If you're "sorry", then why did you do it? Clearly your intent was to hijack the thread as you have done with another one. But it is pretty typical of Israel's enemies to use dishonesty as a crutch.

If you're interested in learning more about the British, the Palestinian Mandate, the takeover of Mecca and how the Sauds, the British, the Nazis, and other Muslim leaders worked together against the Hashemites and the Jews, google Jack Philby, Allen Dulles and Ibn Saud...

Since wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks, since the majority of foreign fighters and suicide bombers are Saudi, and since 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, it makes more sense to concentrate on them than on the Koran and your local Muslim greengrocer.

Personally I focus on Saudi Arabia and our destructive alliance with them because no one else does, save for a few experts on terrorism financing.

Speaking of which, you should read Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's book on how drug and oil money finances terrorism, "Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed � and How to Stop It" She was recently the victim of a 'libel tourism' lawsuit. Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz has been using the British courts to silence critics of Saudi Arabia for years. Although the lawsuit failed, the threat of having to spend a lot of time and money has probably silenced a lot of unpleasant revelations about our Saudi allies.

Of her books, Ehernfeld said:

Terrorism is not cheap. To the contrary, it is a capital-intensive activity. It requires lots of cash for training, weapons, vehicles, salaries, cell phones, airline travel, food and lodging; etc. I showed how the drug trade, not just oil profits, fuels terrorist organizations...When asked why he robbed banks, Willy Sutton famously replied: “Because that’s where the money is.” I followed his lead and followed the money. This led to my second book, Evil Money: The Inside Story of Money Laundering and Corruption in Government, Banks and Business, in which I connected the dots between drug profits, money laundering, political corruption, Islamic banking and how illicit funds are used to undermine democracies.

Notice that she doesn't mention hadiths or Qutub. Islam is used as a recruiting tool for terrorist militias, but drugs and money are also recruiting tools.

If we focus on history and Islamic scholarship the Wahhabis are marginal, but if we focus on the real world and the real military/financial infrastructure of terrorism, we find the Wahhabis at the center of everything.

No. I am not a Muslim, nor ever was. I don't claim to understand Islam from the point of view of a Muslim, but I try to be aware of that point-of-view, by attending and following Muslim Student Association events and by viewing MEMRI, which shows Muslims speaking to Muslims. Milestones, by Sayed Qutb, was written to a Muslim audience. This is in contrast to much of the production of, for example, Tariq Ramadan, propaganda aimed at non-Muslims. If you haven't read Milestones, and have a strong stomach, get a copy and read it. Qutb was not a Wahhabi, he was an Egyptian, one of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, but as a very devout Muslim, many of his beliefs were in agreement with Wahhabi views.

The British did not "give" control of Mecca and Medina to the Sauds; they acquiesced to it, after supporting the Hashemites, who lost their struggle with the Sauds, and to whom (to the Hashemites) they (Britain) then gave, unilaterally without League of Nations permission, more than half of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not Wahhabi, although both subgroups of Sunni Islam are devout, and there has been cross-fertilization (e.g. the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Qutb is the partial ideological father of Al-Qaeda; Zawahri is an Egyptian with a Muslim Brotherhood background but is second in command). There are other Pakistani Sunni groups which are not Wahhabi, but share the same supremacist contempt for kaffirs, heretics, Shia, fringe groups, and apostates. The Muslim Student Association chapters at colleges across the United States, are partially funded (the national office) by the Saudis, but the MSA was founded by Muslim Brotherhood linked people in the 1960s. The Iranian Shiite theocracy is clearly not Wahhabi. Also, the Wahhabi were a back-to-the-roots (radical) reform movement. They went back to the roots of Sunni Islam; they did not manufacture some new religion. They were not innovators. They were and are opposed to innovation, as actually are all of the separately considered nominal "schools" of Islam.

The history of the Islamic conquest of India is certainly not the history of the Wahhabi. Nevertheless it is replete with glorification of the slaughter of tens of thousands of Hindus, done, proudly, in the name of Islam.

I suggest that setting up the Wahhabi as some separated (fringe) bogeymen is a mistake. A large mistake.

"Hamas" and "international law" in the same sentence...

I stopped reading at that point.

Now, "Hamas" and "Sderot" in the same sentence, I'll probably read.

That report isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

Is there any documented evidence that Hamas fighters in the Gaza war hid in Gazan civilian buildings?

The Goldstone report states that Hamas fighters did not.

Did Hamas fighters use plain clothes during the war? Am I right that this is illegal under international law?

Is there any evidence of Hamas intimidation of Gazan civilians during the Gaza war? The Goldstone report does not find any evidence of this kind.

The Goldstone report states that some Israeli special units used civilian plain clothes during the Gaza war, which is illegal. Is this true?

During the Gaza war, the Goldstone documents several cases of inappropriate IDF targeting:

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/interviews/interview-with-colonel-desmond-travers.pdf

"HC - Was there any evidence of Hamas intimidation?

DT - None whatsoever. However, I have to be honest and say that we would probably have found it difficult to get people to queue up and give us information about Hamas’ misbehaviour within Gaza

DT - We found no evidence for the human shield phenomenon but, to be honest, I did expect to come across it.

Here’s a little thing nobody has ever raised and I want you to think about this. There were functionaries in combat uniform and in civilian attire, Arab speaking, operating in Gaza. These were Israeli combat troops specially trained to operate in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in civilian attire. They worked as â��franc-tireurs’ (literally “free shooters”) and could have been in a position to cause confusion among the population. It is for this reason that if there was evidence of Hamas intimidation of any kind, it would have been necessary for me, an investigator, to determine by identification who the perpetrators were. The Israelis themselves have admitted it; if you go to military websites, there are reams of stuff about special Israeli combat troops trained to work in the West Bank and in Gaza infiltrating into the area and working behind the scenes before, during and after the actual ground invasion. What I’m saying to you is, if somebody tells me there is a Hamas operative doing something on some street corner I have to ask, can you identify him for me because, we don’t know."

I know that, in a speech to the commons on June 14th, 1921, in an effort to convince the British government not to give control of Mecca and Medina to the Wahhabi cult, Winston Churchill said:

A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relation to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of the religious wars...

He also said:

They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette, and as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and bloodthirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and to the whole institution of the pilgrimage, in which our Indian fellow-subjects are so deeply concerned.

The Indian Muslims who were afraid of Wahhabi influence on the pilgramage to Mecca were not Wahhabis. Neither were the majority of Muslims in those days. The majority of Muslims feared and hated them.

They hate them now, but that doesn't stop them from taking their money and their textbooks.

Unfortunately, Churchill failed to convince his government that the Wahhabis would endanger the region. When the British gave the Wahhabis control of Medina and Mecca, it was the equivalent of giving control of the Vatican to the Nazis. British support of the most rabid element in Muslim society, and our current support of them, has done a lot of damage to the Muslim world.

Of course, there aren't any Muslims saying no to huge Saudi checks and giant Wahhabi-influenced mosques, and they refuse to openly criticize them, so they have to take the blame for the effects of Wahhabism on their religion.

The quote from Andre Glucksmann demonstrates that he does not understand Islam from the point of view of Muslims. Jihadis are not nihilists.

Are you a Muslim? If not, then you don't understand Islam as a Muslim does either.

Glucksman was describing the reasons why the embrace of unrestrained 'absolute violence' will ultimately destroy a society. He was also describing the reasons why random, unrestrained attacks against innocents and noncombatants are taboo in most cultures. He called this nihilism. You can call it whatever you want, but random, unrestrained attacks against innocents and noncombatants is not inherently Islamic. It's inherent to Wahhabism.

Islamic law is repugnant and anti-democratic, it encourages misogyny and slavery, but the history of Wahhabism is not the history of Islam.

This kind of takfir cannot be perceived as righteous by anyone in remotely sane state of mind.