Proof of Radical Islam's True Agenda

Why is Radical Islam radical in the first place? Where do they become radical, who teaches them and what inspires them to behave such a way? By ignoring the issue that it is the Koran itself that breeds these minds on an individual, social and international scale is because it does not have a fair tolerant outlook on non believers. You know their laws, you know about freedom of expression and religious freedom does not exist and separates people, it does not unite people unless you become a Muslim.

This separation and lack verses in the Koran for pro-tolerance is to blame, Muhammad was not exactly Christ in the making, quite the opposite in fact, you could not make up an anti-Christ figure up as the next religion after the Bible even if you tried to imagine it.

I am not sure it is a good idea to give oppressive powers a stronghold in free societies if the result is a stealth increase of intolerance in disguise, to keep freedoms you have to fight for it, I am sure plenty of Muslims are fighting across the democratic lands in bringing your freedoms to court and putting a little bit of Islam in your way. It is all part of the Muhammad conquest plan, he is not a role model I would teach anyone to follow; Christ is the clear winner here and has helped establish freedom and justice and tolerance.

reply to post by ForAiur

Irrelevant. The agenda of Islam now is a distinct 7 phase plan that includes ridding non-muslims.

reply to post by JJay55


That was the exact excuse Hitler used to persecute people. I kid you not.

Hitler claimed that the Jews had a 10-point plan called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Zion is Israel).

You can do a google for it "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Would you please direct me to the Muslim equivalent? Let me guess, "the Quran" right?

I would like to see cultural sensitivity and diversity being tolerated across Muslim countries and individuals, I am sure they will find something across those lines where Muhammad expressed over and over again so that it was not forgotten in all those waging war passages.

This is not about racism but ideology, if communists were out in numbers today in the West I am sure people would speak up about it.

Jjay,

would you please post your arguments and sources for this 7-stage Islamic agenda - and your sources?

How has this plan been unfolding over the centuries?
Or is it only part of modern radicalised Islam?

Who planned it and when?

Do most people in countries like Iraq and Iran know about it?

How did you manage to learn all these languages (Farsi, Arabic, Bahasa)? At what level? Are you a linguist?

Excuse me, but your cryptic declarations make one wonder about some sort of proof regarding your bold assertions.

[edit error -m]


[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]

What happened in this period is that the people formerly known for centuries as the Khazars became known simply as 'Jews' and their true origin was lost. In its place their leaders sold to them - and the rest of the world - a false history. This was the belief that they were the Biblical Jews and the fallacy continues to this day with devastating consequences for peace in the Middle East. The Khazar 'Jews' were confined to ghettos as a result of Papal dictat in the mid-16th century and this, together with the 17th century Cossack (ironically) massacres in the Ukraine, led to another mass exodus into Hungary, Bohemia, Rumania and Germany. There were hardly any Jews in Germany until this time. "Thus the great trek to the West was resumed," says Koestler, "It was to continue through nearly three centuries until the Second World War, and became the principle source of the existing Jewish communities in Europe, the United States, and Israel." So what does all this mean for the official history of the Jewish people? Koestler, who was himself born in Budapest, writes:

[It] would mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan, but from the Volga, not from Canaan but from the Caucasus, once believed to be the cradle of the Aryan race; and that genetically they are more closely connected to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Should this turn out to be the case, then the term 'anti-Semitism' would be void of meaning, based on a misapprehension shared by both the killers and their victims. The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.

Benjamin H. Freedman was a one-time Jewish businessman in New York and a long-time 'insider' before speaking out vociferously against Zionism after World War Two. He was personally acquainted with leading American political figures like Bernard Baruch, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. Freedman went much further in his assessment of the Khazar revelation:

What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) ... There wasn't one of them [the Khazars] who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, 'You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Saviour ... It is as ridiculous to call them 'people of the Holy Land,' as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems 'Arabs' ..."

The former Khazar people are known as the Ashkenazi Jews (plural Ashkenazim) and some writers estimate that perhaps 90% to 95% of those calling themselves 'Jewish' worldwide are ancestors of the Khazars. Others are known as Sephardic Jews and they do have an historical connection to the Middle East, although even then the idea of a 'chosen race' going back to Biblical Israel still doesn't stand up, as we shall see. The Ashkenazim ('Khazars') are actually the minority in Israel itself, but they hold the reins of power and have always done so since the country was created in 1948. The name Ashkenazi is said by some to originate from Ashkenaz, the Hebrew word for Germany. In fact, the Bible refers to the ashkenaz as a people living in the region of Mount Ararat (now Turkey) and Armenia. That would certainly fit the basic location of the Khazars... The Ashkenazi as a people did not speak the Semitic language of Hebrew, which is no surprise at all because they are not Hebrews. They developed their own tongue called Yiddish...[which] did not come from Israel.

mmichael, this is an interesting new find. As I married into a Jewish family, it has some significance to me and some relatives.

I would think originally the Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler was not anti-Jewish propaganda though. Koestler - I am sure you know that he was a Hungarian Jew - thought for a long time that the Khazar theory was true and drew his conclusions in a book.
I would not say he was anti-Jewish, although he did not support a resurgence of Judaism after the holocaust.
Ashkenazim here are thought of as somewhat physically different than Sephardim. They can be red-haired with a longer nose. My wife's relatives have Spanish Judaic ancestry so they have long neck and dark curly hair.

It would be interesting if it turned out that the other side in Eastern Europe is also related to Hebrews.

I do not read antisemitic pages so I am sadly uninformed as to how they use versions and theories of Jewish history. (I generally do not read anti-Islamic articles either - although I do not want to compare these two cultures.)

thank you for your research!

Originally posted by ForAiur
What happened in this period is that the people formerly known for centuries as the Khazars became known simply as 'Jews' and their true origin was lost. In its place their leaders sold to them - and the rest of the world - a false history. This was the belief that they were the Biblical Jews and the fallacy continues to this day with devastating consequences for peace in the Middle East.

This is anti-Jewish propaganda perpetuated by racists and has no real historical basis. Those who accept it without question reveal the type of information they rely on.

An ATS Moderator debunked this lie totally on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

.... I've noticed accusations that today's Jews (American, European, and Israeli) are not 'real Jews' but are instead descendants of Khazarian Jewish converts. This claim is typically offered as a reason why Jews currently inhabiting the state of Israel have no legitimate ancestral claim to the land.

My intent with this thread is to debunk such an accusation.

A Very Brief History

After suffering persecution in Persia, Byzantium, and various Islamic nations, many Jews fled to Khazaria (1, 2) for safety. The Khazars and Jews enjoyed a diplomatic relationship and eventually Khazarian nobility converted to Judaism around the 8th-9th century A.D. Some historians believe their subjects later converted to Judaism as well, although the extent of conversion is debated and evidence exists to verify a range of figures. Kharzars held a diverse range of religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and various pagan beliefs. Although evidence certainly points to some Khazars holding Jewish beliefs, they were not all converts to Judaism.

The Conspiracy Begins

Fast forward to the 19th century. French Philosopher Ernest Renan appears to be responsible for starting the conspiracy theory in his book Judaism as a Race and as Religion. He puts forth the claim Ashkenazic Jews are descended from Khazarian converts and the line of Japheth and not 'pure blood' Semitic Jews descended from Shem and Abraham. Slowly but surely the theory began to spread in popularity and was ultimately popularized in the 20th century by the well known racial theorist Lothrop Stoddard.

Several more authors picked up and propagated the myth throughout the 20th century to the point the accusation became wide spread and well known. The theory is now very popular with various anti-semitic and anti-Zionist organizations and is mostly used to negate Israel's purpose of existence.

Debunking the Accusation Using DNA Evidence

The evidence is by far on the side of those seeking to refute the allegation that Ashkenazic are not 'real' Jews. Science and DNA evidence confirms common, semitic ancestry:

Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora. A set of 18 biallelic polymorphisms was genotyped in 1,371 males from 29 populations, including 7 Jewish (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian) and 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora.

Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes

And:

With a new technique based on the male or Y chromosome, biologists have traced the diaspora of Jewish populations from the dispersals that began in 586 B.C. to the modern communities of Europe and the Middle East.

The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.

Another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities closely resemble not only each other but also Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, suggesting that all are descended from a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some four thousand years ago.

[Snip]

Despite the Ashkenazi Jews' long residence in Europe, their Y signature has remained distinct from that of non-Jewish Europeans.

Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora

Religious Support

Those who continue to push forth the theory that Ashkenazi Jews are not 'real Jews' also display a gross ignorance of the Jewish religion concerning the treatment and acceptance of converts. This is either ignored or unknown by those who make the accusation. Although we can see above DNA evidence vindicates modern Jews, even if by some chance they were not ancestrally related, the fact remains in Judaism a convert is treated with the utmost respect and, according to Jewish Law, no differentiation is made between a 'biological,' if you will, Jew and a Jewish convert.

Even some famous Biblical characters, one example being Ruth, an ancestor of King David, were converts to the faith and not born into it as a descendant of Abraham. A Jew is a Jew either through heritage or conversion so this accusation is negated.

Historical Support

As I mention above, the statistics regarding the Khazarian conversion is a hotly debated topic. For the sake of intellectual honesty, I will say that in some cases there is historical support to confirm a a large amount of converts. However, this still poses no problem to Israel's right to exist or its current citizens of being 'Real Jews.' There were conversions as well as a mixing of the cultures but the scientific evidence above proves the bloodline retained its integrity. History, biology, and archeology also prove not all Khazarians became Ashkenazi Jews and not all Ashkenazi Jews were Khazarian. Although many did convert to Judaism, many Kharzarians still held a diverse range of religious beliefs.

Conclusion

In light of all evidence, most scholars and historians have rejected or abandoned the conspiracy theory altogether. The remaining proponents of the theory generally consist of various groups and organizations seeking to undermine Israel's sovereignty, its citizens right to the land, and to propagate anti-semitic information.

You'll often find this information still being presented without any actual facts to back it up on anti-semitic websites like Stormfront, Jew Watch, etc.

The fact remains, this claim simply is not factual and all evidence points to this conspiracy theory being false.

reply to post by mmiichael

even if by some chance they were not ancestrally related, the fact remains in Judaism a convert is treated with the utmost respect and, according to Jewish Law, no differentiation is made between a 'biological,' if you will, Jew and a Jewish convert.

Judaism discourages conversion. If a Gentile asks a rabbi to convert, the rabbi will warn him not to.

Instead, the rabbi will teach him the Seven Laws of Noah (Noachide Laws - google it). According to Judaism, a Gentile only has to follow these seven laws to be considered "righteous," whereas a Jew must follow the 613 laws of the Torah.

In practice, Judaism makes a distinction between "Jews" and "Goyim." Even if you follow the Seven Laws of Noah, you're still a goyim.

The only way to become Jewish is by being born to a Jewish mother. That is Talmudic (Jewish) Law.

Theoretically, it is possible to convert, but the rabbis make it so difficult to convert that it's practically impossible. No, if you're not born a Jew, you'll always be a goyim.

If you don't believe me go ask a rabbi if you can convert to Judaism.

Originally posted by Kokatsi
As I married into a Jewish family, it has some significance to me and some relatives.

I would think originally the Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler was not anti-Jewish propaganda though. Koestler - I am sure you know that he was a Hungarian Jew - thought for a long time that the Khazar theory was true and drew his conclusions in a book.

I would not say he was anti-Jewish, although he did not support a resurgence of Judaism after the holocaust.

Ashkenazim here are thought of as somewhat physically different than Sephardim. They can be red-haired with a longer nose. My wife's relatives have Spanish Judaic ancestry so they have long neck and dark curly hair.

It would be interesting if it turned out that the other side in Eastern Europe is also related to Hebrews.

I do not read antisemitic pages so I am sadly uninformed as to how they use versions and theories of Jewish history. (I generally do not read anti-Islamic articles either - although I do not want to compare these two cultures.)

The good news for anti-Semites is that their agenda is alive and well on ATS.
The newly fashionable pro-Muslim liberalism and apologia embraces all the Jewish paranoia and hatred that is a permanent fixture of Islam. Buzzword not to appear racist is to blame "Zionists" for everything wrong in the world, culturally, economically, politically. Note 9/11 Conspiracy has been slowly hijacked by White Supremacists making "Jews did 9/11" a now popular theme.

Koestler is an interesting controversial figure. Brilliant but decidedly not much of an historian.

en.wikipedia.org...

Koestler himself was sympathetic to Zionism on secular considerations, and did not see alleged Khazar ancestry as diminishing the claim of Jews to Israel, which he felt was based on the United Nations mandate, and not on Biblical covenants or genetic inheritance. In his view, "The problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago ... is irrelevant to modern Israel". In addition, he was apparently "either unaware of or oblivious to the use anti-Semites had made to the Khazar theory since its introduction at the turn of the century."

Nevertheless, in the Arab world the Khazar theory has been adopted by anti-Zionists and anti-Semites; such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists.

In the West, Koestler's thesis has also been embraced by some adherents of British Israelism and its offshoots such as the Christian Identity movement.
[edit] Controversy

Koestler's historiography was attacked as highly questionable by many historians. His discussion of theories about Ashkenazi descent is largely unsupported; to the extent that Koestler referred to place-names and documentary evidence his analysis has been described as a mixture of flawed etymologies and misinterpreted primary sources. Commentators have also noted that Koestler mischaracterized the sources he cited, particularly D.M. Dunlop's History of the Jewish Khazars (1954).

For example, Bernard Lewis wrote in 1986: "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics".

hI my friends/comrads!!!!!


Well,,,why do all the so called "good muslims" turn their head the other way on the sicks radicals????,,,as well as their sick clerics who preach violence???,,,)sadistic koran teachings),,,

Kinda makes one think that they have some mental illness as well!!!

Its a cult it what it is!!!!

The radicals are gaining momentum,,,and the so called "good ones" who dont give a crap,,,,,well,,,throw them into the same pot!!!!

weird how 1000's of them flock to the infidels countries and start havic and try to make their own courts and laws,,,,
SCREW THAT!!!!

I luv myself varietys of cultures,,,,but that culture is messed up!!!

Didnt Pakistan try to cut a deal with some sick radical sect there,,,say you can have this territory/town,,,,
what did they do,,,,?????
2 weeks later they move to the next town,,,,

LOL

And dont get me/my comrads wrong by thinking we are bigots,,,!!
We are just starting to get sick of their scum filthy crap!!!

heres an article which is interesting,,,,
www.hudson.org...

Sure theres a lotta bad stuff in the world,,,,there always has been,,,,

but their idiology is to kill the cow cause it saw a fox kill the chicken....

I stand solid on my beleifs,,,!!!

They did it to themselves,,,,and will continue to do so!!!

but I am going to fight back!!!!!

Originally posted by ForAiur
Judaism discourages conversion. If a Gentile asks a rabbi to convert, the rabbi will warn him not to.

Instead, the rabbi will teach him the Seven Laws of Noah (Noachide Laws - google it). According to Judaism, a Gentile only has to follow these seven laws to be considered "righteous," whereas a Jew must follow the 613 laws of the Torah.

In practice, Judaism makes a distinction between "Jews" and "Goyim." Even if you follow the Seven Laws of Noah, you're still a goyim.

The only way to become Jewish is by being born to a Jewish mother. That is Talmudic (Jewish) Law.

Theoretically, it is possible to convert, but the rabbis make it so difficult to convert that it's practically impossible. No, if you're not born a Jew, you'll always be a goyim.

If you don't believe me go ask a rabbi if you can convert to Judaism.

You're information on Judaism is anecdotal. Practice and interpretations vary, almost always adapting to the culture and laws of the country of the person.

Example: The "Jews only marry Jews" exclusivity is one of many myths propagated by racists. Jews in North America statistically marry outside their grouping more than any other. 52% was the last number I saw.

Conversion is not encouraged but not discouraged for the most part. It is a liberal intellectual choice. The overwhelming majority of Jews and most rabbis do not adhere strictly to the more archaic dogmas.

The strict matrilineal descent issue is now not taken seriously by most Jews. In fact today most Jewish children, often from mixed marriages simply grow up with few disciplines and restraints and exercise a choice of how strictly they adhere later in life.

You seem to be a fount of disinformation on Jews.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by amyfriend
hI my friends/comrads!!!!!


Well,,,why do all the so called "good muslims" turn their head the other way on the sicks radicals????

Why did segments of the American community fund the IRA in the UK?

Were they sick as well?

Why didn't the Pope condemn the IRA for its terror campaign on the UK mainland?

It is better for Jews to marry Jews, I am sure some Satanic empire will be forming to wipe them out again, if you have noticed that the world is not full of Jews since the world is responsible for pursuing their genocide. The prophet Muhammad does not mind their genocide either he may even agree to it like some other Muslim leaders.

reply to post by neformore


What you replide is a far cry on on he topic of radical muslims,,,,

The history of Britain and ireland is horrible,,,especially during the days of william wallace...

And far right wing christian reigous nutts who bomb abortion clinics is another example you could use...

The topic here is about radical muslims who are all over the place,,,in many countries...

And its happening NOW,,,,

we can play the bygones game on so and so did this,,,...geeewizzzz

but lets stick the the very present threat....

I agree with your reply,,,,,religon can causes a lots of problems,,wrongs,,horrors,,,,

But as of now,,2009,,,a major WORSE threat is here called radicals muslims....

reply to post by amyfriend


I don't see it as worse. I see it as the same.

Maybe this is a matter of perspective.

Fundamentalist Christians - Catholics - tried to destroy my country. They blew up city centres, killed people and tried on more than one occasion to decapitate the UK government, once by firing mortars into Downing Street, and once by bombing the Conservative Party conference.

Those fundamentalist Christians have done more damage to my country over a period of time than any muslim ever has - including the 7/7 bombings.

So are fundamentalist christians the worst thing ever to happen to the planet? No.

Now I understand that - some people think that Islam is far worse than those fundamentalist Christians. The people who lost loved ones, were kneecapped/scarred and had their lives ruined by the IRA will probably disagree.

The US was attacked on 9/11 by (and a large number of ATS users will disagree with this) muslims. I know that it was scary. I know that it was a reprehensible act, carried out by cowards. But the reason for those attacks isn't about religion. Its about continual interference by the West in the middle east and the regions occupied by Islamic people. Thats not an excuse for terrorists though, its an explanation for them.

People try and stick their head in the sand, drink from the "they hate our freedoms" Koolaid, and start misquoting or quoting out of context verses out of books in order to demonise and highlight differences, while conviniently forgetting some problems of our own.

Lest anyone forget, Bush is directly implicated in telling Chiraq that he was on a mission from God prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Prior to that the West and the Soviet Bloc carried out a proxy war in Afghanistan, used Iraq and Iran as playthings by arming them to the teeth and settting them off against each other and also has directly instigated the overthrow of governments, aided in the misplacing of people and acted in a thoroughly reprehensible manner in the middle east for over a hundred years.

Are those people gonna be pissed by that? Hell yeah.

So yeah, look at what they do but also look at what we've done. If you want to condem solely one side of that equation, then you have a very very narrow view of the world.

Yes, some fundamentalist people use religion as a tool. So did the IRA. So what. The real nutters are in it just because they can kill people. There are people like that on both sides.

You cannot demonise a whole section of society for the actions of a few, and if you approach a subject solely from one angle you will only ever draw one conclusion.

This is ATS. Its time to think about the whole issue, not about single issue hate. All single issue hate does is self perpetuate.

Self perpetuating hate has a poster child. Its 1930's Germany. Look at what happened there eventually when a section of society was demonised.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Sadly we have been taught by our politicians if you do not like a fact, discredit it and make up your own to fit your ends. In the end they will realize they were like stalin's useful fools.

reply to post by neformore



i agree its amatter of perspective how we each veiw this as well,,,,

I do enjoy and think on the replies here on ATS,,,...
and even learn from them,,,

I am saying there is going to MAJOR problems with the radical muslims,,,

And the good muslims DO turn there face to their attrocities,,,I know some who CLEARLY state we are at war with the west and all infidels,,,
Even though they dont commit the sick crimes,,they stya quiet,,
Its no secret..
This is a mass cult agenda they have...

We all well know the dutch newspaper guy with that cartoon,,,

Look at all the violent protest and death threats to the infidels,,rape their women and such,,,,

Hey,,,this is a very violent religon..

we can try and make examples and say well we did this and that,,,

I DO understand your point,,,..

But this is alot more,,,

I also must state we//other countries WILL and I say again WILL be having major problems with them,,,,Just imagine in the next 50 years and its actually starting now,,,

evryone is worried about the swine flu and 2012,,,geewizzz,,(I know the swine flu is no joke,,,tell that to the people who died from it),,,

The radical muslims are the greatest threat,,,and the muslims who turn a blind eye to them....

At this moment there are sleeper cells and radicals working on suicide/terrorist attacks to kill innocents,,,

And saying the christians did this befor I do understand your point again,,,but this is a far bigger picture and actually different,,,
WAY DIFFERENT...

And I also know most muslims arent probly violent,,,BUTTTTTTTTTTT,,,when they turn their face and are silent does throw up MAJOR RED FLAGS...

sure,,,lets learn from our past,,,so now we got radical muslims doing it now and they are world wide,,,but way more terroristic and sadist!!!

Im glad this post was made!!!

Im sure death lays ahead for many innocents who they target....

This thread is picking up again... interesting. Finally some well-informed and thoughtful posts. neformore sums up a lot of things well...
Once we stopped meddling in the affairs of the Middle East for oil and geopolitics, which we will never do until the Chinese takeover, we could assess how peaceful or warlike most Muslims are. It seems to me there a couple of people here, who, using neformore's words, would like to have their narrow-minded truth validated, sticking their heads into the sand. That is, looking at terrorist and wildly ideological, violent Muslims as a phenomenon without a social and economic and geopolitical cause. Such views are worthy of a bushist, and I am going to stop even replying to people like that from now on. Everything has been recapped in this thread already. Enough patience has been offered to partisan posts - they still have a chance to get out of the "rival tribe" mentality, but not for long... (I am referring here to my astrological beliefs which many of you may not share.)

On principle, I am against both state terror and what is usually called terrorism. If a regime is bad, do as Gandhi did. Of course it did not work in Hungary when the Soviets crushed the revolution, but then nothing would have. The same is true of Iraq and Bushists.

mmichael: you are extremely well informed on Judaica. You are a resource here. Exactly as you said, when I enquired at a rabbi regarding conversion, I was given the above guidelines. I also got a copy of Maimonides's rules on conversion. The road is open for me still, although at present I am content with studying Jewish mysticism, elementary Hebrew, and observing some things. My motives come from deep psychology and mysticism. (I also encourage my younger daughter to participate in Jewish culture as she is legally Jewish already.)

I am aware that there are many shades of attitudes regarding Zionism and Israel. I think no sane person here actually disputes Israel's "right to exist". (Does anyone question Albania's right to exist? Serbs disputed Slovene and Croatian statehood for a few years, but Israel has already been there when I was born.) There are antisemites here too, and there are more in the country I am at now.

Just because I support Israel and have friends and relatives, Israeli politics is not a simple black and white issue for me. I am critical of Mr. Netanyahu for example, and I think it would make sense to leave the belief behind that "all those Arabs want to kill us, there is nothing you can do to them but force..." etc. That sounds like extremism to me.
And I know Israelis who are sharply critical of the anti-Islam hysteria perpetuated. Neither of us accept the politically paranoid style of thinking that wants to forge unity pointing at an implacable outside enemy.

Unfortunately we are not in an era when sane and humane voices are heard frequently. I have a feeling that Israel and the neighbouring Palestine just cannot be owned by anyone. Please ponder that. The Jews surely belong there though. The research you quoted points to common ancestors of many non-Jewish people there. The whole thing is very complex, and I dislike simplifying complexity.

I appreciate your contribution.