hi
>>no balls=women=contemptible cowards is a pretty dismal equation.
also pretty dismal logic :-)
(please accept this as a joke)
revised equations:
man with no balls <> woman
man with no balls = man with no balls = contemptible coward
which is still pretty dismal when you consider that there are otherwise perfectly
normal men who may have had their dangly
bits removed for perfectly valid reasons - cancer, accidents, tight underwear, etc.
ron
but i disagree that being a woman under the taliban is
still better than being a dead woman. bondage can be worse than death.
wallyK
-----Original Message-----
From: JMDL Digest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 October 2001 09:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JMDL Digest V2001 #462
JMDL Digest Friday, October 5 2001 Volume 2001 : Number 462
The Official Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be
found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news,
a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more.
The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains
interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more.
==========
TOPICS and authors in this Digest:
--------
Re: shall we dance? NJC ["Dolphie Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC [Yael Harlap <yharlap@yahoo.]
RE: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC ["jlamadoo, home account]
Re: brush with Fabio and Tina Louise (NJC) [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
RE: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC [Yael Harlap <yharlap@ya]
Subject: Re: Brushes With Greatness(njc) ["Kate Bennett" <kate@katebennet]
Tina Louise (NJC) ["Wally Kairuz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: brush with Fabio and Tina Louise (NJC) ["Kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Re: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC ["Kakki" <KakkiB@worldne]
RE: hello! ["patrick leader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
RE: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC ["Wally Kairuz" <wallyka]
Wahabism - NJC ["Marian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:58:08 -0500
From: "Dolphie Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: shall we dance? NJC
does anyone remember the tune U + Me by the undisputed truth. now that was
the ultimate dance tune. hot, sweaty, for the longest time . out on the
floor, under the lights. lost in the time, the music, wow.
mack
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruyere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Holliston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: shall we dance? NJC
> How about some Donna Summers tunes? Bad Girls (toot toot hey beep beep)
or
> Last Dance?
> Almost any Motown tune. Jr. Walkers Shotgun, etc.
> Maybe Evian can help here with some suggestions for tunes from the
> 80's. You gotta admit .... there was some good dance music from the 80's.
>
> Heather
>
> At 03:33 AM 10/2/01 -0700, Robert Holliston wrote:
> >Folks,
> >Ashara has suggested a wonderful new venue for Jonifest 2002. There are
so
> >many spaces and so much time available that I couldn't help but wonder:
> >could we take up some of that space and spend some of that time dancing?
> >I guess this is a suggestion for a thread: what would it take to get
y'all
> >off your butts and onto the dance floor?
> >Here are some ideas.
> >
> >JAMES BROWN: Night Train; Papa's Got a Brand New Bag
> >CLYDE McPHATTER and the DRIFTERS: Ruby Baby
> >THE BEACH BOYS: I Get Around
> >"BIG" JOE TURNER: Shake, Rattle, and Roll; Corrina, Corrina
> >DORIS TROY: Just One Look
> >SMOKEY ROBINSON and the MIRACLES: I Second That Emotion
> >THE SUPREMES: Where Did Our Love Go?
> >RAY CHARLES: Lonely Avenue (for slow dancing......;-)
> >
> >Any other ideas? We could have ourselves some serious fun....
> >
> >Roberto
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:25:22 -0400
From: Yael Harlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC
My friend the Lama quipped, about Osama having sex reassignment surgery:
>I think he's already half way there, Mags. I mean, anyone who goes out of
>his way to kill civilians already has no balls.
Now, not to attack personally, I *promise* - I know this was not intended
as anything but a quip criticizing Osama... but it really is the kind of
statement that our sexist society socializes us into, unjustly.
To associate "having no balls" (= being feminine, being female, being a
woman) with all things negative - and killing civilians is pretty much as
negative as it gets! - well, that is evidence of a societal problem of
devaluing all things female.
I just wanted to say this to share my thoughts with everyone: that these
sorts of associations are unacceptable. And I am sure all sorts of
unacceptable associations pass by me every day - I am sure I MAKE them
despite my best intentions - and I hope that when they do other people keep
pointing them out to me so I can keep learning... And in this spirit I
point this out.
hugs and respect to all,
Yael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 01:36:08 -0400
From: "jlamadoo, home account" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC
Yes, a quip it was. As you know, I wasn't equating women with terrorism. I
guess I agree about the inappropriate stereotype.
Can we also agree that "cyber-bully" is a better moniker than
"cyber-rapist", especially for one of our own JMDLers?
Lama
p.s. Yael, don't you think, by extension that the original solution is also
insulting to women, implying as it does that living as a woman under the
Taliban is a worse fate than execution or living as a man in prison? What's
good for the gander is good for the goose, right?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yael Harlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> My friend the Lama quipped, about Osama having sex reassignment surgery:
> >I think he's already half way there, Mags. I mean, anyone who
> > goes out of his way to kill civilians already has no balls.
> Now, not to attack personally, I *promise* - I know this was not intended
> as anything but a quip criticizing Osama... but it really is the kind of
> statement that our sexist society socializes us into, unjustly.
>
> To associate "having no balls" (= being feminine, being female, being a
> woman) with all things negative - and killing civilians is pretty much as
> negative as it gets! - well, that is evidence of a societal problem of
> devaluing all things female.
>
> I just wanted to say this to share my thoughts with everyone: that these
> sorts of associations are unacceptable. And I am sure all sorts of
> unacceptable associations pass by me every day - I am sure I MAKE them
> despite my best intentions - and I hope that when they do other
> people keep
> pointing them out to me so I can keep learning... And in this spirit I
> point this out.
>
> hugs and respect to all,
> Yael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 02:10:33 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: brush with Fabio and Tina Louise (NJC)
In a message dated 10/4/01 11:53:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Fabio!!! hee hee >>
Damn that Fabio! Last time I was in LA -- four years ago this coming January
- -- I was there for a month while various coworkers came and went after a
spending a few days working on the project we were there to do.
Everyone else in my group saw major celebs left and right, but I just kept
seeing Fabio over and over again because he owned a restaurant that was right
across Sunset Strip from my hotel (The Argyle). I think Fabio's restaurant is
a Cajun place, go figure.
Finally, on my last day there, after having my hair dyed platinum blond the
day before, I was checking out of the hotel when Lawrence Fishburn, who had a
few days earlier watched the Super Bowl in the hotel bar with three of my
coworkers, walked through the lobby and did a major double take when HE saw
ME with my brand new bright blond hair contrasting with my bright pink tavern
tan! Robert, one of the people I was with, caught Fishburn's double take and
immediately started laughing uncontrollably.
And although I am impressed that Wally met Maria Callas, *I* met Tina Louise
(Yes, THAT Tina Louise from Gilligan's Island) when I appeared in a
never-released film called The Pool with her. (I was an extra, she was the
star.) There was one scene in the movie, *my* scene, that called for Miss
Louise to angrily fly past the group I was in after an argument with her
lover. We were all in black tie around a beautiful pool at a mansion in
Massachusetts, and the group I was in was supposed to be chatting very
quietly in the background while Miss Louise stormed past. After about the
twentieth take, at about four o'clock in the morning, my group had run out of
things to murmur in the background, so our conversation went something like
this:
WILL: Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale.
ROSA: A tale of a fateful trip?
BOB: That started from this tropic port?
CYNTHIA: Aboard this tiny ship?
But at the end of the day, Fabio and TIna Louise don't add up to Joni.
Congratulations, Stephen. I guess the ruby slippers brought you luck.
--Bob
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 14:12:07 -0400
From: Yael Harlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC
Hi all-
Just to clarify-
>Yes, a quip it was. As you know, I wasn't equating women with terrorism. I
>guess I agree about the inappropriate stereotype.
I don't think that it was women being equated with terrorism, as much as
the idea that to do something cowardly, whatever it is, is associated with
being female. The implication is that it is not "manly" or man-like - and
therefore is female-like - to do something cowardly (no matter what it is).
>Can we also agree that "cyber-bully" is a better moniker than
>"cyber-rapist", especially for one of our own JMDLers?
I totally agree. I am bothered by the term "cyber-racist" here for two
reasons. One is because of the implications of it for actual rape - not
because the emails don't make one feel violated - they can, and words can
be abusive - but because when we throw the word around so much it dilutes
its meaning in the real world. I can imagine a variety of arguments here,
such as "if the words are violating and abusive then it *is* equivalent to
the violation of rape." Well, I can't pretend to know how those exchanges
with Marcel felt to others who experienced them. I had some nasty exchanges
with him myself during the election, which really upset me at the time, and
though I am fortunate in that I have never been raped, I can say that based
on my experiences in real life, a rape would be much more violating to me.
Again, I don't presume to know how Marcel's emails felt to anyone else who
was the recipient.
The other reason that the use of the word "cyber-rapist" bothered me so is
that it felt to me like cruelty. That, and some other comments made about
Marcel at that time, really bothered me. Ok, he did some creep-y things
(both creepy and behavior-of-a-creep), and I am not talking (in this
paragraph) about how I feel about his banishment. But I think that our
response to the conflict on the list, rather than simply choosing to
support the person making the complaint (or not, as the case may be), was a
real attack, fairly vicious, and that felt wrong to me. There were people
(Ashara comes to mind) who made a clear point in a way that didn't feel
abusive or hurtful. I totally respect that. But other things said felt
really wrong, and that still bothers me.
I don't know why I'm writing all this. I don't think anyone particularly
wants to go back into this topic. But I feel like I should have said it
then, so I said it now. :-)
>p.s. Yael, don't you think, by extension that the original solution is also
>insulting to women, implying as it does that living as a woman under the
>Taliban is a worse fate than execution or living as a man in prison? What's
>good for the gander is good for the goose, right?
Mmm, interesting point.
Yes, I didn't like the original "solution" either. It bugged me. Like
living as a woman would be the worst possible punishment. You are right
about that. It didn't quite inspire me to write in about it because women
in Afghanistan, from all I can tell, really do live pretty crappy lives.
Though I am sure that for a lot of them, that is simply their life, they
have good days and bad days, and there is more to those women than their
status as victims (as the documentaries, i'm sure, express, though i
haven't seen them). But anyhow, back to my point - because we all sort of
have this understanding that life as a woman in Afghanistan is crappy,
"punishing" bin Laden by subjecting him to the restricted lifestyle that
his allies helped create seems like a statement of "just desserts" (though
I don't hold with such thinking). More than a statement of "it is worse to
be a woman than to be dead." But that was just my first interpretation.
What bothered me more about the original joke email is something I am
having a harder time pinning down, but something about the joking nature of
referring to sexual reassignment surgery - as if undergoing that (becoming
a woman) makes one less of a person, somehow. I don't know. When I try to
explain it here it doesn't come off much different than what I stated in
the previous paragraph. But somehow, the fact that sexual assignment
surgery - which is rare and done in cases where people's external trappings
do not coincide with their deepest feelings about who they are - is so
lightly used as a "punishment"... Yeah. Maybe someone else can explain this
better. Anyone?
I hope no one minds these off topic, sensitive-issue ramblings.
OK I am going to bed. I am on digest, so if anyone responds to this and
doesn't cc me, my responses will be delayed.
hugs,
Yael
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:56:54 -0700
From: "Kate Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Subject: Re: Brushes With Greatness(njc)
Sharon, I really think you win hands down. How can anyone top Walt at
Disneyland?
********************************************
Kate Bennett
www.katebennett.com
sponsored by Polysonics www.polysonics.com
Discover the Indies at Taylor Guitars:
http://www.taylorguitars.com/artists/awp/indies/bennett.html
********************************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 03:21:50 -0300
From: "Wally Kairuz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Tina Louise (NJC)
who IS tina louise? did she sing any operas?
wallyK, who thinks maria callas beats walt disney, no matter what kate says.
- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: Viernes, 05 de Octubre de 2001 03:11 a.m.
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: brush with Fabio and Tina Louise (NJC)
And although I am impressed that Wally met Maria Callas, *I* met Tina Louise
(Yes, THAT Tina Louise from Gilligan's Island) when I appeared in a
never-released film called The Pool with her.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:28:01 -0700
From: "Kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: brush with Fabio and Tina Louise (NJC)
> But at the end of the day, Fabio and TIna Louise don't >add up to Joni.
Congratulations, Stephen. I guess the >ruby slippers brought you luck.
This is pretty funny and what a coinky-dink - a certain someone I know also
told me a personal encounter with Fabio story recently (and no, it wasn't
Joni!)
Kakki
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:43:17 -0700
From: "Kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC
Hi Yael,
>It didn't quite inspire me to write in about it because >women in
Afghanistan, from all I can tell, really do live >pretty crappy lives.
Though I am sure that for a lot of >them, that is simply their life, they
have good days and >bad days, and there is more to those women than their
> status as victims (as the documentaries, i'm sure, >express, though i
haven't seen them).
I hope you will read up on the situation of the women in Afghanistan - you
don't have to see the documentaries. It is horrific beyond all imagination
what they are, and have been, subjected to under the Taliban. Much
information has been out there for a number of years now - this didn't just
start as an issue yesterday to somehow discredit the Taliban. They have no
good days.
Kakki
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 02:44:50 -0400
From: "patrick leader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: hello!
congratulations alison, it does seem like you landed on your feet.
fantastic!
new york misses you though, at least i do. please come back and visit
soon...
patrick
>
>
>hi guys,
>i just wanted to send a quick note to let you all know
>that i have a new job! yeeee-hawwww!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 03:52:40 -0300
From: "Wally Kairuz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: ooh, low blow not to osama but to women! NJC
yes, i agree with yael: no balls=women=contemptible cowards is a pretty
dismal equation. but i disagree that being a woman under the taliban is
still better than being a dead woman. bondage can be worse than death.
wallyK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:03:20 +0100
From: "Marian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Wahabism - NJC
The Spectator, London September 22 2001
Header: Stephen Schwartz on the extreme Islamic
sect that inspires Osama bin Laden as well as all
Muslim suicide bombers - and is subsidised by
Saudi Arabia
The first thing to do when trying to understand 'Islamic suicide bombers' is
to forget the cliches about the Muslim taste for martyrdom. It does exist,
of course, but the desire for paradise is not a safe guide to what motivated
the appalling suicide attacks on New York and Washington last week.
Throughout history, political extremists of all faiths have willingly given
up their lives simply in the belief that by doing so, whether in bombings or
in other forms of terror, they would change the course of history, or at
least win an advantage for their cause. Tamils are not Muslims, but they
blow themselves up in their war on the government of Sri Lanka; Japanese
kamikaze pilots in the second world war were not Muslims, but they flew
their fighters into US aircraft carriers. The Islamofascist ideology of
Osama bin Laden and those closest to him, such as the Egyptian and Algerian
'Islamic Groups', is no more intrinsically linked to Islam or Islamic
civilisation than Pearl Harbor was to Buddhism, or Ulster terrorists -
whatever they may profess - are to Christianity. Serious Christians don't go
around killing and maiming the innocent; devout Muslims do not prepare for
paradise by hanging out in strip bars and getting drunk, as one of last
week's terrorist pilots was reported to have done.
The attacks of 11 September are simply not compatible with orthodox Muslim
theology, which cautions soldiers 'in the way of Allah' to fight their
enemies face-to-face, without harming non-combatants, women or children.
Most Muslims, not only in America and Britain, but in the world, are clearly
law-abiding citizens of their countries - a point stressed by President Bush
and other American leaders, much to their credit. Nobody on this side of the
water wants a repeat of the lamented 1941 internment of Japanese Americans.
Still, the numerical preponderance of Muslims as perpetrators of these
ghastly incidents is no coincidence.
So we have to ask ourselves what has made these men into the monsters they
are? What has so galvanised violent tendencies in the world's second-largest
religion (and, in America, the fastest growing faith)? Can it really flow
from a quarrel over a bit of land in the Middle East? For Westerners, it
seems natural to look for answers in the distant past, beginning with the
Crusades. But if you ask educated, pious, traditional but forward-looking
Muslims what has driven their umma, or global community, in this direction,
many of them will answer you with one word: Wahhabism.
This is a strain of Islam that emerged not at the time of the Crusades, nor
even at the time of the anti-Turkish wars of the 17th century, but less than
two centuries ago. It is violent, it is intolerant, and it is fanatical
beyond measure. It originated in Arabia, and it is the official theology of
the Gulf states. Wahhabism is the most extreme form of Islamic
fundamentalism, and its followers are called Wahhabis. Not all Muslims are
suicide bombers, but all Muslim suicide bombers are Wahhabis - except,
perhaps, for some disciples of atheist leftists posing as Muslims in the
interests of personal power, such as Yasser Arafat or Saddam Hussein.
Wahhabism is the Islamic equivalent of the most extreme Protestant
sectarianism. It is puritan, demanding punishment for those who enjoy any
form of music except the drum, and severe punishment up to death for
drinking or sexual transgressions. It condemns as unbelievers those who do
not pray, a view that never previously existed in mainstream Islam. It is
stripped-down Islam, calling for simple, short prayers, undecorated mosques,
and the uprooting of gravestones (since decorated mosques and graveyards
lend themselves to veneration, which is idolatry in the Wahhabi mind).
Wahhabis do not even permit the name of the Prophet Mohammed to be inscribed
in mosques, nor do they allow his birthday to be celebrated. Above all, they
hate ostentatious spirituality, much as Protestants detest the veneration of
miracles and saints in the Roman Church. Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-92), the
founder of this totalitarian Islamism, was born in Uyaynah, in the part of
Arabia known as Nejd, where Riyadh is today, and which the Prophet himself
notably warned would be a source of corruption and confusion. (Anti-Wahhabi
Muslims refer to Wahhabism as fitna an Najdiyyah or 'the trouble out of
Nejd'.)
>From the beginning of Wahhab's dispensation, in the late 18th century, his
cult was associated with the mass murder of all who opposed it. For example,
the Wahhabis fell upon the city of Qarbala in 1801 and killed 2,000 ordinary
citizens in the streets and markets. In the 19th century, Wahhabism took the
form of Arab nationalism v. the Turks. The founder of the Saudi kingdom, Ibn
Saud, established Wahhabism as its official creed. Much has been made of the
role of the US in 'creating' Osama bin Laden through subsidies to the Afghan
mujahedin, but as much or more could be said in reproach of Britain which,
three generations before, supported the Wahhabi Arabs in their revolt
against the Ottomans. Arab hatred of the Turks fused with Wahhabi ranting
against the 'decadence' of Ottoman Islam. The truth is that the Ottoman
khalifa reigned over a multinational Islamic umma in which vast differences
in local culture and tradition were tolerated. No such tolerance exists in
Wahhabism, which is why the concept of US troops on Saudi soil so inflames
bin Laden.
Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his
Egyptian allies, who exulted as they stabbed foreign tourists to death at
Luxor not many years ago, bathing in blood up to their elbows and emitting
blasphemous cries of ecstasy. So are the Algerian Islamist terrorists whose
contribution to the purification of the world consisted of murdering people
for such sins as running a movie projector or reading secular newspapers. So
are the Taleban-style guerrillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus. The Iranians
are not Wahhabis, which partially explains their slow but undeniable
movement towards moderation and normality after a period of utopian and
puritan revivalism. But the Taleban practise a variant of Wahhabism. In the
Wahhabi fashion they employ ancient punishments - such as execution for
moral offences - and they have a primitive and fearful view of women. The
same is true of Saudi Arabia's rulers. None of this extremism has been
inspired by American fumblings in the world, and it has little to do with
the tragedies that have beset Israelis and Palestinians.
But the Wahhabis have two weaknesses of which the West is largely unaware;
an Achilles' heel on each foot, so to speak. The first is that the vast
majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful people who would prefer the
installation of Western democracy in their own countries. They loathe
Wahhabism for the same reason any patriarchal culture rejects a violent
break with tradition. And that is the point that must be understood: bin
Laden and other Wahhabis are not defending Islamic tradition; they represent
an ultra-radical break in the direction of a sectarian utopia. Thus, they
are best described as Islamofascists, although they have much in common with
Bolsheviks.
The Bengali Sufi writer Zeeshan Ali has described the situation touchingly:
'Muslims from Bangladesh in the US, just like any other place in the world,
uphold the traditional beliefs of Islam but, due to lack of instruction,
keep quiet when their beliefs are attacked by Wahhabis in the US who all of
a sudden become "better" Muslims than others. These Wahhabis go even further
and accuse their own fathers of heresy, sin and unbelief. And the young
children of the immigrants, when they grow up in this country, get exposed
only to this one-sided version of Islam and are led to think that this is
the only Islam. Naturally a big gap is being created every day that silence
is only widening.' The young, divided between tradition and the call of the
new, opt for 'Islamic revolution' and commit themselves to their
self-destruction, combined with mass murder. The same influences are brought
to bear throughout the ten-million-strong Muslim community in America, as
well as those in Europe.
In the US, 80 per cent of mosques are estimated by the Sufi Hisham
al-Kabbani, born in Lebanon and now living in the US, to be under the
control of Wahhabi imams, who preach extremism, and this leads to the other
point of vulnerability: Wahhabism is subsidised by Saudi Arabia, even though
bin Laden has sworn to destroy the Saudi royal family. The Saudis have
played a double game for years, more or less as Stalin did with the West
during the second world war. They pretended to be allies in a common
struggle against Saddam Hussein while they spread Wahhabi ideology
everywhere Muslims are to be found, just as Stalin promoted an 'antifascist'
coalition with the US while carrying out espionage and subversion on
American territory. The motive was the same: the belief that the West was or
is decadent and doomed.
One major question is never asked in American discussions of Arab terrorism:
what is the role of Saudi Arabia? The question cannot be asked because
American companies depend too much on the continued flow of Saudi oil, while
American politicians have become too cozy with the Saudi rulers. Another
reason it is not asked is that to expose the extent of Saudi and Wahhabi
influence on American Muslims would deeply compromise many Islamic clerics
in the US. But it is the most significant question Americans should be
asking themselves today. If we get rid of bin Laden, who do we then have to
deal with? The answer was eloquently put by Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, professor
of political science at the University of California at San Diego, and
author of an authoritative volume on Islamic extremism in Pakistan, when he
said: 'If the US wants to do something about radical Islam, it has to deal
with Saudi Arabia. The "rogue states" [Iraq, Libya, etc.] are less important
in the radicalisation of Islam than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the single
most important cause and supporter of radicalisation, ideologisation, and
the general fanaticisation of Islam.' From what we now know, it appears not
a single one of the suicide pilots in New York and Washington was
Palestinian. They all seem to have been Saudis, citizens of the Gulf states,
Egyptian or Algerian. Two are reported to have been the sons of the former
second secretary of the Saudi embassy in Washington. They were planted in
America long before the outbreak of the latest Palestinian intifada; in
fact, they seem to have begun their conspiracy while the Middle East peace
process was in full, if short, bloom.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jmdl.com/guitar/marian/guitar.htm
------------------------------
End of JMDL Digest V2001 #462
*****************************
-------
Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe by clicking here:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe
-------
Siquomb, isn't she?
