Defeating their ideas

In an incredible case of missing the point, MPs took Tony Blair to task for not doing enough to “win the hearts and minds” of British Muslims after, the Guardian reports, a Times poll revealed that 13 percent of Muslims there think of the 7/7 bombers as martyrs and 16 percent think the attacks were wrong but the cause was right — cause? what cause? — while another poll found that 6 percent of young Muslims thought the bombings were justified.

And it’s up to Tony Blair to win their hearts and minds? How about it’s up to their parents and clergy to teach them civility and law.

“The government can’t defeat this alone. You’ve got to defeat the ideas, and the completely false sense of grievance against the west,” Mr Blair told MPs.

“You can’t defeat the ideology of extremist Islam by saying we half agree with your grievances but you’re wrong to deal with it that way – you have to defeat it entirely.

“It’s a global movement with an ideology, not a British movement. There’s a reason why people are being picked up in Canada, why people were picked up in Spain even after the troops were withdrawn.”

Mr Blair insisted that preventing terrorism was not just down to the government, but was also the responsibility of community leaders.

Amen to that.

: In a commentary in The Times of London former candidate for Parliament Ali Miraj writes:

British Muslims must share responsibility for confronting and destroying the cancer in their midst. Both Muslims (56 per cent) and non-Muslims (49 per cent) feel that the Government is not doing enough to combat extremism in the Muslim community.

While I agree that the Government has been ineffectual in its response to the Abu Hamzas and Omar Bakris, it is imperative that Muslims reverse the victim mentality that has gripped them. It is this that allows extremism to fester.

More than 80 per cent of those polled feel it is unacceptable for the police to view Muslims with greater suspicion on the ground that the 7/7 bombers shared their faith. But what do British Muslims expect? I would rather be stopped and searched to prevent a terrorist attack than not on the ground of political correctness.

  • David

    >13 percent of Muslims there think of the 7/7 bombers as martyrs and 16
    >percent think the attacks were wrong but the cause was right

    Which means 87 percent of muslims think that 7/7 bombers are not martyrs just murderous thugs.

    That 84 percent think the attacks were wrong…

    >2% would be proud if a family member decided to join al-Qaeda.

    Which means that 98% are against joining al-Qaeda

    >7% agree that suicide attacks on civilians in the UK can be justified in some circumstances

    Which means 93% believe that such attacks cannot be justified.

    >56% of British Muslims believe that the Government is not doing enough >to fight extremism,

    which is “more than the 49 per cent of the whole population who agree”

    Your anti-muslim bias always shows through in your posts…

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Obviously, the numbers I cite are not majorities. The point is that they are frighteningly large minorities and i was writing about the foolishness of blaming Tony Blair for that. That’s the point of the post. I link to the polls directly.

  • Andy Freeman

    Why is it the govt’s job to fight Muslim extremists?

    As long as said extremists are welcome in the Muslim community, as long as they can conspire and attack from that base, knowing that said community will protect it, Muslim extremism is a Muslim problem.

  • http://the-osterley-times.blogspot.com/2006/04/so-just-who-is-bugging-greece.html Kel

    Andy,

    Of course it’s the government’s job to fight extremism, they are there to protect all of us.

    Did we ask the Catholics in Ireland to protect us from the IRA? No, of course we didn’t. We expected our government to protect us.

    Why are you allowing Blair this cop out?

    It is not for any group in society to police itself, the government are in charge of policing.

    Blair is attempting to shift the blame from the terrorists to the entire Muslim community. He should be ashamed.

    You say, “Muslim extremism is a Muslim problem”. Were I to be blown up on a tube I would have to completely disagree with you. At that point it would have become a very large problem for ME.

  • Kat

    Yeah, well, when the whole muslim community gets its headcloths in a knot every time a terrorist is arrested, then I’d say it’s a muslim problem. How should the govt deal with them–deportatation or sharia?? Like the leftists, muslims can explain away all their crimes with conspiracy theories or assuming the role of victim and the rest of the world is the big bad wolf.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-2252571-523,00.html

  • Eileen

    Jeff,

    I’m right behind you on this one.

    But why do you even feel the need to respond to “David”?

    If even ONE soul, Muslim or not, believes:

    1. the 7/7 BOMBERS of INNOCENT CIVILIANS are “””Martyrs”””,

    2. think the “cause (THE CALIPHATE) was right”,

    3. would be proud if a family member joined al-Qaeda (!!),

    4. agree that SUICIDE ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN SOME
    CIRCUMSTANCES,

    THAT soul is deranged.

    I am being too kind.

    And so are you, Jeff.

    Yes, David, I am absolutely biased against Muslims – All. Of. Them. – except for brave apostates. But then, they are no longer Muslims, and they are subject to death under MOSLIM sharia law (yes, the O was intentional). If one studies the Koran and Islam you will know there can be no Muslim who is NOT intent on establishing One World Under Allah’s Caliphate.

    Bravo, Tony Blair!

    Jeff, please don’t forget that many taqiyya talkers – actually, jihadis – have visited this site on more than one occasion.

    And *clearly* continue to.

  • Andy Freeman

    The reason why Muslim extremism is a Muslim problem is that govt solutions will be far worse than any Muslim solution. However, solved it will be, so it’s not doing them any favors to suggest that they shouldn’t take care of it themselves because the alternatives will be far worse for them.

  • http://jammedgun.blogspot.com gunjam

    It is time for the West to grow a spine, quit apologizing for our history, our existence, our culture, and our laws (that would include our immigration laws, as well, Mr. President!) and high time we show the visitors who have come here of their own accord, received our benefits, enjoyed our liberties — and who, nonetheless, steadfastly loathe us — the door. — gunjam

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    False Sense of Grievance?

    It is crucial to find out if there are any grounds for grievance among Muslims in United Kingdom (UK)? Whether these grievances are based on facts or perceptions? There has been a long debate in the West about reasons of resentment and alienation among non-white migrants and particularly among Muslim youth since September 11. Therefore, it is vital to find out answers to this important debate, because, it will determine the policy direction of the West to manage this resentment and alienation.

    Usually, levels of resentments in any community are a reflection of its economic, political, and social conditions… Read More

  • Kat

    But what happens when the migrants decide they are superior and we infidels must accept their way or lose our heads? I don’t think there is a country on earth free from islamic terrorism, so must the whole world appease these terrorists? The whole world can not be at fault while the barbarians olay little victims. Screw them, I say, if you don’t like it–leave. No one is going to offer sharia and all that shit to make them happy.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    The history of Xenophobia and Islamophobia in the West is very old. The genocide of innocent Jews, colonization and existence of ghettoes in the Western cities is a living example of the xenophobic past. These ghettoes are full of non-white minorities such as Arabs, Africans and Asians. Nowadays, there is a tendency to label all Muslims as fundamentalists and supporters of terrorism. Terrorism is used as an excuse to spread Islamophobia. It is very vital to understand the context in which Islamophobia is exercised and its effects on the world affairs…Read More

  • Kat

    What about the non-west–why are muslim terrorists on rampages the world over??
    Is it because of infidelophobia?

  • Eileen

    “Infidelophobia”

    ROFLMAO

    That term is utterly perfect, and beats the hell out of having to list, each time:

    Christianophobia
    Hinduophobia
    Jewophobia
    Buddhistophobia
    AllNONMuslimsophobia
    MuslimApostatesophobia
    Etc.
    Etc.
    Etc.

    The death cult commonly known as Islam is REQUIRED to establish Allah’s Caliphate globally and support jihad against all “unbelievers”, whether it be by participating in actual combat (if of appropriate age or physical ability, or if geographically located adjacent to the jihad zone), or otherwise by providing “support” via money, clothing, lying taqiyya trash talk, etc.

    Yes, Muhammad, all muslims ARE, ‘fundamentally’, supporters of terrorism/jihad. Your Koran and sharia REQUIRE you to be. That is your commandment. Which is why your so-called religion is going to die a rapid death before your very eyes.

    Islam means Submit. I’ve got news for Muhammad: We ain’t gonna submit to you or your Caliphate by accepting your Allah Satan or by paying your jizya taxes EVER.

    As for “grievances”, we infidels have a long, long list of them. What is the current tally, some 5,000 MUSLIM attacks across the globe against infidels since 9/11 alone?

    We’re ‘on to you’ Muhammad. Best you go back to your goats and 9 year old wives. Your Caliphate’s doomed.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Here are comments from one of BBC Editors:

    “In the run-up to the first anniversary of 7/7 I’ve been a bit troubled.

    It all started on Tuesday when I came across the phrase “moderate” Muslims in one of our stories. Why the need to qualify, I found myself thinking? Are Muslims automatically radical unless we stick “moderate” somewhere visible? And what is a “moderate” Muslim exactly? Do we mean Muslims we can identify with, whatever “we” means? Or perhaps secular not-so-Muslim Muslims?”…Read More

  • Kat

    That’s the problem, I’m not sure moderate muslims exist. If it were us versus radical muslims in America, whose side would you be on, Mo?

  • Kat

    So to try to condemn the expression “Islamic violence” is a dangerous attempt at censorship that would hamper our understanding of the threat we face. The term is certainly offensive to Muslims, but the offence is caused by the bombers, not by those who describe the process. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24392-2261812_1,00.html

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Why poor African-Americans were not helped properly in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina? Most of them are Christians.

    Why there are too many ghettoes in every city of dilapidated superpower?

    This is because of racism and xenophobia. Islamophobia is a similar trend.

  • Kat

    Why are muslim countries, as a whole, the poorest and most illiterate, in the world??
    (“Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race,” he told the delegates.

    President Musharraf then made a comparison of the economic growth in Islamic countries with some developed countries.

    While the collective Gross National Product of the all Muslim countries stands at $1,200bn, that of Germany alone is $2,500bn and that of Japan $5,500bn.)
    Is islam or islamophobia to blame, that is the question.

  • Kat

    Naziphobia was once a trend too, and for good reason.

  • Eileen

    I see the Religion of Bombers and Beheaders is quite busy today in India, Somalia, Kashmir…and the op ed pages of the WAPO….to name only a few, of course.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Colonization, agricultural subsidies and xenophobia are causes of poverty among millions of people in developing countries. These poor people belong to all races and religions.

    Liberal from all around the world, express their sorrow and anger over this preventable poverty.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    What was the religion of Hitler?

    What was the religion of people causing deaths of 8,000 Bosnians?

    What was the religion of Timothy McVeigh, who killed killing 168 people in Oklahoma City?

    What was the religion of people who sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam killing thousands of civilians? Even today it is causing cancer among innocent civilians.

    What was the religion of American president who ordered to use atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Japan?

    What was the religion of the American who authorized killing of thousands of innocent civilians through air attack on the city of Dresden in Germany during World War II?

    All terrorists are same including the ones mentioned above. They specialize in killing innocent people. The only time, when name of the race or religion of a terrorist is mentioned, when someone from non-white background is involved.

  • Kat

    Yes, but the mullahs prefer you poor and illiterate.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    By saying “mullahs”, are you referring to George Bush and Dick Cheney? It reminds some of characters in Fahrenheit 9/11.

    There is a slight chance that some of confused conservatives might become enlightened (liberal) by reading some of articles by Noam Chomsky.

    Confused conservatives might also repent for their past sins such as failed impeachment of Bill Clinton. Because they were behaving like mullahs. However, determined conservatives will stay put like Big Mullah for a seat in the heaven. (Big Mullah with a big beard or a clean shave?)

    Hurry up! Seats are running out because there are too many killers out there.

  • Kat

    Yeah, just take a look at India–wonder who the killers were, in Somalia? In Nigeria? In Darfur? And Muhammad you are as bad as they are–you excuse, condone, and cheer their actions. You are a creep. ” Well, yah, I know mooslims are on a killing rampage but Tim Mcveigh wasn’t Mooslim–always the same tired shit–you know your jihadism well.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Too late! No more seats available because it is already full of killers. Killers have to face consequences of their actions in this world, no more escape routes to heaven.

  • Kat

    Except your killers think they will get some child virgins and you and yours keep excusing them by dealing with every mooslim atrocity by turning the discussion to Tim McVeigh. I bet in 200 years that will still be an excuse for killers. I heard Mr. McVeigh made an awful lot of trips to the Middle east. Wonder why??

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    The people who have respect for human life will condemn all types of killers. They will also condemn the murder of thousands of innocent Americans, killed by guns every year. The people who have allowed the use of guns are a party in murdering innocent Americans.

    The number of Americans murdered every year by guns is much more higher than the number of people killed during terrorist attacks on September 11.

    All terrorists are same including the ones mentioned above. They specialize in killing innocent people. The only time, when name of the race or religion of a terrorist is mentioned, when someone from non-white background is involved.

  • Kat

    Oh yeah, Johnny Jihad Walker was a terrorist–it wasn’t his white color that made him one, it was his conversion to islam.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    What was the religion of Hitler? Did he convert to Islam as well? He got blood of millions of innocent Jews on his hands.

    Is September 11 a bigger crime than the Holocaust?

  • Kat

    Are you implying he was a Christian. So was Johnny Jihad till he converted.
    {He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler’s secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that “National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable” and Hitler didn’t squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, “One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.” In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools.
    I could probably find more speeches in which Hitler claims himself to be a Christian, but I think the point has been made. He said it. Now, what did it mean?

    It seems Hitler, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. And when he didn’t, his lackeys did. It may have been political pandering, just like many of our current politicians who invoke God’s name to gain support.

    Also, it seems probable that Hitler, being the great manipulator, knew that he couldn’t fight the Christian churches and their members right off the bat. So he made statements to put the church at ease and may have patronized religion as a way to prevent having to fight the Christian-based church.
    I have one more quote to share on this topic. This, again, from David Gehrig: “Let’s save the rhetorical comparisons to Hitler and Nazis for those who really deserve them–hate groups who proudly assume the Nazi mantle, and ‘Holocaust revisionists’ who would fantasize away Hitler’s genocidal crimes.”}
    http:/www.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html
    “Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church. In 1933, Hitler said, ‘It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.’”  The Catholic League also quoted Hitler, in a 4/23/99 Op-Ed ad in the New York Times, as saying, “Antiquity was better than modern times, because it didn’t know Christianity and syphilis.” Ouch!
    That said, we can move on to some other relevant info. Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real “god” of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, “The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives,” by saying: “”They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies.” In other words, definitely non-Christian.

    Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended “to stamp out Christianity root and branch.”

    As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: “I’ll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.”
    It seems Hitler, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. And when he didn’t, his lackeys did. It may have been political pandering, just like many of our current politicians who invoke God’s name to gain support.

    Also, it seems probable that Hitler, being the great manipulator, knew that he couldn’t fight the Christian churches and their members right off the bat. So he made statements to put the church at ease and may have patronized religion as a way to prevent having to fight the Christian-based church.

    In fact, Anton Gil notes in his book, An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945: “For his part, Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics.”

    In other words, while he was certainly evil, he also usually knew which wars he could win (at least until 1941) and only fought those. He knew he could beat the Polish, French, and British armies and he allegedly counseled the Japanese against attacking the U.S.; he also requested that they open up a front against Russia. He couldn’t beat the church in open warfare–so he took control and then attacked them piecemeal while making statements to put them at ease. Think about it–how many other times did Hitler break his word or ignore a treaty? He said whatever would make things easiest, and then ignored it later.

    Author Doug Krueger notes that “so many Germans were religious believers that Hitler, not religious himself, at least had to pretend to be a believer in order to gain support.” He adds, “If the [Christian] message won converts, it would seem that most Nazis were probably [Christians] too.
    You could certainly make the argument that he was a firm believer in God, if by “God” you mean “Adolf Hitler.”
    I hear the Mein Kampf is second to the Koran on the best seller list in Arab States.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Killers are in every race and religion. The best way to tackle with killers is to condemn them unconditionally. There in no need to cover the crimes of killers.

  • Kat

    I agree, but today’s terrorists that are rampaging worldwide are islamists and we need to question the role islam is playing in their butchery. We can’t call people who fight against these animals, terrorists. Unless of course, you expect the world to quietly submit to this sick cult–I’d kill before I did that. Yesterday’s Nazis are today’s islamofascists, and moderate muslims need to question and condemn thaem, unless they quietly support them. We are not at war with islam, but we are at war with islamists. It is time to condemn them unconditionally and not use Tim McVeigh to cover their crimes.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    What was stance of the Pope during Holocaust?

  • Kat

    Hitler’s Mufti, Not Hitler’s Pope
    By Rabbi David G. Dalin
    FrontPageMagazine.com | August 9, 2005

    Readers of David Horowitz’s excellent book Unholy Alliance are well aware of the peculiar relationship between the political Left and radical Islam. It is a relationship compounded by the Left’s incessant mongering of the myth of “Hitler’s Pope”—a myth that, as a rabbi and historian, I am determined to expose.

    Many readers of the New York Times no doubt believe that Pope Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope,” because John Cornwell’s bestselling book told them that, and it’s been reaffirmed by Garry Wills, Daniel Goldhagen, and other Left-leaning writers since. It’s been said so often in fact that most well-read liberals know it for a certainty. The only trouble is: it isn’t true.

    Not only does it contradict the words of Holocaust survivors, the founders of Israel, and the contemporary record of the New York Times, but even John Cornwell, the originator of the phrase “Hitler’s Pope,” has recanted it saying that he was wrong to have ascribed evil motives to Pius and now found it “impossible to judge” the wartime pope.

    But there’s something else that has been ignored nearly all together. Precisely at the moment when Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in Rome (and throughout Europe) was saving thousands of Jewish lives, Hitler had a cleric broadcasting from Berlin who called for the extermination of the Jews.

    He was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the viciously anti-Semitic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who resided in Berlin as a welcome guest and ally of the Nazis throughout the years of the Holocaust.

    As I point out in my book, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, the outrageous calumny directed against Pope Pius XII has not only besmirched the reputation of a man who did more than any other religious leader to save Jewish lives, it has deflected attention from the horrible truth of Hajj Amin al-Husseini—who continues to be a revered figure in the Muslim world.

    It is possible to trace modern Islamic anti-Semitism back along a number of different historical and intellectual threads, but, no matter which one you choose, they all seem to pass, at one point or another, through the hands of Hajj Amin al-Husseini—Hitler’s Mufti.

    In late March 1933, al-Husseini contacted the German consul general in Jerusalem and requested German help in eliminating Jewish settlements in Palestine—offering, in exchange, a pan-Islamic jihad in alliance with Germany against Jews around the world. It was not until 1938, in the aftermath of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous capitulation to Hitler at Munich, that Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s overtures to Nazi Germany were officially reciprocated. But by then the influence of Nazi ideology had already grown significantly throughout the Arab Middle East.

    Several of the Arab political parties founded during the 1930s were modeled after the Nazi party, including the Syrian Popular Party and the Young Egypt Society, which were explicitly anti-Semitic in their ideology and programs. The leader of Syria’s Socialist Nationalist Party, Anton Sa’ada, imagined himself an Arab Hitler and placed a swastika on his party’s banner.

    Though he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Husseini moved his base of operations (and pro-Nazi propaganda) to Lebanon in 1938, to Iraq in 1939 (where he helped establish the strongly pro-German Rashid Ali al-Gaylani as prime minister), and then to Berlin in 1941.

    Adolf Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny testified at the Nuremberg Trials that Hajj Amin al-Husseini “was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.” At Auschwitz, al-Husseini reportedly “admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently.”

    After the defeat of the Axis powers, Hajj Amin al-Husseini escaped indictment as a war criminal at Nuremberg by fleeing to Egypt, where he received political asylum and where he met the young Yasser Arafat, his distant cousin, who became a devoted protégé—to the point that the PLO recruited former Nazis as terrorist instructors. Up until the time of his death, Arafat continued to pay homage to the Grand Mufti as his hero and mentor.

    This unholy legacy continues. Hajj Amin al-Husseini has inspired two generations of radical Islamic leaders to carry on Hitler’s war against the Jews, which is why today, as was true 60 years ago, it is not the Catholic Church that is the great threat to the survival of the Jewish people; it is Islamofascism.
    Adolf Hitler once ordered his SS troops to level the Vatican with “blood and fire” and kidnap Pope Pius XII, a new book says.

    In “Pius XII, Pope of the Jews,” Italian historian Andrea Tornielli reveals that Hitler ordered the destruction of the Vatican and the deportation of Pius XII to Liechtenstein in 1943, in reprisal for the Pontiff´s reported assistance to Jews and for the Church´s opposition to the Nazi regime.

    In his work, which has just gone on sale in Italy, Tornielli explains that the “Führer” was livid after the signing of the armistice between the Badoglio government and the Allies on Sept. 8, 1943, and ordered the SS to destroy the Holy See with “blood and fire.”

    Hitler´s plan did not materialize, however, thanks to General Karl Wolff, then SS commander in Italy, who succeeded in dissuading the Nazi dictator from this course of action.

    Former Italian Minister Giulio Andreotti defended the validity of Tornielli´s thesis last week when he addressed the meeting of the Catholic movement Communion and Liberation. The meeting ended Saturday in this northern coastal city.

    Andreotti supported Pius XII and rejected the criticisms leveled against the Pontiff at the end of World War II, accusing him of passivity in face of the Holocaust.

    “The hostility against Pope Pacelli was not due to his weakness against Nazism, but to his rejection of Communism,” Andreotti said.

    Tornielli´s arguments had already been noted in recent years by historians and scholars, who quoted testimonies and documents from the time of the Nazi occupation of Rome.

    Among Pius XII´s defenders is Antonio Gaspari, author of “The Jews, Pius XII, and the Black Legend,” which offers testimonies of Jews in Rome who were saved from the Nazi-Fascist persecution thanks to the help of men and women of the Church, as requested by Pius XII himself.
    Pius XII´s actions helped save 800,000 Jewish lives, either directly or indirectly, according to Jewish researcher Pinchas Lapide.

    Far from affinity with Hitler, as claimed by Rolf Hochhuth in his play “The Vicar,” Pius XII was actively involved in the German resistance´s plans to remove the tyrant, as revealed in the British Foreign Office documents on the so-called Schwarze Kapelle, which involved Admiral Canaris, Count Von Stauffenberg and other German personalities opposed to the Führer.
    Sorry for paste–I never saved links.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    What is the creditability of Rabbi David G. Dalin (writer of Hitler’s Mufti, Not Hitler’s Pope) in the light of following news items from BBC?

    Is he playing the same role as ‘Hitler’s Pope’ by failing to speak out against killing of innocent civilians in Palestine?

    Killers are in every race and religion. The best way to tackle with killers is to condemn them unconditionally. There in no need to cover the crimes of killers.

    BBC News Pope’s apology not enough – rabbis

    Jewish leaders have welcomed the Pope’s apologies for the past misdeeds of the Catholic church – but expressed disappointment that he did not make specific mention of the church’s role during the Holocaust.

    BBC News Vatican apologises over holocaust

    The Vatican has apologised to Jews on behalf of the entire Roman Catholic community, for failing to speak out against the Nazi holocaust during World War Two.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    What is the creditability of Rabbi David G. Dalin (writer of Hitler’s Mufti, Not Hitler’s Pope) in the light of following news items from BBC?

    Is he playing the same role as ‘Hitler’s Pope’ by failing to speak out against killing of innocent civilians in Palestine?

    BBC News Pope’s apology not enough – rabbis

    Jewish leaders have welcomed the Pope’s apologies for the past misdeeds of the Catholic church – but expressed disappointment that he did not make specific mention of the church’s role during the Holocaust.

    BBC News Vatican apologises over holocaust

    The Vatican has apologised to Jews on behalf of the entire Roman Catholic community, for failing to speak out against the Nazi holocaust during World War Two.

  • Kat

    The BBC–you gotta be kidding. No one did enough to help the Jews–including Canada and the US. Why did Hitler order the assassination of the Pope.
    Should muslims apologize because of Hajj Amin al-Husseini ? Can the BBC tell me?
    You are trying to cover and gloss over today’s muslim terrorists by changing the subject.
    Tht is exactly what those jihadi bastards do. Always an excuse–never responsibility.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    I am writing this for the third time. How many more times you want me to repeat this?

    Killers are in every race and religion. The best way to tackle with killers is to condemn them unconditionally. There in no need to cover the crimes of killers.

  • Kat

    I’m just asking that you and all muslims condemn today’s killers–islamists–killing in every country on earth. Admit that the greatest threart to world peace today is islamism. People don’t want that shit imposed on them. You and fellow muslims will not admit to your crimes–you keep Tim Mcveighing.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Yes, we condemn all killers including the ones who are bombing abortion clinics in USA.

  • Kat

    That’s a perfect jihadi reply–don’t condemn the islamonazis–turn the topic to one stupid abortion clinic bomber–not 100 million plus terrorists of the islamic faith.

  • Kat

    Do you condemn jihadis, suicide bombers, honor killings, stoning of homosexuals, beheadings, death for leaving islam, etc.–or are those muslim customs you admire??

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Why the Western Talibans tried to impeach Bill Clinton?

  • Kat

    And what does Bill Clinton’s getting a blow job from a young intern have to do with islamonazis. Heck, in your countries you don’t impeach, you kill the girl.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Why Mullah Junior (Bush) is against the stem-cell research?

  • Kat

    Why muslims against the world? Why you not speak against the atrocities in islam??
    I’m against stem cell research if it involves killing embryos.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    So everyone, who supports stem cell research is a killer?

  • Kat

    I said I did not support stem cell research if it involved killing embryos–not all stem cell research does. I support the latter.
    Do you support killing muslim embryos?

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    Theoretically speaking I agree with you but I have not explored this issue in depth. Do you think that embryo and a living person is same thing? Is embryo a complete life or a potential life? If potential life is regarded as complete life than use of condoms is also stopping a potential life. It means that every one should be married otherwise they are blocking the development of potential life. Where we draw the line?

  • Kat

    No, the use of condoms is not the same. I am talking of a human embryo–when I was pregnant, it was not my embryo or my fetus–it was my baby, from the minute he and she were conceived. It only becomes a fetus or an embryo when we want to kill it. If there is no embryo because one used a condom, there can be no killing . Millions of ovaries do not get fertilized–they could be potential life but the miracle does not occur. That is a ridiculous argument used by pro abortionists.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    So we can say that embryo is life or a real person but in a very small form. Therefore, it is a complete life not a potential life. It means that contraception is permissible because it is blocking potential life not a real life.

    I was horrified to hear that a fetus was aborted after 32 weeks. If my parents did that to me I would not be able to have this interesting conversation with all of you.

  • Kat

    Yes, and that is what George Bush is so against–partial birth abortion which is what happens at 32 weeks. They kill the baby just before it is fully born cause in abortion you can’t have a live baby…so you stick surgical scissors in its skull and suction the brains out.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    I agree with you on this issue. Your view is a secular point of view. However, monotheist religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not allow the use of contraception.

    According to monotheist religions the God is provider of every thing including day-to-day living. If someone uses contraception then in effect they say that I want to have two children because I cannot look after more than two children. It means they do not believe that the God can provide day-to-day living otherwise they will have as many children as they can.

  • Kat

    I don’t think God meant for women to be treated as cattle–to be kept as chattel for breeding purposes only. I think that God would rather see a prevented pregnancy than an aborted one. There is only a brief period each month that pregnancy can occur–anyone with a brain can figure that out. Babies should come from love between two people–not like rabbits or rats.

  • http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com Muhammad Azeem Akhter

    I think abstinence is a better option than “stick surgical scissors in its [fetus] skull and suction the brains out”.

  • Kat

    I agree. Some women have had 4 or 5 or more abortions. That is ludicrous. Abortion is a form of birth control for idiots. Abortion should only be a measure to save a woman’s life.

  • http://www.dollplaysets.com bell

    in this manner i think abortion must be done to a woman if the child the she conceiving is already dead. its a form of saving a woman not a form of killing an innocent child.