All Muslims Are Not Terrorists, But All Terrorists Are Muslims

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Steve Williams

Ummm, sure you are. Just like '6 figures in 6 years' right??

I'm sorry that you don't know that people with real majors in college can end up getting real jobs where huge global corporations see you as a valuable asset, therefore invest in you by paying for your Ph.D (50,000 a year) and give you an excellent salary as well.

Look up the average income for biotech senior scientists (Ph.D scientists). They get paid equivalent to doctors. These people major in fields such as biochemistry, then get a masters in molecular cell biology, and move on to get a Ph.D in something like Immunology. They are not people like you that majored in communication studies or general studies.

[Robert]

Hezbollah rearms
While world attention is focused on the fighting between Israel and the Hamas regime in Gaza, Hezbollah has quietly been rebuilding its military arsenal in Lebanon, much of which was destroyed in the terror group's 2006 war with Israel. Last month U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon issued a report noting without rebuttal Israeli government claims that Hezbollah continues to rearm and has an arsenal containing 10,000 long-range rockets and 20,000 short-range rockets in Southern Lebanon. He also noted that Hezbollah has admitted smuggling weapons from Iran and Syria into Lebanon and expressed concern about threats of open war by the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah.



Now, Israel estimates the number of rockets in Hezbollah's possession has climbed to 42,000 — the overwhelming majority of them easily concealed short-range weapons which were used to devastating effect by Hezbollah against Israel in the summer 2006 war. Israel estimates that as many as several hundred of these rockets are Iranian-made long-range weapons with a range of up to 185 miles — enough to reach anywhere in Israel's heavily populated central heartland and targets as far south as Dimona, the location of Israel's nuclear reactor.



For months, Mr. Nasrallah has been warning Israel that Hezbollah has a "surprise" new weapon in its arsenal; many Lebanese believe he is referring to a ground-to-air missile that would challenge for the first time the Israel Air Force's supremacy in the skies over Lebanon. Robert Fisk, a Lebanon-based reporter for The Independent newspaper, reports that in southern Lebanon up to 300 young Lebanese men each month travel to Beirut and on to Tehran. As many as 4,500 of these Hezbollah members have been sent to Iran for three-month military training sessions with rockets and live-fire ammunition since November 2006. The goal is to train a cadre of guerrillas for the next war between Hezbollah and Israel.



The United Nations condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty by conducting overflights of Lebanese territory. Israel, for its part, responds that if it did not conduct such surveillance, it would be unable to monitor the continuing smuggling of weapons into Hezbollah from Tehran and Damascus. In recent weeks, Israeli officials have met with officials from European Union and NATO countries to warn them about Iranian efforts to transfer long-range missiles to Hezbollah. In particular, Israel is concerned about efforts to smuggle weapons through Turkish airspace and overland disguised as civilian cargo. Once again, Israel and Iran (through its terrorist surrogates) appear to be on a collision course.

[Robert]

Top U.S. military officer assails Iran's role in Iraq - International Herald Tribune

[Baller1]

Originally Posted by Robert

Hezbollah rearms
While world attention is focused on the fighting between Israel and the Hamas regime in Gaza, Hezbollah has quietly been rebuilding its military arsenal in Lebanon, much of which was destroyed in the terror group's 2006 war with Israel. Last month U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon issued a report noting without rebuttal Israeli government claims that Hezbollah continues to rearm and has an arsenal containing 10,000 long-range rockets and 20,000 short-range rockets in Southern Lebanon. He also noted that Hezbollah has admitted smuggling weapons from Iran and Syria into Lebanon and expressed concern about threats of open war by the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah.



Now, Israel estimates the number of rockets in Hezbollah's possession has climbed to 42,000 — the overwhelming majority of them easily concealed short-range weapons which were used to devastating effect by Hezbollah against Israel in the summer 2006 war. Israel estimates that as many as several hundred of these rockets are Iranian-made long-range weapons with a range of up to 185 miles — enough to reach anywhere in Israel's heavily populated central heartland and targets as far south as Dimona, the location of Israel's nuclear reactor.



For months, Mr. Nasrallah has been warning Israel that Hezbollah has a "surprise" new weapon in its arsenal; many Lebanese believe he is referring to a ground-to-air missile that would challenge for the first time the Israel Air Force's supremacy in the skies over Lebanon. Robert Fisk, a Lebanon-based reporter for The Independent newspaper, reports that in southern Lebanon up to 300 young Lebanese men each month travel to Beirut and on to Tehran. As many as 4,500 of these Hezbollah members have been sent to Iran for three-month military training sessions with rockets and live-fire ammunition since November 2006. The goal is to train a cadre of guerrillas for the next war between Hezbollah and Israel.



The United Nations condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty by conducting overflights of Lebanese territory. Israel, for its part, responds that if it did not conduct such surveillance, it would be unable to monitor the continuing smuggling of weapons into Hezbollah from Tehran and Damascus. In recent weeks, Israeli officials have met with officials from European Union and NATO countries to warn them about Iranian efforts to transfer long-range missiles to Hezbollah. In particular, Israel is concerned about efforts to smuggle weapons through Turkish airspace and overland disguised as civilian cargo. Once again, Israel and Iran (through its terrorist surrogates) appear to be on a collision course.

The United Nations should condemn Israel for all their violations. And don't give me Hisbollah crap or your standard Islamic crap, Israel was forced to exist in 1948, and land was taken away from souvereign people. But dillweeks like you don't get it. Sad story, Robert, you are a sad story and an angry person who just tries to paint the picture that Islamists are the evil of the world. The extremists are, not the regular people. Extremists like McVeigh. Oh that doesn't fit your picture, I am sorry - NOT

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Baller1

The United Nations should condemn Israel for all their violations. And don't give me Hisbollah crap or your standard Islamic crap, Israel was forced to exist in 1948, and land was taken away from souvereign people. But dillweeks like you don't get it. Sad story, Robert, you are a sad story and an angry person who just tries to paint the picture that Islamists are the evil of the world. The extremists are, not the regular people. Extremists like McVeigh. Oh that doesn't fit your picture, I am sorry - NOT

Blame America First . . .
. . . or Israel-whichever.

By Ramesh Ponnuru
National Review


America is guilty. America is always guilty. Even when it's attacked. So it appears, at least, to a certain type of commentator. When the Towers fell, when the Pentagon was pierced, when thousands of our countrymen were slaughtered — the America Last pundits were there to explain how we had brought these calamities on ourselves. We were attacked, they explained, because we had angered the world. Had we not walked out of the Durban conference? Had we not spurned the Kyoto Protocol? Osama bin Laden, environmentalist in a hurry.
What has drawn the most fire, of course, is America's alliance with Israel. Critics of that alliance, on both the left and the right, have argued that but for it we would never have been attacked. The bluntest statements have appeared in the British press. In an article for the Observer called "Who Will Dare Damn Israel?" Richard Ingrams wrote that "the undeniable and central fact behind the disaster [is] that Israel is now and has been for some time an American colony." Also in the Observer, Edward Said blamed America's "support for the 34-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories." Similar views, more obliquely expressed, have appeared in the American media.

It follows from this position that America cannot defend itself from terrorism without disassociating itself from Israel. The thesis was expounded at length in Salon, a liberal online magazine, by its executive editor, Gary Kamiya. "We must pressure Israel to take the concrete steps necessary to provide justice for the Palestinian people," he wrote; we must demonstrate to Islamic states "that it is a new day, that Israel is not the tail that wags the American dog." Otherwise, we will never enjoy peace.

A more modest version of this view has found a home in the Bush administration, especially in its State Department: We must push Israel toward peace with Arab countries in order to get those countries to join our war on terrorism.

All of these supposed connections between the September 11 attacks and American policy toward Israel are extremely dubious. It is almost certainly not the case that we could have subdued our attackers' wrath by forsaking Israel; we will probably not win friends by doing so now; and it is very unlikely the case that we must make "progress" on the Arab-Israeli conflict to fight terrorism.

Let's start with bin Laden's motives, about which we need not speculate. He had his declaration of jihad against America published in February 1998. (This is the document in which he declared, "To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able.") His bill of particulars against America mentions, first, the U.S. "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. On his deathbed, the Prophet Mohammed is said to have demanded that only Muslims dwell in the holy land of Arabia; the American presence — a presence that we do not maintain, please note, for the purpose of protecting Israel — is therefore a desecration. (The idea of killing random people to protect the holy land is, however, a modern innovation rather than orthodox Islamic doctrine.) Bin Laden's second complaint concerns our policies against Iraq. Only then does the declaration turn to "the petty state of the Jews" and "their occupation of Jerusalem and their killing of Muslims in it."

The radical Islamists' broader quarrel is with American power: not with the uses of that power, but with the fact of it. We are infidels. And we are liberal, capitalist, modern, powerful, and rich; therefore hated. Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the point well when he wrote in the aftermath of the September massacres that the Islamists do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. They call us, not Israel, "the Great Satan."

Obviously, our friendship with Israel increases the hostility of Arabs and Muslims toward us. But short of abandoning Israel altogether, what are we to do about that? It is not as though American policy has been simply and unequivocally pro-Israel. Soviet arms protected the infant state in 1948, while America imposed an embargo. America stopped Israel (along with Britain and France) from toppling the Egyptian regime in 1956, and stopped Israel from pushing for further military victories at the end of the 1973 war. Camp David was, in part, an American bribe to get Israel to return the Sinai to Egypt; and a deal between Egypt and Israel would probably have been easier to conclude had Jimmy Carter not insisted on addressing Palestinian grievances too. The Reagan administration joined the rest of the world in condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's Osiraq nuclear plant in 1981; a year later, it helped rescue Yasser Arafat from the Israelis in Lebanon.

During the Gulf War, Washington vetoed Israel's plans to protect itself from Iraqi missiles. In the early 1990s, the first Bush administration worked to bring down Yitzhak Shamir's government because it was deemed too intransigent toward the Palestinians; in the late 1990s, the Clinton administration worked against Netanyahu's government for the same reason. There is good reason to think that it was American pressure that brought Israel in 1993 to Oslo and thereafter kept it participating in the "peace process" inaugurated there.

The point is not that America has been anti-Israel, which would be an absurd contention. It is that Kamiya's counsel that it is "time for America to start throwing its weight around . . . with Israel" comes much too late. Israel does not wag the American dog. A policy of pressure on Israel would not be a bold departure from past policy. It would be more of the same. And it is worth noting that none of these calibrations of American policy have bought us any credit among those who hate us (nor, for that matter, have our military interventions to save Muslims' lives in Bosnia and Kosovo).

For decades, many of us have preferred to pretend that Arabs' demands of Israel were moderate and reasonable, and that we could appease them with moderate and reasonable policies of our own. But it should now be clear for all with eyes to see that their hostility to Israel is not primarily about settlements on the West Bank or even the occupation (what's left of it). They oppose the Jewish state's existence. Their solution to the "Arab-Israeli problem" is the final solution: Israel's destruction. As long as Americans are an obstacle to that dream, it will be held against us.

Yet the fundamental problem in the Mideast is not the existence of the Israeli state. It is the despotism of the Arab states. There is not a market democracy in the bunch. These states are corrupt and brutal. They are theocracies, or precarious autocracies, or secular totalitarian states: tyrannies all, deniers of freedom, republics of fear, enemies of civility and human flourishing. (The outlines of another such state can be seen in the Palestinian Authority.) They are governments that make constant war on their own peoples. They cannot make peace because they are not at peace themselves.

There may be occasions when America can ally with some of those states, as we did during the Gulf War. On these occasions, there is no need to mollify public opinion in the Arab world — whatever "public opinion" would mean in this unfree context — by pressuring Israel. A decade ago, a lot of people suggested that there had to be "linkage" between the Israeli-Palestinian and American-Iraqi conflicts: We would have to address the former to win the latter. The U.S. largely resisted the demand for linkage, with the significant exception of barring Israel from participating in the coalition against Iraq. As it turned out, the linkage worked the other way: Having won the war, America was in a better position to force the PLO to the table. (That we made a mess of things once this occurred does not invalidate the point.)

The Arab states responded to power used with resolve. Later, they responded to American weakness. America's position in the Mideast slipped as it became clear that we were not serious about ending the Iraqi threat — and that Israel was tiring of its permanent war footing. To turn away from our ally now would be regarded, too, as weakness.

And rightly so. It is one thing to make a case on the merits that our foreign policies should be changed. Perhaps we should end our alliance with Israel. Perhaps we should remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, or lift the sanctions on Iraq. But not under duress. A policy designed to keep from offending people who might be inclined to attack us is a policy of preemptive capitulation to terrorists. In his address to Congress, President Bush explained why the terrorists kill: "With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." The terrorists' hope is the frank advice of those who would have us back away from Israel because of the September 11 attacks.

Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?

Here, then, is the true strategy being recommended to America: Curl up and die.

[Baller1]

Originally Posted by Robert

Blame America First . . .
. . . or Israel-whichever.

By Ramesh Ponnuru
National Review


America is guilty. America is always guilty. Even when it's attacked. So it appears, at least, to a certain type of commentator. When the Towers fell, when the Pentagon was pierced, when thousands of our countrymen were slaughtered — the America Last pundits were there to explain how we had brought these calamities on ourselves. We were attacked, they explained, because we had angered the world. Had we not walked out of the Durban conference? Had we not spurned the Kyoto Protocol? Osama bin Laden, environmentalist in a hurry.
What has drawn the most fire, of course, is America's alliance with Israel. Critics of that alliance, on both the left and the right, have argued that but for it we would never have been attacked. The bluntest statements have appeared in the British press. In an article for the Observer called "Who Will Dare Damn Israel?" Richard Ingrams wrote that "the undeniable and central fact behind the disaster [is] that Israel is now and has been for some time an American colony." Also in the Observer, Edward Said blamed America's "support for the 34-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories." Similar views, more obliquely expressed, have appeared in the American media.

It follows from this position that America cannot defend itself from terrorism without disassociating itself from Israel. The thesis was expounded at length in Salon, a liberal online magazine, by its executive editor, Gary Kamiya. "We must pressure Israel to take the concrete steps necessary to provide justice for the Palestinian people," he wrote; we must demonstrate to Islamic states "that it is a new day, that Israel is not the tail that wags the American dog." Otherwise, we will never enjoy peace.

A more modest version of this view has found a home in the Bush administration, especially in its State Department: We must push Israel toward peace with Arab countries in order to get those countries to join our war on terrorism.

All of these supposed connections between the September 11 attacks and American policy toward Israel are extremely dubious. It is almost certainly not the case that we could have subdued our attackers' wrath by forsaking Israel; we will probably not win friends by doing so now; and it is very unlikely the case that we must make "progress" on the Arab-Israeli conflict to fight terrorism.

Let's start with bin Laden's motives, about which we need not speculate. He had his declaration of jihad against America published in February 1998. (This is the document in which he declared, "To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able.") His bill of particulars against America mentions, first, the U.S. "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. On his deathbed, the Prophet Mohammed is said to have demanded that only Muslims dwell in the holy land of Arabia; the American presence — a presence that we do not maintain, please note, for the purpose of protecting Israel — is therefore a desecration. (The idea of killing random people to protect the holy land is, however, a modern innovation rather than orthodox Islamic doctrine.) Bin Laden's second complaint concerns our policies against Iraq. Only then does the declaration turn to "the petty state of the Jews" and "their occupation of Jerusalem and their killing of Muslims in it."

The radical Islamists' broader quarrel is with American power: not with the uses of that power, but with the fact of it. We are infidels. And we are liberal, capitalist, modern, powerful, and rich; therefore hated. Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the point well when he wrote in the aftermath of the September massacres that the Islamists do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. They call us, not Israel, "the Great Satan."

Obviously, our friendship with Israel increases the hostility of Arabs and Muslims toward us. But short of abandoning Israel altogether, what are we to do about that? It is not as though American policy has been simply and unequivocally pro-Israel. Soviet arms protected the infant state in 1948, while America imposed an embargo. America stopped Israel (along with Britain and France) from toppling the Egyptian regime in 1956, and stopped Israel from pushing for further military victories at the end of the 1973 war. Camp David was, in part, an American bribe to get Israel to return the Sinai to Egypt; and a deal between Egypt and Israel would probably have been easier to conclude had Jimmy Carter not insisted on addressing Palestinian grievances too. The Reagan administration joined the rest of the world in condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's Osiraq nuclear plant in 1981; a year later, it helped rescue Yasser Arafat from the Israelis in Lebanon.

During the Gulf War, Washington vetoed Israel's plans to protect itself from Iraqi missiles. In the early 1990s, the first Bush administration worked to bring down Yitzhak Shamir's government because it was deemed too intransigent toward the Palestinians; in the late 1990s, the Clinton administration worked against Netanyahu's government for the same reason. There is good reason to think that it was American pressure that brought Israel in 1993 to Oslo and thereafter kept it participating in the "peace process" inaugurated there.

The point is not that America has been anti-Israel, which would be an absurd contention. It is that Kamiya's counsel that it is "time for America to start throwing its weight around . . . with Israel" comes much too late. Israel does not wag the American dog. A policy of pressure on Israel would not be a bold departure from past policy. It would be more of the same. And it is worth noting that none of these calibrations of American policy have bought us any credit among those who hate us (nor, for that matter, have our military interventions to save Muslims' lives in Bosnia and Kosovo).

For decades, many of us have preferred to pretend that Arabs' demands of Israel were moderate and reasonable, and that we could appease them with moderate and reasonable policies of our own. But it should now be clear for all with eyes to see that their hostility to Israel is not primarily about settlements on the West Bank or even the occupation (what's left of it). They oppose the Jewish state's existence. Their solution to the "Arab-Israeli problem" is the final solution: Israel's destruction. As long as Americans are an obstacle to that dream, it will be held against us.

Yet the fundamental problem in the Mideast is not the existence of the Israeli state. It is the despotism of the Arab states. There is not a market democracy in the bunch. These states are corrupt and brutal. They are theocracies, or precarious autocracies, or secular totalitarian states: tyrannies all, deniers of freedom, republics of fear, enemies of civility and human flourishing. (The outlines of another such state can be seen in the Palestinian Authority.) They are governments that make constant war on their own peoples. They cannot make peace because they are not at peace themselves.

There may be occasions when America can ally with some of those states, as we did during the Gulf War. On these occasions, there is no need to mollify public opinion in the Arab world — whatever "public opinion" would mean in this unfree context — by pressuring Israel. A decade ago, a lot of people suggested that there had to be "linkage" between the Israeli-Palestinian and American-Iraqi conflicts: We would have to address the former to win the latter. The U.S. largely resisted the demand for linkage, with the significant exception of barring Israel from participating in the coalition against Iraq. As it turned out, the linkage worked the other way: Having won the war, America was in a better position to force the PLO to the table. (That we made a mess of things once this occurred does not invalidate the point.)

The Arab states responded to power used with resolve. Later, they responded to American weakness. America's position in the Mideast slipped as it became clear that we were not serious about ending the Iraqi threat — and that Israel was tiring of its permanent war footing. To turn away from our ally now would be regarded, too, as weakness.

And rightly so. It is one thing to make a case on the merits that our foreign policies should be changed. Perhaps we should end our alliance with Israel. Perhaps we should remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, or lift the sanctions on Iraq. But not under duress. A policy designed to keep from offending people who might be inclined to attack us is a policy of preemptive capitulation to terrorists. In his address to Congress, President Bush explained why the terrorists kill: "With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." The terrorists' hope is the frank advice of those who would have us back away from Israel because of the September 11 attacks.

Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?

Here, then, is the true strategy being recommended to America: Curl up and die.

Awesome thanks for entertaining us with all those bunch of articles and newspaper distribution. So what??? Doesn't change the fact you are narrow minded. Have you ever lived abroad, understood how other people think and their cultures? I don't really think you care. Just go ahead and bush all muslims, especially kids who get killed by American Soldiers. As I said before, I am with you on the extremists. But thats about it. And Israel is not really in the position to whine, ain't any better.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Baller1

Awesome thanks for entertaining us with all those bunch of articles and newspaper distribution. So what??? Doesn't change the fact you are narrow minded. Have you ever lived abroad, understood how other people think and their cultures? I don't really think you care. Just go ahead and bush all muslims, especially kids who get killed by American Soldiers. As I said before, I am with you on the extremists. But thats about it. And Israel is not really in the position to whine, ain't any better.

Sounds like you need a reminder, Ahmed:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

On that morning, nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a member who had undergone some pilot training. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and presumed dead; the number of immediate victims totaled 2,998, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians. The dead included nationals from over 80 different countries. In addition, the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse.

[Baller1]

Originally Posted by Robert

Sounds like you need a reminder, Ahmed:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

On that morning, nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a member who had undergone some pilot training. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and presumed dead; the number of immediate victims totaled 2,998, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians. The dead included nationals from over 80 different countries. In addition, the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse.

Ah here we go again, the name calling. I am nowhere close to be an Ahmed you airhead. And again you have proven my point, all you do is post articles which are painting a picture that all muslims are bad people. Want me to start doing it the other way, painting that picture about Israel? Would be a good start since it would show that the fucking jews down there ain't better whatsofuckingever. I don't need you to tell me history from 9/11, I almost was on one of those planes. But if it makes you feel better to call people names, go for it. Shows again your lack of understanding.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Baller1

Ah here we go again, the name calling. I am nowhere close to be an Ahmed you airhead. And again you have proven my point, all you do is post articles which are painting a picture that all muslims are bad people. Want me to start doing it the other way, painting that picture about Israel? Would be a good start since it would show that the fucking jews down there ain't better whatsofuckingever. I don't need you to tell me history from 9/11, I almost was on one of those planes. But if it makes you feel better to call people names, go for it. Shows again your lack of understanding.

Islamic terrorism linked to Nazi fascists
Despite some weak politically correct attempts, the fact is there is a radical, heretical brand of Islam fostering terrorism that is indeed a by-product of Fascism and a hatred of Jews


Robert Duncan Robert Duncan
August 15, 2006


Folks seem to be in a quandary: Should US president George W. Bush have used the terms "Islam" and "Fascists" in the same sentence. The majority of the negative comments have been directed toward the president's lack of sensitivity toward the vast majority of followers of Islam.

But despite some weak politically correct attempts, the fact is that the press for the most part is guilty of whitewashing one simple fact: There is a radical, heretical brand of Islam fostering terrorism that is indeed a by-product of Fascism and a hatred of Jews.

Shahid Nickels, a member between 1998 and 2000 of the group headed by Mohammed Atta who led the 9-11 attacks, said that "Atta's weltanschauung was based on a National Socialist way of thinking. He was convinced that 'the Jews' are determined to achieve world domination. He considered New York City to be the center of world Jewry which was, in his opinion, Enemy Number One," according to an article written by Dr. Matthias Küntzel. [1]

Atta's peculiar "Nationalist Socialist way of thinking," however, was far from unique. In fact, it was a seed germinating for 80 years among radical Islamists that can be traced to Hassan al-Banna, a 22-year-old school teacher who gathered discontent Muslims to found the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928/1929.

While initial growth of the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate, the organization's membership rolls — coinciding with rising anti-Semitism in Europe — by August 1938 had swelled to more than two hundred thousand members. By the end of World War II the Muslim Brotherhood had around half a million members.

"Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist "Young Egypt" (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat," so begins an Asia Times article by Marc Erikson. [2]

"The "Supreme Guide" of the brethren knew that faith, good works and numbers alone do not a political victory make. Thus, modeled on Mussolini's blackshirts (al-Banna much admired "Il Duce" and soul brother "Fuehrer" Adolf Hitler), he set up a paramilitary wing (slogan: "action, obedience, silence," quite superior to the blackshirts' "believe, obey, fight") and a "secret apparatus" (al-jihaz al-sirri) and intelligence arm of al-Ikhwan to handle the dirtier side — terrorist attacks, assassinations, and so on — of the struggle for power," writes Erikson elsewhere. [3]

According to John Loftus, a former prosecutor with the US Justice Department, "Al-Banna formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and wrote to him frequently."

Loftus adds that Al-Banna was so persistent in his "admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence. With the goal of the Third Reich to develop the Muslim Brotherhood as an army inside Egypt." [4]

So what was Al-Banna teaching?

Well, for one thing Al-Banna idealized death.

"To a nation that perfects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, God gives proud life in this world and eternal grace in the life to come" and "We are not afraid of death, we desire it... Let us die in redemption for Muslims," Al-Banna once wrote.

The Muslim Brotherhood also "used and disseminated a quotation from the Koran that Jews are to be considered 'the worst enemy of the believers.' In addition, they evoked old stories of the early history of Islam by pointing to the example set by Mohammed who, as legend has it, succeeded not only in expelling two Jewish tribes from Medina during the 7th century, but killed the entire male population of the third tribe and sold all the women and children into slavery." [5]

Spreading their hate-filled message toward Jews, the Muslim Brotherhood found a soul-mate in Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem who held the highest political and religious posts in Palestine from 1921 until after World War II.

Loftus and other authors note that the Muslim Brotherhood and Mufti had common goals with the new Nazi doctrines: a hatred for Western culture, democracy and Jews.

The Mufti with the Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi ideology was a dangerous cocktail.

"As early as 1929, a Mufti-led pogrom killed 133 autochthonous Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron. Shortly thereafter, the Mufti declared the relentless fight against the Jews as the most important responsibility of all believers. Those who dared to resist his anti-Jewish orders were publicly denounced and publicly threatened in the mosques during Friday prayers." [6]

"In a letter to Adolf Hitler, the Mufti emphasized his unflagging and successful efforts to use the "the Palestine question'' in order 'to coalesce all Arab countries in a common hatred against the British and the Jews.'" [7]

Starting in 1933, the Mufti repeatedly offered to serve the German Nazi government. In the beginning, however, the Mufti's fight against Jews was only supported in terms of ideology. That soon, however, changed.

The Palestine's 1936 "Arab Revolt" was in a large part incited by the Mufti, with cries of "Down with the Jews!" and "Jews get out of Egypt and Palestine!"

It was not until 1937 that the Mufti's "Holy War" began to receive substantial financial support and weapons from Nazi Germany, which allowed Hitler's Islamist agents both in Palestine and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to spread their anti-Jewish hatred.

Klaus Gensicke writes in his dissertation on the Mufti's collaboration with the Nazis: "The Mufti himself admitted that it was entirely due to the money contributed by the Germans that allowed him at that time to carry out the uprising in Palestine."

"The Mufti's so-called "Arab Revolt" took place against the background of the swastika: Arab leaflets and signs on walls were prominently marked with this Nazi symbol; the youth organization of the Mufti's political party paraded as "Nazi-scouts," and Arab children greeted each other with the Nazi salute. Those who had to pass through the rebellious quarters of Palestine attached a flag bearing the swastika to their vehicles so as to insure protection against assaults by the Mufti's volunteers." [8]

By 1945 the Nazi Islamist agents were openly spreading terror. "The core of anti-Semitism had thus begun to shift from Germany to the Arab world. On the anniversary of the Balfour-declaration, demonstrators rampaged the Jewish quarters of Cairo. They plundered houses and shops, attacked non-Muslims, devastated the synagogues and then set them on fire. Six people were killed, several hundred more were injured." [9]

Al-Husseini, wrote in his post-WWII memoirs, "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'" [10]

According to an article by David Storobin in Front Page magazine, "Controlling a spectacular sum of money and the right to appoint Palestinian Islamic preachers, al-Husseini built a 'political machine' that brought the religious and political establishment under his domination. Through them, he was able to arouse religious fanaticism against Jews and the West. His preachers urged their flock to 'go out and murder the Jewish infidel in the name of the holy Koran,' constantly declaring that 'he who kills a Jew is assured of a place in the next world.'" [11]

Dr. Matthias Küntzel quotes Klaus Gensicke who claims that "The Mufti himself admitted that it was entirely due to the money contributed by the Germans that allowed him at that time to carry out the uprising in Palestine." [12]

Storobin notes that al-Husseini was, "officially received by Adolf Hitler on November 28, 1941, who agreed to establish a bureau for al-Husseini which was used to spread propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany, organize spy rings in Europe and the Middle East, and most importantly, establish Muslim Nazi SS divisions and Wehrmacht units in Bosnia, the Balkans, North Africa and Nazi-occupied parts of the Soviet Union. After the meeting, the Mufti was also named SS Gruppenfuehrer by Heinrich Himmler and referred to as the "Fuhrer of the Arab World" by Adolf Hitler himself."

"The largest Muslim Nazi SS unit was the 13th division known as "Hanjar." Husseini also organized smaller, less efficient units, including the 21st Waffen SS division known Skanderbeg (made up predominantly of Croatians) and the 23rd Waffen SS division known as Kama and made up mostly of Albanian Muslims. Thus, the Hitler's Mufti organized or helped to organize three out of 27 Waffen SS divisions formed before 1945." [13]

Loftus too claims that the Mufti "went to Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the Handzar Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler's new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arabian Peninsula and, from there, on to Africa — grand dreams." [14]

According to Küntzel, "The powerful collaboration of the Muslim Brothers with the Mufti and the pogroms against Jews a few months after the world learned about Auschwitz clearly showed that the Brotherhood either ignored or even justified Hitler's extermination of European Jews."

Küntzel telling writes that "The consequences of this attitude, however, continue to be far-reaching and characterize the Arabic-Jewish conflict to this day." [15] Küntzel notes that this group of Islamists in 1947 explained away the international support of the creation of Israel and the murder of six million European Jews by Nazi Germany, by reverting to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

In this vein, the Muslim Brotherhood considered the UN-decision of 1947 to partition Palestine to be an "international plot carried out by the Americans, the Russians and the British, under the influence of Zionism," [16] Küntzel noted. [17]

Not surprisingly, given their role in WWII, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for War Crimes. However, instead of being brought to justice the Arab Nazis were snapped up by foreign spy agencies.

Specifically, John Loftus claims that, almost the entire network was taken in by the British Secret Service. "Then a horrible thing happened. Instead of prosecuting the Nazis — the Muslim Brotherhood — the British Government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years trained them on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood."

"Britain was not alone. The French Intelligence Service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi it could, but failed to quash the State of Israel," according to Loftus. [18]

Despite being now on side of the Allies, the Brotherhood didn't sit still — nor did their ideology get any tamer.

One of the main voices behind the Muslim Brotherhood was Sayed Qutb. With time, Qutb would eventually become the organization's ambassador in the 1950s in Syria and Jordon, as well as being the editor of the Brotherhood's official publication. While in prison following an assassination attempt on Egypt's Nasser, Qutb wrote his treatise, Milestones, that advocated overthrowing Arab governments that refused to be run by anything other than the law of Islamic Shariah.

According to a BBC article, "For Qutb, all non-Muslims were infidels — even the so-called 'people of the book,' the Christians and Jews — and he predicted an eventual clash of civilisations between Islam and the west." [19]

"Having played a large role in Nasser's power grab, the Muslim Brotherhood, after the 1949 assassination of Hassan al-Banna by government agents under new leadership and (since 1951) under the radical ideological guidance of Sayyid Qutb, demanded its due — imposition of Sharia (Islamic religious) law. When Nasser demurred, he became a Brotherhood assassination target, but with CIA and the German mercenaries' help he prevailed. In February 1954, the Brotherhood was banned. An October 1954 assassination attempt failed. Four thousand brothers were arrested, six were executed, and thousands fled to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon," notes Erikson. [20]

When Nasser cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood in 1955 they initially moved headquarters to London and Geneva. Incidentally, the head of the Geneva offices was Said Ramadan, the son-in-law of al-Banna. In Geneva, Ramadan launched the Institute for Islamic Studies — to become the civilized face of the Muslim Brotherhood, even having the distinction of dining with US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 at the White House. [21]

That fleeing of Muslim Brotherhood members — people who had been radicalized by Qutb, the Mufti and Nazi ideology — and the consequent spreading of their message, is something that the world is still living with.

According to that same BBC article, "Qutb and (Pakistan's Syed Abul Ala Maududi) inspired a whole generation of Islamists, including Ayatollah Khomeini, who developed a Persian version of their works in the 1970s.

Author and journalist Robert Dreyfuss also claims that the groundwork for the Ayatollah Khomeini was done by an Iranian by the name of Ali Shariat who was influenced by the Brotherhood.

As a sidenote, with respect to Hezbollah, it is widely reported that the organization got its beginnings in Iran. That is an oversimplification.

"The origins of Shi'i Islamism in Lebanon go back not to Iran, as is commonly thought, but to Iraq in the 1960s where a Shi'i religio-political revival took place in the "circles of learning" (hawzat al-'ilmiya) in Najaf, led by the charismatic Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr," according to an article in the Middle East Review of International Affairs — Sept. 1997.

"Hezbollah represented a militant, nonsecular alternative to the Nasserite Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other groups that took their bearing from Pan-Arabism rather than Islam. Hezbollah split the Shiite community in Lebanon — which was against Sunnis and Christians — but most of all, engaged the Israelis. It made a powerful claim that the Palestinian movement had no future while it remained fundamentally secular and while its religious alternatives derived from the conservative Arab monarchies." [22]

Iran's importance only became more noted upon the death of Sadr, and the success of the Iranian Revolution led by Khomeini. By 1984, Iran was financing around 90 percent of Hezbollah's social works in Lebanon.

As it stands now, Hezbollah "subscribes to Khomeini's theory that a religious jurist (wilayat al-faqih) should hold ultimate political power. The authority of this jurist, both spiritual and political, may not be challenged; he must be obeyed. Hezbullah sees itself fulfilling the messianic role of turning Lebanon into a province of Islam. In its "open letter" of February 1985, Hizbullah declared that Muslims must "abide by the orders of the sole wise and just command represented by the supreme jurisconsult, who is presently incarnate in the imam_Ayatollah Khomeini. It also called for a battle with vice, meaning foremost the United States, and for the destruction of Israel to make way for Palestine," according to that same Middle East Review of International Affairs article.

Eventually, says Loftus the control of the Muslim Brotherhood passed to the United States and the CIA — or its earlier form — as a counterweight for Arab Communists.

But this still doesn't explain how we get the current form of Islam Fascists. For that one needs to remember that after Nasser expelled the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt many of them went to Saudi Arabia.

According to Loftus, "during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like (Dr Abdullah) Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism."

"Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not. They think that Islam — the Saudi version of Islam — is typical, but it's not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in Saudi Arabia — that's how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence." [23]

Interestingly, according to a Wikipedia entry on Wahhabism, Al-Banna, is said to have been influenced by the Wahhabis. "The Muslim Brotherhood also claimed to be purifying and restoring original Islam. When the Muslim Brotherhood was banned in various Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia gave refuge to Brotherhood exiles. This seems to have set the stage for a mingling of Brotherhood and Wahhabi thought under the aegis of the term Salafism. Rebels against the Saudi state found justification in the thought of Sayyed Qutb, a member of the Brotherhood who spent years in Egyptian jails. Some Wahhabis, or Salafis, rejected what they call Qutbism, as a deviation from true Salafism. Thus there is now a considerable spectrum of religious opinion within Saudi Wahhabism/Salafism, to a great extent divided on the question of whether the Saudi state is to be supported, endured patiently, or violently opposed. The modern day Salafis, deny that Hassan al-Banna or Sayid Qutb were followers of the Salaf, since they upheld the view that it is allowed to overthrow the Muslim leader, and to make "Takfeer" (the act of placing a Muslim out of the fold of Islam, making him a disbeliever) on him based on Major Sins. [24]

To this last point, Trevor Stanley also writes that today there are "a profusion of self-proclaimed Salafi groups," where each accuses "the others of deviating from 'true' Salafism."

Stanley notes that "Since the 1970s, the Saudis have wisely stopped funding those Salafis that excommunicate nominally Muslim governments (or at least the Saudi government), condemning al-Qaeda as 'the deviant sect.' The pro-Saudis correctly trace al-Qaeda's ideological roots to Qutb and al-Banna. Less accurately, they accuse these groups of insidiously 'entering' Salafism. In fact, Salafism was imported into Saudi Arabia in its Ikhwani and Qutbist forms. This does not mean that the pro-Saudi Salafis are necessarily benign — for example, Abu Mu'aadh as-Salafee's main criticism of Qutb and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna is that they claim Islam teaches tolerance of Jews." [25]

Meanwhile, non-Muslims and mainstream Muslims alike use the 'Wahhabi-Salafi' label to denigrate Salafis and even completely unrelated groups such as the Taliban, adds Stanley.

It was in the Saudi Arabian madrassas, or schools, of Abdullah Azzam that Nazi Fascism with religious extremism were married.

And in one of those madrassas, the student Osama bin Laden studied.

"Should it further surprise us that Osama bin Laden accuses 'the Jews" of "holding America and the West hostage' given the fact, that the founder of Hamas, the Palestinian Abdullah Azzam, was at the same time the most important teacher and patron of al Qaida's leader?" asks Dr. Matthias Küntzel [26]

"The origins of Bin Laden's concept of jihad can be traced back to two early 20th century figures, who started powerful Islamic revivalist movements in response to colonialism and its aftermath," writes Fiona Symon, a Middle East analyst. "Pakistan and Egypt — both Muslim countries with a strong intellectual tradition — produced the movements and ideology that would transform the concept of jihad in the modern world."

"They blamed the western idea of the separation of religion and politics for the decline of Muslim societies ... This, they believed, could only be corrected through a return to Islam in its traditional form, in which society was governed by a strict code of Islamic law," Symon writes, adding: "Al-Banna and Maudoudi breathed new life into the concept of jihad as a holy war to end the foreign occupation of Muslim lands." [27]

Loftus — and many other authors — says that with the Russian invastion of Afghanistan in 1979, "the CIA decided to take the Arab Nazis out of cold storage."

"So we told the Saudis that we would fund them if they would bring all of the Arab Nazis together and ship them off to Afghanistan to fight the Russians," according to Loftus. "We had to rename them. We couldn't call them the Muslim Brotherhood because that was too sensitive a name. Its Nazi past was too known. So we called them Maktab al-Khadamat al-Mujahidin, the MAK." [28]

One of those people shipped off to Afghanistan, after being indoctrinated in Azzam's madrassas, was Osama bin Laden — and who in turn melded the ideas of Hassan al-Al-Banna's Muslim Brotherhood with those of Pakistan's Syed Abul Ala Maududi's Jamaat Islami after being exposed to it while fighting in Afghanistan.

Their terror has now extended to the entire world.

While the vast majority of believers in Islam certainly cannot be labeled as Islam Fascists, it remains that there is a group within the Muslim ranks that does have its roots based in National Socialism and Fascist ideologies. In an effort to brand Bush as politically incorrect, anti-Bush politicians and bloggers who are ignorant of history have become unwitting apologists for Islamo-Fascism, a movement within Islam that many Muslims claim is heretical.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:


[1] Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots



[2] Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 3)



[3] Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 1)



[4] The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa'ida



[5] Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots



[6] Ibid.



[7] Ibid.



[8] Der Mufti von Jerusalem Amin el-Husseini, und die Nationalsozialisten, Frankfurt/M. 1988, S. 234



[9] Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots



[10] Mohammad Amin al-Husayni Wikipedia



[11] Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII



[12] Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots



[13] Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII



[14] The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa'ida



[15] Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots



[16] Quoted from: Abd Al-Fattah Muhammad El-Awaisi, "The Muslim Brothers and the Palestine Question 1928-1947," London 1998, p. 195.



[17] Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots



[18] The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa'ida



[19] Analysis: The roots of jihad



[21] America's Devil's Game with Extremist Islam



[22] A closer look at Hezbollah's motives



[23] The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa'ida



[24] Wahhabism



[25] Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism



[26] Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots



[27] Analysis: The roots of jihad



[28] The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa'ida



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Duncan is a journalist and ombudsman for foreign press in Spain. He is an Executive Board Member and Vice-President for the Organización de Periodismo y Comunicación Ibero-Americana, and Vice-President of the energy and telecommunications association, APSCE. He is News Editor for Spero News, and Editor-In-Chief of EnerPub and Santificarnos.

He has also been published in World Catholic News, National Catholic Register, Renew America, Lifesite.net, as well as Capital Hill Coffee House, Common Conservative, The Conservative Voice, Enter Stage Right, News By Us, Conservative Crusader, World Net Daily, Mens News Daily and others. Robert was the bureau chief for an international news agency in Madrid for many years, and was published regularly in Dow Jones Newswires, with articles appearing in The Wall Street Journal.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Baller1

Ah here we go again, the name calling. I am nowhere close to be an Ahmed you airhead. And again you have proven my point, all you do is post articles which are painting a picture that all muslims are bad people. Want me to start doing it the other way, painting that picture about Israel? Would be a good start since it would show that the fucking jews down there ain't better whatsofuckingever. I don't need you to tell me history from 9/11, I almost was on one of those planes. But if it makes you feel better to call people names, go for it. Shows again your lack of understanding.

The Peculiar Alliance
Islamists and neo-Nazis find common ground by hating the Jews.
by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross









THERE HAVE BEEN rumblings of late about the developing alliance between Islamic radicals and neo-Nazis. In late May, Israeli president Moshe Katzav gave a speech before the German parliament in which he warned, "Let's not be surprised if terror organizations use neo-Nazis for carrying out terror attacks." And on August 5, WorldNetDaily reported, "Neo-Nazi skinheads are working with radical Islamists in a growing unholy alliance that has European law enforcement officials concerned about a new front in the war on terrorism."

Such an alliance seems unlikely on its face; after all, neo-Nazis view most Muslims as racially inferior, while Islamic extremists believe that neo-Nazis are just another flavor of infidel. However, a closer examination reveals that many white-supremacist groups have expressed solidarity with Islamic terrorists recently, and in turn some white supremacists and far-right Holocaust deniers have found newfound supporters among the Islamists.


THE MOST PROMINENT recent example of white supremacists' vocal support for Islamic terrorism came from August Kreis, the new head of Aryan Nations. In an interview with CNN earlier this year, Kreis said of al Qaeda, "You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah." Going a step further, Kreis told CNN that he had a message for Osama bin Laden: "The message is, the cells are out here and they are already in place. They
might not be cells of Islamic people, but they are here and they are ready to fight."

The Aryan Nations website reflects Kreis's desire to instill a "jihadic feeling" in his followers. For example, it features an article purporting to show that the idea of jihad can be found not only in Islam but also in the Bible. The article concludes with a battle cry: "All the sons of Abraham, all descendants of his three wives, Sarah, Hagar and Ketourah, the parties of the Islamic and Aryan World, all need to understand their duty to enact Holy Jihad, we need to live this Jihad; total war, death to our enemy, the insidious, poisonous and rabid satanic jEw." [sic]

Aryan Nations also boasts a quote on its main page further reflecting its support for radical Muslims. Attributed to Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger, the quote states that "a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East." The main page also touches on other issues of importance to Muslim radicals. It demands immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Middle East, and under the headline "Ariel Sharon: your typical domineering jew," the website features a picture of the Israeli prime minister with fire coming out of his mouth that ends in a mushroom cloud. Underneath, the website proclaims the photograph to be Sharon's "plan for Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc .
BEYOND THE ARYAN NATIONS, a surprising number of other white-supremacist websites openly sympathize with Islamic terrorists. The National Alliance, the country's largest neo-Nazi organization, published a 2002 essay by its founder, the late William Pierce, which claimed that the September 11 attacks were a salutary event. Pierce wrote that through the attacks, bin Laden "forced the whole subject of U.S. policy in the Middle East into the open: the subject of American interests versus Jewish interests, of Jewish media control and its influence on governmental policy." Because bin Laden broke the "taboo" about questioning Jewish interests, Pierce claimed, "[i]n the long run that may more than compensate for the 3,000 American lives that were lost."

Neo-Nazi James Wickstrom has a webpage that includes a number of featured articles, the headlines of which provide a good indication of where he stands on the Islamist question. These include "Military Personnel Wounded in Iraq & Afghanistan For The JEW Neo-cons," "U.S. Slaughters People At Prayer At Baghdad Mosque," "U.S. Teachers Targeted By jews If They Teach Contrary to Israeli," and "The President and his jewish handlers LIED about 9/11!"

And the neo-Nazi ADLUSA website (a site designed to oppose the Anti-Defamation League) brands the Anti-Defamation League's call for Hezbollah TV to be designated a foreign terrorist organization as part of a campaign "of smear, corruption, and harassment," and promotes the conspiracy theory that Jewish hands were behind the 7/7 and 9/11 terrorist attacks. In case this doesn't make their position
perfectly clear, the ADLUSA features a direct appeal to Muslims: "Moslems, lay down your guns and join our mission to remove Jews from positions of power from which they persecute one people after another; killing Americans misled by Jews only incites endless wars."

This vocal neo-Nazi support for al Qaeda reaches back to shortly after 9/11. The Jewish newspaper Forward reported in November 2001 that the World Church of the Creator displayed a bin Laden quote on its website warning Americans that they needed to tend to their own interests and not those of the Jews.

Around the same time, the website for Florida-based Aryan Action displayed the message: "Support Taliban, Smash ZOG." (ZOG stands for Zionist Occupation Government, a term rooted in the idea that the Jews control world affairs.) In a perverse twist on President Bush's declaration that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," Aryan Action's website voiced its unequivocal support for al Qaeda: "Either you're fighting with the jews against al Qaeda, or you support al Qaeda fighting against the jews."


THUS FAR, THERE has been no proof of neo-Nazi cooperation with Muslim terrorist groups in planning attacks. Despite the lack of proof of operational links, several figures with feet in both movements have actively tried to bring them closer. One such individual is Ahmed Huber, a 77-year-old Swiss convert to Islam whose study is adorned with twin pictures of Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.

Huber told the Washington Post that his goal is to build bridges between radical Muslims and the "New Right." He said that a prevalent view on the New Right is that "what happened on the 11th of September, if it is the Muslims who did it, it is not an act of terrorism but an act of counterterrorism." Certain far-right figures, such as German National Democratic Party theorist Horst Mahler, seem amenable to Huber's ideas. Mahler has spoken of the "sense of sympathy" and "common ground" that far-right European groups share with Islamists, and has admitted to "contacts with political groups, in particular in the Arab world, also with Palestinians."

The neo-Nazis' newfound love for Islamists is by no means unrequited. Some radical Islamic groups have--perhaps in an effort to undercut one of the justifications for the state of Israel--forged intellectual ties with right-wing Holocaust deniers.

At the forefront of contemporary Holocaust denial is the California-based Institute for Historical Review (IHR), which is dedicated to the idea that the Holocaust is a historical fiction. The IHR has been so heartened by the support it's received in the Islamic world that investigative journalist Martin A. Lee noted its journal's frenetic description of a "white-hot trend: the rapid growth of Holocaust revisionism, fueled by increasing cooperation between Muslims and Western revisionists, across the Islamic world."

A number of Middle Eastern newspapers, in countries such as Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, have published articles endorsing the Holocaust deniers' thesis. Beyond that, neo-Nazi writers who lack legitimacy in the West have increasingly found a platform in the Arab world. For example, Lee further reported that an article by David Duke was featured on the front page of the Oman Times.

Nor is the Islamic promotion of neo-Nazis confined to the Middle East. Lee reports that Muslims, a New York-based weekly newspaper, has published opinion pieces by both David Duke and William Pierce.

Even some Islamic groups with more mainstream legitimacy have promoted far-right figures as featured speakers. One such speaker is William W. Baker, author of the anti-Israel screed Theft of a Nation and former president of the neo-Nazi Populist Party. (While Baker claims that he did not know at the time that the Populist Party was racist, his own words undercut these denials. The Orange County Weekly reports that, in a speech Baker delivered around the time that he headed the Populist Party, he referred to Jerry Falwell as "Jerry Jewry" and commented that he hated traveling to New York City "'cause the first people I meet when I get off the plane are pushy, belligerent American Jews.")

Baker's current avocation is promoting "religious tolerance" by emphasizing the commonalities between Christianity and Islam. In this capacity, Baker has frequently spoken at events hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and various chapters of the Muslim Students' Association; he was also the featured speaker at the Assadiq Islamic Educational Foundation in Boca Raton earlier this year.


THERE ARE OBSTACLES to further development of the relationship between Islamists and neo-Nazis. In Europe, ethnic Muslims are frequent targets of neo-Nazi violence, and not all neo-Nazis share the sympathy for Palestinians expressed by the likes of William Baker. As one white supremacist website puts it, "I hate Jews but that doesn't mean I automatically love the Jews' victims." And countless Muslims recoil from Nazi ideology.

Nonetheless, this developing alliance is not without historical precedent. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, famously supported Adolf Hitler during World War II, broadcasting radio propaganda on Germany's behalf and even forming Bosnian Muslim divisions of the Waffen SS. As with al-Husayni and Hitler, the current Islamist/neo-Nazi love affair is rooted in the notion that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend": Both groups are united in their hatred of the Jews, and of the United States.

Moving forward, this peculiar alliance presents the risk that neo-Nazis may collaborate with Islamist terrorist groups on attacks. But a second danger is that the far right's newfound legitimacy in the Arab world may allow neo-Nazi figures to claw their way out from the lunatic fringe to which they're currently relegated.


Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is a counterterrorism consultant and attorney. Kamal Ghali provided research assistance for this article.