OT - The Greatest Disaster the World Has Ever Known.

Whoa -- tell that to the people of Oklahoma City.


Oklahoma City has not experienced Terrorism on a daily basis. They had one
horrific event. And the fact that that sociopath classifies himself as a
Christian is too ridiculous to even comment on.

I am not a bigot. I accept people of every color and every religion, even
those who are snarling. But I accept them on a one to one basis. I trust my
intuition and my personal judgement. When sending money to an unknown group,
there's no way of knowing hidden agendas. It's a known fact that there are
Muslim organizations that funnel money to terroists. How could we know which
ones those are?

Cheri
(Bubbee to Emily and Nathan)

It's my life
And it's now or never
I ain't gonna live forever
I just want to live while I'm alive - Bon Jovi

Kathy N-V wrote:

What I said was: It is prejudiced to jump to the conclusion that Muslim
charities are fronts for terrorist money laundering. Period.

I certainly read a lot more than that simple statement in your long
postings, which I why I answered the way I did. I like and respect
you, and do not want to get into an argument with you which could
easily spin out of control, especially from my end. As Bob put it:
hot flashes, Prednisone and intense pain: not a good combination for
calm discussion.

I suspected that was the cause.

But, what *really* set me off (Otherwise, I was going to simply drop
it.) was the assertation that Christians and Jews don't blow people up,
a statement which is not only naive and uninformed, but arrogant -- and
prejudiced.

Any time spent looking at the Southern Poverty Law Center's website
(www.splcenter.org), which lists the hate groups present in the US, will
reveal this. Among the groups counted are one Black group, one Jewish
group and one Pagan group. (Al Queda is not listed because it is not
based in the US.)

However, most of the groups listed are either Christian Identity groups
(groups who use the Bible to justify their racist, anti-semetic, and
homophobic views) or non-religious and/or Neo-Nazi groups like the KKK
whose membership is entirely white, "European" and Protestant Christian.

Being Muslim and attending services at a mosque does not constitute a
membership in a hate group.

I will say that my point of view as a mom of a child nearing draft
age makes me a lot less tolerant of the kind of nations we call
friends. I strongly believe that the US has a lot of relationship
repair to be done, but it isn't going to happen during this
administration. But I also believe that a lot of the countries doing
the loudest shouting should take a good look in the mirror
themselves.

Our "good friends" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spring to mind. It is,
however, their governments and not their religion which are causing the
problems.

In fact, I read somewhere that Osama bin Laden's original beef was with
the Saudi royal family, and not with America at all. (Remember, most of
the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.) It only devolved into an anti-American
movement when OBL realized that the easiest way to bring down the Saudi
monarchy was to destroy the economy of its biggest customer and fattest
cash cow: the United States of America. He's having fabulous success in
that: all he has to do is threaten to blow up an oil well and oil prices
go through the roof -- along with the price of everything else.

All this business about Muslim vs Christian is a hypocritcal fraud
perpetrated on his naive followers to get them all whipped up and
willing to commit suicide. All in the name of God....

(Things that make you go "Hmmmm")

I also discovered that many of the pledges announced by various world
governments in the days following a disaster are never actually
fulfilled....

Remember all the money that Congress set aside for the rebuilding of
Iraq? To date, only something like 10% of it has been spent. But the
money has been taken out of accounts for social services in the US,
which languish for lack of funds, and when it *is* spent, it will likely
end up in Haliburton's coffers. The Iraqi people will almost none of
it, but George and Dick stand to make a bundle of money out of this
whole affair.

I'm not cynic, am I?
Arondelle
--
================================================== =========
To email me, empty the pond with a net

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:49:05 -0500, Kalera Stratton wrote
(in message ):


Which government officially exports terrorists with the express purpose
of killing those who do not share *their* official faith? I'm just
curious, as your statement implies that someone does.



The PLO comes right out and pays the families of suicide bombers who
kill "infidels." (read: Jews) You could say it's not a country but
it certainly is a de facto government. It absolutely exports
terrorists with the express purpose of killing those who do not share
their official faith.

China uses covert terrorism and overt military action against the
Dalai Lama and the people,of East Timor to promote their own
"religion" of communism.

In September, Chechen terrorists took over a school in Southern
Russia, killing 326 people mostly children. The president of
Chechnya, Aslan Maskhadov openly claimed responsbility for this act,
as well as the hostage taking in a theatre in Moscow that killed 130.
The death toll in that nightmare can be at least partially blamed on
the Russian "rescuers" incompetence in pumping knockout gas into the
building. Chechen terrorists are government sponsored, and these
acts were officially sanctioned and credited as being religious
based. Personally, I would argue that the oil in Chechnya has
something to with it, but both the Russians and the Chechens say it
is a religious dispute.

There are all those "ethnic cleansings" throughout the fomer Soviet
republics which were government sponsored exportations of terrorism
meant to eliminate people in neighboring countries who did not share
the religious beliefs of the terrorists.

Timothy McVeigh was not sponsored by the US government, nor is there
even the slightest shred of evidence that any other country sponsored
him, either. He was an evil person with his own axe to grind against
the government of the country he called home. He murdered 169 people
when he blew up the Alfred Murragh building in Oklahoma City. As far
as I can determine, all of the victims were Americans. If any were
of foreign descent, they were not the intended targets of Mr.
McVeigh.

His despicable actions cannot be compared to the Christmas bombing
over Lockerbie, Scotland (considered to be a terrorist act by Libya),
the bombings of American embassies in Africa (I'm too whipped right
now to look up all the details) or the September 11 bombings. Those
were acts of terrorism against people living in enemy countries,
meant to cleanse the world of unbelievers.

If all this sounds anti-Muslim, it isn't. I haven't the slightest
problem with Islam, and really don't care what anyone's personal
religious beliefs might be. I do have a problem with people using
violence to spread their own beliefs. Right this moment, it seems to
be Islam that is using that tactic (though it's not only Islam).
However, no religion seems to have a monopoly on using the tactic of
killing heretics, infidels, witches or whatever term they find useful
at that moment.

This will be my last posting on the topic. As I said before, I have
no interest in engaging in an argument on terrorism, because I have
little chance of changing anyone's mind, and because this could get
very ugly in no time. I'd much rather talk about beading with people
I care about and respect, as I care about and respect all of you.

Kathy N-V

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:28:47 -0500, Arondelle wrote
(in message z3XBd.19924$L7.15110@trnddc05):

But, what *really* set me off (Otherwise, I was going to simply drop
it.) was the assertation that Christians and Jews don't blow people up,
a statement which is not only naive and uninformed, but arrogant -- and
prejudiced.

I don't think I said that, because it's not even close to how I feel.
(although I know why you might think I said that) What set me off
was your statement that the victims of the disaster might be more
comfortable receiving aid from fellow Muslims. I feel such actions
simply promotes the anti-Western stereotype that seems to be
permeating the world these days.

I also see no reason why I should hide my gift behind a charity which
does not reflect my beliefs. Actually, I used a secular
multi-national charity, Oxfam, to funnel my gift to the disaster
area. I've found them to be a terrific group, not taking excessive
amounts for "overhead," and really getting to the heart of the
problem and doing what they can to fix it. When I was a scout
leader, each year we set aside a month's worth of dues and skipped
our snack to give the money to Oxfam. The kids learned a lot about
world hunger and what we can do to help.

I'm well aware that bad behavior is not limited to any one group.
From what I can see, nearly every group has at least some history of
oppressing others when given the opportunity.

Kathy N-V

Obligatory Bead reference: O.M.G. to the Michael Barley Bead that
was in the most recent drool list. But the one that has me rooting
through the sofa for loose change is this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...4070&item=4955
292006&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

What a pity that the holidays, a tsunami, Spain and my new CPAP have
drained the discretionary spending fund. I'd really love that bead.

Yeah, might wanna mention it at some abortion clinics, too.

Cheers,
Carla

Dr. Sooz wrote:

~~~~ But, why should you be more supicious of

*all* Muslim charities than of Christian or Jewish charities?


Because Christians and Jews are not blowing innocent people up on a
daily
basis.~~~~

Whoa -- tell that to the people of Oklahoma City.

Kathy N-V wrote:

But, what *really* set me off (Otherwise, I was going to simply drop
it.) was the assertation that Christians and Jews don't blow people up,
a statement which is not only naive and uninformed, but arrogant -- and
prejudiced.

I don't think I said that, because it's not even close to how I feel.
(although I know why you might think I said that) What set me off
was your statement that the victims of the disaster might be more
comfortable receiving aid from fellow Muslims. I feel such actions
simply promotes the anti-Western stereotype that seems to be
permeating the world these days.

Clarification: It was not *your* statement which set me off, but
Cheri's. Until she wrote that Christians and Jews don't blow people up
(she never said anything about government sponsorship of same, and
neither did I), I was simple going to go back to sleep.

Nowhere did I advocate giving only to Muslim charities, only that one
should not automatically assume that they might funnel the money to
terrorists. Muslims *are* going to be more comfortable getting aid from
fellow Muslims, but given the enormity of the disaster, getting aid only
from Muslims is unlikely, if not impossible.

The stereotype of Westerners being dismissive of "brown-skinned" peoples
goes way, way back to the doctrine of Manifest Destiny of the old
British Empire. Apparently, it was thought that dark-skinned
non-Christians are inherently unable to govern themselves, that they
need enlightened, Christian, white folks to take care of them.

I think that the "brown-skinned" peoples could be forgiven for resenting
that idea.

Americans have done little or nothing to change this arrogant
stereotype. Giving money to poor Asian countries to build secular
schools would have done far more to give our image a face-lift than all
the wars of "liberation" could (and less expensively, as well), but we
turned our backs on them instead -- unless they had oil under their
land, of course.

We were too busy spending the money building bombs with which to blow up
the Russians, I guess.

I also see no reason why I should hide my gift behind a charity which
does not reflect my beliefs.

Question: Wouldn't you be more comfortable receiving aid from a
Christian or secular charity, given the choice? Why would you want to
receive aid from an organization that does not reflect your beliefs, and
which might come with strings attached -- such as "We'll give you this
food, but you have to come to our church and listen to our sermon to get
it."? After all, that's what missionary work is all about: spreading
the Word of God through charity.

I'm well aware that bad behavior is not limited to any one group.
From what I can see, nearly every group has at least some history of
oppressing others when given the opportunity.

Bingo. Some people, however, still don't get it.

Arondelle
--
================================================== =========
To email me, empty the pond with a net

~~~~~And the fact that that sociopath classifies himself as a
Christian is too ridiculous to even comment on.~~~~
And that's exactly how most Muslims feel about Al Queda.

Cheri2Star wrote:

Oklahoma City has not experienced Terrorism on a daily basis. They
had one
horrific event. And the fact that that sociopath classifies himself
as a
Christian is too ridiculous to even comment on.

About as ridiculous as the 9/11 hijackers classifying themselves as
Muslim, and you basing your opinions of Muslims on their actions.

Americans, in general, have not experienced terrorism on a daily basis
either. So far, we have only experienced *one* instance of Islamist
terrorism on American soil. How does that make every Muslim a
potential terrorist?

I am not a bigot. I accept people of every color and every religion,
even
those who are snarling. But I accept them on a one to one basis. I
trust my
intuition and my personal judgement. ...

Like: "All Muslims are terrorists -- except for this one guy I work
with, Joe Islam. He's a great guy and a credit to his religion. I
never knew a Muslim could be so nice." Otherwise, you have already
decided that you don't like [name a group], but you're willing to be
big about it and give this one guy a chance to prove himself. How very
tolerant.

Oh, and I appreciate that you accept Pagans, even if I'm not being very
nice right now. At least *somebody* doesn't think we all go around
drinking blood and worshipping Satan.

... When sending money to an unknown group, there's no way of knowing
hidden
agendas. It's a known fact that there are Muslim organizations that
funnel
money to terroists. How could we know which ones those are?

At one time, it was a "known fact" that the world was flat and you'd
sail right off the edge if you went too far west. I wouldn't put *too*
much faith in known facts, especially when they come out of the Bush
Whitehouse. The Busheviks have come out with far too many spurious
"facts" as it is.

Anyway, the rats are beginning to come out of the walls already.
Reports are coming in that there are some vultures taking advantage of
people's generosity to line their own pockets. However, they're not
disguising themselves as Muslim charities: who would give money to
them, otherwise? Stealing isn't quite as bad as terrorism, but it's
still a sin, yes?

Two solutions to the charity conundrum: Don't give money to a charity
with which you are not familiar -- or don't give money at all if you're
that paranoid.

Arondelle, the Snarling Person

"Arondelle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Oh, and I appreciate that you accept Pagans, even if I'm not being very
nice right now. At least *somebody* doesn't think we all go around
drinking blood and worshipping Satan.


That's a relief! You must be a credit to your religion...
g

Anyway, the rats are beginning to come out of the walls already.
Reports are coming in that there are some vultures taking advantage of
people's generosity to line their own pockets. However, they're not
disguising themselves as Muslim charities: who would give money to
them, otherwise? Stealing isn't quite as bad as terrorism, but it's
still a sin, yes?

Two solutions to the charity conundrum: Don't give money to a charity
with which you are not familiar -- or don't give money at all if you're
that paranoid.

All con artists prey on your good wishes, manners, or naiivity. Thanks for
the reminder. Not all "charities" are truly in need. My better half loves
to say that he's his own favorite charity.

In article , vj
writes:

i don't want to rain on anyone's parade OR
start an argument. but it worries me that that same list may be on
the government's watch list for terrorist support organizations. or
whatever. is there any cross-reference?????

Aside from the Red Cross and CAIR itself, I don't know if there is any. I would
say that local Muslim groups are pretty careful now of supporting purported
"Islamic" charitites-- they've had a lot of problems "investigations" and
certainly don't want to go through any more. The one who sent the list is a
part time chaplin at a Navy chapel-- so I'm pretty sure he's "clean", and this
was the first notification of any sort of relief efforts I saw (I sent that
post about a week ago!).
However, no matter who recommends a charity, it would be a good idea to check
it out for yourself before you donate.


Kaytee
"Simplexities" on
www.eclecticbeadery.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplexities/