PDA

View Full Version : Why do Muslims hate the Jews?


Pages : [1] 2

max
07-26-2006, 04:24 PM
I have no notion, but what's the origin of this feuding?

hgb765
07-26-2006, 04:27 PM
something about both claiming to be the owner of israel

diegaa
07-26-2006, 04:35 PM
´man, you do enjoy these long endless threads, dont you?

as hgb765 said, both sides claim the holy land. not so long ago the christians also wanted it.

dmastous
07-26-2006, 04:37 PM
something about both claiming to be the owner of israel
It's a bit more specific than that. There are a number of places that both the Jews and the Muslims consider high holy ground. Jeruselem is one of those places. That's the simplest reason.
The more complicated is the existance of fanatical right wing radical Muslim groups who believe that anyone who is not a Muslim has no right to live. These groups are very loud and make more noise than the other less fanatical Muslims so they have become the 'face' of Islam unfortuantly.
They are all we seem to hear about because the newspeople seem to think that bad news is the only news that sells. "Everything is fine in (pick the city)" is far less interesting than "a bomb has been exploded... news at 11"

malakas
07-26-2006, 04:43 PM
Excuse me,but why do you think so?
Do you really believe that,all Muslims hate the Jews?
Hmmm...
In reallity,it's not *the Muslims* it's mostly the Palestines.
At least it used to be.
But,as prophasis the ehm..same origin and identity(and religion) of all the Arabs,many mulahs and governmens,have increased the antisimitic feelings.But the real reason,is the own gain.Or that they are afraid that Israel will intrude their land too.Or I really don't know what else..:(
So,now,many Arabs have strong anti-simitic feelings.

But,note that Muslims = NOT only Arabs.
:rolleyes:
For the reason why the Palestines hate the Jews,I think the above posters answered.You might want to search a bit to the ehm..seven days miracle :roll: too..

Shabazza
07-26-2006, 04:57 PM
The more complicated is the existance of fanatical right wing radical Muslim groups who believe that anyone who is not a Muslim has no right to live. These groups are very loud and make more noise than the other less fanatical Muslims so they have become the 'face' of Islam unfortuantly.
They are all we seem to hear about because the newspeople seem to think that bad news is the only news that sells. "Everything is fine in (pick the city)" is far less interesting than "a bomb has been exploded... news at 11"
Sad but true.
There are like 1.2-1.3 billion muslims worldwide - most of them don't care about jews at all.

LoneGun
07-26-2006, 04:57 PM
When you put two groups of people who negatively stereotyping each other, having different religious believes, speak completely different languages, and constantly reminding themselves the bloody history they have for each other, that is a burning fire that would not end until the complete annihilation of one of them.

Shabazza
07-26-2006, 04:59 PM
When you put two groups of people who negatively stereotyping each other, having different religious believes, speak completely different languages, and constantly reminding themselves the bloody history they have for each other, that is a burning fire that would not end until the complete annihilation of one of them.
Or both......

diegaa
07-26-2006, 04:59 PM
well, actually the arabs only "hate" zionists, not jews in general.

vkartikv
07-26-2006, 05:33 PM
Since the dawn of mankind - well, all life forms on earth, there has been a constant struggle to establish and hold down one's territory. It's not religion A vs. religion B, its more of war for territory. Listen to Sepultura.

Fee
07-26-2006, 05:38 PM
Because mythology is a funny thing...

tennis_nerd22
07-26-2006, 06:27 PM
guys about the news, i wanted to hear opinions on this. k you know how the major news stations, like CTV (in canada), CNN, or whatever are owned by jewish people? well if you heard about how Israel was purposely attacking the United Nations bases in Lebanon (peacekeepers), even though they were in constant communication for many many many hours and the UN were warning them that they were getting too close? it was purposely done without a doubt, including a plane which flew right by it and dropped a bomb.

however, these jewish owned news stations completely ignored that, and went on to talk about israelies getting killed by rockets from hezbullah. whereas big world wide news stations, mainly BBC, we're talking about everything, especially israel attacking the bases.

i think most of the hatred towards muslims and arabs is due to the lack of news stations showing the "big picture". they focus on what they want to, to make muslims look bad. also, many of us north americans are unaware of the history between lebanon and israel, and various parts of the middle east (though obviously, quite a lot of people on these boards are aware of the history). i think its mainly a lack of understanding.

also, you cant let extremists dicatate the entire face of islam? have any of you, who say that islam encourages killing and hatred and war to get what you want, actually read the Quaran? if you had, you wouldnt say the stuff you do. but it isnt your fault, its just you arent aware of the "big picture", which causes bias.

i dont want to be racist, or bias to anyone, i just want to hear some opinions on this.

Phil
07-26-2006, 06:49 PM
also, you cant let extremists dicatate the entire face of islam? have any of you, who say that islam encourages killing and hatred and war to get what you want, actually read the Quaran? if you had, you wouldnt say the stuff you do. but it isnt your fault, its just you arent aware of the "big picture", which causes bias.

i dont want to be racist, or bias to anyone, i just want to hear some opinions on this.

Okay, my opinion: I'm not going to get into "Why" each group hates the other. It's way too complicated-I certainly don't have all, or maybe any answers (though I have some ideas) and I expect to see a lot of simpletons trying to tackle it.

I don't think the Israelis are intentionally targeting UN outposts-of course the Hezbollah sympathizers will jump to this conclusion without any supporting proof. But...if the Isrealis are proven to have done this, it was probably for security reasons (but that does not make it right). They did the same thing to the USS Liberty in 1967.

But re. your comment quoted above...you don't seem unable to separate what is WRITTEN in the Quran (and the Bible) and what HAPPENS in the real world in the name of religion. Both are PART of the religion-you cannot just say "Islam IS the Quran. Period." Religion is also how its adherents, whether moderate or radical, present it to the world.

While the Books comprise the essense of both religions, they don't, to any degree , reflect how the books are interpreted and what happens "out there" in the modern world. Islamic fundumentalists blowing up buses (or, Christians blowing up abortion clinics) is every bit as much of the religion. Oh, I didn't mention, for example, Jews kiilling civilians in a war zone because that's pretty complicated too. The way I see it, the Jews of Israel are not doing this in the name of religion; it is more in the name of their country, Israel. And they are wrong sometimes, and kill innocents, but when they do kill innocents, I do not see them waving the Old Testament around as they do it, as the Christians and Muslims wave their books as the premise for their actions. I do not see anyone DANCING FOR JOY IN THE STREETS, as is the custom in Middle East Muslim neighborhoods following a major terrorist action. Israel, if it's waving anything, is waving its flag-i.e. national security. But anyway, religious terrorism is every bit as much a part of said-religion as the Great Books of those religions.

J D
07-26-2006, 07:52 PM
Max, the conflict between Muslim and Jew goes back to an almost 4,000 year old family feud. Here's a short version of the story in case you aren't familiar with it.

Abraham was told by God that he would have a son by his wife, Sarah. Since she was way beyond child bearing age, Sarah persuaded Abraham to have a child by her handmaiden, Hagar. This was an accepted practice of the time when a wife was barren.

Abraham eventually gave in and Hagar had Ishmael. Later, Sarah did become pregnant as God had promised and bore Isaac. God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, that his seed would be God's chosen people, and that his descendants would inherit and dwell in Palestine.

This is where the accounts between the Muslims and Jews begin to differ. It was the first born that was always entitled to the entire inheritance in their culture. The Muslims claim that Ishmael should have gotten the inheritance since he was the first born. They also assert that the Jewish Torah has distorted the truth and that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, that God told Abraham to sacrifice. They believe that Ishmael's descendants are God's chosen people and that the end result of this covenant is the Muslim faith.

The Jews (and consequently Christians) believe that Isaac was the child of the promise and that Ishmael was merely a product of the lack of faith of Sarah and Abraham. According to the Pentateuch (and the Bible), God told Abraham to send Ishmael away so that he and his mother would not cause any problems. As a result, they almost died before God miraculously saved them. God chose Isaac to inherit His covenant with Abraham. Because of this, the Jews and Christians of the world consider Palestine the rightful and God-given land of the Jewish people.

Tradition holds that most of the Arab nations of the world are direct descendants of Ishmael. On top of that, the Muslim faith believes that the Jewish people are thieves that are trying to steal their inheritance through deception and that Christianity has aided them in this unholy scheme.

So, the conflict between religions essentially goes back to a family squabble. Of course, much has happened throughout history between these two sides. One thing is for sure, ever finding any peace between them is going to be incredibly difficult. And, if you believe the most common interpretations of the Bible, it is this conflict that will most likely bring about Armageddon and the end of the world as we know it. In other words, there will be no solution to this conflict except the ultimate one.

Dilettante
07-26-2006, 08:56 PM
Max, the conflict between Muslim and Jew goes back to an almost 4,000 year old family feud.

4000 years ago there were no Muslims. Muhammad lived in the VI century.

dmastous
07-26-2006, 10:01 PM
4000 years ago there were no Muslims. Muhammad lived in the VI century.
Obviously you didn't read the entire post. I'm by no means knowledgable about Islamic history, but my interpretation of Muhammad is that he was a prophet, similar to Jesus. But Islam is much older than Muhammad just as Christianity and Judeism is older than Jesus.

Andres
07-26-2006, 10:27 PM
Obviously you didn't read the entire post. I'm by no means knowledgable about Islamic history, but my interpretation of Muhammad is that he was a prophet, similar to Jesus. But Islam is much older than Muhammad just as Christianity and Judeism is older than Jesus.
Christianity isn't older than Jesus... Judeism is.

Fee
07-26-2006, 10:40 PM
guys about the news, i wanted to hear opinions on this. k you know how the major news stations, like CTV (in canada), CNN, or whatever are owned by jewish people?

Oh here we go again... What is the name of the 'Jewish owner' of CNN?

jonolau
07-26-2006, 10:45 PM
In reallity,it's not *the Muslims* it's mostly the Palestines.

Whoa, be careful with that statement. Malaysia and Indonesia are both Muslim countries, with Indonesia having the largest Mulsim population in the world (250 million at last count). Both countries have banned all imports of Israeli/Israel-origin products.

35ft6
07-26-2006, 11:00 PM
The hardcore Islamic militants hate western civilization PERIOD. There is no negotiating to be done with them, but they're relatively small in numbers thank goodness. They want nothing less than a world ruled by Islam, and a pretty strict, backwards interpretation of the Koran at that.

But as far as I know these types really aren't super involved with what's going on with Israel right now although I'm sure they lend support in some capacity.

In the United States support of Israel almost borders on the dogmatic, but in other parts of the western world support for Israel is less emphatic, something I'm sure would surprise a lot of Americans.

Maybe what you should be asking is why do Arabs hate the Israelis. And the answer varies depending on which Arabs you're talking about. I hear and read that there are actually Israeli's and Arabs who get along, who are friendly to each other, and even blogging and messaging with each other as bombs explode outside their homes. This is something that doesn't receive much coverage in US mainstream media, probably because it humanizes the Arabs.

Who knows. But that area is a poop storm like no other and I'll be shocked if I see some lasting peace established there in my lifetime. I feel bad for the citizens of Israeli and their Arab neighbors who simply want a normal life, to work, laugh with family, and watch their children grow. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese people who want nothing to do with Hezbollah are being displaced as we speak, it's an incredible tragedy. It's hard to say if their lives will ever be returned back to normal. Those people are pawns. To some extent, I don't think the more radical Islamic arabs really care about them any more than Israel does. They're just pieces to be moved, blown to shreds, whatever, in order to prove a point on the world stage. It's sad.

Phil
07-26-2006, 11:07 PM
The hardcore Islamic militants hate western civilization PERIOD. There is no negotiating to be done with them,

But as far as I know these types really aren't super involved with what's going on with Israel right now although I'm sure they lend support in some capacity.
So, by your reckoning, Hezbollah and Hamas ARE NOT "hardcore Islamic militants"??? They are the groups that are involved with Israel at the moment.

Maybe you should think that one through.

35ft6
07-26-2006, 11:14 PM
So, by your reckoning, Hezbollah and Hamas ARE NOT "hardcore Islamic militants"??? They are the groups that are involved with Israel at the moment. My understanding is that Hezbollah was formed for the sole purpose of ending what they perceive to be Israel's illegal occupation of parts of Lebanon. And Hamas is the Palestinian version. They are arguably liberation movements, not necessarily bent on world domination so much as combating Israel.

I'm talking about the super hardcore islamic fundamentalist militants, maybe I should have been more clear. Like al qaeda and the Taliban, who don't necessarily exist for the sole purpose of dismantling one country.

35ft6
07-26-2006, 11:20 PM
Excellent essay on Occidentalism. (https://www.math.rutgers.edu/~sussmann/papers/occidentalism.html)

And this video The Power of Nightmares (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm) is also excellent.

Both are more about the guys I don't think there's any negotiating with.

katastrof
07-26-2006, 11:37 PM
Why do Muslims hate the jews?
There cannot be a "thinner" question to be asked, IMO. I suggest you to go and read some reliable material on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Other than that, historicaly, Muslim states are not particularly known to host anti-semitism.

35ft6
07-26-2006, 11:46 PM
But, Phil, you're right that Hamas is a hardcore Islamic militant group. But Hamas and Hezbollah aren't the guys who really scare me. Although I'm sure if I were an Israeli Hamas would scare the bagel out of me.

malakas
07-27-2006, 12:49 AM
The hardcore Islamic militants hate western civilization PERIOD. There is no negotiating to be done with them, but they're relatively small in numbers thank goodness. They want nothing less than a world ruled by Islam, and a pretty strict, backwards interpretation of the Koran at that.

But as far as I know these types really aren't super involved with what's going on with Israel right now although I'm sure they lend support in some capacity.

In the United States support of Israel almost borders on the dogmatic, but in other parts of the western world support for Israel is less emphatic, something I'm sure would surprise a lot of Americans.

Maybe what you should be asking is why do Arabs hate the Israelis. And the answer varies depending on which Arabs you're talking about. I hear and read that there are actually Israeli's and Arabs who get along, who are friendly to each other, and even blogging and messaging with each other as bombs explode outside their homes. This is something that doesn't receive much coverage in US mainstream media, probably because it humanizes the Arabs.

Who knows. But that area is a poop storm like no other and I'll be shocked if I see some lasting peace established there in my lifetime. I feel bad for the citizens of Israeli and their Arab neighbors who simply want a normal life, to work, laugh with family, and watch their children grow. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese people who want nothing to do with Hezbollah are being displaced as we speak, it's an incredible tragedy. It's hard to say if their lives will ever be returned back to normal. Those people are pawns. To some extent, I don't think the more radical Islamic arabs really care about them any more than Israel does. They're just pieces to be moved, blown to shreds, whatever, in order to prove a point on the world stage. It's sad.

I agree with you.I feel very sad after hearing every single day in TV of another family killed,another suicide attack...another bombing.And all,the immigrants from Lebanon,that come here to their way to western Europe..they have nothing,and their mind is left behind,to their homes,to their friends and even some family members that couldn't escape the nightmare.
:(
And then,you go and hear,about the ...*new* Middle East!:rolleyes: The change of the status quo that it will bring more peace to the region...Gosh!
I wonder if even themselves believe what they say.
Before the invasion of the Israel,and the seven days miracle,the Arabs were not at all united.They conducted wars with each other,and the nations used to be sworn enemies.And even later...
And now..you see Iran supporting Iraq..!!!How ironic is it?
To see mortal enemies,make at last peace with each other ..why?Because a bigger fish is around.And a much bigger fish is his sidekick.My enemy's enemy is my friend....*sigh*
lol..all those talks,and discussions and how much did it last?Six years..:roll:

But, Phil, you're right that Hamas is a hardcore Islamic militant group. But Hamas and Hezbollah aren't the guys who really scare me. Although I'm sure if I were an Israeli Hamas would scare the bagel out of me.
About Hamas,I personally believe that they should NOT be labeled as just hardcore islamic millitant group.They are palestine resistance millitant movement..Of course,all the deaths,and the killings,are not justified...they can never be..NEVER.

malakas
07-27-2006, 12:58 AM
Whoa, be careful with that statement. Malaysia and Indonesia are both Muslim countries, with Indonesia having the largest Mulsim population in the world (250 million at last count). Both countries have banned all imports of Israeli/Israel-origin products.

And what that proves?Indonesia is indeed that country with the largest muslim population,but do these people hate the Jews?Jews that live far away from them..?I don't think so.
Just because the governments have banned imports,that doesn't mean,that among the common people there is hatred for simits!Especially the kind of hatred that Palestinians feel towards Israelis..and vice versa..:-|
And..btw...there are still many muslims,that live outside of Indonesia,Malaysia and the Arab states...
It is dead wrong,to make such generalisations.All muslims hate the jews,all Europeans despise Americans,all women are baseliners etc etc...:rolleyes:

blue03
07-27-2006, 01:01 AM
Palestinians hate Jews because Jews took their land....we all would too, wouldn't we?

ThePlungerMan
07-27-2006, 01:03 AM
Because mythology is a funny thing...
When I saw this thread I got excited. Because I know the answer. Since I usually don’t know the answer, well you get it. I read thru all posts to see what would be said. I knew I probably wouldn’t find a better post than the one I quoted. I was right. To easy.
Okay, my opinion: I'm not going to get into "Why" each group hates the other. It's way too complicated-I certainly don't have all, or maybe any answers …snip…
I beg to differ, it’s not complicated at all. See Lee’s post above for the answer.

I have an extra moment to expand, so I will.
Muslims, or more specifically, the ones who are taught (The Whole Quran) ((every single word)) are told to hate the infidels. That’s anyone who isn’t them, period. End of discussion.

(or, Christians blowing up abortion clinics
A Christian of “The Bible” heeding God’s written words in the New Testament wouldn’t blow up an abortion clinic. An individual who says or thinks he’s a Christian, well different story.

malakas
07-27-2006, 01:09 AM
Muslims who learn the Quaran,learn to show tolerance towards Jews and Christians.The other people who believe in Allah.

ThePlungerMan
07-27-2006, 01:25 AM
Muslims who learn the Quaran,learn to show tolerance towards Jews and Christians.The other people who believe in Allah.
Hi
I believe your talking about the ones who get the watered down version if you will. I’m friends with several individuals who identify themselves as Muslims, but they never read or study the Quran.

Kinda like someone who calls themselves a Christian then blows up an abortion clinic.

Also like a person who identifies as being a Jew while not practicing Judaism.

Phil
07-27-2006, 02:26 AM
But, Phil, you're right that Hamas is a hardcore Islamic militant group. But Hamas and Hezbollah aren't the guys who really scare me. Although I'm sure if I were an Israeli Hamas would scare the bagel out of me.

Hezbollah is a hardcore Islamic militant group too. Funded and supported by Iran. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have vowed to continue to operate towards a goal of driving Israel into the sea. Given that, I'd hardly label these as mere "liberation" movements. These groups cannot be negotiated with either, at least not concerning the existance of Israel.

If Hezbollah was formed ostensibly and, as you say "solely" to drive Israel out of S. Lebanon, then why did they continue to exist after Israel left S. Lebanon in 2000?

Think US Embassy bombing in Beirut. Think Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut...that was, possibly, Hezbollah's work, so their agenda isn't "solely" Israel.

The Taliban were NEVER bent on, as you say, "world domination", and weren't even all radically anti-US. But by letting al-Qa'eida use Afghanistan as a base, they sealed their fate and became intertwined with AQ.

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 02:37 AM
Okay, my opinion: I'm not going to get into "Why" each group hates the other. It's way too complicated-I certainly don't have all, or maybe any answers (though I have some ideas) and I expect to see a lot of simpletons trying to tackle it.

I don't think the Israelis are intentionally targeting UN outposts-of course the Hezbollah sympathizers will jump to this conclusion without any supporting proof. But...if the Isrealis are proven to have done this, it was probably for security reasons (but that does not make it right). They did the same thing to the USS Liberty in 1967.

But re. your comment quoted above...you don't seem unable to separate what is WRITTEN in the Quran (and the Bible) and what HAPPENS in the real world in the name of religion. Both are PART of the religion-you cannot just say "Islam IS the Quran. Period." Religion is also how its adherents, whether moderate or radical, present it to the world.

While the Books comprise the essense of both religions, they don't, to any degree , reflect how the books are interpreted and what happens "out there" in the modern world. Islamic fundumentalists blowing up buses (or, Christians blowing up abortion clinics) is every bit as much of the religion. Oh, I didn't mention, for example, Jews kiilling civilians in a war zone because that's pretty complicated too. The way I see it, the Jews of Israel are not doing this in the name of religion; it is more in the name of their country, Israel. And they are wrong sometimes, and kill innocents, but when they do kill innocents, I do not see them waving the Old Testament around as they do it, as the Christians and Muslims wave their books as the premise for their actions. I do not see anyone DANCING FOR JOY IN THE STREETS, as is the custom in Middle East Muslim neighborhoods following a major terrorist action. Israel, if it's waving anything, is waving its flag-i.e. national security. But anyway, religious terrorism is every bit as much a part of said-religion as the Great Books of those religions.

well phil, thats the problem with being muslim right now. even if you are a good citizen and a proper muslim who actually FOLLOWS what the quaran says to do, your overshadowed by the extremists. but your absolutely right in saying that what they are supposed to do and what they actually do are two very different things. also you have to understand that there are many different types of muslims, mainly suni and shia, who are also against each other very much. it just makes the world a never ending war zone.

Phil
07-27-2006, 02:42 AM
well phil, thats the problem with being muslim right now. even if you are a good citizen and a proper muslim who actually FOLLOWS what the quaran says to do, your overshadowed by the extremists. but your absolutely right in saying that what they are supposed to do and what they actually do are two very different things. also you have to understand that there are many different types of muslims, mainly suni and shia, who are also against each other very much. it just makes the world a never ending war zone.

I think that if I were a Muslim right now (and having the personality that I have, I'd probably be a "moderate"), I would be VERY angry. Of course the good people are being overshadowed by the bad apples...the 10% or whatever...but you know what, tennis nerd? There comes a time when the "silent majority" has to act...and I just haven't seen that from the moderate/majority Muslim population. I've seen/read everything from tacit to somewhat vocal support, or at least defense of the radical elements. The horrendous acts of the few won't end until the majority acts...I don't see any "grass roots" movement toward this, though. How long are they going to wait...how many of THEM have to die before they act?

I've always said that the ONLY people that can bring an end to Islamic terrorism, ultimately, are Muslims themselves.

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 02:44 AM
Hezbollah is a hardcore Islamic militant group too. Funded and supported by Iran. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have vowed to continue to operate towards a goal of driving Israel into the sea. Given that, I'd hardly label these as mere "liberation" movements. These groups cannot be negotiated with either, at least not concerning the existance of Israel.

If Hezbollah was formed ostensibly and, as you say "solely" to drive Israel out of S. Lebanon, then why did they continue to exist after Israel left S. Lebanon in 2000?

Think US Embassy bombing in Beirut. Think Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut...that was, possibly, Hezbollah's work, so their agenda isn't "solely" Israel.

The Taliban were NEVER bent on, as you say, "world domination", and weren't even all radically anti-US. But by letting al-Qa'eida use Afghanistan as a base, they sealed their fate and became intertwined with AQ.

well from my understanding from what i saw on the news, its because they help out their fellow countrymen in times of need, especially war?

israel and parts of the middle eas have been at war for a long long time. and all that anger has boiled up till now. pretty soon, there's going to be a full fledged war, which not even the americans will be able to stop

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 02:48 AM
I think that if I were a Muslim right now (and having the personality that I have, I'd probably be a "moderate"), I would be VERY angry. Of course the good people are being overshadowed by the bad apples...the 10% or whatever...but you know what, tennis nerd? There comes a time when the "silent majority" has to act...and I just haven't seen that from the moderate/majority Muslim population. I've seen/read everything from tacit to somewhat vocal support, or at least defense of the radical elements. The horrendous acts of the few won't end until the majority acts...I don't see any "grass roots" movement toward this, though. How long are they going to wait...how many of THEM have to die before they act?

I've always said that the ONLY people that can bring an end to Islamic terrorism, ultimately, are Muslims themselves.

but, there's no way that can happen, because their isnt even unity within the muslims due to the many types. that's the sad part. if your a muslim, you are hated everywhere. whether its because of the extremists, or how they are portrayed, no one likes the muslims. even a place like this forum, look at andres' last post. so while you do have to stand up for yourself phil, you cant do it against the rest of the world IMO. the only thing you can do is live your life properly, make sure you adhere to your religion, and you act as a true muslim. THAT is standing up for yourself. if people have their views against muslims, they arent going to change them, and there's nothing muslims can do about it.

35ft6
07-27-2006, 02:51 AM
Hezbollah is a hardcore Islamic militant group too. Funded and supported by Iran. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have vowed to continue to operate towards a goal of driving Israel into the sea. Given that, I'd hardly label these as mere "liberation" movements. I said arguably. In the USA, they are considered terrorists and in some other parts of the world, a resistance group. Realizing that such ambiguities exist would be a great first step toward finding lasting solutions but I think it causes too much cognitive dissonance for most people to tolerate.If Hezbollah was formed ostensibly and, as you say "solely" to drive Israel out of S. Lebanon, then why did they continue to exist after Israel left S. Lebanon in 2000? I could be wrong, but I thought Hezbollah's origins were a matter of public record and incontrovertible. If I'm mistaken, if they weren't created for the reasons I stated, please provide a link and I'll make sure not to make the same mistake in the future.Think US Embassy bombing in Beirut. Think Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut...that was, possibly, Hezbollah's work, so their agenda isn't "solely" Israel. Might it be possible that in their minds attacking Israel's biggest political ally, supporter, and weapons provider is a way of getting back at Israel?The Taliban were NEVER bent on, as you say, "world domination", and weren't even all radically anti-US. You're right. I should have slowed down the typing. If you were to ask them, they would say they want a world governed by strict Islamic rule, but it's not like they're actively pursuing making this come about.But by letting al-Qa'eida use Afghanistan as a base, they sealed their fate and became intertwined with AQ. I'm still not sure what al qaeda is. I heard that it was created by US prosecutors who wanted to prosecute under the RICO act so had to create an umbrella organization. Is it an actual organization with a clearly defined chain of command?

Phil
07-27-2006, 03:17 AM
I said arguably. In the USA, they are considered terrorists and in some other parts of the world, a resistance group. Realizing that such ambiguities exist would be a great first step toward finding lasting solutions but I think it causes too much cognitive dissonance for most people to tolerate.
I understand such ambiguities and also understand that a liberation group can just as easily be, ALSO, a terrorist group. AQ also considers itself a "liberation" movement, though it's goals are a lot more ambiguous and broader than taking a single country down...so, obviously it comes down to semantics, but it also comes down to body counts and WHOSE bodies are being blown up.

I could be wrong, but I thought Hezbollah's origins were a matter of public record and incontrovertible. If I'm mistaken, if they weren't created for the reasons I stated, please provide a link and I'll make sure not to make the same mistake in the future.
I didn't say you were mistaken. I'm just asking why, after achieving their stated goal, do they continue to exist and operate. Is it possible that over the years, with the money coming in from Iran, Syria and other Islamic sources, they have grown large, rich and powerful in Lebanon, even to the point of becoming bureaucratic and have "broadened" their original charter to include controlling a good chunk of Lebanon, both politically and geographically, harassing Israel until they or Israel no longer exists, and blowing some infidels to their Hell?
And the Might it be possible that in their minds attacking Israel's biggest political ally, supporter, and weapons provider is a way of getting back at Israel?
It might certainly be, but the identical premise is used by AQ...all the time, so is their reason legit or is it just a premise to blow up more infidels?
You're right. I should have slowed down the typing. If you were to ask them, they would say they want a world governed by strict Islamic rule, but it's not like they're actively pursuing making this come about. I'm still not sure what al qaeda is. I heard that it was created by US prosecutors who wanted to prosecute under the RICO act so had to create an umbrella organization. Is it an actual organization with a clearly defined chain of command?
There is definitely a chain of command in AQ, but at the same time, it is ALSO a loosely defined group...many smaller groups claim to be affiliated or "inspired" by AQ, but act autonomously. But the 9/11 operation had a very THICK dotted line leading back to AQ/bin Laden. There is a charter, there are forms that re-cru-i-ts (don't ask me why this word is filtered out) fill out, an oath is taken...AQ has all the elements of an organization with a defined chain of command. But again, there are also more loosely-structured elements...kinda like the loose spokes in a bike wheel, or the spares...(for lack of a better metaphor right now). I don't know anything about the RICO thing you mentioned...bin Laden or one of his associates came up with the name AQ, and based on my poor understanding of the law, prosecuters have plenty of leeway in prosecuting suspected terrorists...all they have to do these days, is basically ignore a lot of the laws that have been in place in the US for 200 years or so-that is, under the Patriot Act and other assorted tramplings of the constitution.

35ft6
07-27-2006, 04:03 AM
I understand such ambiguities and also understand that a liberation group can just as easily be, ALSO, a terrorist group. True. Targeting areas with absolutely no military value, packed with civilians is evil. Still, sometimes it seems like one big game of semantics, this whole "terrorist," "freedom fighter," "retaliate" business. Hezbollah still isn't considered a terrorist group by most of the western world, it's recognized by many countries as a legitimate political organization and in the Arab world a highly respected organization at that. Seems to me that actions undertaken by officially recognized governments (or to be more specific, governments who are political/economic allies of the USA), even if these actions fit the description of terrorism to a "t," it's not described as being a terrorist action. A terrorist act is when somebody we're not aligned with does the same thing we do.AQ also considers itself a "liberation" movement, though it's goals are a lot more ambiguous and broader than taking a single country down...so, obviously it comes down to semantics, but it also comes down to body counts and WHOSE bodies are being blown up. I agree. See above.I didn't say you were mistaken. I'm just asking why, after achieving their stated goal, do they continue to exist and operate. Is it possible that over the years, with the money coming in from Iran, Syria and other Islamic sources, they have grown large, rich and powerful in Lebanon, even to the point of becoming bureaucratic and have "broadened" their original charter to include controlling a good chunk of Lebanon, both politically and geographically, harassing Israel until they or Israel no longer exists, and blowing some infidels to their Hell? Hezbollah also runs hospitals, clinics, and schools inside of Lebanon. They do some shady things but they also seem to do some nice things for their own people at least. But to answer your original question, isn't that the way it always goes? Groups which were originally formed to perform a specific function end up continuing on long after their task has been completed. Take our own government for example. A government is supposed to exist in order to accomplish things that individuals can't accomplish on their own. Three examples of that might be a national highway system, a national defense, and establishing educational standards. But at some point our government became preoccupied with creating more government, government for the sake of government. As far as that goes, Hezbollah going from kick out the Israeli's from Lebanon to kick out the Israeli's out of the middle east isn't a surprising transition.It might certainly be, but the identical premise is used by AQ...all the time, so is their reason legit or is it just a premise to blow up more infidels? In their mind it's perfectly legitimate. I've been reading a lot of Chomsky again lately. He seems to think that the USA does a lot of things which are technically criminal, and he gives several very compelling examples. We're not that careful about killing innocents either, or allowing others to kill innocents when it suits or at least doesn't work against our stated interests. Saddam Hussein comes to mind.

Whatever. I support Israel more or less. I just think their reaction is a bit overkill no pun intended. Hope we don't read about any mushroom clouds soon.

max
07-27-2006, 04:41 AM
J D: thanks for the note about the Abraham-Ishmael-Isaac history; that's what I was looking for. I guess I need to find a copy of the Koran and maybe a guide to reading the Koran.

Shabazza
07-27-2006, 05:00 AM
posted on another forum:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9413

July 26, 2006
Lebanon: Winners and Losers
Bin Laden wins, and we lose

by Justin Raimondo

Poor Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "Liberated" Iraq's chief government official came to Washington hoping to shore up the precarious position of his regime as it teeters on the brink of civil war, and all he got was this:

"Mr. Maliki's refusal to condemn Hezbollah has created an awkward situation for the White House. 'His statements are troubling,' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said today. 'They raise serious questions about whether Iraq, which is supposed to be our ally, can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East.'"

"I want the prime minister to denounce what Hezbollah has done," said Reid. "I will lose a lot of confidence in al-Maliki if he does not denounce what Hezbollah has done."

Doesn't Mr. Maliki know which side his bread is buttered on? Of course he should pay more attention to what a single American senator thinks than what they're saying back home about Israel's **** of Lebanon. A puppet trying to cut his strings is bound to fall on his face. Pinocchio, however, thinks he's a real boy, and even began acting like one last week at a news conference held in the "Green Zone":

"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."

This was said in answer to a question from a reporter about the Iraqi government's plans to evacuate Iraqis trapped in Lebanon. Rumor has it that a more extensive expression of his stance will come out in a Wednesday speech to Congress - that is, if it ever takes place.

What Maliki said in the Green Zone is verboten in the Zionist Zone that is Washington, D.C. That city, as Pat Buchanan quipped, is "Israeli-occupied territory." A memorable phrase, that, and particularly evocative of what is happening today, as Congress ratifies Israel's brazen blitzkrieg without even mentioning, let alone condemning, the targeting of Lebanese infrastructure and massacre of civilians. As John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt averred in their Harvard University study of the Israel lobby:

"The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that U.S. policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, 'you can't have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.'"

The idea is to control the terms of the debate - that is, to make sure that there is no debate, and that nary a word against Israel or its inordinate influence over American foreign policy ever gets uttered in a major public forum. As if to illustrate the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis in the most dramatic terms imaginable, we read that a gaggle of prominent Democrats is demanding that Maliki be silenced, and have published an open letter to this effect:


"In recent months there have been extensive reports indicating that al-Maliki and many in the Iraqi leadership are increasingly influenced by the government in Iran. Further, they have expressed support of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the latter of which was responsible for the death of 241 United States Marines in Beirut. The House should not allow an address from any world leader who has taken such action. We are unaware of any prior instance where a world leader who actively worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor. We urge you to cancel the address."

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert wisely rejected this advice. What is incredible about this letter, however, is that these people are complaining about the leader of the very government they have funded and supported. Now they are saying that he isn't acting enough like a sock-puppet for their tastes.

Well, tough - you made your bed, gentlemen (and gentle-ladies), and you sleep in it.

How dare these hypocrites decry Iran's growing influence: it was their votes that made it possible, their silence as we were lied into war, their complicity in the making of a foreign policy that serves everyone's interests but America's.

The Americans wanted to export "democracy" to the Middle East, and now that they've succeeded they don't much like the results. Maliki is not alone in facing their slings and arrows. Hamas - elevated in a free election to become the ruling party in Palestine - is a "terrorist" organization, and failure to condemn it marks one as an untouchable. Hezbollah, for its part, represents southern Lebanon in the Lebanese Parliament, and yet they are now depicted as al-Qaeda in Shi'ite drag. Instead of hailing their own alleged achievement in constructing functioning Arab democracies, the West is now turning its guns on them - with Israel leading the charge.

This is Bizarro World behavior, once again seeming to confirm my thesis that the 9/11 terrorist attacks tore a hole in the space-time continuum, and we slipped into an alternate universe where up is down, right is wrong, and naked aggression is "self-defense." In line with this, it makes perfect "sense" that a crusade for electoral democracy in the Middle East requires a ruthless war against the winners of those elections. It's Bizarro World "democracy promotion": spark "a fire in the mind," then rush to stamp it out.

Israel's invasion of Lebanon serves the interests of two major players in the Middle East, and America is not among them. First, obviously, Israeli interests: I realize that antiwar commentators are telling us that the invasion doesn't really serve Tel Aviv's long-term interests very well, but this is not based on any military analysis of the country's security needs. Israel is a sliver of Mediterranean coastline that is not at all defensible in its present form: expansionism is built into its objective predicament, as well as the history of the Zionist project.

As the authors of the 1996 policy paper "A Clean Break" argued, Israel has little choice but to expand its power and sphere of influence, or die. The Jewish state, an artificial implant in the region, has from the beginning lived on life support from abroad - and could not long survive without U.S. aid. The authors of the paper, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, recognized this expansionist dynamic and urged Israeli leaders - specifically, then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - to make a "clean break" with the failed defensive policies of the past, and go on the offensive, vowing to end Israeli dependence on America by freeing up the economy and launching a preventive war against neighboring Arab states. The idea was to make Israel independent both economically and militarily.

While not much progress has been made on the economic side - Israel is still among the most socialistic countries on earth, where the state holds decisive power over every aspect of industry - we're seeing the first signs of "progress" on the military front in Lebanon. Events seem to be unfolding pretty much as the Clean-Breakers recommended: "regime change" in Iraq, followed by a blow against Syria and the "securing" of the northern border:

"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

. paralleling Syria's behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli ***** forces.
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper."
Damascus has always been the focal point of Israeli efforts to finally achieve security and stability. Get ready for air strikes on "select" Syrian targets. If I were Bashar al-Assad, I would abandon the summer palace and go to the French Riviera for the season - although I wouldn't be at all surprised if the IDF buzzed him on the beach.

The other major Middle East player who benefits from the Israeli invasion is Osama bin Laden. The cedars of democratic Lebanon are burning, and the West embraces the arsonists. As Michael Scheuer puts it, this amounts to:

"[V]alidation for Muslims of bin Laden's assertion that the West considers Muslim lives cheap and expendable. They will see that three kidnapped Israeli soldiers and several dozen dead Israelis are worth infinitely more to the West than the thousands of Muslims held for years in Israel's prisons, the hundreds already killed in Lebanon, and the eradication of Lebanon's modern infrastructure.

2nd part in next post.

Shabazza
07-27-2006, 05:04 AM
2nd part:

"So bin Laden wins without lifting a finger. The G-8 leaders, their Arab allies, and Israel have behaved in a way that will burn bin Laden's words deeper into Muslim perceptions and push more to accept jihad as the only recourse. Western leaders can argue forever that they are honest brokers but, because perception is reality, it will be bin Laden's words, not theirs, that echo long and tellingly in Muslim ears."

If al-Qaeda and the Israelis are the big winners in this game, then their worst enemies are the big losers - first and foremost the United States. Washington is stuck with the thankless task of trying to keep together a rogues' alliance of Israel and the Arab autocrats, while losing credibility in the Arab street and even provoking skepticism from our closest allies, such as the Brits.

Lebanese liberals are also big losers: the American green light for the assault sent a clear and unequivocal message to the "Cedar Revolutionaries," one they will not soon forget. The Arab monarchs - the two Abdullahs and Pharoah Mubarak - are also losers, and they have much to lose: their heads, perhaps, or at least their thrones.

American soldiers in occupied Iraq may wind up being the biggest losers if the Israeli rampage is allowed to continue much longer. After all, these guys and gals are smack dab in the midst of a Shi'ite sea: for an American president to personally sanction the slaughter of Shias, which is shown on al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya day after day, is to place our GIs in mortal danger.

Our super-"patriotic" leaders in Washington never fail to invoke the courage and security of "our troops," but somehow this is lost sight of when it really matters. One has to wonder what country is the object of their patriotic fervor - because it sure isn't America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A thought provoking article - one thing I don't agree with - even Israel won't be on the winners side in the long term.

It just comes down to the old saying - "War itself has no winners only losers!"

It's like a vicious circle! :|

It may be a bit off-topic, but I wanted to share this article and your thoughts on it.

dmastous
07-27-2006, 05:24 AM
There are many shades of Islam. There are moderates, there are Muslims who don't really adhere to Muslim practices too much, and there are fanatical Muslims who want to shape the world according to strict Muslim doctrine. They believe that to not follow their interpretation of the Quran is criminal. We are a bad influence upon them. But the worst sort of criminal to them is the moderate or part time Muslim. In the end it doesn't matter they want all who don't agree with them dead.
The Taliban Al Queada, Hamas, and Hezbollah all fall into the last catagory.
The Taliban was turning Afganistan into it's vision of how the world should be. Women mush be covered head to toe at all times. Men must have a beard. Women cannot do anything, but have babies and clean house. Islamic practices will be followed to the letter at all times. (prayers, diet etc...). There was zero tolerance for any other way of thinking or being. Watching or listening to a western program was against the law an punished severely. In 2000 they blew up a monument that had been painstakingly carved into a mountain and had been considered a national treasure. The set explosives to it and wiped it out because it was not Islamic (I forget it's origin). That's how life was in Afganistan prior to 2001 and that's how they want the world to be.
As for Hamas & Hezbollah, they're dedication to drive Isreal out of Labanon was simply extended to drive Isreal out of existance. They along with other radicals want to retake possession of some ground they consider sacred according to their tradition.
There are legitimate beefs with Isreal from those Palastinians who live near Isreal. They are assumed to be terrorists and treated like criminals by Isreal. Isreal is very quick to retaliate for terrorist acts, and it usually means suffering for all. Their life is moderated by actions take by Isreal. But what they don't seem to take into account is that Isreal is only reacting to the criminals within them. If they policed themselves and tried to get along peacefully with Isreal the wouldn't have the problems they have.

tennis-n-sc
07-27-2006, 09:58 AM
Bottom line, the world would be a much safer place today without Muslims. Sad to say.

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 11:26 AM
Bottom line, the world would be a much safer place today without Muslims. Sad to say.

and without jews and christians, and everybody else. ya definitely :rolleyes:

chroix
07-27-2006, 11:28 AM
The world would be a much safer place without radicals of any sort. Historically Jews, Christians and Muslims have coexisted meerately peacefully. The creation of Israel obviously caused quite a bit of uproar as has the creation of Pakistan and the disput over the Kashmir region. Thank god, there aren't many Phillistines left or we'd have another group of disgruntled people willing to kill anyone over a patch of sand.

chroix
07-27-2006, 11:32 AM
tennisnerd, in an earlier post you were talking about jew controlled TV stations not showing the whole story, but you are ignoring the real fact that big corporations with interests in oil and military contracts are the ones who control these organizations. he way you put it makes it sound as if there is a Jewish conspiracy, which is total paranoid BS. You fail to mention the fact that many of the rocket attacks on Israel are ignored, while destruction of Hezbollah installations are shown as if they were grade schools. The conspiracy goes both ways and the end result is more dead people and less control for the poor of the world.

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 11:37 AM
tennisnerd, in an earlier post you were talking about jew controlled TV stations not showing the whole story, but you are ignoring the real fact that big corporations with interests in oil and military contracts are the ones who control these organizations. he way you put it makes it sound as if there is a Jewish conspiracy, which is total paranoid BS. You fail to mention the fact that many of the rocket attacks on Israel are ignored, while destruction of Hezbollah installations are shown as if they were grade schools. The conspiracy goes both ways and the end result is more dead people and less control for the poor of the world.

missiles fired in Israel ignored?!? now THATS BS. thats the only thing you see on the big north american news channels. watch the news tonight buddy.

chroix
07-27-2006, 12:03 PM
nerd, you obviously have your opinion and I have mine. Try being a little more flexible/open-minded and maybe people will listen to your POV. On my TV I have seen very much about the devastation in Lebanon and UN outpost being attacked with very little on missiles striking Israel.

Thanks for the codescending tone. I haven't had enough of that today.

Kevin T
07-27-2006, 12:15 PM
I heard a TV "talking head" say that if all the countries that hate Israel threw their weapons into the sea, there would be peace in the Middle East and if Israel threw their weapons in the sea, the Muslim extremists/nations would exterminate Israel. A little simple, yes, but likely very true.

chief78
07-27-2006, 12:20 PM
All muslims don't hate Jews. Hezbulla is made up of people who grew up in refugee camps from being displaced and massacred by Isrealies. Thats why they hate Israel. Also, Israel has many Lebanese imprisoned and thats why they captured 2 Israeli soldiers.

Muslims in Palestine allowed the Jews to live in what is now Israel when they were being forced out of europe and then eventually the Jews took it over and displaced many Muslims. The news will never give the big picture.

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 12:23 PM
nerd, you obviously have your opinion and I have mine. Try being a little more flexible/open-minded and maybe people will listen to your POV. On my TV I have seen very much about the devastation in Lebanon and UN outpost being attacked with very little on missiles striking Israel.

Thanks for the codescending tone. I haven't had enough of that today.

well sorry its just that trying to prove your point to so many people who are against you and what you think is kinda hard :(

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 12:25 PM
All muslims don't hate Jews.

exactly. i dont hate jew's, i have quite a few friends. my dad's boss is jewish, and they're great friends. he also has another friend who he used to work with who's jewish and whose wife is Romanian. the problem is not hatred, its extremists, and their views are the only ones that most people hear/know of. if everyone dropped their weapons, shared land, and didnt argue about religion, anyone could get along with anyone else. but i dont think anyone see's that happening for a long time

chroix
07-27-2006, 12:30 PM
Try a different approach and maybe it would be easier. Saying that there is a jewish conspiracy against all Muslims is dumb. I was raised jewish and think Islam is a beautiful, interesting and very intellectual philosophy. I agree with many of the principles in the Quran. I don't agree with random attacks on civilians from either side. Trying to state that the jews control the media and don't show the Arabic side casts doubt on your whole premise, particularly when it really can't be backed up. Ted Turner is not a jew. ABC is owned by Disney and CBS is a Westinghouse company I believe. IMO if there is any conspiracy it is by big corporations tryiong to keep people fighting over stupid reasons like differences in philosophy so they don't realize how hard they are getting screwed economically. The same goes for racism. It is a tool used by those in power to keep poor people divided so they don't unite and take over.

tennis-n-sc
07-27-2006, 12:51 PM
exactly. i dont hate jew's, i have quite a few friends. my dad's boss is jewish, and they're great friends. he also has another friend who he used to work with who's jewish and whose wife is Romanian. the problem is not hatred, its extremists, and their views are the only ones that most people hear/know of. if everyone dropped their weapons, shared land, and didnt argue about religion, anyone could get along with anyone else. but i dont think anyone see's that happening for a long time

Didn't the Canadien government just recently uncover a plot by Muslims to blow up government buildings and behead the prime minister? Wasn't Isreal minding its own business until Hamas and Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed and captured soldiers? While it is very unfortunate that some innocent lives are lost, these loses are directly attributable to Muslims. They knew exactly what Israel would do in response. Do you think Hezbollah cleared the raid with the Lebanese government before hand? The problem is that for eons, Muslims have wandered the desert becasue that is what they do. They had no borders and when they couldn't find anyone else to kill, they killed each other. What a life. Most of the rest of the world did learn to play well with others. Most Muslims did not and apparently will not ever. Every indication is that as long as idiots and extremists are in power, we can depend on Muslims to maintain several fronts of terroristic activities around the world. These Muslims must be eradicated and now is as good a time as any. If there are Muslims for peace, now is a really good time to speak up and take some action.

ThePlungerMan
07-27-2006, 12:55 PM
snip.....if you are a good citizen and a proper muslim who actually FOLLOWS what the quaran says to do, your overshadowed by the extremists. snip
When you get down to it, it’s kinda sad, as opposed to funny, in that you have it reversed.
It’s this way.
The “good Muslim citizens” over shadow the extremists, which therefore give the impression to the world that they are getting the Muslim faith right.
When in all actuality it’s the so called extremists who are getting it right or as you said “FOLLOWS what the Quran says to do”
It’s very interesting to see such long drawn out posts, over such as easy answer to the thread starters question.

alienhamster
07-27-2006, 01:02 PM
This thread is actually better than I thought it would be by page 4. Let's try to keep the posts as non-flaming and content/argument filled as possible.

A quick thought to defend tennis nerd a bit here:

His original post does sound a little "jewish conspiracy", but he's got a bit of a point about American media and our government in general. I'm constantly shocked at how pro-Israeli these conflicts seem to be framed whenever they're discussed, even on PBS shows. Israel is rarely described as an aggressor but rather (seemingly always) a victim or "caught in conflict" or something else that seems to overlook their active agency in a lot of the conflict. And somehow, as 35ft suggests, Islamic forces and movements, whether they're genuinely crazy or not, always seem to come off as, well, crazy, as an element that needs to be controlled rather than worked with.

I don't know where this framing comes from to be honest. It's not simply a left or right thing in America, but it's certainly there. I doubt there is a secret media room full of conniving power-Jews making sure the networks maintain this rhetorical presentation of the issues.

And tennis-n-sc, I'm embarrased for SC that you just said that. There are even Muslims in South Carolina (who I knew in college) who have done wonderful things in this world.

I think you meant radical fundamentalists, but I suspect you're A-OKAY with the Christian brand of fundamentalism. (Not meant to be a flame here; just calling this out and defending SC!)

Shabazza
07-27-2006, 01:25 PM
Didn't the Canadien government just recently uncover a plot by Muslims to blow up government buildings and behead the prime minister? Wasn't Isreal minding its own business until Hamas and Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed and captured soldiers? While it is very unfortunate that some innocent lives are lost, these loses are directly attributable to Muslims. They knew exactly what Israel would do in response. Do you think Hezbollah cleared the raid with the Lebanese government before hand? The problem is that for eons, Muslims have wandered the desert becasue that is what they do. They had no borders and when they couldn't find anyone else to kill, they killed each other. What a life. Most of the rest of the world did learn to play well with others. Most Muslims did not and apparently will not ever. Every indication is that as long as idiots and extremists are in power, we can depend on Muslims to maintain several fronts of terroristic activities around the world. These Muslims must be eradicated and now is as good a time as any. If there are Muslims for peace, now is a really good time to speak up and take some action.
This is just not true, most muslims did and learn to play well with others - just a few, very radical fundamentalists (which exist in every religion) try to discredit the Islam (very successfully I have to admit) by terrorists attacks etc. to force more or less an agrassive behavior from Jews and Christians - which in return forces the moderate muslims (in this particular case the lebanon people) to take the side of the extremist to defend themselves.
The boy, whose parents or sisters and brothers were killed and the house destroyed by Israel's bombs today, will most likely be the next extremist and terrorist tomorrow. War only bears hate and anger.
With this war Israel won't secure peace and a stability in the middle-east.
As it's written in the article I posted - the only winners of this war are the extremist - Al-Qaida and Bin Laden, who'll get plenty of new re-cruits in the future.
I know it's very simplified, but that's what'll come out of it.

tennis-n-sc
07-27-2006, 01:45 PM
This is just not true, most muslims did and learn to play well with others - just a few, very radical fundamentalists (which exist in every religion) try to discredit the Islam (very successfully I have to admit) by terrorists attacks etc. to force more or less an agrassive behavior from Jews and Christians - which in return forces the moderate muslims (in this particular case the lebanon people) to take the side of the extremist to defend themselves.
The boy, whose parents or sisters and brothers were killed and the house destroyed by Israel's bombs today, will most likely be the next extremist and terrorist tomorrow. War only bears hate and anger.
With this war Israel won't secure peace and a stability in the middle-east.
As it's written in the article I posted - the only winners of this war are the extremist - Al-Qaida and Bin Laden, who'll get plenty of new re-cruits in the future.
I know it's very simplified, but that's what'll come out of it.

Of course, I disagree with you as you take the side of the extremists and protray them as victims. As I stated, Israel was minding its own business when it was invaded. And, by the way, the winners will be those left standing when the smoke clears and I don't think it will be Hamas, Hezbollah or Al-Qaida. I do believe the moderate Muslim world has about had its fill of this crap. They are more interested in growning their economy and securing a respected place in the world community. Look for them to get more vocal behind the scenes.

tennis-n-sc
07-27-2006, 01:52 PM
This thread is actually better than I thought it would be by page 4. Let's try to keep the posts as non-flaming and content/argument filled as possible.

A quick thought to defend tennis nerd a bit here:

His original post does sound a little "jewish conspiracy", but he's got a bit of a point about American media and our government in general. I'm constantly shocked at how pro-Israeli these conflicts seem to be framed whenever they're discussed, even on PBS shows. Israel is rarely described as an aggressor but rather (seemingly always) a victim or "caught in conflict" or something else that seems to overlook their active agency in a lot of the conflict. And somehow, as 35ft suggests, Islamic forces and movements, whether they're genuinely crazy or not, always seem to come off as, well, crazy, as an element that needs to be controlled rather than worked with.

Well, if it walks like a duck...........

I don't know where this framing comes from to be honest. It's not simply a left or right thing in America, but it's certainly there. I doubt there is a secret media room full of conniving power-Jews making sure the networks maintain this rhetorical presentation of the issues.

How about just giving people credit for knowing a duck when they see one...

And tennis-n-sc, I'm embarrased for SC that you just said that. There are even Muslims in South Carolina (who I knew in college) who have done wonderful things in this world.

I'll be sure to let the people of SC know it was I that brought all the embarassment on the.

I think you meant radical fundamentalists, but I suspect you're A-OKAY with the Christian brand of fundamentalism. (Not meant to be a flame here; just calling this out and defending SC!)

I don't see Christain funamentalist terrorizing the world. And if they were they would be called Christain extremist or terroists and I would curse them as well.

TrueAce
07-27-2006, 01:55 PM
They're not called suicide bombers over there. They're called WITNESSES OF ALLAH LOL.......another martyr has gone to heaven is what the muslims say

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 01:58 PM
Didn't the Canadien government just recently uncover a plot by Muslims to blow up government buildings and behead the prime minister?

yes they did. extremists, or people who call themselves muslims, but done adhere to the quaran which says you should never kill anyone to get what you want. you should negociate in peace. (i know that sounds corny, but thats the truth, just like the bible).

Wasn't Isreal minding its own business until Hamas and Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed and captured soldiers?

no they werent, because they had randomly been attacking southern lebanon, as in firing random rockets/missiles at random times for no reason, so i heard (on the news...).

While it is very unfortunate that some innocent lives are lost, these loses are directly attributable to Muslims. They knew exactly what Israel would do in response.

well if your going to blame one party of the war, you have to blaim both. there are reasons why the muslims dont like the jews, and there are reasons the jews dont like the muslims, and when you cant put aside your differences, this is the consequence: war.

They had no borders and when they couldn't find anyone else to kill, they killed each other. What a life. Most of the rest of the world did learn to play well with others. Most Muslims did not and apparently will not ever. Every indication is that as long as idiots and extremists are in power, we can depend on Muslims to maintain several fronts of terroristic activities around the world. These Muslims must be eradicated and now is as good a time as any. If there are Muslims for peace, now is a really good time to speak up and take some action.

i dont know about the killing each other part, i mean, if you call yourself muslim, you believe in peace, and if they start killing each other, then you know what? you have EVERY right to call them idiots, and WE have every right to say they are not muslims by actions. by the way, not all parts of the world learned to "play" with each other. look at hitler, he couldnt accept the jews. look at the british when they first discovered canada, and kicked the natives further and further west until they tricked them and put them in tiny reserves. and the list goes on...

war is something the world is full of, to say the world would be completely peaceful without muslims is a completely false statement, because there will always be conflict because we can't accept each other.

and about muslims taking action against the extremists, how can we? how the hell can they in their home countries when they have nothing and the extremists all have mass weapons. if you tell them not to pledge war or remain peaceful without fighting, your shot. however, you have to depend on those people to live, because they control everything. like a dictatorship type government. you can not do anything, but go along with it, and live your life.

you are right that these extremists must be eradicated, but they werent born yesterday, which is indeed the problem

nickybol
07-27-2006, 01:58 PM
The Christian fundamentalists are the Bush government, terrorizing the world.

Killing all the Islamic terrorist doesn`t help fight the terrorism. You must look at the circumstances in which Islamic terrorism growths. The Arab world is mostly poor, and feeling surpressed by the western world. In bad circumstances, terrorism arises. Bad ideas always arise in bad times.

Hitler came to power when Germany was facing an economic crisis and was still bittered by the treaty of Versailles

And there are a couple of examples to name....

They only way to prevent terrorism is to rise the level of welfare. This terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. If the nations were Christian, the same thing would have happened.

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 02:00 PM
They're not called suicide bombers over there. They're called WITNESSES OF ALLAH LOL.......another martyr has gone to heaven is what the muslims say

some of them muslims, and that is absolute bull. no two ways about it. they are not witnesses of allah, and they do not go to heaven. there are many bad types of muslims in the world, ones who dont follow the quaran, who do not remain peaceful and accept others for who and what they are, but what can you do? even different types of muslism are against each other, thus, it creates a blurred vision of the islamic faith as a whole.

The Christian fundamentalists are the Bush government, terrorizing the world.

Killing all the Islamic terrorist doesn`t help fight the terrorism. You must look at the circumstances in which Islamic terrorism growths. The Arab world is mostly poor, and feeling surpressed by the western world. In bad circumstances, terrorism arises. Bad ideas always arise in bad times.

Hitler came to power when Germany was facing an economic crisis and was still bittered by the treaty of Versailles

And there are a couple of examples to name....

They only way to prevent terrorism is to rise the level of welfare. This terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. If the nations were Christian, the same thing would have happened.

well said

tennis_nerd22
07-27-2006, 02:04 PM
When you get down to it, it’s kinda sad, as opposed to funny, in that you have it reversed.
It’s this way.
The “good Muslim citizens” over shadow the extremists, which therefore give the impression to the world that they are getting the Muslim faith right.
When in all actuality it’s the so called extremists who are getting it right or as you said “FOLLOWS what the Quran says to do”
It’s very interesting to see such long drawn out posts, over such as easy answer to the thread starters question.

umm no it isnt, and im muslim, so i'd ought to know. i think the best thing to do would be to get excerts from the quaran to show you what it says and how most "muslims" (or at least, thats what they call themselves...) do not follow the quaran, and then claim that the terrorists will go to heaven. it is the biggest lie you can ever hear. which is why i dont blame you for what you said in your post. the problem is islam as a whole is so diverse and misunderstood by so many muslims and other people alike, that you cant get a feel for what the religion is like and what it encourages unless you read the quaran yourself.

dmastous
07-27-2006, 02:29 PM
Bottom line, the world would be a much safer place today without Muslims. Sad to say.
It would be a safer place without fundamentalists and radicals from any religion.

dmastous
07-27-2006, 02:41 PM
I don't see Christain funamentalist terrorizing the world. And if they were they would be called Christain extremist or terroists and I would curse them as well.
The did for awhile. We call them the Crusades now.
As for Islam being a bunch of desert dwellers who haven't accomplished anything (that's the jist I got from a couple of posts), it wasn't for the Arab world much of the knowlege of Greece and prior civilizations would have been lost. They were the caretakers of that knowledge during the Pluague years and dark ages in Europe until the Reinessance. They developed the building blocks of mathematics as well. There is much to be thankfull for the Muslim world.

35ft6
07-27-2006, 03:19 PM
The did for awhile. We call them the Crusades now.
As for Islam being a bunch of desert dwellers who haven't accomplished anything (that's the jist I got from a couple of posts), it wasn't for the Arab world much of the knowlege of Greece and prior civilizations would have been lost. They were the caretakers of that knowledge during the Pluague years and dark ages in Europe until the Reinessance. They developed the building blocks of mathematics as well. There is much to be thankfull for the Muslim world. This is very true. Back in the day, Islam was about the most compassionate and progressive thinking religion out there. For some reason during college I took a bunch of electives having to do with Islam. They allowed plenty of freedom of religion, and were relatively benign in the way they governed their conquests. Can't remember how they treated women but back in those times it's not like Christian women were very free either.

Shabazza
07-27-2006, 03:59 PM
This is very true. Back in the day, Islam was about the most compassionate and progressive thinking religion out there. For some reason during college I took a bunch of electives having to do with Islam. They allowed plenty of freedom of religion, and were relatively benign in the way they governed their conquests. Can't remember how they treated women but back in those times it's not like Christian women were very free either.
Indeed there wasn't much of a difference, at least they didn't lable hundred thousends of woman as witches burned them.

Shabazza
07-27-2006, 04:02 PM
]Of course, I disagree with you as you take the side of the extremists and protray them as victims.[/B] As I stated, Israel was minding its own business when it was invaded. And, by the way, the winners will be those left standing when the smoke clears and I don't think it will be Hamas, Hezbollah or Al-Qaida. I do believe the moderate Muslim world has about had its fill of this crap. They are more interested in growning their economy and securing a respected place in the world community. Look for them to get more vocal behind the scenes.
No, I didn't! Try to read my post again and comprehend what I'm saying.
So you believe that this war will help Israel and make the region a safer place?! You're delusional!

Kaptain Karl
07-27-2006, 04:45 PM
Having read only the first two pages....

I just heard Walid Shoebat (Shree-bot) (http://www.shoebat.com/) interviewed on a local station.

In 1993, Walid studied the Tanach (Jewish Bible) in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam. Six months later, after intense study, Walid realized that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. Convinced he was on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy. ... Walid is an American citizen and lives in the USA with his wife and children, under this assumed name.

Answering a question, Shoebat said, "[The conflict] is not 'Islamic Terrorism' or 'Muslim Terrorism.' It's not 'Anti-Israeli' terrorism or 'Anti-Christian' terrorism. It *is* 'Anti-Non-Muslim' terror...." They are against everyone who is not Muslim.

That was sobering.

- KK

chief78
07-27-2006, 04:49 PM
The problem is that you only hear about the few Islamic extremists. There are millions of muslims in the world and the news will only let you know about the few that are fighting in the middle east. They are dirt poor (many grew up in refugee camps and have experienced war and death of family their entire lives). What happens to dirt poor kids who grow up in the middle of fighting and were kicked out of their home by Israelis? They form Hezbolla. Islam is a beautiful religion that teaches peace above all else, but also encourages people to defend their land. They did this during the Crusades (which lasted hundreds of years) and now feel that Israel invaded their land (lets face it they did). The news will only focus on the small picture and never give full details of what these particular Muslims are fighting for. Thats how the image comes about that all muslims are blood thirsty savages (like native americans I guess.) if you think think they are just jealous of our freedom then I suggest that you stop watching CNN.

Phil
07-27-2006, 05:17 PM
True. Targeting areas with absolutely no military value, packed with civilians is evil. Still, sometimes it seems like one big game of semantics, this whole "terrorist," "freedom fighter," "retaliate" business. Hezbollah still isn't considered a terrorist group by most of the western world, it's recognized by many countries as a legitimate political organization and in the Arab world a highly respected organization at that.
AQ is also recognized as "legit" in some parts of the Islamic world. This is only MY opinion, but regarding their history, I can't really ascribe noble or good, or even moderate intent to Hezbollah's actions. They were formed to kill people and that's what they've been doing for years. You forget the havoc that they (and other groups) wreaked inside of Lebanon, during the 80's and early 90's.
Seems to me that actions undertaken by officially recognized governments (or to be more specific, governments who are political/economic allies of the USA), even if these actions fit the description of terrorism to a "t," it's not described as being a terrorist action.
You're right to an extent; especially when one examines some of our recent allies: Marcos, Somoza, The Shah of Iran, etc. So we've aligned with some bad guys (mainly because as bad as they were, they were anti-communists). But...does that make AQ, Hezbollah, Hammas, or some of the reigning and former butchers of Africa any better...I'm not saying the US is all good and rosy in its alliances and actions.

A terrorist act is when somebody we're not aligned with does the same thing we do.
Huh? Please explain. We may have befriended some unsavory characters, but when have they driven airplanes into office buildings or incinerated busloads of women and children on a regular basis? I think your reading of Chomsky is a bit too literal.
I agree. See above. Hezbollah also runs hospitals, clinics, and schools inside of Lebanon. They do some shady things but they also seem to do some nice things for their own people at least.
This is the noble Robin Hood syndrome...Hamas does those things too, and it's part PR and part an actual desire to help their people-mostly, it's a cynical way to build a base of support. You don't think those hospitals come with a PRICE??? How about this...we build you a hospital, you TOLERATE the fact that we attack Israel and possibly get YOU killed by doing so...When I lived in NYC there was a thug of a mafia don named John Gotti whom EVERYONE in his Queens neighborhood loved. He held gigantic barbecues, would happly peel a couple hundreds off his wad of cash to help a neighborhood guy whose lost his job, send flowers to new mothers...the works. He was a hero to the locals...just as Hezbollah is...but at a price, as I mentioned. Think about it.
But to answer your original question, isn't that the way it always goes? Groups which were originally formed to perform a specific function end up continuing on long after their task has been completed. Take our own government for example. A government is supposed to exist in order to accomplish things that individuals can't accomplish on their own. Three examples of that might be a national highway system, a national defense, and establishing educational standards. But at some point our government became preoccupied with creating more government, government for the sake of government. As far as that goes, Hezbollah going from kick out the Israeli's from Lebanon to kick out the Israeli's out of the middle east isn't a surprising transition.
I agree with this for the most part...but Hezbollah doesn't want to merely "kick out the Israelis out of the Middle East"; they want to destroy them. There's a big difference.
In their mind it's perfectly legitimate. I've been reading a lot of Chomsky again lately. He seems to think that the USA does a lot of things which are technically criminal, and he gives several very compelling examples. We're not that careful about killing innocents either, or allowing others to kill innocents when it suits or at least doesn't work against our stated interests. Saddam Hussein comes to mind.
There's a lot of problems with US foreign policy, but Chomsky is completely one-sided. He is so busy pointing this out-the evils that we've committed-that he barely even acknowledges what we've been up against. We aren't perfect, and our intentions aren't even always good ones, but I really can't see the comparison between the American mindset and that of the Jihadiis.

Whatever. I support Israel more or less. I just think their reaction is a bit overkill no pun intended. Hope we don't read about any mushroom clouds soon.
Israel's vacated S. Lebanon AND Gaza, and yet they're taking fire from both areas, which were also used as staging areas for kidnapping operations. What are they supposed to do...just sit there? They know that Hezbollah has 12,000 rockets and they know that Hezbollah cannot be negotiated with on the issue of Israeli existance...so...they have FINALLY realized that they're vacating S. Lebanon was not the end of the conflict, but the beginning. It gave Hezbollah the breathing space to regroup and re-arm. I think Israel's reaction to this threat is spot-on. Israel has nukes, and they've had them for years. They aren't going to use them against Hezbollah or anyone else-not unless they're threatened with nukes. Believe me, if Hezbollah got its hands on a nuke, it would use it against Israel, without hesitation and without concern for the welfare of its own population-just as it launched this recent attack. Those hospitals they build mean squat if they're willing to risk the lives of the people for whom the hospital were built by engaging in idiotic military follies.

Kaptain Karl
07-27-2006, 07:48 PM
... Israel was purposely attacking the United Nations bases in Lebanon (peacekeepers), even though they were in constant communication for many many many hours and the UN were warning them that they were getting too close? it was purposely done without a doubt, including a plane which flew right by it and dropped a bomb.I saw Fee asked you for your "source" some time back. You have yet to provide any....

... you cant let extremists dicatate the entire face of islam? have any of you, who say that islam encourages killing and hatred and war to get what you want, actually read the Quaran? if you had, you wouldnt say the stuff you do.I've read some of it. (I surely hope it's easier to stick with it in Arabic. In English, the "flowery poetic" stuff is soooo boring.) There are passages which specifically tell Mohammed's followers to kill the infidel. Do I need to post them...?

... you have to understand that there are many different types of muslims, mainly suni and shia, who are also against each other very much.I acknowledge this must be quite a problem for many Muslims. "Islam" is certainly NOT monolithic, but the Press (and we?) do have a tendency to paint all Islam with the brush of Al-Qaeda-types.


Indonesia is indeed that country with the largest muslim population,but do these people hate the Jews?Jews that live far away from them..?I don't think so.But they surely are good at killing Christians. Did you miss what happened to all the "Christians" in East Timor...? I just read a report which says, "By 1989, Amnesty International estimated that Indonesia had murdered 200,000 East Timorese out of a population of 600,000-700,000." (That's between one-fourth and one-third of the population!)

And..btw...there are still many muslims,that live outside of Indonesia,Malaysia and the Arab states...
It is dead wrong,to make such generalisations.All muslims hate the jews....The difference in some of these generalizations is ... when a "so-called Christian" bombs an abortion clinic, other Christians are some of the *first* to condemn such idiocy. And when "so-called Muslims" bomb a cafe of innocent people ... most Muslims around the world are silent....

"Islam is unique among the civilizations of the world today in terms of its inability to get along with others." (I think that was from Shoebat.)

- KK

Kaptain Karl
07-27-2006, 08:30 PM
BTW, J_D, nice summary (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1037514&postcount=14).

... no they werent [Israel wasn't minding its own business] because they had randomly been attacking southern lebanon, as in firing random rockets/missiles at random times for no reason, so i heard (on the news...).Source please?

[I was driving when I heard an interview of an Israeli officer. I'm sorry, I did not catch his name....] He was irritated at the Press reports that Israel's action was a "surprise attack" in Lebanon. He claimed that for four days prior to the attacks Israel dropped papers explaining what they were going to do and advising the Lebanese to leave. He also said Israel employed a computer program designed to call the Cell Phone numbers in Lebanon and warn people out of the target area with an automated message in the language of the region. He was just a bit ... torqued ... that "the Press" didn't bother reporting that.

[His was the only report of this I've heard or seen.]

... by the way, not all parts of the world learned to "play" with each other. look at hitler, he couldnt accept the jews. look at the british when they first discovered canada, and kicked the natives further and further west until....This is known as "brokering sins." It's supposed to make us think, "Oh! So what those rotten Muslims are doing isn't so bad after all." (It isn't working with me....)

... and about muslims taking action against the extremists, how can we? how the hell can they in their home countries when they have nothing and the extremists all have mass weapons. if you tell them not to pledge war or remain peaceful without fighting, your shot. however, you have to depend on those people to live, because they control everything. like a dictatorship type government. you can not do anything, but go along with it, and live your life.I cannot comprehend this ... fatalistic ... response. If YOU Muslims won't do something about the whackos ... how is it that when some "infidels" do ... you choose to complain about those "outsiders" actions. This is senseless.

... you are right that these extremists must be eradicated....[u]So, get busy!!!

The Christian fundamentalists are the Bush government, terrorizing the world.This post demonstrates that just as many Westerners can't figure out Islam ... many Friends of Islam also know *squat* about Christianity.

They only way to prevent terrorism is to rise the level of welfare. This terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. If the nations were Christian, the same thing would have happened.TILT!!! This makes zero sense. Care to try and clarify this position of yours ... please?


We call them [Christian terrorists] the Crusades now.Wow. I wondered when this was going to be thrown into the mix.... (More brokering of sins....)

[If] it wasn't for the Arab world much of the knowlege of Greece and prior civilizations would have been lost. They were the caretakers of that knowledge during the Pluague years and dark ages in Europe until the Reinessance. They developed the building blocks of mathematics as well.1 - That's nuts. Calling Muslims "caretakers" of knowledge is laughable revisionist history.
2 - Much of the "wisdom" attributed to Muslims is really from the Greeks and Romans. (This topic has been beaten to death on TT....)

There is much to be thankful for the Muslim world.Yeah....

schaefferm46
07-27-2006, 08:48 PM
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8osaBmVL9_w"></param><embed allowScriptAccess="never" allownetworking="internal" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8osaBmVL9_w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed>..>

ThePlungerMan
07-27-2006, 11:02 PM
Having read only the first two pages....

I just heard Walid Shoebat (Shree-bot) (http://www.shoebat.com/) interviewed on a local station.

In 1993, Walid studied the Tanach (Jewish Bible) in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam. Six months later, after intense study, Walid realized that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. Convinced he was on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy. ... Walid is an American citizen and lives in the USA with his wife and children, under this assumed name.

Answering a question, Shoebat said, "[The conflict] is not 'Islamic Terrorism' or 'Muslim Terrorism.' It's not 'Anti-Israeli' terrorism or 'Anti-Christian' terrorism. It *is* 'Anti-Non-Muslim' terror...." They are against everyone who is not Muslim.

That was sobering.

- KK

There it is there.

nickybol
07-27-2006, 11:58 PM
BTW, J_D, nice summary (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1037514&postcount=14).

Source please?

[I was driving when I heard an interview of an Israeli officer. I'm sorry, I did not catch his name....] He was irritated at the Press reports that Israel's action was a "surprise attack" in Lebanon. He claimed that for four days prior to the attacks Israel dropped papers explaining what they were going to do and advising the Lebanese to leave. He also said Israel employed a computer program designed to call the Cell Phone numbers in Lebanon and warn people out of the target area with an automated message in the language of the region. He was just a bit ... torqued ... that "the Press" didn't bother reporting that.



This post demonstrates that just as many Westerners can't figure out Islam ... many Friends of Islam also know *squat* about Christianity.

TILT!!! This makes zero sense. Care to try and clarify this position of yours ... please?
Your only source is an Israeli officier? You know that the Israeli army is censoring the press?

I`m not a friend of Islam. The Bush government are a but of Christian fundamentalists, ruining Africa, don`t wanting to pay for hospitals in Africa because "there might be abortioned in those hospitals"

Terrorism flourishes in poor or surpressed areas of the world. That is no coincidence. Almost all countries in the Muslim world are poor or/and surpressed.

tennis-n-sc
07-28-2006, 05:21 AM
Your only source is an Israeli officier? You know that the Israeli army is censoring the press?

I`m not a friend of Islam. The Bush government are a but of Christian fundamentalists, ruining Africa, don`t wanting to pay for hospitals in Africa because "there might be abortioned in those hospitals"

Terrorism flourishes in poor or surpressed areas of the world. That is no coincidence. Almost all countries in the Muslim world are poor or/and surpressed.

What's this? There are no poor Christain, Hindu or Buddists countries? You think all the people in Israel are rich? Actually, many of the Muslim countires are some of the richest in the world. Get a clue.

tennis-n-sc
07-28-2006, 05:24 AM
No, I didn't! Try to read my post again and comprehend what I'm saying.
So you believe that this war will help Israel and make the region a safer place?! You're delusional!

Yep, I do. Call me sentimental but I do think if Hezbollah is totally eradicated, not only will Israel be better off, but so will Lebanon.

tennis-n-sc
07-28-2006, 05:27 AM
umm no it isnt, and im muslim, so i'd ought to know. i think the best thing to do would be to get excerts from the quaran to show you what it says and how most "muslims" (or at least, thats what they call themselves...) do not follow the quaran, and then claim that the terrorists will go to heaven. it is the biggest piece of sh*t you can ever hear. which is why i dont blame you for what you said in your post. the problem is islam as a whole is so diverse and misunderstood by so many muslims and other people alike, that you cant get a feel for what the religion is like and what it encourages unless you read the quaran yourself.

Well, enlighten us, please, about the reflections of Mohammed contained in the Koran in which he talks about killing all who do not convert to Islam. If Mohammed was a prophet, he was a false prophet.

scez
07-28-2006, 06:10 AM
No... I hate EVERYONE, except myself, my dog, a cheeseburger and some fries ;)

You are probably better of just saying I was joking otherwise tennis_nerd will still think you are a racist.

max
07-28-2006, 06:16 AM
I would like some clarification on the bombing of abortion clinics. I understand that this was a short-lived "tactic", with the bombings supposed to take place at night, to cause physical damage to the facility but not harm workers. Of course, there was probably sloppiness in this, but I cannot recall reading of any of these in recent years. The pro-life movement probably should not be characterized by its most extreme members. Nor should Muslims or Jews or Southern Baptists.

tennis_nerd22
07-28-2006, 06:18 AM
k im going to find some passages...

but in the mean time, for islam as a religion. Prophet Muhammad made the Shia Imami Ismailis (which i am), which are completely different from other shia's and suni's. it is said that Allah revelead to him in a cave the religion, and what he was supposed to do to tell the people, and that Hazrat Ali would be the next imam (till this day, we still have an imam, who is a direct descendant of Prophet Muhammed). Muhammad told the people in those areas, mainly Egypt and where the current Middle East is about the religion, and how to pray, not to believe in statues that they had made or in multiple Gods, because that wasnt what God wanted.

However, he was taken seriously by some people, but not all, they thought he was crazy. the hatred towards the shia imami muslims grew and eventually turned into wars, in which yes, many people were killed, including Muhammad's uncle. after that, we fled, and the religion spread. BY NO MEANS DID WE FORCE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN OUR RELIGION. WE TOLD THEM ABOUT IT, AND SAID IF THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE IN IT, THEY COULD, OTHERWISE THATS FINE. and now there are millions of is world-wide, including many in North America. and we are against all these wars, but i can tell you one thing, the muslims you see in these wars are not Shia Imami Ismaili's, they are Shia's (different kinds of Shia's) and Suni's, who hate us. so when i defend muslims, im defending us, because we do not use violence, and none of our people are involved in the current wars or groups, whether it be Hezbullah, Alqueda, Hamas, etc.

visit this link to learn about us if you really want to:
http://ismaili.net/html/

and by the way, our current Imam (which in comparison to Catholicism is the Pope), is Prince Karim Aga Khan. and he had met with George Bush before the US announced they were going into Iraq. He warned Bush that if he did go into Iraq and invade them, there would be a full fledged war in the Middle East, massive destruction, none of which even the powerful countries (ie. US, Canada, Britain) would be able to stop.

Did Bush listen? No
Was the Imam right? Absolutely Yes.

and he frequently has meetings with other world leaders, including Tony Blair, Steven Harper, and others, so its not as if he sits in the Middle East on a carpet doing nothing but ordering people to do stuff and kill others. read the site and you'll understand.

so now you can see where i come from on this issue, and why i still defend the muslims (im really defending one sector, which would be mine), and this is because i also believe that what the other muslims are doing, forming all these war groups like Hamas and Hezbullah is completely wrong. it should not be done, Hezbullah should cease fire and discuss this problem with Israel, not go to war. same with Iraq. there is no point to war.

but who cares right? only the muslims are bad

tennis_nerd22
07-28-2006, 06:18 AM
You are probably better of just saying I was joking otherwise tennis_nerd will still think you are a racist.

haha, no thats ok, andres is a good guy. and he isnt racist. however i think you might be racist...

LOL JK :D

dmastous
07-28-2006, 06:43 AM
and by the way, our current Imam (which in comparison to Catholicism is the Pope), is Prince Karim Aga Khan. and he had met with George Bush before the US announced they were going into Iraq. He warned Bush that if he did go into Iraq and invade them, there would be a full fledged war in the Middle East, massive destruction, none of which even the powerful countries (ie. US, Canada, Britain) would be able to stop.

Did Bush listen? No
Was the Imam right? Absolutely Yes.

and he frequently has meetings with other world leaders, including Tony Blair, Steven Harper, and others, so its not as if he sits in the Middle East on a carpet doing nothing but ordering people to do stuff and kill others. read the site and you'll understand.

so now you can see where i come from on this issue, and why i still defend the muslims (im really defending one sector, which would be mine), and this is because i also believe that what the other muslims are doing, forming all these war groups like Hamas and Hezbullah is completely wrong. it should not be done, Hezbullah should cease fire and discuss this problem with Israel, not go to war. same with Iraq. there is no point to war.

but who cares right? only the muslims are bad
If you read through this thread, you can see how wrong you about this. Few people are saying only the Muslims are bad, and those that are are just as bad as Hezbullah and AQ and the rest of the fanaticals.
I can remember a number of times when that terrorist (your description, not mine) George Bush cautioned against violence against all Muslims for something that a few fanatical Muslims are doing. But you don't count that, or any of the moderate comments on this very thread. You go right to the poor me, "all muslims are bad", everybody hates me.
Calling George Bush a terrorist is just the kind of off the cuff, emotional, angry, usless thing that keeps the fire buring. He's no more a terrorist than I am. And I only terrorize my cat, by making her wait another 5 minutes to eat while I write this.... :twisted:

simi
07-28-2006, 08:15 AM
J D: thanks for the note about the Abraham-Ishmael-Isaac history; that's what I was looking for. I guess I need to find a copy of the Koran and maybe a guide to reading the Koran.

Good recap of the beginnings of the blood fued. Same story in the Bible, book of Genesis (first book of the Old Testament).

Andres
07-28-2006, 08:42 AM
You are probably better of just saying I was joking otherwise tennis_nerd will still think you are a racist.
But... but.....but........

I AM RACIST!!!!


:mrgreen:

tennis_nerd22
07-28-2006, 11:13 AM
If you read through this thread, you can see how wrong you about this. Few people are saying only the Muslims are bad, and those that are are just as bad as Hezbullah and AQ and the rest of the fanaticals.
I can remember a number of times when that terrorist (your description, not mine) George Bush cautioned against violence against all Muslims for something that a few fanatical Muslims are doing. But you don't count that, or any of the moderate comments on this very thread. You go right to the poor me, "all muslims are bad", everybody hates me.
Calling George Bush a terrorist is just the kind of off the cuff, emotional, angry, usless thing that keeps the fire buring. He's no more a terrorist than I am. And I only terrorize my cat, by making her wait another 5 minutes to eat while I write this.... :twisted:

well then your describing a big portion of people in this world, because many think that all muslims are bad. you awake?

btw when did i say george bush was a terrorist? :confused:

please read the whole post before making a reply

DragonNeedSpank
07-28-2006, 12:13 PM
also i think they r fighting over a land they call their "holy place".... muslims keep it sacred and must visit it at least once during their life time..

simi
07-28-2006, 12:54 PM
also i think they r fighting over a land they call their "holy place".... muslims keep it sacred and must visit it at least once during their life time..

You're thinking of Mecca, in Saudia Arabia. No place in Israel that they "must" visit.

DragonNeedSpank
07-28-2006, 12:58 PM
You're thinking of Mecca, in Saudia Arabia. No place in Israel that they "must" visit.

o well thx for correcting me then

nickybol
07-28-2006, 02:07 PM
But Jerusalem is a holy city for the Muslims, because of Abraham, etc.

Jerusalem even was the holiest city in the early days of Islam. At that time, Muslims prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. Muslims admired Jews. The recognised the Jewish profets and took over a lot of Jewish religion. After a few years, they changed the praying direction to Mecca. Mecca didn`t want to loose their position as a sacred place like it was under the Pagans, because their economy was built on it.

Antisemitism in Islam didn`t exist before the founding of Israel. Muslims admired Jews. Israel is the one and only source of antisemitism in the Muslim world.

Kaptain Karl
07-28-2006, 02:26 PM
Antisemitism in Islam didn`t exist before the founding of Israel. Muslims admired Jews. Israel is the one and only source of antisemitism in the Muslim world.This is one of the most bizarre claims I've seen on this thread. (Maybe something got confused in translation...?)

- KK

DragonNeedSpank
07-28-2006, 02:29 PM
well i never heard of muslims fighting with jews often..... but i have heard jews fighting with christians and catholic fighting with protestants.....

Shabazza
07-28-2006, 02:32 PM
Yep, I do. Call me sentimental but I do think if Hezbollah is totally eradicated, not only will Israel be better off, but so will Lebanon.
There you go. Hezbollah won't be totally eradicated, not by this war and the way Israel is fighting - air srtikes won't win a fight against guerrillas (they aren't very effective, are they?!) and Israel is too afraid right now, to fight in the streets, which would be very bloody on both sides - not to mention the "collateral damage" involved.
This war will be going nowhere and will just strengthen and renew the hate on both sides.
Lebanon is already the loser - 15 years of rebuilding destroyed in 1 week. A pretty open and democratic government (for an islamic state) with a pro west president weakend, while radicals and extremists are getting more and more popularity and encouragement (would you vote for a government who can't defend you 1 bit), cause they, at least, fight against the enemy. And that's what Israel is for the lebanes people, an enemy and agrassor, nothing less, who destroys their country, buildings and kills their people. It doesn't matter to them, if the western world or anyone else don't think Israel is the agrassor, while they see bombs dropping on their heads, does it?!
The longer this war goes the more the lebanese people will take the side of Hezbollah, in their mind they have no choice. Would you take the side of the people who destroy your buildings streets, factories and killing your friends neighbors and children (they don't give a damn if it was accidentally or intentionally - the result is the same) or the people who are fighting them. New potential terrorists. Bin Laden is probably laughing up his sleeve right now!
I agree with you the only way to bring peace to is to totally eradicate Hezbollah and help Lebanon in rebuilding their country, as it is to late for Israel to bow out of the mess it got itself into! If they fail they'll be farther away from peace and stability in their region than ever before.
Israel thought they could wipe of the Hezbollah fast and with air strikes alone. Now they start to realize it isn't as easy as they thought (as it is in every war btw.).
No I don't think you are sentimental, but I think you're only seeing on side, while there are at least 2 sides (or actually 3 here) and you don't take into account how the other side will react and what the consequences of this war could be.
The whole issue is getting more complex, every day.

nickybol
07-28-2006, 02:32 PM
This is one of the most bizarre claims I've seen on this thread. (Maybe something got confused in translation...?)

- KK
Why is this bizar?

simi
07-28-2006, 02:38 PM
well i never heard of muslims fighting with jews often.....

???? Where have you been since 1948? It's been one constant, continuing conflict since the creation of modern-day Israel.


But Jerusalem is a holy city for the Muslims, because of Abraham, etc.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that Jerusalem did not even exist when Abram was wandering around the area.

nickybol
07-28-2006, 02:44 PM
???? Where have you been since 1948? It's been one constant, continuing conflict since the creation of modern-day Israel.




I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that Jerusalem did not even exist when Abram was wandering around the area.
Were talking about antisemitism before 1948. It didn`t exist.

Jerusalem existed 3000 years BC. Abraham lived about 1800BC. Abraham is the reason why Jews and Muslims think of Jerusalem as a holy city.

simi
07-28-2006, 02:52 PM
Were talking about antisemitism before 1948. It didn`t exist.

Ever hear about that short, little fellow with a clipped moustach that ran things in Germany during the late 30s and early 40s?

nickybol
07-28-2006, 02:53 PM
I mean antisemitism in Islam.

Shabazza
07-28-2006, 02:54 PM
Ever hear about a short little fellow with a clipped moustach that ran things in Germany during the late 30s and early 40s?
I think he's talking about antisemitism in the islamic world. Antisemitism was spread all over Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century!

nickybol
07-28-2006, 02:56 PM
Antisemitism even existed in ancient times of the Roman Empire, and was wide-spread during the middle ages/dark ages.

tennis-n-sc
07-28-2006, 02:58 PM
There you go. Hezbollah won't be totally eradicated, not by this war and the way Israel is fighting - air srtikes won't win a fight against guerrillas (they aren't very effective, are they?!) and Israel is too afraid right now, to fight in the streets, which would be very bloody on both sides - not to mention the "collateral damage" involved.
This war will be going nowhere and will just strengthen and renew the hate on both sides.
Lebanon is already the loser - 15 years of rebuilding destroyed in 1 week. A pretty open and democratic government (for an islamic state) with a pro west president weakend, while radicals and extremists are getting more and more popularity and encouragement (would you vote for a government who can't defend you 1 bit), cause they, at least, fight against the enemy. And that's what Israel is for the lebanes people, an enemy and agrassor, nothing less, who destroys their country, buildings and kills their people. It doesn't matter to them, if the western world or anyone else don't think Israel is the agrassor, while they see bombs dropping on their heads, does it?!
The longer this war goes the more the lebanese people will take the side of Hezbollah, in their mind they have no choice. Would you take the side of the people who destroy your buildings streets, factories and killing your friends neighbors and children (they don't give a damn if it was accidentally or intentionally - the result is the same) or the people who are fighting them. New potential terrorists. Bin Laden is probably laughing up his sleeve right now!
I agree with you the only way to bring peace to is to totally eradicate Hezbollah and help Lebanon in rebuilding their country, as it is to late for Israel to bow out of the mess it got itself into! If they fail they'll be farther away from peace and stability in their region than ever before.
Israel thought they could wipe of the Hezbollah fast and with air strikes alone. Now they start to realize it isn't as easy as they thought (as it is in every war btw.).
No I don't think you are sentimental, but I think you're only seeing on side, while there are at least 2 sides (or actually 3 here) and you don't take into account how the other side will react and what the consequences of this war could be.
The whole issue is getting more complex, every day.

If the democratic government of Lebanon had not permitted Hezbollah to run the country, they would not be in the mess they are in. In addition, the so called UN peace keepers in southern Lebanon allowed Hezbollah to re-arm and build bases, sometimes adjacent to their own bases. If the UN had any real sense, neither Lebanon nor Israel would be in the mess. Most of Lebanon has really good people living there and I have known some of them. Yes, they are the real losers in this. But they also had a choice to rid themselves of the terrorists and chose to appease them. Hezbollah doesn't have a side or point to consider. They are thugs, not worth the space on earth they occupy. Maybe Israel can't bomb them all back into the middle ages, where they belong, but they will eventually win. And if I have to pick a side in the situation, it will be Israel everytime over terrorists. After Hezbollah uses all their rockets, they will be crying for the world to stop Israel, like the woman army they are.

nickybol
07-28-2006, 03:00 PM
Israel is also terroristic. They are keeping thousands and thousands of Arabs in their prisons, often without a trial, or with a trial that doesn`t really mean anything. They live on stolen land. They are guests in Arabia, but they are behaving like thugs.

tennis-n-sc
07-28-2006, 04:55 PM
Israel is also terroristic. They are keeping thousands and thousands of Arabs in their prisons, often without a trial, or with a trial that doesn`t really mean anything. They live on stolen land. They are guests in Arabia, but they are behaving like thugs.

Where do you get your information, Al Jezera? Thousands and thousands? Guests in Arabia? The Jews have been in Arabia longer than the Muslims. Buy a history book, preferrably one somewhat objective, and read it.

Phil
07-28-2006, 05:01 PM
Israel is also terroristic. They are keeping thousands and thousands of Arabs in their prisons, often without a trial, or with a trial that doesn`t really mean anything. They live on stolen land. They are guests in Arabia, but they are behaving like thugs.

I think you're mentally ********.

Here, look at this map and tell me why you think the Arabs-around 200 million of them vs. 5 million Israeli Jews-make such a big deal about Israel? Tell you what, spanky...it's not REALLY about Israel...

http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/arabwrld.htm

tennis_nerd22
07-28-2006, 05:31 PM
I think you're mentally ********.

well then i think you are too ;) cuz i agree with him... lol

nickybol
07-29-2006, 01:21 AM
If it is not about Israel, where is it about then? How would you feel about about placing Iran in Texas?

35ft6
07-29-2006, 04:20 AM
AQ is also recognized as "legit" in some parts of the Islamic world. But to my knowledge they're not recognized as being legitimate by any governments.This is only MY opinion, but regarding their history, I can't really ascribe noble or good, or even moderate intent to Hezbollah's actions. Whatever their intentions, running clinics and hospitals is a good thing.They were formed to kill people and that's what they've been doing for years. That's kind of oversimplifying it. By that logic, all armies are formed to kill people. Our troops are over their to kill people. And that might be true but killing is a means, not really the ends in either case.You forget the havoc that they (and other groups) wreaked inside of Lebanon, during the 80's and early 90's. I'm not an expert on their history.Huh? Please explain. We may have befriended some unsavory characters, but when have they driven airplanes into office buildings or incinerated busloads of women and children on a regular basis? I think your reading of Chomsky is a bit too literal. Chomsky never speaks figuratively. We don't need to fly airplanes into buildings, we have Tomahawk missiles.This is the noble Robin Hood syndrome...Hamas does those things too, and it's part PR and part an actual desire to help their people-mostly, it's a cynical way to build a base of support. You don't think those hospitals come with a PRICE??? How about this...we build you a hospital, you TOLERATE the fact that we attack Israel and possibly get YOU killed by doing so...When I lived in NYC there was a thug of a mafia don named John Gotti whom EVERYONE in his Queens neighborhood loved. He held gigantic barbecues, would happly peel a couple hundreds off his wad of cash to help a neighborhood guy whose lost his job, send flowers to new mothers...the works. He was a hero to the locals...just as Hezbollah is...but at a price, as I mentioned. Think about it. When I think about it most of what I know about Hezbollah and Hamas comes from the US press, which IS overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Maybe justifiably so. All I'm saying is that objective information is hard to come by, and so to ascribe intentions to people I barely have a true understanding of only complicates matters further. I'm assuming these people aren't bloodthirsty vampires who love killing for the sake of killing. I'm assuming most of them are people with families who think Israel is responsible for something they had to suffer. They may hate Israel, and their hatred may express itself in criminal ways, but I wouldn't be surprised if their love for their family and neighbors is roughly equivalent to their hatred of Israel.There's a lot of problems with US foreign policy, but Chomsky is completely one-sided. He is so busy pointing this out-the evils that we've committed-that he barely even acknowledges what we've been up against. We aren't perfect, and our intentions aren't even always good ones, but I really can't see the comparison between the American mindset and that of the Jihadiis. Watch the Power of Nightmares documentary. It may not convince you but it does a good job at depicting the US neo-cons and islamic jihadists as being two heads of the same dragon.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Chomsky being one-sided. When he makes a claim he backs it up with citations that are a matter of public record.I think Israel's reaction to this threat is spot-on. Are you serious? Spot-on in terms of what exactly? Do you think these attacks will result in A) less terrorist attacks in the future, or B) more? Do you think the extent of their attacks will A) drive more Arabs into terrorism, or B) slow down recruitment? I think the intensity of their attack on Lebanon has shocked everybody. Although they've qualitatively played into Hezbollah's hands, they've quantitatively taken Hezbollah surprise. Whether or not these actions increase Israel security remains to be seen. I hope it does but right now I'm having a hard time imagining just how exactly that can happen.Believe me, if Hezbollah got its hands on a nuke, it would use it against Israel, without hesitation and without concern for the welfare of its own population-just as it launched this recent attack. I think this is debatable. Using a nuke against Israel wouldn't be without consequences.Those hospitals they build mean squat if they're willing to risk the lives of the people for whom the hospital were built by engaging in idiotic military follies. Maybe. But you seem to be making a distinction between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people, so I don't see how you can defend Israel's response considering how many of the Lebanese people are affected, not just Hezbollah. They're destroying everything.

tennis-n-sc
07-29-2006, 04:46 AM
But to my knowledge they're not recognized as being legitimate by any governments. Whatever their intentions, running clinics and hospitals is a good thing. That's kind of oversimplifying it. By that logic, all armies are formed to kill people. Our troops are over their to kill people. And that might be true but killing is a means, not really the ends in either case. I'm not an expert on their history. Chomsky never speaks figuratively. We don't need to fly airplanes into buildings, we have Tomahawk missiles. When I think about it most of what I know about Hezbollah and Hamas comes from the US press, which IS overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Maybe justifiably so. All I'm saying is that objective information is hard to come by, and so to ascribe intentions to people I barely have a true understanding of only complicates matters further. I'm assuming these people aren't bloodthirsty vampires who love killing for the sake of killing. I'm assuming most of them are people with families who think Israel is responsible for something they had to suffer. They may hate Israel, and their hatred may express itself in criminal ways, but I wouldn't be surprised if their love for their family and neighbors is roughly equivalent to their hatred of Israel. Watch the Power of Nightmares documentary. It may not convince you but it does a good job at depicting the US neo-cons and islamic jihadists as being two heads of the same dragon.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Chomsky being one-sided. When he makes a claim he backs it up with citations that are a matter of public record. Are you serious? Spot-on in terms of what exactly? Do you think these attacks will result in A) less terrorist attacks in the future, or B) more? Do you think the extent of their attacks will A) drive more Arabs into terrorism, or B) slow down recruitment? I think the intensity of their attack on Lebanon has shocked everybody. Although they've qualitatively played into Hezbollah's hands, they've quantitatively taken Hezbollah surprise. Whether or not these actions increase Israel security remains to be seen. I hope it does but right now I'm having a hard time imagining just how exactly that can happen. I think this is debatable. Using a nuke against Israel wouldn't be without consequences. Maybe. But you seem to be making a distinction between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people, so I don't see how you can defend Israel's response considering how many of the Lebanese people are affected, not just Hezbollah. They're destroying everything.

I am having a hard time trying to understand your position or solutions. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should have used diplomatic apporaches with AQ after 9/11? Or that Israel should have attempted to work something out with Hezbollah after they were invaded?

With regard to your comment that there would be consequences if Hexbollah used a nuke, what exactly would they consist of? A condemnation by the U.N.?

tennis-n-sc
07-29-2006, 04:49 AM
If it is not about Israel, where is it about then? How would you feel about about placing Iran in Texas?

It wouldn't bother me. I think the good people of Texas would handle it appropriately.

But the wording of your comments raise questions about your age or knowledge, in general.

35ft6
07-29-2006, 05:11 AM
I am having a hard time trying to understand your position or solutions. This presupposes that I have to have a position or offer solutions in the first place. But if it helps remedy your confusion I will say that I Hezbollah is bad, but Israel's response is overblown. I guess it's good that policy in the middle east isn't dictated by my posts on this tennis message board.Are you suggesting that the U.S. should have used diplomatic apporaches with AQ after 9/11? How did 9/11 get in here?

By the way, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if the USA provided evidence linking him to 9/11. The USA refused to provide evidence, demanding they hand him over because they said so, and the rest is history.Or that Israel should have attempted to work something out with Hezbollah after they were invaded? Is everything either or with you? There's no negotiating with Hezbollah short of the elimination of Isreal, but with that said I don't think the level of Israel's response is justified. The whole country of Lebanon is NOT Hezbollah.With regard to your comment that there would be consequences if Hexbollah used a nuke, what exactly would they consist of? A condemnation by the U.N.? For one, Israel would nuke them back.

nickybol
07-29-2006, 05:32 AM
It wouldn't bother me. I think the good people of Texas would handle it appropriately.

Let me rephrase the question. How would you feel about the Irani being placed in Texas, and then putting several innocent Texans in jail, building a wall through Texas, stealing the lands of Texans and posessing nukes? Wouldn`t you become a terrorist too? There is just a vague distinction between resistance and terrorism. Were the Europeans who secretly fought against the German occupier, blowing up German infrastructure, etc. also terrorists? This distinction is just vague.

tennis-n-sc
07-29-2006, 07:25 AM
Let me rephrase the question. How would you feel about the Irani being placed in Texas, and then putting several innocent Texans in jail, building a wall through Texas, stealing the lands of Texans and posessing nukes? Wouldn`t you become a terrorist too? There is just a vague distinction between resistance and terrorism. Were the Europeans who secretly fought against the German occupier, blowing up German infrastructure, etc. also terrorists? This distinction is just vague.

You have put a whole new definition on the word "vague".

tennis-n-sc
07-29-2006, 07:27 AM
This presupposes that I have to have a position or offer solutions in the first place. But if it helps remedy your confusion I will say that I Hezbollah is bad, but Israel's response is overblown. I guess it's good that policy in the middle east isn't dictated by my posts on this tennis message board. How did 9/11 get in here?

By the way, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if the USA provided evidence linking him to 9/11. The USA refused to provide evidence, demanding they hand him over because they said so, and the rest is history. Is everything either or with you? There's no negotiating with Hezbollah short of the elimination of Isreal, but with that said I don't think the level of Israel's response is justified. The whole country of Lebanon is NOT Hezbollah. For one, Israel would nuke them back.

I happen to think Israel took the only option open to them. It was also one Hezbollah anticipated, without regard to the good people of Lebanon.

nickybol
07-29-2006, 07:35 AM
There is another option. Just let all the Israeli pack their bags and move to Texas. They love the Zionists in America!

Kevin T
07-29-2006, 08:44 AM
Yes, Nickybol, God forbid that the Israeli people have a piece of land that equates to a matchbook in the middle of a football field of Middle Eastern land! Answer this one, Nicky; were the American "rebels" in the 1770's and the Euro resistance during WWII kidnapping women and children and cutting their heads off for all the world to see? Yeah, yeah, I know, the US tomahawks do the same thing, blah, blah, blah. Get on your computer and do a google search and tell me how many conflicts going on in the world right now involve radical Islamists. Seems they have problems with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, you name it. It's an overly simplistic argument but always blaming US policy (which, admittedly, has its many flaws) is like a guy who had bad parents always blaming them for his every failure in life. Sometimes you need to look in the mirror.

As for the discussion on Chomsky; he's a brilliant guy but most definitely one-sided. The guy thought the USSR was going to usher in Utopia. There is a reference for anything these days. I could probably write a thesis on why Charmin is superior to White Cloud with 1000 references.

nickybol
07-29-2006, 09:20 AM
Well, the method is maybe a bit different, but that doesn`t matter, it`s just a matter of culture and habit.

I do not say the Islam world is doing the correct things. But one does need to look at the causes, not at the consequences. I do not deny Muslims are involved in many conflicts around the world. But you have to look at the causes, and I think there are several ones.

1. Muslims live in poverty, and surpressed. Bad ideas arise in bad circumstances.

2. Because of the growing western influences and modernization in many Muslim countries, people are getting scared and want to go back to the old Islam, to fundamentalism, and to orthodoxy. Notice the difference between orthodoxy and fundamentalism.

3. Israel

4. The threat coming from weapons of mass destruction. The US has many nucleair weapens, and so do Israel, Russia, France, China, etc. The Muslims feel threatened by them, so they are looking to produce nucleair weapons themselves. And who can blame them?

tennis-n-sc
07-29-2006, 10:04 AM
Well, the method is maybe a bit different, but that doesn`t matter, it`s just a matter of culture and habit.

I do not say the Islam world is doing the correct things. But one does need to look at the causes, not at the consequences. I do not deny Muslims are involved in many conflicts around the world. But you have to look at the causes, and I think there are several ones.

1. Muslims live in poverty, and surpressed. Bad ideas arise in bad circumstances.

2. Because of the growing western influences and modernization in many Muslim countries, people are getting scared and want to go back to the old Islam, to fundamentalism, and to orthodoxy. Notice the difference between orthodoxy and fundamentalism.


3. Israel

4. The threat coming from weapons of mass destruction. The US has many nucleair weapens, and so do Israel, Russia, France, China, etc. The Muslims feel threatened by them, so they are looking to produce nucleair weapons themselves. And who can blame them?

Nicky, Nicky. Once again, allow me to point out that some of the Middle East countries are the riches per capita in the world. Some of these rich Arab countries harbor and perpetuate the radical Islamic movements. The purpose of these movements is to drive Israel from the Middle East. Now there are poor Jews in Israel and there are poor Christain, Buddist, Hindu and other religious countries in the world in as much poverty as the Muslim contries. Yet they haven't declared holy jihad on the rest of the world. If Muslims are supressed, they have brought it on themselves with their actions. Weapons of mass destruction??? Can you imagine the Muslim world with these weapons. They don't feel threatened by not having them. They know they will never be used against them. The rest of the world is terrified that these idiots will get nukes because no one has a doubt they will use them.

Kevin T
07-29-2006, 10:46 AM
Cutting heads off and kidnapping and killing women and children is a matter of culture and habit? Glad I'm not part of that culture.

Tennis-N-SC,

Couldn't agree more with your last post.

FalconX
07-29-2006, 01:16 PM
Muslims don't hate jews as much as Christians do. Muslims actually recognize the jewish god as their own. But they don't believe in trinity. Historically christians have hated jews a lot more than Muslims. There are still more closet anti-semites in christians countries than in muslims ones. Many muslims arabs are of semitic origins themselves, so to say that muslims are against jews as a race or religion is simply ridiculous. Before WWII many jews lived peacefully in the middle east along side muslims and some fled to these countries after the war. After creation of Israel however things changed. The sole reason for the conflict is the land which arabs and muslims believe belongs to Palestinians. Although many muslims have conceded that the land should be divided.

ThePlungerMan
07-29-2006, 01:22 PM
snip Many muslims arabs are of semitic origins themselves, so to say that muslims are against jews as a race or religion is simply ridiculous. snip
You said that, now that IS ridiculous.

nickybol
07-29-2006, 01:34 PM
That is not ridiculous. Jews and Muslims claim to be descendants of the same man: Abraham.

nickybol
07-29-2006, 01:39 PM
Muslims don't hate jews as much as Christians do. Muslims actually recognize the jewish god as their own. But they don't believe in trinity. Historically christians have hated jews a lot more than Muslims. There are still more closet anti-semites in christians countries than in muslims ones. Many muslims arabs are of semitic origins themselves, so to say that muslims are against jews as a race or religion is simply ridiculous. Before WWII many jews lived peacefully in the middle east along side muslims and some fled to these countries after the war. After creation of Israel however things changed. The sole reason for the conflict is the land which arabs and muslims believe belongs to Palestinians. Although many muslims have conceded that the land should be divided.
Muslims admire the Jews and Christians and recognize their prophets. They recognize Jesus as a prophet, they recognize Moses, allong with many others.

Do you know how long it took for Christians to become antisemitic? Less than half a century after the death of Jesus.

Do you know how long it took for Muslims to become somewhat antisemitic, although clearly not as much as Christians? 1900 years.

Israel is the whole point what it is all about.

FalconX
07-29-2006, 02:41 PM
Muslims admire the Jews and Christians and recognize their prophets. They recognize Jesus as a prophet, they recognize Moses, allong with many others.

Do you know how long it took for Christians to become antisemitic? Less than half a century after the death of Jesus.

Do you know how long it took for Muslims to become somewhat antisemitic, although clearly not as much as Christians? 1900 years.

Israel is the whole point what it is all about.


that's true. But one must not deny the fact that there is widespread anti-semitism in many middleeastern countries. But all these beliefs stem from racist christian texts that started being distributed AFTER Israel came to being. But it's no more prevalent in those countries than it is in Europe and the US. The reason some christians in this country show so much affection towards Israel is because those whack jobs believe it will make the return of Jesus more eminent. I'm talking about Bush, Robertson, Fartwel, Graham and those clowns. As for the rest frankly in their minds between the bad(jews) and the worse (arabs) they choose the bad.

There is certainly no love for the jews here in the states. Not after "they killed jesus." Go watch that Sasha Baron(borat) video to see how enthusiastically the the American audience sings along about throwing the jew down the well.

nickybol
07-29-2006, 02:46 PM
that's true. But one must not deny the fact that there is widespread anti-semitism in many middleeastern countries. But all these beliefs stem from racist christian texts that started being distributed AFTER Israel came to being. But it's no more prevalent in those countries than it is in Europe and the US. The reason some christians in this country show so much affection towards Israel is because those whack jobs believe it will make the return of Jesus more eminent. I'm talking about Bush, Robertson, Fartwel, Graham and those clowns. As for the rest frankly in their minds between the bad(jews) and the worse (arabs) they choose the bad.

There is certainly no love for the jews here in the states. Not after "they killed jesus." Go watch that Sasha Baron(borat) video to see how enthusiastically the the American audience sings along about throwing the jew down the well.
I agree with your post, adding that many people "like" Israel because they still have a feeling of guilt in their stomach after what happened in WO2 and what the Western countries didn`t do to prevent this war and prevent the crazy guy Adolf Hitler from genociding the Jews

tennis-n-sc
07-29-2006, 02:53 PM
Muslims don't hate jews as much as Christians do. Muslims actually recognize the jewish god as their own. But they don't believe in trinity. Historically christians have hated jews a lot more than Muslims. There are still more closet anti-semites in christians countries than in muslims ones. Many muslims arabs are of semitic origins themselves, so to say that muslims are against jews as a race or religion is simply ridiculous. Before WWII many jews lived peacefully in the middle east along side muslims and some fled to these countries after the war. After creation of Israel however things changed. The sole reason for the conflict is the land which arabs and muslims believe belongs to Palestinians. Although many muslims have conceded that the land should be divided.

The U.N. resolution presented land for Israel and land for Palistine. Would you believe that Jordan and Egypt took a portion of the land meant for Palistine and expanded their borders. Israel was the only country to actually see that Palistine got land. Of course, this wasn't enough for Palistine. And to state that the conflict is about land only is a misleading. It is, in large part, fueled by the radical Muslim clergy. Only they know the motives.

FalconX
07-29-2006, 03:33 PM
The U.N. resolution presented land for Israel and land for Palistine. Would you believe that Jordan and Egypt took a portion of the land meant for Palistine and expanded their borders. Israel was the only country to actually see that Palistine got land. Of course, this wasn't enough for Palistine. And to state that the conflict is about land only is a misleading. It is, in large part, fueled by the radical Muslim clergy. Only they know the motives.

I'm not denying that there is currently anti jewish sentiments in the middle east. What I'm telling you though is that this problem has its roots in Europe. The FACT is all those crazy conspiracy theories started in Europe and naturally after the Israeli arab conflict, the arabs tried to demonize the "zionists" as they like to call them and the christian anti-jewish propaganda were their best material. What's really misleading though is the title of this thread. Why isn't there a thread about why Christians hate the Jews?Because when they do the hating I suppose it's alright. Let's face the reality. We all know who the real anti-semites are. The ones who hate the jews for being jews. Look no further than your church.

There is no literature in Islam that says you gotta go and take the jew out.

tennis-n-sc
07-29-2006, 03:43 PM
I'm not denying that there is currently anti jewish sentiments in the middle east. What I'm telling you though is that this problem has its roots in Europe. The FACT is all those crazy conspiracy theories started in Europe and naturally after the Israeli arab conflict, the arabs tried to demonize the "zionists" as they like to call them and the christian anti-jewish propaganda were their best material. What's really misleading though is the title of this thread. Why isn't there a thread about why Christians hate the Jews?Because when they do hating I suppose it's alright. Let's face the reality. We all know who the real anti-semites are. The ones who hate the jews for being jews. Look no further than your church.

There is no literature in Islam that says you gotta go out and take the jew out.

I honestly don't knowwhat you are talking about. I have no problem with the jewish people anywhere and quite frankly do not know anyone that is anti-semitic. And where I live, there are many jews. I have a very good friend that I have known 7 years. Only in the past three weeks did I learn he was Jewish and he learn I was Catholic. The discussion following the revelation lasted about 30 seconds. It just didn't matter. And I think that is how most folks around here think. And I have never seen any literature in my church regarding jews one way or the other. So, I think you are mistaken in your assumtions.

FalconX
07-29-2006, 03:58 PM
I honestly don't knowwhat you are talking about. I have no problem with the jewish people anywhere and quite frankly do not know anyone that is anti-semitic. And where I live, there are many jews. I have a very good friend that I have known 7 years. Only in the past three weeks did I learn he was Jewish and he learn I was Catholic. The discussion following the revelation lasted about 30 seconds. It just didn't matter. And I think that is how most folks around here think. And I have never seen any literature in my church regarding jews one way or the other. So, I think you are mistaken in your assumtions.

Good start for you. Especially read the part concerning catholicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism

Americans love jews:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-334757978673284122

TennisProPaul
07-29-2006, 04:04 PM
Okay, my opinion: I'm not going to get into "Why" each group hates the other. It's way too complicated-I certainly don't have all, or maybe any answers (though I have some ideas) and I expect to see a lot of simpletons trying to tackle it.

I don't think the Israelis are intentionally targeting UN outposts-of course the Hezbollah sympathizers will jump to this conclusion without any supporting proof. But...if the Isrealis are proven to have done this, it was probably for security reasons (but that does not make it right). They did the same thing to the USS Liberty in 1967.

But re. your comment quoted above...you don't seem unable to separate what is WRITTEN in the Quran (and the Bible) and what HAPPENS in the real world in the name of religion. Both are PART of the religion-you cannot just say "Islam IS the Quran. Period." Religion is also how its adherents, whether moderate or radical, present it to the world.

While the Books comprise the essense of both religions, they don't, to any degree , reflect how the books are interpreted and what happens "out there" in the modern world. Islamic fundumentalists blowing up buses (or, Christians blowing up abortion clinics) is every bit as much of the religion. Oh, I didn't mention, for example, Jews kiilling civilians in a war zone because that's pretty complicated too. The way I see it, the Jews of Israel are not doing this in the name of religion; it is more in the name of their country, Israel. And they are wrong sometimes, and kill innocents, but when they do kill innocents, I do not see them waving the Old Testament around as they do it, as the Christians and Muslims wave their books as the premise for their actions. I do not see anyone DANCING FOR JOY IN THE STREETS, as is the custom in Middle East Muslim neighborhoods following a major terrorist action. Israel, if it's waving anything, is waving its flag-i.e. national security. But anyway, religious terrorism is every bit as much a part of said-religion as the Great Books of those religions.

well spoken

Kaptain Karl
07-29-2006, 04:09 PM
Why is this bizar?You posted, "Antisemitism in Islam didn`t exist before the founding of Israel." Which is one claim I don't think you can support at all....

Then you threw out this, "Muslims admired Jews" to which I'd say "Ho-hum. This just sounds too much like a platitude to me.

But *this*, "Israel is the one and only source of antisemitism in the Muslim world" was primarily the claim I posted was "bizarre". Israel ... the source of antisemitism???

Later you posted, "Antisemitism even existed in ancient times of the Roman Empire, and was wide-spread during the middle ages/dark ages" ... which seems like you just contradicted yourself....

- KK

TennisProPaul
07-29-2006, 04:12 PM
Max, the conflict between Muslim and Jew goes back to an almost 4,000 year old family feud. Here's a short version of the story in case you aren't familiar with it.

Abraham was told by God that he would have a son by his wife, Sarah. Since she was way beyond child bearing age, Sarah persuaded Abraham to have a child by her handmaiden, Hagar. This was an accepted practice of the time when a wife was barren.

Abraham eventually gave in and Hagar had Ishmael. Later, Sarah did become pregnant as God had promised and bore Isaac. God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, that his seed would be God's chosen people, and that his descendants would inherit and dwell in Palestine.

This is where the accounts between the Muslims and Jews begin to differ. It was the first born that was always entitled to the entire inheritance in their culture. The Muslims claim that Ishmael should have gotten the inheritance since he was the first born. They also assert that the Jewish Torah has distorted the truth and that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, that God told Abraham to sacrifice. They believe that Ishmael's descendants are God's chosen people and that the end result of this covenant is the Muslim faith.

The Jews (and consequently Christians) believe that Isaac was the child of the promise and that Ishmael was merely a product of the lack of faith of Sarah and Abraham. According to the Pentateuch (and the Bible), God told Abraham to send Ishmael away so that he and his mother would not cause any problems. As a result, they almost died before God miraculously saved them. God chose Isaac to inherit His covenant with Abraham. Because of this, the Jews and Christians of the world consider Palestine the rightful and God-given land of the Jewish people.

Tradition holds that most of the Arab nations of the world are direct descendants of Ishmael. On top of that, the Muslim faith believes that the Jewish people are thieves that are trying to steal their inheritance through deception and that Christianity has aided them in this unholy scheme.

So, the conflict between religions essentially goes back to a family squabble. Of course, much has happened throughout history between these two sides. One thing is for sure, ever finding any peace between them is going to be incredibly difficult. And, if you believe the most common interpretations of the Bible, it is this conflict that will most likely bring about Armageddon and the end of the world as we know it. In other words, there will be no solution to this conflict except the ultimate one.


I want to thank you for helping me understand more. I might now move to hawaii

FalconX
07-29-2006, 04:22 PM
You posted, "Antisemitism in Islam didn`t exist before the founding of Israel." Which is one claim I don't think you can support at all....



- KK

Hey KK is hard to find evidence for something that didn't exist. You go and find hard evidence that it did and then we'll talk. I have personally never come across such literature and I grew up in a Islamic country(althought I'm not a muslim). And I'm talking about evidence that shows that there was a movement against the Jews in muslim countries like there was in Europe among Christians. And please don't use Jerry Fartwell as your reference.

Kaptain Karl
07-29-2006, 04:35 PM
FalconX - I believe it is pointless to "converse" with you. You have yet to post anything objective or rational in this thread.

- KK

FalconX
07-29-2006, 04:39 PM
I guess much like you have yet to post anything objective or rational thoughout the whole time you have been a member of this site.

It hurts to know the truth about your faith.

Kaptain Karl
07-29-2006, 04:45 PM
Let me rephrase the question. How would you feel about the Irani being placed in Texas, and then putting several innocent Texans in jail, building a wall through Texas, stealing the lands of Texans and posessing nukes?This is a fallacious hypothetical. The people of Texas would not sit idley by and just "allow" all this to happen. The Lebanese *did* allow the Iranian bullies to place Hezbollah in prominence in their own country.

Wouldn`t you become a terrorist too?Nope.

There is just a vague distinction between resistance and terrorism.This "one man's Freedom Fighter is another man's Terrorist" argument is one of the stupidest ca***** ever. It's a bunch of hooey. And basing your argument on this claim especially weakens your argument.

Were the Europeans who secretly fought against the German occupier, blowing up German infrastructure, etc. also terrorists?No.

This distinction is just vague.Baloney!

There is another option. Just let all the Israeli pack their bags and move to Texas. They love the Zionists in America!They'd be welcome. But Texas isn't their Homeland. Jews will put up with all your Muslim hatred ... over 100 Hezbollah rockets a day ... and PLO homicide bombings too. They still have their homeland.

- KK

tennis-n-sc
07-29-2006, 05:51 PM
Good start for you. Especially read the part concerning catholicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism

Americans love jews:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-334757978673284122

Rather than resort to some voodoo dictionary, I'll stick with the resolutions of Pope John Paul's reconcilition with the Jewish church and my own personal observations and beliefs. And you wipe the fake swastika tatoo from your forehead.

FalconX
07-29-2006, 06:23 PM
Rather than resort to some voodoo dictionary, I'll stick with the resolutions of Pope John Paul's reconcilition with the Jewish church and my own personal observations and beliefs. And you wipe the fake swastika tatoo from your forehead.

Oh look somebody got personal when faced with the reality. Everything that's in there about the catholic faith is well documented. In fact there are some important facts that are missing and are possibly more embarrassing.

As for the advice on the tatoo, fortunately my family and relatives were bright enough to look beyond the hate, stupid generalizations and ignorant assumptions that threads like this and people like you promote. I have jewish, muslim, atheist and christian cousins and am myself Bahai. None of us hates eachother and we all get along.

scez
07-29-2006, 07:00 PM
Oh look somebody got personal when faced with the reality. Everything that's in there about the catholic faith is well documented. In fact there are some important facts that are missing and are possibly more embarrassing.

As for the advice on the tatoo, fortunately my family and relatives were bright enough to look beyond the hate, stupid generalizations and ignorant assumptions that threads like this and people like you promote. I have jewish, muslim, atheist and christian cousins and am myself Bahai. None of us hates eachother and we all get along.

You are one of those people who say stuff like, "I am not a racist, I got nothing against blacks, even one of my close friends is black"

FalconX
07-29-2006, 07:08 PM
You are one of those people who say stuff like, "I am not a racist, I got nothing against blacks, even one of my close friends is black"

wow what a mature post. Just cuz I pointed out the fact that Christians have to first look at themselves before question muslims about "hating" jews I am labled anti-semetic. What kind of nonsense logic is that? I guess you're one of those straight shooters like ann coulter who hates people just because she thinks they deserve to be hated.

The real haters are those who generalize and label. Go study the history, learn the facts.

scez
07-29-2006, 07:21 PM
wow what a mature post. Just cuz I pointed out the fact that Christians have to first look at themselves before question muslims about "hating" jews I am labled anti-semetic. What kind of nonsense logic is that? I guess you're one of those straight shooters like ann coulter who hates people just because she thinks they deserve to be hated.

The real haters are those who generalize and label. Go study the history, learn the facts.

I was just saying you use the fact that you have a Jewish friend, or a catholic friend as a shield to protect you from what your true views are.

FalconX
07-29-2006, 07:47 PM
I was just saying you use the fact that you have a Jewish friend, or a catholic friend as a shield to protect you from what your true views are.

and you happen to know what my true views are based on what?

Kaptain Karl
07-29-2006, 08:15 PM
FalconX - Your assertions and trolling posts ... do not constitute "truth".

- KK

TennisProPaul
07-29-2006, 09:54 PM
why cant we all get along???

nickybol
07-30-2006, 01:59 AM
You posted, "Antisemitism in Islam didn`t exist before the founding of Israel." Which is one claim I don't think you can support at all....

Then you threw out this, "Muslims admired Jews" to which I'd say "Ho-hum. This just sounds too much like a platitude to me.

But *this*, "Israel is the one and only source of antisemitism in the Muslim world" was primarily the claim I posted was "bizarre". Israel ... the source of antisemitism???

Later you posted, "Antisemitism even existed in ancient times of the Roman Empire, and was wide-spread during the middle ages/dark ages" ... which seems like you just contradicted yourself....

- KK
I challenge you to find evidence of antisemitism in Islam before the founding of Israel.

Antisemitism existed in ancient times of the Roman Empire. But if you know your history you know Islam didn´t even exist in those times, Islam was founded somewhere in the seventh century. Antisemitism existed among Romans, and even among Christians, within a century of the supposed death of Christ.

In the Middle Ages, Anti semitism was wide spread among Christian Europeans. Jews were blamed for everything and were not allowed to become members of the federations of persons who knew a certain trade (don´t know how to call them in English)

nickybol
07-30-2006, 02:02 AM
This is a fallacious hypothetical. The people of Texas would not sit idley by and just "allow" all this to happen. The Lebanese *did* allow the Iranian bullies to place Hezbollah in prominence in their own country.


I were not Hezbollah actions that I wrote down. It were Israeli actions.

bluegrasser
07-30-2006, 06:08 AM
FalconX - I believe it is pointless to "converse" with you. You have yet to post anything objective or rational in this thread.

- KK


Kaptain, you have to realize where Nicky is from, you see I have a ' Sonny N' Law from Holland, and the things he believed and was taught ( especially about USA ) were amazing, he's coming around though.

tennis-n-sc
07-30-2006, 07:09 AM
Kaptain, you have to realize where Nicky is from, you see I have a ' Sonny N' Law from Holland, and the things he believed and was taught ( especially about USA ) were amazing, he's coming around though.

Bluegrasser, how about Falconx?

dmastous
07-30-2006, 07:36 AM
No one is saying that anti semitism does not/did not exist in Europe or America. Of course it has existed for thousands of years. Right now is all I'm concerned about. Right now it's the hatred of Isreal by countries like Iran and Syria and groups like Hezbullah and Hamas that concerns me. It's only a matter of days before Lebannon, rightly, says to Isreal 'ok you've had enough time and kill enough Lebannese civilians (yes that is happening even though Isreal is probably going out it's way to prevent collateral damage), if you don't get out in "x" time we will declare war on you.' Then Syria and Iran will join in, "hey we didn't start this, we just have to support our PLO brothers", and the US and others come in in support of Isreal. And off we go.......
As for a definition of terrorism. There are a number of examples of small countries defeating big countries in battle using what some call 'dubious' tactics. The Revolutionary army defeated the British by hiding behind trees and taking potshots then running to the next spot and snipping at them again. It wasn't 'sporting' It wasn't standing and fighting, it was cowardly. That's what you have to do when the other guy is too big to be beaten face to face. I've got no issues with those kind of tactics on the part of other countries against the US. You have to do what works. However that's not terrorism. Terrorism has no military definition. Terrorism is porposfully killing non-combat civilians. The more the better. The bigger the show the better. Your intent is to make the civilians get angry with their polititians and try and make changes in the system. In a previous thread I pointed out the bombing of the Spanish train, killing 250+ innocents. It worked the country voted the sitting government (supporting the US in Iraq) and voted in the oppostion (who promtly pulled the troops out of Iraq). Terrorism is totally different than the military tactics I described. I don't think that, as bad as the Catholic Church has been at times (and, let's be honest it's been pretty bad), it's never resorted to terrrorist tactics to get it's way. It was always too powerful to need to do that.
Hezbullah bombs Isrealian cities, looking for as many Isrealies killed (civilians) and Isreal is targeting military targets, with some errant and unfortunate misfired shots in the process. Innocents get caught when the bomb caches and targets are purposly placed in schools and churches, thinking that Isreal will be too 'weak' to target them.
You can either believe that or not. No one here will be able to change your mind.

Phil
07-30-2006, 07:40 AM
But to my knowledge they're not recognized as being legitimate by any governments.
That hasn't stopped certain governments from providing them with support...and Afghanistan, under the Taliban certainly supported them.

That's kind of oversimplifying it. By that logic, all armies are formed to kill people. Our troops are over their to kill people. And that might be true but killing is a means, not really the ends in either case. I'm not an expert on their history.
No, but you don't have to be an expert-that's a poor excuse to make poor statements. You know very well that Hezbollah is not a nation state, and is not the legit army of a nation state. They TOLD the Lebanese gov't that they were going to provide the country with a guerilla capability to contest Israel-because the Lebanese military did not have one. How can you compare the US military and the USA with Hezbollah. Your statements get more and more vexing.
Chomsky never speaks figuratively. We don't need to fly airplanes into buildings, we have Tomahawk missiles.
So I guess we don't need to cut people's heads off and record it on the Internet for all to see...we do the same thing, figuratively that is...We're cut from the same cloth??? If your perspective of US foreign policy and the current Mideast War is through Chomsky, then it's a mighty skewed perspective. Chomsky, on the left, is every bit as distorted as Richard Pearle or Paul Wolfowitz (bigwigs of the neocon movement) on the right.
When I think about it most of what I know about Hezbollah and Hamas comes from the US press, which IS overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Maybe justifiably so. All I'm saying is that objective information is hard to come by, and so to ascribe intentions to people I barely have a true understanding of only complicates matters further. I'm assuming these people aren't bloodthirsty vampires who love killing for the sake of killing. I'm assuming most of them are people with families who think Israel is responsible for something they had to suffer. They may hate Israel, and their hatred may express itself in criminal ways, but I wouldn't be surprised if their love for their family and neighbors is roughly equivalent to their hatred of Israel.
Who cares about their love for their families? They put their families in danger by the lives they chose. Bin Laden has a family, and he may love them too...yeah, these people are "humans", if that's what your're saying, just as Hitler was...that doesn't, to me, "soften" their actions. Hamas blows up buses full of women and children-those aren't military or strategic targets...they're terror targets. So, for a group that plans and executes such things, yeah, they're as close as we get to your bloodthirsty vampires. The human equivalent.
Watch the Power of Nightmares documentary. It may not convince you but it does a good job at depicting the US neo-cons and islamic jihadists as being two heads of the same dragon.
I haven't seen it, but anyone can, with some creativity, compare the US to the worst movement there is...and make it sound convincing. I'll rent it if it's around...just out of curiosity.
I'm not really sure what you mean by Chomsky being one-sided. When he makes a claim he backs it up with citations that are a matter of public record.
You wouldn't, being that you're basically in the same camp. What I mean is that he takes broad swipes at the US without making comparative comments on, say, the USSR or jihidiis. It's as if the US were the only "demons" in this world.
Are you serious? Spot-on in terms of what exactly? Do you think these attacks will result in A) less terrorist attacks in the future, or B) more? Do you think the extent of their attacks will A) drive more Arabs into terrorism, or B) slow down recruitment? I think the intensity of their attack on Lebanon has shocked everybody. Although they've qualitatively played into Hezbollah's hands, they've quantitatively taken Hezbollah surprise.
Israel cannot pretend that they're operating on a different playing field. They really have very little choice but to kick butt. There's no such thing as a "symetrical" response. The ONLY response that Islamic terrirorst understand-and it's been proven-is the business end of a loaded weapon. These attacks may or may not result in less terrorist attacks in the future. I don't know. They may drive more Arabs into terrorism, but seems to me that recruiting is already fairly steady-Arabs will always line up for the opportunity to kill Israelis. If they had, or if they DO back down from this now, it will probably increase terrorists attacks EVEN MORE then if they were to hold back-because it would prove that they can be intimidated.
Using a nuke against Israel wouldn't be without consequences.
What consequences? These are people who are williing to die and be martyred. You think they care about something like "collateral damage"? As far as they're concerned, voicing such a concern is another sign of weakness.
Maybe. But you seem to be making a distinction between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people, so I don't see how you can defend Israel's response considering how many of the Lebanese people are affected, not just Hezbollah. They're destroying everything.
The Lebanese people provided a base for Hezbollah, let them use their towns and homes as weapons storage depots...Hezbollah has set up rocket launchers to fire on Israel BETWEEN HOUSES. This is a group that, like most terrorist movements, is unconcerned about putting their own people at risk. As far as they're concerned, this is Hezollah's the price for "protecting" the southern border. That is the price of all those hospitals that you say they built.

Israel is not trying to destroy anyone's country and drive the people from said country into the sea. Hezbollah and Hamas EXIST for this very purpose-to bring about the destrruction of Israel. You've done a fine job of putting yourself in the shoes of the "victims"...now put yourself in the Israelis' place and try, just for a second, to imagine the difficult choices that government has to make against such agressors.

dmastous
07-30-2006, 08:03 AM
What consequences? These are people who are williing to die and be martyred. You think they care about something like "collateral damage"? As far as they're concerned, voicing such a concern is another sign of weakness.
Of course they care about collateral damage. It's what they want. It's what their plan is about.
This argument reminds me of an argument with a Bush hater I had. I'm not a lock step supporter of his policies, but I find myself constantly defending his actions against constant attacks.
He says the press is blind to Bush's corporate leanings. That they are told what to say by the Bush PR people. That they won't say anything against him for fear of being fired or worse (!!???). And, that I only parrot what they say.
In another discussion he points out news reports after news report supporting his 'Bush is a murder and thief' stance. Obviously, I'm not watching the news, or reading these reports.
Can he have it both ways? Can the press be both blind to Bush's crimes and yet provide support for his thesis? Or is he blind to anything but what he's convinced himself of?
(Hopefully this doesn't turn this thread into a pro-Bush/anti-Bush flamewar...That's not it's intent.)

nickybol
07-30-2006, 09:05 AM
No one is saying that anti semitism does not/did not exist in Europe or America. Of course it has existed for thousands of years. Right now is all I'm concerned about.
Wrong, wrong! If you only look at right now, you are looking at the wrong thing. You need to look into history, to find the causes. You need to fix the causes, there`s no point in only fixing the symptoms and consequences.

bluegrasser
07-30-2006, 09:12 AM
Bluegrasser, how about Falconx?

That goes for him too:D

nickybol
07-30-2006, 09:15 AM
Explain to me bluegrasser, what did you son in law learn wrong?

bluegrasser
07-30-2006, 09:30 AM
Just the American persona in general, self indulgent, anti foreigners, minorities, power hungry, you name it.

nickybol
07-30-2006, 09:48 AM
He must have had a very bad education. Don`t blame him for that.

alienhamster
07-30-2006, 10:25 AM
Originally Posted by nickybol
Well, the method is maybe a bit different, but that doesn`t matter, it`s just a matter of culture and habit.

I do not say the Islam world is doing the correct things. But one does need to look at the causes, not at the consequences. I do not deny Muslims are involved in many conflicts around the world. But you have to look at the causes, and I think there are several ones.

1. Muslims live in poverty, and surpressed. Bad ideas arise in bad circumstances.

2. Because of the growing western influences and modernization in many Muslim countries, people are getting scared and want to go back to the old Islam, to fundamentalism, and to orthodoxy. Notice the difference between orthodoxy and fundamentalism.


3. Israel

4. The threat coming from weapons of mass destruction. The US has many nucleair weapens, and so do Israel, Russia, France, China, etc. The Muslims feel threatened by them, so they are looking to produce nucleair weapons themselves. And who can blame them?


tennis-n-sc speaks: Nicky, Nicky. Once again, allow me to point out that some of the Middle East countries are the riches per capita in the world. Some of these rich Arab countries harbor and perpetuate the radical Islamic movements. The purpose of these movements is to drive Israel from the Middle East. Now there are poor Jews in Israel and there are poor Christain, Buddist, Hindu and other religious countries in the world in as much poverty as the Muslim contries. Yet they haven't declared holy jihad on the rest of the world. If Muslims are supressed, they have brought it on themselves with their actions. Weapons of mass destruction??? Can you imagine the Muslim world with these weapons. They don't feel threatened by not having them. They know they will never be used against them. The rest of the world is terrified that these idiots will get nukes because no one has a doubt they will use them.

First off, since tennis-n-sc has posted this twice now with no one challenging him, let me remind him that this is a BS counterargument to make because it completely obscures the fact about INCOME DISTRIBUTION in those nations. Of course PER CAPITA they have a ton of money, but do most of the folks in these nations get to see the wealth? NO--it's typically concentrated in the hands of few. So don't hide your anti-"concern for poverty" stance with per capita or GNP statistics. Oldest trick in the Republican book.

So, nicky has a point here that hatred is almost always fed by crappy economic situations. Any poli sci person will acknowledge this. People are often looking for any "The Man" to blame their plight on, even if there's no logical connection there. But, at the same time, I really don't know what we as "the West" or whoever could have done differently to better the economic state for poorer people in these nations. We can put economic pressure or incentive on these countries via trade, but we simply can't restructure their economies for them.

Nicky, I like your list as a work-in-progress, but it's way too simplistic. I do think it's important to distinguish orthodoxy from fundamentalism, but how does this distinction help us understand the conflict under debate in this thread?

nickybol
07-30-2006, 11:16 AM
Nicky, I like your list as a work-in-progress, but it's way too simplistic. I do think it's important to distinguish orthodoxy from fundamentalism, but how does this distinction help us understand the conflict under debate in this thread?
The orthodox Islam is just an old-fashioned kind of Islam. Fundamentalists are Muslims misusing their religion to justify violence. Orthodox Islam is widely accepted within the Muslim world, fundamentalism is not accepted by most muslims.

arosen
07-30-2006, 12:54 PM
I find this thread to be of interest because the posters are trying to reason with each other. The impression that I got from talking to Israelis and Arabs when I went to the middle east in 1993 was that the people seemed very UNREASONABLE on both sides. The arabs just hated the jews and wanted them all dead and out. The jews, some of them, wanted the arabs to stop blowing themselves and get used to the idea the Israel would keep whatever land they want to keep, and Israel is the one to tell everyone what to do. Neither side seemed particularly reasonable.

My question to the posters of this thread would be: How do you propose to resolve this centuries old conflict? Instead of being stuck in the horror of what's going on now and judging both sides for what they are doing, how about some suggestions as to what needs to be done to resolve the issue once and for all? Like they say in the papers - lasting solution. I saw so much hatred in the arabs when I went there, I could see no solution at all.

nickybol
07-30-2006, 01:01 PM
I think a few things need to be done:

- a Palestinian state needs to be founded, souverain, with no Israeli interference

- all parties need to be unarmed for a big part

- borders should be put on paper, and respected by everyone

- Israel needs to stop taking new Jews in

- the countries need to economically cooperate

I think the question is for all parties: what do we really want? Is that a reachable goal? Nobody wants war. You have to bring the people together. Build understanding. Let Arabs visit Israel, and let Israeli visit Arabian countries. Let them be guests in other countries. Let them explain their religions to each other. Let them do it on their own, without interference from the US or Russia. Let them come together, let them grow together.

But maybe that`s just a dream.

dmastous
07-30-2006, 01:10 PM
Wrong, wrong! If you only look at right now, you are looking at the wrong thing. You need to look into history, to find the causes. You need to fix the causes, there`s no point in only fixing the symptoms and consequences.
I'm not saying forget history. I've always said those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
I'm talking about the issue right now. The antisemitism that the Palistinians promote isn't the same as that which the Aryans and their ilk promoted.

FalconX
07-30-2006, 02:07 PM
That goes for him too:D

I've lived here long enough to know how racist people are. I've experienced it firsthand as a person of middle eastern origin. It's even worse down south. As a natter if fact I've heard the crazy conspiracy theories about the jews far more often here in the states than I did in my home country of Iran. It's amazing how much people are willing to talk about these types of things once they find out that you come from that area. I think they somehow believe I would have sympathy for their prejudices given my background. It just highlights their ignorance even more. Just a few weeks ago I was on a flight and this crazy old guy sitting next to me started to talk me and asked the typical "where are you originally from" question noticing my accent. But suddenly out of nowhere he started talking this nonsense about Israel and how the jews have stratigically picked Israel as their base,how it's the center of the earth and this conspiracy BS.

I find religious people to be generally more racist, and it's unfortunate but many african americans also believe that kind of garbage despite their history with jews during the civil rights movement.

FalconX
07-30-2006, 02:28 PM
FalconX - Your assertions and trolling posts ... do not constitute "truth".

- KK

Hey KK, if you have nothing of subtance to say don't say anything. I've addressed to topic at hand and provided evidence and explanation for the points I've raised. If you can counter-argue anything I've said go ahead and do it, otherwise your one-liner attempts at patronizing me don't add any value to this debate.

slider1979
07-30-2006, 02:55 PM
They're not called suicide bombers over there. They're called WITNESSES OF ALLAH LOL.......another martyr has gone to heaven is what the muslims say

well, i guess this quote pulls the trigger, as in my point of view...In islam, whenever your nation is being occupied, its a must to defend it with your own life. For me, its as simple as this. For anybody who doesn't know, shebba farms, which is an area in southern lebanon, is being occupied by israel since the 1948 war. Then, its a must for every muslim to defend it in the name of god "Allah", or else he woudn't be a good muslim following the law of god. That's why, hizzbolla are RESISTING and that's why they captured 2 israelis soldires. They haven't started it but israel did when they occupied their land over 60 years ago. And as ive noticed throughout the posts, Al qaida is being equalized with hizzbolla and in my opinion,m this is wrong. I believe Al qaeda is to be called a terrorist group but hizzbolla isn't. Nor is any ocuupied nation trying to defend itself. Thousands of Lebanese and Palstenian ppl are being killed since hte rise of israel and we r talking about the israelis who have been killed for the last 2 weeks?? I htink this is absured. I know my opinion differes from almost everyone who posted here, but i think i have the right to post mine as well :) Cheers !!

slider1979
07-30-2006, 03:01 PM
Of course, I disagree with you as you take the side of the extremists and protray them as victims. As I stated, Israel was minding its own business when it was invaded. And, by the way, the winners will be those left standing when the smoke clears and I don't think it will be Hamas, Hezbollah or Al-Qaida. I do believe the moderate Muslim world has about had its fill of this crap. They are more interested in growning their economy and securing a respected place in the world community. Look for them to get more vocal behind the scenes.

Just to correct what i think is wrong. Israel was never invaded!! Its quite the oppisite, it was established on the invasion of 3 arab countries: Syria (Golan valley), Lebanon ( shibaa farms) and most of palestine. Cheers!!
oh i also forgot that it invaded egypt in 1967 (the sinai desert) but it was given back to egypt after 1973 war..

slider1979
07-30-2006, 03:15 PM
The problem is that you only hear about the few Islamic extremists. There are millions of muslims in the world and the news will only let you know about the few that are fighting in the middle east. They are dirt poor (many grew up in refugee camps and have experienced war and death of family their entire lives). What happens to dirt poor kids who grow up in the middle of fighting and were kicked out of their home by Israelis? They form Hezbolla. Islam is a beautiful religion that teaches peace above all else, but also encourages people to defend their land. They did this during the Crusades (which lasted hundreds of years) and now feel that Israel invaded their land (lets face it they did). The news will only focus on the small picture and never give full details of what these particular Muslims are fighting for. Thats how the image comes about that all muslims are blood thirsty savages (like native americans I guess.) if you think think they are just jealous of our freedom then I suggest that you stop watching CNN.

Man, i just agree on every single word of this post.. especially the CNN part :)

slider1979
07-30-2006, 03:41 PM
k im going to find some passages...

but in the mean time, for islam as a religion. Prophet Muhammad made the Shia Imami Ismailis (which i am), which are completely different from other shia's and suni's. it is said that Allah revelead to him in a cave the religion, and what he was supposed to do to tell the people, and that Hazrat Ali would be the next imam (till this day, we still have an imam, who is a direct descendant of Prophet Muhammed). Muhammad told the people in those areas, mainly Egypt and where the current Middle East is about the religion, and how to pray, not to believe in statues that they had made or in multiple Gods, because that wasnt what God wanted.

However, he was taken seriously by some people, but not all, they thought he was crazy. the hatred towards the shia imami muslims grew and eventually turned into wars, in which yes, many people were killed, including Muhammad's uncle. after that, we fled, and the religion spread. BY NO MEANS DID WE FORCE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN OUR RELIGION. WE TOLD THEM ABOUT IT, AND SAID IF THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE IN IT, THEY COULD, OTHERWISE THATS FINE. and now there are millions of is world-wide, including many in North America. and we are against all these wars, but i can tell you one thing, the muslims you see in these wars are not Shia Imami Ismaili's, they are Shia's (different kinds of Shia's) and Suni's, who hate us. so when i defend muslims, im defending us, because we do not use violence, and none of our people are involved in the current wars or groups, whether it be Hezbullah, Alqueda, Hamas, etc.

visit this link to learn about us if you really want to:
http://ismaili.net/html/

and by the way, our current Imam (which in comparison to Catholicism is the Pope), is Prince Karim Aga Khan. and he had met with George Bush before the US announced they were going into Iraq. He warned Bush that if he did go into Iraq and invade them, there would be a full fledged war in the Middle East, massive destruction, none of which even the powerful countries (ie. US, Canada, Britain) would be able to stop.

Did Bush listen? No
Was the Imam right? Absolutely Yes.

and he frequently has meetings with other world leaders, including Tony Blair, Steven Harper, and others, so its not as if he sits in the Middle East on a carpet doing nothing but ordering people to do stuff and kill others. read the site and you'll understand.

so now you can see where i come from on this issue, and why i still defend the muslims (im really defending one sector, which would be mine), and this is because i also believe that what the other muslims are doing, forming all these war groups like Hamas and Hezbullah is completely wrong. it should not be done, Hezbullah should cease fire and discuss this problem with Israel, not go to war. same with Iraq. there is no point to war.

but who cares right? only the muslims are bad


I just can't believe this post of yours..U r against other muslims of diff sects and with west allies.. This is weird, for me..i always thought that all muslims, even of diff sects, do believe in jihad.. Correct me if im wrong!!

i swear im not agianst any of the opinions here.. im open to any contradicting views, thanks god:)

tennis-n-sc
07-30-2006, 03:46 PM
I've lived here long enough to know how racist people are. I've experienced it firsthand as a person of middle eastern origin. It's even worse down south. As a natter if fact I've heard the crazy conspiracy theories about the jews far more often here in the states than I did in my home country of Iran. It's amazing how much people are willing to talk about these types of things once they find out that you come from that area. I think they somehow believe I would have sympathy for their prejudices given my background. It just highlights their ignorance even more. Just a few weeks ago I was on a flight and this crazy old guy sitting next to me started to talk me and asked the typical "where are you originally from" question noticing my accent. But suddenly out of nowhere he started talking this nonsense about Israel and how the jews have stratigically picked Israel as their base,how it's the center of the earth and this conspiracy BS.

I find religious people to be generally more racist, and it's unfortunate but many african americans also believe that kind of garbage despite their history with jews during the civil rights movement.

I find it interesting that someone from the great peoples government of Iran, that bedrock of tolerance of all faiths, would relocate to America and then attempt to lecture Americans about our country. I don't know where you reside but if you think you have read this country correctly, you are wrong.

slider1979
07-30-2006, 03:47 PM
But Jerusalem is a holy city for the Muslims, because of Abraham, etc.

Jerusalem even was the holiest city in the early days of Islam. At that time, Muslims prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. Muslims admired Jews. The recognised the Jewish profets and took over a lot of Jewish religion. After a few years, they changed the praying direction to Mecca. Mecca didn`t want to loose their position as a sacred place like it was under the Pagans, because their economy was built on it.

Antisemitism in Islam didn`t exist before the founding of Israel. Muslims admired Jews. Israel is the one and only source of antisemitism in the Muslim world.

absolutely true

slider1979
07-30-2006, 04:01 PM
I think you're mentally ********.

Here, look at this map and tell me why you think the Arabs-around 200 million of them vs. 5 million Israeli Jews-make such a big deal about Israel? Tell you what, spanky...it's not REALLY about Israel...

http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/arabwrld.htm

Man, why be so offensive bout diff opinions?? don't u think this would be so offensive to the "free world" as well??:) i mean "mentally ********'"is a big word for what the guy just said!

slider1979
07-30-2006, 04:04 PM
If it is not about Israel, where is it about then? How would you feel about about placing Iran in Texas?


very good example nickybol

oscar_2424
07-30-2006, 05:22 PM
I have no notion, but what's the origin of this feuding?
This is the dumbest question i have read in many years

dmastous
07-30-2006, 06:04 PM
I just can't believe this post of yours..U r against other muslims of diff sects and with west allies.. This is weird, for me..i always thought that all muslims, even of diff sects, do believe in jihad.. Correct me if im wrong!!

i swear im not agianst any of the opinions here.. im open to any contradicting views, thanks god:)
You have a perfect example in Iraq. You have the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. All disagree to the point of killing each other.

FalconX
07-30-2006, 06:06 PM
I find it interesting that someone from the great peoples government of Iran, that bedrock of tolerance of all faiths, would relocate to America and then attempt to lecture Americans about our country. I don't know where you reside but if you think you have read this country correctly, you are wrong.

well it's not quite as interesting as a catholic trying to lecture someone who grew up in that area, studied the history and islam(not by choice btw), about anti-semetism. That's just the kettle calling the pot black.

I hate to say this because there I was blasting generalizations just a few pages ago, but the way you choose to ignore facts and selectively talk about the minute points is so typically american.

I wasn't even able to practice my own faith in Iran. But how does that have any bearing on this debate?

The dude asks, why do muslims hate the jews?It's a stupid question to begin with because it's not true. Many Muslims don't hate jews, but they dislike Israel, and you may think they are wrong for feeling that way and I personally think they are. While it's true that there is anti-semitism in the mid-east, the root causes of it is Israel. And the degree of that anti-semitism is no more than it is here in Ohio or any where else.

Kaptain Karl
07-30-2006, 07:43 PM
First off, since tennis-n-sc has posted this twice now with no one challenging him ...I wondered how long it would take for someone to express this.

... People are often looking for any "The Man" to blame their plight on, even if there's no logical connection there.Yes! You nailed this one.

... I really don't know what we as "the West" or whoever could have done differently to better the economic state for poorer people in these nations. We can put economic pressure or incentive on these countries via trade, but we simply can't restructure their economies for them.Why is it "the West's" responsibility to solve the political and economic problems in the "countries" of the Middle East? (And don't throw Kuwait and Iraq at me. What I mean is, so long as one Middle Eastern "country" isn't attempting to overthrow another -- or supporting and protecting international terrorists -- why interfere?)
___________

The impression that I got from talking to Israelis and Arabs when I went to the middle east in 1993 was that the people seemed very UNREASONABLE on both sides. ... Neither side seemed particularly reasonable.Your perspective is of interest ... having actually *been there*....

How do you propose to resolve this centuries old conflict? ...Since my POV begins Biblically, my answer is "It will not be resolved through human means." It WILL be resolved ... and it will be ... glorious ... horrible ... simple ... stunning, etc.

- a Palestinian state needs to be founded, souverain, with no Israeli interferenceRidiculous. "Palestine" isn't even a recognized Nation-State by the Arab Nations. If the Arabs won't ... codify ... Palestine, why should anyone?

- all parties need to be unarmed for a big partAlso ridiculous. Many observers / commentators have stated (the obvious). If the Arab nations are totally disarmed, there will be peace in the Middle East. If Israel is unarmed, it would be wiped-out within hours.

- borders should be put on paper, and respected by everyonePart of the problem is "the borders." The Tribal people of the Middle East don't seem too enthralled with the Western idea of "borders" do they...?

- Israel needs to stop taking new Jews inHow one-sided. You want Palestine to *gain* by being formally established and recognized. And you wan't Israel to *lose* by being limited in its ability to accept immigrants. Sheesh!

- the countries need to economically cooperateI'd like to know more about this suggestion. Who? How? And how much?

... Nobody wants war.Where've you been??? The Muslims are such war-mongers, if they are not warring with Israel, they'll war with each other...! Geez!!!

Let them come together, let them grow together.Not possible. Read the Bible, especially the book of Revelation. (But read this book in a good "paraphrase"; not a "translation". IMO, good paraphrases are: J. B. Phillips, The Living Bible ... and The Message is really popular with many of my Christian peers....)

But maybe that`s just a dream.We agree, here....

alienhamster
07-30-2006, 07:57 PM
I wondered how long it would take for someone to express this.

Yes! You nailed this one.

Why is it "the West's" responsibility to solve the political and economic problems in the "countries" of the Middle East? (And don't throw Kuwait and Iraq at me. What I mean is, so long as one Middle Eastern "country" isn't attempting to overthrow another -- or supporting and protecting international terrorists -- why interfere?) Well, two pretty big reasons why it's in our interest to keep them in a better economic situation:

(1) We simply can't exist as a nation, resource-wise, without their countries being politically and economically stable.
(2) We (and our "allies") are much less likely to get attacked and/or blamed if people live in better economic conditions there. A better offense may be a good defense, here.

There are probably a number of ethical and moral arguments, too. You seem to be pretty Christian, Karl, and last I checked, I'm pretty sure Jesus was most keen on helping the impoverished. (Much moreso than keeping dudes from getting married.)

But you raise some good points about "interference"--there's always a risk of seeming preachy or holier-than-thou when getting too involved in other countries' systems. Or much worse, getting involved in conflicts that don't directly concern us up front.

dmastous
07-30-2006, 08:15 PM
Why is it "the West's" responsibility to solve the political and economic problems in the "countries" of the Middle East? (And don't throw Kuwait and Iraq at me. What I mean is, so long as one Middle Eastern "country" isn't attempting to overthrow another -- or supporting and protecting international terrorists -- why interfere?)
Without seeming to disagree with your overall point (which I am in line with), I would try and answer this question.
There are numerous examples of our 'exporting demorcracy'. I think our democracy is the best in the world when you combine our personal freedom with our safety, both from home grown criminals and imported ones. Other countries may have a "better lifestyle" but it generally comes at the cost of freedoms that we've learned to expect.
But other countries, especially ones that have laboured under very strict authoritarian systems, either with a royal family or with a dictator, or coming out from under commnuist rule seem to have difficulty adjusting to the freedoms given by democracy. They don't seem to embrace it well. They loose sight of what's important (their constitution if they have one) and focus on what's not (a charismatic ruler). Their system ends up breaking down into a have/have-not society where the haves control 99% of the money and the have-nots represent homeless, starving masses rather than a good sized middle class with a small percentage of poor. Greed becomes the order of the day, and being rich and powerful becomes the end that justifies the means. Does this kind of thing happen in the US? Of course it does, but noy as successfully, and spectacularly as in the poor nations. We have rights and recorse to keep those rights.
Iraq was no more than a country of slaves working for the profit of Sadam Hussien. He lived in 21 lavishly appointed, secluded, heavily guarded mansions while his people lived in relative poverty. The Philippines elected a smart, popular lawyer named Marcos, who did a lot of good for his country then decided he was more important that legitimate elections and ended up killing to stay President. In some respect these rulers were for a time good for their countries because they made improvements in their countries. But their power corrupted them and they lost sight of the laws that maintain a demorcracy. They became bigger than the democracy, and the people were too ignorant to stop it.
There are countless examples of despots all over the poorer countries, and behind a good number of them was the stained hand of the CIA. All a prospective leader had to do was denouce communism and put his hand out, and he could do whatever he wanted to do to his people, he would have the support of the US State Dept. That is how many of them obtained their status and how many kept it.
I would not say this means the US is responsible for the poverty of the world, but just that we are not completly without blame in the state of some of the impovershed countries. Imposing democracy and personal freedom on a people that isn't ready for the responsibility that comes with that freedom isn't always the right thing to do. Further, supporting a despot simply because he says he will oppose any commnist factions in his country isn't always the best action either. The enemy of my enemny is NOT my friend.

Kaptain Karl
07-30-2006, 08:42 PM
I've addressed to topic at hand and provided evidence and explanation for the points I've raised.Oh! That was rich. Thanks for the laugh, FalconX.

Your posts are a series of whacky assertions. That isn't "evidence".

... the way you choose to ignore facts and selectively talk about the minute points is so typically american.Apparently "americans" don't have a monopoly on this trait, huh...?

- KK

FalconX
07-30-2006, 09:39 PM
Oh! That was rich. Thanks for the laugh, FalconX.

Your posts are a series of whacky assertions. That isn't "evidence".

Apparently "americans" don't have a monopoly on this trait, huh...?

- KK

I provided links. I know some people have problems with wikipedia but that article is very accurate and carefully cited and balanced. Furthermore, it supports my case. You on the other hand have got nothing. You seem to have an opinion because it's the conservative position. Never use those brown cells kk. Stick to the brown book. Let god and the republican party do the thinking for you.

Kaptain Karl
07-30-2006, 09:48 PM
I challenge you to find evidence of antisemitism in Islam before the founding of Israel.Hoping to find someone had already written this, I found this Refiner's Fire site. (http://www.therefinersfire.org/ishmael_and_isaac.htm) Though I know "Islam" wasn't founded until about 610 AD, I still contend this answers your challenge. Most of the following is lifted from the site above....

It began in Genesis 16 when God made His Covenant with Abraham's son Isaac, and in essence, sent the half-brother Ishmael on his merry way to become "a geat nation" (the present day Arabs, most of whom are Muslim). In Genesis 16:13-16 (years before Abraham's second son Isaac was born) the Angel of the Lord told Abraham's servant Hagar that her son Ishmael would be "...a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand will be against him; and he will live to the east of all his brothers."

Genesis 17: 18 ... Then Abraham said to God, "Please let Ishmael be the son you promised."  God said, "No, Sarah your wife will have a son, and you will name him Isaac. I will make my agreement with him to be an agreement that continues forever with all his descendants.  "As for Ishmael, I have heard you. I will bless him and give him many descendants. And I will cause their numbers to grow greatly. He will be the father of twelve great leaders, and I will make him into a great nation.  But I will make my agreement with Isaac, the son whom Sarah will have at this same time next year."

Conflict between the two sons of Abraham began from the very start. Genesis 21:9 says the conflict began just after Isaac was weaned...

Galatians 4 tells us that Ishmael had been "born according to the flesh" while Isaac had been "born according to the promise". Isaac replaced Ishmael as the favored son and heir. This, of course, made Ishmael jealous and bitter. As a result, he mocked and disdained his half-brother. Eventually the situation became so intolerable that Abraham's wife Sarah demanded that Ishmael and his Egyptian concubine mother, Hagar, be expelled permanently from Abraham’s family.

But the Lord loved Hagar and her son, and had mercy upon them. God promised Hagar that her son would beget twelve princes who would become a great nation. Ishmael then went to live in the wilderness region of Hejaz in what became known as the Arabian Peninsula. He indeed had twelve patriarchal sons who became associated with the peoples known as Midianites, Edomites, Egyptians and Assyrians. The Bible and Islamic tradition both agree that Ishmael became the leader of all the great desert peoples of the Middle East.

God provided many opportunities in this story for redemption of bad situations created mostly out of disobedience and lack of faith. Abraham had agreed to impregnate Hagar at the request of his wife Sarah, even though God had told Abraham and Sarah that they would one day have their own son. To be fair to Ishmael, God provided him a great kingdom of his own "to the east" of his brother, but it was never enough. Ishmael’s descendants have always been jealous that Isaac’s descendants were able to claim the full inheritance of Abraham.

This jealousy and resentment created an unparalleled hate which has set off wars and atrocities for four thousand years. It was the title deed to the land of Israel, which God promised to Abraham’s lineage, that has been the source of the friction between the Jews and the Arabs right up to the present day.

Muslims believe the Jews changed and distorted the Bible in order to establish themselves as the heirs of Abraham’s Covenant blessings. However, they fail to explain how the New Testament clearly teaches that the Covenant was made with Isaac and his descendants.

- KK

ThePlungerMan
07-30-2006, 09:52 PM
I provided links. Yeah, from the Devil. :D

FalconX
07-30-2006, 10:03 PM
Yeah, from the Devil. :D

the devil owns google along with them muslim minds I guess.

Micky
07-30-2006, 10:22 PM
I've always said that the ONLY people that can bring an end to Islamic terrorism, ultimately, are Muslims themselves.

Hola Phil,

This thread should have ended right after your quote above. That was a very smart conclusion.

Micky

Phil
07-30-2006, 10:28 PM
Hola Phil,

This thread should have ended right after your quote above. That was a very smart conclusion.

Micky

Gracias, Amigo!

arosen
07-30-2006, 10:45 PM
Syrian government just came out saying they do not want any international peacekeeping force in Lebanon because "It would serve the Zionist purposes and will be run from Israel". Iran has sent two letters, one to Bush, one to German chancellor, both letters full of rant, the one to Germany saying that Holocost never took place. More importantly, Ahmadinejad insisted that he was "chosen" to ensure the return of the lost prophet, and with that, the end of the world. With Iran building a nuclear weapon and openly announcing that they would take out Israel, things are beginning to look a lot worse than ever before. The biggest problem with the Revolutionary Army of Iran is that those guys are utterly unreasonable and borderline paranoid judging by their recent communications with outside world. They are not afraid of dying (plenty of virgins waiting for them etc.) so......this whole Lebanon thing is a picnic compared to things yet to come.

Micky
07-30-2006, 10:54 PM
There is another option. Just let all the Israeli pack their bags and move to Texas. They love the Zionists in America!

Remember this N A Z Ibol: You are a N A Z I. Cabron.

Micky

chess9
07-30-2006, 10:56 PM
We may not know why or whether Muslims hate Jews, but we do know that no one here has a solution to this crisis in the Mideast, other than for peace to break out instead of war. Suicide bombers, kidnapping soldiers, and even invading Lebanon will do nothing to bring peace to the region. Instead, we are now as close to having a global war on Israel as we've ever been, and that can only be horrible for all the obvious reasons, including Israel's limited nuclear capacity and strong conventional weapons capacity. At this moment in time the Persians and the Arabs are sounding more united in their anti-Israel comments than ever before. Again, this is very bad for Israel. Israel would be the single biggest ultimate beneficiary of stability in the Mideast. For that reason-stability-I do not support U.S. involvement in Iraq, or the U.S. sending bombs to Israel while it sends blankets to the Lebanese and Condi to Rome. The level of cynicism and posturing by the UK and America must be at an all time high. Blair is inexcusably AWOL from rational thinking, probably from consorting too frequently with G.W.

I've been spending a lot of time in the UK recently and have gotten a very different perspective on the USA than I had before. Those who say our USA media is biased may be right compared to the BBC, but the BBC has a huge Muslim fan base, so their reporting is done accordingly. Whether the BBC is more balanced than CNN is impossible to tell, IMHO. Generally, though, the BBC is more sympathetic to Arab/Muslim views than the US media. I doubt it has anything to do with "control by the Jews" of the media, but rather the extensive right wing Christian fundamentalism in the states. The Fundies are very pro Israel.

All of this suggests that religion will destroy the human race, just as it has almost succeeded in destroying understanding, love, and compassion. I am, therefore, a SKEPTIC.

-Robert

Kaptain Karl
07-30-2006, 11:53 PM
... and "No way" will I attempt to address them all. I will respond to a few, though:

There are numerous examples of our 'exporting demorcracy'.
... Other countries may have a "better lifestyle" but it generally comes at the cost of freedoms that we've learned to expect.And I wonder how many of us are really aware of ... the sacrifice ... the fortitude ... the vision ... put into action by these people....

But other countries, especially ones that have laboured under very strict authoritarian systems, either with a royal family or with a dictator, or coming out from under commnuist rule seem to have difficulty adjusting to the freedoms given by democracy. They don't seem to embrace it well.True....

... In some respect these [despotic] rulers were for a time good for their countries because they made improvements in their countries. But their power corrupted them and they lost sight of the laws that maintain a demorcracy. They became bigger than the democracy, and the people were too ignorant to stop it.And this touches on what my point really was. I am perplexed that so many (Saudis) are barely scraping by ... while the Saudi Family keeps taking so much from the labors of the people ... and the people blame ... the USA??? Why don't they demand relief from their "Royal Family?"

I would not say this means the US is responsible for the poverty of the world, but just that we are not completly without blame in the state of some of the impovershed countries.I see your point. I do see the benefits to be greater than the costs ... for the most part.

Imposing democracy and personal freedom on a people that isn't ready for the responsibility that comes with that freedom isn't always the right thing to do.Bingo! Which is why I wish we'd (usually) leave them alone....

The enemy of my enemny is NOT my friend.Here, we disagree. I subscribe to the foreign policy POV of "Enlightened Self-Interest." This viewpoint argues that we were right to help Iraq against Iran ... at that time. Then we were right to go after Saddam ... at that time.

(Don't ask me why -- following Enlightened Self-Interest -- we allow our Southern boarder to remain so porous. I cannot fathom this idiocy....)

- KK

alienhamster
07-31-2006, 12:20 AM
The Fundies are very pro Israel.

This has been my experience with fundie Christians, too. And I've never quite been able to figure out why exactly, esp. since a number of fundies (NOT all) seem awfully anti-semitic. (I was once even told "I sounded like a Jew" by a guy who I was arguing with about the Bible a few years back.)

I did hear one argument about "having the holy land in order" as some sort of weird, pre-apololyptic planning that required the safeguarding of Israel. But I can't imagine that this would have any weight for most people.

Arosen: this is sounding very, very bad. I'm sure glad we did a great job with our militaristic, diplomatic, and financial resources these past few years to help prepare ourselves in case war breaks out . . . Oh, wait a minute. We kind of completely *screwed ourselves with all that, haven't we? I guess we'll have to rely on the help of that crappy ole, peace-lovin' United Nations now . . .

{Edited to fix offensive word at *}

FalconX
07-31-2006, 12:31 AM
Nearly 500 million christians trace their roots back to a man who was the biggest and the most racist of all people, Martin Luther.
And then there are more than one billion catholics whose Popes actively pursued policies that caused centuries long hatred towards the jewish people.
That explains why christians hate the jews so much.
One thing's for sure. As bad as the middle east may be the immigrant jews in Israel would not even think about moving back to the christian lands. I guess that's a big part of why they insist on strengthening Israel so much. I don't blame them.

Phil
07-31-2006, 12:46 AM
I did hear one argument about "having the holy land in order" as some sort of weird, pre-apololyptic planning that required the safeguarding of Israel. But I can't imagine that this would have any weight for most people.

You hit the nail on the head...this DOES have weight for many evangelicals. They aren't solidly pro-Israel because of any great love for, or identification with the Jews...believe me...

The Holy Land is where they're supposed to report for duty, as per the New Testement, once the world turns upside down - i.e The End of Times, The Apocalypse, The Rapture, et al.

Shia Islam envisions a similar apocalyptic scenario (The 12th Iman), and though it's not something that all Shiites subscribe to, the whackier elements, like the president of Iran, believe strongly in this. According to both Shia Islam and Fundie Christianity, there's a gonna be a showdown, and only the true believers will come out of it alive. Neither of these scenarios includes, obviously, the Jews surviving (unless, of course, they become "born again" all of a sudden, just before the do do hits the fan).

FalconX
07-31-2006, 12:57 AM
phil i'm impressed with your knowledge. but i would add people in iran don't give a hoot about mahdi(the 12th jesus replacement).

Phil
07-31-2006, 01:11 AM
phil i'm impressed with your knowledge. but i would add people in iran don't give a hoot about mahdi(the 12th jesus replacement).

Like I mentioned, Falcon, it's only, from what I've read, the WHACKIER types who believe in Mahdi.

I've met a few Iranians-in school and when I lived in Greece, and none of them believe in this science fiction "B"-movie-type schlock (that they would admit to).

But when the president of the USA believes in End of Times, as he does, and the president of Iran believes in the 12th Iman, none of that really matters, does it? We are ALL up the creek if these two have a chance to really knock heads.

slider1979
07-31-2006, 01:49 AM
You have a perfect example in Iraq. You have the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. All disagree to the point of killing each other.


this only started after the american invasion to spread what it calls "democracy". Before that, and for many years, there was no killing. And above that, the reason for the fight isn't coz of religion...its a fight over authority since things are messy there!!

tennis-n-sc
07-31-2006, 03:22 AM
Nearly 500 million christians trace their roots back to a man who was the biggest and the most racist of all people, Martin Luther.
And then there are more than one billion catholics whose Popes actively pursued policies that caused centuries long hatred towards the jewish people.
That explains why christians hate the jews so much.
One thing's for sure. As bad as the middle east may be the immigrant jews in Israel would not even think about moving back to the christian lands. I guess that's a big part of why they insist on strengthening Israel so much. I don't blame them.

The only thing I can say is that Christains and Catholics appear to have learned from their past stupidity. Muslims, on the other hand, appear stuck in the middle ages and holy jihad to rid the world of infidels. I know there are Muslims who do not adhere to this policy but those Muslims that do are creating a very unstable world situation and a black eye for the rest of the Muslim world. I am convinced that a radical Muslim group will explode a nuclear device in the near future and there will be many, many innocent lives lost in the act and in retribution. In the end, Muslims could lose it all.

dmastous
07-31-2006, 05:28 AM
this only started after the american invasion to spread what it calls "democracy". Before that, and for many years, there was no killing. And above that, the reason for the fight isn't coz of religion...its a fight over authority since things are messy there!!
No, there was no killing due to any disagreements. The killing was only done by Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists. He killed Shiites at his leasure.
The differences between the three are long standing and it's not due to anything the US did.
From Wikipedia:
"The Shi'a majority were long a source of opposition to the government due to its secular policies, and the Ba'ath Party was increasingly concerned about potential Sh'ia Islamist influence following the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Kurds of northern Iraq (who are Sunni Muslims but not Arabs) were also permanently hostile to the Ba'athist party's Arabizing tendencies. To maintain his regime Saddam Hussein tended either to provide them with benefits so as to co-opt them into the regime, or to take repressive measures against them. The major instruments for accomplishing this control were the paramilitary and police organizations. "

slider1979
07-31-2006, 08:01 AM
No, there was no killing due to any disagreements. The killing was only done by Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists. He killed Shiites at his leasure.
The differences between the three are long standing and it's not due to anything the US did.
From Wikipedia:
"The Shi'a majority were long a source of opposition to the government due to its secular policies, and the Ba'ath Party was increasingly concerned about potential Sh'ia Islamist influence following the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Kurds of northern Iraq (who are Sunni Muslims but not Arabs) were also permanently hostile to the Ba'athist party's Arabizing tendencies. To maintain his regime Saddam Hussein tended either to provide them with benefits so as to co-opt them into the regime, or to take repressive measures against them. The major instruments for accomplishing this control were the paramilitary and police organizations. "


well, im totally convinced with what u said especially concerning the shiite. However, what about the kurds??! they, as u said, r sunni just like saddam(although they r not arabs, being one has nothing to do with religion) and were also supressed by him. Therefore, as i said earlier, even if there is killing, its not coz of religious beliefs, its coz of authority. im sunni and i don't hate shiite. As a matter of fact, i have shiite friends. Maybe this is not the case in general sense though...thanx for the info anyway :)

ThePlungerMan
07-31-2006, 08:18 AM
I've met a few Iranians-in school and when I lived in Greece, and none of them believe in this science fiction "B"-movie-type schlock (that they would admit to).

Hi Phil.
Are you also, in a roundabout way, without getting technical, per your 2 or 3 previous posts, implying, those who believe in the end times, per the Bible, to be grouped in with the above quote?

Thank you,,, OH great mind.
:D :p :mrgreen:

Kaptain Karl
07-31-2006, 08:54 AM
You hit the nail on the head...this DOES have weight for many evangelicals.Yes. Absolutely true.

They aren't solidly pro-Israel because of any great love for, or identification with the Jews...believe me...Not true. Most Evangelical Christians even refer to Jews as "brothers" or "cousins" ... theologically speaking. We are very aware of our Jewish "roots" and the prophetic future for (our relations) the Jews. We most certainly do love the Jews....

The Holy Land is where they're supposed to report for duty, as per the New Testement, once the world turns upside down - i.e The End of Times, The Apocalypse, The Rapture, et al.While I admit some Christians hope to "be there" when the End Times prophecies come to pass ... it isn't correct that we all are compelled to "report for duty" there.

According to both Shia Islam and Fundie Christianity, there's a gonna be a showdown, and only the true believers will come out of it alive. Neither of these scenarios includes, obviously, the Jews surviving (unless, of course, they become "born again" all of a sudden, just before the do do hits the fan).This is also a pretty accurate rendering of the future "picture".

- KK

Kaptain Karl
07-31-2006, 10:53 AM
In islam, whenever your nation is being occupied, its a must to defend it with your own life.Then southern europe is in big trouble. "Islam" makes claim to everything from Spain-to-Arabian Sea.

For me, its as simple as this. For anybody who doesn't know, shebba farms, which is an area in southern lebanon, is being occupied by israel since the 1948 war.No. This is a lie. Israel was attacked by seven Arab states (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen) when it was a single day old. The most negative (for Israel) thing one can legitimately say about that "occupied" territory is ... is was a spoil of war.

[Hezbollah] haven't started it but israel did when they occupied their land over 60 years ago.More Arab propoganda...

(If anyone would like a simple -- maps included -- review of this whole mess, go here (http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html)for a pretty well done page....)

- KK

simi
07-31-2006, 12:42 PM
(If anyone would like a simple -- maps included -- review of this whole mess, go here (http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html)for a pretty well done page....)

Interesting! I remember when Trans-Jordan was called that. Never knew what it meant or why the name was changed to its current form. Good background info on that web site. Didn't the West Bank get annexed a few years ago?

35ft6
07-31-2006, 01:13 PM
That hasn't stopped certain governments from providing them with support...and Afghanistan, under the Taliban certainly supported them. And we supported the Taliban.No, but you don't have to be an expert-that's a poor excuse to make poor statements. You know very well that Hezbollah is not a nation state, and is not the legit army of a nation state. They TOLD the Lebanese gov't that they were going to provide the country with a guerilla capability to contest Israel-because the Lebanese military did not have one. How can you compare the US military and the USA with Hezbollah. Well that's the thing right there, people seem to think it's fine when mass killings are done under the right sanctioning. And it's not an idea totally without merit, but just saying that a lot of people who support Israel and the USA do so with slavish devotion, as in by virtue of it being done by the USA it's right, not because the action itself is objectively justifiable.So I guess we don't need to cut people's heads off and record it on the Internet for all to see...we do the same thing, figuratively that is...We're cut from the same cloth??? If your perspective of US foreign policy and the current Mideast War is through Chomsky, then it's a mighty skewed perspective. Chomsky, on the left, is every bit as distorted as Richard Pearle or Paul Wolfowitz (bigwigs of the neocon movement) on the right. Dude, that's nuts. It's not like I "agree" with everything Chomsky says, although when I do disagree it's done sheepishly, knowing that I'm disagreeing with a person with an incredible intellect who seriously STUDIES these matters, pouring over primary sources and whatnot. If you seriously believe Richard Pearle and Chomsky are equally inductive when it comes to their worldviews, then I think we're very close to finding our point of departure.Who cares about their love for their families? My point being that in the US media the only pictures of Arabs we see are of them angrily protesting, or with black masks on carrying grenade launchers, or their children dressed like suicide bombers. Basically, they're dehumanized. I'm sure the Arab press does the exact same thing with Americans.They put their families in danger by the lives they chose. What does this have to do with anything? So do the Jews who move their families to Israel.Bin Laden has a family, and he may love them too...yeah, these people are "humans", if that's what your're saying, just as Hitler was...that doesn't, to me, "soften" their actions. False analogy.Hamas blows up buses full of women and children-those aren't military or strategic targets...they're terror targets. So, for a group that plans and executes such things, yeah, they're as close as we get to your bloodthirsty vampires. The human equivalent. In their thinking, Israel is a military state, every citizen is a soldier. Doesn't excuse them one bit, just explaining their way of thinking. Israel just killed a bunch of kids in Lebanon, but they probably had military value. Shoot, I bet Hezbollah planted those kids their hoping they'd be bombed. Sarcasm.I haven't seen it, but anyone can, with some creativity, compare the US to the worst movement there is...and make it sound convincing. I'll rent it if it's around...just out of curiosity. It was produced by the BBC and you can download it for free at the link I posted earlier.You wouldn't, being that you're basically in the same camp. What I mean is that he takes broad swipes at the US without making comparative comments on, say, the USSR or jihidiis. It's as if the US were the only "demons" in this world. That's absolutely NOT true. He mainly focuses on the USA but he spreads plenty of blame around. I just read somewhere about the term "anti-american," how the most recent equivalent was the term "anti-sovietism," an all-purpose term that can be thrown at anything you want to discredit without actually having to take the time to understand or address the thing you're disparaging. It's a label used against Chomsky quite a bit.Israel cannot pretend that they're operating on a different playing field. They really have very little choice but to kick butt. There's no such thing as a "symetrical" response. The ONLY response that Islamic terrirorst understand-and it's been proven-is the business end of a loaded weapon. These attacks may or may not result in less terrorist attacks in the future. I don't know. They may drive more Arabs into terrorism, but seems to me that recruiting is already fairly steady-Arabs will always line up for the opportunity to kill Israelis. If they had, or if they DO back down from this now, it will probably increase terrorists attacks EVEN MORE then if they were to hold back-because it would prove that they can be intimidated. And the Arabs can say the same thing about Israel.This is a group that, like most terrorist movements, is unconcerned about putting their own people at risk. Don't you think the Israeli government puts their people at risk when they raze Arab homes and replace the area with a Jewish settlement?As far as they're concerned, this is Hezollah's the price for "protecting" the southern border. That is the price of all those hospitals that you say they built. You didn't know Hezbollah has a civilian arm that builds hospitals, clinics, schools, and rebuilds infrastructure?Israel is not trying to destroy anyone's country and drive the people from said country into the sea. Hezbollah and Hamas EXIST for this very purpose-to bring about the destrruction of Israel. You've done a fine job of putting yourself in the shoes of the "victims"...now put yourself in the Israelis' place and try, just for a second, to imagine the difficult choices that government has to make against such agressors. Dude, I can understand Israel's position. My allegiance lies more with them than with the Arabs. As for the ultra hardcore Islamic militants of the world, I have no love for them whatsoever. Just exterminate them.

BTW, there are Israeli's that feel the same way I do. I read a blog from an Israeli soldier somewhere, he firmly believes Israel needs to vacate the Gaza Strip and help establish a sovereign Palestinian state.

Personally, I don't see how this mess will ever resolve itself. It's just that I still feel sympathy for the Arab people in that area, and I think Israel's bombings are way too much.

gunitman
07-31-2006, 01:17 PM
im african american and i love everybody......probably the only african american tennis's player in my city.

35ft6
07-31-2006, 02:02 PM
Some photos:

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/

tennis-n-sc
07-31-2006, 03:42 PM
Some photos:

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/

35ft6, where are the photos from the rocket attacks on Israel? All I'm seeing on CNN are the reporters imbeded with Hezbollah. The whole thing is a tragedy on both sides but, as usual, started by the bad guys. The site posted by KK is a great summation of the events in the area and I can't imagine why Israel has been so forgiving.

tennis-n-sc
07-31-2006, 03:43 PM
Then southern europe is in big trouble. "Islam" makes claim to everything from Spain-to-Arabian Sea.

No. This is a lie. Israel was attacked by seven Arab states (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen) when it was a single day old. The most negative (for Israel) thing one can legitimately say about that "occupied" territory is ... is was a spoil of war.

More Arab propoganda...

(If anyone would like a simple -- maps included -- review of this whole mess, go here (http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html)for a pretty well done page....)

- KK

KK, the site does present a relatively clean and simple summation of the events of the area. Nice job.

35ft6
07-31-2006, 05:03 PM
35ft6, where are the photos from the rocket attacks on Israel? That's your response, not "that's terrible?"All I'm seeing on CNN are the reporters imbeded with Hezbollah. The whole thing is a tragedy on both sides but, as usual, started by the bad guys. They started it? Most people are taught that that's not a legitimate excuse when they're 5 years old. Anyway, even if the bad guys started it, why do innocent civilians have to die?The site posted by KK is a great summation of the events in the area and I can't imagine why Israel has been so forgiving. Masada2000.com? And would you trust a site called jihad2000.com?

Here's a Q and A from http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm#2]Human Rights Watch which also sheds some light on the situation. (I can't wait to see how HRW will be dismissed.)

dmastous
07-31-2006, 05:09 PM
Anyway, even if the bad guys started it, why do innocent civilians have to die?
It wouldn't be because weapons caches are being placed in schools and churches, and people are being used as human sheilds like in Iraq?
Or perhaps it is a misguided missle or a mistake. Or perhaps it was the intent of the one who pulled the trigger to do that, and if so he or she is no better than the terrorists. Hopefully they will meet an unhappy end themselves.
The terrorists are using our morals against us. They hide behind civilians because they know it's not in our nature to kill innocents. They kill civilians becuase they know it will strike fear into the hearts of everyone, and because they are easier to kill than the armor clad soldiers who can shoot back.

tennis-n-sc
07-31-2006, 05:25 PM
That's your response, not "that's terrible?" They started it? Most people are taught that that's not a legitimate excuse when they're 5 years old. Anyway, even if the bad guys started it, why do innocent civilians have to die? Masada2000.com? And would you trust a site called jihad2000.com?

Here's a Q and A from http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm#2]Human Rights Watch which also sheds some light on the situation. (I can't wait to see how HRW will be dismissed.)

I believe I stated it was a tragedy on both sides as are most wars. Unfortunately, smart bombs can't tell the difference between civilians and terrorists when they are in the same vacinity. Also, people die in wars. At least Israel is attempting to minimize the damage to civilians. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is targeting civilian sites as primary targets. And I generally don't respond when someone calls me an A/H on a tennis court because when I was 5 years old I learned that I shouldn't do that. However, if terrorist thugs invaded the U.S. and killed and kidnapped G.I.'s, I would just have to say throw everything you have at them till they are no longer a threat. I learned that at an early age as well. With regard to the web site KK posted, I saw a similar program on CNN over the weekend that was virtually identical in content to KK's website. Most of it is a matter of public record, like it or not.

Kaptain Karl
07-31-2006, 05:34 PM
Masada2000.com? And would you trust a site called jihad2000.com?Nice try. False analogy.

[Human Rights Watch]Oh, that's rich! A bunch of looneys who make up their own "rules" for war ... and then try to impose them on others. Sheesh!

That's like the touchy-feely kid from my Grade School playground, who would "appoint" himself Peacemaker in a fight ... and end up getting the snot beat out of him by both fighters. Thanks for the chuckle, 35ft6.

- KK

darknight08
07-31-2006, 06:24 PM
Sad but true.
There are like 1.2-1.3 billion muslims worldwide - most of them don't care about jews at all.


u makee a good point

Joe Average
07-31-2006, 07:18 PM
Well, Muslims weren't involved in the Holocaust. At least for the most part.

Question is ... why does Mel Gibson hate the Jews?

35ft6
07-31-2006, 09:06 PM
Nice try. False analogy.

Oh, that's rich! A bunch of looneys who make up their own "rules" for war ... and then try to impose them on others. Sheesh!

That's like the touchy-feely kid from my Grade School playground, who would "appoint" himself Peacemaker in a fight ... and end up getting the snot beat out of him by both fighters. Thanks for the chuckle, 35ft6.

- KK You're welcome. Not one cogent thought in your whole post. I wish I could say I'm amazed that you didn't respond with anything substantial...:(

35ft6
07-31-2006, 09:25 PM
I believe I stated it was a tragedy on both sides as are most wars. Well then we agree on something, perhaps the most important thing.Unfortunately, smart bombs can't tell the difference between civilians and terrorists when they are in the same vacinity. The whole point of smart bombs is precision, and the targets are based on intelligence. Isreal is taking a lot of flack for the 36 kids who were killed recently. As they should.Also, people die in wars. So easy for us to say, huh?At least Israel is attempting to minimize the damage to civilians. Says who? Israel has killed way more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israeli's, and at the end of all this Israel will have probably outkilled Lebanon by a comparable margin.Hezbollah, on the other hand, is targeting civilian sites as primary targets. And they should be condemned for that, and Israel should be condemned for attacking civilians and civilian targets. Or don't condemn either if the rules don't apply to everybody.And I generally don't respond when someone calls me an A/H on a tennis court because when I was 5 years old I learned that I shouldn't do that. However, if terrorist thugs invaded the U.S. and killed and kidnapped G.I.'s, I would just have to say throw everything you have at them till they are no longer a threat. So by the same logic you would understand if the USA kidnapped two suspected terrorists and so the countrymen of those terrorists started bombing US targets? That's too bad because we're already kidnapped a lot more than 2 people (see Guantanamo).I learned that at an early age as well. With regard to the web site KK posted, I saw a similar program on CNN over the weekend that was virtually identical in content to KK's website. Most of it is a matter of public record, like it or not. Even if it's all true, how does it justify killing innocent civilians?

The way the bias manifests itself at Massad2000.com is when they editorialize: Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on and gobbled up all of Israel.

After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! And so on.Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war AND some territory, no one on the planet would expect the winner to give back anything! This not only sounds preposterous, it IS preposterous! But the "loser" can try to win it back, no?

Again, I feel bad for all the civilians there who would simply like a peaceful, humble existence. They're caught up in things they have no control over to some extent. I'm trying to understand both sides. Whatever. I know that's a sign of weakness in the USA but...

ThePlungerMan
07-31-2006, 09:52 PM
I'm trying to understand both sides.
Study the Bible (new and old testaments) and the Quran. Then it will all be crystal clear. :D

Phil
07-31-2006, 10:13 PM
And we supported the Taliban.
When? Where? From what I understand, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were the ONLY countries that supported the Taliban. You may be thinking about another group, like the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War?
Well that's the thing right there, people seem to think it's fine when mass killings are done under the right sanctioning. And it's not an idea totally without merit, but just saying that a lot of people who support Israel and the USA do so with slavish devotion, as in by virtue of it being done by the USA it's right, not because the action itself is objectively justifiable.
I'm not sure I get this "mass killings" thing. War is one thing, but ethnic and racial cleansing, or religious war is another...you may want to distinguish...because there ARE distinctions...you seem to lump "killing" into one bin, with the same motives and intent everywhere. While killing per-se is bad, there are instances when it's even beyond the pale-like, for instance, attacking civilians solely on the basis of their religion or ethnic group. LUMPING like this does not do much for your "argument".
Dude, that's nuts. It's not like I "agree" with everything Chomsky says, although when I do disagree it's done sheepishly, knowing that I'm disagreeing with a person with an incredible intellect who seriously STUDIES these matters, pouring over primary sources and whatnot. If you seriously believe Richard Pearle and Chomsky are equally inductive when it comes to their worldviews, then I think we're very close to finding our point of departure.
You seem to be parroting if not his words, than his general view. That's your perogative, of course. The intelligence of an author or theorist is no reason to self-censor yourself from criticizing the person. Chomsky and any number of conservative thinkers, etc., may be brilliant, but just because I am not doesn't mean I'm not entitiled to my opinion. You seem like you'd be a perfect pawn of a totalitarian state, just as long as the leaders were "smarter" than you.
My point being that in the US media the only pictures of Arabs we see are of them angrily protesting, or with black masks on carrying grenade launchers, or their children dressed like suicide bombers. Basically, they're dehumanized. I'm sure the Arab press does the exact same thing with Americans.
You're "sure"? Have you READ what the Arab press writes about Americans and Jews/Israelis? While there may be a bias in the US media, the images they show are still newsworthy. Producing a "documentary" on the anti-Semitic tome "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", as Egyptian TV did, would make even Joesph Goebells beam with pride. The typical Arab press is RIFE with the nastiest anti-Semitic and anti-American images.
So do the Jews who move their families to Israel.
False analogy.
In their thinking, Israel is a military state, every citizen is a soldier. Doesn't excuse them one bit, just explaining their way of thinking. Israel just killed a bunch of kids in Lebanon, but they probably had military value. Shoot, I bet Hezbollah planted those kids their hoping they'd be bombed. Sarcasm.
Your sarcasm is not appreciated. No one with a brain or a heart condones that bombing-it's part of the tragedy of war. Hezbollah started the war, and although no one in your camp would dare say it, some blame for those kids' deaths must be ascribed to Hezbollah for starting a war, out of the blue. They KNEW civilians would die, but they don't seem to care. It's good "PR" for them to show the world what butchers the IAF is, while in Lebanon, there are only the victims.
That's absolutely NOT true. He mainly focuses on the USA but he spreads plenty of blame around. I just read somewhere about the term "anti-american," how the most recent equivalent was the term "anti-sovietism," an all-purpose term that can be thrown at anything you want to discredit without actually having to take the time to understand or address the thing you're disparaging. It's a label used against Chomsky quite a bit.
I've read some of his stuff, and I disagree. It's absolutely TRUE. You can say I don't understand him, or haven't read him and that I'm just throwing out labels...but...you're wrong if you do.
Don't you think the Israeli government puts their people at risk when they raze Arab homes and replace the area with a Jewish settlement?
Yes, but Jewish settlements are no longer an issue here. They've put a moratorium on building new ones, and as you may have seen with the Gaza pull-out, many settlers were moved back into Israel proper. In return for this pull-out, Israel got rockets being fired from inside of Gaza. So, your comment here is irrelevant to the current debate.
You didn't know Hezbollah has a civilian arm that builds hospitals, clinics, schools, and rebuilds infrastructure?
Yeah, I do; guess you didn't catch the tone of my comment there. Happens on the Internet. As I said previously, these hospitals come with a price. If ALL they did were to provide social services, that would be fantastic, but that's just to solidify their base so they can operate out of Lebanon as they were meant to do-as an anti-Israeli guerilla group.
Dude, I can understand Israel's position. My allegiance lies more with them than with the Arabs.
No, I don't think you DO understand Israel's position. No one is asking you to declare alligiance here...if you want to sympathize with Hezbollah and its totally altruistic, no-strings-attached hospital-building agenda, then that's your choice. Or else sympathize with anyone BUT the Israelis. I don't care, but try not to contradict yourself.
As for the ultra hardcore Islamic militants of the world, I have no love for them whatsoever.
Well geez, that's good to know.
BTW, there are Israeli's that feel the same way I do. I read a blog from an Israeli soldier somewhere, he firmly believes Israel needs to vacate the Gaza Strip and help establish a sovereign Palestinian state.
Israel is a democracy, with free thinking people. You will see fairly vibrant differences of opinion on Arab-Israeli issues in Israel, while in the Arab nations most people robotically parrot the standard (anti-Israeli) "Party Line". Personally, I'm ambivalent. The Arabs-the non-terrorists-are people too, and deserve to live with dignitiy and security, just like anyone else. But there are a few among the many who manipulate the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to perpetuate a never-ending cycle of violence. They'll never stop until the Arabs themselves stop it. But in the meantime, Israel is stuck having to make choices that in the long run, affect its very survival. Some of those choices are poor choices, but that's war.

alienhamster
07-31-2006, 10:37 PM
However, if terrorist thugs invaded the U.S. and killed and kidnapped G.I.'s, I would just have to say throw everything you have at them till they are no longer a threat. I learned that at an early age as well. Geez, what kind of elementary school did you attend there, tennis-n-sc? It's pretty open-minded of them to open their doors to terrorist thugs, but it must have made the playground pretty rough.

Oh, that's rich! A bunch of looneys who make up their own "rules" for war ... and then try to impose them on others. Sheesh!

That's like the touchy-feely kid from my Grade School playground, who would "appoint" himself Peacemaker in a fight ... and end up getting the snot beat out of him by both fighters. Thanks for the chuckle, 35ft6.So, KK, is there no place for peacemakers in this world? For diplomacy and conflict resolution BEFORE and alongside military action, only when military action is *ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY*? I don't think Jesus would be too impressed with your cynicism there. (Wasn't there something about turning the other cheek, the meek inheriting the earth, etc. somewhere in that big ole important book?)

I'm guessing you're just bristling at the potential hubris of one claiming oneself to be a peacemaker. But man, somebody's gotta do it when no one else will.

So, what is Masada2000 exactly?

nickybol
08-01-2006, 02:14 AM
We need more of those peacemakers? More Gandhis, more Mandelas.

Sorry I didn`t read the rest of the thread because it was too long. If anybody asked me questions in earlier posts I didn`t answer, please post them again.

35ft6
08-01-2006, 06:15 AM
When? Where? From what I understand, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were the ONLY countries that supported the Taliban. You may be thinking about another group, like the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War? If not official full blown governmental endorsement, they at wanted to do business (pipeline through Afghanistan) with the Taliban enough to receive their envoys in Houston and Washington DC, including visits to the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council.I'm not sure I get this "mass killings" thing. War is one thing, but ethnic and racial cleansing, or religious war is another...you may want to distinguish...because there ARE distinctions...you seem to lump "killing" into one bin, with the same motives and intent everywhere. And I guess I would lump killing to secure a country's natural resources in the name of American consumption into the same category. The distinction I'm trying to make is that I don't see a clear moral upper hand in this particular conflict. Israel is right but not by an overwhelming margin. In the USA support of Israel is unequivocal, but in the rest of the world not quite so. I just feel like some people are taking a rather cavalier stance on Israel's actions...

Which, again, I'm saying are just TOO MUCH. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, but the punishment does not fit the crime IMO.While killing per-se is bad, there are instances when it's even beyond the pale-like, for instance, attacking civilians solely on the basis of their religion or ethnic group. LUMPING like this does not do much for your "argument". I think there's land, pride, and dead relatives fueling the mayhem also. By the same token, Israeli's aren't killing Lebanese simply because they're Arabs.You seem to be parroting if not his words, than his general view. That's your perogative, of course. The intelligence of an author or theorist is no reason to self-censor yourself from criticizing the person. Who said "censure?" I said sheepish. And as for parroting his words, I'm not even sure if you're familiar with Chomsky because of stuff like:Chomsky and any number of conservative thinkers, etc., may be brilliant, but just because I am not doesn't mean I'm not entitiled to my opinion. Chomsky a conservative thinker? That's a new one.You seem like you'd be a perfect pawn of a totalitarian state, just as long as the leaders were "smarter" than you. Where the heck did that come from? Yeah, a person who questions his government and those who his government officially endorses is the perfect pawn for a "totalitarian state." It's not simply that he's smarter, it's that fact that he's a brilliant intellectual PLUS he does an incredible amount of SERIOUS research into these matters. Compare that to the average person who gets their news from Fox and a brief segment on TV -- in between the spaces of a segment on "can salt kill you?" and a local man with the country's longest mustache -- who feels they're right as a matter of policy. There's actual research to be done on these matters. The official government rendition and what's actually "going on" are often two different things. Nobody seems to get this better than Chomsky. I would be equally sheepish if for whatever reason I "disagreed" with a nobel peace price winning economist on, say, game theory, and maybe some Christians should be sheepish when they try to correct a biologist.You're "sure"? Have you READ what the Arab press writes about Americans and Jews/Israelis? While there may be a bias in the US media, the images they show are still newsworthy. Producing a "documentary" on the anti-Semitic tome "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", as Egyptian TV did, would make even Joesph Goebells beam with pride. The typical Arab press is RIFE with the nastiest anti-Semitic and anti-American images. The USA government, which is the shadow of US corporate rule, is the master of propaganda. We're fed such a steady diet of propaganda we don't even notice it anymore. A significant number of the US population still think Iraq had WMD's. With that said, I do read some foreign papers, even Arab ones, to try to break through the noise, and they do seem a bit more sensationalistic but not by a huge margin. It's easy to spot propaganda when it's being done by a foreign country, harder when it's being done by your own. The way the neo-cons made the case for invading Iraq being a relatively recent prime example.False analogy. How so?Your sarcasm is not appreciated. No one with a brain or a heart condones that bombing-it's part of the tragedy of war.We agree on that.Hezbollah started the war, and although no one in your camp would dare say it, some blame for those kids' deaths must be ascribed to Hezbollah for starting a war, out of the blue. Don't Israel kidnap and/or assassinate suspected terrorist leaders quite frequently? Anyway, if killing three soldiers and kidnapping 2 is justification for destroying a country in your world view, then there's no arguing this point. Hezbollah IMO most certainly started something, but I think Israel's reaction is overblown. That's my central point. Not too long ago didn't an Israeli rocket kill some beachgoers? Is that enough to start a war over?They KNEW civilians would die, but they don't seem to care. It's good "PR" for them to show the world what butchers the IAF is, while in Lebanon, there are only the victims. I don't think anybody could have anticipated the intensity and extent of Israel's response.I've read some of his stuff, and I disagree. It's absolutely TRUE. You can say I don't understand him, or haven't read him and that I'm just throwing out labels...but...you're wrong if you do. This is what I'm talking about. I've probably read way more Chomsky than you, yet you say "it's absolutely true." You can't even get yourself to say "okay, maybe you're right, but still..."Yes, but Jewish settlements are no longer an issue here. They've put a moratorium on building new ones, and as you may have seen with the Gaza pull-out, many settlers were moved back into Israel proper. In return for this pull-out, Israel got rockets being fired from inside of Gaza. So, your comment here is irrelevant to the current debate. How is it irrelevant? You're making a very specific charge, that Hezbollah is bad for putting their people into danger, and I'm countering with an example of Israel doing the same with their own people.Yeah, I do; guess you didn't catch the tone of my comment there. Happens on the Internet. As I said previously, these hospitals come with a price. If ALL they did were to provide social services, that would be fantastic, but that's just to solidify their base so they can operate out of Lebanon as they were meant to do-as an anti-Israeli guerilla group. Hezbollah consists of people who have families, do you suppose it's actually possible that they can hate Israel and love their countrymen at the same time?No, I don't think you DO understand Israel's position. No one is asking you to declare alligiance here...if you want to sympathize with Hezbollah and its totally altruistic, no-strings-attached hospital-building agenda, then that's your choice. Or else sympathize with anyone BUT the Israelis. I don't care, but try not to contradict yourself. And that's what I'm really up against, people who take a black and white, all or nothing approach to every issue. Likewise, I can support the troops while not supporting the cause in Iraq, but a lot of Americans seemed to be confused by such a strange position.Well geez, that's good to know. You don't appreciate my sarcasm. Whatevs...Israel is a democracy, with free thinking people. You will see fairly vibrant differences of opinion on Arab-Israeli issues in Israel, while in the Arab nations most people robotically parrot the standard (anti-Israeli) "Party Line". How do you know what most Arab people think? Did you spend time there? Oh, I forgot, you know this because the US media says so.

Anyway, gotta remind myself I don't come to TW to discuss religion and politics, although I find myself doing just that too often...:-|

Kaptain Karl
08-01-2006, 09:15 AM
So, KK, is there no place for peacemakers in this world?I think I didn't put enough emphasis on my meaning.... My point is, sometimes the person, or organization, which *imposes* itself into a conflict presuming the Peacemaker role, may be well-intentioned. But good intentions, alone, are not enough. A real Peacemaker must have the authority and respect of the parties involved in the conflict. (Or the overwhelming power to back up their presumption.)

Neither the UN, the USA, the European Union and *definitely* none of the Arab countries or organizations have any recognized position of authority or respect to ... insert ... themselves as "peacekeeper" in the Muslim / Israeli strife. The USA *does* have the pure power to do so; but I pray we don't. The E Union *could* also have this power ... but they've shown they cannot make even the easy decisions; they're not going to DO anything. Lastly, HRW is an enormous *joke*. They actually believe they are accomplishing something substantive. HRW is self-deluded....

... I don't think Jesus would be too impressed with your cynicism there.Huh? What does my (what I prefer to call "healty cynicism") have to do with your Biblical reference? (If out out of allignment with Scripture, please enlighten me. I'll rectify it.)

I'm guessing you're just bristling at the potential hubris of one claiming oneself to be a peacemaker."Bristling?" No. HRW brings me nothing but (sad) amusement.

But man, somebody's gotta do it when no one else will.If I didn't already address this enough ^^^ two paragraphs above, let me know.

So, what is Masada2000 exactly?Did you check out their website? This is from it ....

Masada (Hebrew for "Fortress") are the ancient ruins on a mountaintop in the Judean Desert.... Masada  is the most visited of all archeological sites in Israel ...

After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE by the conquering Roman army, 1,000 Jewish zealot resistors and their families fled Jerusalem and took over this remote mountaintop. Under their leader, Eleazar ben Jair, they withstood a 2-year siege by the Roman Tenth Legion.

Then, in 73 CE, the Roman governor Flavius Silva marched against Masada [and] laid siege to it. [In] the spring of the year 74 CE, [Flavius] ... breached the wall of the fortress.

When the Zealot leader, Elazar ben Yair, saw the end nearing, he gathered his people and together they chose death with honor by their own hands rather than being captured alive and becoming slaves to the Romans.

Today, Masada has become a symbol for freedom and independence. Re.cruits [Why's that word filtered?] to the Israel Defense Forces Armored Unit swear the oath of allegiance in an annual ceremony on its summit. Their defiant cry...Masada will never fall again!

(The site actually seems most aimed at reminding everyone "Palestine" is a fabrication.)

There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as "Palestine" and the very notion of a "Palestinian Arab nation" having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world! There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct "Palestinian" culture or language. Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed BY Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964... three years BEFORE the Arabs of "Palestine" lost the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza  as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War (which the Arabs started). Even the so-called leader of the "Palestinian" people, Yasser Arafat, is EGYPTIAN! In short, the so-called Arab "Palestinians" are a manufactured people...a people with no history and no authenticity... whose sole purpose for existence is to destroy the Jewish State!

- KK

mona999
08-01-2006, 12:33 PM
And they are wrong sometimes, and kill innocents, but when they do kill innocents, I do not see them waving the Old Testament around as they do it, as the Christians and Muslims wave their books as the premise for their actions. I do not see anyone DANCING FOR JOY IN THE STREETS, as is the custom in Middle East Muslim neighborhoods following a major terrorist action. Israel, if it's waving anything, is waving its flag-i.e. national security.


Yah, but we see little Israeli children autographing rockets used to kill Palestinian civilians. (hmmmm...) But, then again, these pictures weren't broadcast all over the media such as those of Palestinians dancing in the streets...but I can't blame you, CNN probably didn't show you those images.

Dedans Penthouse
08-01-2006, 01:43 PM
Dedans to Islamists:

Suicide bombers.....Forever playing the blame game on "****" that happened hundreds of years ago.......'courageously' chopping unarmed journalist's heads off (while not having the balls NOT to wear masks and hoods) and all the while FILMING it for Internet viewing.........flying planes into buildings......murdering people under the guise of "holy war" .......claiming the West to be the decadent society yet celebrating in the next breath that if you blow up scores of civilian woman and children, e.g. on a bus, that YOU will be REWARDED with 72 virgins (whose hirsuite backs are presumably clean-shaven?); 72 "chaste" virgins who will ball you to your heart's content---simply because you had the courage to blow up/kill 20 civilian women and their children on a bus???.....hmmmm......has anyone said exactly what kind of "virgins" these are??.....can you get 'em at Wal-mart?.....exactly what kind of god actually PROMISES this sort of "gift?".....this gift of SEX???......and you claim that it is the West is decadant???.....The West is decadent in many respects all right......but.....

....as you (hypocritically) USE the decadent Western-based internet and all the other decadent Western "technological gifts" in order to further support your gross, hypocritical game of full-scale murder in the name of.....of WHATEVER,


One question (it's real simple):

Don't you miserable assh0les have anything fu<king better to do?



(wistfully)......the day we have the brains to go wholly "hydrogen" (no oil $$$) ....... Hey King Faud: so how you like the 15th century, hommie?

By the way, we have racist Muslim scumbags advocating 'murder' in mosques here in America....and 'rights advocates' covering their backs. So, how's the free speech over there?

tennis-n-sc
08-01-2006, 02:37 PM
And they are wrong sometimes, and kill innocents, but when they do kill innocents, I do not see them waving the Old Testament around as they do it, as the Christians and Muslims wave their books as the premise for their actions. I do not see anyone DANCING FOR JOY IN THE STREETS, as is the custom in Middle East Muslim neighborhoods following a major terrorist action. Israel, if it's waving anything, is waving its flag-i.e. national security.


Yah, but we see little Israeli children autographing rockets used to kill Palestinian civilians. (hmmmm...) But, then again, these pictures weren't broadcast all over the media such as those of Palestinians dancing in the streets...but I can't blame you, CNN probably didn't show you those images.

Mona, it is common knowledge, and even admitted by many Arab countries in the Middle East, that Israel has done virtually all it can to minimize injury to civilians in Lebanon. In all the wars fought in that region over the last 40 years, I have never seen any credible evidence that IDF has ever targeted civilians. The Muslims who have been stupid enough to go to war with Israel have always targeted civilians in Israel and are doing it now. While the loss of life in this conflict is a tragedy, the people in southern Lebanon have had ample warning with regard to getting out. My only guess is that Hezbollah has somehow prevented the escape, perhaps to hide among the civilians and fire their rockets, brave warriors that they are. With regard to CNN, I have to say that I think their spin has been favor of Hezbollah. It has become virtually impossible to get an objective newscast but allow me to offer a suggestion. If you are going to use Al Jezera as your main news source, try to temper it a little with FOX News.

FalconX
08-01-2006, 03:32 PM
Mona, it is common knowledge, and even admitted by many Arab countries in the Middle East, that Israel has done virtually all it can to minimize injury to civilians in Lebanon. In all the wars fought in that region over the last 40 years, I have never seen any credible evidence that IDF has ever targeted civilians.

obviously the christian news networks in America haven't reported everything. Otherwise you must have heard about the Qibya massacre carried out by none other than the evangelical hero, the reincarnation of jesus, the legend, Mr. Ariel Sharon.

tennis-n-sc
08-01-2006, 05:52 PM
obviously the christian news networks in America haven't reported everything. Otherwise you must have heard about the Qibya massacre carried out by none other than the evangelical hero, the reincarnation of jesus, the legend, Mr. Ariel Sharon.

Falcon, I thought you had gone on to spread untruths in another thread. Sorry, not familiar with the incident above but I am sure others will respond without me having to do an intensive search on the web. Speaking of idiots, we were weren't we, did you see the news today where the great one of Iran told the UN to get fu*ked with regard to their peaceful nuclear program. Don't you think someone is gonna have to go clean that place out next?

alienhamster
08-01-2006, 06:02 PM
I think I didn't put enough emphasis on my meaning.... My point is, sometimes the person, or organization, which *imposes* itself into a conflict presuming the Peacemaker role, may be well-intentioned. But good intentions, alone, are not enough. A real Peacemaker must have the authority and respect of the parties involved in the conflict. (Or the overwhelming power to back up their presumption.)

Neither the UN, the USA, the European Union and *definitely* none of the Arab countries or organizations have any recognized position of authority or respect to ... insert ... themselves as "peacekeeper" in the Muslim / Israeli strife. The USA *does* have the pure power to do so; but I pray we don't. The E Union *could* also have this power ... but they've shown they cannot make even the easy decisions; they're not going to DO anything. Lastly, HRW is an enormous *joke*. They actually believe they are accomplishing something substantive. HRW is self-deluded....

Huh? What does my (what I prefer to call "healty cynicism") have to do with your Biblical reference? (If out out of allignment with Scripture, please enlighten me. I'll rectify it.)

"Bristling?" No. HRW brings me nothing but (sad) amusement.

If I didn't already address this enough ^^^ two paragraphs above, let me know.

Did you check out their website? This is from it ....

Masada (Hebrew for "Fortress") are the ancient ruins on a mountaintop in the Judean Desert.... Masada  is the most visited of all archeological sites in Israel ...

After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE by the conquering Roman army, 1,000 Jewish zealot resistors and their families fled Jerusalem and took over this remote mountaintop. Under their leader, Eleazar ben Jair, they withstood a 2-year siege by the Roman Tenth Legion.

Then, in 73 CE, the Roman governor Flavius Silva marched against Masada [and] laid siege to it. [In] the spring of the year 74 CE, [Flavius] ... breached the wall of the fortress.

When the Zealot leader, Elazar ben Yair, saw the end nearing, he gathered his people and together they chose death with honor by their own hands rather than being captured alive and becoming slaves to the Romans.

Today, Masada has become a symbol for freedom and independence. Re.cruits [Why's that word filtered?] to the Israel Defense Forces Armored Unit swear the oath of allegiance in an annual ceremony on its summit. Their defiant cry...Masada will never fall again!

(The site actually seems most aimed at reminding everyone "Palestine" is a fabrication.)

There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as "Palestine" and the very notion of a "Palestinian Arab nation" having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world! There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct "Palestinian" culture or language. Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed BY Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964... three years BEFORE the Arabs of "Palestine" lost the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza  as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War (which the Arabs started). Even the so-called leader of the "Palestinian" people, Yasser Arafat, is EGYPTIAN! In short, the so-called Arab "Palestinians" are a manufactured people...a people with no history and no authenticity... whose sole purpose for existence is to destroy the Jewish State!

- KKNo, Karl. You did a good job explaining yourself here. (Your original statement did sound like a scoffing at peacemaking, but I understand your position better now. Including the Christian influence.)

The only thing I'd quibble with is the certainty with which that website dismisses "Palestine" as an artifical construct. In some sense, EVERY nation is ALWAYS an artificial construct. Whether or not this construct is granted "nation" status depends on its own power as well as the recognition and acceptance by other powerful peoples/nations. This has been a truism throughout history (or at least since the late medieval period, depending on how narrow your defintion of nation is.) Moreover, pretty much every nation fictionalizes its past (to some extent) in order for it to seem legit and long-standing.

But is their "soul purpose"--as a nation--to destroy Israel? That's a little far-fetched (though I know there are crazies who do believe this).

David L
08-01-2006, 08:51 PM
It's a bit more specific than that. There are a number of places that both the Jews and the Muslims consider high holy ground. Jeruselem is one of those places. That's the simplest reason.
The more complicated is the existance of fanatical right wing radical Muslim groups who believe that anyone who is not a Muslim has no right to live. These groups are very loud and make more noise than the other less fanatical Muslims so they have become the 'face' of Islam unfortuantly.
They are all we seem to hear about because the newspeople seem to think that bad news is the only news that sells. "Everything is fine in (pick the city)" is far less interesting than "a bomb has been exploded... news at 11"

This is all totally false. I can see you have been watching the news a lot, and I don't say that sarcastically, because the mainstream news is the primary source of misinformation when it comes to world events. It is particularly bad in the States. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS and more, all report the news inadequately. To get anything resembling the truth, you have to go to alternative news sources. Be wary of the news, so much of it is racially, ideologically and nationally tinged, and very often subconsciously.

As is the case whenever one encounters different religions or philosophies, there will always be some ideological antagonism between them. This however need not translate into hatred and war. For this, something else has to happen. Usually this takes the form of some large scale self-interested action on the part of one group, adversely affecting another group. If this happens on a big enough scale, then all those previous little differences will become exacerbated. So which event triggered off this deterioration in relations? The formation of Israel.

Why the muslims hate the jews 101. After the second world war, some Arab land in Palestine was given to the Jewish people by the western powers. This upset the Arab countries, especially the Palestinians, who united to wage a war against the newly formed Israel and kick the Jewish people out. Why were the Palestinians and the Arabs upset? Because some of their land had been taken from under their noses, without their permission, and given to someone else. Israel, with the help of American muscle, succeeded in defeating the Arab countries and taking even more land than they were given in the first place, displacing even more Palestinians and Arabs. This upset the Arabs even more. Arab countries tend to have a high concentration of Muslims. Islam, which is another term for the Muslim religion, places a high emphasis on Muslims developing a strong camaraderie with other Muslims, regardless of country. Consequently, nationalism and patriotism comes after brotherhood between Muslims. So when their fellow Muslims in Palestine had their land taken from them, all other non-Palestinian Muslims were upset as well. They blamed the Jewish people, some of whom were occupying a large portion of Arab land. Hence the hatred.

Here's a little more background.

Ever since the Jewish people had been kicked out of the Palestinian territories by the Romans over 2000 years ago, there had always been elements in the jewish community that wanted to return, they were known as zionists. The horrendous crime of the holocaust during World War II provided the opportunity for zionists to apply more pressure on the western governments to help them create a homeland in Palestine. The western powers, in particular Britain, were relutant to bring this about, well aware that the Palestinians and Arabs might be upset with this usurpation. Besides, Britain had already promised the Palestinians self-determination from their colonial oppressors, the Ottoman Turks, during the First World War, if the Palestinians fought against Germany, who had formed an alliance with the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinains had fulfilled their side of the bargain, now it was Britain's turn. However, after the Second World War, Britain found it increasingly difficult to maintain the mandate it had given the Palestinians. Two zionist terrorist organizations, Irgun and Lehi, continually attacked civilian targets and the British army protecting the Palestinians, in an attempt to force them to withdraw, so that a Jewish homeland could be created by mass immigration. The attacks ****ed the British off, to the point where they decided to withdraw and hand the problem to the U.N. The U.N solution was to give some Palestinian land to the zionists. The rest is history.

Muslims and a lot of the world feel that the Palestinians have suffered a major injustice and they are understandably upset. So upset that groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah were created to fight the Israeli occupation. To some they are freedom fighters, to others they are terrorists. Ironically they use similar tactics to those once employed in the formation of Israel by the Jewish groups Irgun and Lehi. I guess the moral of the story is that violence begets violence.

America's part in this is less than honourable. From the beginning they were against Britain's presence in Palestine during the mandate, because they were suspicious that it might have colonial intentions. When Israel was created, they supported it financially and militarily, for strategic, religious, ideolgical, and racial reasons, but not out of a sense of justice.

Some Jewish people are convinced that Israel has a divine right to exist, ironically orthodox Jews tend to be anti-zionist. Something about their religion saying it was Gods intention that Jews should not have a homeland. The secular view that I have is that no religion should confer rights over territory to any group. However, we are now past this point and what is done is done. There have been subsequent generations from the original Jewish settlers after World War II. A solution has to be found so that everyone can co-exist peacefully, however, it is mine and manys feeling that the olive branch of reconcilliation should come from the Israelis, because they started this mess. Before the aggressive campaign by the zionists to create Israel, Jews and Muslims lived peacfully together, but those strong arm tactics soured that relationship and the Israelis seem intent on antagonising it further.

The hatred was never about religion, it was always about the right to land, but religion was brought to the fore once the lines were drawn.

Phil
08-01-2006, 09:08 PM
If not official full blown governmental endorsement, they at wanted to do business (pipeline through Afghanistan) with the Taliban enough to receive their envoys in Houston and Washington DC, including visits to the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council.
So did everyone else...and long before the Talibs came to power. The US NEVER supported the Taliban. In 1998 we shot $70 million worth of missiles into 'stan and before that, shunned the Talibs.
And I guess I would lump killing to secure a country's natural resources in the name of American consumption into the same category. The distinction I'm trying to make is that I don't see a clear moral upper hand in this particular conflict. Israel is right but not by an overwhelming margin. In the USA support of Israel is unequivocal, but in the rest of the world not quite so. I just feel like some people are taking a rather cavalier stance on Israel's actions...
Right...morally, no one is 100% right, but outside of the US, just about every country is anti-Israel. They are pariahs.
Which, again, I'm saying are just TOO MUCH. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, but the punishment does not fit the crime IMO.
In modern warfare, I'm not sure there's EVER an "equal" response. Israel's military, like the US, was built around a conventional warfare concept-i.e. meeting large and conventional enemies on a demarcated field of battle. They have to use what they have against an enemy that fights by hiding behind women and children. Blame Israel all you want for overkill, but you don't seem to understand the tactical situation that they're facing.
Who said "censure?" I said sheepish. And as for parroting his words, I'm not even sure if you're familiar with Chomsky because of stuff like: Chomsky a conservative thinker? That's a new one. Where the heck did that come from?
I didn't lump him in with conservatives. Read that again, won't you?
Yeah, a person who questions his government and those who his government officially endorses is the perfect pawn for a "totalitarian state." It's not simply that he's smarter, it's that fact that he's a brilliant intellectual PLUS he does an incredible amount of SERIOUS research into these matters. There's actual research to be done on these matters. The official government rendition and what's actually "going on" are often two different things. Nobody seems to get this better than Chomsky. I would be equally sheepish if for whatever reason I "disagreed" with a nobel peace price winning economist on, say, game theory, and maybe some Christians should be sheepish when they try to correct a biologist.
The grand Iman of al-Azhar University in Cairo-basically the primary scholarly interpreter of Islam in the Islamic world today, is probably, in his own way, a brilliant guy, who does "lots of research". He certainly didn't attain his position by being dumb. Neither did the Pope. Still, I don't agree with many of their dictums. They're smarter than I am, as is Chomsky...but I don't "sheepishly" agree with them because I think I'm at least smart enough to be able to construct my own opinions, some of which are contrary to the people I mentioned. Doesn't mean I DISCOUNT what they say...not at all.
The USA government, which is the shadow of US corporate rule, is the master of propaganda. We're fed such a steady diet of propaganda we don't even notice it anymore. A significant number of the US population still think Iraq had WMD's. With that said, I do read some foreign papers, even Arab ones, to try to break through the noise, and they do seem a bit more sensationalistic but not by a huge margin. It's easy to spot propaganda when it's being done by a foreign country, harder when it's being done by your own. The way the neo-cons made the case for invading Iraq being a relatively recent prime example.
You keep going back to the US, using it as your red herring...that has nothing to do with this discussion, but you can't avoid trying to make the comparison. Yes, I know the mainstream US media is pock marked with garbage, but you obviously haven't seen Arab propaganda. You just haven't-not really, not anything signficant; otherwise you wouldn't have made such an ill-informed statement.
Don't Israel kidnap and/or assassinate suspected terrorist leaders quite frequently?
Why do you say "suspected"; do you doubt that the people targeted by Israel are terrorists? You're like the BBC, who are afraid to call Osama bin Laden a "terrorist".
Anyway, if killing three soldiers and kidnapping 2 is justification for destroying a country in your world view, then there's no arguing this point.
You don't seem to understand the consequences for Israel if they would have reacted mutely against this action. It would open the floodgates to more operation by Hezbollah.
Hezbollah IMO most certainly started something, but I think Israel's reaction is overblown. That's my central point. Not too long ago didn't an Israeli rocket kill some beachgoers?
I'm not so sure the reaction is overblown. The people killed on the beach MAY have been killed by a Palestinian rocket. It's not been proven that Israel killed them. Either way, it's horrible that they had to die.
Is that enough to start a war over? I don't think anybody could have anticipated the intensity and extent of Israel's response.
Hezbollah's action-kidnapping two soldiers and KILLING 8 is, to me, an act of war. So what would YOU call it? A minor skirmish? And OF COURSE Hezbollah anticipated a possible military reaction. They aren't going to SAY THAT publically...that would make them INSTANTLY culpable for causing the havoc in Lebanon and strip them of their "victim" status. The important thing for them is to rally international condemnation of Israel (which is usually inevitable anyway), and they're not going to say anything to sabatoge that.  These are very cagey people...they are very good tactians, because they have gone against the best...and done well. So don't even pull that naive stuff that they anticipate such a reaction. All military planners look at EVERY possible outcome...and a massive miltary retaliation would have been near the top of that list as Hezbollah's military and political leadership planned this operation FIVE MONTHS AGO.
This is what I'm talking about. I've probably read way more Chomsky than you, yet you say "it's absolutely true." You can't even get yourself to say "okay, maybe you're right, but still..."
Maybe you have read "way more" Chomsky than I have...seems like you've swallowed his writings without question. I've read him, but certainly not nearly everything he's written.
You're making a very specific charge, that Hezbollah is bad for putting their people into danger, and I'm countering with an example of Israel doing the same with their own people.
Israel permitted settlements, and that was a mistake. They ceretainly did put their people in danger, but THOSE PEOPLE VOLUNEERED...they knew the danger they were getting into...they're loonies anyway. The Lebanese people, on the other hand, by and large, cannot be happy about the position that Hezbollah has put them in, involuntarily.
Hezbollah consists of people who have families, do you suppose it's actually possible that they can hate Israel and love their countrymen at the same time?
Yeah, it's possible and probable, but what is MORE important to them is their "cause" and that cause is worth not only dying for, but for others to die too...after all, they become martryrs and in the end, "It's all good".
And that's what I'm really up against, people who take a black and white, all or nothing approach to every issue. Likewise, I can support the troops while not supporting the cause in Iraq, but a lot of Americans seemed to be confused by such a strange position.
If that's a strange position, then I guess I'm strange. I despise what Bush has done to this country and its foreign policy, but I support our troops, wherever they may be sent.
How do you know what most Arab people think? Did you spend time there? Oh, I forgot, you know this because the US media says so.
No, it's because Noam Chomsky says so. I know the general position of the Arabs based on what I've read and seen (Yes, I've spent some time "there". Never been to Israel, though...).

David L
08-01-2006, 09:15 PM
This is all totally false. I can see you have been watching the news a lot, and I don't say that sarcastically, because the mainstream news is the primary source of misinformation when it comes to world events. It is particularly bad in the States. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS and more, all report the news inadequately. To get anything resembling the truth, you have to go to alternative news sources. Be wary of the news, so much of it is racially, ideologically and nationally tinged, and very often subconsciously.

As is the case whenever one encounters different religions or philosophies, there will always be some ideological antagonism between them. This however need not translate into hatred and war. For this, something else has to happen. Usually this takes the form of some large scale self-interested action on the part of one group, adversely affecting another group. If this happens on a big enough scale, then all those previous little differences will become exacerbated. So which event triggered off this deterioration in relations? The formation of Israel.

Why the muslims hate the jews 101. After the second world war, some Arab land in Palestine was given to the Jewish people by the western powers. This upset the Arab countries, especially the Palestinians, who united to wage a war against the newly formed Israel and kick the Jewish people out. Why were the Palestinians and the Arabs upset? Because some of their land had been taken from under their noses, without their permission, and given to someone else. Israel, with the help of American muscle, succeeded in defeating the Arab countries and taking even more land than they were given in the first place, displacing even more Palestinians and Arabs. This upset the Arabs even more. Arab countries tend to have a high concentration of Muslims. Islam, which is another term for the Muslim religion, places a high emphasis on Muslims developing a strong camaraderie with other Muslims, regardless of country. Consequently, nationalism and patriotism comes after brotherhood between Muslims. So when their fellow Muslims in Palestine had their land taken from them, all other non-Palestinian Muslims were upset as well. They blamed the Jewish people, some of whom were occupying a large portion of Arab land. Hence the hatred.

Here's a little more background.

Ever since the Jewish people had been kicked out of the Palestinian territories by the Romans over 2000 years ago, there had always been elements in the jewish community that wanted to return, they were known as zionists. The horrendous crime of the holocaust during World War II provided the opportunity for zionists to apply more pressure on the western governments to help them create a homeland in Palestine. The western powers, in particular Britain, were relutant to bring this about, well aware that the Palestinians and Arabs might be upset with this usurpation. Besides, Britain had already promised the Palestinians self-determination from their colonial oppressors, the Ottoman Turks, during the First World War, if the Palestinians fought against Germany, who had formed an alliance with the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinains had fulfilled their side of the bargain, now it was Britain's turn. However, after the Second World War, Britain found it increasingly difficult to maintain the mandate it had given the Palestinians. Two zionist terrorist organizations, Irgun and Lehi, continually attacked civilian targets and the British army protecting the Palestinians, in an attempt to force them to withdraw, so that a Jewish homeland could be created by mass immigration. The attacks ****ed the British off, to the point where they decided to withdraw and hand the problem to the U.N. The U.N solution was to give some Palestinian land to the zionists. The rest is history.

Muslims and a lot of the world feel that the Palestinians have suffered a major injustice and they are understandably upset. So upset that groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah were created to fight the Israeli occupation. To some they are freedom fighters, to others they are terrorists. Ironically they use similar tactics to those once employed in the formation of Israel by the Jewish groups Irgun and Lehi. I guess the moral of the story is that violence begets violence.

America's part in this is less than honourable. From the beginning they were against Britain's presence in Palestine during the mandate, because they were suspicious that it might have colonial intentions. When Israel was created, they supported it financially and militarily, for strategic, religious, ideolgical, and racial reasons, but not out of a sense of justice.

Some Jewish people are convinced that Israel has a divine right to exist, ironically orthodox Jews tend to be anti-zionist. Something about their religion saying it was Gods intention that Jews should not have a homeland. The secular view that I have is that no religion should confer rights over territory to any group. However, we are now past this point and what is done is done. There have been subsequent generations from the original Jewish settlers after World War II. A solution has to be found so that everyone can co-exist peacefully, however, it is mine and manys feeling that the olive branch of reconcilliation should come from the Israelis, because they started this mess. Before the aggressive campaign by the zionists to create Israel, Jews and Muslims lived peacfully together, but those strong arm tactics soured that relationship and the Israelis seem intent on antagonising it further.

The hatred was never about religion, it was always about the right to land, but religion was brought to the fore once the lines were drawn.

I should have added that I don't believe every Muslim hates every Jew or vice versa, however the reason for the tension between the two is because of the way in which Israel was created or the fact it was created at all.

Phil
08-01-2006, 09:40 PM
So when their fellow Muslims in Palestine had their land taken from them, all other non-Palestinian Muslims were upset as well. They blamed the Jewish people, some of whom were occupying a large portion of Arab land. Hence the hatred.

Yeah, right. We all know that it's all about that "Large Portion" of "Arab" land...

http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/arabwrld.htm

David L
08-01-2006, 10:27 PM
Yeah, right. We all know that it's all about that "Large Portion" of "Arab" land...

http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/arabwrld.htm

The portion of land is still sizable. If not in the context of the entire Arab land, then certainly in the context of the land originally awarded to the Palestinians. After all, this conflict is about the Palestinians, not all the other Arab countries. Israel actually got more than 50% of the land in the original U.N partition. In any case, the size is irrelevant. The injustice still stands, regardless of size. The Balfour Declaration was once described as one nation solemnly promising to another nation the country of a third. I don't think any nation would be too pleased if a group of people took up residence in a part of their country, uninvited.

Phil
08-01-2006, 11:09 PM
The portion of land is still sizable. If not in the context of the entire Arab land, then certainly in the context of the land originally awarded to the Palestinians. After all, this conflict is about the Palestinians, not all the other Arab countries. Israel actually got more than 50% of the land in the original U.N partition. In any case, the size is irrelevant. The injustice still stands, regardless of size. The Balfour Declaration was once described as one nation solemnly promising to another nation the country of a third. I don't think any nation would be too pleased if a group of people took up residence in a part of their country, uninvited.

The portion of land is 1/800 the size of the Arab Middle East. The size is, indeed relevant, as is the location.

This conflict involves the other Arab countries or Arab groups because they have attacked Israel, and also the US in the name of Palestine. Not that it SHOULD involve them, but it does.

The Palestinians were not "invited" to the Holy Land either. Contrary to the mass media and your own pseudo-history, Israel or whatever you choose to call it, was not inhabited by the Palestinians for 1,000's of years. The "Palestinians" originally lived in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and present-day Syria and were lured to Israel with the prospect of jobs once the "Zionists" started turning a useless desert into a habitable, sustainable land.

"Palestine" was, for most of known history, scrubland and desert, until the Jews came there and began turning it into a garden. "Palestine" was only controlled by Arabs for a short period of history-prior to the Crusades and just after it (before the Ottoman Empire took control). "Palestine" is the Arab world's excuse to occupy Israel, and the Palestinian people have been used and manipulated by the rest of the Arab/Muslim world to keep the pressure on Israel and divert the attention of Arabs worldwide outward, away from their own countries' corrupt and abusive regimes. If this issue didn't exist, the Arab nations (and Iran) would have to invent it...oh wait...

Egypt and Jordan took just as much, if not more land after 1917 as was allocated for Israel. More evidence that the other Arab countries are manipulating this issues: they don't offer citizenship to Palestinians, voting rights, etc. The Israelis offer citizenship, voting rights AND even the right to run for office (Palestinians occupy some seats in the Knesset). Why don't other Arab countries, out of sympathy for their Arab brothers, take them in as citizens? To keep the sore open-to keep the hope alive that people will focus on taking control of Israel.

nickybol
08-02-2006, 04:01 AM
Don`t forget that Britain promised the Palestinians not only an independent state, but they promised the whole Islamic world one big Muslim state.

bluegrasser
08-02-2006, 05:03 AM
Dedans to Islamists:

Suicide bombers.....Forever playing the blame game on "****" that happened hundreds of years ago.......'courageously' chopping unarmed journalist's heads off (while not having the balls NOT to wear masks and hoods) and all the while FILMING it for Internet viewing.........flying planes into buildings......murdering people under the guise of "holy war" .......claiming the West to be the decadent society yet celebrating in the next breath that if you blow up scores of civilian woman and children, e.g. on a bus, that YOU will be REWARDED with 72 virgins (whose hirsuite backs are presumably clean-shaven?); 72 "chaste" virgins who will ball you to your heart's content---simply because you had the courage to blow up/kill 20 civilian women and their children on a bus???.....hmmmm......has anyone said exactly what kind of "virgins" these are??.....can you get 'em at Wal-mart?.....exactly what kind of god actually PROMISES this sort of "gift?".....this gift of SEX???......and you claim that it is the West is decadant???.....The West is decadent in many respects all right......but.....

....as you (hypocritically) USE the decadent Western-based internet and all the other decadent Western "technological gifts" in order to further support your gross, hypocritical game of full-scale murder in the name of.....of WHATEVER,


One question (it's real simple):

Don't you miserable assh0les have anything fu<king better to do?



(wistfully)......the day we have the brains to go wholly "hydrogen" (no oil $$$) ....... Hey King Faud: so how you like the 15th century, hommie?

By the way, we have racist Muslim scumbags advocating 'murder' in mosques here in America....and 'rights advocates' covering their backs. So, how's the free speech over there?

Couldn't of said it better myself, this post is worthy of some frame and glass.

David L
08-02-2006, 08:25 AM
The portion of land is 1/800 the size of the Arab Middle East. The size is, indeed relevant, as is the location.

This conflict involves the other Arab countries or Arab groups because they have attacked Israel, and also the US in the name of Palestine. Not that it SHOULD involve them, but it does.

The Palestinians were not "invited" to the Holy Land either. Contrary to the mass media and your own pseudo-history, Israel or whatever you choose to call it, was not inhabited by the Palestinians for 1,000's of years. The "Palestinians" originally lived in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and present-day Syria and were lured to Israel with the prospect of jobs once the "Zionists" started turning a useless desert into a habitable, sustainable land.

"Palestine" was, for most of known history, scrubland and desert, until the Jews came there and began turning it into a garden. "Palestine" was only controlled by Arabs for a short period of history-prior to the Crusades and just after it (before the Ottoman Empire took control). "Palestine" is the Arab world's excuse to occupy Israel, and the Palestinian people have been used and manipulated by the rest of the Arab/Muslim world to keep the pressure on Israel and divert the attention of Arabs worldwide outward, away from their own countries' corrupt and abusive regimes. If this issue didn't exist, the Arab nations (and Iran) would have to invent it...oh wait...

Egypt and Jordan took just as much, if not more land after 1917 as was allocated for Israel. More evidence that the other Arab countries are manipulating this issues: they don't offer citizenship to Palestinians, voting rights, etc. The Israelis offer citizenship, voting rights AND even the right to run for office (Palestinians occupy some seats in the Knesset). Why don't other Arab countries, out of sympathy for their Arab brothers, take them in as citizens? To keep the sore open-to keep the hope alive that people will focus on taking control of Israel.

Israel got more than 50% of the land originally awarded to the Palestinians. Size is not relevant. I live in England which, if one takes into consideration the entire expanse of European land, is small, but English inhabitants are not concerned about the relative size of England in the context of the rest of Europe, they are just concerned about the land they inhabit. If any of it, even a remote, underdeveloped, sparsely populated part of it were given to someone else without consultation, due to the pushy insistence of that group, some English folk might have something to say about that.

In this hypothetical situation, lets say that the awarders of this land were a group of Arab countries who had successfully won a war with some assistance from the English inhabitants, and were now reorganizing the borders of some countries, as tends to be the prerogative of the victor, but essentially knew little about the European region. As the uninvited group were occupying this remote part of England, is it implausible to imagine that England's European friends, as well as the Welsh, Scottish and Irish regions might come to their assitance to help repel these new unwanted inhabitants?

Now countries rarely if ever act out of altruism. Let's say that while these European countries and the regions around England were prepared to help expel a gatecrasher who was causing instability in the region, they were loath to absorbing displaced English inhabitants into their own countries on any type of permanent basis. Does this and other displays of selfishness or corruption, as is typical of all countries, invalidate the cause of the English people?

I'm afraid you are wrong about Palestinians not inhabiting Palestinian land for 1000s of years. Unlike almost all of the Jewish population, who were unceremoniously expelled by the Romans over 2000 years ago, the other denominations remained in the region, and like the original Jews all that time ago, were the direct decendants of the original ancestors going back into time immemorial. I'm afraid it is not me, but you who appear to have been bamboozled by the mass-media and probably much of scholarship as well. There was not the large scale immigration into Palestine by the Arabs from the neighbouring countries that some would have you believe. Migration was negligible and it was in both directions, because Palestinan inhabitants would go to other countries to seek work. When I say negligible I mean 1 or 2%, however, around 95-98% were born in and had remained in Palestine. It is also a myth that the land was useless before the Jewish people came along. This in any case is irrelevant. There is much swamp land in the outback in Australia, however I doubt the Australians would take kindly to some group imposing their wish to develop it, unasked.

Yehoshua Porath who is Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem concurs regarding Arab immigration. He describes the mass immigration of the Arabs theory as a myth propogated by Zionist writers.

As all the research by historians and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no "natural" increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth...

No one would doubt that some migrant workers came to Palestine from Syria and Trans-Jordan and remained there. But one has to add to this that there were migrations in the opposite direction as well. For example, a tradition developed in Hebron to go to study and work in Cairo, with the result that a permanent community of Hebronites had been living in Cairo since the fifteenth century. Trans-Jordan exported unskilled casual labor to Palestine; but before 1948 its civil service attracted a good many educated Palestinian Arabs who did not find work in Palestine itself. Demographically speaking, however, neither movement of population was significant in comparison to the decisive factor of natural increase.

Here is a link to the whole article which has many other interesting insights.http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

nickybol
08-02-2006, 09:08 AM
You are really someone who knows what he is talking about.

Kaptain Karl
08-02-2006, 10:57 AM
I'm afraid you are wrong about Palestinians not inhabiting Palestinian land for 1000s of years.If this whole issue was less volatile, David L's points would be kind of ... humorous.

So much of what he writes carries assumed premises ... based on (so-called) facts which are simply "made up." The above quote is a case in point.

The careful reader will note David L writes as if "Palestine" is some recognized sovereign nation. (It isn't.) Not even their "Arab brothers" will recognize "Palestine". The Palestinian people are the useful idiots of the surrounding Arab countries ... especially in the conflict with Israel.

It is also a myth that the land was useless before the Jewish people came along.Essentially wrong. You cannot (accurately honestly) dispute Israel made much of the wasteland into a virtual garden. (But keep right on denying it. It seems to make you feel better.)

This in any case is irrelevant. There is much swamp land in the outback in Australia, however I doubt the Australians would take kindly to some group imposing their wish to develop it, unasked.Nice try, David. This is a false analogy. "Some group" didn't "come along" and develop the land called "Israel." A people with a long-standing claim to the area did so.

Yehoshua Porath who is Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ...Comes across as yet another Arab puppet, if one actually reads some of what he's written. He is irrelevant.

Here is a link to the whole article ...This, too, was notable. David elevates an Opinion Piece to the status of "article" ... as if it's more credible than it is. The sad part is, there are some good points in the piece ... but it is no reporter's "article". It is one man's book review.

(In another discussion, I might not be so focused on these devices of David's; I'd "let them go" as "slips". In these cases I believe David intended to mislead....)

David, you are employing classic "al-Jazeera-like" revisionist history. Your credibility is in question.

- KK

David L
08-02-2006, 04:27 PM
Clutching at straws are'nt we? I think you are being misleading now, however I have no idea whether this is intentional or genuine ignorance.
If this whole issue was less volatile, David L's points would be kind of ... humorous.

So much of what he writes carries assumed premises ... based on (so-called) facts which are simply "made up." The above quote is a case in point.

The careful reader will note David L writes as if "Palestine" is some recognized sovereign nation. (It isn't.) Not even their "Arab brothers" will recognize "Palestine". The Palestinian people are the useful idiots of the surrounding Arab countries ... especially in the conflict with Israel.
I think you are confusing the notion of a Palestinian nation with Palestine the territory, the name that the Romans coined. Terms are needed to denote entities. Take your pick, I'm not fussy. Palestine, Palestina, El Palestina, Filastin, Falastin, Eretz Yisrael, Israel. They all denote the same area.
Essentially wrong. You cannot (accurately honestly) dispute Israel made much of the wasteland into a virtual garden. (But keep right on denying it. It seems to make you feel better.)
Think about it, if the land was useless, how were the Jewish people able to turn it into a virtual garden?
Nice try, David. This is a false analogy. "Some group" didn't "come along" and develop the land called "Israel." A people with a long-standing claim to the area did so.
Please enlighten me about this longstanding claim the Jewish people had to Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, given that the decendants of the earliest inhabitants were already living there and significantly outnumbered the small Jewish population.
Comes across as yet another Arab puppet, if one actually reads some of what he's written. He is irrelevant.
So let me get this straight, if anyone presents a case, however well founded or researched and whatever their credentials, that does not wholeheartedly legitimize the actions of the Zionists in the foundation of Israel or Israel's conduct since, then they are an Arab puppet and irrelevant? Ok, got it.
This, too, was notable. David elevates an Opinion Piece to the status of "article" ... as if it's more credible than it is. The sad part is, there are some good points in the piece ... but it is no reporter's "article". It is one man's book review.
I suggest you look up the word 'article'. I've done it for you.http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/article. The requirements for something to qualify as an article are very minimal, it is not a badge of honour. Again, I am not fussy which term you use. Article, piece, piece of writing, opinion piece, review, book review, one man's book review, critical essay. Take your pick.
(In another discussion, I might not be so focused on these devices of David's; I'd "let them go" as "slips". In these cases I believe David intended to mislead....)

David, you are employing classic "al-Jazeera-like" revisionist history. Your credibility is in question.

- KK
Have you ever worked for Fox News, because you technique of obscuring the debate by challenging the intent or validity of an argument without proposing a more compelling alternative has a familiar ring to it? You're a fan of Ann Coulter right, and you're worried about my credibilty?

Listen, the facts are out there, albeit somewhat obscured. It is up to each individual to sift through the bull, take same intellectual responsibilty, and come to conclusions based on their own thought processes and not the Washington/Downing st/Israeli/ etc press releases relayed to them by the press. My intentions are entirely honourable. My interest is only in knowing the truth.

35ft6
08-02-2006, 06:05 PM
Yesha Rabbinical Council: "According to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy. All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians."

FalconX
08-02-2006, 06:20 PM
Think about it, if the land was useless, how were the Jewish people able to turn it into a virtual garden?



Don't you underestimate jesus now.

tennis-n-sc
08-03-2006, 08:32 AM
Don't you underestimate jesus now.

Well, allah didn't have much luck with rest of the desert.

FalconX
08-03-2006, 09:12 AM
Well, allah didn't have much luck with rest of the desert.
apparently not. Too bad I don't believe in him.

David L
08-03-2006, 09:35 AM
apparently not. Too bad I don't believe in him.

Allah is just the Arabic term for God, so if you are a Christian, you believe in Allah as well.

Kaptain Karl
08-03-2006, 09:38 AM
Clutching at straws are'nt we? I think you are being misleading now, however I have no idea whether this is intentional or genuine ignorance.Oh! You've deeply wounded me.

David, I'm on-record with my position. Why don't you stop with the phony "I'm above the fray" stuff and tell us where you sit on the issue? Are you Muslim? Are you pro-Arab? Once you've fessed up ... then maybe your posts will seem less contrived.

I think you are confusing the notion of a Palestinian nation with Palestine the territory ...Nope. Not at all. I'm ensuring casual readers don't mistake your reference to "Palestine" for a sovereign country. You are correct; its a geographic reference.

Think about it, if the land was useless, how were the Jewish people able to turn it into a virtual garden?[/qutoe]I'm so glad you asked. Because the Israelis are so much more industrious, focused and goal-oriented than the Arabs. (If the Arabs spent half as much of their schemeing and planning to destroy Israel efforts in developing their own lands, they could probably do the same....

[qutoe]Please enlighten me about this longstanding claim the Jewish people....Did you just jump into the middle of this thread? I already posted that here. (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1046182&postcount=185)

So let me get this straight....Your posts are suspect. Your "sources" are suspect. They are partisans and you are too. (Our difference is ... I admit my partisan position.)

Have you ever worked for Fox News...? You're a fan of Ann Coulter right...?No and no.

Listen, the facts are out there....It still comes down to "Whose source do you give credence to?" My position is Biblical; Israel's claim is paramount. (Notice I'm being very open about my POV. I wish you'd be a little more open, too.)

... My intentions are entirely honourable. My interest is only in knowing the truth.Yeah. You keep telling us that....

- KK

FalconX
08-03-2006, 09:48 AM
Allah is just the Arabic term for God, so if you are a Christian, you believe in Allah as well.

No they believe that jesus is only a prophet and separate from god. They don't believe in this son, father, holy spirit stuff. They do believe that their god and the christian god are one in the same however and they're taught to love and respect christians and jews because they believe in the same deity. This is somewhat confusing.

Allah in arabic means unitary, oneness.

Kaptain Karl
08-03-2006, 09:48 AM
Allah is just the Arabic term for God, so if you are a Christian, you believe in Allah as well.Stop right there, please. "Allah" and the Christian God are NOT the same. (Most Muslims try to say so, but it is patently untrue.)

- KK

tennis-n-sc
08-03-2006, 10:15 AM
No they believe that jesus is only a prophet and separate from god. They don't believe in this son, father, holy spirit stuff. They do believe that their god and the christian god are one in the same however and they're taught to love and respect christians and jews because they believe in the same deity. This is somewhat confusing.

Allah in arabic means unitary, oneness.

Are they showing love and respect by video taping beheadings and televising them. Sooner or later, the Muslims have to decide what they are all about. Right now they are in conflict with themselves and a bunch of half truths and lies. And I'll be the first to agree with you, it is somewhat confusing. Seems Muslims are the most confused.

FalconX
08-03-2006, 10:30 AM
Are they showing love and respect by video taping beheadings and televising them. Sooner or later, the Muslims have to decide what they are all about. Right now they are in conflict with themselves and a bunch of half truths and lies. And I'll be the first to agree with you, it is somewhat confusing. Seems Muslims are the most confused.

I don't live in south carolina but I would assume you've probably seen a couple of muslims in your real life (I hope caronlinas aren't THAT bad). Were they running around holding dismembered body parts? Did they attempt to decapitate you? Or are you just paranoid?

When christians were keeping slaves and justifying the practice with their bible or scalping indians were they practicing christianity or were they confused?