Hall of Shame _____What's Your Opinion?_____ Thursday, November 22, 2001; Page A46 IT SEEMS a small thing to ask of our religious and political leaders that they refrain from expressing outright bigotry in these sensitive times. Muslims in this country have been attacked. Passions are running high, and American troops are on the ground in a Muslim country. President Bush has responded to the crisis by emphasizing consistently that this country's battle is not with Islam but with terrorism. By and large, this country's leaders have followed suit. The exceptions, however, have been beauts -- and they should not be forgotten. "We're not attacking Islam, but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God," the Rev. Franklin Graham, who spoke at President Bush's inauguration, said recently. "He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion." Meanwhile, Rep. Saxby Chambliss -- chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security, and a Senate candidate in his native Georgia -- has a modest proposal for combating terrorism: "Just turn [the sheriff] loose and let him arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line." If people can't restrain themselves for the right reason -- that such expressions are wrong, irresponsible and dangerous -- they might at least consider how they undermine Mr. Bush's position. Comments that cast the current struggle as a battle between the West and Islam, or that cast Muslims as enemies, get noticed both here and abroad. They make the White House's laudable efforts at outreach look false. Mr. Chambliss, to his credit, had the decency to apologize, describing his remark, which he said was "taken out of context," as an off-the-cuff joke. Mr. Graham, however, didn't apologize. In fact, he made matters worse, issuing a statement saying that he had "concerns about the teachings of Islam regarding the treatment of women and the killing of non-Muslims or infidels." The minister noted that he had expressed these concerns "in the past" but did "not intend to comment further." Here's hoping. © 2001 The Washington Post Company
I just came across some interesting articles and decided to post them. [/B]Why We Ask 'Why?' [/B] A Muslim specialist says our acquaintance with Islam has just begun, and at the wrong place John Esposito, raised a Roman Catholic in Brooklyn, New York, is the director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. He spoke to Beliefnet Producer Paul O'Donnell after the attacks on New York and Washington. How did Islam get this reputation for violence? Americans have very little background about Muslims. Historically, Muslims were not visible in this country. Academically, too, Islam was not put with other [monotheistic] faiths, but with Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism. It was foreign. So you end up with generalizations. It's like if all you see is headlines about the Mafia, all Italians all become Mafia. When the American public first experienced Islam, then, it was as the oil embargo in the early 1970s, and the Iranian revolution in 1979, both of which were experienced as threats. The Iranian revolution was seen not in a political context, but as Islamic, as the work of the ayatollahs. And Ronald Reagan and later Dan Quayle put radical Islamic action beside the Soviets as the world's great evils. [/B]How do these people, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, fit into the larger picture of Islam?[/B] Let me ask, how do Christian fundamentalists who blow up clinics fit into a Christian context? How does someone like Baruch Goldstein, who shot Muslim worshipers inside the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994—how did he fit into the Jewish context? The analogies are many: when we have David Koresh, whose group died at Waco, or when Mr. Rabin was assassinated, Americans frame it as extremism. The media talk about Christian cults, for instance. This [recent attack] is not a legitimate act by a resistance movement. [/B]What do you think of the Muslim response to the attack??[/B] What's different from past events is how major Muslim leaders are condemning it. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie [after his novel "Satanic Verses" was regarded as blasphemous] brought more mixed reactions. They created a gray area. Now the Muslim mainstream is going on the record as saying this is not only irrational but unislamic. They are setting the stage for the possibility that this turns out to be a Muslim terrorist. They want to distance themselves. On the other hand, there were pictures of people rejoicing in [the West Bank city of] Nablus. The average American might not know that in the past few weeks the town has been surrounded by the Israeli military. So for us, again, we don't have the context. For the residents there, this comes in the context of an Israeli siege, for which they blame the United States in part for its support of Israel with American weapons. So we look and say, "what's the basis for this?" Bin Laden plays off these situations, where you have a political and social context where people have been driven to the edge. Bulldozed homes, no electricity and water--those youth are radicalized by all that. [/B]Is there anything in Islam itself that promotes violence??[/B] Any Muslim will be offended that Islam is seen as more violent than either Judaism or Christianity. Read your Hebrew Bible, the conquests of Judaism. In Christianity you have the crusades. Both have a holy war tradition. All three suffer from fact that this notion of just war can be manipulated by extremists. In her recent history of Islam, Karen Armstrong says that in an Islamic understanding, "politics was...what Christians would call a sacrament," and she refers to the Muslims' "sacralization of history." Judaism and Christianity are also based on sacred history. One sees history not just as human made and guided but divinely guided. The very rational for the creation of Israel has been in terms of their tradition, their history, their sacred history. Many images have been pulled from Exodus, and the great sacred stories of the past. When you have three monotheistic faiths pulling from the same history, you get flashpoints. Why We Ask 'Why?' [/B]You mention the Crusades, which Christianity fought in the Middle Ages. Do religions simply have violent phases??[/B] When you talk about religion and violence, you have to look at the political and economic violence that occurred around it. Politics and economics cause violence, which then gets legitimized by religious ideas. Not that there aren't conflicts are not narrowly religious, but many battles that are actually for land or nationhood are framed religiously. For instance, the situation in Bosnia took on that strong religious dimension. In Christianity, martyrs are passive--victims thrown to the lions or put to the sword. These suicide missions strike one as the opposite--are they representative of Islamic martyrdom? One expert on TV said "This [attack] has religious markings" because of the suicides. People willing to die for what they believe in--we used to call that patriotism. We've become so secular that we can only understand giving your life as a religious act. But this kind of martyrdom exists in Christianity--to fight and die what you believe in. And when we saw Iran and Islamic as a threat, we celebrated the mujahedeen Pakistan and their willingness to die. ?[/B]Where does the Muslim community in America go from here??[/B] From almost within minutes, they have come out as American citizens, not just as Muslims, to say these attacks are unacceptable. Don't rush to judgment, they are saying, but if it turns out to be Muslim, this is not what Islam is about. [/B]What about long term??[/B] It's going to take a while for us to recognize that Muslims are our neighbors, our fellow citizens. Muslims have been not visible, but that's changing. Muslims are now second, third and fourth generation immigrants. They aren't foreigners. But it's only beginning to percolate into our consciousness, and Muslims themselves are just now starting to address these issues. Where do I send my kids to school, where do I live? How do I preserve my identity as a minority but participate fully as an American? Many fear there's no way of dealing with the terrorists. You hear things like, "They don't see violence the same way we do." There is almost a despair that no matter what we do, there's no way of stopping the violence. This is really risky stuff. We don't sufficiently understand of the nature of terrorism. We react as if it's all mindless. That makes it easier for us. We say, the only thing to do is go up and drop bombs and antiseptically kill them. It's all right, as long as we do it rationally. You can't stop the crazies. But unless you wind up addressing the injustices in Palestine and Israel in way that confirms Israel's right to exist and the right of Palestinians to a state and the right to live peacefully, you'll have kids growing up in this polarized view of the world. The terrorists know how to exploit this situation. What Saddam did is the same. To get popular support, he played the cards of colonialism, of American exploitation, of the Palestinians. Bin Laden does the same thing. If you listen to his statements, they are rationally argued. But then when he draws his conclusions, that's when he goes wrong.
Said that in the begining this is a religous war but the religon is not islam nor is it christianity the religon of this was is oil. Just think about this for a second, if "god" supported one religon irrelivent of which one how could he let its supporters into heaven after all the crimes(sins) that have been commited in his/her name? Jesus forgives, but he must draw the line at some point right? Im sure rape, murder and pillage cross that line somewhat. So my conclution, religon is a form of control of the masses and it seems to be pretty affective, you let other people tell you your belife's i find my own.
Catholic experts A Force Greater Than The United States By Anonymous 11-28-1 Who is the biggest, baddest bully on the block? That would have to be the out-of-control US government, right? Maybe not. Let's go back in time a bit and trace how we got to where we are today. In retracing our steps, we might discover that we've missed a few clues... In the US before WW ONE, there was: * No Federal Reserve Bank - banking power was decentralized and thus much more democratic * No IRS - wages of workers were not taxed! all federal revenues came from levies on imports. personal financial matters were entirely private * No national propaganda office - ex. the Kreel Committee created to "sell" the war to a skeptical public The formation of the FBI followed soon after the war. And there you have modern America in a nutshell. A banking system controlled by a handful of private interests; the government with the ability to impoverish and terrorize productive people by controlling their take home pay and profits; a secret police bureau to track, harass, and occasionally murder dissenters while covering the crimes of the elite; and a policy of social engineering in which the federal government actively forms public opinion. Many theorize that these "innovations" were engineered by JP Morgan who had loaned enormous amounts of money to England and had a vested interest in getting it paid back through an English victory over Germany. He therefore, got the US involved in the war and perverted the banking and tax system to help the US pay for it. Then there are those who believe that it was England itself with its age old skill at conniving that accomplished this for the purposes of staging a quiet takeover of the United States banking system as a prelude to eventual re-absorption of the country itself. Another faction, believes that the Bank of England is controlled by a group of crypto-Socialists, the Fabians, whose members included people like Cecil Rhodes who for philosophical reasons want to see the world fall under One World socialist rule and that the Fed-IRS monster among others was their invention to bring the US into the fold. For some reason, another plausible theory - that this can all be traced to the Vatican - is not in as common circulation, yet among all the groups accused, they had the clearest means, motive and opportunity to create and install such systems. More on that later, but if you grant the possibility that banking empires like Rothschild's and Morgan's were in fact created and controlled behind the scenes by another set of very worldly, very experienced and very rich bankers, it's not so far fetched. For an idea of just how powerful these bankers can be take a look here at their own official (and sanitized) history: http://www.rothschildarchive.org "Behind the scenes, the Rothschilds were principal actors in most of the 19th century's major events. The Duke of Wellington could not have paid his army at Waterloo without Rothschilds' assistance. Rothschilds' intervention enabled Disraeli to acquire the Suez Canal for Britain. A Rothschild-led syndicate enabled France to discharge its reparations debt early after the Franco-Prussian war. Such transactions, and many more, have entered banking legend. Then, as now, speed, efficiency and discretion were qualities highly prized by governments." Note that the Rothschilds were the official bankers for numerous European countries including Catholic countries like Spain. (It's hard to imagine a private bank getting a monarch-granted monopoly in a Catholic country where monarchs served at the pleasure of the Pope.) Our founding fathers and many 19th century luminaries including Samuel Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, were well aware and outspoken on the dangers of foreign intrigue on the part of bankers and religionists. Somehow the danger of these forces is no longer taken seriously and those who even contemplate them are deemed "conspiracy theorists" and exiled from public dialogue, "excommunicated" so to speak. In any event, whoever was behind the deeds, the WW I era changed the basic structure of the US and the meaning of citizenship forever. Gause's somewhat disjointed book "The Secret World of Money" explains why bankers, especially central bankers, like the Fed have so much power. In essence, they create and are in a position to destroy the money supply and thereby control the fate of nations. This is particularly noteworthy since the Fed is NOT a government institution. It is a privately owned bank that has been given the monopoly to create money by Congress. The ownership in 1983 broke down this way: * Citibank 15% * Chase Manhattan 15% * Morgan Guaranty 9% * Manny Hanny 7% * Chemical Bank 8% The names have changed, but the basic structure and ownership of the US's central bank remains. The key points are that it is in private hands, its financial activities are not subject to government audit, and it pays no taxes. As astonishing as this arrangement may sound, it is not conspiracy theory. It's the actual legal facts of the situation and has been since the bank's formation. The dangerous ambitions of central bankers have at previous times in our history been thoroughly appreciated. Thomas Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." In fact, this has already happened to a significant portion of the population. They work, but after taxes and inflated prices for their sustenance, there is nothing left over. They are "one paycheck away" from financial catastrophe. The number of people on that precipice has grown steadily and, thanks to the excesses of the 90s, their numbers include millions of the middle class. A jump in unemployment (here now) and re-igniting of inflation (coming) and many of these millions are going to see a significant drop in their income. Here's the key: It's the Fed - a privately owned institution of murky origins - that calls the tune. Presumably, Greenspan's bumbling demeanor notwithstanding, the fellows at the top plan ahead. In other words, they know well in advance that the party will end with a thud and a lot of Americans are going to be financially traumatized. The predictable response to such things is outrage, bitterness, and search for a scapegoat. Since not one in ten thousand knows to blame it on the Fed, the scapegoat will be "the government." The government knows this and has been preparing for it. Note that, for reasons that make little sense otherwise, the military has been conducting training operations INSIDE US cities. The claim made is that this is to prepare for urban warfare overseas. It makes far more sense that the preparation is for military work right here in the US. Now, of course, thanks to 9-11, armed National Guard troops are an every day sight in US airports, train stations and other public places. In short, they're ready. Now, let's look at history. WW ONE era Germany was morally neither better or worse than its opponents. But one thing it was NOT, was Vatican-friendly. In fact, it was the bastion of Protestantism, and a rejector of Vatican power in Europe. WW I destroyed that position. After crushing German society, the major New York banks (which owned the Fed), and the corporations they controlled, started to rebuild Germany under Hitler. In fact, they were quite generous to him during a time when the US economy was starving for investment. Why did they do this? Did they simply see Hitler as someone who would do their bidding. i.e. build a strong, anti-labor industrialized state that they could "deal with. That's the story most often told, but it does not ring true because the aid they gave to Germany was clearly being used to build a huge military machine, not a productive economy. In fact, Hitler was not only provided with military capacity, he was provided by nominally US corporations with technology that was well in advance of what was available to the US military of the time. Clearly, the Fed which controls the US money supply and the banks which doled out the loans had to know they were building a Europe-conquering army and putting it in the hands of Hitler, a personally violent, anti-Semitic, anti-Slav militarist with huge ambitions. What sense did that make? Why did the New York banks care about destroying Jewish and Slavic (i.e. Christian Orthodox) populations in Europe? Did they merely "tolerate" this personal quirk of the Nazis in order to get what they wanted - a captive client controlling industrial Europe - or was the destruction of non-Catholic populations in eastern Europe and Russia an essential part of their plan. (Recall that Hitler eliminated Catholics too, but that was early on and they were mostly *liberal* Catholics or those who for whatever reason refused to accept his Reich.) Now, what the the Reich anyway? It was supposed to last 1,000 years. It proposed to rule the entirety of Europe. It incorporated Roman elements in architecture and design. It showed a positive genius for iconography and pageantry. It very quickly developed a massive and highly sophisticated terror apparatus. And supposedly all this was accomplished by a handful of penniless, street fighting thugs in what amounted to a historical eye blink. I've already shown direct, close and very personal links between Himmler and the hierarchy of the Jesuit order. It's known that the Vatican was actively involved in helping Nazis escape Europe and that some of these Nazis even found high level employment waiting for them at the Knights of Malta-controlled OSS/CIA who since WW II have, against all common sense and logic, engaged in similar population destroying campaigns (Orthodox Christians in Yugoslavia, Buddhists in Vietnam, Mayans in Guatemala, Liberal Catholics in Chile, animists in Africa, Kurds and Muslims in Iraq) Given these facts, is it a stretch to speculate that independent, socially progressive, prosperous pre WW ONE anti-Vatican Germany was destroyed specifically so that it could be rebuilt again under Vatican control and that the New York banks, given dictatorial power during the same war, consciously aided that effort? And that the Third Reich was intended, from the start. to: 1) eliminate Jews and Orthodox Christians from Europe and 2) rule Europe Roman-style with the Vatican as its banker/controller? Somewhere along the line, the plan changed. Perhaps the Vatican lost control of Hitler or it decided to go after the bigger prize, the US. In any event, by engineering the destruction of the Third Reich, it was able to see the uncontrollable Nazis killed off while the cooperative ones were rewarded with positions in the US (or criminal empires in the drug trade in South America supported by our CIA.) How can one fully explain that fact that Bill Donovan, founder of the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA and Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's Intelligence Chief for East Europe, become such fast friends after the war? Perhaps by this simple fact: BOTH were members of the Knights of Malta, a Vatican-controlled military society. Both received high honors from the Order after the war, the highest of honors going to Gehlen, the Nazi in 1948! Donovan was not the only Knight of Malta to have a controlling position in the formation of post War US intelligence. Far from it. Henry Luce, James Angleton, Allen Dulles, John McCone, and William Casey were all members too. Doesn't this simple fact help explain the perverse and bizarre "work" the CIA has perpetrated over the past fifty odd years better than any other analysis? After all what has been the CIA's work? Coincidentally, if you study it in its actual details, it dovetails precisely with very specific goals the Vatican and Jesuits publicly vowed to achieve nearly 500 years ago: the destruction of the Reformation and other "heresies" and the re-imposition of Vatican control over the entire world. Just like the old days. All institutions (education, medicine, entertainment, scholarship, banking, the military, government, science) under the Pope. Here's the "legal" argument the Vatican made (and has never retracted) on this very point: "Christ is the Lord of the whole world. At his departure he left his dominion to his representatives, Peter and his successors. Therefore the fullness of all spiritual and temporal power and dominion, the union of all rights and privileges, lies in the hands of the pope. Every monarch, even the most powerful, possesses only so much power and territory as the pope has transferred to him or finds good to allow him." It sounds like grandiose, wishful thinking on the Vatican's part from a distant time in its history, but one can read the following on the Vatican's own web site today: http://www.vatican.va/roman_c uria/index.htm "In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors." Supreme authority over a UNIVERSAL church. Hmmmm... In the "old days" this massively wealthy, highly sophisticated manipulator of minds, nations and rulers, believed that all the world belonged to it and that any other entity professing sovereignty independent of it was an interloper and therefore, according to Jesuit doctrine, deserving of total annihilation by any means fair or foul. This activity of deliberately destroying of the Vatican's enemies was determined by jesuitical analysis to be a positive, spiritual good. (By the way, "jesuitical" is a word you'll find in most serious dictionaries.) When exactly did this policy of destroying others in order to enhance the authority of the pontiff change? After training Nazis like Himmler and fencing vast quantities of gold stolen from Jews and others and then helping countless Nazis escape prosecution and then placing several of them at the heart of the US intelligence apparatus... when exactly did the Vatican reform itself? What are they up to now and, most intriguing to me, why is there total silence on the subject today, right, left, and in the middle? Even "conspiracy theorists" are silent, prefering to trace the world's sorrows to an a vaguely defined "Illuminati." One last thing to chew on: "(In addition to diplomatic relations with 172 countries), (t)he Holy See has Diplomatic Relations also with the European Union and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The Holy See has relations of a special nature with the Russian Federation and with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)." They're busy alright, but doing what exactly? And why do so few people ask?
