Prominent Saudi cleric Salman Al-Odeh is reportedly shown in this video not just questioning the scope of the Holocaust but repeating the ancient anti-Semitic “blood libel” claim that Jews drink the blood of children. This story is based on a translation supplied by a couple of sites and cannot be verified by this blog. Perhaps one of our readers can address its accuracy.
Salman Al-Odeh a leading “scholar” reportedly explains how “the role of the Jews is to wreak destruction, to wage war, and to practice deception and extortion.” He is then translated saying that
“It is well known that the Jews celebrate several holidays, one of which is the Passover, or the matzos holiday. I read once about a doctor who was working in a laboratory. This doctor lived with a Jewish family. One day, they said to him: ‘We want blood. Get us some human blood.’ He was confused. He didn’t know what this was all about,” Al-Odeh says as the interviewer nods along. “He found that they were making matzos with human blood. They eat it, believing that this brings them close to their false god, Yahweh.”
He is quoted as adding that the Jewish people “would lure a child in order to sacrifice him in the religious rite that they perform during that holiday.” Here is an idea. Why not identify the doctor who can identify the alleged perpetrators? Clearly, neither the cleric nor the doctor want to protect the alleged culprit. We can then prove to the world that this blood libel is nothing more than a knowing falsehood perpetrated by anti-Semites.
If the translation is accurate, it is a truly shocking display of raw anti-Semitism and ignorance — even for part of the world known for extremism.
Source: Times of Israel
Curious,
There is a limited number of words that trigger the moderation filter, but sometimes the spam filter also will misfire for mysterious reasons. I’ll check it out. If it’s just one of the words or a spam filter issue, I’ll substitute an asterisk if needed and approve the comment.
Gene,
Something happened to my response. Must have been something I said. Does it get released after moderation, or do I have to do over?
Excellent discussion on SA, Iraq, Iran, AQ, etc.
My short brief:
George and Co., starting with the Pappy’s relations with the House of Saud and Cheney’ declaration of the need for a shock plan to achieve their aims got together with them and planned 9/11.
Iraq, as has been noted, was a secular Arabic nation with a large influece, an educated literate population, with working women in productive educated positions. A foe to Saudi style religion, quite simply. And the best schools in the Arab world.
George promised to take out Iraq as the scapegoat for 9/11, taking away SA worst opponent as an Arab world influence. and deal with Iran in time (subversion was then thought to be adequate).
SA gave the ben Ladin family the job to establish a collection point and poster boy for the “terrorists”. Osama and Al Quaeda are the results. The bin Ladins were offered a deal they truly oould not refuse.
USA promised to protect the Gulf states, as well as SA from Iran. USA is stupid and by taking out the secular arrangement in Iraq, opens Iraq for Iran control (of the oil now) by the Shia demographicly dominant faction.
SA gets a free hand in completing its dominance of the arabic world for its version of the “truth” (Wahabism), and can start its attack against other blasphemers within Islam, and world expanxion of Islam.
Build a mosque and it is guaranteed a going affair.
I say this without any bigotry or rancor, just facts.
I respect Islam, as I do any form of brainwashing. Sarcasm.
But helping to make a chock trauma deed to allow the government of the USA to control its people is not tolerable in my world.
We can’t get Bush and Cheney for this. Proof is lacking. But they better stay away from Europe. War crimes might bite them.
People are one thing, government that speak and do in their name (or in hidden deeds) are another.
The thought is mine, but it was said previously.
Curious,
You’ve got it. Think longer scale. It is necessary for us (from their perspective) to take out Iran (which war with Iran is a practical certainty if Romney gets elected – a fact people in the media are all but ignoring).
No Iraq to check Iran. Iran destroys or critically weakens Israel. We destroy Iran’s government and infrastructure. They pick up the pieces for a ME unified under Wahabist rule unified by SA seen as savior instead of aggressor; a modern Caliphate paid for with the blood of infidels, Jews and non-Wahabists. In the long run, the Kurds are not a serious threat, but rather a minor annoyance. If Sun Tzu were a Saudi? It’s something he’d do, so why wouldn’t they?
And yes, Israel’s problems are deeper than Likud, but Likhud is the culmination of those problems.
“And yes, Israel’s problems are deeper than Likud, but Likhud is the culmination of those problems.”
From my perspective as a supporter of Israel the statement above is true. I would assert, however, is that Israel’s biggest problem is the mythology that it is America’s “greatest ally” in the Middle East. The US role vis-a-vis Israel is to act as its’ “controller” and limit its options, rather than as an ally. The major and perhaps only true US ally in the ME are the Saudi’s. The reality is that it is unclear whether the US is subservient in that role. Israel is quite capable of taking care of itself without US aid ad/or interference. It is the dependency on the US that has kept the inept Likud in power and moved Israel away from its founding principles. Netanyahu was elected with the aid of Republican money and is blinded by it. The greatest threat to ME peace is an Israel in thrall to the US, which is in turn in thrall to the power and wealth of “Big Oil” led by the Saudi’s.
Gene,
But why would the Saudis think we would go on to attack Iraq and not just stop with Afghanistan? I’m having a hard time seeing that they would want to bring down Iraq since that would leave Iran (bolstered by Syria) as unopposed leader of the region -not Saudi Arabia. And why would they suppose Wahabit Islam will grow with the defeat of a secular regime when the Iraqi citizens are pretty damn religious Sunnis and Shia with some troublesome Kurds thrown in? Call me crazy, but wouldn’t that be something like expecting the Green Party to win the election because we’re all sick of the Dems and Repubs? Is there a Wahabi contingent in the Iraqi congress?
But I’ll cooperate… we did what they hoped, now how has Saudi Arabia’s position improved? Or is it necessary to have us take out Iran, too, leaving the REAL plan an alliance between Israel and Saudi… Stop! The world can’t be THAT phucked up that this is the plan.
As far as their lack of US cooperation – they have a very fine line to walk in keeping things “quiet” in their country. No more hand holding with Bush. Sort of like us having to keep the NRA unchallenged and sending federal dollars to schools that teach Bible stories. And how is it ever that an entrenched, conservative regime hanging on by its fingernails and running out of oil sitting right next to a tough son of a b**ch war machine mortal enemy has a long-term plan for instability? It’s like a Paul Bremmer white paper!
As for Israel, I think the problem is more than the Likud. Things were bad under Sharon, too. But the Likud is worse, much worse.
Curious,
While we’re at it, I think both the perpetual warmongering of the Likud led Israeli government and their multiple times being caught using spies against us through organizations like AIPAC merits us cutting them loose from our apron strings. Sovereignty comes with costs and responsibilities including being a good neighbor – something the Likud has been ignoring for the last 50 years because they think they can always run hide behind our proverbial skirt after going out and playing the aggressor and/or oppressor.
The one thing in common between Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. in my book is that their citizens deserve a far better government than they have instead of the corrupt war mongering theocrats and fascists that they have gotten.
Curious,
As to Saudi Arabia’s motivation, within the context of the regional theater, their motivation is quite clear: the removal of a secular regime from Iraq which was providing the only bulwark against their regional plans for expanding the dominance of Wahabist Islam. Might as well take advantage of their “best customer” while they still have oil left to bargain with (some estimates put them at being out of substantial production by 2030). Regional instability is precisely what they want in the long term. In fact, they’d love nothing better for us to go to war with their ideological enemies, the Shia dominated government of Iran. As far as throwing out bin Laden? They certainly didn’t do anything to curtail his funding now did they? Or find him. Or give substantive assistance in the intelligence follow up to 9/11. De facto? No wiggle room at all in that term. De facto is the perfect term for an officially unsanctioned but privately approved act. I think the fact that Saudi Arabia has acted as an obstruction to intelligence efforts to bring their citizens responsible to justice is nothing if not tacit aiding and abetting after the fact. Did they have an active role in planning? Maybe, maybe not, but given the totalitarian nature of their security services I think it would be naive to think they didn’t know what bin Laden was up to. Inaction can be a tactical and strategic choice. Proxy wars are nothing new and using your own citizens as the proxies under the guise of terrorism is simply a new twist on an old tactic.
The conflation of Islam and terrorism is a problem.
So is letting Saudi involvement whether it is official, quasi-official or unofficial in 9/11 slide simply because they are in financial bed with many many pols is as wrong as attacking Iraq over 9/11 when they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
They had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did, but because the House of Saud is in bed with both the Bush family and Halliburton, they were protected from the retribution they are due. Saudi Arabia is a blight upon the region, world peace and our political and economic systems. It has nothing to do with them being Arabs though and everything to do with them being theocratic totalitarian barbarians with a lot of money and way too much influence over our government.
Gene,
“Individual citizens are often not accurately or adequately represented by their country’s government.” Excellent. May I rely on that when I say that I don’t believe the Saudi government financed and manned bin Ladin’s 9/11 attack? I don’t doubt there were some crazy Saudi clerics and fanatics in the picture. But what would be the Saudi’s government’s motivation? We were their best customer (pre China and India), they use dollars, are heavily invested over here and regional or world instability is the last thing they want. And wasn’t bin Ladin thrown out by then?
Yes, it is fair to retaliate when attacked by a GOVERNMENT. However, if the Michigan WhiteMan’s Militia attacks Canada, I don’t expect Canada to invade Detroit. Surveying the last 100 years there may be close to a dozen countries that could be planning their US invasion now. I can think of only four (if you count Italy) that we can justify.
Is the Saudi government our friend? Like everything these days, it’s a mixed bag. Is the Israel government our friend? Also a mixed bag. Phuck…are the Republicans our friends?
The conflation of Islam and terrorism, our enforced dependence on Mid-East energy which belies our Exceptionalism, and the MUTUAL hostility of East and West trading partners may explain the lack of media support for American muslims (sorry for all the mix of upper and lower case). I think it plain old prejudice and the Saudis are included in the package. Your look into Saudi’s future may accurate, but it’s not going to be such a wonderful place here either, when the world runs out of oil.
Your final paragraph is superb. Just an exchange of a noun or two and I agree with everything. I especially commend your inclusion of the Israeli role. I was struck by your use of “de facto” and wondered if you were giving yourself just a little wiggle room. It is so unlike you to equivocate.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Aug-17/184923-two-lebanese-detained-on-suspicion-of-homosexuality.ashx#axzz23rHdKYLL
Curious,
The central element in both of your examples is a Mosque, furthering the contention that Islam is what is being misunderstood. As to the press about oil dependence, how much of it is geared at “the bad guys” (and make no mistake the Saudis are actually bad guys having funded and manned the 9/11 attacks) and how much is geared toward energy independence in general, the general instability and hostility toward the West in the region making many of the countries objectively unwise trading partners and multinational oil companies (behaving in the amoral way many if not most multinational corporations do)?
In addition, I’d like to ask you the question is it not only fair but possibly just to seek to hold accountable those who have attacked and killed your citizens? Saudi Arabia is not our friend. They are massively in bed financially with our pols and they subvert our foreign policy to their own ends. They de facto funded and manned terrorist action on American soil. An ally in name only. Some would argue the same about Israel and their arguments would not be without validity given some of the past actions of the Israeli government. We are, after all, talking about governments and international relations. Individual citizens are often not accurately or adequately represented by their country’s government. It is an important distinction. Are the Saudi people necessarily our enemy by the virtue of their nationality? No. Is the Saudi government our enemy in fact? They sure as Hell are not our friends.
Gene,
Saudi, arab, Shiek. Most Americans can’t make a distinction and if you throw in Indonesians their heads would explode. Just as the hatred of jews makes no distinction if they are from Poland or Australia, our fear and hatred is toward all Islam. It was easy for Bush to make the case that 19 Saudis equalled Iraq.
I feel a silent press in the face of injustice plays a role in that injustice and ttherefore I disagree with your position of the role of the MSM and Saudis, or if you will allow my position, Islam. There was a furor about the “Ground Zero” mosque. The MSM did not support the mosque at “ground zero or even one two blocks away. I’m not sure, but wasn’t the Imam a Saudi? More recently, there was the mosque that was fighting for an occupancy permit in Nashville. There was no outpouring of support from the MSM. There have been reports of police infiltration of mosques on both the east and west coast. No outpouring of rage from the media. I agree that there is little politcal outrage leveled specifically at Saudi Arabia, but there is no shortage of press about our dependence on oil from the “bad guys” in the Middle East. I don’t think that hatred excludes the Saudis.
Rafflaw,
I would be inclined to vote for both of your candidates.
They are sort of equivalents, both are used to attain dominance and survival of you and your group.
Both setup with whom you can cooperate and thrive with.
Gene:
Your suggestion is better. Yes.
I might also want to add I am nearly convinced of the following facts, given my readings of history.
Historical top killers of individuals other than natural causes.
1) Governments
2) Monarchs
3) Organized Religions
It am a little on the fence as to if 2 and 3 are reversed, But 1 is certainly at the top. And often there is intermingling between the three.
I would be also willing to assign 1 as being National Governments rather than city governments.
Does anybody ever take time to notice that War is not necessarily an intertwined aspect of human existance? I believe having kinship with other nations minimizes this problem. Most people identify with the people who live in the town a few miles away. People living in Seattle, are not taking up arms to go to war with those in Everett. People in Twentyninepalms, CA are not getting ready to launch an airstrike against those in Guelph, Ontario.
One small reason would be that local city gov’ts do not have so much time on their hands they see the need to be so suspicious of the neighboring town that they prepare for war. They also lack the means to launch attacks but national governments do.
But local governments also comprise people who don’t frankly care what goes on in the town 20 miles away. Some national gov’ts want to control everything. Hence are more prone to war.
America has not been innocent of this from the get go:
Jews were part of colonial America’s religious diversity in all three colonial regions: New England, Middle, and Southern. The first permanent Jewish community in what would later become the United States was established in 1654 by Jewish refugees from South America. , in 1654, the Portuguese conquered the colony. Portugal, at that time, was religiously intolerant and ordered all Jews and Protestants to either convert to Catholicism or leave. Most Jews returned to Holland, but 23 Jews left for the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, which became New York in 1664 when it was conquered by the English.
The governor of the colony, Peter Stuyvesant, did not want to allow the Jews to remain there. However, the directors of the Dutch West India Company, which oversaw the colony, wrote to Stuyvesant saying that he must allow the Jews to settle in the city. But this did not mean they had full equality. In fact, Jews did not have the right to public worship, which means to pray in a house of worship, for more than 40 years! Before this time they could only pray in private homes. Despite this initially cold reception, the Jews of New Amsterdam/New York gained most of the same rights as other settlers by the end of the seventeenth century including the right to trade, travel, construct religious buildings, and own property.
Jewish legal status and treatment varied greatly between the different colonies…. However, like other religious minorities, Jews often lacked full equality. Notably, after the Revolutionary War, they lacked the right to hold government office in almost every state. They could also lack other rights. For example, Jews did not gain the right to public worship in Connecticut until 1843.
For space I edited a little whole article here (is a teacher’s syllabus cause first i found when google this) http://www.icsresources.org/content/curricula/HistoryOfJewsInAmerica.pdf
(page 4)
Darren,
Might I suggest the following: “what truly matters is whether or not individuals or states act out”. Increasingly governments are acting as the enforcer for various religions around the world. The just posted Putin/Pussy Riot story is a fine example of this. The only thing to my mind scarier than an individual religious fanatic is an army or the penal system at their disposal.
And I used to think that money was the root of all evil. It might be more correct to say that hating the other guy’s religion is the root of all evil.
It is clear that one could find examples of inhumanity in both the koran and the bible, what truly matters is whether or not individuals act out on these stale rules as an excuse to engage in crimes against humanity.
Otherwise one could declare the author Steven King is evil because he writes of evil, when it is widely known he personally is rather docile by comparison.
From Jew bashing to gay bashing, always on the side of the perceived underdog.
Saw two very much in love gay boys pushing a baby carriage in front of them. Don’t think there was a bear in there.
Our reliable Olympic winter sport gold medalist has come out. She was pictured in yesterday’s paper together with the mother of her child, or however the child was done. All very happy and relaxed.
Suggested parlor game for mixed companies (how that could come about???:
Alternately suggest important jews and goys of the 20th century. Scoring by negotiation and quibbling, as always, and mixed with good drinks.
Shocking ?!?
Hardly. This exact thing is rampant all over the Arab world. Arab kids get taught this in schools. And this has been going on for many decades.
Documentation of tens of thousands of similar speeches may be found here:
http://www.memri.org/
Amy:
“Islam commands the conversion or death of the infidel and preaches hate against those who are not Muslims, especially Jews.”
****************************
Let’s not give Islam all the credit. Here’s the Christian take:
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
~Mark 6:11
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
~Jude 1:5