Margaret Hassan

Margaret HassanMargaret has lived in Iraq for 30 years. She’s not only a naturalised Iraqi but has for the last 13 years been directly involved in trying to lift the suffering off her fellow Iraqi people. She has managed the British Councel for some time which means she also brought knowledge into the country and engendered cultural understanding between two peoples.

She has now been abducted by criminal cowards who are using her as a pawn to ask the impossible for her release: get the British troops out of Iraq. As if she (like Bigley and the tens of others who have been brutally killed before her abduction) has the key to effect that change in policy on the part of the British government.

Now do you believe me when I say that ALL of these kidnappings, murders, tortures and humiliation have NOTHING to do with Islam? And that these criminal low-life cowards are simply using the name of Islam to their own selfish cowardly ends?

Islam has nothing to do with these jerks, even the devil himself would spit them out of hell.

signature
38 Comments
  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    23 October 2004

    Margaret Hassan

    It doesn’t look like the criminals who have kidnapped her have sold her to Zarqawi, at least not yet.

    As I understand it, the way this works is that ordinary criminals kidnap the victims and then sell them to the highest bidder. It seems to work something like car thieves in that they kidnap those who will garner a high reward and sometimes kidnap to order. The criminals have specialized, some groups specializing in kidnapping while others specialize in harvesting the ransom.

    In this case, it looks like the current group that holds her is not Zarqawi’s, because they don’t display the Zarqawi brand. They don’t pose her with masked gunmen standing in front of the black banner of Tawhid and Jihad. These guys seem to be copycats, using Zarqawi-type marketing to accentuate the threat to her life and presumably raise a larger ransom.

    But Mahmood, your argument falls short in the face of the authentic Zarqawi snuff videos. The name of his “Tawhid and Jihad” group is emphatically Islamic, asserting the superiority of Islamic monotheism. Their purpose is to create a pure Islamic state in Iraq. He recently declared his affiliation to Al Qaeda, whose goal is to create a worldwide Islamic empire, the Second Caliphate. It’s all about Islam.

    It appears now that such Muslim terrorists are teaching ordinary criminals successful criminal techniques for achieving their evil goals.

    Steve

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    23 October 2004

    Margaret Hassan

    [quote]Islam has nothing to do with these jerks, even the devil himself would spit them out of hell. [/quote]

    But not Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which pay Zarqawi to do his evil, according to US intelligence.

    Steve

  • mahmood
    23 October 2004

    Re: Margaret Hassan

    But Mahmood, your argument falls short in the face of the authentic Zarqawi snuff videos. The name of his “Tawhid and Jihad” group is emphatically Islamic, asserting the superiority of Islamic monotheism. Their purpose is to create a pure Islamic state in Iraq. He recently declared his affiliation to Al Qaeda, whose goal is to create a worldwide Islamic empire, the Second Caliphate. It’s all about Islam.

    That’s probably what they want you (the West) to believe, it just doesn’t wash with us Muslims, here on the ground.

    So no matter what they call themselves, to us it just smells like a piece of turd, and no Steve, no matter what “name” they choose for themselves, it remains just a name that is void of any truth, be that Islamic or even more importantly human.

  • mahmood
    23 October 2004

    Re: Margaret Hassan

    this is new, but to me seems to be so far from the truth that is laughable. I’d like to see what evidence there to support this fantastic claim, and dragging the UAE into the fray is a new thing too!

  • esraa
    23 October 2004

    Re: Margaret Hassan

    Actually Steve,

    It’s all about power, control and money. Islam is simply the cosmetic these evil slugs use to disguise their true nature and motives, and try to sell it to the poor, ignorant masses.

    Salaam,
    PM

  • mohd
    23 October 2004

    Re(1): Margaret Hassan

    [quote]It’s all about power, control and money. Islam is simply the cosmetic these evil slugs use to disguise their true nature and motives, and try to sell it to the poor, ignorant masses.[/quote]

    Which Steve bought in Wholesale Quantities at Retail Prices

  • Bani_Adam
    23 October 2004

    Margaret Hassan

    As a total non-believer in any doctrinal religion, I’m kind of with Steve on this one. Islam, Christianity and various other text-based religions do contain a great deal of belligerent, punitive and supremacist doctrine and while there is plenty that endorses the good in them, there is also plenty that endorses the bad and the downright evil. It’s all about interpretation, but the good is a matter of interpretation just as surely as the bad. In medieval times, bad interpetrations of Christianity abounded, with many smitings and witchburnings. Now it’s Islam which is going through the same thing. But in both instances there is plenty in the holy books that can be used to endorse hatred just as easily as to endorse peace. The Bible, for example, tells believers to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath, not to suffer witches to live, and even has one memorable passage where God sends along some bears to tear apart children who tease an old man. Nasty stuff. Then there’s Jesus, who’s kind of a hippy, peace and lurve maaaaan. Both are in the Bible, though, and both hold up the same God as their authority.

    To me, as a non-believer, these religious books are full of the same prejudices, contradictions, aspirations, fears, pluses and minuses as their very human authors, and they are intensely political.

    edit, eeeh ‘eck my typing …

    [Modified by: Ash (Ash) on October 24, 2004 05:43 PM]

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    24 October 2004

    Re(1): Margaret Hassan

    Mahmood,

    Tawhid and Jihad use these snuff videos to recruit new members. I also read that collections of these beheadings on video are very popular on the streets of Baghdad, where vendors sell them. It looks like at least some Muslims find them quite appealing.

    However, we do agree that it is an inhuman practice.

    Steve

  • Bani_Adam
    24 October 2004

    Re(2): Margaret Hassan

    These verses belong to the very substantial sections that are essentially historical – ie they advocate responses to particular historical events and circumstances. Unfortunately, because Qu’ran is regarded not as an early work of history but rather as the word of God, it gives a great deal of scope to those who wish to see its every detail as being true for all time and applicable to every situation.

    I have often encountered British Muslims who speak of Westerners as “the Romans”!!! They regard history itself as an irrelevenance; it’s always the 7th Century for them.

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    24 October 2004

    Re(1): Margaret Hassan

    Mahmood,

    That’s what I read is the source of Zarqawi’s funding according to US intelligence: Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The precise source within those entities was not stated.

    I interpret that to mean that the governments of SA and UAE are not making formal payment for the services of Zarqawi, but rather individuals within them are doing so. I’m guessing that princes and wealthy men in each are paying Zarqawi for infidel heads. That is to say, those governments are paying Zarqawi informally and covertly, through murky back channels where the flow of money is undocumented.

    Steve

  • mahmood
    24 October 2004

    I’m trying to find references. I have watched a debate on Al-Jazeera a few weeks ago where there pitted an Azhar cleric against a “modern” Muslim, a professor in one of the UK universities and the topic of discussion was how to modernise Islamic teaching.

    The revalation to me through that discussion is that the professor and some of the callers insisted that there is a distinction between the Makkah-based Surahs (those surahs which have descended while Mohammed pbuh was in Mekkah) and the Medina-based Surahs and the essense of the difference is that the Mekkah-based Surahs are the “essense” of Islam, the basic rules which should be followed, while the Medina-based Surahs are reflections and explanations to specific events which happened in that period of time, ie, transitory. I’m not explaining this very well because I do not understand it fully. But it is worth exploring this issue further as I see this as a potential to save Islam.

    Just found the link, the episode of Al-Itijah Al-Mu’akis (Opposite Directions) is here and the link includes a complete transcript of the episode (in Arabic).

    The gentlemen at the discussion were:
    Ibrahim Al-Khouli (Al-Azhar University Teacher/Scholar)
    Mohammed Yasser Sharaf (Director of Universal Acadamy in London)

    Here’s the part of the discussion which intrigued me:

    فيصل القاسم: جميل جدا سأعطيك المجال لكن نُشرك من أميركا الدكتور شاكر النابلسي تفضل يا سيدي.

    شاكر النابلسي: مساء الخير يا أستاذ فيصل.

    فيصل القاسم: يا هلا بيك تفضل يا سيدي.

    شاكر النابلسي: أولا يجب أن نميز بين سور القرآن العقائدية أي التي تختص بالعقيدة والتي نزل معظمها في مكة خلال السنوات العشر الأولى من الدعوة وبين السور التشريعية وغير التشريعية الخاصة بحياة النبي وعلاقاته مع زوجاته وأصحابه إلى آخره، إذاً هناك سور عابرة للتاريخ وهي الآيات المكية والتي لا تُمس ولا تُجز وهناك آيات مدينية تشريعية ظرفية جاءت نتيجة لأحداث حدثت قبل 14 قرن ولم تعد هذه الأحداث واردة الآن، بمعنى أكثر صراحة هناك الكثير من الآيات التي نطلق عليها آيات سياسية وعسكرية أي آيات السيف وهي مرتبطة بتلك الظروف التي كانت قائمة ولم تعد قائمة الآن فمثلا الآيات المكية الخاصة باليهود والنصارى وأهل الكتاب وهي التي عليها النزاع الآن كانت عموما آيات إلى جانب هؤلاء ولكن الآيات الخاصة بهؤلاء في المرحلة المدينية أي مرحلة المدينة المنورة كانت مضادة لهذه الآيات، لماذا؟ لأن آيات المدينة كانت نتيجة علاقات سياسية متغيرة مع المسلمين نزلت نتيجة لمواقف سياسية معينة بين اليهود والمسلمين يطول شرحها الآن والسياسة متحركة غير ثابتة وبالتالي فإن الأحكام التي بنيت على أساس سياسي هي متحركة أيضا وليست ثابتة بل أن معظم الآيات المدينية أي التي نزلت في المدينة بهذا الخصوص نفسها متضاربة ومناقضة لبعضها بعضا.

    إبراهيم الخولي: كَذَبت.

    شاكر النابلسي: فالآيات التي في سورة آل عمران مثلا..

    إبراهيم الخولي: كذاب.

    شاكر النابلسي: وهي سورة مدينية.

    فيصل القاسم: دقيقة.

    شاكر النابلسي: يقول القرآن فيها عن اليهود والنصارى بأنهم {يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ والْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ويَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ويَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ المُنكَرِ} الآية 114 ولكن عندما دب الخلاف السياسي بين اليهود والرسول أصبح اليهود ليسوا أولياء وقالت سورة المائدة المدينية فيهم {يَا أَيُّهَا الَذِينَ آمَنُوا لا تَتَّخِذُوا اليَهُودَ والنَّصَارَى أَوْلِيَاءَ} فكيف تريد الآن من المواطن اللبناني المسلم أن يقبل أن يكون أمين لحود النصراني وليا له كرئيس جمهورية وكيف تريد من المغربي أن يكون أندريه أزولي المستشار الاقتصادي للعاهل المغربي الراحل والحالي يهوديا وهو من أولياء الشعب المغربي أو كيف يكون بين المغربي المسلم الآن أكثر من عشرين ألف يهودي يعيشون في بلدة الصويرة التي رئيس بلديتها رجل يهودي هو أيضا أندريه أزولي، ما أريد أن أقوله يا أستاذ فيصل..

    فيصل القاسم: باختصار.

    شاكر النابلسي: أن ما يجري وما سيجري في العالم العربي الآن ليس استبعاد آيات العقيدة الثابتة عابرة التاريخ ولكنه محاولة عدم إبراز أو تدريس الآيات التي تحض على تكفير الآخر وكراهية الأخر والمرتبطة بظروف ثابتة، فلماذا يكون عمر بن الخطاب أجرأ منا قبل 14 قرن عندما عطل أي أبطل العمل بآيات ذات علاقة بصلب العقيدة وليست بالآيات الظرفية فهو الذي أوقف العمل بقطع يد السارق في عهد الرمادة الذي جاء في سورة المائدة وهو الذي منع توزيع الغنائم على المقاتلين الذي تنص عليه سورة الحشر وهو الذي أوقف العطاء للمؤلفة قلوبهم الذي تنص عليه سورة التوبة وهو الذي أباح للمسلمين أن يتزوجوا باليهوديات والمسيحيات وعندما كثر هذا الزواج وأصبحت النساء المسلمات.. واحتجت النساء المسلمات وأصبحن عوانس عاد فأوقفه واستطاع عمر أن يفعل كل ذلك ولو طال به العمر لفعل أكثر، فلماذا استطاع عمر بن الخطاب أن يفعل هذا قبل 14 قرن والأستاذ الخولي الآن يقول بأن أي واحد يعطل أو يبطل أي آية أو آية سورة في القرآن فهو كافر وهو إلى آخره.. ونحن كحكام لا نستطيع أن نفعل الآن لماذا؟ الأساس هو العدل إذا أردت أن تكون مُصلحا شجاعا فعليك أن تكون عادلا قويا، فالعدل أساس الإصلاح فالحاكم المستبد يعدل في الاستبداد والحاكم العادل يستبد بالعدل، ثم إن الشيخ إبراهيم يتكلم عن المناهج وهو المصري ومصر هي أول من قام بتعديل المناهج واستبعاد كل الآيات التي ذُكر بها كراهية اليهود وعداء اليهود التي يمكن أن تسيء إلى علاقة مصر مع إسرائيل وصرح أحد مدراء المناهج بوزارة التعليم المصرية بأنه لم تعد الحاجة لمثل هذه الآيات ووجودها في المناهج الدراسية مادام الصراع المصري الإسرائيلي الآن قد انتهى يا أستاذ فيصل إننا الآن مدعوون للانتقال من مدرسة الجهاد إلى مدرسة الاجتهاد ومن مدرسة التكفير إلى مدرسة التفكير، لأن وصف الآخر بالكافر معناه أنه مازال كما كان في جزيرة العرب محاربا لا ولاء له بالدخول في معاهدات أو علاقات سياسية أو تجارية وإذا كان هذا المواطن كافرا فلا يجوز السلام عليه ويجب اعتباره مواطن من الدرجة الثانية وضمنيا وإخراجه من الجيش المصري كما قال مصطفى مشهور مرشد الإخوان المسلمين السابق والسلام عليكم.

    I would dearly love someone with some knowledge of this issue explain it to us.

    The link to the Opposite Directions episode (as it doesn’t link properly above) is:

    http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8B0F1405-8A62-47A8-9E10-11E7CD2B6156.htm

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    24 October 2004

    Re: Margaret Hassan

    PT,

    It seems indisputable that Western governments are buying off the Iraqi kidnappers. You are entirely and absolutely correct that such a policy excacerbates the problem by rewarding the criminals. It merely finances the kidnappers so that they will be better equipped on the next attempt. To save a handful of lives they place the entire population at greater risk. It is a cowardly and foolish policy.

    The hard, cold answer is to never give in to such demands but rather redouble your efforts to hunt these criminals down and deal with them in the harshest way. In the meantime, it seems that there are some technical ways to alleviate the problem. Those at risk of kidnapping could carry small tracking devices that could defeat kidnappings in progress. And of course, it wouldn’t hurt to be armed.

    Margaret Hassan seems to have made herself a perfect kidnapping victim. She went to work every day promptly at the same time to the same office taking the same route with no protection. The kidnappers met her at her office when she showed up for work. A little common sense would have been in order here. She should have varied her route and routine, carried a gun and hired guards.

    PT, we disagree that this headcutting savagery is not linked to Islam. The whole point of Zarqawis terror is to establish an Islamic state. Zarqawi proclaims his allegiance to Al Qaeda, a formerly global Islamic terror group. Zarqawi served his apprenticeship fighting for Islam in Afghanistan and trained in the Wahhabi doctrine in prison in Jordan. It’s all about Islam.

    However, I don’t see any evidence that Margaret Hassan’s abduction is related to Islamic terror. It looks like a straightforward crime so far with no ideology involved but the pursuit of money.

    Steve

    [Modified by: Steve The American (Steve) on October 24, 2004 09:39 AM]

  • mahmood
    24 October 2004

    Re(2): Margaret Hassan

    Steve I find this notion too fantastic to believe. The repurcussions of 9/11 where it was finally known by all that money collected purportedly for “good causes” where in fact diverted to support the heinous crimes committed on that infamous day has a big resounding echo in this part of the world now, no longer will you find people just “giving” as much as they used to, nor without knowing personally where that money is actually being deployed. Governments across the Gulf have come out and plainly discouraged their citizens and residents NOT to give money to collection boxes or charities, but rather give that directly to the government in order for it to deploy it where it is needed and without it ending up in terrorist hands.

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    24 October 2004

    Re(2): Margaret Hassan

    [quote]As Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, …[/quote]

    Mahmood,

    You just can not imagine how false this comes across to Americans, to which it is the butt of ridicule, a punch line to a joke. Mohammed Atta was hardly an ambassador of peace and tolerance. The Islamic video of Kenneth Bigley in a cage, franticly begging for his life, the captive of remorseless religious fanatics who cut off his head with shouts of “Allah Akbar” was anything but peaceful and tolerant. That is the image of Islam playing on TV in American living rooms.

    The suicide attacks of September 11 were not the expression of a peaceful and tolerant religion. The Muslims dancing in the streets at the news, passing out sweets, sacrificing goats, and writing triumphal editorials celebrating the deaths of Americans like Mary Lou Hague and Rosa Julia Gonzalez and Ruth McCourt were not expressing peace and tolerance.

    To many Americans, Islam is an intolerant and belligerent religion, contemptuous of other religions and philosophies, murderous and barbaric, a religion which wishes to kill Americans and destroy America. Claims that Islam is peaceful and tolerant come across as sheer hypocricy. If Muslims want a reputation for peace and tolerance, they need to be peaceful and tolerant. They are just not there.

    Steve

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    24 October 2004

    Re(2): Margaret Hassan

    Damn that Steve! If he had not bought into the terrorist line, none of this would have happenned.

    OK, so let’s accept your thesis that the terrorists are merely criminals in sheep’s clothing, using Islam as cover for their crimes. So where in the world has peaceful Islam been established which loves learning and maintains friendly relations with other religions and political systems? That’s the true face of Islam, right? Where is it hiding itself?

    Show Me,

    Steve

  • mahmood
    24 October 2004

    Re(3): Margaret Hassan

    I wish I could. I truly do. But there is no practical example to what you’re looking for, because we have drifted so far from its teaching, and have been under subjugation of tyrants for so long that it has become a way of life, and Islam is just a cultural adornment, used and abused whenever needed.

    Saying how wonderful a religion is doesn’t cut mustard of course. People need the proof to see how wonderful it is in real life. It is hard to grasp how wonderful a religion or an ideology is if the evidence presented are severed heads, corruption, terrorism and backwardness of the vast majority of its followers.

    But, the essense of Islam *is* pure, *is* beautiful. Although at this very moment in time, these notions are mere theories.

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    24 October 2004

    Re(3): Margaret Hassan

    I will take your word that the charity box scam has been cleaned up in the mosques. Those details are obscure to me, happenning on the other side of the language barrier. The charity boxes were not the only source of funds for Al Qaeda. Wealthy Saudi princes supported it, also, which is to say, the Saudi government.

    I’m not familiar enough with the Gulf governments to have an opinion about how they would handle charity funds placed in their care. But I have no confidence that the evil leaders of Saudi Arabia will use charity money responsibly and keep it out of the hands of jihadis.

    Steve

  • esraa
    24 October 2004

    Re(4): Margaret Hassan

    The thing about the Saudi government is that they are under threat from the jihadis, too! Overthrowing the House of Al-Saud is right up there on the jihadis agenda.

    So I doubt you have much to fear from the government in terms of funding the jihadis.

    Salaam,
    PM

  • khaled
    24 October 2004

    Margaret Hassan

    I think we all suspect that some Western Governments while flatly rejecting kidnappers demands in public, are actually in monetary negatiation with them to secure releases. Like most Arabs I am outraged that Margaret Hassan has been subjected to this disgusting behaviour.Her bravery and devotion throughout Iraqs recent history has been ignored by the scum that took her. So how do governmets in the West make policy to deal with this recurring virus? The Italians have virtually admitted that they payed for the realease of their two ladies. The dangerous precedent that this sets places the negotiators in an impossible position. When the West enters into negotiation with these animals, what negotiating tool do they have but money? The kidnappers know it works now, so…what? Refuse them and risk another life? Surrender to their demands and watch it happen again, with someone else?
    Current policy is clearly not working. The savagery of these vermin has taken the situation to new heights, fraught with greater dangers than ever before. Does anyone know of any historical precedent where this has happened? How was it dealt with? What are we not doing?
    Steve, I reject your argument that this is, in some way, linked to Islam. It’ only linked to Islam in as much as The Yorkshire Ripper was Christened. Pockets of intolerance exist in all religions, no, this is about money and control.
    Where has the world seen this before? What lessons were learnt? I’d appriciate any historical insight anyone may have.

  • Bani_Adam
    24 October 2004

    Re: Margaret Hassan

    I came across this earlier, on a British Muslim website. It’s about Ken Bigley. As you can see, the author is perfectly able to quote verses that seem to support his very nasty opinions.

    [quote]He was a disbeliever so may he burn in Hell for rejecting Islam, the Deen of truth. Those Kuffar in Iraq, there for money and at the service and invitation of the west don’t deserve sympathy whatsoever.

    “They (disbelievers) desire to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will not allow it to happen, for He seeks to perfect His light even though the disbelievers may dislike it. It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and true Deen (faith) to make it prevail over all other deens even though the idolaters may hate it.� [TMQ 9:33]

    “The Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with you, until you follow their faith� [TMQ 2:120]

    “As for unbelievers: they will not cease fighting until they succeed in turning you back from your Deen if they can.� [TMQ 2:217]

    “O believers! Do not make intimate Bitanah (allies, helpers, protectors etc) with any but with your own people. The unbelievers will not miss any opportunity to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your destruction: their malice has become evident from what they say; and what they conceal in their hearts is far worse. We have made Our revelations plain to you, if you do want to comprehend.� [TMQ 3:118]

    “If anyone chooses a Deen other than Islam, then let it be known that it will not be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.� [TMQ 3:85]

    “But the Unbelievers their (good) deeds are like a mirage in sandy deserts which the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until when he comes up to it he finds it to be nothing: but he finds Allah (ever) with him and Allah will pay him his account: and Allah is swift in taking account.� [TMQ 24:39][/quote]

    [Modified by: Ash (Ash) on October 24, 2004 01:38 PM]

  • mahmood
    24 October 2004

    Re(1): Margaret Hassan

    As Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, I suspect that the quoted verses are quoted out of context. I don’t know enough about the Quran or Islam to rebut these ayahs, but hope that someone will take this issue up. Quite lame I know, but better say the truth.

    Taking the ayahs at face value, it would look that Islam is a very jealous religion to say the very least.

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    25 October 2004

    Re(5): Margaret Hassan

    Only the bulk of the House of Saud is at risk from the jihadis. The House of Wahhab are the jihadis. They are a substantial portion of the government.

    Some of the Saudi princes are in cahoots with the Wahhabi war of terror. When we caught Zayn al-Abidin Mohamed Husayn, aka Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda, he told his interrogators (who were disguised as Saudis who led him to believe he was in Saudi Arabia) to call the number of Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, a nephew of King Fahd. Zubaydah said the Prince would take care of everything.

    He said he worked with senior Saudi and Pakistani officials. He named them. He named Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, another nephew of King Fahd, and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, another relative of Fahd, as two other princes he worked with. He had their phone numbers, too. He said the Saudis regularly sent money through intermediaries to Al Qaeda. He said the relationship continued after Sep 11. When he discovered he was still in American hands and had been deceived, he tried to strangle himself. Unsuccessfully.

    The Saudis denied everything, naturally. Four months after Zubaydah’s revelation, Prince Ahmed died of a heart attack at age 43. The next day, Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud died in a car accident en route to the funeral of his cousin, Prince Ahmed. One week later, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, age 25, died of thirst in the desert.

    The Saudis are dirty as hell with respect to the Wahhabi terrorists. I doubt those three Saudis are the only ones in bed with the jihadis. They are just the only ones whose names were discovered.

    Steve

  • hosam
    25 October 2004

    Re(3): Margaret Hassan

    I am sorry to state that what Steve says is true. I have heard enough sarcastic “Islam is peace and tolerance” remarks among fellow Americans, especially after a beheading or suicide attack. Bombings, attacks, massacres, and head choppings are what fills our news about the Middle East. If it bleeds, it leads, so goes the media mantra, and sadly, it’s the terrorists and crazies that are affecting most people’s opinions.

  • fekete
    25 October 2004

    Margaret Hassan

    Steve ..

    The thing is .. to have a ‘Moslem’ state – you need one code, one source. I dont know if you are following what Mahmood posted on personal effects law in Bahrain- and you have a glimpse of the legal differences between the sects, and within the sects. The difficulty of getting the scolars to agree is just a simple example of how a ‘moslem’ state in Iraq cannot exist as long as there are Shia and Sunni’s (and Kurds)….

    Zarqawi cannot create a Moslem state in Iraq. What kind of Islam? Whose version of Islam? The Wahabbis? Believe you me, the Shia would never stand for it. There would be civil war first .. (and the probability on that happening is rising my friend ..)

  • fekete
    25 October 2004

    Re(6): Margaret Hassan

    Aaah … well, at least we did learn a few lessons from the Israelis …

  • salima44
    25 October 2004

    Re(7): Margaret Hassan

    JJ..

    That is too FUNNY!!!!

    May the Force be with you…

    Mark

  • mahmood
    25 October 2004

    Re(2): Margaret Hassan

    That’s probably true. But do you really think that the vast majority of Muslims would be interested in this sort of thing? Muslims are just like any other human being with the same passions and fears so I refuse to believe that sort of thing would be “popular” as you contend.

    Having said that, last year I saw an advert at the local “khabbaz” (baker) advertising a compilation of Palestinian suicide bombings and portraying them as heroes.

    I personally am disgusted by these things, and other than complaining (I did – and got that ad removed, unfortunately nothing was done to the vendor though) we can’t do much else.

  • mahmood
    25 October 2004

    Carter spoke

    thusly, in the Guardian, carried by Yahoo which could be relevant:

    President Bush (news – web sites) has exploited the Sept. 11 attacks for political gain, former president Jimmy Carter said in an interview published on Monday.

    Asked in an interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper why U.S. polls were split over the war in Iraq (news – web sites), the former Democrat president said:

    “I think the basic reason is that our country suffered, in 9/11, a terrible and shocking attack … and George Bush (news – web sites) has been adroit at exploiting that attack and he has elevated himself, in the consciousness of many Americans, to a heroic commander-in-chief, fighting a global threat against America.”

    “He’s repeatedly played that card, and to some degree quite successfully. I think that success has dissipated,” he added.

    “I don’t know if it’s dissipating fast enough to affect the election.”

    The Nobel Peace Prize winner described the invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led forces as “unwarranted” and “a completely unjust adventure based on misleading statements.”

    Carter also accused Bush of neglecting the nuclear non-proliferation work carried out by his predecessors.

  • esraa
    25 October 2004

    Re: Carter spoke

    I liked the man when he was president and I love him more since then. He is a rare man of politics, possessing honor, dignity, morals and integrity. Hasn’t been anyone else fitting that description since. And as much as I liked Clinton, he doesn’t have all the positive qualities that Carter does — although I think he was a far more affective president.

    And I agree 1000% with his observations.

    Salaam,
    PM

  • hosam
    25 October 2004

    Re(1): Carter spoke

    Americans take Carter as an outstanding humanitarian but a lousy president and politician. High inflation during his term as well as the disastrous rescue mission of American hostages in Iran made him a one term president. Had the Iranian hostage situation been treated as the act of war it really was, American involvment in the Middle-east would be different today.

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    26 October 2004

    Re: Margaret Hassan

    We agree that Zarqawi can not create a Moslem state in Iraq. Your technical reasons are true enough. It would take quite a bit of time to conflate the various legal codes of the different sects, even if they were willing to do so.

    The Iraqis are unlikely to ever support a Wahhabi state led by the likes of Zarqawi. It’s much more likely that they would actively resist it. Already, Iraqis have killed at least one foreign jihadi in Fallujah that we know of for being too obnoxious. Iraqis are more inclined toward a secular government, lacking enthusiasm for theocracy.

    Also, Zarqawi was click to claim credit for the massacre of fifty Iraqi soldiers. Whether true or not, thank goodness the Wahhabis are so stupid. I don’t imagine that will play well among Iraqis.

    I keep reading prophecies about civil war in Iraq but I have yet to see significant signs of it. It looks like the Iraqis don’t want it. From what I read, the majority of Iraqis want democracy to work.

    Steve

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    26 October 2004

    Re: Carter spoke

    I don’t share your enthusiasm for Carter, who was a rather ineffective and petty president who lamely continued wrong-headed liberal policies, something like a Democratic Brezhnev. He came across as too sanctimonious to me.

    This particular quote by Carter emphasizes his pettiness in that he personalizes American policy. He thinks that Bush’s reaction to the Sep 11 attacks was an exercise in public relations and rebranding himself. This is a rather superficial and malicious interpretation. I can’t imagine what he would have said about FDR’s reaction to Pearl Harbor.

    The problem with Jimmy Carter is that he is all about moral posturing rather than getting things done. He was about reacting to events rather than influencing events. He was too far down in the details to see the Big Picture. While he was scheduling the use of the White House tennis courts, the economy stagnated and foreign policy was held captive by Iranian mullahs.

    I’m not too impressed by Carter’s sniping at other presidents who followed him. You don’t see former Presidents Ford or Bush Sr publicly criticizing the current president. They have too much dignity. Carter does not. He’s like an old woman looking out her kitchen window, criticizing all her neighbors.

    And may I remind you, Yassir Arafat is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, too. That rather cheapens the meaning of the prize.

    Steve

  • khaled
    26 October 2004

    Re(2): Carter spoke

    We are all millionaires, with hindsight.

  • esraa
    26 October 2004

    Margaret Hassan

    Steve,

    As you must expect, I strongly disagree with you. Carter is not criticizing Bush’s attempts to protect American interests. I am certain he is referring to Bush capitalizing on those efforts/responses and promoting fear — 3 years down the road — especially in service to getting re-elected. And I couldn’t agree more.

    As for saying he is sanctimonious… MORE THAN BUSH???? I don’t think can anyone be more sanctimonious than Bush and so transparently so.

    As for religious posturing, I believe that Carter is a deeply religious man and most sincere — unlike a certain someone you seem so eager to embrace… 😉

    Salaam,
    PM

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    29 October 2004

    Re: Margaret Hassan

    What would a day be without PM disagreeing with me at least once?

    Bush hardly needs to promote fear. Sep 11 did that along with all the radical Islamic calls to send rivers of blood flowing down our streets. The beheadings keep it alive. The event that helped fan the flames of fear the most was the attack on the school in Beslan. That caught the attention of many a mom here. I heard the phrase “parent’s worst nightmare” from them a lot, over and over. It doesn’t take any imagination to visualize a similar Muslim atrocity here in America. If you want to point a finger at the fear-mongers, look no further than what’s left of Al Qaeda and its affiliates. They present a real threat to America which must be removed.

    As an aside, I’ll point out here that of the two calls the Beslan mass murderers made during their siege, one was to Saudi Arabia. Probably telling their paymasters “Mission Accomplished!”

    Yes, oh, yes, Carter is more sanctimonious than Bush. Bush will occassionally witness for his faith in private among like-minded people and in public when asked directly. Carter is of the old school where his religion makes him better than you. He’s constantly preaching sermons to people with whom he disagrees. He’s the typical Church Person who wants to grab your ear and won’t let go.

    I’d say otherwise Bush and Carter are equally devout in their respective beliefs.

    Steve

  • [deleted]0.18179700 1099323559.892
    9 November 2004

    Margaret Hassan

    Steve,learn more about what Islam itself says,NOT what some misguided muslims are doing in its name.You say Islam is a bad religion or,more precisely,doesn’t promote peace,right?Let me ask you,if Islam is a not a religion of peace simply because of what the misguided ones mentioned above are doing in its name,would Christianity be a bad religion simply because the Crusaders murdered thousands of women and children in Spain and other places in the name of Christianity?Does that make the religion a bad one?Or are all Americans bad people just because their goverment was responsible for the death of thousands in Vietnam & other places?Or the Germans?Yes,Hitler was a mini-devil but I don’t think you’ll like to view all Germans as bad people who don’t love peace just because of what Hitler did.Or would you?Learn about the religion and what it says and I can assure you you won’t find anything that justifies what the so-called jihadists of Al Qaeda and Iraq are doing.They say they want to spread Islam around the world but they are actually making more people run away from it than if they had stayed in accordance with its teachings.For all I can remember,I never heard of the Prophet or Abu Bakr or Umar or any of his other companions slaughtering unarmed civilians in order to spread Islam.It wouldn’t have reached the places it has now if they had done so because if truly it was a religion of force,the people were bound to rebel against it a long time ago and we wouldn’t have it now.Wassalam.

    [Modified by: Bobbylv (Bobbylv) on November 09, 2004 07:15 PM]

  • [deleted]0.95776700 1099323586.392
    10 November 2004

    Re: Margaret Hassan

    Bobbylv,

    I don’t find your argument very convincing. Many violent creeds profess noble and peaceful motives. Fine rhetoric may sway sophomores, but all I care about is the real world of deeds.

    I don’t really care what any particular religion or philosophy thinks so much as what they do. I see them as black boxes from which different behaviors emanate. If you think you’re getting messages from God via the neighbor’s dog barking at night and it compels you to do good deeds, well, that’s a fine religion you have there. Keep up the good work. If you think the moon is beaming messages to you to kill people, well, that’s a bad religion. I don’t care how you justify your actions, just the quality of the actions that result.

    Yes, the Christianity of the Crusades was a bad religion because of the evil deeds done by the Crusaders. It was ignorant, intolerant, vicious, murderous. They marched off to Jerusalem on a whim to plunder, rape, and kill. They were like a plague of locusts even in the Christian lands. They were nearly as destructive to Christian Constantinople as to any Muslim city. None of this is admirable.

    Your analogy of the US in Vietnam is bogus. The South Vietnamese did not want to be conquered by the North Vietnamese and still resist the North to this day. You might consider the campaign of terror and assassination the North waged in the South. In one campaign, Ho had 38,000 village mayors and teachers assassinated in the South.

    Yes, the Germans were bad people who supported Hitler. They voted for him, supported him, cheered him on. It was the everyday Germans who turned people in to the Gestapo for execution. Germany did not go to war against the will of its people but rather with its wholehearted support. That makes Germans bad.

    I couldn’t care less if the Koran preaches peace and love from cover to cover if Muslims are murdering people to promote their religion. Talk counts for nothing. Actions are everything.

    Steve

  • salima44
    16 November 2004

    Margaret Hassan

    Reports here are saying Margaret Hassan has been killed. Another senseless murder. May God rest her soul.

Previous
Medium of Mediocrity