Job Discussion Forums

[Truth Hurts]

Dear John

I always suspected you were a bright spark.

Well, let's put it like this: the intepretation you now seem to be distancing yourself from is one which is taken extremely seriously these days not least by right wing evangelicals of the likes of Boykin and co.

I expect your post will get nods of approval from the usual Saudi bashers and the 'Let's nuke Mecca' crowd.

Keep up the good work!

TH

[johnslat]

Dear Truth Hurts,
If "truth" does indeed "hurt", you're surely living a painless existence.
How you manage to devise your "interpretations" of my postings is completely beyond my ken. Are you sure you're actually reading them? Or does everything pass through the filter of your preconceived, fixed and unalterable notions? Also, drop the pretentious patronization, will you? Ignorance is bad enough, but a smug ignorance is doubly ridiculous.
Regards,
John

[Truth Hurts]

Ouch!



TH

[johnslat]

Dear Truth Hurts,
OK - sorry. Guess I'm a bit tetchy today, coming down with something - a cold or the flu. I always ought to count to at least 20 before replying because I (almost) always regret it when I give in to irritation. I've just spent 2 months teaching classes on Saudi Arabia and on Islam, trying to correct what I see as some erroneous notions many people in the States have these days about both. I think I was at least partially successful in getting across the fact that the vast majority of Saudis and of Muslims in general are NOT our "enemies"; they are very much like us in that they want from life what most of us do: a good job, a nice place to live, a decent education for the kids, etc. They don't want "war with the West". And perhaps I showed them - to some degree - just how diverse and fragmented Islam really is. So, when you posted:

"I expect your post will get nods of approval from the usual Saudi bashers and the 'Let's nuke Mecca' crowd."

I was, perhaps understandably, more than slighty irked.

Regards,
John

[Truth Hurts]

Dear John

No worries albeit I hope you can appreciate how your earlier comments could easily be misconstrued by a careless reader:

"Makkah certainly seems to be a mecca for terrorists these days, doesn't it?"
[John Slat, Thu Nov 06, 2003 5:25 pm]

Good luck with your classes!

TH

[MacMahon]

In all fairness to the aforementioned post by John, if one were to read on then I think the path leads to the point. Not so for jist readers however.

The article also reads: "A strike on Mecca could be seen as a strike on the regime"

I'd add that a strike taking place anywhere on Saudi soil is a clear strike at the ankles of Rulership. It serves a number of aims for Ibn Anarchy and his cohorts, causing major problems internally and externally on many levels for the Gov. here. In addition to J.Slat's post one point rarely mentioned is that those of this extreme persuasion are more than prepared to shed the blood of Muslims, both rulers and the ruled, look to Algeria?!?

There is an historical term in Arabic that I found really shed light on a number of questions concerning the motives and goals of these partisans. The term for them is Al-Khawarij. The verb being Kharooj which means to go against something. From this comes exit being Mukhraj.

In brief, the Khawarij were the first band of people to revolt against rulership by means of violence. Why? Because they may have seen something in the ruler they deemed sacrilegious. They also turned their focus toward everyday people expelling them from the religion for major or minor sins such as drinking alcohol. In short the Sword is mightier than the pen in their estimation. Is this chosen methodology of theirs correct and sanctioned by Islam? No. But when houses are being torn down and bombed in the West Bank and the only weapons of mass destruction in the Mid. East are in Israel general people lose sight and get lost in the mires of emotion and in steps an ill character to champion the cause of "revolution" by any means, Islamic Unislamic whatever.

I read an exposition on this group that was a thorough refutation showing the baseless position of these young imbalanced zealots. They are lost in the sands and their only trump card to play to the masses is when
Mr. Bush opens his mouth and feeds their machine. Then when Bin Ladin opens his mouth he feeds Bin Bush's machine. The demagogues' tea party, all are invited including the people of "Mekka" it seems now?

[johnslat]

Dear MacMahon,
Thanks for your post. An interesting point about Al-Khawarij ( circa 650 -720 CE ): They resembled the Wahhabis - or as they prefer to call themselves, "muwahhidun", a term that perhaps best translated into English as, oddly enough, "unitarians" - in that they were "Puritans" and branded every Moslem who didn't believe exactly as they did as heretics. But, strangely enough, unlike the Wahhabis, they were very tolerant of non-Moslems. Osama and his ilk are, I think, first and foremost after the present rulers of the Islamic states, which they regard as "jahiliyya", impure and corrupt, in effect NOT Islamic at all. In most religions, heretics are even more to be despised than infidels. This ties in, I'd say, with the terrorists frequent ( there have been at least half a dozen reported incidents in the past year there ) use of Makkah as a "base" for their cells. The way I see it, Osama is an "idealist"; the neo-cons in Washington are "idealists". And perhaps the most dangerous sort of human being this world can produce is a "true believer idealist", for to them the end always justifies the means.
Regards,
John

[ohman]

Another helicopter brought down. I suppose the probes are coming to an end and now we can expect more coordinated actions and higher body counts.

[johnslat]

Dear ohman,
Another helicopter down - my, that has a familiar ring to it. And in today's NY Times, more evidence that Dubya and Co. were h e l l-bent on war, no matter what.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/opinion/07FRI1.html?th

Regards,
John