Islam

[Unintentional]

Islam

I live in Richmond, Virginia and am often in Washington, DC. There was a Desert Storm 2 veteran talking on the radio there and I will never forget two things he said.

One of them was that he felt safer back in Iraq than on the streets of DC.

The other was when he described the different Muslim Sects. He said the Sheites were poor, but finally glad they were not oppressed. The Sunni were richer but couldn't care less as long as Sheites stayed out of their neighborhoods. He said it was the Wahibee who scared the sh** out of him and all the other muslims too. The Wahibees (at the time of this radio broadcast) were the main culprits of the violence in Iraq and are the source of the foreign fighters.

So the USA is the primary composition of the coaltion in Iraq, right? Who are they mostly fighting? Not Iraqis, they are fighting muslim extremist from over the border from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. If these foreign fighters did not come to Iraq to cause trouble there would be mostly peace in Iraq. The local Iraqis just wish everyone, including the coalition, would leave. I just wonder what these foreign fighter would do if/when the coalition leaves.

 

[sosuemetoo]

Islam

My sworded friend.

I agreed with everything that you have said here, but I wanted to hightlight a few points.

Originally posted by Grayson@Sep 7 2004, 06:58 PM
Islam is not at fault here, a few vengeful men are.

I have never felt that Islam was at fault here. I believe that it is a "subculture," if you will, of Islam that seeks to destroy anyone that does not practice Islam in it's pure (their opinion) form.

Someone once told me that Snakes without heads can never bite you on the arse.

Yes, and it has been argued that we have supported the enemy before we knew it was the enemy (for example Osama). I believe at the time, we had no idea what Osama would become and the force he could bring against American and other countries.

Why are these vengeful men so completely pissed at us that they would distort their own Religion to such ends?

Can it be as shallow as the arguments that we see and hear on an everyday basis, or is there some piece of the puzzle that we are missing?

This is what I seek to find. I don't believe it is simply that "we" are in their country and they don't like "our" ways. Why is democracy a threat to fundementalist Islam? That is the puzzle piece I believe we are missing.

"Mom"

 

[sosuemetoo]

Islam

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 7 2004, 07:33 PM
He said it was the Wahibee who scared the sh** out of him and all the other muslims too. The Wahibees (at the time of this radio broadcast) were the main culprits of the violence in Iraq and are the source of the foreign fighters.

Uni,
I wish I had a link to post. I was listening to Tony Brown on WLSAM in Chicago. He has spoken for the past year on Wahibeeism (a sect of Islam) and that Osama is their hero. Wahibeeism, according to the commentator, is what we need to be afraid of. Their main "hub" is in Saudi Arabia,Iran and Syria. These insurgents that seek to kill democracy in Iraq and Afganistan are from those three countries.

Maybe the answer to all of this is for Iraq and Afganistan to close their borders tight, let the coalition leave and not allow for any insurgents to enter. That would finally bring democracy into the region.

"Mom"

 

[Unintentional]

Islam

I just wanted to add, maybe it was disgusting to invade Iraq to stabilize the region of oil producing, but doesn't that get set off a tiny bit that a man responsible for the filling of thousands of mass graves is now behind bars and his regime is no longer in power?

And I guess the Iraqis could build a wall to secure their borders, but Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will probley sue Iraq in some kangaroo world court that will find that somehow this wall is illegal.

Which brings us back to Israel and their wall, which has virtually eliminated suicide bombings in the areas the wall is completed.

 

[PyRo99]

Islam

All ><

Do not feel that you are taking over this topic. You are not. You are blessing it with topics that lie within Islam. Their culture, what they do, and other things, are all represented within Islam. Heck, we could do the same with Christianity, its just that Christianity, is such a broad name that we cannot break it down as easily as Islam. Plus, with Christianity we would have to travel all the way back to the Apostles, Constantine the Emperor, etc etc.

If Iraq shut its borders down, what makes you think that they wouldn't just barge them down? Israel and Iraq are two, different places, both are holy in their own ways, however, you consistently hear of attacks in both Iraq and Isreal. A wall may seem like it is serving its protection too the Israeli's but it is only a matter of time.

Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East countries need to shove it before they can open their mouths again. Those two, alone(Syria, Iran) bring so much hate too that area. They support these so called "jihadists", what can we essentially call them though besides that? They are so hardcore Islam, that they believe that beheading people is "right" and is what Allah is seeking.

Also, we are not seeking revenge upon every single muslim in this world. We are after the "bad ones". How are we going to win? Tell me. There is absolutely no way in the world we will ever defeat them. We cannot. One minute were clobbering them, were obstructing every rule they have set in place in their religion, they go along with it, they see it as "ridding the evil". Also, if we beat them down, almost to the point of where they are begging for mercy, most jihadists are giving up, turning themselves in, under an amenesty period.

Just after that pivital moment, were gunna get hit so hard we're going to be begging for mercy, and then all of a sudden the jihadists arise once again. Do we call it quits? Honestly, is there any moment when we can finally say "We did it" with a sigh of relief, and brush the sweat off of our faces? Because as soon as we sit back too relax, sip on a lemonade, yup you guessed it were hit again.

Then, you have the practical Muslim. The muslim that has done nothing wrong too this world, and yet we condescend them all too the same playing field. There are so many good muslims out there, we just forget that fact. Most of us here have not. We all treat everyone equally, we do not use the common racial terms for Muslims, i could name a few, but they are not appropriate in any manner, shape, way or form.

As you can tell, terrorism, jihadits, encompass my mind when speaking of Islam. The actual religion, is behind the scenes.

What if, you heard your religion getting slammed to the ground on a daily basis? You heard "Oh Those *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP* *BEEEEEEEEP*, all they do is worship at the feet of Allah, god is better". A typical muslim, a pacifist that is, would just blow it off. Should it be a jihadist, BAM, your taken hostage and your head would more than probably be cut off, right there on the spot.

If we built a wall too get all of the terrorists out. What about the ones remaining in the country? They'll never leave, and their children will just grow up on how too fire an AK-47 too blow the smithereins out of a Colation Force.

Their morals must also be low though. Let's tape a damned video of the children dying. Sick twisted people, not the religion. The people behind it that think Allah, is granting them the power too do so.

I honestly, think that the terrorists can be changed one day, when they finally face the truth, and realize what they are doing is sick and demented. I don't know how many of you have seen one of the beheading videos, honest too god, I watched the first one, of Nick Berg(god rest his soul). That video tormented me for weeks too come, and all I thought was how sick those people were. Absolutely disgusting.

Anyways, keep ranting about Islam. I know this topic is booming, and some of the things I've said, have been said already, but I do not have the time too read it all, and make a post in one night, im sorry all!

Pyro!

 

[Phoenix]

Islam

Originally posted by sosuemetoo+Sep 7 2004, 07:01 PM--><div class='quotemain'>My sworded friend.

I agreed with everything that you have said here, but I wanted to hightlight a few points.

<!--QuoteBegin-Grayson@Sep 7 2004, 06:58 PM
Islam is not at fault here, a few vengeful men are.

I have never felt that Islam was at fault here. I believe that it is a "subculture," if you will, of Islam that seeks to destroy anyone that does not practice Islam in it's pure (their opinion) form.

Someone once told me that Snakes without heads can never bite you on the arse.

Yes, and it has been argued that we have supported the enemy before we knew it was the enemy (for example Osama). I believe at the time, we had no idea what Osama would become and the force he could bring against American and other countries.

Why are these vengeful men so completely pissed at us that they would distort their own Religion to such ends?

Can it be as shallow as the arguments that we see and hear on an everyday basis, or is there some piece of the puzzle that we are missing?

This is what I seek to find. I don't believe it is simply that "we" are in their country and they don't like "our" ways. Why is democracy a threat to fundementalist Islam? That is the puzzle piece I believe we are missing.

"Mom"

​

[/b][/quote]
http://www.getfreeforum.com/forums/index.p...e&showtopic=137
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/4462

AMIR TAHERI'S REMARKS AT DEBATE "ISLAM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY"
by Amir Taheri
Benador Online
May 19, 2004

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am glad that this debate takes place in English.

Because, were it to be conducted in any of the languages of our part of the world, we would not have possessed the vocabulary needed.

To understand a civilisation it is important to understand its vocabulary.

If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.

There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. Even then the Greek word democracy entered Muslim languages with little change: democrasi in Persian, dimokraytiyah in Arabic, demokratio in Turkish.

Democracy as the proverbial schoolboy would know is based on one fundamental principle: equality.

The Greek word for equal isos is used in more than 200 compound nouns; including isoteos (equality) and Isologia (equal or free speech) and isonomia (equal treatment).

But again we find no equivalent in any of the Muslim languages. The words we have such as barabari in Persian and sawiyah in Arabic mean juxtaposition or levelling.

Nor do we have a word for politics.

The word siassah, now used as a synonym for politics, initially meant whipping stray camels into line.( Sa'es al-kheil is a person who brings back lost camels to the caravan. )The closest translation may be: regimentation.

Nor is there mention of such words as government and the state in the Koran.

It is no accident that early Muslims translated numerous ancient Greek texts but never those related to political matters. The great Avicenna himself translated Aristotle's Poetics. But there was no translation of Aristotle's Politics in Persian until 1963.

Lest us return to the issue of equality.

The idea is unacceptable to Islam.

For the non-believer cannot be the equal of the believer.

Even among the believers only those who subscribe to the three so-called Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam ( Ahl el-Kitab) are regarded as fully human.

Here is the hierarchy of human worth in Islam:

At the summit are free male Muslims

Next come Muslim male slaves

Then come free Muslim women

Next come Muslim slave women.

Then come free Jewish and /or Christian men

Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian men

Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian women.

Each category has rights that must be respected.

The People of the Book have always been protected and relatively well-treated by Muslim rulers, but often in the context of a form of apartheid known as dhimmitude.

The status of the rest of humanity, those whose faiths are not recognised by Islam or who have no faith at all, has never been spelled out although wherever Muslim rulers faced such communities they often treated them with a certain measure of tolerance and respect ( As in the case of Hindus under the Muslim dynasties of India.)

Non-Muslims can, and have often been, treated with decency, but never as equals.

(There is a hierarchy even for animals and plants. Seven animals and seven plants will assuredly go to heaven while seven others of each will end up in Hell.)

Democracy means the rule of the demos, the common people, or what is now known as popular or national sovereignty.

In Islam, however, power belongs only to God: al-hukm l'illah. The man who exercises that power on earth is known as Khalifat al-Allah, the regent of God.

But even then the Khalifah or Caliph cannot act as legislator. The law has already been spelled out and fixed for ever by God.

The only task that remains is its discovery, interpretation and application.

That, of course, allows for a substantial space in which different styles of rule could develop.

But the bottom line is that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation.

Islam divides human activities into five categories from the permitted to the sinful, leaving little room for human interpretation, let alone ethical innovations.

What we must understand is that Islam has its own vision of the world and man's place in it.

To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam.

On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.

In Muslim literature and philosophy being forsaken by God is the worst that can happen to man.

The great Persian poet Rumi pleads thus:

Oh, God, do not leave our affairs to us

For, if You do, woe be to us.

Rumi mocks those who claim that men can rule themselves.

He says:

You are not reign even over your beard,

That grows without your permission.

How can you pretend, therefore,

To rule about right and wrong?

The expression "abandoned by God" sends shivers down Muslim spines. For it spells the doom not only of individuals but of entire civilisations.

The Koran tells the stories of tribes, nations and civilisations that perished when God left them to their devices.

The great Persian poet Attar says :

I have learned of Divine Rule in Yathirb ( i.e. Medinah, the city of the Prophet)

What need do I have of the wisdom of the Greeks?

Hafez, another great Persian poet, blamed man's "hobut" or fall on the use of his own judgment against that of God:

I was an angel and my abode was the eternal paradise

Adam ( i.e.) man brought me to this place of desolation

Islamic tradition holds that God has always intervened in the affairs of men, notably by dispatching 124000 prophets or emissaries to inform the mortals of His wishes and warnings.

Many Islamist thinkers regard democracy with horror.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy " a form of prostitution" because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to God.

Sayyed Qutub, the Egyptian who has emerged as the ideological mentor of Safalists, spent a year in the United States in the 1950s.

He found "a nation that has forgotten God and been forsaken by Him; an arrogant nation that wants to rule itself."

Last year Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today's Islamist movement, published a book ( available on the Internet) in which he warned that the real danger to Islam did not come from American tanks and helicopter gunships in Iraq but from the idea of democracy and rule by the people.

Maudoodi, another of the Islamist theoreticians now fashionable, dreamed of a political system in which human beings would act as automatons in accordance with rules set by God.

He said that God has arranged man's biological functions in such a way that their operation is beyond human control. For our non-biological functions, notably our politics, God has set rules that we have to discover and apply once and for all so that our societies can be on auto-pilot so to speak.

The late Saudi theologian, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair, a man I respected though seldom agreed with, sincerely believed that the root cause of all of our contemporary ills was the spread of democracy.

" Only one ambition is worthy of Islam," he liked to say, " the ambition to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of manmade laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation."

Thus those who claim that Islam is compatible with democracy should know that they are not flattering Muslims.

In fact, most Muslims would feel insulted by such assertions.

How could a manmade form of government, invented by the heathen Greeks, be compared with Islam which is God's final word to man, the only true faith, they would ask.

In the past 14 centuries Muslims have, on occasions, succeeded in creating successful societies without democracy.

And there is no guarantee that democracy never produces disastrous results. (After all Hitler was democratically elected.)

The fact that almost all Muslim states today can be rated as failures or, at least, underachievers, is not because they are Islamic but because they are ruled by corrupt and despotic elites that, even when they proclaim an Islamist ideology, are, in fact, secular dictators.

Let us recall the founding myth of democracy as related by Protagoras in Plato.

Protagoras's claim that the rule of the people, democracy, is the best, is ridiculed by Socrates who points out that men always call on experts to deal with specific tasks but when it comes to the more important matters concerning the city, i.e. the community, they allow every Tom , Dick and Harry an equal say.

Protagoras says that when man was created he lived a solitary existence and was unable to protect himself and his kin against more powerful beasts.

Consequently men came together to secure their lives by founding cities. But the cities were torn by strife because inhabitants did wrong to one another.

Zeus, watching the proceedings, realised that the reason that things were going badly was that men did not have the art of managing the city ( politike techne).

Without that art man was heading for destruction.

So, Zeus called in his messenger, Hermes and asked him to deliver two gifts to mankind: aidos and dike.

Aidos is a sense of shame and a concern for the good opinion of others.

Dike here means respect for the right of others and implies a sense of justice that seeks civil peace through adjudication.

Before setting off Hermes asks a decisive question: Should I deliver this new art to a select few, as was the case in all other arts, or to all?

Zeus replies with no hesitation : To all. Let all have their share.

Protagoras concludes his reply to Socrates' criticism of democracy thus:" Hence it comes about, Socrates, that people in the cities, and especially in Athens, listen only to experts in matters of expertise but when they meet for consultation on the political art, i.e. of the general question of government, everybody participates."

Traditional Islamic political thought is closer to Socrates than to Protagoras.

The common folk, al-awwam, are regarded as "animals "( al-awwam kal anaam!)

The interpretation of the Divine Law is reserved only for the experts.

In Iran there is even a body called The Assembly of Experts.

Political power, like many other domains, including philosophy, is reserved for the " khawas" who, in some Sufi traditions, are even exempt from the ritual rules of the faith.

The " common folk", however, must do as they are told either by the text and tradition or by fatwas issued by the experts. Khomeini coined the word "mustazafeen" (the feeble ones) to describe the common folk.

In the Greek tradition once Zeus has taught men the art of politics he does not try to rule them.

To be sure he and other Gods do intervene in earthly matters but always episodically and mostly in pursuit of their illicit pleasures.

Polytheism is by its pluralistic nature is tolerant, open to new gods, and new views of old gods. Its mythology personifies natural forces that could be adapted, by allegory, to metaphysical concepts.

One could in the same city and at the same time mock Zeus as a promiscuous old rake, henpecked and cuckolded by Juno, or worship him as justice defied.

This is not possible in monotheism especially Islam, the only truly monotheistic of the three Abrahamic faiths.

In monotheism for the One to be stable in its One-ness it is imperative that the many be stabilised in their many-ness.

The God of monotheism does not discuss or negotiate matters with mortals.

He dictates, be it the 10 Commandments or the Koran which was already composed and completed before Allah sent his Hermes, Archangel Gabriel, to dictate it to Muhammad:

Read, the Koran starts with the command; In the name of Thy God The Most High!

Islam's incompatibility with democracy is not unique. It is shared by other religions. For faith is about certainty while democracy is about doubt. There is no changing of one's mind in faith, while democracy is about changing minds and sides.

If we were to use a more technical terminology faith creates a nexus and democracy a series.

Democracy is like people waiting for a bus.

They are of different backgrounds and have different interests. We don't care what their religion is or how they vote. All they have in common is their desire to get on that bus. And they get off at whatever stop they wish.

Faith, however is internalised. Turned into a nexus it controls man's every thought and move even in his deepest privacy.

Democracy, of course, is compatible with Islam because democracy is serial and polytheistic. People are free to believe whatever they like to believe and perform whatever religious rituals they wish, provided they do not infringe on other's freedoms in the public domain.

The other way round, however, it does not work.

Islam cannot allow people to do as they please , even in the privacy of their bedrooms, because God is always present, everywhere, all-hearing and all-seeing.

There is consultation in Islam: Wa shawerhum fil amr. ( And consult them in matters)

But the consultation thus recommended is about specifics only, never about the overall design of society.

In democracy there is a constitution that can be changed or at least amended.

The Koran, however, is the immutable word of God, beyond change or amendment.

This debate is not easy.

For Islam has become an issue of political controversy in the West.

On the one hand we have Islamophobia, a particular affliction of those who blame Islam for all the ills of our world.

The more thin skinned Muslims have ended up on regarding every criticism of Islam as Islamophobia.

On the other hand we have Islamoflattery that claims that everything good under the sun came from Islam. ( According to a recent PBS serial on Islam, even cinema was invented by a lens-maker in Baghdad, named Abu-Hufus!)

This is often practised by a new generation of the Turques de profession, Westerners who are prepared to apply the rules of critical analysis to everything under the sun except Islam.

They think they are doing Islam a favour.

The opposite is true.

Depriving Islam of critical scrutiny is bad for Islam and Muslims, and ultimately dangerous for the whole world.

The debate is about how to organise the global public space that is shared by the whole humanity. That space must be religion-neutral and free of ideology, which means organised on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There are 57 nations in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Not one is yet a democracy .

The more Islamic the regime in place the less democratic it is.

Democracy is the rule of mortal common men.

Islam is the rule of immortal God.

Politics is the art of the possible and democracy a method of dealing with the problems of real life.

Islam, on the other hand, is about the unattainable ideal.

We should not allow the everything-is-equal-to-everything-else fashion of postmodernist multiculturalism and political correctness to prevent us from acknowledging differences and, yes, incompatibilities, in the name of a soggy consensus.

If we are all the same how can we have a dialogue of civilisations, unless we elevate cultural schizophrenia into an existential imperative.

Muslims should not be duped into believing that they can have their cake and eat it. Muslims can build democratic society provided they treat Islam as a matter of personal, private belief and not as a political ideology that seeks to monopolise the public space and regulate every aspect of individual and community life.

Ladies and gentlemen: Islam is incompatible with democracy.

I commend the motion.

Thank you

 

[iooqxpooi]

Islam

Hitler couldn't kill the jews unless they were in a ceartain country, correct? If they weren't in that country, he'd have to invade others, with low populations, until he could invade others that had denser populations. Now Hitler knew an army, and his army would DEFINITELY lose morale or enough soldiers to fail. And this is what they did. That is why they wanted a small area where most of the jews are concentrated...luckily, the jews were too far away for Hitler to get to them, and he didn't want to invade past poland, so eh went through africa. And when he failed there, he was about to go through poland until BAM! D-Day.(I think that the Battle of El-AlAmein was before D-Day)

 

[Grayson]

Islam

Phoenix: That was an excellent post and proved most insightful. It touched on what I was saying regarding the absolute connittment to one's God, which is where I see the nub of this laying. Faith and Religious devotion are powerful weapons in the arsenal of Terror and it is these that we need to be working on.

The Koran and the Bible are almost the same book and it is high time that we highlighted our Religious similarities, rather than our Political differences.

The language incompatibilities was, for the most part, new to me. This adds an unusual and problematic dynamic to the debate. If we can't talk the same language, there is little hope of an immediate solution.

I heard today that the US Military had suffered the deaths of 1,000 Servicemen and Women to date. That's a thousand Sons, Daughters, Fathers and Mothers that won't be home for Christmas, nor ever see the rise of a new dawn again.

This is wrong. Is it really all because we can't really talk to each other?

According to our Bible, this lack of a common tongue stems from our Christian God being angry with us for building the Tower of Babylon and cursing us with a multitude of tongues. We should have paid more attention to the lesson implicit in this tale.

Mom: I knew what you were saying. If my post suggest otherwise... Sorry.

 

[pauli]

Islam

Oy! So much to which to respond. Let me start by clarifying something important:

Cary, I do not and have not at ANY time viewed you as being an anti-semite, so do not be afraid that I am approaching you from this assumption. You stated very clearly that you are not anti-Jewish nor anti-semitic and until it is established to my mind that you are, then I am taking your statements at face value. I would be interested in knowing, however, if you believe that Israel as a country has a right to exist as a Jewish state. If you do, we don't have an argument. If you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Secondly, I do not believe that Israel is without blame in every move it makes. The gov't over there is decidedly secular and socialist based. Not being a fan of socialism, I am not always impressed by what they do. However, as a Jew, I am extremely grateful that little country is there. G-d forbid another Hitler would rise to power in the world and I would have no place to run. Many Jews hold similar feelings on this score. That does not mean I don't realize that Israel has its warts. It does, without a doubt - to our shame.

Thirdly, though I don't always agree with what you say, or think, I do appreciate hearing what you have to say. You are passionately committed to your ideas - as am I. This is why I can appreciate what you have to say - one passionate person often can appreciate the passion of another because it reminds them of themselves. I am also interested in what you have to say precisely because it is different from the way that I think. How am I to learn about other people's points of view if I lock myself in a ghetto of like-minded thinkers and never explore other ways of seeing things? I am a seeker of truth (I know, some people don't believe in an objective truth, they believe in moral relativism - but I do believe that there is such a thing as truth with a capital "T"; therefore, I like learning from other people.) And, I don't expect other people to share my opinions. Why on earth would I want that? In proverbs there is a saying: "Iron sharpens iron, therefore one man sharpens another." It is the Jewish way to debate, so I am sorry if I come across a bit more abrasive than what other's expect. This is the way I think... "You show me your thoughts, I'll show you mine and we can banter it back and forth if you are willing." If that is disturbing to you, however, I won't pursue it. I am not asking you to agree with me; and I will let you know if I think you have made a good point. After all, if you and I agree on every detail, then one of us is unnecessary.

You raised a bunch of things in your first posting on this thread, and although I know you were not trying to bring up a debate on that first part, I did respond. If you feel it is too O.T. I will understand and not go too far into it. I did recognize when I last posted I only addressed half of your argument. Also, it is late when I am posting here now, so I am not so excited to go into a long posting right now. I will come back and make a few comments on your responses if you are open to it. If not, we will just bump along and continue posting to the issue at hand, which I believe was the topic of "Islam."

Pauli,

Go ahead and address specific theories that Cary is proposing. Enumerate them and ask Cary to support his position. Please also include sources for your arguments as well Pauli, I am sure you both can talk about this logically and systematically.

Thanks phoenix. Always the even-handed moderator, even when you don't have that job anymore. :lol: Still looking to keep the peace I see. @);-

I'll get back to this later when I have more time. (sigh)

 

[CaryP]

Islam

Pauli,

Yes, I believe Israel has a right to exist. Yes, I am open to a dialogue on whatever you want to discuss.

Cary