Analogy of Muddle East Muslim's mentality

Submitted by Devasahayam (United States), May 26, 2008 at 07:42

In 1912, two 18-year-olds decided to enter Emory University. One (we'll call him AAS) actually did quiet studies on a scholarship, graduating in 1916. The other, HH, paid one year out of his own pocket and was cited in 1913 for several offences including incitement of riots.

Through moderation by Scott Candler, HH was able to reenter Emory in 1915 with a special scholarship personally authorised by Asa Candler.

Asa Candler had mid-management positions even lined up with one of his bottle-suppliers for the two men. However, instead they went to a competitor of Coke: AAS as a peon, and HH into a supervisory role. Both of them had heard the competitor's CEO state that his position was to destroy Coke--and HH even made specific plots to kill Scott Candler's immediate family.

Both cases, education paid for entirely by Coke, Inc--but showed their (lack of) ethics by going to this competitor!

Basically, the above story shows Muddle East Muslim mindset in a nutshell. HH is analogous to Haj-amin Husseini who was given Muftiship of Jerusalem despite of his incitement of 1920 riots--through the appeal of Herbert Samuel (for analogy here, I used the real-life Scott Candler, son of Emory's first President, Warren--and nephew of Coke, Inc founding CEO Asa) an irreligious Jew--and then collaborated openly with the Nazis, due to his own hatred for the Jews and lack of gratitude to UK!

AAS basically like Abdul Aziz--got his monarchial title and kingdom from British, but decided to politically support Nazis; FYI, mindset preserved in Abdul Aziz's descendants who were defended by US and UK against Iraq in 1991--and then stiffed US of the costs associated with that defence!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".