in the West must now consider the Saudi connection.
The Saudi connection, if what Stephen Schwartz writes is true, is Wahhabi
Islamo-fascism, which is the "official creed" of Saudi Arabia.
Gee, maybe we can get Patricia Ireland, head of America's "official creed"
(viz., feminazism) to lay siege to Mecca...
and may the best man win.
--- --- --- --- ---
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual
uniqueness, ego, human values, scientific relinquishment
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:56 MDT