I'm not asking about what Orientalism doesn't address (there are plenty of writers who've taken Said's Orientalism and turned it around: if you really want, we can do that, too - the theory is essentially the same)... I'm asking about what it actually does address...

Here... let me help you... Below, I will show what Orientalism actually is, since you've never read it. I will be fair and balanced, and point out strengths and well as flaws. The review below is my own work:

produces and understands the Orient. According to Said, Orientalism has three definitions - academic, intellectual, and discursive - though Said is interested primarily in the interrelationship between the latter two definitions. In his analysis, Said discusses the network of suppositions which for nineteenth and twentieth century Western culture, defined the Orient as alien in a binary relationship of Self and Other. Orientalism, then, represented what the West was not while never explicitly defining what the Orient actually was.


By the turn of the twentieth century, Orientalism acquired a more sophisticated character, evolving from the binary self v. other concept into a more complex, grid-like apparatus, that for the Westerner, produced his conception of the Orient. Borrowing from Michel Foucault, Said asserts that this newer conception of Orientalism, as a discriminating complex of cultural assumptions, academic habitus, and discursive tendencies, was a diffuse and wide domain permeating the West’s culture and academy. In this sense, “to be an educated European is to be an Orientalist, directly or indirectly.”[1] The primary centers of Orientalism, France and Britain, perpetuated a relationship of “positional superiority” over the Orient, driven by colonialism, which, as an “exercise in cultural strength,” lent to the vitality of imperialism and offered a rationale for domination.[2]

Said is contemptuous of the generalizations and lack of objectivity with which Orientalists often treated the Orient. He decries the stereotypical attributes that the West imposed on the Oriental mind, namely that they were, in the words of Cromer, “hateful of accuracy, truth, and straightforwardness… neither eloquent nor succinct,” and wholly “depraved, childlike, irrational, and different.”[3] Said further lambastes that “Orientalism assumed an unchanging Orient,” as if it were a monolithic, discrete whole, incapable of further development. [4] In this manner, the “positional superiority” assumed by the West over the East was maintained through Orientalism. In an important departure from Foucault, Said emphasizes the significant connection between authors and the texts they produce, in that Orientalism was propagated a good measure through such texts, and the pretensions of Orientalist authors carried through in their work, therefore into scholarship, discourse and knowledge.

While Said’s criticisms of Orientalism are often well deserved, difficulties remain. One cannot help but notice how incomplete Orientalism is; a more complete work might have included the entire Orient (not just the Near-Eastern Islamic world) as well as an analysis on the interrelation between how the East and West viewed and produced each other. It seems absurd that the West’s strength in light of the East’s weakness is sufficient reason to consider the West’s conception of the East a one-way street, where only academic exclusivity informed that conception, a.k.a., Orientalism, which diffused outward into public discourse. Furthermore, it is conspicuous that, as reviewer C.F. Beckingham points out, “Said does not seem to be aware that absurd statements are often made about people other than Orientals… Said himself is guilty of generalizations as absurd as those he condemns.”[5] For instance, Beckingham properly takes aim at Said’s untenable statement that “Orientalists are neither interested in nor capable of discussing individuals,” and points him to the work of prodigious Orientalist authors such as H.S.J. Philby and his biography of Mughal King Abd Al-Aziz, or E.J. W. Gibb’s work on Ottoman poets, or Sir Thomas Arnold’s The Preaching of lslam.[6] For a work on Orientalism, it would seem Said either chose not to include, or did not know to include, the work of respectable Orientalists which would have added to the objectivity and weight of his work. In light of this, one might ask, is Orientalism merely a generalization-laden political work decrying Western abuses toward the Islamic Orient? Said himself admits the difficulty in separating “pure” and “political” knowledge, and in this sense, his own words do not lend any credence to Orientalism as a work of pure knowledge, which he seems to present as such.[7] It is difficult to deny that Orientalism lends itself easily to critics of the West, and for this reason, it remains highly controversial.

Nonetheless, for all its shortcomings, Said’s work is noteworthy in that it illuminates the unseen, unspoken pretensions that many Orientalists undoubtedly harbored toward the Orient, less as an expression of their understanding of the Orient, and more as an expression of their own enculturation. Likewise, Said points out discursive tendencies that reinforced the West’s positional superiority over the East, Cromer being a fine example. However, it is important to heed Said’s own insight about the nature of texts; it is difficult to untangle the political dimensions of the texts from the pure knowledge they presume to contain. In this sense, Orientalism is a significant and ambitious work, but it should not necessarily be taken at face value; one should be mindful of Orientalism’s inherent political dimensions. However, Said's theories have proven durable, only if they may apply to everyone, and not merely the West toward the Orient.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Peter Gran, review of Orientalism, by Edward Said, Journal of the American Oriental Society 100 (Oct., 1980): 328.

[2] Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), 7, 35-36.

[3] Said, Orientalism, 39.

[4] Ibid., 96.

[5] C.F. Beckingham, review of Orientalism, by Edward Said, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 42 (Fall, 1979): 562.

[6] Said, Orientalism, 154.

[7] Ibid., 9-11.





I knew that Said was controversial, and that he is full of himself; he has done some odd things, and possibly lied about his birth... But I do know that no such criticisms exist about Orientalism (with regard to academic dishonesty). His work is widely cited and referenced. It has come to define, in many ways, post-colonial studies, and is one of the back-bones of that school.

Read the review above.



Roast DUCK with mango salsa, anyone?



What? You're the one who made the assertion without ever supporting it... If you want to be taken seriously with crap like this, then at least demonstrate exactly how Orientalism (the work itself; Said's words) are flawed... If you can't, go away...



Still makin' no sense.



How can I prove you wrong if you haven't attempted to prove anything? Why would I waste time by proving hot air wrong? Posted in the above post you will see a passage demonstrating how you might go about attacking Said's work in and of itself... Not by copying and pasting anti-Said propaganda. If you want a PDF copy of Orientalism, I can send you one.


The only way to do what you propse to do is to get down and dirty and read it, demolishing it bit by bit. But I have no reason to believe that you're capable of that.

P.S., again, read the review of Orientalism above.




Also... The part about Edward Thompson from my earlier post which you cried foul about, is actually connected to Orientalism. This fellow, Thompson, pointed out the same dynamics that Said pointed out - only 80 years earlier in The Other Side of the Medal. Thompson was a British intellectual and liberal, and was well-respected. Instead of whining and moaning about how I lifted it, why not read it? It's actually worthwhile (at least the first few paragraphs on Thompson).

Another personality from early 20th century Britain who started the ball rolling in criticizing the West's "positional superiority" and penchant for imperialism towards the Orient, try Norman Angell's The Great Illusion. In my mind, Orientalism, The Other Side of the Medal, and The Great Illusion go hand in hand to produce a damning critique of Islamophobia and imperialism (economic, cultural and political) toward Islam driven by irrational fear and discourse. When integrated into an analysis that takes into account more work than only Said, it becomes a powerful analytical tool. For this reason, it remains well-referenced by many scholars.

Good luck with all this, my dear chaps.

Here are some review questions for Orientalism just in case you'd actually like to put forth the effort into reading it. These questions are the same ones I give to my upper-classmen in world history courses that include Said.

I can help you with any of it, and please don't assume that I think Said is 100% correct in all he says - because I don't (as you may have guessed based on my review of Orientalism)... But your comments on this work throughout this thread show me that you've never read it. It's a very deep, dense work, covering more than part of a single century, as you said before. The questions below will help you think about the real "meat" of Said's work.

If you really want to know Orientalism, and maybe understand it close to its entirety, take a gander and read along. I've included page numbers (from the first edition, Oxford) on a few questions so you don't have to search through the book to get the main points.... Enjoy!



HST330: Questions for Orientalism

Introduction

1) What are Said’s 3 definitions of Orientalism? Does he mean all three when he uses the term or is he privileging one?

2) What are some of the characteristics of Orientalism as a system of power?

3) What is Hegemony? (p 7)

4) What does Said mean by pure and political knowledge? Are these categories still central to historian’s work today?

5) Can Orientalism or work about the East not be political? What is his subject positioning writing this book?

6) What makes the orient "visible" for Said? (22)

7) How does Said differ from Foucault? (23)

Chapter I – Knowing the Oriental

1) How does knowledge of the orient shape imperial policy?

2) What are the characteristics of the oriental as seen by Cromer?

3) Said says that Orientalism was set before imperialism because Europe was always in a position of strength – Do you agree with this? (p.40) How does Orientalism work? How does Kissinger’s speech show its continued applicability?

4) How does the occident incorporate the orient as similar yet different? Why does the knowledge of the orient have to be within a closed system?

5) What is the relationship between the ancient past of the orient and its present for the Orientalist or the occidental? For the oriental?

6) What is the importance of Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt?

7) Is Said arguing that Orientalism is only a myth/simulacra used by occidentals/colonizers or that it has the ability to create truth/reality?

8) What is a textual attitude? Was European success based on it? (p.95)

9) How has post-WWII changes in the Middle-East, etc challenged Orientalism? (more on this in chapter 3) Why would it be possible for such a challenge when previously Europe dominated?

Chapter II – Par I Redrawn Frontiers, Redefined Issues, Secularized Religion

1) What changes in the 18th century to solidify the character of Orientalism?

2) What is the role of science in Orientalism?

Chapter III – Part IV – The Latest Phase

1) How has Orientalism shifted after WWII? What is the imagery of the Arab described by Said for the 1970s? How different is it from today?

2) What are Said’s conclusions?

3) Do you think Orientalism is still dominant today? Do you think popular Orientalism has been reinforced by 9/11?

Thanks you for the help, lol, you are too kind.

Only controversial you say, I believe again too kind. Or is it you find yourself in a position where you offered up a quote without citing the source and the source becomes, as it should, an embarrassment.


I rather like roast duck. http://www.writersreps.com/feature.cfm?FeatureID=20
As Ustrader was so correct to point out it is up to you to prove Said's words are worth the effort to read. For my part, having read some of his stuff and watch a few of his lectures I am quite satisfied he was full of it. He lectures reminded me of the old fairy tale "The Emperors New Clothes."
Uhhh! excuse me. Did you not admit that Said lied, ooops stretched things bit. I see no reason to waste time reading more of his stuff. Others, such as Ibn Warraq, have done a good already...see the link writersrep, if you have not done so. No reason to reinvent the wheel, defend your hero if you can. Ibn puts some fine nails in Said's coffin

Thanks again so much!

You have forgotten, I told you never recommend reading to me again. I suppose one could recommend extensive reading on the dodo bird, but one might ask why bother. In case you didn't get that one Said. might as well be a dodo bird.

You have me there, although I have read some of Said's writings, I have never read one of his books...guess I can't say I ever will. Come to think of it I got half way thru a Noam book once, what well written trash. Did a little reading on the dodo bird once, too, can't say I'll ever study the bird again.

Only as far as it refers to Islam and only if it speaks true.

This quasi debate will have to wait until another day. I'm drunk (just opened an aged case of Ommegang Rare Vos), and the Sabres are taking on the Canadiens. Surely, you can be jolly for an evening as I am sure to become...

Later, alligator.

That's some kind of binge!

Yes... it was indeed a binge... a delicious binge.

Oh what nonsense. MARK

Ooooh what friggin nonsense! Put "Jihad" in the search function and you cant help but wonder where this crap about "moral striving" comes from because it doesnt come from Islamic doctrine. MARK

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

"Colonial behavior"???? WTF is that and where did the US display such a behavior? MARK

15 of the Hijackers of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, a country with a higher average income than 2/3rds of the nations of the world. "poverty"??? The real world seems to contradict your theory. "powerlessness and utter misery"??? I think the house of Saud is responsible for their conditions. MARK

And on that note:

JENIN – WND was granted access through the Islamic Jihad terror group to a 23-year old Palestinian man who has volunteered to become a suicide bomber and who the organization says has "great potential" to carry out one of the next attempted suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.
According to Islamic Jihad leaders, the potential bomber interviewed is one of over "hundreds" of young Palestinians in the northern West Bank who passed necessary recruitment stages and is available to attempt to infiltrate Jewish population centers wearing an explosive belt with the goal of blowing up as many Israelis as possible.
The interview took place in a remote building in the northern West Bank city of Jenin, a well-known Islamic Jihad stronghold from which the majority of recent Palestinian suicide bombers have originated.
The Islamic Jihad terror group has taken responsibility for every suicide attack inside Israel the past two years, including a bombing in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis. Islamic Jihad also has carried out scores of recent deadly shootings and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians.
Islamic Jihad leaders allowed WND to interview the potential suicide bomber in a room together with his recruiter, who is a senior member of the terror group.
Both the recruiter and potential bomber were aware WND's reporter is Jewish.
The recruiter several times ordered the want-to-be bomber to refrain from answering certain questions during the interview, which was conducted using an English-Arabic translator.
The potential bomber's face was not covered during the interview, but he was told by the Islamic Jihad recruiter not to provide his name or extensive biographical information.
Following are excerpts from WND's conversation with the potential bomber, which includes topics such as the supposed reward of 72 dark-eyed virgins for carrying out an attack; the belief among some Muslims that Jews descended from pigs and monkeys; and the potential suicide bomber's desire to kill WND's reporter in a suicide operation.
(Story continues below) http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53091

* yawn *

I have read your posts and I respect the maturity and intellect of most of you. Forgive my lack of linguistic polish, but my answer to the question:"Is Islam evil?", is as follows:

One definition of evil: Evil, that which is morally bad or wrong, or that which causes harm, pain, or misery. I see a load of pain and misery that can be traced to Islam. Look, the bible doesn’t tell people to kill in defense of Christianity! The Old Testament… yes, sanctioned killing happened. The victims did not believe in God and would not and would have lead the Israelites into their own pagan worship practices. But that was ONLY then!

I’ve read the Bible cover-to-cover and scanned select portions of the Qu'ran.

I read something in the “Q” that said something like: we made Jesus follow the inerrant prophets…. What crap this book is... one hand they say "Jesus was a prophet of God". On the other they say "what was written about him was not exactly correct". BUT BOTH BOOKS ARE FROM GOD. LIES, LIES I SAY!

The Bible says (I hear yawns, so...): Who is the liar but (A) the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is ( the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. -1JN. 2:22 NAS

An·ti·christ
Pronunciation: 'an-tE-"krIst, -"tI-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English anticrist, from Old English & Late Latin; Old English antecrist, from Late Latin Antichristus, from Greek Antichristos, from anti- + Christos Christ
1 : one who denies or opposes Christ; specifically : a great antagonist expected to fill the world with wickedness but to be conquered forever by Christ at his second coming
2 : a false Christ

The Qu'ran denies the Father and the Son!

Jesus said to him, "I am (A) the way, and ( the truth, and © the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. - JN. 14:6 NAS

Someone said something to the effect of: interpretation is relative to the reader... When you put the scriptures in context and discover that history affirms much of what has been passed down one would have to be a FOOL to conclude such a thing. If you go deep enough down the rabbit hole you will see the QU’RAN IS A BIG FAT LIE MAN! I THINK IT’S A COPY-CAT RELIGION STRAIGHT FROM THE DEVIL!

Really?, give me an example of the "pain" islam has subjected the world, in the context of what happened in the Judeo-Christian ruled world of the 19th century (WW1/WW2/ genocides/democides etc)




Moses actually performed the first genocide on the Caanites in the Old Testiment (something that muslims reject actually).... this is something that the militant zionist jews are applying given the barbaric nature of their war on the arab populations in Lebanon and Palestine.



and this is the problem!




Islam does not deny Christ, Islam explains what really happened and what Jesus' misson was really about. Find me a verse, in the N.Testiment, where Jesus declares himself "god or the son of god"



You make this statement because of your ignorance and unwillingness to examine Islam for what it really is. You think islam is evil, because you want to believe it's evil, not realizing that today's Christianity is a bankrupt religion that offers NOTHING to mankind.

Dumb towel heads dont understand our calendar system.
Looking at those nations where Christianity is the most prominent religion, and comparing them to those nations where Islam is the most prominent, one might conclude that Islam "offers" poverty, political oppression, a lack of education and societies that are about 2 centuries behind in terms of developement.

MARK

"Christian-Judeo" nations offered wars and genocides to most of the world for the past 100 years.

Islam offered peace, prosperity, justice and tolerance for the MAJORITY of the 1400 years of existance

The first half of those 1400 years were characterized by conquest by warfare. The second half was decline by warfare. Their prosperity was derived through conquest. Thats why Muslims have such a difficult time dealing with a world where prosperity requires effort and intelligence. MARK

No credible historian can come to that conclusion. Warfare back then is not like today where the majority of the victims are innocent people... furthermore, you are lying... most of 1400 year period is marked by peace... you blithering idiot.... go pickup a book!

To a muslim, if they-



they are innocent, if not-



MARK

As usual, no real response.... face it dixon, your anti-islamic agenda is bankrupt

It is the islamic agenda that is bankrupt. MARK

IS that why people are converting to islam in droves?..... you need to change your dis-info, its not working!

The # of converts wouldnt, for me, be a measure of an agendas worth. And where are these converting droves? I knew you buggers bred like rabbits but wasnt aware of any mass conversion. Perhaps they are sick of the required "acknowledgment of superiority" they must make to their Muslim superiors and tired of their "state of subjection". MARK

In otherwards, you are holding it against us that we have excellent family structures (low divorce rate, good children, no exta-marital affairs, no homosexuality)..... but that wasn't my point. I am talking about the rate of COVERSION to islam by white europeans and white american women (along with otehr genders in general).

Sounds like people seem to be happy with TRUE islam.

Ahh. Like that guy Adam Ghadan. Still dont think its evidence of the worth of the Islamic agenda. And I dont think the # of children has anything to do with the excellence of the family structure, the prevalence of divorce or the goodness of those children. The birth rate usually drops as income and education increase.
MARK

Adam Pearlman is a zionist agent. Just because the "WASPS" are going extinct in the western world because of their horrible value system, because they their moral system is ZERO. The smart ones are going to Islam, because it is the only solution for mankind.

Thats the source of the problem. Muslims believe it is the "only solution". Allah says it is the "only solution". But the majority of the world who is not muslim, believe there might be another solution. And there always seems to be a minority of Muslims who go ape ###### jihad on us dismembering bodies by explosion, when they dont get there way. MARK

Well, the that's the truth, every other man made system has failed. How long will USA stay a superpower? Less than 10 years at this rate.

As far as the old, tired accusations of equating islam to terrorism, this is the agenda of the liars... because like I said, the fact that islam is the fastest growing religion on earth by way of converts, is testiment to Islam's truth and YOUR lies.

It is the "only solution" if mankind wants to be successful. Humans have the right to choose, we know this.....Its like not taking your medicine and expecting to be "ok". The result of a world devoid to islamic justice and leadership is the grand sum of what we have today (global wars)..... all atheist based ideologies, based from Darwinism is the denial of the existence of the Creator (that's why you hate islam so much.... it has nothing to do with "terrorism")......,are complete and utter failures... Communism was most evident.... now the "Capitalists" have a turn at failure. The wars the criminal elite are leveling against the poor people of the M.E and other areas is a profound expression of their obsession to gain control over all nations especially systems (like islam) that offer and alternative.

So what is the muslim role? Do terrorism? NO! To force people to islam? NO! The enemies of islam are using propaganda to fool people in thinking that muslims or islam as a religion os responsible for terrorism or intolerance. All are forbidden clearly in the Quran, our mission is the spread this religion to humanity with peace and tolerance, but at the same time, standing up to injustice and intolerance by those who want to harm innocent people and their religion.

Hey gallybeenhad,

I'm still digging up data so maybe I may fire another dart of reason into your steel mind.

I personally spoke to a former Pakistani who told me how his family had to flee to India because (THE PEACE LOVING MUSLIMS) took their home and everything in it. He said they were told to convert or move away becase if they did not they would be KILLED!

He added, that India built an electrified fence to keep the Muslim raiders from crossing over. He saw the fence with his own eyes.

You're a damned goober (reference Andy Griffith Show)?! That sucks I spent a few minutes responding and you're still figuring out sh*t and shynola.

I complained about people like you to a muslim friend of mine. His explanation of people like you was that you are "simple", mind you his english language skills were limited at the time. Over time (years, and it accentuated 'simple' in my mind) I understood that he meant ignorant, simple and single minded individuals that knew nothing other than survival, yet were tasked world domination. He didn't agree with my assertion that these folks should be engaged and killed.

After 9/11, we had another conversation. My position changed, he had convinced me that you are stupid enough to be dangerous, his opinion changed in that you are too stupid to stop.

You are that. Able to ignore absolutes in preference for propaganda. There are children strapping bombs on, walking into crowds and blowing themselves up. AND their PARENTS are erecting monuments to their murders. That's extreme cowardice and inhuman. It is pervassive in YOUR society, yet you think the Zionists are your enemy? You're small, tiny.

I base my knowledge on facts, not racist bigotry, like you. It’s funny that this "muslim strapping on the bomb belt" was derived from the recent events in Palestine. Any way you look at it, the Zionists use this type of propaganda to justify their terrorism in the region to advance their agenda in the region.

I don't quite understand your argument, I don't know where you get that islam is bent on 'world domination'. I make clear, examples, of how the current western ruling system is a complete and utter failure. The problem is that people like you have "selective amnesia", confusing the current state of the islamic world to islam itself. You pride yourself of modernity and technology, yet you forget that it was the muslims who developed Mathematics and Science that help Europe advance in technology.

We see clearly the motive for 9/11, it was not 19 arabs who hated american freedom, this notion is utter ridiculous, it was designed, however, to create wars on primarily muslim countries, in order to subdue and dominate the lives of millions of people. Its Zionism that aims to dominate the world. The world Zionists have complete control of the world's monetary system, and using that PACs are lobbying the only superpower to attack various areas of the middle east, on lies and false pretexts, the first phase being iraq.

Knowledge will free you from your ignorance...... Do you know who Dr. Baruch Kappel Goldstein is? He was one of those jewish-zionist extremist, violent "israeli settlers" from Brooklyn Ny. On February 25, 1994, that year's Purim day, Goldstein entered a room in the Cave of the Patriarchs serving as a mosque, with an automatic assault weapon and massacred 29 people in prayer, 150 wounded.
He was killed in that event... and his supporters (all israeli settlers) made his grave into a shrine, he because a "hero" and a "martyr".

So please, when you use events that put muslims in bad light, please don't exclusively blame islam on this when, before any suicide bombing in the region, we had events like this.

Fun to watch you seamlessly switch from arguing that the terrorism is being carried out by Zionist disguised as Muslims in false flag operations, to arguing that the zionist attacked first.
Revealing that you go back to 1994 for an example of Jewish terrorism, when its almost a daily occurrence in the Islamic world. MARK

If the zionists cannot provoke others to do terror, they will do it themselves, or trick others to do it on behalf of others.... this is the truth.

Again, you claim that "islamic terror" is a daily occurance, but you have no proof to back up these claims, therefore you are lying.

?????? Its almost to the point that you dont really need the term "Islamic" to specify the type of "terror". It is impied by the term. MARK

That's how you want it to be, not that it has anything to do with the TRUTH. Its Zionism that synonymous with terror, not islam.

I know you don't, which is why I gave you the reference for the term 'Goober'. You don't understand the criticism just forge ahead in your condemnation of my criticism from that vast cavern of personal knowledge.

You are exactly as knowledgable as the example of the sheeple I described in my previous response.

I have no reason to argue or discuss anything with you any further. I understand you, you are one of the people my freind eventually helped me to be able to contemplate. Dangerously ignorant, and trained so carefully as to have lost the ability to learn.

According to you for example Muslim parents strapping bombs on their children is a zionist plot.
Muslim parents erecting memorials to the mass murders purpetrated by their children are only responses to the zionist plot.

New question Goober: The Muslim children collect "trading cards" commemorating the exploit of individual suicide bombers. I assume you will tell me that zionists are printing them, but they are bought and sold. Who is paying for them? Why would a parent allow a child to collect such macabre memorabilia, much less revere the murderers depicted on them?

I have a high suspicion of some direct Zionist plots, because, there was one case, where some men offered money to a boy to wear a "vest". The "men" were Mossad agents, the vest was full of explosives....

Suicide bombing is against ISLAM PERIOD. So who ever is doing it , os NOT doing it because of their religion, there are other factors involved, because of the brutal state the palestinians are living under, having lost loved ones to IDF raids, having lost olive ochards and homes to israeli bulldozers, etc.

This issue, is however is the continued crimes of israel for the past 40 years. You people have what I like to term "selective amnesia". The suicide bombings STARTED to occur in the mid 90's, after Dr. Goldstein massacred scores of Muslims in a mosque (Hebron Massacre). Dr. Goldstein was made into a martyr and his grave is a shrine for all extremist jews. Before then, tens of thousands have lost their lives and dignity by the actions of the IDF... this is the best example of state terrorism.

You point the finger at oppressed people, people traumatized for 3 generations under brutal and inhumane occupation, yet you have no problem with the ROOT CAUSE of the problem? Is the fair? is the logical? Or are you like the rest of the pro-zionist extremists who exploit the "suicide bomb phenomenon" to take the spot light off the real issue.....?

Here is a comprehsive list of the zionist crimes comitted this century:

http://www.takeourworldback.com/zionistcrimes.htm#lockerbie

You credit one plot (I won't even argue it's merit) with the obsession and glorification which appears to be predominant in a culture that treats its children as cannon fodder? Laughable. How stupid do you want me to think muslim parents are? How stupid do you have to be as a parent to aspire to treat your child as poorly as the Dr. that strapped the bomb to the neighbor kid's back?

By the way the rest of us are well aware that arab groups like HAMAS and others are preparing these children for their suicide, so where is your outrage for that terminal oppression?

I'm sitting here thinking the ROOT CAUSE of the problem is cultural, not causal. Please don't send your 10 year old bomb to my house for saying so.

As for the zionist sins list, don't care. 19 muslims blew up 3000+ Americans, 3 buildings and a farmers field in one day in the name of Islam. I don't know where you live, but where I live it made us angry to the point that zionists will eventually be the least of your worries. Pray 5 or whatever times a day without killing everyone around you that doesn't will be your only salvation. Until then, I hope the zionists kill as many of you as possible so my freinds and family don't have to.

You'll note I haven't taken a side in your attacks on zionism. However I recognize my freinds and enemies.

The Hebron massacre was one of MANY incidents that have been going on for 40 years. You are complaining about "suicide bombers" which is almost exclusive to Palestine in the past 15 years.... I repeat, 15 years!. So please ditch the selective amnesia.....I am giving you facts on Palestine on what the Palestinians have been suffering thru. Don't be hypocritical. Look at the facts, if suicide bombings are killing so many people, why are the stats stacked against the israelis despite this? (see link). Again, to think that "suicide bombings" are done out of some religious fanaticism or "culture", is wrong and is what the zionists want you to believe. I believe it is a combination of people who have lost hope, and are desparet. Palestinians HAVE NO ARMY....I believe zionists themselves are setting people up as well. The real issue is occupation and oppression of palestinians. its about israeli aggression that has also killed thousands of Lebanese, Syrians and others in arab nations during the last 40 years.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

You don't care about zionist "sin list" because they have fooled you. 19 arabs did not do 9/11, I am sorry. There is overwhelming evidence israel was involved, when a team of Mossad agents were caught dancing, cheering and filming the planes crash into WTCs. They were held briefly, but the zionist power structure got them back to israel quickly. They interviewed on israeli TV and said they were "sent to document the event".

This means they KNEW 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing to notify the authorities. Their behavior indicates that they are part of the conspiracy to execute 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

How many palestinians are there in the world? How many muslims are there in the world? If this was "cultural" don't you think that more suicide bombings would occur? You are victim of a massive deception.

We want a better quality of Bull ######! They were not dancing-


And they didnt know "9/11 was going to happen",-



http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%2...pt_11_Spies.htm
MARK

"We were sent to document the event": Israeli terror (Mossad) suspect

Maybe they had a time machine, they were sent back in time to "document the event"

I find your dismisal of the israeli connection amusing.... you people are in hopeless denial!

Oooooh why dont you show us from what bullshit site you got that quote from. In response to why they seemed happy and why they were photographing the event, they replied

"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

MARK

"Our purpose was to document the event." He said it..... research it yourself......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

Watch the muslim slither from "We were sent to document the event" to "Our purpose was to document the event.", and hope nobody notices. Such a typical muslim. Taqiyya and kitman are near and dear to this one. MARK

In general meaning, both sentences mean the same thing you pathetic moron.

BTW, what is "Taqiyya and kitman"? Does this mean I am a "ignorant muslim"?

fool

No, one of them supports your silly theory, the real one does not. Thats why you changed it and put quotation marks around the word in a pathetic attempt to add credibility to what is essentially a deep, dark, void, absent of any semblance of integrity or redeeming human quality. You are such a muslim. MARK

Its not a "pathetic attempt" you moron, nor is it a "kitman" conspiracy.... you are really delusion...

You are arguing over nothing, to change the subject, the fact of the matter is, both sentences mean exactly the same thing!

Hey galloway,
You said:

Islam does not deny Christ, Islam explains what really happened and what Jesus' mission was really about. Find me a verse, in the N.Testiment, where Jesus declares himself "god or the son of god"

I’ve been out of here for a while, here is my response, that enough for ya?

"Luke 1:35 (A) How can Jesus be both Son of God and Son of Man?
The terms Son of God and Son of Man are interchangeable. They both refer to Jesus. Son of God expresses His deity (CP Mt 1:18-25; 3:13-17; 16:13-16; 17:1-9; Php 2:5-11). Son of Man expresses Jesus' humanity and servanthood (CP Psa 2:7; Mt 12:15-21; 20:28; Lu 2:11; Jn 1:14).

1:35 ( Did Jesus become the Son of God by His incarnation or was He eternally the Son?
Most Christians believe that Jesus was eternally the Son of God. The argument against this however is that Jesus could not eternally be the Son of God because eternity is timeless - it has no beginning or end, whereas Jesus, as man, and as the Son of God, did have a beginning. He was brought into being; begotten of God (CP Gen 49:10; Nu 24:17; Psa 2:7; Isa 7:14; 9:6-7; Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:26-35; 2:11; Jn 1:14; Ga 4:4; Php 2:5-8; He 1:5-6; 5:5). But before He took on human form at His incarnation, the person we now know as Jesus Christ had no beginning. He was not begotten; He did not come into being; He was not the Son of God - He was God (CP Nu 21:4-9 with 1Cor 10:9; Psa 45:6-7; Isa 6:1-5 with Jn 12:37-41; Mic 5:2; Jn 1:1-2; 3:13; 8:56-58; 17:5; Ac 20:28; Ro 9:5; Php 2:5-8; Col 2:8-10; 1Ti 3:16; Tit 2:13; He 1:8-12; 2Pe 1:1-2; 1Jn 1:1-2; 3:16; Rev 1:8,11,17-18; 2:8; 3:14; 21:6; 22:13). Every one of these scriptures teach that the pre-incarnate Jesus always existed as God. He was an equal member of the Godhead from all eternity (CP Isa 52:12). Jesus was a spirit being and carried out the divine plan of creation (CP Psa 90:2; 102:25-27; Jn 1:3, 10; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16-17; He 1:2, 10-12; 11:3; Rev 3:14). Jesus is also seen in His pre-incarnate state many times in the Old Testament as the angel of the Lord. In most of the Old Testament scriptures the angel of (from) the Lord (Jehovah) is regarded as deity, yet is distinguished from Jehovah. The angel of Jehovah is one person in the Godhead, and Jehovah who sent Him, is another. As the angel of the Lord, the pre-incarnate Jesus spoke to Hagar, Sarah's handmaid, after Sarah dismissed her and later cast her out altogether (CP Gen 16:7-13; 21:17-18). He was one of the three angels who visited Abraham, and rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah (CP 18:1-5, 9-22; 19:24). He wrestled with Jacob (CP 32:24-30 with Hos 12:2-5). He spoke to Moses out of the burning bush (CP Ex 3:1-14 with Lu 20:37; Ac 7:30-38). He was the pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night that guided the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan (CP Ex 13:21-22 with 14:19-20, 24). He stood in the way of Balaam, and made his donkey speak (CP Nu 22:22-35, 38). He was the captain of the host of the Lord who instructed Joshua how to destroy Jericho (CP Josh 5:13-6:5). He told Gideon how He would use him to free the Israelites from the Midianites who had kept them in servitude for seven years (CP Judg 6:11-24). He was the fourth man King Nebuchadnezzar saw walking through the flames in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (CP Dan 3:8-28). V25 should read "…and the form of the fourth is like a Son of the Gods," not "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" as the KJV renders it. Nebuchadnezzar had no knowledge of the New Testament revelation of the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary. He acknowledged in V28 that the being he saw in V25 was the angel of the Lord - angels are sometimes referred to as Sons of God in the Old Testament (CP Gen 6:1-4; Job1:6; 38:7). Jesus was also the rider of the red horse standing among the myrtle trees who spoke to Zechariah near the close of the Old Testament (CP Zech 1:7-17).

In all those scriptures the angel of the Lord (Jehovah) is regarded as deity, yet is distinguished from Jehovah, which proves He was an equal member of the Godhead. Other scriptures referring to the pre-incarnate Jesus as the angel of the Lord are Gen 22:11-18; 24:7, 40; 31:11; 48:16; Ex 23:20-23; 32:34; 33:2; Nu 20:16; Judg 2:1-4; 13:3-6,9,13-21; 1Ki 19:5-7; 2Ki 1:3,15; 1Chr 21:15-17; Psa 34:7; 35:5-6; Eccl 5:6; Isa 37:36 with 2Ki 19:35 and 2Chr 32:21; Isa 63:7-9; Dan 6:22; Zech 3:1-10; 12:1-8. Bible scholars generally agree that the foregoing scriptures all refer to the pre-incarnate Jesus as the angel of the Lord. In all other places in scripture where the angel of the Lord is found, the term refers to ordinary angels. The pre-incarnate Jesus also visited Daniel and spoke to him in Dan 10:5-6 (CP Dan 10:5-6). Many Christians believe that this was the angel Gabriel but that is not correct (CP Dan 7:9 with Rev 1:12-15). The man referred to in all these scriptures is the same person - Jesus. His clothing was fine linen; His loins were girded with a golden girdle; His hair was like pure wool; His eyes were like lamps of fire; His arms and feet like polished brass and His voice was like a multitude - the sound of many waters. Gabriel did not speak to Daniel in Ch 10 until V10 (CP V10-14). Clearly scriptures do not teach that Jesus was eternally the Son of God, but that he became the Son at His incarnation. This in no way refutes the Christian doctrine of the trinity - the three in one Godhead - as this study clearly teaches that Jesus, as we know Him, was an equal member of the Godhead from all eternity (CP also Zech 13:7). Fellow here refers to the one we know as Jesus being a fellow-God with Jehovah (CP Mt 26:31)."

I didn't write that. I'm too ignorant!

I believe self professing “Christians”, “Jews”, and “Muslims” have committed atrocities throughout history to the present. The thing is, again, does the source of their belief validate or invalidate their evil deeds! I understand though, when I embraced my dogmatic system of religious belief I became polarized and biased in my thinking.

Christianity is a bankrupt religion that offers NOTHING to mankind.

I agree! Much of Christianity is bankrupt. Not all though.