PDA

View Full Version : Israel-Palestine / religious terrorism (was non-islamic religious terrorism)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12

Capablanca-Fan
25-09-2014, 08:30 AM
Religion does not poison everything - everything poisons religion (http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9315062/fields-of-blood-by-ferdinand-mount-review/)
A review of Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, by Karen Armstrong. The former nun makes a convincing case that religions are corrupted by success
Ferdinand Mount, Spectator UK, 20 September 2014

Christopher Hitchens had it the wrong way round in his subtitle to God is Not Great. It should have been, not ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ but ‘How Everything Poisons Religion’.

‘Religion causes all the wars.’ Karen Armstrong claims to have heard it tossed off by American psychiatrists, London taxi-drivers...Which wars are we talking about? Among the many causes advanced for the Great War, ranging from the train timetables on the continent to the Kaiser’s withered left arm, I have never heard religion mentioned. Same with the second world war. The worst genocides of the last century — Hitler’s murder of the Jews and Atatürk’s massacre of the Armenians (not to mention his expulsion and massacre of the Greeks in Asia Minor too) — were perpetrated by secular nationalists who hated the religion they were born into. The long British wars of the 18th and 19th centuries — the Napoleonic wars and the Seven Years’ War — were cheerfully fought by what Wellington called ‘the scum of the earth’ for land and empire, not for the faiths to which they only nominally belonged.

We have to go back to the 17th century and the Wars of Religion to find a plausible candidate. Hobbes certainly believed that the preachers had been ‘the cause of all our late mischiefs’. But modern historians are more inclined to describe the English civil war as the War of Three Kingdoms and/or as a struggle against the autocracy of Charles I....

All terrorism is now routinely attributed to religious intoxication. Richard Dawkins tells us that ‘only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people’. But Armstrong points out that suicide bombing was more or less invented by the Tamil Tigers, ‘a nationalist separatist group with no time for religion’. A Chicago University study of suicide attacks worldwide over 25 years found ‘little connection between suicide and terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter’. Out of 38 suicide bombings in the Lebanon during the 1980s, 27 were perpetrated by secularists and socialists, three by Christians and only eight by Muslims...

The sad truth is that religions are corrupted by success. The more popular they become, the closer they are drawn into the ambit of state power, the more their practice and doctrine have to be remodelled to suit their new overlords. Armstrong reflects gloomily:


'Every major faith tradition has tracked the political entity in which it arose; none has become a ‘world religion’ without the patronage of a militarily powerful empire and every tradition would have to develop an imperial ideology.'

Desmond
25-09-2014, 09:38 AM
But hear Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin ask atheopath Penn Jillette, “Would the world be a better or a worse place if a billion Muslims became Evangelical Christians tomorrow?” Jillette had to admit, “Everything else being equal, I think yes.” Similar to the admission by RW's idol Dawkins.


I doubt whether Hitchens would have welcomed such a swelling to the numbers:

sEyZ3aeusA4

Rincewind
25-09-2014, 10:01 AM
But hear Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin ask atheopath Penn Jillette, “Would the world be a better or a worse place if a billion Muslims became Evangelical Christians tomorrow?” Jillette had to admit, “Everything else being equal, I think yes.”

Still dodging the point that the original quote was to do with a "study of the history". A study of the history of Christianity is no less damning.

It is not that Christianity is any better or more benign than Islam. History proves that it is not the case. The reason all religions in general are more benign in the West has more to do with the rise of secularism than any inherent positive aspects of Christianity.

Kevin Bonham
25-09-2014, 02:36 PM
A large number of Islamic scholars have co-signed a long open letter to ISIL accusing them of getting Islamic teaching thoroughly wrong:

http://lettertobaghdadi.com/index.php

Much of the argument is extremely similar to the style of argument used against so-called Christians who seek to cherrypick superceded OT principles to justify hatred, or to that used by Christians against opponents who seek to cherrypick superceded OT principles to argue that Christianity supports hate. (That is not necessarily saying such charges can't be made without making such errors in argument.)

That intrigued me given that we are forever hearing - mostly from right-wing "Christians" but also from what might be called "neocon atheists" that Islamic scripture is worse than Christian scripture in terms of advocacy of violence.

Kevin Bonham
25-09-2014, 02:49 PM
What's the point? ISIL = Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The point is that by just using the abbreviation and not spelling out what it stands for, the speaker can distance themselves from the idea that ISIL are really "Islamic".

Goughfather
25-09-2014, 07:54 PM
Still dodging the point that the original quote was to do with a "study of the history". A study of the history of Christianity is no less damning.

It is not that Christianity is any better or more benign than Islam. History proves that it is not the case. The reason all religions in general are more benign in the West has more to do with the rise of secularism than any inherent positive aspects of Christianity.

Jono dodging a question? Surely you jest.

You are quite right with respect to the question of why evangelical Christianity appears more benign than Islam. Of course, many prominent evangelical leaders were instrumental in lobbying the Ugandan government to introduce the "Kill The Gays" bill.

It is a chilling reminder of what extremists like Jono would do if they could get away with it.

antichrist
25-09-2014, 09:32 PM
Jono from above:
‘Religion causes all the wars.’ Karen Armstrong claims to have heard it tossed off by American psychiatrists, London taxi-drivers...Which wars are we talking about? Among the many causes advanced for the Great War, ranging from the train timetables on the continent to the Kaiser’s withered left arm, I have never heard religion mentioned. Same with the second world war. The worst genocides of the last century — Hitler’s murder of the Jews and Atatürk’s massacre of the Armenians (not to mention his expulsion and massacre of the Greeks in Asia Minor too) — were perpetrated by secular nationalists who hated the religion they were born into. The long British wars of the 18th and 19th centuries — the Napoleonic wars and the Seven Years’ War — were cheerfully fought by what Wellington called ‘the scum of the earth’ for land and empire, not for the faiths to which they only nominally belonged.

AC: (a) So is there a trait that those unsuccessfully brought up in a religion will violently turn against those of other religions? Well they seem to keep the dogma of the superiority of their own religion. Is it been brainwashed into a religion turns them against all religion when they escape the mindset? So it would be better if they are not taught any religion so they cannot react violently against other religions. Uncle Joe had adopted the Communist religion, whilst horrendous Hitler had adopted the Nationalist Socialist religion.

(b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
As many Jews were only converts of Khararians, not ethnic Jews who are Arabs, should they be referred to as Jews? We don't usually refer to other people by their religion but by their race or national identity. Israel is similar to ISIL how it defines it self by a religion rather than by the actual people. Will get back to later

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2014, 01:10 AM
A large number of Islamic scholars have co-signed a long open letter to ISIL accusing them of getting Islamic teaching thoroughly wrong:

http://lettertobaghdadi.com/index.php
That is good to know that these Muslim scholars oppose terrorism and say so clearly. Credit where it's due.


Much of the argument is extremely similar to the style of argument used against so-called Christians who seek to cherrypick superceded OT principles to justify hatred, or to that used by Christians against opponents who seek to cherrypick superceded OT principles to argue that Christianity supports hate. (That is not necessarily saying such charges can't be made without making such errors in argument.)
The difference is that the Law of Christ really does supersede the Law of Moses, as I've explained in Are we allowed to eat all animals today? (http://creation.com/all-food-clean) But with Islam, the supersession or abrogation (Arabic naskh) (http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/abrogation.htm) goes in the opposite direction: the later Medinan suras that advocate jihad are later therefore they supersede the more peaceful Meccan suras.


That intrigued me given that we are forever hearing - mostly from right-wing "Christians" but also from what might be called "neocon atheists" that Islamic scripture is worse than Christian scripture in terms of advocacy of violence.
A correct claim as well. Also, Dawkins and Jillette are atheists but hardly "neo-cons".

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2014, 01:14 AM
You are quite right with respect to the question of why evangelical Christianity appears more benign than Islam.
The appearance is due to the reality, even if embittered apostates like GF can see nothing wrong with Islam and swallowed any atheopathic lies against real (biblical) Christianity.


Of course, many prominent evangelical leaders were instrumental in lobbying the Ugandan government to introduce the "Kill The Gays" bill.
Which evangelicals supported killing gays? The Ugandan penalties are imprisonment, and the death was advocated for those who knowingly spread HIV. Of course I oppose death or prison for gays.

Naturally GF doesn't mind all the Islam-ruled countries that execute gays.


It is a chilling reminder of what extremists like Jono would do if they could get away with it.
More likely, a chilling reminder of what neo-Chamberlainite Dhimmis would allow Islam to get away with in the West, while attacking what Dawkins admitted was the bulwark against Islamofascism: evangelical Christianity. Really, GF should stick to his shysterism.

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2014, 01:19 AM
Still dodging the point that the original quote was to do with a "study of the history". A study of the history of Christianity is no less damning.
A study of real history instead of potted atheopathic distortions proves the opposite. Rodney Stark's books like How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity (http://www.amazon.com/How-West-Won-Neglected-Modernity/dp/1610170857) would be a good place to begin, or the article What about bad things done by the Church? (http://creation.com/bad-things-by-church)


It is not that Christianity is any better or more benign than Islam. History proves that it is not the case. The reason all religions in general are more benign in the West has more to do with the rise of secularism than any inherent positive aspects of Christianity.
Secularism was singularly ineffective against the influx of radical Islam in Europe, as even Dawkins admits. Also, the enormous bloodshed by secular socialist (both international (communist) and national (fascist)) regimes in the last century alone dwarfs all the violence of religious wars and inquisitions in all previous centuries combined.

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2014, 01:41 AM
The difference is that the Law of Christ really does supersede the Law of Moses, as I've explained in Are we allowed to eat all animals today? (http://creation.com/all-food-clean) But with Islam, the supersession or abrogation (Arabic naskh) (http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/abrogation.htm) goes in the opposite direction: the later Medinan suras that advocate jihad are later therefore they supersede the more peaceful Meccan suras.

If the advocated jihad is purely defensive, as the scholars maintain at length on pp 6-9 of the link I quoted, what's the problem? If they are wrong about that, what's the evidence?


Also, Dawkins and Jillette are atheists but hardly "neo-cons".

The term is used in the sense of the apparent support of atheists like Harris, Dawkins, the late C Hitchens for a foreign affairs or security approach to Islam that is pretty similar to that of the US neocon hawks - it's not a suggestion that they are socially or fiscally conservative.

Rincewind
26-09-2014, 02:24 AM
A study of real history instead of potted atheopathic distortions proves the opposite. Rodney Stark's books like How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity would be a good place to begin, or the article What about bad things done by the Church?

Rodney Stark are you serious? He is not a historian and neither are you. A real history would be written by a real historians and not pretenders like Stark or Sarfati.


Secularism was singularly ineffective against the influx of radical Islam in Europe, as even Dawkins admits. Also, the enormous bloodshed by secular socialist (both international (communist) and national (fascist)) regimes in the last century alone dwarfs all the violence of religious wars and inquisitions in all previous centuries combined.

I said secularism was responsible for Christianity loosing its teeth. Of course less secular countries like Nazi Germany allowed the Christian persecution of Jews to be re-ignited as it was in Iberia following the Reconquista.

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2014, 06:18 AM
If the advocated jihad is purely defensive, as the scholars maintain at length on pp 6-9 of the link I quoted, what's the problem? If they are wrong about that, what's the evidence?

The evidence comes from the Medinan suras that abrogate the Meccan ones, according to official Islamic doctrine. It also ignores the aggressive wars fought by Muhammad himself. Jesus led no armies and fought no wars.


The term is used in the sense of the apparent support of atheists like Harris, Dawkins, the late C Hitchens for a foreign affairs or security approach to Islam that is pretty similar to that of the US neocon hawks - it's not a suggestion that they are socially or fiscally conservative.

Jillette is a libertarian.

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2014, 06:22 AM
Rodney Stark are you serious? He is not a historian and neither are you. A real history would be written by a real historians and not pretenders like Stark or Sarfati.
Stark has written well-received books on the history of science, culture, the middle ages, the crusades. What would an ivory-tower mathematician and unthinking socialist dogmatist like RW know?


I said secularism was responsible for Christianity loosing its teeth.
Maybe, in the sense that the Christian sanctity-of-life ethic was replaced by an evolutionary ethic, with the horrific results of Nazism and Communism.


Of course less secular countries like Nazi Germany allowed the Christian persecution of Jews to be re-ignited as it was in Iberia following the Reconquista.
Germany was the most secular country thanks to Haeckel and the evolution that permeated the Second Reich, especially in academia. Its churches were the most rotted by theological liberalism so that Ernst Mayr said that biblical Christianity was almost non-existent.

Rincewind
26-09-2014, 10:59 AM
Stark has written well-received books on the history of science, culture, the middle ages, the crusades. What would an ivory-tower mathematician and unthinking socialist dogmatist like RW know?

I'm not asking you to read my books on history, I haven't wrote any because unlike you and Stark I'm not a propagandist and prefer to stick to think I have some training in.


Maybe, in the sense that the Christian sanctity-of-life ethic was replaced by an evolutionary ethic, with the horrific results of Nazism and Communism.

According to the Christian revisionists but denies the fact that Germany was overwhelmingly Christian and the persecution of the Jews in the holocaust was justified at the time on Biblical grounds along much the same lines as that other famous Germany antisemite, Martin Luther.


Germany was the most secular country thanks to Haeckel and the evolution that permeated the Second Reich, especially in academia.

Revisionist nonsense.


Its churches were the most rotted by theological liberalism so that Ernst Mayr said that biblical Christianity was almost non-existent.

As you have repeated many time however that doesn't make it any more true. German churches were thriving and the people must have been swayed by theological justification for the holocaust since Hitler's speeches and writings were full of biblical references. They would not have been successful against a non-Christian population.

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2014, 11:10 AM
Jillette is a libertarian.

The term was - I would have thought obviously - hardly intended to imply that all prominent atheists have neocon tendencies on foreign affairs. Just that there is a certain strand of the popular book-writing movement that appears to line up that way.

Goughfather
26-09-2014, 07:51 PM
The appearance is due to the reality, even if embittered apostates like GF can see nothing wrong with Islam and swallowed any atheopathic lies against real (biblical) Christianity.

There is nothing biblical or Christian about your extremist sect.


Which evangelicals supported killing gays? The Ugandan penalties are imprisonment, and the death was advocated for those who knowingly spread HIV. Of course I oppose death or prison for gays.

It's wonderful how you act as an apologist for the legislation and then suggest that you oppose death or prison for gays. Of course, this is a purely commercial decision for you - if supporting the death penalty for homosexual was to earn you even an extra dollar, you'd be swimming in that muck in a heartbeat.


Naturally GF doesn't mind all the Islam-ruled countries that execute gays.

Show me where I've said that and I'll leave you alone forever, you pathetic coward.


More likely, a chilling reminder of what neo-Chamberlainite Dhimmis would allow Islam to get away with in the West, while attacking what Dawkins admitted was the bulwark against Islamofascism: evangelical Christianity. Really, GF should stick to his shysterism.

How could the repulsive homophobia of Ugandan evangelicals and the cynical lobbying of American evangelicals be a chilling reminder of tolerance of Islamic extremism?

Your comments are a salient reminder of your intellectual ineptitude, though.

antichrist
26-09-2014, 09:27 PM
Gazans Speak Out: Hamas War Crimes (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes)
by Mudar Zahran
September 19, 201

"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.

"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.

"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.

"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student

"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.

"We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money. We miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here." — S., graduate of an American university, former Hamas sympathizer.

The Israeli army sends warnings to people [Gazans] to evacuate buildings before an attack. The Israelis either call or send a text message. Sometimes they call several times to make sure everyone has been evacuated. Hamas's strict policy, though, was not to allow us to evacuate. Many people got killed, locked inside their homes by Hamas militants. Hamas's official Al-Quds TV regularly issued warnings to Gazans not to evacuate their homes. Hamas militants would block the exits to the places residents were asked to evacuate. In the Shijaiya area, people received warnings from the Israelis and tried to evacuate the area, but Hamas militants blocked the exits and ordered people to return to their homes. Some of the people had no choice but to run towards the Israelis and ask for protection for their families. Hamas shot some of those people as they were running; the rest were forced to return to their homes and get bombed. This is how the Shijaiya massacre happened. More than 100 people were killed. — S. a medical worker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hamas is a Creation of Mossad

by Hassane Zerouky

Global Outlook, No 2, Summer 2002
www.globalresearch.ca 23 March 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".................

AC: so Jono Israel made a deal with the Devil that has come back to haunt it. It is not fair what Israel has done to secular Palestinians

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2014, 12:04 AM
Blinding History (http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2014/09/26/blinding-history-n1896951/page/full)
Diana West | Sep 26, 2014

For logic-minded Americans still genuinely puzzled as to how it could be that our presidents and secretaries of state and generals and pundits keep hammering home the big lie that Islam has nothing to do with jihad, that the religion of conquest is a "religion of peace," I have a special warning. Such widespread, politics- and mass-media-driven brainwashing is nothing new.

Just as today's opinion-makers seek to divorce Islam from its impact -- for example, brutal conquest, forced conversion, religiously sanctioned sex slavery, beheadings -- past opinion-makers worked equally hard to divorce communism from its impact -- for example, brutal conquest, forced collectivization, concentration camps (Gulags), mass murder.

It worked. Unlike Nazism, communism has never been judged guilty or even held responsible for the carnage and suffering it has caused. On the contrary, it remains a source of "liberal" statist ideas such as Obamacare. My book American Betrayal delves deeply into this dangerous double standard. In short, it not only enables collectivist policies to strangle our remnant republic, but also explains why American students can find a drink called Leninade, emblazoned with a hammer and sickle, for sale on a college campus. It is also why silkscreens of Warhol's Chairman Mao, history's top mass murderer, are sought-after items for the homes of the wealthy.

There are no such trendy portraits of Hitler, and who would want them? Who would want to swig a bottle of Hitlerpop, decorated with a swastika? So, why Leninade? Not only does the stench of death not follow the Communist murder-cult, the brand lives.

antichrist
27-09-2014, 03:16 AM
Blinding History (http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2014/09/26/blinding-history-n1896951/page/full)
Dia
Just as today's opinion-makers seek to divorce Islam from its impact -- for example, brutal conquest, forced conversion, religiously sanctioned sex slavery, beheadings -- past opinion-makers worked equally hard to divorce communism from its impact -- for example, brutal conquest, forced collectivization, concentration camps (Gulags), mass murder.
na West | Sep 26, 2014

For logic-minded Americans still genuinely puzzled as to how it could be that our presidents and secretaries of state and generals and pundits keep hammering home the big lie that Islam has nothing to do with jihad, that the religion of conquest is a "religion of peace," I have a special warning. Such widespread, politics- and mass-media-driven brainwashing is nothing new.
It worked. Unlike Nazism, communism has never been judged guilty or even held responsible for the carnage and suffering it has caused. On the contrary, it remains a source of "liberal" statist ideas such as Obamacare. My book American Betrayal delves deeply into this dangerous double standard. In short, it not only enables collectivist policies to strangle our remnant republic, but also explains why American students can find a drink called Leninade, emblazoned with a hammer and sickle, for sale on a college campus. It is also why silkscreens of Warhol's Chairman Mao, history's top mass murderer, are sought-after items for the homes of the wealthy.

There are no such trendy portraits of Hitler, and who would want them? Who would want to swig a bottle of Hitlerpop, decorated with a swastika? So, why Leninade? Not only does the stench of death not follow the Communist murder-cult, the brand lives.


Joshua, the genocidist from the Bible still has millions of children named after Him every year, one of the most popular names in Australia and elsewhere. We all know Joshua's record, the first recorded genocidist that I can find. And it is directly related to this thread, his mass murder of Canaanites ( Phoenicians - my people) was an early Zionist act of terrorism - equal to Hitler on all accounts.

Maybe this what was Neitzche was on about when describing how Judaism had sort of contaminated Europe. Maybe Neitzche's writings could be described as inciting racial hatred but if Jono wants to complain about mass murderers than he should look at the original recorded case amongst his own people. I don't even know if the Biblical record is correct but that record is relied upon by Israel to covert present-day Palestinian territories that is what this whole thread is about. How terrorism is being used by Palestinians in an attempt to get their land back, as they cannot fight a conventional war due to lack of modern weaponry. But in context terrorism was used by Zionists to create the State of Israel and genocidal policies has been pursued by Israel ever since to steal more land from indefensible people.

Action that groups take can incite hatred of that group, whether they are Muslim, Christians, Jews, communists etc.

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2014, 10:03 AM
Maybe this what was Neitzche was on about when describing how Judaism had sort of contaminated Europe. Maybe Neitzche's writings could be described as inciting racial hatred[..]

Not accurately.

antichrist
27-09-2014, 10:52 AM
a Fischer movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du8d5q-0sNo

peter hanna1 second ago

It is highly ironic how this video is sponsored by sodastream, a company under boycott linked here http://www.bdsmovement.net/tag/sodastream for being manufactured on illegally occupied Palestinian territory. Ironic because Bobby Fischer was completely against Israeli illegal murderous actions in Palestine. Fischer's behaviour was erratic but consistent and healthy in reaction to gross human rights violations that he was protesting against.

Capablanca-Fan
29-09-2014, 06:21 AM
There is nothing biblical or Christian about your extremist sect.
I never heard of Baptists being extremist, and of course, CMI is following the biblical position on creation as per the understanding of the church fathers, medieval theologians, and Reformers. Not that GF is in a position to know anyway, given his proven incompetence at biblical hermeneutics in his vain attempts to twist it to support his real religion: leftism.


It's wonderful how you act as an apologist for the legislation and then suggest that you oppose death or prison for gays.
Of course, correcting your understanding is not to be an apologist, and I do oppose those penalties.


Of course, this is a purely commercial decision for you - if supporting the death penalty for homosexual was to earn you even an extra dollar, you'd be swimming in that muck in a heartbeat.
The way to earn extra dollars would be to resign from CMI and work for the chemistry industry, you moron.


Show me where I've said that and I'll leave you alone forever, you pathetic coward.
Your silence speaks more than any words you could say, when you single out Uganda but ignore the lethal persecution of homosexuals in Islamist countries.


Your comments are a salient reminder of your intellectual ineptitude, though.
Not that GF has any evidence of intellect, given his low academic qualifications and lack of books authored, etc.

antichrist
04-10-2014, 02:49 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29479418

A two state proposal of course, whereas for justice there should only be one state - Palestine.

Capablanca-Fan
06-10-2014, 07:00 AM
Muslims who Saved the Lives of Jews (http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/muslims_who_saved_the_lives_of_jews.html)
By Michael Curtis, American Thinker, 4 Oct 2014


The hatred of Jews on the part of the Mufti of Jerusalem is well known, along with his eager approval of the extermination of Jews in Europe and in Iraq, his raising of an SS Muslim Division in Bosnia, and his association with Heinrich Himmler and other leaders in Nazi Germany. BESA tells a different and compelling story of Muslim behavior. The book and the film document the participation of some Christians but mostly it was compassionate and kind Albanian Muslims (Sunni Muslims make up about 58 per cent of the population) who sheltered Jews who had fled to their country to escape from the Nazis.

At the beginning of World War II about 200 Jews lived on Albania, mostly in the towns of Korce and Pristina. During the war more than 2000 Jews sought refuge in the country. BESA is the account of the hospitality of Albanians towards them. The Albanian word “BESA” apparently means faith or keep the promise. It is a code of honor, an ethical code entailing an obligation to provide help. It entails hospitality, providing food and shelter to those in distress. By tradition it is a collective agreement to show kindness to and to save people in trouble.

The story deserves to be better known. The Albanians sheltered the refugee Jews or assisted in arranging transport to Italy. The dramatic outcome was the fact that 1800 Jews were alive in Albania at the end of the war. The dramatic result is that there were eleven times more Jews in the country at the end of the war than at the beginning. In comparative terms it was the only European country in which more Jews existed at the end than at the beginning of the war.

A comparison with some European countries can highlight the extraordinary behavior of the Albanians.

antichrist
06-10-2014, 09:54 AM
Muslims who Saved the Lives of Jews (http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/muslims_who_saved_the_lives_of_jews.html)
By Michael Curtis, American Thinker, 4 Oct 2014


The hatred of Jews on the part of the Mufti of Jerusalem is well known, along with his eager approval of the extermination of Jews in Europe and in Iraq, his raising of an SS Muslim Division in Bosnia, and his association with Heinrich Himmler and other leaders in Nazi Germany. BESA tells a different and compelling story of Muslim behavior. The book and the film document the participation of some Christians but mostly it was compassionate and kind Albanian Muslims (Sunni Muslims make up about 58 per cent of the population) who sheltered Jews who had fled to their country to escape from the Nazis.

At the beginning of World War II about 200 Jews lived on Albania, mostly in the towns of Korce and Pristina. During the war more than 2000 Jews sought refuge in the country. BESA is the account of the hospitality of Albanians towards them. The Albanian word “BESA” apparently means faith or keep the promise. It is a code of honor, an ethical code entailing an obligation to provide help. It entails hospitality, providing food and shelter to those in distress. By tradition it is a collective agreement to show kindness to and to save people in trouble.

The story deserves to be better known. The Albanians sheltered the refugee Jews or assisted in arranging transport to Italy. The dramatic outcome was the fact that 1800 Jews were alive in Albania at the end of the war. The dramatic result is that there were eleven times more Jews in the country at the end of the war than at the beginning. In comparative terms it was the only European country in which more Jews existed at the end than at the beginning of the war.

A comparison with some European countries can highlight the extraordinary behavior of the Albanians.


I am only guessing here out of the top of my head. The difference in treatment could be due to the European Jews coming to Arab territory and being superiorist and apartheidic, in opposed to European Jews in Europe being part of society. Also Jono, the trouble with many religions is that they go through extremities- even in Israel now I know Israelis who hate the Orthodox and vice versa. They tell me that the Orthos hate the Palestinians even more so there is no hope for the place. My history lecturer told me that when religion is in the mix it is a lot more difficult to solve the problem. So the only hope is John Lennon's Imagine - and he was gunned down by one of your USA gun crazies. And there ain't no Heaven upstairs so you tell me...

Capablanca-Fan
07-10-2014, 09:02 AM
We must be clear on who are the victims (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/we-must-be-clear-on-who-are-the-victims/story-fni0ffsx-1227081828354)
PETER COSTELLO HERALD SUN 7OCTOBER 2014


Self-styled Jihadis are already coming up with their answers. It is all the fault of Australia, they say. Muslim people are treated so badly they are turning against this country towards its opponents such as Islamic State in northern Iraq and Syria.

The trouble with explanations like this is that the facts get in the way. The family of Numan Haider left Afghanistan to migrate to Australia. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was a hardline Islamic state. Coming to Australia meant getting away from that.

And Australia was good to the family. They have a very nice house in a good suburb. The children received a good education. The taxpayers of Australia were pretty good to Numan Haider with schooling and services. The family lived in security and freedom — a lot more than Islamic State would ever give to a minority ethnic or religious group.

The standard analysis is that people turn to extremist groups out of hardship, that some kind of discrimination or deprivation forces them into anti-social activity. It is not the recent experience. Nearly all the conspirators in the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre had received tertiary education in the West. They did not grow up in refugee camps. They were able to travel and easily assimilate into Western society. It is well known that Osama bin Laden came from an extremely wealthy family and enjoyed a privileged upbringing, including lengthy periods of living in the West. It seems in these cases that affluence contributes more to extremism than poverty. It is possible these privileged young men feel guilty about their money and the ease of their life compared with others in war zones, a guilt that gives extremists plenty to work with.

The next step is to promote a sense of victimhood.

Deakin University student Tahmid Mirza, a jihadi propagandist and supporter of Islamic State, was quoted in the weekend press explaining why he has rejected this country, a country that gave him a home and an education: “… many Muslims have been harassed, betrayed and in fact lied to by the government and the so-called ‘security’ intelligence.”

In other words, he is a victim. The real victims here are not the aid workers or journalists who have been beheaded by Islamic State. The victims here are not the Yazidis of Northern Iraq facing genocide and extermination. The real victims are those who were taken in by Australia, given a home, healthcare, a free education and subsidised university places.

Such a terrible country. Why would any Muslim want to live here?

The fact that so many do tells you that things are not really as Mr Mirza claims. A lot more Muslims are trying to get into Australia than are trying to leave it.

This idea that Australia’s treatment of Muslims is to blame for terrorism is so fanciful you would wonder how anyone could believe it. But it is standard-issue opinion among university academics, ABC journalists and Greens senators. They act on the principle that “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Since they don’t like open liberal Western capitalist society, they feel natural support for those who regard themselves as at war with Western civilisation. The brutality of Islamic State does not seem to worry them nearly so much as the imagined “brutality” of the Australian Government.

Rincewind
07-10-2014, 11:58 AM
Peter does a nice bait and switch here and compartmentalizes Australia's treatment of citizens and residents (who happen to be Muslims) and Australia's foreign policy and how that as worked out for Muslim people vs (say) Christian or Jewish people.

Ian Murray
07-10-2014, 06:16 PM
"In some instances, the first generation, the sons and daughters of immigrants, are grist for the terrorist recruitment mill. These are individuals who have drifted away from their heritage, whether it's religious or ethnic, who feel themselves culturally unmoored, caught between two societies. The society of their parents and their traditional homelands, and the society of their new and adopted homelands where they don't feel that they belong or quite fit in. And that they themselves are drawn to terrorism, and drawn to radicalization as a means to express their frustrations.

Indeed, what becomes their hatred of their adopted home and to also demonstrate their belonging to and their commitment to their traditional home, to the home of their parents. Also, too, admiration of terrorist movements or leading terrorist figures can become a very important magnet, or draw, or inspiration to persons becoming terrorists.
Who seek to carry on that struggle. Who see these individuals or these organizations as having struck a cathartic blow against a common enemy. And, therefore, these individuals want to be part of that struggle, want to follow in the footsteps of previous terrorists or established terrorist leaders and carry forward this struggle.

Often, very personal motivations such as hatred of their adopted homes, especially if it's in the United States or the United Kingdom or other Western countries, plays a role, as does a profoundly shared sense of alienation from their host countries. That, therefore, drives these people in their frustration, in their apartness, to embrace violence as a solution to their problems."

Extract from lecture Recruitment and Radicalization: Terrorist Profiles 2 by Prof Bruce Hoffman, Georgetown University/edX course Terrorism and Counterterrorism (https://www.edx.org/course/georgetownx/georgetownx-guix-501-01x-terrorism-1373)

antichrist
07-10-2014, 08:46 PM
Why don't Ian above and Peter Costello put the Australian Muslim terrorist on a timeline.

Peter Costello
This idea that Australia’s treatment of Muslims is to blame for terrorism is so fanciful you would wonder how anyone could believe it. But it is standard-issue opinion among university academics, ABC journalists and Greens senators. They act on the principle that “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Since they don’t like open liberal Western capitalist society, they feel natural support for those who regard themselves as at war with Western civilisation. The brutality of Islamic State does not seem to worry them nearly so much as the imagined “brutality” of the Australian Government.


AC: this is surely the worse piece every written by Peter Costello, mainly for its inaccuracy. We don't support for them because they at war with the west, but because we know that the west had no business invading Afghanistan in an immoral war and probably illegal one as well.


A terrorist experted stated ages ago, that if the Palestine problem was fixed that the terrorist movement would greatly diminish, that Palestine was the big grievance - completely understandable in my opinion. But that is the elephant in the room that no one wants to confront because of the big arse of Israel also in the room that lets out the biggest fart if a shred of justice is proposed for the Palestinians.

The west sponsored and legalised the Zionist terrorists into the Middle East and the Arabs and the rest of the world have been paying the price ever since for 70 years. Would any other people tolerate being driven off their homeland of thousands of years? No, then why should the Palestinians have to.

Capablanca-Fan
09-10-2014, 12:59 AM
Hate blinds twittering fools from the evil truth (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/hate_blinds_twittering_fools_from_the_evil_truth/)
Miranda Devine, 8 October 2014

THE undeniable atrocities being committed by Islamic State have leftists all at sea. They have made common cause with Islamism against their real foe, the Judaeo-Christian capitalist west, and it’s all a bit uncomfortable.

But when even the United Nations confirms that IS is beheading, raping, enslaving and torturing innocent civilians, they still can’t bring themselves to condemn the evil in front of their eyes.

Instead they evade, distract, ignore, and attack with all sorts of false moral equivalencies, from evil Israel to the so-called “Christian” (actually agnostic) Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Anything to avoid the awful truth, that the totalitarian ideology of radical Islam is on the march, potentially as dangerous as the communist ideology which killed 100 million people last century.

If anyone faces an existential threat, it’s Israel, surrounded by neighbours which want it obliterated.

The apologists won’t admit Hamas used human shields in Gaza deliberately to create civilian casualties for its propaganda war against Israel.

Palestinians in Gaza last month told Jordanian-Palestinian writer Mudar Zahram that when the Israeli army sent warnings to buildings it was targeting, Hamas would not allow people to evacuate. It shot those who disobeyed. In the third week of the war, Palestinians staged two major protests against Hamas, and Hamas fighters shot dead as many as 35.

Hamas propaganda images of dead children found fertile ground with blinkered Western leftists.

Yet what would they have Israel do? Disarm? Then you would see Jews suffer the same treatment as the Christians, Yazidis and Kurds of Syria and Iraq, and any Muslims who don’t get with the program. The only reason Israel still exists is because it can defend itself.

But the morally confused don’t care to grasp this reality.

In much the same way, leftists of a previous generation laughed off mounting evidence of Stalin’s atrocities.

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2014, 09:54 AM
Hmmm. Some bunch of terrorists in Iraq chop heads off their enemies and behead the odd western hostage, therefore they are a totalitarian threat comparable to Stalin. Doesn't quite follow in my view.

antichrist
09-10-2014, 01:42 PM
I see the beheadings as only a terror tactic that would be wise to ignore or not to give greater emphasis to than a shooting. More important is if the victim was tortured or not beforehand under either killing method. I have killed farm animals, did not think to waste a bullet. I come from a long line of butchers on my grandmother's side. It is the "more civilised" city type who are getting all jacked up over the method of killing. I would guess that many butchers could do it, and often the ones in our society doing grisly killings are butchers or cooks. I now expect a request for statical proof from RW

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2014, 01:51 PM
I see the beheadings as only a terror tactic that would be wise to ignore or not to give greater emphasis to than a shooting.

I tend to agree with this actually. But I think any killing of a defenceless person who is held captive and has no chance of escape is a disgusting act (and I include capital punishment in that heading though obviously it is much worse if the person has done nothing wrong.) I picture the person in that situation and realising that they are about to be killed and can do nothing about it and think how terrible such a thing would be. ISIL are contemptible scum of close to the lowest order possible and it's important not to lose sight of that - at the same time responses need to be practical rather than stupid, and concern about them needs to be proportional to actual risk rather than hysterical.

antichrist
09-10-2014, 02:23 PM
Before the West got rid of Saddam I wonder how many Iraqis they had actually met. I know they were conned by some that there were WMDs. The Iraqis I have met, like other M/E people, have mostly been religious fanatics and this includes the Christian ones. If one was going to be a dictator like Saddam was then they would have no option than to be brutal to control such extremists. Better of course to try and change the masses mentality. Israeli religious terrorism must also be included of course, there it is official which may not be the case in all the Arab countries.

antichrist
09-10-2014, 03:07 PM
what is a lot of bull.... hype is how western leaders boast that we will not let the terrorists change our western liberal lifestyle. I see the western system as mainly being capitalistic and based on private ownership, that is make as much money as possible. Not that I come last in these stakes but I don''t agree with this system nor is it recommendable. But the terrorists aren't interested in this system to demolish it in the west, they just want the West out of the M/E based on economic, political power, religious, ethnic and moral issues. I believe it is these issues that gains traction with local Muslim terrorists who need a purpose in life. That purpose is well covered in Freud's books, Civilisation and it's Discontents, and others that I cannot now recall. (I hope I deserve that philosopher/intellectual bridge provider I claimed I possessed to KB)

Ian Murray
09-10-2014, 03:27 PM
I tend to agree with this actually. But I think any killing of a defenceless person who is held captive and has no chance of escape is a disgusting act (and I include capital punishment in that heading...
Quite so. The aim is not to force a change in US or UK foreign policy, which everyone knows is highly unlikely, but to intimidate western civilians and more importantly, to provoke a hamfisted military response causing civilian casualties and edging the population from supporting the government to supporting the militants (which is unlikely in view of ISIL's own brutality, the likelier result being a civil population wishing a plague on both houses).

Deploying Australian forces boosts the government in domestic polls, but will have no discernible effect on the eventual outcome. It will have an appreciable effect on the budget as Treasury writes the cheques to pay the bills as they come in.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2014, 11:29 AM
NETANYAHU HITS BACK AT UN SECRETARY GENERAL FOR SAYING “OCCUPATION” JUSTIFIED HAMAS ATTACKS ON ISRAEL (http://therightscoop.com/netanyahu-hits-back-at-un-secretary-general-for-saying-occupation-justified-hamas-attacks-on-israel/)
13 Oct 2014

“The root cause of the violence that burst from Gaza is not Israel’s occupation in Gaza, for a simple reason: Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza,” Netanyahu explained. “Israel left Gaza to the very last centimeter, to the very last inch. We uprooted all the settlements and vacated all the settlers. So there is no Israeli occupation of Gaza.”

Netanyahu then pointed out that Ban justified Hamas’s rocket barrage despite the fact that it used the UN’s own facilities to break international law.

“The root cause of this summer’s outburst of violence was Hamas’ rocketing of Israeli cities, and these rocket attacks often exploited UN neutrality, using UN facilities and UN schools as part of the Hamas machine of terror,” he thundered. “And when rockets were discovered inside UN schools, some UN officials handed them back to Hamas – that very same Hamas that was rocketing Israeli cities and Israeli civilians.”

antichrist
15-10-2014, 11:38 AM
Now Jono the whole world knows that Gaza is full of refugees from what is now Israel, they were terrorised out of their homeland of thousands of years by Zionist terrorists. The current generation of Israelis are receiving the benefits of that terrorism and the only language that the Israeli Zionists recognise is terrorism - for or against. The terrorism that Israeli receives from the Palestinians is the rent for occupying their land.

Just like Jewish victims of Germany are still getting compo from WW2

Ian Murray
15-10-2014, 09:03 PM
NETANYAHU HITS BACK AT UN SECRETARY GENERAL FOR SAYING “OCCUPATION” JUSTIFIED HAMAS ATTACKS ON ISRAEL (http://therightscoop.com/netanyahu-hits-back-at-un-secretary-general-for-saying-occupation-justified-hamas-attacks-on-israel/)


What the UN Secretary-General actually said was:

... the root causes of the summer’s hostilities were “a restrictive occupation that has lasted almost half a century, the continued denial of Palestinian rights and the lack of tangible progress in peace negotiations.”

For a more balanced account from Israel rather rhan Jono's starboard-skewed US site, try http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.620698

Capablanca-Fan
16-10-2014, 03:56 AM
What the UN Secretary-General actually said was:

... the root causes of the summer’s hostilities were “a restrictive occupation that has lasted almost half a century, the continued denial of Palestinian rights and the lack of tangible progress in peace negotiations.”
Still, the leader of the UN kakistocracy is a moron. As Netanyahu said, Gaza is not occupied! And Arabs have more freedom than in Arab countries, since they can become officers in the IDF, Knesset members, and judges. Yes, there is no tangible progress in peace negotiations because the HAMAS charter explicitly states its objective of wiping out Jews and Israel. Conversely, Israel has honoured peace treaties with Eghypt and Jordan.


For a more balanced account from Israel rather rhan Jono's starboard-skewed US site, try http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.620698
Yes, Israel, unlike any other country in the middle east, allows criticism of its government, even from the hard-a-port types who agree with LE and AC..

antichrist
16-10-2014, 05:28 AM
All Israel Will Be Saved
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved.

AC: I read this as an recommendation against an apartheid Jewish state of Israel. It must have Gentiles to be saved, that is it's earlier people, the Phoenicians, my people who were genocided by Hitler Joshua on his Longest Day.

antichrist
17-10-2014, 10:32 AM
Topic 3


No, I'm not questioning your concern for the Kurds at all. I believe the Kurds should have a country of their own, incorporating relevant parts of some or all of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. I'm just questioning that you seem to support a homeland for them but not for Israel.

New [17-10, 10:30] Kevin Bonham: actually a lot of those "European Jews" trace their ancestry back in some part at least to the Middle East so it is not a valid analogy.



AC: Israel would not have existed without the Holocaust, which is not a good or worthy pretext for booting millions of Palestinians out of their homeland. The ideological battle amongst international Jewry for an actual physical Zionist homeland in Palestine was fought and lost before the Holocaust.

Some European Jews "may" be able to trace their ancestry back to Palestine just as they can trace God giving them a permitted genocide against Canaanite on Joshua's Longest Day it is in the Bible and therefore indisputable???. A lot of the genetic testing is done by bods whom may have a vested interest in producing certain results so I don't fully respect such results. As we know the Arab Jews did not come from Palestine, so their booting out of the Canaanites (Pheonicians) 3,000 years ago does not hold up, unless we also accept the Romans booting out the Jews in 68CE or 70CE.

I thought WW2 would have seen the end of territories being acquired based on violence, that might is greater than right but it seems for everyone except the Zionist Jews. Israel was created by violence by violent Zionists. After WW2 Liberal Jews wanted a bi-national state realising that they just cannot have or want an independent state in the then current conditions of a fully occupied territory. The rest is history. How can their be peace without justice, for the Kurds in Turkey or the Palestinians in Israel/Palestine? When will the Palestinians get their homes back, which of course means the demounting of the Zionist state?

So again why should religious dogma take precedence over native rights

(am ages behind in my work so see you tomorrow maybe)

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2014, 11:12 AM
AC: Israel would not have existed without the Holocaust, which is not a good or worthy pretext for booting millions of Palestinians out of their homeland. The ideological battle amongst international Jewry for an actual physical Zionist homeland in Palestine was fought and lost before the Holocaust.

This really doesn't follow. If the Holocaust provided fresh reason for a homeland to be considered necessary then what happened before that happened is irrelevant.

Not that it should be necessary anyway. Any major ethnicity that desires a self-determining homeland and that has long had a base in a particular area (even if not necessarily continuously) should ideally have one. So if you don't think it should be in what is now Israel then do you have any other suggestions as to where?


A lot of the genetic testing is done by bods whom may have a vested interest in producing certain results so I don't fully respect such results.

It would be convenient for you then if tests done by Jews showed one lot of results and tests done by other ethnicities showed something different. But that's not the case. You're just dodging the fact that your analogy of European residents converting to Aboriginality is unsound because European Jews do have significantly Middle Eastern genetic origins. That is not to say their DNA is exclusively Middle Eastern but I hardly think that matters.

Capablanca-Fan
17-10-2014, 12:48 PM
No, I'm not questioning your concern for the Kurds at all. I believe the Kurds should have a country of their own, incorporating relevant parts of some or all of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. I'm just questioning that you seem to support a homeland for them but not for Israel.
I agree with that. After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, the Allies could have done the Kurds, and the rest of the world, a big favour by creating Kurdistan. Instead, because of silly promises made by Lawrence of Arabia to his Arab allies and wrangling with the French, a new country of Iraq was arbitrarily carved out so the Hashemite Emir Faisal, from what is now Saudi Arabia, could have his own kingdom far from his homeland. Faisal was quite friendly to the Jews too.

antichrist
17-10-2014, 01:01 PM
you guys keep getting your uppercuts in whilst I must get work done. I apprec the debate and of course return ASAP

And Jono silly promises by the colonial powers to the Jews as well that they could have land already fully occupied for thousands of years to which Jews only had genocidal Biblical rights to via Joshua (an early Adolf)

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2014, 02:44 PM
Dershowitz: Hamas — Not Israel — Killed BBC Reporter’s Baby (http://www.newsmax.com/AlanDershowitz/Dershowitz-Hamas-Not-Israel-Killed-BBC-Reporter-s-Baby/2013/03/13/id/494605/#)
Wednesday, 13 Mar 2013 09:59 PM
By Alan Dershowitz

The recent disclosure that Omar Misharawi, the baby son of BBC reporter Jihad Misharawi, was actually killed by an errant Hamas rocket rather than by an Israeli missile, should have absolutely no moral implications.

Of course the baby was killed by Hamas.

He would have been killed by Hamas even if the missile that ended his life had been fired by Israel. Hamas is totally and wholly responsible for this death, as it is responsible for every civilian death in Gaza and in Israel. It is Hamas that always begins the battle by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

Generally Israel does not respond.

When it does, its rockets occasionally kill Palestinian civilians. That’s because Hamas wants Palestinians civilians — especially babies — to be killed by Israelis rockets. They want Palestinian babies to be killed precisely so that they can display the kind of photographs that were shown around the world: a grieving father holding his dead baby, presumably killed by an Israeli rocket.

For years, I have called this Hamas’ “dead baby strategy.” The recent United Nations finding simply confirms the reality of this cynical strategy.

Often the evidence is inconclusive, though the forensic evidence in this case points clearly to a Hamas rocket.

The important point is that it doesn’t really matter who actually fired the rocket that killed the baby. The baby was killed by Hamas as part of a calculated strategy designed to point the emotional finger of moral blame at the IDF for doing what every democracy would do: namely, defend its civilians from rocket attacks by targeting those who are firing the rockets, even if they are firing them from civilian areas.

It may sound heartless to claim that Hamas wants its own babies to be killed as part of its strategy of demonizing Israel. But there is no escaping the reality and truth of this phenomenon. Indeed it has been admitted by Hamas leaders such as Fathi Hammad:


“For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death like you desire life.’”

Of course these Hamas leaders don’t desire their own death. They build shelters for themselves and for the terrorists who fire the rockets at Israeli civilians. As soon as these rockets are fired from crowded civilian areas, the terrorists scurry into below-ground shelters, leaving babies, women and other civilians in the path of Israeli rockets that target the rocket launchers.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2014, 05:07 AM
The Middle East Problem (http://prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Middle-East-Problem.html)
Dennis Prager

Semester after semester, we studied the Middle East conflict as if it was the most complex conflict in the world -- when in fact, it is probably the easiest conflict in the world to explain. It may be the hardest to solve, but it is the easiest to explain.

In a nutshell, it is this: One side wants the other side dead.

Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state and to live in peace. Israel also recognizes the right of Palestinians to have their own state and to live in peace. The problem, however, is that most Palestinians and many other Muslims and Arabs, do not recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist.

So it's not hard to explain the Middle-East dispute. One side wants the other dead. The motto of Hamas, the Palestinian rulers of Gaza, is: "We love death as much as the Jews love life."

There are 22 Arab states in the world -- stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. There is one "Jewish State" in the world. And it is about the size of New Jersey. In fact, tiny El Salvador is larger than Israel.

Finally, think about these two questions: If, tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, "We will fight no more," what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced "We will fight no more," what would happen?

In the first case there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and the mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.

As I said at the outset, it is a simple problem to describe: one side wants the other dead -- and if it didn't, there would be peace.

Please remember this: There has never been a state in the geographic area known as Palestine that was not Jewish. Israel is the third Jewish state to exist in that area. There was never an Arab state, never a Palestinian state, never a Muslim or any other state.

That's the issue: why can't the one Jewish state the size of El Salvador be allowed to exist? That is the Middle-East problem.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8

Ian Murray
01-11-2014, 10:07 AM
The Middle East Problem (http://prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Middle-East-Problem.html)
Dennis Prager

Semester after semester, we studied the Middle East conflict as if it was the most complex conflict in the world -- when in fact, it is probably the easiest conflict in the world to explain. It may be the hardest to solve, but it is the easiest to explain.

In a nutshell, it is this: One side wants the other side dead.

Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state and to live in peace. Israel also recognizes the right of Palestinians to have their own state and to live in peace. The problem, however, is that most Palestinians and many other Muslims and Arabs, do not recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist.
So that's all the problem is, in a nutshell. And here I was thinking there were other factors in play, like the civil wars in Syria, Libya and Iraq, the military ousting of the Egyptian elected government, the suppression of the popular uprising in Bahrain (with tacit US support), the Taliban in Afghanistan, the ISIS thrust to establish a new caliphate, AlQaeda. All irrelevant, it seems.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2014, 10:33 AM
Exactly. Good that I've cleared up misconceptions.

Rincewind
01-11-2014, 07:26 PM
Jono too dense to appreciate sarcasm. Now there is a surprise. I see that Jono is dense enough to also spam the board with rightwing propaganda from a bogus institution started by a rightwing nutjob.

antichrist
02-11-2014, 12:41 PM
Sweden has recognised Palestine on pre-1967 borders and Israel is hopping mad - what does Israel expect after 70 years of Judeo-Nazism

antichrist
02-11-2014, 01:56 PM
An analogy of Israel grabbing Palestinian land would be some Oz Aborigines moved to Africa (or anywhere), some Africans take to the Aboriginal religion then they claim unimpeded rights to ownership of Australia. They can steal land, bomb the locals, take all the water etc and then call the whites terrorists when they fight back. A simple black and white issue

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2014, 02:35 PM
That is a bad analogy and it has already been explained why. European Jews returning to Israel are not genetic or cultural strangers taking up a completely alien religion.

antichrist
02-11-2014, 03:22 PM
That is a bad analogy and it has already been explained why. European Jews returning to Israel are not genetic or cultural strangers taking up a completely alien religion.

But you are only taking the word of those who may have a conflict of interest to "prove" such. It is like the Bible written after the event justifying what took place. Both come with authority of course. Because it is only the Bible that gives the ancient Hebrews rights in Palestine. And in other threads for you the Bible is the last refuge of scoundrels.

As stated in my analogy they took up the new Aboriginal religion outside Australia, likewise most returning Jews were only religious converts demanding land rights from a land they had never inhabited. Israel was only declared a state due to WW2 persecution of Jews - not because they had rights to the place. What other example has there been in history of an international body giving land occupied, hundreds of town and villages, to another people? For the original habitants (in this context) to be collateral damage, still in refugee camps 60 years later without Right of Return enforced according to international law.

That Swedish vote is not the first that way. The world is now turning and realising what an injustice it has inflicted on the Palestinian inhabitants. And what is in current Israel is no different to what is outside Israel, as Igor has conceded, so the Palestinians deserve all of their land back.

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2014, 04:03 PM
But you are only taking the word of those who may have a conflict of interest to "prove" such.

You're clutching at straws here, and you are not entitled to your own facts in doing so. There are a large number of such genetic studies and they are not all conducted by Jews. If the findings were wrong other scientists would come along and fail to replicate them. That's how science works. It hasn't happened.


But you are only taking the word of those who may have a conflict of interest to "prove" such.

You're clutching at straws here, and you are not entitled to your own facts in doing so. There are a large number of such genetic studies and they are not all conducted by Jews. If the findings were wrong other scientists would come along and fail to replicate them. That's how science works. It hasn't happened.


That Swedish vote is not the first that way. The world is now turning and realising what an injustice it has inflicted on the Palestinian inhabitants. And what is in current Israel is no different to what is outside Israel, as Igor has conceded, so the Palestinians deserve all of their land back.

The Swedes have just recognised Palestine as a state on 1967 borders. They haven't derecognised Israel entirely. They are just moving towards a two-state solution faster than most other western nations - perhaps in the hope of encouraging such a resolution to occur soon and on terms more friendly to Palestine than might other be the case. Claiming them as poster-people for your apparent position that Israel has no rights at all will not fool anyone.

Indeed positions like yours only assist Israel to continue to demonise its opponents.

Palestine is a non-member observer state at the UN and is already recognised in some sense by practically all of Africa, the Middle East, Asia and South America, and several eastern European nations. Sweden's recognition isn't so surprising then.

antichrist
02-11-2014, 08:32 PM
The Swedes have just recognised Palestine as a state on 1967 borders. They haven't derecognised Israel entirely. They are just moving towards a two-state solution faster than most other western nations - perhaps in the hope of encouraging such a resolution to occur soon and on terms more friendly to Palestine than might other be the case. Claiming them as poster-people for your apparent position that Israel has no rights at all will not fool anyone.

AC: the Palestinians and Israelis know that a two state solution is only the first stepping stone to getting all the land back, that is all of Israel. Why should some Palestinians have land rights and not others when all conditions are materially the same? When the Right of Return is implemented, maybe not in my lifetime but in yours, and they get their land back there will be no Israel as we know it any more. It will be like holey cheese just like the Zionists tried to do to the Palestinians. And when the Palestinians finally get nuke weapons their will be no more Israeli invasions. It is all only a matter of 30, 50 or 70 years.

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2014, 01:13 AM
Nice to see AC showing his true antisemitic colours, in wanting to eliminate Israel, the democratic homeland of the Jewish people. Israel will have something to say about that. AC doesn't even care that Arabs have more rights in Israel than in any Arabic nation. Like Hamas and Hizbollah, he cares less about Arab welfare than elimination of the Jewish state.

antichrist
03-11-2014, 11:55 AM
Will get back to you later JOno, must rush off.

but just for a tidbit: Petition in support of peaceful Middle East protest
Published on Monday, 27 October 2014 21:00
Ms Parke (9:00pm)—What I am to say today will likely not be popular in this place or indeed in the wider community. However, there comes a time when the injustices have so mounted up that plain speaking becomes a duty. This year is the UN International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. However, despite overwhelming support within the international community for a Palestinian state and for an end to the Israeli occupation and settlement building, as well as the blockade of Gaza, there has not been any positive change for Palestinians on the ground. Rather, recent events have left more than 2,000 Palestinians in Gaza dead and thousands more injured, while more than a million Palestinians—who are a proud, educated and enterprising people—are dependent on food aid and there is a massive damage bill to be picked up again by the international community. Meanwhile settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues apace, each build putting a further nail in the coffin of the two-state solution.

Read more...

antichrist
03-11-2014, 09:58 PM
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4313863,00.html
3,000 homes beyond Green Line okayed
Less than 24 hours after General Assembly recognizes Palestine as non-member state, government's top nine ministers respond by approving construction of new housing units in Jerusalem, West Bank. PA: Decision a 'slap in the face of entire world

AC: this is Israel's arrogance and lack of goodwill towards trying to fix a very serious war-causing problem - and also why the world is turning against Israel The ethnic Arabs amongst the Jews may have land rights in Iraq but not Palestine, according to their own Holy Book they committed genocide to claim Palestine, So they should not now prosper again using the first genocide as a basis for land rights - extremely arrogant.

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2014, 02:50 AM
I don't give a monkey's about the UN kakistocracy comprising such hellholes as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

How about: Israel has repeatedly given ‘land for peace’, and received no peace. Instead, the land was immediately taken over by terrorists who want to exterminate the Jewish state, and launched rockets against civilians. So finally the Israelis want to see some concessions from the Palestinians before any more such deals, at least including recognition of Israel's right to exist. This is why most now back Netanyahu.

antichrist
04-11-2014, 05:26 AM
I don't give a monkey's about the UN kakistocracy comprising such hellholes as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

How about: Israel has repeatedly given ‘land for peace’, and received no peace. Instead, the land was immediately taken over by terrorists who want to exterminate the Jewish state, and launched rockets against civilians. So finally the Israelis want to see some concessions from the Palestinians before any more such deals, at least including recognition of Israel's right to exist. This is why most now back Netanyahu.

Terror is the only word that Zionists understand - that is how they captured Palestine 3,000 years ago and again 66 years ago. They only let go of Gaza because of terror, it works both ways for them, and they can only respond with terror.

Fine don't recognise the United Nations - that does away with the State of Israel anyway - because it was illegally and immorally "given" by the United Nations to the Zionist terrorists as a reward for their terrorism.

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2014, 05:51 AM
[Historical revisionist crap deleted] They only let go of Gaza because of terror, it works both ways for them, and they can only respond with terror.
They let go of Gaza because of empty promises of land for peace. They let go of Sinai previously when Egypt signed a peace treaty, and Israel has honoured that since, as with Jordan.


Fine don't recognise the United Nations - that does away with the State of Israel anyway
I mean to substitute the UN kakistocracy with an organization of states with regular free elections, free press, and functioning independent judiciary. Israel qualifies; so many of her critics fail miserably. The UN wasn't always a kakistocracy—it was founded by the victors of WW2.


- because it was illegally and immorally "given" by the United Nations to the Zionist terrorists as a reward for their terrorism.
More nonsense. It has always been the homeland of the Jews. No Arab state has ever existed there. There was probably some guilt by the Western nations for slamming doors shut in the face of Jews fleeing the Holocaust. But decades before that, Jews had drained malarial swamps and planted trees, making the land so fertile that many Arabs were attracted there. My great uncle, Dr Edward Joseph (1894–1982) (http://www.ccdhb.org.nz/hhist/staff/JosephEG_N.html), was the first New Zealander to settle in Israel, back in 1928, before the Holocaust and UN. He was Head of Surgery at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem for 30 years.

Ian Murray
04-11-2014, 07:22 AM
...I mean to substitute the UN kakistocracy with an organization of states with regular free elections, free press, and functioning independent judiciary. Israel qualifies; so many of her critics fail miserably. The UN wasn't always a kakistocracy—it was founded by the victors of WW2....

You're obsessed with the UN General Assembly, which is only a forum in which every nation on earth has a voice and a vote, but no power. The real work of the UN is carried out by the Secretariat and the Security Council, and the hard-working UN agencies like UNICEF, UNHCR, UNDP, UNEP, WMO, ICAO etc. By definition it is not a kakistocracy.



... My great uncle, Dr Edward Joseph (1894–1982) (http://www.ccdhb.org.nz/hhist/staff/JosephEG_N.html), was the first New Zealander to settle in Israel, back in 1928, before the Holocaust and UN. He was Head of Surgery at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem for 30 years.
I'm impressed

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2014, 11:37 AM
The height of hypocrisy. Egypt destroys hundreds of Palestinians homes to create a buffer zone at the southern border of the Gaza Strip in response to a Hamas terrorist attack where Islamist terrorists butchered 33 Egyptian soldiers. Ironically, not a peep from the UN or the international media. But if Israel did the same thing, the world would cry out "genocide" and international condemnation and outrage would ensue. Same goes with the international coalition against ISIS. The airstrikes have so far caused thousands of civilian casualties (far more than the Gaza war), yet the world couldn't care less. But when Israel targeted terrorists with airstrikes in Gaza a few months ago (with far less casualties) it caused protests all over the world and was labeled a "war crime". Go figure!

Egypt Destroys Hundreds of Palestinian Homes To Curb Terrorism, World Silent (http://www.israelislamandendtimes.com/egypt-destroys-hundreds-of-palestinian-homes-to-curb-terrorism-world-silent/), 4 November 2014

Ian Murray
05-11-2014, 04:20 PM
The height of hypocrisy. Egypt destroys hundreds of Palestinians homes to create a buffer zone at the southern border of the Gaza Strip in response to a ... terrorist attack... Ironically, not a peep from the UN or the international media.
Egypt is resuming property and paying compensation to affected residents, something governments do all the time. It received international media coverage, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29825889


But if Israel did the same thing, the world would cry out "genocide" and international condemnation and outrage would ensue.
There are no Palestinian homes in Israel along the Gaza border.


... when Israel targeted terrorists with airstrikes in Gaza a few months ago (with far less casualties) it caused protests all over the world and was labeled a "war crime". Go figure!
The thousands of homes destroyed were not terrorist targets, they were civilian homes. No compensation paid by Israel of course. The Egyptian and Israeli land clearance plans are not remotely similar.

Rincewind
05-11-2014, 06:00 PM
Did you see where Spammer-Fan got the story? "Israel, Islam & End Times" Hardly a bastion of ethical journalism.

Ian Murray
05-11-2014, 07:57 PM
Did you see where Spammer-Fan got the story? "Israel, Islam & End Times" Hardly a bastion of ethical journalism.

I did indeed. At the bottom of the article is a link to its source, which I followed with interest. It came from the Gatestone Institute (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/gatestone_institute) which - surprise, surprise - is a neoconservative right wing advocacy group.

Rincewind
05-11-2014, 08:21 PM
I did indeed. At the bottom of the article is a link to its source, which I followed with interest. It came from the Gatestone Institute (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/gatestone_institute) which - surprise, surprise - is a neoconservative right wing advocacy group.

Yeah there are a bunch of these right-wing agitprop groups supplying grist to the right-wing blogosphere mill.

But be aware that Spammer-fan's new word for neoconservative is "centrist". :lol:

antichrist
06-11-2014, 10:55 AM
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/02/get-two-jews-in-a-room-you-have-three-opinions-not


A Melbourne synagogue has withdrawn its invitation to Naomi Chazan to speak in Australia. Scary. Because Chazan’s very-Zionist New Israel Fund has had the temerity to support human-rights groups in Israel.

AC: so we have Zionists in Melbourne who are more extreme than those in Israel- yes scary

antichrist
19-11-2014, 12:58 AM
Israel’s UN representative Abba Eban wrote to Evatt on 18 May 1949:

“We are deeply indebted to the Australian Delegation for its consistent and effective support of our cause in the Assembly and its organs through all the stages of the consideration of our problem by the United Nations. We are grateful to you for the decisive part you played in the proceedings. It was under your competent and determined chairmanship that the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine during the annual session of 1947, adopted the plan which was embodied in the historic Resolution of November 29th…

Finally, it was again under your chairmanship and thanks in so large measure to your determined lead that Israel was admitted to the United Nations when barely a year old. The manner in which you steered to a vote the second historic Resolution, representing as it does the culmination of the process initiated by the first, the warmth and eloquence with which you welcomed Israel into the family of nations, have earned for you the undying gratitude of our people.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC: so what do we have, an island just forcefully robbed from the Aborigines to become Australia, helps the Zionists rob the homeland of the Palestinians. And did not stand up when West Papua was robbed by the Indonesians. Well how could we when we have blood on our hands.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2014, 04:15 AM
The thousands of homes destroyed were not terrorist targets, they were civilian homes.
Of course, if your beloved Hamas were not launching rockets near homes, hospitals, and schools, using them as human shields, homes would not have been destroyed. Of course, the cowardly terrorists scurry into their shelters like cockroaches fleeing the light, while civilians are not allowed into the shelters.


No compensation paid by Israel of course.
Of course not. Under the rules of war, the guilty ones are those using human shields, thus committing a double war crime: targeting civilians of the enemy country plus using their own civilians to shield their weapons.

Ian Murray
19-11-2014, 05:25 AM
Of course, if your beloved Hamas were not launching rockets near homes, hospitals, and schools, using them as human shields, homes would not have been destroyed. Of course, the cowardly terrorists scurry into their shelters like cockroaches fleeing the light, while civilians are not allowed into the shelters.


Of course not. Under the rules of war, the guilty ones are those using human shields, thus committing a double war crime: targeting civilians of the enemy country plus using their own civilians to shield their weapons.

2718

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2014, 07:39 AM
The Hamas-fan above ↑↑↑ also buys into Pallywood agitprop (http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/pallywood-a-history/), evidently.

Ian Murray
19-11-2014, 09:04 AM
The Hamas-fan above ↑↑↑ also buys into Pallywood agitprop (http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/pallywood-a-history/), evidently.

My source is the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, which I'm sure you know is a Jesuit university in Washington DC and a long way from what could be called an agitprop organisation.

antichrist
19-11-2014, 11:52 AM
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/01/27/dr-herbert-vere-evatt-an-aussie-docs-role-in-the-birth-of-israel/

During the 1940s, Evatt drew close to the prominent Sydney Zionist leader Max Freilich as well as to New South Wales state politician Abram Landa, another exponent of the Zionist cause, whose brother had been a fellow law student with Evatt, and by the autumn of 1945 the “Doc” – as “Bert” Evatt was widely known – was telling colleagues in the Department of External Affairs that the Jewish People must and would have a homeland very soon, that they “had full historical rights in Palestine” and that “If the Arabs refused to permit the essential conditions of this home for the Jews then the UN must decree it and guarantee it.” The following year, in Canberra, Evatt confided to the Jewish Agency’s Michael Comay (destined to be Israel’s ambassador to the UN, 1960-67, and to Britain, 1970-73) that he was opposed to British policy in Palestine, although he couldn’t yet come out publicly for Partition.

AC: full historical rights according to Dr Evatt - and how were they obtained may we ask? By the genocidal massacre supposed sanctioned by a god that does not exist? The Palestinians did not cop that manufactured self-serving bulldust 3,000 years ago nor do they cop it now. But the Zionists have gotten away with it by head-hunting top Gentiles.

antichrist
22-11-2014, 03:25 AM
Only replied because you practically invited me to. Of course, I justified that claim. But you won't find me inserting creation into most political and chess threads the way you insert antisemitism and atheopathy everywhere.

AC: not anti-semitism but anti Zionism, that I consider nothing but pure robbery and genocide dressed up as religious bulldust. They have managed to con most of the world but things are changing over time - even Righteous Gentiles are turning against Israel.

Adamski
22-11-2014, 12:19 PM
For those on Facebook: ISIS preferred by American students (Berkeley) to Israel. Crazy!

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152510161402689&set=vb.19459912688&type=2&theater

antichrist
23-11-2014, 09:43 PM
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/338739779571/Dateline-21-October-2014

Dateline re right wing Israelis making it hell for Jews marrying Palestinians

antichrist
07-12-2014, 03:34 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/07/map-the-countries-that-recognize-palestine-as-a-state/

And this was only achieved via violence that should have been completely unnecessary, just as the liberation of the rest of Palestinian territories, i.e.Israel, from Zionists should be achieved through non violent methods but will never happen, maybe only via violence. The land was stolen via violence and seems can only be returned via violence.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2014, 02:04 PM
Palestinians Flee Hamas, Ask Israel to Imprison Them (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4948/palestinians-israeli-jails)
by Khaled Abu Toameh
12 December 2014

Palestinian youths prefer to spend time in Israeli prison than to live in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Over the past two months, more than 20 Palestinians have been arrested while trying to cross from the Gaza Strip into Israel, according to Palestinian sources. A number of Palestinians have also been killed or wounded during their infiltration attempts.

The increase in the number of Palestinians who try to infiltrate Israel comes as Egypt continues to keep the Rafah border crossing closed. It also comes as the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah intensifies, hampering international efforts to rebuild the Gaza Strip and improve Palestinians' living conditions in the aftermath of last summer's military confrontation with Israel.

The situation has become so miserable in Gaza that some Palestinian youths are prepared to endanger their lives by approaching the border with Israel.

Palestinian sources note that 12 Palestinians recently managed to cross the border from the Gaza Strip into Israel.

The Palestinian news website, Al-Watan Voice, interviewed two of the youths who embarked on the dangerous adventure. The two young men said they prefer the "comfort" of Israeli prisons to life in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

antichrist
14-12-2014, 03:30 PM
Palestinians Flee Hamas, Ask Israel to Imprison Them (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4948/palestinians-israeli-jails)
by Khaled Abu Toameh
12 December 2014

Palestinian youths prefer to spend time in Israeli prison than to live in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Over the past two months, more than 20 Palestinians have been arrested while trying to cross from the Gaza Strip into Israel, according to Palestinian sources. A number of Palestinians have also been killed or wounded during their infiltration attempts.

The increase in the number of Palestinians who try to infiltrate Israel comes as Egypt continues to keep the Rafah border crossing closed. It also comes as the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah intensifies, hampering international efforts to rebuild the Gaza Strip and improve Palestinians' living conditions in the aftermath of last summer's military confrontation with Israel.

The situation has become so miserable in Gaza that some Palestinian youths are prepared to endanger their lives by approaching the border with Israel.

Palestinian sources note that 12 Palestinians recently managed to cross the border from the Gaza Strip into Israel.

The Palestinian news website, Al-Watan Voice, interviewed two of the youths who embarked on the dangerous adventure. The two young men said they prefer the "comfort" of Israeli prisons to life in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

What do you expect when Israel has stolen good land, water and resources. As well as sponsoring Hamas in its early days to divide FATAH. Any govt in power over ten years becomes corrupt and because Palestine has not being a normal society for 70 years everything becomes out of whack. Those extremists in Hamas would not be listened to if secular PLO had being victorious decades ago. Islam is a fantastic fighting doctrine so of course it attracts the desperate fighting Israel completely against the odds. Already the world is recognising Palestine on the borders outlined by the UN which means 515,000 Zionist robbing settler bastards going back to where they come from. Even Bob Hawke a righteous gentile has turned against Israel for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Israel is running out of friends that is exactly what she deserves

ludwigra
15-12-2014, 05:10 PM
I mostly agree with your views (if not with the exact formulation or with the same passion).

To sum up:

We have criminals, fascists and (non-universalistic-)religious people (both in the sense of the conventional definition of religion and in the sense of holding dogmatic and one-sided, excluding views) on both sides, many of which in power positions.

At the same time there are also people who are just being born into it and due to "nurture" (environmental factors of various kinds) become, to this or that extent, part of the problem rather than part of a solution.

Arbitrarily, deterministically or by whatever metaphysical view one subscribes to, it happens that Israel holds most of the power, being "The Hegemony" there (if one can use this term in an inter-society way) and thus posses the means of controlling, policing, war-waging etc. Now, as aforementioned, I do not condone what is happening there at all (not just the inter-society, but to a large extent the intra-Israeli-society issues as well, and these two are never disconnected, indeed, even cross-pollinating I would think). I truly would like to see a resolution beneficial to both parties. Having said that (and after living there for 33 years) I also think that in a hypothetical counterfactual world in which power in Israel/Palestine would have been reversed, things would not have become more secular (in both senses outlined above). As one cannot measure the Total Happiness/Suffering (being in the main philosophy's constructions) in the real world, let alone in a counterfactual one, I cannot say much on this point. This of course is not an excuse to not to attempt to alleviate suffering where possible, but unlike you I've lost faith in humanity a long time ago.

Maybe I am just more pessimistic (and possibly less humanitarian) than you, but my "solution" was moving to Australia, giving up on both sides there. So yes, perhaps "a coward's solution" in some people's eyes (including many Israelis I may happen to argue against), but so be it.

Hmm... not sure why I wrote all this - probably something to do psychologically with this thing happening in Martin Place today.

ElevatorEscapee
15-12-2014, 05:27 PM
^^^

Thank you, that was an awesome post ludwirgra!

antichrist
15-12-2014, 10:32 PM
ludwigra
I can well understand you leaving a hopeless conflicting world. We only have one life and at some time we say enough is enough we now want peace, normality and enjoyment. I know Israel is split between the fascists and the fair-minded justice-loving liberals for whom the situation seems hopeless. But what gives hope is that there are many Jewish groups fighting for Palestinian rights, who are standing side by side with the Palestinians in their struggle. Those Jews are mocked, ridiculed, deemed traitors etc. but they are the greatest people with whom we should share their struggle and hope. You are correct about Muslim extremists, as Yassar Arafat said decades ago, at some time they would have to be dealt with. But it is mainly due to the compromising of Arafat, in an attempt to obtain a state and relief for his people, that these groups emerged when Yassar could not produce the goods in a just and timely manner.

What propels me is that there have been refugees and injustice for almost 70 years and Australia had a significant part in creating such, so we must be also part of the solution. Refer: http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/01/27/dr-herbert-vere-evatt-an-aussie-docs-role-in-the-birth-of-israel/

ludwigra
16-12-2014, 08:31 AM
Thanks for the link.
I had no knowledge of this.

As I perhaps alluded to in my previous post, and for various reasons, I am generally quite a-political in an era where Homo-Sapiens has turned Homo-Politicus. If I am (Neo-) liberal/marxist or anything at all, it is not in any political sense of these denotations.

Notwithstanding the above I did put Pappe' on my to-read list, but then again, it is vying for my attention with ~200 other (less historico-political) texts presently...

antichrist
16-12-2014, 09:20 AM
Thanks for the link.
I had no knowledge of this.

As I perhaps alluded to in my previous post, and for various reasons, I am generally quite a-political in an era where Homo-Sapiens has turned Homo-Politicus. If I am (Neo-) liberal/marxist or anything at all, it is not in any political sense of these denotations.

Notwithstanding the above I did put Pappe' on my to-read list, but then again, it is vying for my attention with ~200 other (less historico-political) texts presently...

Thanks for Pappe reference I had not heard of him yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Papp%C3%A9 see quote below


Of course not everybody can or need to be political, it is an artificial existence, I have done myself for years. When everyone does become political they can be manipulated like in Great Cultural Revolution in China and then the worse of all worlds.

Because of the likes of Pappe that is why sometimes I say the Jews also have amongst the best in the world, who will put down their own country because they can see injustice. And it is only them who actually care for the reputation of Jews.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine is a book authored by New Historian Ilan Pappé and published in 2006 by One World Oxford.

During the 1948 Palestine war, around 720,000 Palestinian Arabs out of the 900,000 who lived in the territories that became Israel fled or were expelled from their home. The causes of this exodus are controversial and debated by historians. In his own words, Ilan Pappé "want[s] to make the case for the paradigm of ethnic cleansing and use[s] it to replace the paradigm of war as the basis for the scholarly research of, and public debate about, 1948."[1]

The thesis of the book is that the forced move of Palestinians to the Arab world was an objective of the Zionist movement, and a must for the desired character of the Jewish state. According to Ilan Pappé, the 1948 Palestinian exodus resulted from a planned ethnic cleansing of Palestine that was implemented by the Zionist movement leaders, mainly David Ben-Gurion and the other ten members of his "consultancy group" as referred to by Pappé. The book argues that the ethnic cleansing was put into effect through systematic expulsions of about 500 Arab villages, as well as terrorist attacks executed mainly by members of the Irgun and Haganah troops against the civilian population. Ilan Pappé also refers to Plan Dalet and to the village files as a proof of the planned expulsions.[2]

antichrist
16-12-2014, 12:57 PM
Lehi (group)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

Lehi (Hebrew pronunciation: [ˈleχi]; Hebrew: לח"י – לוחמי חרות ישראל‎ Lohamei Herut Israel – Lehi, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel – Lehi"), commonly referred to in English as the Stern Gang,[9][10][11][12] was a militant Zionist group founded by Avraham ("Yair") Stern in the British Mandate of Palestine.[13][14] Its avowed aim was to evict the British authorities from Palestine by resort to force, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state, a 'new totalitarian Hebrew republic'.[15] It was initially called the National Military Organization in Israel,[1] upon being founded in August 1940, but was renamed Lehi one month later.[16]

Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II. Lehi initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.[2] On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis.[2] During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon "nationalist and totalitarian principles".[2][17] ................................

Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine.[19] On 29 May 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activist members into the Tzahal, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later,[20] an act condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche.[21] Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration in "award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel," the Lehi ribbon.[22] Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AC: many a time Jono has reminded us how some Palestine leaders (nominated by British actually) collaborated with the Nazis against the Jews (in an attempt to prevent Jews setting up a Jewish state in Palestinian lands). Well the Zionist Stern gang was doing worse than that - they were offering to help Germany fight against the British in return for a deal on Palestine. Well they backed the wrong horse there.

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2014, 05:43 PM
Excuses could be made for those letters when those invading Aust soldiers are invading and killing people in countries that are of absolutely no bother to us.

In the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan that is an extremely dubious statement, but one probably dealt with sufficiently elsewhere on the forum in the past. The Taliban are a threat to Australians travelling, and even if they were not, they are a despicable movement that kills children in schools and seeks to perpetuate religious sexism through violence.

The invasion of Iraq was on mostly bogus pretexts but the one of Afghanistan was not. That isn't to say it was necessarily effective and indeed it has created a large backlash precisely because it was viewed as unfair. But that doesn't mean it was.


Considering that Islam is considered by it's adherents to be a brotherhood then unfair action against one Muslim is an unfair action against all Muslims. So previously "innocent" Indonesian Muslims became radical.

And you - and some of them - don't seem to get that this works both ways. Islamist terrorists kill westerners, the west takes it as an attack on the whole west (it is certainly a threat to other westerners) and previously peaceful westerners start to support bombing wherever those terrorists are hiding into the stone age. There will not be peace until the targeting of random western civilians is abandoned as a method of war.

antichrist
18-12-2014, 08:11 PM
In the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan that is an extremely dubious statement, but one probably dealt with sufficiently elsewhere on the forum in the past. The Taliban are a threat to Australians travelling, and even if they were not, they are a despicable movement that kills children in schools and seeks to perpetuate religious sexism through violence.

The invasion of Iraq was on mostly bogus pretexts but the one of Afghanistan was not. That isn't to say it was necessarily effective and indeed it has created a large backlash precisely because it was viewed as unfair. But that doesn't mean it was.



And you - and some of them - don't seem to get that this works both ways. Islamist terrorists kill westerners, the west takes it as an attack on the whole west (it is certainly a threat to other westerners) and previously peaceful westerners start to support bombing wherever those terrorists are hiding into the stone age. There will not be peace until the targeting of random western civilians is abandoned as a method of war.

I know that Americans have been what appeared randomly targeted, the early ones I heard of were Jewish Americans so there was the Israel issue. Then they progressed to American Christian aid workers - a competition of ideas. I think it has only been a recent phenomena where they have been truly random . Concerning the Taliban, such groups were used by USA to destabilise Afghanistan during the Cold War era when it was under USSR influence. It was becoming a modern secular and educated country under the Soviets but that did not mean anything to the USA. They preferred the Devil. If the US did not bring down the secular government the Talibans would have had no power or position and they would need tidying up afterwards. So the USA is ultimately responsible. We could also say that it is ultimately responsible for those murdered school children.

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2014, 09:01 PM
Concerning the Taliban, such groups were used by USA to destabilise Afghanistan during the Cold War era when it was under USSR influence. It was becoming a modern secular and educated country under the Soviets but that did not mean anything to the USA.

Oh sure there was a lot of short-term opportunistic stupidity there. But it doesn't excuse the Taliban's behaviour and nor did the Taliban have any warrant for thinking that because they had been propped up against the communists that they were allowed to start blowing up random buildings. Moreover, if the US caused the Taliban problem in the first place that increases - not reduces - its responsibility to now get rid of it.

antichrist
18-12-2014, 09:37 PM
Oh sure there was a lot of short-term opportunistic stupidity there. But it doesn't excuse the Taliban's behaviour and nor did the Taliban have any warrant for thinking that because they had been propped up against the communists that they were allowed to start blowing up random buildings. Moreover, if the US caused the Taliban problem in the first place that increases - not reduces - its responsibility to now get rid of it.

But it is the way that the USA carries out this mission that is just as bad. Because they do not want body bags to create a local re-action they go in with big weapons blasting that wreck everything and kill many innocent people - creating more terrorists. The Taliban is Pakistan sponsored, and why was Pakistan created? To be a Muslim state that they are still paying the price for. And why did Hindus become Muslim - to escape the Caste system. So everything is relatively good and bad.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2014, 08:48 AM
Netanyahu: Europe ‘learned nothing’ from Holocaust (http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-europe-learned-nothing-from-holocaust/#)
PM deplores ‘hypocrisy’ of EU removing Hamas from terror list while Palestinians call for Israel to face war crimes charges
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF AND AFP December 17, 2014,

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that Europeans appeared to have learned nothing from the Holocaust, after a European Union court ordered the removal of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas from its terror blacklist.

“Today we witnessed staggering examples of European hypocrisy: in Geneva they call for the investigation of Israel for war crimes, while in Luxemburg the European court removed Hamas from the list of terrorist organizations, Hamas that has committed countless war crimes and countless terror acts,” Netanyahu’s office quoted him as saying.

Netanyahu’s war crimes comment was apparently a reference to a speech made earlier this week in the International Criminal Court by the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, who said the Palestinians intended to apply for membership in the ICC.

“It seems that too many in Europe, on whose soil six million Jews were slaughtered, have learned nothing,” Netanyahu added.

“But we in Israel, we’ve learned. We’ll continue to defend our people and our state against the forces of terror and tyranny and hypocrisy,” he said at the start of a meeting with US Republican Senator-elect Joni Ernst.

antichrist
19-12-2014, 08:29 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/17/eu-parliament-backs-palestine-state

The Guardian article tells how the world is getting the poops with Israel's Nazi actions and are finally getting the guts to do something about it.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2014, 01:58 AM
The Myth of Israeli Collective Punishment (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-myth-of-israeli-collective-punishment/)
Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Mag, 8 July 2014

The most enduring critique of Israel’s struggle against Islamic terrorism is the recurring accusation of “collective punishment.” Every time Israelis are murdered, the Jewish State is accused of punishing Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza for the actions of a few individuals.

Israel is fighting an enemy that insists on having all the advantages of a state and statelessness with none of the disadvantages. The PLO/Hamas unity government is a state when it wants something from the United Nations or the United States, but it’s not a state when it comes to taking responsibility. The Muslims who live in Gaza and the West Bank are considered citizens when it comes to having political rights, but not when it comes to taking responsibility for the consequences of their political decisions.

Their votes are to be taken seriously, but once those votes lead to war they are no longer responsible.

The Palestinian Authority is a state when it comes to its territorial claims, but not a state when it insists on open borders with Israel while claiming that any Israeli border security is a violation of its rights.

When the Palestinian Authority unity government of Hamas and the PLO wants to go to the UN, it is said to represent the political will of a populace. But when Hamas attacks Israel, suddenly it’s not a collective act, but an individual crime. If Israel targets Hamas leaders, then it’s attacking political representatives. But if Israel blockades an area run by terrorists who claim to be a state, it’s accused of engaging in collective punishment. The terrorists claim political immunity as leaders of a collective and immunity from collective attack as individuals, rather than leaders and citizens of a political entity.

Critics of Israel not only want to have it both ways, they want to have it every single possible way that advantages the terrorists and disadvantages Israel, so that in every possible scenario Israel is wrong.

The paradox deepens when it comes to Israel.

The PLO and Hamas political leadership of the PA aren’t held responsible for their terrorist attacks, but Israel is held responsible for the individual actions of its civilians. Meanwhile the entire BDS movement is one big collective punishment against Israelis of all religions and ethnic backgrounds implemented by activists who claim to be against collective punishment.

But collective punishment has always been acceptable when it comes to Israelis.

All the peace process accomplished was to give the PLO and Hamas the power and infrastructure to wage full scale war without the obligation to follow any of the rules of war and without giving their victims the right to fight back by treating them as an enemy state.

Israel has been dealing with this as a military conflict. Its enemies have the support of the civilian population that they hide behind. Despite having the appurtenances of a state, they also have immunity from suffering the consequences of the wars that they start.

The only way that Israel can stop dealing with this as a military conflict is if it restores control over Gaza and the West Bank and evicts all other authorities, including the PLO and Hamas. At that point it will exercise police powers over a civilian population, rather than military powers against an enemy statelet.

Western liberals romanticize Third Worlders by assigning to them rights without responsibilities. The Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank are assumed to have the right to elect political representatives, but not the responsibility to be held accountable for what those representatives go on to do in their name.

They have political powers, but not political responsibilities.

That’s not just dishonest, it’s an admission that they believe that the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank are not ready for statehood.

antichrist
25-12-2014, 10:54 PM
Netanyahu: Europe ‘learned nothing’ from Holocaust (http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-europe-learned-nothing-from-holocaust/#)
PM deplores ‘hypocrisy’ of EU removing Hamas from terror list while Palestinians call for Israel to face war crimes charges
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF AND AFP December 17, 2014,

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that Europeans appeared to have learned nothing from the Holocaust, after a European Union court ordered the removal of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas from its terror blacklist.

“Today we witnessed staggering examples of European hypocrisy: in Geneva they call for the investigation of Israel for war crimes, while in Luxemburg the European court removed Hamas from the list of terrorist organizations, Hamas that has committed countless war crimes and countless terror acts,” Netanyahu’s office quoted him as saying.

Netanyahu’s war crimes comment was apparently a reference to a speech made earlier this week in the International Criminal Court by the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, who said the Palestinians intended to apply for membership in the ICC.

“It seems that too many in Europe, on whose soil six million Jews were slaughtered, have learned nothing,” Netanyahu added.

“But we in Israel, we’ve learned. We’ll continue to defend our people and our state against the forces of terror and tyranny and hypocrisy,” he said at the start of a meeting with US Republican Senator-elect Joni Ernst.

Zionist leaders pre WW2 considered siding with Germany against the Allies as they thought they may get a better for a Jewish state from Hitler. If that did occur then the Allied countries would be saying similar to what you are saying about the Jews. So you and Netanyahu should not get too fired up as Zionist hands are by no means clean and innocent.

antichrist
25-12-2014, 10:58 PM
Pre WW2 Zionist leaders considered siding with the Nazi Germany against the Allies as they thought they may get a better deal for a Jewish state from Adolf Hitler. If this had occurred then the Allied countries would now be saying similar to what you are saying about the Europeans. That is not nice things and it would have been deserved.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2014, 02:10 PM
Nazareth Priest: In Israel, Christians Have Freedom (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/25546/Default.aspx?article=more_news)
Thursday, November 20, 2014 | Israel Today Staff

Speaking before US congressional leaders in Washington, DC this week, Father Naddaf explained:


“In the Middle East today, there is one country where Christians are affectionately granted freedom of expression, freedom of worship and security. It is Israel, the Jewish State. In Israel, Christians enjoy good education, employment, welfare, healthcare, and high socio-economic standing. In Israel, Christians have freedom, which no Muslim power has ever offered us.”

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2014, 02:11 PM
The Prime Minister of Israel gives a more Christian Christmas message than most of the leaders of the ‘Christian’ west, shackled by political correctness.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh80vhMG6MM

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2014, 02:15 PM
Messianic Musician in Top Israeli Singing Contest (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=25708)
Ryan Jones, Israel Today, 24 December 2014

Young Messianic Jewish Israelis are increasingly taking the national stage without fear of who they are and in what they believe. That was literally the case on Tuesday when a young Messianic musician auditioned on Israel’s most popular televised singing competition.

So intriguing was the revelation by 20-year-old contestant Shai Sol that she believes in Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah that the top-rated Kochav Haba (“The Next Star”) made her pre-audition interview the focus of its promotional commercials earlier in the week.

When it came time for Shai to speak to the show’s hosts, Assi Azar and Rotem Sela, she boldly told them, “It seems right to reveal [that] I am a Messianic Jewess. We believe in Yeshua.”

“What does that mean?” asked Azar.

Shai explained that Messianic Jews are “Jews who believe in the Tanakh and the New Testament.”

Sela interjected, “So it’s a type of Christian?”

Shai clarified that faith in Yeshua as Messiah is a “stream of Judaism.”

Shai’s mother further expounded, “It’s a stream of Judaism because the New Testament belonged to us before they took it to Christianity.”

antichrist
04-01-2015, 09:23 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/360/new-document/5905164

This program goes through all the injustices that Palestinians on West Bank have had to suffer under Israeli occupation for 50 years. Dr Slezak is an Jewish Australian academic who completely against everything that Israel does to the Palestinians.

Peter Slezak’s blog - Independent Australian Jewish Voices
http://home2.iajv.org/taxonomy/term/8

There are 5 million stateless Palestinians refugees due to the creation of Israel and it's subsequent fascist policies

antichrist
08-01-2015, 01:39 AM
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/01/08/deadly-shooting-at-paris-magazine-office.html?cid=BP_RSS_sn-topstories_1_11-shot-dead-at-paris-magazine-office_080115


Masked gunmen shouting 'Allahu akbar!' have stormed the Paris offices of a satirical newspaper, killing 12 people before escaping. - See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/01/08/deadly-shooting-at-paris-magazine-office.html?cid=BP_RSS_sn-topstories_1_11-shot-dead-at-paris-magazine-office.................................

The cartoon entitled 'Still No Attacks in France' had a caricature of an extremist fighter saying 'Just wait - we have until the end of January to present our New Year's wishes'.

Charlie Hebdo has been repeatedly threatened for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad and other controversial sketches.

Its offices were firebombed in 2011 after a spoof issue featuring a caricature of the prophet on its cover. Nearly a year later, the publication again published crude Muhammad caricatures, drawing denunciations from around the Muslim world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC:This is a terrible blow to multi-culturalism but strictly should not be. As a radical religious stirrer myself I took the view that it is okay to stir our own religion as it is part of our culture and that it is sort of rude to attack other people's different religion that strictly speaking is not our business. But in a multicultural society we have the interface of critical libertarianism/freedom contrasting with those of cloistered thoughts and bodies. I have debated with theses cloistered Christian types and was assured that if they could they would kill me, and if I returned to the M/E it would occur within 5 minutes. We could ask the question why are their Muslim (probably refugees) in France - does it have anything to do with France's colonialism past which I can understand there still gripes about? About France's involvement in the Middle East? The other side of the coin is the nationalistic mono-cultural/sectarian/racists groups gaining power in Germany and other countries whom we also find distasteful. As Karl Marx stated some thing like "social change follows economic change", with many European economies in free fall people will look for scapegoats and just anyone different to vent their frustration upon. And the Muslims with their colonial and Palestinian hang ups are sure to assert their grievances. But as I was taught decades ago when religion is in the mix it is a lot more difficult to unravel the problem.

Garrett
08-01-2015, 06:56 AM
Is this terrorism ? really ?

Journo's making money poking fun at religion.

A revenge attack sure.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2015, 08:37 PM
Is this terrorism ? really ?

Journo's making money poking fun at religion.

A revenge attack sure.

This is absolutely terrorism as the point of such attacks is not just revenge on those involved but also (and arguably mainly) to intimidate others against doing anything similar.

In my view it is a particularly vile form of terrorism, not that there are really any good ones. "Christians" can make money poking fun at atheism and lots of people make money poking fun at "Christians" yet it is usually accepted that this is a part of free speech and people are not killed over it. And to assume that a person's motive in satirising religion is to make money simply because they make money out of it isn't correct.

Anyone living in a western country who doesn't like free speech including a degree of satire of religious beliefs is free to leave, or at least move to one where they can take up their grievances via an anti-vilification complaint rather than via a gun.

Adamski
08-01-2015, 08:43 PM
This is absolutely terrorism as the point of such attacks is not just revenge on those involved but also (and arguably mainly) to intimidate others against doing anything similar.

In my view it is a particularly vile form of terrorism, not that there are really any good ones. "Christians" can make money poking fun at atheism and lots of people make money poking fun at "Christians" yet it is usually accepted that this is a part of free speech and people are not killed over it. And to assume that a person's motive in satirising religion is to make money simply because they make money out of it isn't correct.

Anyone living in a western country who doesn't like free speech including a degree of satire of religious beliefs is free to leave, or at least move to one where they can take up their grievances via an anti-vilification complaint rather than via a gun.Agree with Kev on this!

Garrett
09-01-2015, 03:49 AM
Well I guess it depends on the definition of terrorism, and when I surfed the net yesterday there was no clear definition. I personally would include some element of randomness, i.e. an attack on random innocent civilians due to that countries activity in the middle east/other part of world.

It does appear that the motive in poking fun at religion (and dead people) is to make money. A report I read at the BBC stated that the company was failing until they decided to start doing this, or something along those lines.

anyway have it your way, meh, whateva, time to read about the cricket

Garrett
09-01-2015, 06:19 AM
to put it another way, do you feel terror after this incident ?

Is there some factor of "this could happen to me" ?

I don't feel terror. I wouldn't if it happened in Brisbane. I wouldn't if it happened a few door up.

From what I read the killers went into the wrong office first by mistake. No-one died there, if I am not mistaken.

Sure there are stories to be sold by using the "terror" tag. There are political agenda's to push.

If a gang of Mongols knocked over a dozen Hell's angels next door I would not feel terror and it probably wouldn't be reported as such. I might be concerned there are a bunch of looney-toons running about but would not feel particularly terrorized.

I would like to live in a peaceful harmonious world and I am not sure these people were advancing it. They may be reasonably accused of not only profiteering from the "war on terror", but also actively stoking it's fire. I could obviously be wrong as I have not read widely on this issue but my impression is they do not make money primarily by reporting news.

Anyway, I have goals for the day and banging on about this issue is not really one of them.

cheers
Garrett.

antichrist
09-01-2015, 06:53 AM
Since 2am yesterday morning I have been in complete news black out due to working. Just opened the Herald and read one small article on background of one of terrorists. He came from a secular family but turned against Jews (can only presume because of Palestinian issue) and because invasion of Iraq and torture tactics used there. Well I have stated elsewhere, Islam is a brotherhood for better and for worse. To many Aussies we may think it small change of our involvement in Iraq and only last week voted in the UN against a Palestinian state (along with only one other country, the USA), and along with Doc Evatt on the forefront in the creation of the State of Israel - well these activities by Australia we should only be completely disgusted with. We have consigned 5 million Palestinians to 67 years of refugee camps and completely wrecked the lives of those living on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And those living in Israel have to conform to a racist and apartheid society. Only this week Israel announced that it is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of tax collected from Palestinians that is supposed to go for government etc in Palestinian territories, that is for water, food and medicine as well. I think it is very easy to assume that that action will account for a lot more than a dozen deaths in Palestine - only they are not spectacular deaths. And why did Israel withhold those funds??? Because the Palestinian Authority is registering with the International Criminal Court to hold Israel responsible for 70 years of crimes against them. This court Israel and the USA refuse to register with.

Under the sermons of Islamic preachers in France this unemployed guy turned radical and killed many lefty religious ridiculers like myself - I can certainly see both sides. Blame colonialism by the West and continued by Israel.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2015, 07:59 AM
Well I guess it depends on the definition of terrorism, and when I surfed the net yesterday there was no clear definition.

Many words that are of any use in discussion are incapable of precise definition (eg "sport") because their meaning tends to evolve messily by similarity to things that are already considered to qualify.


I personally would include some element of randomness, i.e. an attack on random innocent civilians due to that countries activity in the middle east/other part of world.

This is not necessary. The aim is to achieve fear. Sometimes this can be done by attacking random civilians, sometimes by attacking particular targets. It could be argued by the above that the S/11 attack did not target "random" civilians as it was specifically aimed at a major western economic facility.


to put it another way, do you feel terror after this incident ?

Is there some factor of "this could happen to me" ?

Well yes to some degree. Every time one of these sorts of attacks happen I am tempted to respond to it by publishing material that massively ridicules the mindset responsible. I don't do so (beyond what I may write here) because I can do without living with an increased fear of being killed by these sorts of nutcases; they're not worth it for me personally. But in thinking about how to respond to such situations, I do feel deterred by the risks attached to some kinds of responses.


I would like to live in a peaceful harmonious world and I am not sure these people were advancing it. They may be reasonably accused of not only profiteering from the "war on terror", but also actively stoking it's fire. I could obviously be wrong as I have not read widely on this issue but my impression is they do not make money primarily by reporting news.

The magazine is satirical and takes the mickey out of a very wide range of political movements, mostly on the right. The difference is that most of the time this is just harmless comedy but when they make fun of Islamic fundamentalists somehow this becomes fire-stoking. So the corollary of blaming satirists for the reaction to their actions is that if a movement is intolerant and violent enough to take offence to a few cartoons then, in search of a harmonious society we all shut up about them (even those who want to take the risks involved) and give them what they want and do not call them out on it? I don't see that working.

antichrist
09-01-2015, 08:05 AM
KB from above
..........Well yes to some degree. Every time one of these sorts of attacks happen I am tempted to respond to it by publishing material that massively ridicules the mindset responsible. I don't do so (beyond what I may write here) because I can do without living with an increased fear of being killed by these sorts of nutcases; they're not worth it for me personally. But in thinking about how to respond to such situations, I do feel deterred by the risks attached to some kinds of responses.......

AC: as one whom has been threatened and bashed for my anti-religious views I won't take you on any of my radical demos against religion - you don't cut the mustard

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2015, 08:11 AM
AC: as one whom has been threatened and bashed for my anti-religious views I won't take you on any of my radical demos against religion - you don't cut the mustard

Yeah right. I've had death threats in political life for speaking out over other issues that were more important to me, and in one case I got a letter from a religious homophobe suggesting I should kill myself. In those cases I choose to continue taking the "risks".

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2015, 01:06 PM
Islam is the Most Violent Religion in the World, But Let’s Keep Calling it ‘Peaceful’ Anyway (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/islam-is-the-most-violent-religion-in-the-world-but-lets-keep-calling-it-peaceful-anyway/)
Matt Walsh, 7 Jan 2015

And here we are again. You might recognize this place. We’ve been here frequently over the past, say, 1,500 years or so. It’s the place where the whole world stands in dumbfounded shock after witnessing unspeakable brutality at the hands of Islamists. Maybe we should stop being so surprised.

This time around, three masked gunmen stormed the offices of a French satirical newspaper, executing 12 people in cold blood, including two police officers. This is the same newspaper that infamously published a cartoon poking fun at the Prophet Mohammed a few years ago, and was promptly greeted with death threats and a Molotov cocktail for their troubles. In fairness, there’s still a lot we don’t know about this attack, but it seems very certain that this was another case of Muslim terrorism. The gunmen took out 12 people while shouting “Allahu Akbhar” and “the Prophet has been avenged.” All of this over some jokes in a magazine.

This is the kind of thing Christians encounter all the time. Brutal mocking and ridicule dressed up as “humor,” but designed only to offend. There’s no wit, no punchline, just scorn heaped upon people of my faith. Kind of like this “Family Guy” episode, featuring an adulterous Jesus looking to have sex with a man’s wife. Or that hilarious “Curb Your Enthusiasm” episode a few years back where Larry David peed on a picture of Jesus. Or of course the famous “Piss Christ,” a crucifix dunked in a bottle of urine and passed off as art. Or the painting of the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung. Or “Dogma.” Or “The Da Vinci Code.” Or a thousand other examples.

Yet nobody ever died because of any of that. And, oh man, if anyone did, can you imagine the backlash? Can you imagine the media reaction if just one Christian murdered just one person as a reprisal for some offensive joke or provocative cartoon? We’d be ready to ban the entire religion in this country. Progressives are so desperate to prove that Christianity is just as violent as Islam that they frequently cite the murder of abortion doctors as an example. Only, none of those attacks were carried out in the name of Jesus. As far as I’m aware, none of the murderers shouted “Praise be to Christ” when they pulled the trigger. And how many incidents are we even talking about here? I’ll tell you: eight. Eight abortionists and abortion clinic workers have been killed in the U.S. in the past 40 years. It’s happened once in the last decade and a half. Once.

Yet Christians are held to such a high standard that even these extraordinarily rare killings, not even done in the name of the faith, and always condemned by nearly every prominent Christian, are cited in almost every conversation about religious violence. Meanwhile, Muslims just gunned down 12 people over a cartoon this morning, and what do we immediately hear? Islam is a religion of peace.

These are the simple facts, and I’ve pretty well had my fill of these friendly people, with their polite ways, who are so terribly tolerant that they feel like they have to pretend that, somehow, mysteriously, the impression every rational human being on Earth has — that Islam is more violent than other religions — is off-base. They can’t explain why it’s off-base, they can only offer some trite platitude about how the violent Muslims are not “true” Muslims.

Bull crap, you cowards. There is disagreement about the “true” nature of every religion. Put 100 Christians of different denominations in a room and they’ll argue over virtually every aspect of their faith. What they won’t do, however, is debate whether they’re supposed to be out killing cartoonists, shooting up schools, murdering soldiers at the Canadian parliament, or taking hostages at a cafe in Sydney. Only one religion has to even entertain that discussion. And that, to me, clearly indicates some very serious and inherent flaws.

And, please, don’t tell me that Muslims tend to be violent because they’re a historically oppressed people. All religions have been oppressed at one time or another, but Muslims have also always controlled wide swaths of the globe. Ever hear of the Ottoman Empire? And don’t try to work the Crusades into this conversation, unless you want to prove my point for me. The Crusades were waged against Muslim aggressors after several hundred years of persecution at the hands of Arabic forces. The Crusades were a war of defense, sparked, as usual, by Muslim conquest.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2015, 03:34 PM
The above nonsense is very easily refuted: given the number of Muslims living in the west, if mainstream Islam was the religion of violence that the author makes it out to be then we would be in hundreds of times more trouble from these kinds of attacks than we are. Islam has more of a problem with a violent fringe than Christianity but that is no excuse for treating that fringe as a whole religion.

Nor does pleading that the killers of abortionists don't scream about Jesus as they pull the trigger cut it. If they are motivated by their religious views then that is enough; Christianity has a smaller problem with this sort of thing but it still has a problem.

Rincewind
09-01-2015, 04:27 PM
Nor does pleading that the killers of abortionists don't scream about Jesus as they pull the trigger cut it. If they are motivated by their religious views then that is enough; Christianity has a smaller problem with this sort of thing but it still has a problem.

Anti-abortion aren't the only Christianity inspired nutters. The religious angle of some white supremist groups is also alarming. For the archetype Christian KKK mix check out the form of Thomas Robb.

Patrick Byrom
09-01-2015, 06:03 PM
Islam is the Most Violent Religion in the World, But Let’s Keep Calling it ‘Peaceful’ Anyway (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/islam-is-the-most-violent-religion-in-the-world-but-lets-keep-calling-it-peaceful-anyway/) Matt Walsh, 7 Jan 2015
...
And don’t try to work the Crusades into this conversation, unless you want to prove my point for me. The Crusades were waged against Muslim aggressors after several hundred years of persecution at the hands of Arabic forces. The Crusades were a war of defense, sparked, as usual, by Muslim conquest.


It seems that research is a dying art. From a quick google of Wikipedia:

The Albigensian Crusade was launched in 1208 to eliminate the heretical Cathars of Occitania (modern-day southern France). It was a decades-long struggle that had as much to do with the desire of northern France to extend its control southwards as it did with battling heresy. In the end, the Cathars were driven underground, and the independence of southern France was eliminated.


The First Crusade wasn't so great either:

Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks. On 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city. They proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and Muslim civilians and pillaged or destroyed mosques and the city itself. As a result of the First Crusade, four main crusader states were created: the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. On a popular level, the preaching of the First Crusade unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied and preceded the movement of the crusaders through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of the "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2015, 07:21 PM
Put 100 Christians of different denominations in a room and they’ll argue over virtually every aspect of their faith. What they won’t do, however, is debate whether they’re supposed to be out killing cartoonists, shooting up schools, murdering soldiers at the Canadian parliament, or taking hostages at a cafe in Sydney.

Never mind that "Christians" of different denominations spent several decades doing similarly stupid things to each other and innocent bystanders in Northern Ireland.

The peak moonbat moment in that article is the rant about "progressivism" as supposedly more violent than Islam, apparently because it allows women to make reproductive choices effectively and allows broken relationships to end and successful ones to be supported without discrimination; oh, and because it causes people to not be Christians, meaning that the author then sooks about them losing souls that don't exist and probably wouldn't be lost in such manner if they did. (Even had he just asserted that "progressivism" was a religion he'd still be a fool.)

Ian Murray
09-01-2015, 07:31 PM
Charlie Hebdo attack: this is not a clash of civilisations (http://theconversation.com/charlie-hebdo-attack-this-is-not-a-clash-of-civilisations-36030?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+9+Ja nuary+2015+-+2284&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+9+Jan uary+2015+-+2284+CID_b063163b51f306f0953a0a9a8c5a7651&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=Charlie%20Hebdo%20attack%20this%20is%20no t%20a%20clash%20of%20civilisations)
The Conversation
9 Jan 2015

The attack on Charlie Hebdo was an abominable tragedy. It struck the heart of one of our capitals and symbols of our democracies as terrorists attacked our freedom of the press. It is now essential to pay our respects to those who lost their lives yesterday and hope that those responsible for the attacks are arrested as soon as possible.

In terrible circumstances, where shock and confusion prevail, it is also crucial to remain level-headed in our response to these horrendous events. While we must stand on the side of the victims and in defence of our inalienable rights, this should not lead us to simplistic, uncritical conclusions and further divisions....

Our first task then, if we are to defend the concepts of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy is for us to stand together against such atrocities and their perpetrators, regardless of religious or ethnic background. French Muslims should not be required to prove their allegiance to the values of the French republic in the wake of this event. They already do on a daily basis in all their diversity, the same way all French people do.

In the short term, one can only hope that the French will react as many Australians did in the wake of the Sydney siege when they tweeted offers to accompany Muslims who were feeling intimidated on public transport....

What is absent from our mainstream media and politics is a careful analysis of what Islam is in France today. This would show once and for all that the Muslim “community” is not the monolith Le Pen would like us to believe. The terrorists who massacred 12 people on 7 January are apparently Muslim but so was the policeman who lost his life trying to stop them. Mustapha Ourrad, Charlie Hebdo’s copy-editor killed in the attack, was born in Algeria.

This is not a clash of civilisations, this is not a war between the West and Islam, but a fight waged by some very few, marginalised yet extremely dangerous people, for whom division is key. Ultimately, condemning Islam and Muslims indiscriminately would play in the hands of those seeking to terrorise and divide us, as well as fuel the kind of nationalism that Charlie Hebdo has always fought.

antichrist
09-01-2015, 07:57 PM
And Mr McCool, if they did not have guns they would not have been so "brave", dangerous or successful. I consider shooting a coward's way, if one cannot do it manually then one is coward and don't deserve to kill someone, unless they are a battered wife or similar.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2015, 11:53 PM
The above nonsense is very easily refuted: given the number of Muslims living in the west, if mainstream Islam was the religion of violence that the author makes it out to be then we would be in hundreds of times more trouble from these kinds of attacks than we are. Islam has more of a problem with a violent fringe than Christianity but that is no excuse for treating that fringe as a whole religion.
With a billion or so Muslims in the world, even 1% is a huge number, and a depressingly large number of Muslims think the terrorists are justified.

The point still stands: people are very safe in mocking Christianity, but I guarantee that those "Art" museums who self-righteously exhibit Piss Christ would never exhibit Piss Muhammad. General Betray-us whinging about a pastor in Florida burning Korans, but ordered the US army in Afghanistan to burn Bibles. A while back, BBC executives admitted that they would happily film a Bible being thrown into the trash, but never a Koran. It's not religious sensitivity, it's cowardice.


Nor does pleading that the killers of abortionists don't scream about Jesus as they pull the trigger cut it. If they are motivated by their religious views then that is enough; Christianity has a smaller problem with this sort of thing but it still has a problem.
Oh yes, what a huge problem: a whopping 8 people killed by anti-abortionists in America in the last 4 decades, and pro-life groups strongly condemn the killing. But the left wing TV often depicts it as a widespread problem.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2015, 11:55 PM
Never mind that "Christians" of different denominations spent several decades doing similarly stupid things to each other and innocent bystanders in Northern Ireland.
That again? The IRA was secular and Marxist. The Irish were hardly fighting about Transsubstantiation vs Sola Scriptura. There was an old joke about an Irish atheist asked whether he was a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist.
[Other atheistic agitprop and moral equivalence ignored]

Patrick Byrom
10-01-2015, 02:15 AM
That again? The IRA was secular and Marxist. The Irish were hardly fighting about Transsubstantiation vs Sola Scriptura. There was an old joke about an Irish atheist asked whether he was a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist.
[Other atheistic agitprop and moral equivalence ignored]
Ian Paisley (http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0912/643274-paisley-quotes/) wouldn't have agreed that the conflict was a purely secular one:

"I denounce you, Antichrist! I refuse you as Christ's enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine" - addressing Pope John Paul II on a visit to the European Parliament October 1988.

"This Romish man of sin is now in hell!" - on the death of Pope John XXIII.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2015, 02:39 AM
It seems that research is a dying art.
Yes indeed, and then you go on to exemplify it: :lol::lol:


From a quick google of Wikipedia:
Yes, exactly, this is what counts for research these days, apparently. :wall::wall:

But you produced nothing to refute what I had actually cited:


"The Crusades were waged against Muslim aggressors after several hundred years of persecution at the hands of Arabic forces."

See, Islamists had overrun the Levant and North Africa, great centres of early Christianity, in the 7th century. That you could bring up Crusades from the 11th and 13th century proves my point!

Also, "the Crusades" normally refer to those Christian vs. Muslim battles in the Middle East. Other campaigns called "Crusades" are not at issue. But even what you quoted about the Albigensian (anti-Cathar) Crusade supports my point:


It was a decades-long struggle that had as much to do with the desire of northern France to extend its control southwards as it did with battling heresy.

antichrist
10-01-2015, 04:23 AM
What about when the Catholic priest told the army leader to "Kill them all (Catholics and Prodos), God can sort them out!"

What about the WW2 Croatian policy of drive a third of Serbs out, kill a third and convert a third (to RCC)? At least one third sectarian.

Now if the Zionists had adopted that policy with the Palestinians they may have actually had some proper Jews in Israel, that is Arab Jews.

antichrist
10-01-2015, 04:31 AM
Ian Paisley (http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0912/643274-paisley-quotes/) wouldn't have agreed that the conflict was a purely secular one:

"I denounce you, Antichrist! I refuse you as Christ's enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine" - addressing Pope John Paul II on a visit to the European Parliament October 1988.

"This Romish man of sin is now in hell!" - on the death of Pope John XXIII.

This is how mixed up the world is. Looking at in the context of Celtic nationalism verses ancient Roman invasion of Celtic lands Paisley was against Roman cultural and territorial invasion. But Paisley had kept the old Roman religion (except as modified by Brits) and was a pastor/reverend rather than a Celt voodoo Druid or something. Roman Catholicism can be seen as a later form of Zionism.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2015, 09:03 AM
Even a rabid atheopath like Richard Dawkins had a rare moment of clarity, unlike his fellow atheopaths on ChessChat with their moral equivalence:


“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.” [Cited in Ruth Gledhill, Scandal and schism leave Christians praying for a ‘new Reformation’, The Times (UK), 2 April 2010.]

Ian Murray
10-01-2015, 09:38 AM
With a billion or so Muslims in the world, even 1% is a huge number, and a depressingly large number of Muslims think the terrorists are justified..

The number of extremists is nowhere near within a bull's roar of 1% of the world's Muslims. Of the ~5 million Muslims in France (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/map-frances-growing-muslim-population/), three attacked the Charlie Hedbo office, killing a Muslim cop in the process. 112 French Muslims are reported to have left France to join ISIS. Still a ways to go to reach your ~50,000 guesstimate

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2015, 10:42 AM
The point still stands: people are very safe in mocking Christianity, but I guarantee that those "Art" museums who self-righteously exhibit Piss Christ would never exhibit Piss Muhammad.

That was far from the sole attempted point of the article and its attempt to use such differences to denigrate an entire religion is a much more significant feature of it - together with its tasteless and idiotically desperate attempt to depict "progressivism" as worse.


[Other atheistic agitprop and moral equivalence ignored]

It is not about equivalence, except to the extent that if a religion is deemed violent because of a minority of warped and violent self-professed adherents, then Christianity is in no position to cast the first stone.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2015, 12:59 PM
The number of extremists is nowhere near within a bull's roar of 1% of the world's Muslims. Of the ~5 million Muslims in France (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/map-frances-growing-muslim-population/), three attacked the Charlie Hedbo office, killing a Muslim cop in the process. 112 French Muslims are reported to have left France to join ISIS. Still a ways to go to reach your ~50,000 guesstimate

You forgot the riots, like the 2005 ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots), car burnings (http://world.time.com/2013/01/03/in-france-nothing-says-happy-new-year-like-a-burning-car/), and the more recent anti-semitic repetitions of Kristallnacht (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html), parts of cities being no-go areas (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/french-islamist-mini-states-grow-into-problem-out-/?page=all) …

And we all know that if Christians were as tenth as violent, you atheopaths and leftards would be all over it.

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2015, 04:37 PM
And we all know that if Christians were as tenth as violent, you atheopaths and leftards would be all over it.

This is the same fallacy as the article: declaring a religion's violence level on account of a minority. If there are ten or even a hundred times more violent Islamic fundamentalists than there are violent Christian fundamentalists, that doesn't make Muslims generally violent to any degree.

Certain strands of Islamic extremism can be called violent because their adherents either are violent or tend to support or be apologists for violence. It is more than just a "lone wolf" thing. But it is not a feature of the whole religion.

Patrick Byrom
10-01-2015, 05:41 PM
Yes, exactly, this is what counts for research these days, apparently. :wall::wall:
Which the author of the article couldn't even be bothered doing :(


But you produced nothing to refute what I had actually cited:

"The Crusades were waged against Muslim aggressors after several hundred years of persecution at the hands of Arabic forces."

The Albigensian Crusade wasn't waged against Muslim aggressors, which refutes that claim - unless a "Crusade" is defined only as one against Muslim aggressors, of course :wall:

Ian Murray
10-01-2015, 07:58 PM
You forgot the riots, like the 2005 ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots), car burnings (http://world.time.com/2013/01/03/in-france-nothing-says-happy-new-year-like-a-burning-car/)...
Which had nothing to do with Islamic extremism


and the more recent anti-semitic repetitions of Kristallnacht (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html)...
Anti-semitism in France is not confined to Muslims. Both the extreme right and socialist left are virulently so.


parts of cities being no-go areas (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/french-islamist-mini-states-grow-into-problem-out-/?page=all) …
The Washington Times is an extreme right rag. I can't believe you cite it as a source - it's the same as if I quoted the Socialist Worker!

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2015, 12:38 AM
This is the same fallacy as the article: declaring a religion's violence level on account of a minority. If there are ten or even a hundred times more violent Islamic fundamentalists than there are violent Christian fundamentalists, that doesn't make Muslims generally violent to any degree.
The peaceful Muslim majority is as relevant as the peaceful German majority in WW2. Yes, we know there are good Muslims who do strongly oppose terror, such as Islamic creationist Harun Yahya, Dr Zuhdi Jasser (http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2012/02/13/a_second_look_at_the_third_jihad), a former US Navy officer and a past president of the Arizona Medical Association and a self-described observant Muslim who vocally opposes terrorism, and even Arab Muslim Zionists who serve in the IDF (http://www.timesofisrael.com/his-big-secret-hes-arab-muslim-and-serves-in-the-idf/) such as Major Ala Wahib (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5727). A century ago, Lawrence of Arabia's friend Emir Faisal supported Dr Chaim Weizmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel), President of the World Zionist Organization, in supporting the Balfour Declaration of a Jewish homeland in what was then Palestine.


Certain strands of Islamic extremism can be called violent because their adherents either are violent or tend to support or be apologists for violence. It is more than just a "lone wolf" thing. But it is not a feature of the whole religion.
It is so. The violent passages in the Koran are the Medinan suras, which were written later than the more peaceful Meccan suras. In the Islamic doctrine of naskh or abrogation, the later passages supersede the earlier ones. Also, Muhammad himself was a warlord. When it comes to Christianity, violence is contrary to the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, which is newer than the Old Testament in case you weren't aware.

It's bizarre how atheists become apologists for Islam.

antichrist
11-01-2015, 12:41 AM
I can believe tat parts of the city are no go areas. Parts of Sydney have also been no go areas at times. Why were Australia and France attacked by Islamic terrorists? Because both these countries are assisting the USA in combating Sunni IS in Iraq, very simple. And of course we were part of the invasion of Iraq 12 years ago that dislodged Sunni/Hussain control. The Western forces divided the M/E up wrongly after the World Wars - it should not have been performed by Western forces, was not our business. Just as creating Israel that resulted in driving out Palestinians out of hundreds of villages and towns was not our business nor anyone else's. And we are immorally occupying Aboriginal land as well.

antichrist
11-01-2015, 12:49 AM
It's bizarre how atheists become apologists for Islam.

AC: I am not an apologist for Islam but against colonialism and Zionism that assumes that one groups of people have superior rights to other peoples. We cannot expect peace without justice.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2015, 01:09 AM
It's bizarre how atheists become apologists for Islam.

AC: I am not an apologist for Islam but against colonialism and Zionism that assumes that one groups of people have superior rights to other peoples. We cannot expect peace without justice.

Well, the number of atheists, including Commissar Obamov, who have claimed that ISIL is not Islamic are legion, even though it stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They apparently think they know more about "true Islam" than many of the terrorist leaders, including clerics, who profess to follow Islam.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2015, 01:12 AM
The peaceful Muslim majority is as relevant as the peaceful German majority in WW2.

Sigh *invokes Godwin derisively*. Get back to me when the leaders of Islam support terrorism in the manner in which the leaders of the latter supported armed expansionism and genocide. Peacefulness relates not just to involvement in personal violence but also to explicit support for it as my previous comments indicated.


It is so. The violent passages in the Koran are the Medinan suras, which were written later than the more peaceful Meccan suras. In the Islamic doctrine of naskh or abrogation, the later passages supersede the earlier ones. Also, Muhammad himself was a warlord.

Irrelevant unless Muslims themselves in general both agree with this and respond by supporting what we would consider to be unprovoked violence, especially in or against non-Islamic countries or their citizens.


When it comes to Christianity, violence is contrary to the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, which is newer than the Old Testament in case you weren't aware.

Again irrelevant in the case of those Christians who ignore such teachings when it suits them to do so. Your comments imply the fallacy of judging the violence of a religion by your interpretation of the violence of its text. What is more relevant is the actual practice of violence and support for violence among adherents of the religion, and if that is confined to a minority then your textural analysis is irrelevant. That cuts both ways - those who are peaceful in spite of the text supposedly implying violence, and those who are violent or endorse violence although the text supposedly implies peace. Oh, and the idea that your OT God spends thousands of years endorsing thuggery then suddenly turns over a new leaf is hardly a shining example of lifelong pacificism.


It's bizarre how atheists become apologists for Islam.

No, I think Islam is at least as ridiculous as Christianity and that humanity would be better off intellectually if both of them were taken no more seriously than the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. I do, however, think that using incidents like this to unfairly demonise a whole religion is counterproductive and stupid, and at least doubly so if the demonisation comes from another religion that itself has struggled to keep away from the misuse of force. Because I find it impossible to take the core beliefs of any of these faiths seriously I don't need to concoct charges against one in order to maintain that it is silly. But I can understand why a member of one of these religions, competing with a faith that has core beliefs basically about as silly as their own, might feel the need to do so.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2015, 01:13 AM
Well, the number of atheists, including Commissar Obamov, who have claimed that ISIL is not Islamic are legion, even though it stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; does that make it democratic?

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2015, 02:35 AM
Which had nothing to do with Islamic extremism
Of course it does. And the media and other elistists know it implicitly, which is why they persistently attack Christians, burn Bibles, display tacky "Piss Christ" crap, but won't dare to publish cartoons mocking Islam, and whinge self-righteously about burning Korans. They know full well that there will be no violence from Christians, and an extreme likelihood of violence from Muslims. For goodness sake, General Betraeus even said that a pastor burning Korans might incite Islamic violence against his troops.


The Washington Times is an extreme right rag. I can't believe you cite it as a source - it's the same as if I quoted the Socialist Worker!

"Extreme right wing" is Leftspeak for "not being way left of centre".

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2015, 02:48 AM
Sigh *invokes Godwin derisively*.
Godwin is not the final word. I could have used peaceful Japanese majority, for example.


Get back to me when the leaders of Islam support terrorism in the manner in which the leaders of the latter supported armed expansionism and genocide.
It is notable that Hitler had allies among leading Islamic leaders, such as Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who recruited thousands of Bosnian Muslims for the Handzhar division of the Waffen SS (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html). And just look at any map and compare it to historic centres of early Christianity, and it's easy to see that Islamism has been expansionist from its inception, and practised mass murder of any non-Muslims who wouldn't subject themselves to the quasi-slavery of Dhimmitude.


Peacefulness relates not just to involvement in personal violence but also to explicit support for it as my previous comments indicated.
The Islamists are following the most up-to-date commands in the Koran as well as the personal example of Muhammad.


Again irrelevant in the case of those Christians who ignore such teachings when it suits them to do so. Your comments imply the fallacy of judging the violence of a religion by your interpretation of the violence of its text. What is more relevant is the actual practice of violence and support for violence among adherents of the religion, and if that is confined to a minority then your textural analysis is irrelevant.
It is most relevant. Violent Muslims are being consistent with their text and prophet, violent Christians are being inconsistent. So the answer is for Muslims to become worse Muslims but for the Christians to become better Christians.


That cuts both ways - those who are peaceful in spite of the text supposedly implying violence, and those who are violent or endorse violence although the text supposedly implies peace. Oh, and the idea that your OT God spends thousands of years endorsing thuggery then suddenly turns over a new leaf is hardly a shining example of lifelong pacificism.
Thousands of years? It really is laughable seeing atheists prattle on the Bible when they know so little about context. There were a few instances of total war after centuries of aggression by the enemies and refusal to surrender. But the norm was to give enemies a chance to surrender.


No, I think Islam is at least as ridiculous as Christianity and that humanity would be better off intellectually if both of them were taken no more seriously than the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
Interesting that your fellow atheopath Penn Jillette admitted (http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/12/shocking-debate-rabbi-lapin-asks-penn-jillette-if-he-thinks-world-would-be-better-if-all-muslims-became-evangelical/) that the world would be far better off if all the world's Muslims converted to evangelical Christianity, when asked by an Orthodox Rabbi. We have also seen good evidence that humanity has been far worse when countries have been ruled by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro). North Korea has its own atheopathic jihad, murdering people for having a Bible (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/12/80-people-publicly-executed-across-n-korea-films-b/).

antichrist
11-01-2015, 06:57 AM
Well, the number of atheists, including Commissar Obamov, who have claimed that ISIL is not Islamic are legion, even though it stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They apparently think they know more about "true Islam" than many of the terrorist leaders, including clerics, who profess to follow Islam.

We can't really quantify religion because individuals all have their own interpretation. Similarly non-Arabs claim to be Jews that to me is a bit of nonsense, they then claim land rights in Palestine that authentic Jews never had - they only had as much right as Germany did to the rest of Europe and they only got the territory of Palestine using the same tactics, except this time Aussie DR. HERBERT VERE EVATT (http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/01/27/dr-herbert-vere-evatt-an-aussie-docs-role-in-the-birth-of-israel/) played the leading part of Neville Chamberlain in the United Nations. And has anyone noticed that Israel - using similar Germany terror tactics - has kept stealing more and more territories just as Germany did?

Ian Murray
11-01-2015, 09:42 AM
Of course it does....
You cited the 2005 riots and the car-burning mania, which had no religious motives, Islamic or otherwise. You're now obfuscating


"Extreme right wing" is Leftspeak for "not being way left of centre".
The issue of The Washington Times you source seeks "expert" commentary from the Gatestone Institute (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/gatestone_institute) and JihadWatch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert), neocon sources with predictable opinions aligned with the newspaper's.

As an indication of the weight it gives other coverage in the issue, the frontpage sidebar plugs its photo galleries on:-

Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
NFL cheerleaders fired up for the playoffs
Child stars: Then and now
Best female athletes in the world — on and off the field
Best handguns ever made
Bang for your buck: Best handguns under $500

Not hard to figure who the target audience is!

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2015, 12:31 PM
Godwin is not the final word. I could have used peaceful Japanese majority, for example.

And your argument would have failed in exactly the same way.


It is notable that Hitler had allies among leading Islamic leaders,[..]

It is not notable for the purposes of the present debate, for which what is notable is what Islamic leaders espouse now.


It is most relevant. Violent Muslims are being consistent with their text and prophet, violent Christians are being inconsistent. So the answer is for Muslims to become worse Muslims but for the Christians to become better Christians.

That assumes that someone is a bad follower of a religion if they adapt it to the times to shed those attitudes within it that are no longer appropriate. A stronger case could be made for the opposite.


Thousands of years? It really is laughable seeing atheists prattle on the Bible when they know so little about context.

No I was just taking your comment as what it was, a tacit admission that the OT endorsed violence. That it was only endorsed some of the time is neither here nor there. Most terrorists are only violent some of the time too.


Interesting that your fellow [moronic insult deleted from quote - KB] Penn Jillette admitted (http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/12/shocking-debate-rabbi-lapin-asks-penn-jillette-if-he-thinks-world-would-be-better-if-all-muslims-became-evangelical/) that the world would be far better off if all the world's Muslims converted to evangelical Christianity, when asked by an Orthodox Rabbi.

Ah so if one atheist says something you like then you take it as a concession that it is true. If I had the choice to convert all Muslims to evangelical Christians I do not think I would take it.


We have also seen good evidence that humanity has been far worse when countries have been ruled by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro).

We have been through that about six million times on here. Those rulers were bad not specifically because they were atheists but because they were illiberal communists who happened to be atheists.

antichrist
11-01-2015, 12:52 PM
It is notable that Hitler had allies among leading Islamic leaders, such as Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who recruited thousands of Bosnian Muslims for the Handzhar division of the Waffen SS. And just look at any map and compare it to historic centres of early Christianity, and it's easy to see that Islamism has been expansionist from its inception, and practised mass murder of any non-Muslims who wouldn't subject themselves to the quasi-slavery of Dhimmitude.

AC: my understanding of history is that this occurred in the M/e but not in S/E Asia, where the boot was on the opposite foot. It was the Christians who came into the Philippines with sword in one hand and Bible in the other and invaded Muslim areas. AFAIK Muslims only converted in old Malaya not forced. Also Zionists considered joining Hitler if they thought they could get a better deal than with the Allied forces on creation of Israel. So no one is a clean skin.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2015, 12:57 PM
And your argument would have failed in exactly the same way.
How? You couldn't invoke Godwin derisively.


It is not notable for the purposes of the present debate, for which what is notable is what Islamic leaders espouse now.
Like the mad mullahs of Iran, or the religious leaders of Hamas?


That assumes that someone is a bad follower of a religion if they adapt it to the times to shed those attitudes within it that are no longer appropriate. A stronger case could be made for the opposite.
Yes, I do assume that a good follower of a religion adopts its precepts. The world would be far better if more adopted those of Christ than those of Muhammad in the Medinan suras which are binding according to Naskh.


No I was just taking your comment as what it was, a tacit admission that the OT endorsed violence. That it was only endorsed some of the time is neither here nor there. Most terrorists are only violent some of the time too.
It does matter if the OT violence was for a specific time and against child-sacrificers, while the Koranic endorsement was general and for all time. That is why you won't find Jews carrying out violence for religious reasons.


We have been through that about six million times on here. Those rulers were bad not specifically because they were atheists but because they were illiberal communists who happened to be atheists.
Part of their badness was persecution of non-atheists, they appealed to atheism as justification for their badness, and there is nothing in atheism that conflicts with it.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2015, 12:58 PM
The Myth that Religion is the #1 Cause of War (http://carm.org/religion-cause-war)
by Robin Schumacher
edited by Matt Slick

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature,2 which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.

antichrist
11-01-2015, 01:32 PM
I consider Judaism and Islam brothers in arms, same prophets, only one person in their god, halal and kosher food etc etc., not much different from the Catholics and Prodos. They both look crazy when they pray, the Muslims bending over, the Jews swaying back and forth. They should all wake up it is the 21st century.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2015, 01:37 PM
How? You couldn't invoke Godwin derisively.

Godwin's Law isn't an argument by itself, it's just a way of drawing attention to the lame tactics of the opponent. The counter-argument was that the leadership of Germany at the time clearly approved of violence, ditto Japan. You have not made the case that global Islamic leadership approves of terrorism against the west.


Like the mad mullahs of Iran, or the religious leaders of Hamas?

The "mad mullah" thing was a stereotype designed to portray Iranian religious leaders as flat-out lunatics who would use the bomb on Israel the instant that they got it, which whatever else can be said against Iran's repulsive human rights record or its desires for greater regional power, doesn't seem to be actually true. Hamas is unrepresentative for reasons that are surely obvious.


The world would be far better if more adopted those of Christ than those of Muhammad in the Medinan suras which are binding according to Naskh.

That was not the deal being offered - it was to convert all Muslims (whether they followed your view of how they should interpret and respond to their own text or not) to evangelical Christians.


Part of their badness was persecution of non-atheists, they appealed to atheism as justification for their badness, and there is nothing in atheism that conflicts with it.

There is also nothing in atheism that endorses, justifies or requires it. You obviously realise this since you are quite happy to cite the Dawkinses and so on who argue that Christianity is culturally useful even while at the same time arguing that certain of its views are nonsense.

antichrist
11-01-2015, 02:30 PM
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/guest-writers/16108-palestine-and-the-british-trade-unions

I shall drag some passages over

Patrick Byrom
11-01-2015, 03:26 PM
When it comes to Christianity, violence is contrary to the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, which is newer than the Old Testament in case you weren't aware.
I would agree with you. But you support violence. Does that mean that you don't consider yourself a Christian - or do you just ignore the teachings of Christ which are against violence? If so, why can't Muslims ignore (some of) the teachings of Muhammad and still be good Muslims?

You seem to forget that Muhammad is not considered by Muslims to be divine. However when you (and other Christians) ignore the teachings of Christ against violence, that is much more serious, as you believe that Christ is divine.

antichrist
11-01-2015, 04:32 PM
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;…Matt 10.34

AC: sounds very non violent to me

Patrick Byrom
11-01-2015, 05:59 PM
It does matter if the OT violence was for a specific time and against child-sacrificers, while the Koranic endorsement was general and for all time. That is why you won't find Jews carrying out violence for religious reasons.
That's not completely correct. For example: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism)

"Brit HaKanaim (Hebrew: בְּרִית הַקַנַאִים, lit. Covenant of the Zealots) was a radical religious Jewish underground organisation which operated in Israel between 1950 and 1953, against the widespread trend of secularisation in the country. The ultimate goal of the movement was to impose Jewish religious law in the State of Israel and establish a Halakhic state."

And the OT violence wasn't that specific:

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"
I'm not sure what the children and infants were being punished for.

antichrist
11-01-2015, 06:32 PM
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"[/INDENT]
I'm not sure what the children and infants were being punished for.

But you are sure for why the ox, sheep, camel and donkey were being punished. They are not pork so I don't know why.

Goughfather
11-01-2015, 06:52 PM
It does matter if the OT violence was for a specific time and against child-sacrificers, while the Koranic endorsement was general and for all time.

Considering that Jono "Dregs o' Society" Sarfati has enough trouble understanding his own scriptures with any degree of insight, this hardly inspires confidence that he has any capacity to meaningfully understand the Quran.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2015, 06:11 AM
Considering that Jono "Dregs o' Society" Sarfati has enough trouble understanding his own scriptures with any degree of insight, this hardly inspires confidence that he has any capacity to meaningfully understand the Quran.

Oh yes, the shyster who gave up debating Scripture with me after I trounced him on the meaning of paiderastes and arsenokoites. And as I documented, my views on creation are in line with most Church Fathers, medieval scholars, and all the Reformers, while GF is just an apostate nonentity.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2015, 06:16 AM
That's not completely correct. For example: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism)

"Brit HaKanaim (Hebrew: בְּרִית הַקַנַאִים, lit. Covenant of the Zealots) was a radical religious Jewish underground organisation which operated in Israel between 1950 and 1953, against the widespread trend of secularisation in the country. The ultimate goal of the movement was to impose Jewish religious law in the State of Israel and establish a Halakhic state."
That's the best you have, and they killed no one?


And the OT violence wasn't that specific:

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"
I'm not sure what the children and infants were being punished for.
You're not sure of much, clearly. What is Amalek if not specific? As I said, the Amalek case was an exception not the rule as the Medinan suras are. Anyway, all old stuff; see Good question...shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes? (http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html)

Patrick Byrom
12-01-2015, 04:54 PM
You're not sure of much, clearly. What is Amalek if not specific? As I said, the Amalek case was an exception not the rule as the Medinan suras are. Anyway, all old stuff; see Good question...shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes? (http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html)
The fact that innocent children and infants were also slaughtered means that it wasn't that specific. Your linked article explains that this was done to spare them furthering suffering:

14.The only two choices were leave them to die slowly/agonizingly or kill them quickly/violently.
15.People themselves normally chose to die quickly (i.e., in cases of individual suicide or group suicide) rather than go into foreign slavery or lingering torturous death (at the hands of others or at the mercy of the harsh environment and times).
16.God chose for them to die quickly, rather than the prolonged suffering scenarios of dehydration, starvation, exposure.
It doesn't explain why the women and children couldn't have been left to kill themselves. Assuming they wanted to, of course, as the article provides no evidence that they did.

The belief that it's okay to kill someone because (you believe that) God commanded you to is still a problem today - and not only with Muslims.

Capablanca-Fan
13-01-2015, 12:10 AM
Heroic Muslim man saved Jewish hostages during Paris siege by hiding them in freezer (http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/01/11/heroic-muslim-man-saved-jewish-hostages-during-paris-siege-by-hiding-them-in-freezer/)
11 Jan 2015, by Jews News

antichrist
13-01-2015, 05:25 AM
It is a pity that Zionist terrorists did not do the same for about 5 million Palestinian refugees when the Zionists were attacking Palestine as well for the tens of thousands killed

antichrist
13-01-2015, 11:21 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/football/video/2015/jan/07/palestine-football-team-asian-cup-australia-palestinian-video

This video gives a tiny insight into the problems the Palestinian football team have suffered due to Israel deliberately sabotaging their efforts. It is maybe the main reason why Palestinians kidnapped Israeli athletes 40 years ago - because their own Palestinian team were prevented by Israel.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2015, 12:37 PM
It is maybe the main reason why Palestinians kidnapped Israeli athletes 40 years ago - because their own Palestinian team were prevented by Israel.

That's rubbish. The Munich attacks were politically motivated with the stated aim of securing the release of prisoners in Israel and Red Army Faction leaders in Germany. Tying them in to sport (as a motive rather than a venue) trivialises the issues involved and makes it sound like if their reason for kidnapping had been as flippant as sport you would have considered that perfectly normal. We try to tolerate extremism including yours on this thread but if you're going to extend that to stupidity about the facts or silliness then don't expect that to continue.

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2015, 09:51 AM
‘Honorable Imam, You Bear Responsibility Before Allah’ (http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/honorable-imam-you-bear-responsibility-before-allah/2015/01/09/)

Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called on Muslim clerics to combat extremist ideology two weeks before radical Islamist terrorists killed 12 journalists at a satiric magazine in Paris.
By: Hana Levi Julian
Published: January 9th, 2015
Latest update: January 12th, 2015

“I am referring not to “religion,” but to “ideology” – the body of ideas and texts that we have sanctified in the course of centuries, to the point that challenging them has become very difficult. “It has reached the point that [this ideology] is hostile to the entire world. Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion [Muslims] would kill the world’s population of seven billion, so that they could live [on their own]? This is inconceivable.

“I say these things here, at Al-Azhar, before religious clerics and scholars. May Allah bear witness on Judgment Day to the truth of your intentions, regarding what I say to you today.

“You cannot see things clearly when you are locked [in this ideology]. You must emerge from it and look from outside, in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology. You must oppose it with resolve. Let me say it again: We need to revolutionize our religion. “Honorable Imam [the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar], you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”

For the first time ever, Coptic Christians were honored with a visit from the nation’s leader at Christmas mass, as President el-Sisi visited Cairo’s Abbasiya Cathedral on the holy day. El-Sisi congratulated the small Coptic community on the occasion of the holiday earlier this week, and said in a brief address that all Egyptians are as “one hand.”

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2015, 11:37 AM
Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam tells fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off' on live TV
Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Moroccan-born Muslim, spoke after Paris attack (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html)
The mayor said Dutch Muslims who 'don't like freedom' can f*** off
He added: 'Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here'
Aboutaleb became the first immigrant mayor in the Netherlands in 2008
By SARA MALM FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 04:32 EST, 13 January 2015

antichrist
14-01-2015, 10:07 PM
Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam tells fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off' on live TV
Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Moroccan-born Muslim, spoke after Paris attack (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html)
The mayor said Dutch Muslims who 'don't like freedom' can f*** off
He added: 'Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here'
Aboutaleb became the first immigrant mayor in the Netherlands in 2008
By SARA MALM FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 04:32 EST, 13 January 2015

I have not yet read the link but will comment. M/E Christians living in Western more liberal countries also do not participate in all the freedoms on offer. Especially the early migrant generations re divorce, early pre-marital sex etc. and similar things so one must be specific. Having differing values should not be a crime, from what I have noticed all cultures have their plus and minuses.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2015, 05:07 AM
Greta Van Susteren
My personal message to President Obama, 15 January 2015

Dear Sir, for god's sakes..wake up. It is 'radical Islam!' How much more proof do you need? There has been proof after proof! In just the last few months American journalists and other have been beheaded in the name of radical Islam and of course the Paris massacre last week. It has been going for years and it is every day and it never stops.

All over the news today is Boko Haram (which has a radical Islamic ideology) slaughter 2000 (not, 2, not 20, not 200, but 2000) innocent villagers in Nigerian towns of Baga and Doron Baga! And yes, that is the SAME Boko Haram who kidnapped 270 school girls in April because they were getting an education (they don't think girls should get an education) and are now using as SEX SLAVES! These girls still are in the clutches of these savages. These are radical Islamists doing this just like Paris, just like 9/11.

Mr. President, tell me you don't need more proof because if you do, we are in big trouble. We don't need a Denyer in Chief. We need a Leader - one who clearly sees the cause and origin of the problem because that is the first step. Identify the cause, that's your target.

And yes, of course I know you hate violence and terrorism like the rest of us and I know about you getting Bin Laden and I appreciate that....but that was then, and we are at now.

(the picture is from Amnesty International and shows the destruction of the villages - the before and after.)

Adamski
16-01-2015, 12:27 PM
Yes, what Boko Haran is doing in Nigeria is satanic.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2015, 04:18 PM
Posts moved


Yes, what Boko Haran is doing in Nigeria is satanic.

Discussion arising from this post naturally headed down a religion-related line and has been moved to a new thread in the religion section.

Any comment about this thread split may be made in the Help and Feedback section only.

Ian Murray
16-01-2015, 09:04 PM
More than a grain of truth here - are our chickens coming home to roost?

Why Charlie Hebdo attack is not about Islam (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islam-cartoon-terr-20151106726681265.html)
Charlie Hebdo massacre is rooted in generations of violence, hypocrisy and greed (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islam-cartoon-terr-20151106726681265.html).
Mark LeVine
Professor of Middle Eastern History, UC Irvine
10 Jan 2015

Twelve people were massacred in Paris on Wednesday merely for expressing their opinion through art. Many might not like the art that prompted the carnage. They may consider it obscene and even an attack on their faith. But in the 21st, 15th or 57th century - whatever your religion, calendar, or country - there is no excuse or justification for responding to art with murder.

But there is a clear and frightening explanation for this violence, one that demands not merely outrage at the act itself, but at the system that has made it both predictable and inevitable. The problem is that this system is hundreds of years old, implicates most everyone, and has only become more entrenched in the last several decades as the world has become ever more globalised.

The beginning

Where does the story begin? Quite simply with colonialism. It's no mere coincidence that at least two of the Charlie Hebdo attackers are reportedly of Algerian descent and the third from Senegal. France's 1830 invasion of Algeria began a 130-year odyssey of murder, expropriation, racism, exploitation and misrule that only ended after a vicious anti-colonial struggle costing well over one million Algerian lives....

The experiences of Algeria and Senegal are in no way unique. They comprise the story of the modern Muslim world, where with the exception of Turkey, Iran and part of the Arabian peninsula most every society from Morocco to Indonesia fell under generations of European rule in the 19th and 20th centuries. The collective wound of colonialism, its distortion and often destruction of existing pathways to modernity, is for all practical purposes immeasurable....

antichrist
17-01-2015, 05:43 AM
More than a grain of truth here - are our chickens coming home to roost?

Why Charlie Hebdo attack is not about Islam (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islam-cartoon-terr-20151106726681265.html)
Charlie Hebdo massacre is rooted in generations of violence, hypocrisy and greed (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islam-cartoon-terr-20151106726681265.html).
Mark LeVine
Professor of Middle Eastern History, UC Irvine
10 Jan 2015

Twelve people were massacred in Paris on Wednesday merely for expressing their opinion through art. Many might not like the art that prompted the carnage. They may consider it obscene and even an attack on their faith. But in the 21st, 15th or 57th century - whatever your religion, calendar, or country - there is no excuse or justification for responding to art with murder.

But there is a clear and frightening explanation for this violence, one that demands not merely outrage at the act itself, but at the system that has made it both predictable and inevitable. The problem is that this system is hundreds of years old, implicates most everyone, and has only become more entrenched in the last several decades as the world has become ever more globalised.

The beginning

Where does the story begin? Quite simply with colonialism. It's no mere coincidence that at least two of the Charlie Hebdo attackers are reportedly of Algerian descent and the third from Senegal. France's 1830 invasion of Algeria began a 130-year odyssey of murder, expropriation, racism, exploitation and misrule that only ended after a vicious anti-colonial struggle costing well over one million Algerian lives....

The experiences of Algeria and Senegal are in no way unique. They comprise the story of the modern Muslim world, where with the exception of Turkey, Iran and part of the Arabian peninsula most every society from Morocco to Indonesia fell under generations of European rule in the 19th and 20th centuries. The collective wound of colonialism, its distortion and often destruction of existing pathways to modernity, is for all practical purposes immeasurable....

Exactly and that was only the beginning. The ending is that France has joined with the USA and Australia in bombing the Mohummad (not Christ) out of I.S. The whole Iraqi affair, going decades back, had absolutely nothing to do with Australia but we eagerly joined in to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. I don't understand how people can just sweep hundreds of years of colonialism under the carpet, is it because the colonialist were white and Christian, our mob so to speak.

antichrist
17-01-2015, 05:56 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/14/australias-un-vote-on-palestine-does-a-disservice-to-all-sides-including-israelis?CMP=share_btn_link

This is where our mate, Bob Carr, had a big rave about the injustices to the Palestinians.
........
There were 25,000 settlers in 1977, 10 years after the Six Day War. Now there are 500,000. No rusted-on friends of Israel can defend these ugly pre-fabricated suburbs and outposts crammed with fanatics who appear to despise Palestinians and paint “Death to Arabs” on churches and mosques – and whose violence against Palestinians is now routine.

Even the pro-Israel lobby struggles to defend a project that is making Palestinians strangers on their ancestral soil, settlements timed to blow up any American-sponsored peace talks, settlements that are gobbling up the land that for 25 years has been intended as a future Palestinian state subject to security guarantees for Israel and mutually agreed trade-offs about boundaries.
.................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A point I made here years ago, and supported by Egor was something like. The land given by the UN (wasn't theirs to give) for State of Israel, had no difference in status, demographics, culture etc then the rest of surrounding area of Palestine. So when Israel surrendered Gaza Strip it was admitting in a round about way that she did not deserve any of Palestine. Original ethnic Jewish Arabs, the only Jews that have land rights in the M/E came from back of present day Iraq, and only occupied Palestine by brutal conquest. They were mostly driven out by the Romans in about 68 or 70 Common Era. Jewish Arabs deserve a homeland in the M/E if they have no other options but converts of non Arab origin deserve no such thing. How can international policy values be established by people changing their religious options and then demanding land rights in a land their ancestors had never set foot on? That had been fully occupied for thousands of years?

Ian Murray
17-01-2015, 09:36 AM
...I don't understand how people can just sweep hundreds of years of colonialism under the carpet, is it because the colonialist were white and Christian, our mob so to speak.
Of course

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2015, 02:31 AM
Exactly and that was only the beginning. The ending is that France has joined with the USA and Australia in bombing the Mohummad (not Christ) out of I.S. The whole Iraqi affair, going decades back, had absolutely nothing to do with Australia but we eagerly joined in to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. I don't understand how people can just sweep hundreds of years of colonialism under the carpet, is it because the colonialist were white and Christian, our mob so to speak.

More nonsense. Right from the start of Islam, this religion was warfaring, forcing the whole of the Levant and North Africa to convert to Islam, die, or live under the abject servitude of dhimmitude. Also, the sins of colonialists against Africa pale compared to the post-independence atrocities by African despots against their own people. The attack on France was decades after the French left their colonies in North Africa.

antichrist
18-01-2015, 10:35 AM
More nonsense. Right from the start of Islam, this religion was warfaring, forcing the whole of the Levant and North Africa to convert to Islam, die, or live under the abject servitude of dhimmitude. Also, the sins of colonialists against Africa pale compared to the post-independence atrocities by African despots against their own people. The attack on France was decades after the French left their colonies in North Africa.

I agree Islam has mostly being militant but that does excuse or lessen France's guilt. So what France left decades ago. What about the raw materials, minerals and probably slave labour they extracted for hundreds of years. Israel still claims land rights going back thousands of years when themselves were the genocidests. So why can't the African ex-colonies go back decades or hundreds of years. Israel (or Israeli citizens), as well, are still getting reparations from Germany for the war 70 years ago and claiming back art works etc.

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2015, 02:17 PM
More nonsense. Right from the start of Islam, this religion was warfaring, forcing the whole of the Levant and North Africa to convert to Islam, die, or live under the abject servitude of dhimmitude.But if this servitude was so terrible, why did the Jews fight with the Muslims against the Christian Crusaders? Living under Christian rule was obviously much worse for them if they were prepared to die to avoid it.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2015, 02:28 PM
But if this servitude was so terrible, why did the Jews fight with the Muslims against the Christian Crusaders? Living under Christian rule was obviously much worse for them if they were prepared to die to avoid it.

Were the Jews really fighting with the Muslims, or against what they saw as enemies just as bad? It remains true that the Dhimmitude was very bad for both Jews and Christians under the Islamofascist yoke. But be more specific.

It's still amazing that all the chesschat atheopaths are going out of their way to defend the one religion under which they wouldn't last five minutes, while they are safe in Israel and in the once quasi-Christian west.

antichrist
18-01-2015, 08:05 PM
Were the Jews really fighting with the Muslims, or against what they saw as enemies just as bad? It remains true that the Dhimmitude was very bad for both Jews and Christians under the Islamofascist yoke. But be more specific.

It's still amazing that all the chesschat atheopaths are going out of their way to defend the one religion under which they wouldn't last five minutes, while they are safe in Israel and in the once quasi-Christian west.

Not all countries populated by a majority of Muslims are fanatical, but there is only one country with a majority of Zionists and it is a apartheid country, as well as one that commits war crimes.

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2015, 08:07 PM
Were the Jews really fighting with the Muslims, or against what they saw as enemies just as bad? It remains true that the Dhimmitude was very bad for both Jews and Christians under the Islamofascist yoke. But be more specific.
They were fighting with the Muslims: (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html)

Meanwhile, the crusaders had reached Jerusalem (June 7, 1099), and the siege had begun. The city was captured on July 15, with Godfrey entering it through the Jewish quarter, where inhabitants defended themselves alongside their Muslim neighbors, finally seeking refuge in the synagogues, which were set on fire by the attackers. A terrible massacre ensued; the survivors were sold as slaves, some being later redeemed by Jewish communities in Italy. The Jewish community of Jerusalem came to an end and was not reconstituted for many years, but the Jewish centers in Galilee went unscathed. However, the great community of Ramleh dispersed, as did that of Jaffa , so that overall the Jewish community in the Holy Land was greatly diminished.


It's still amazing that all the chesschat atheopaths are going out of their way to defend the one religion under which they wouldn't last five minutes, while they are safe in Israel and in the once quasi-Christian west.I'm not defending any particular religion. However the fact that the Christian Crusaders treated Jews far worse than the Muslims did indicates that Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity.

antichrist
18-01-2015, 08:17 PM
Now we have Hamas and Hezbollah who may have hatred of everything Jewish and Israeli, when actually they are religious first cousins. But this hatred is explainable by the actions pre and subsequent to the creation of Israel. When considering that Israel was set up as a Jewish state in the midst of millions of Muslims, many of whom were ejected, what did Israel expect.

Ian Murray
19-01-2015, 07:14 PM
Right from the start of Islam, this religion was warfaring, forcing the whole of the Levant and North Africa to convert to Islam, die, or live under the abject servitude of dhimmitude.
No match for European colonialists, subjugating peoples of every other inhabited continent by force. Their choice was servitude at best or death.


Also, the sins of colonialists against Africa pale compared to the post-independence atrocities by African despots against their own people.
Europeans ran rings around anyone else when it came to massacres and atrocities, e.g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
http://ryfigueroa.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/european-settler-colonialism-and.html
https://umuvugizi.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/how-colonialism-affected-the-rwandan-genocide/
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/25/european-colonial-politics-and-the-roots-of-the-holocaust/
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/11/25/thanksgiving-celebrating-the-genocide-of-native-americans/
http://www.peoplesworld.org/europe-and-africa-a-genocidal-history/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16314373
http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2010/12/22/when-you-kill-ten-million-africans-you-arent-called-hitler/
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch02-3.htm
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/world-war-i-led-to-a-century-of-violence-in-the-middle-east-a-946052.html
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/130912-netherlands-apologizes-for-indonesian-colonial-killings
http://listverse.com/2013/03/12/10-ways-britain-has-ruined-the-world/


The attack on France was decades after the French left their colonies in North Africa.
One generation after. The sons would have been taught what was done to their fathers.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2015, 01:43 AM
No match for European colonialists, subjugating peoples of every other inhabited continent by force. Their choice was servitude at best or death.
Certainly not. When it came to the British and India, they imposed the rule of law, abolished widow-burning (Sati), and wiped out the Thugee cult. None of the European powers were as brutal as Islamofascism, which also enslaved far more blacks, and far more brutally, than the Middle Passage. Your fellow atheopath Christopher Hitchens writes (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html):


My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colley’s excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by “corsair” raiders in a single night?

And many post-Independence African leaders were brutal beyond belief to other Africans. Rwanda genocide, Idi Amin, anyone?


Europeans ran rings around anyone else when it came to massacres and atrocities, e.g.
Argument by weblink is hardly productive (the Argumentum ad Googlem fallacy).


One generation after. The sons would have been taught what was done to their fathers.
Nothing like what Islamism did to many, and in any case, the sons should not be punished for the sins of their fathers.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2015, 06:40 AM
I'm not defending any particular religion.
Sure looks like it, when you and other atheists rush to defend Islamic atrocities with an ahistorical moral equivalence. We also see it with much of the media and "art" world that will bravely publish blatantly anti-Christian and anti-biblical cartoons, then pretend how sensitive they are by not publishing the Muhammad cartoons. No, they are just cowards, who know that Christians and Jews won't blow them up.


However the fact that the Christian Crusaders treated Jews far worse than the Muslims did indicates that Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity.
This looks like one example, compared with the centuries of Dhimmitude. For another, the medieval popes defended Jews from the absurd ‘blood libel’, still prevalent in Islamist countries, and even had Jewish doctors, such as Samuel Sarfati (died c. 1519), leader of the Jewish Community in Rome and Chief Physician (Archiater) to Popes Alexander VI and Julius II, and his son Joseph Sarfati (d. 1577), personal physician and medical adviser to Pope Clement VII.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, then the Islamic extremists should be extreme pacifists.

antichrist
23-01-2015, 09:43 AM
The basic question of the Palestinian issue is post world wars does might still equal right? And are any principles equally applied to all peoples? Is the UN supposed to administer justice or injustice? Should countries that have nuke weapons control the security council?

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2015, 03:23 PM
They were fighting with the Muslims: (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html)

Meanwhile, the crusaders had reached Jerusalem (June 7, 1099), and the siege had begun. The city was captured on July 15, with Godfrey entering it through the Jewish quarter, where inhabitants defended themselves alongside their Muslim neighbors, finally seeking refuge in the synagogues, which were set on fire by the attackers. A terrible massacre ensued; the survivors were sold as slaves, some being later redeemed by Jewish communities in Italy. The Jewish community of Jerusalem came to an end and was not reconstituted for many years, but the Jewish centers in Galilee went unscathed. However, the great community of Ramleh dispersed, as did that of Jaffa , so that overall the Jewish community in the Holy Land was greatly diminished.

I'm not defending any particular religion. However the fact that the Christian Crusaders treated Jews far worse than the Muslims did indicates that Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity.

More on this from Crash Course on the Crusades (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/crash-course-on-the-crusades) by STEVE WEIDENKOPF (2012):

Myth #4: The Crusades were also wars against the Jews and should be considered the first Holocaust.

As the First Crusaders marched through Europe on their way to the Holy Land via Constantinople, many smaller bands of armed men followed in their wake. A leader of one of these bands, Count Emich took it upon himself to march down the Rhine valley targeting various Jewish communities.

Emich embraced the anti-Semitic notion that it was pointless for Crusaders to march 2,500 miles to fight Islam when there were “enemies of Christ” in their midst. His force engaged in pogroms in numerous German towns in search of money and a misguided and unsanctioned sense of holiness. The Church in no way endorsed Count Emich’s tactics and many bishops tried to protect local Jews; indeed, the Bishop of Speyer had those engaged in pogroms arrested, tried and punished. The Bishop of Mainz allowed local Jews to take up refuge in his palace; unfortunately, Count Emich violated this sanctuary, stormed the palace and killed them all. It is important to note that numerous contemporary chronicles condemn the actions of Emich and like-minded men. The Church also actively spoke out against such outrages.

During the time of the Second Crusade (1147 – 1149), St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who after the Pope was the most well-known and respected churchman in Christendom, spoke out strongly against anti-Semitism. He wrote, “We have heard with joy that zeal for God burns in you, but wisdom must not be lacking from this zeal. The Jews are not to be persecuted, nor killed, nor even forced to flee.”[6]

A Cistercian monk named Radulf preached and exhorted the people to engage in pogroms in the Rhineland. Upon hearing reports of Radulf’s preaching, St. Bernard went to Germany, severely rebuked Radulf and sent him back to his monastery.

None of the anti-Jewish “armies” made it to the East, after their rampage of murder and plunder, the brigands dispersed. So, these groups cannot accurately be called Crusaders. Although numerous Jewish populations were harmed during the time of the crusading movement, these attacks were not directly part of the movement as none of the main armies participated in them and the Church did not sanction the attacks, rather, she worked to stop them.

Rincewind
23-01-2015, 05:13 PM
Looks like the cut'n'paste buffoon hasn't a clue what it is he is trying to refute. Patrick was talking about the descimation of the Jerusalem Jewish population by the offical army of the First Crusade. Nothing to do with the peasant's crusade or European based pogroms occurring at the time.

antichrist
23-01-2015, 08:23 PM
Does the Catholic Roman Empire booting the Jews out of Palestine in about 68 CE count? Considering that the Jews had been given that land by God how could Christians go against God's word and drive them off?

Rincewind
23-01-2015, 08:55 PM
Does the Catholic Roman Empire booting the Jews out of Palestine in about 68 CE count? Considering that the Jews had been given that land by God how could Christians go against God's word and drive them off?

No. Roman Empire was pagan at the time and was for centuries there after.

antichrist
23-01-2015, 09:27 PM
No. Roman Empire was pagan at the time and was for centuries there after.

Of course sorry about that. Was after Constantine's missus seen the cross in the sky about 328CE

Them being pagan makes it worse actually how dare they? I bet they had more fun though.

Patrick Byrom
23-01-2015, 11:37 PM
Sure looks like it, when you and other atheists rush to defend Islamic atrocities with an ahistorical moral equivalence.
You've lost me. What 'atrocity' was I defending? And how is it "ahistorical" to compare the behaviour of Muslims with that of Christians from the same time period?


This looks like one example, compared with the centuries of Dhimmitude. For another, the medieval popes defended Jews from the absurd ‘blood libel’, still prevalent in Islamist countries, and even had Jewish doctors, such as Samuel Sarfati (died c. 1519), leader of the Jewish Community in Rome and Chief Physician (Archiater) to Popes Alexander VI and Julius II, and his son Joseph Sarfati (d. 1577), personal physician and medical adviser to Pope Clement VII.
That's great, but it's 400 years after the period I was referring to. And I can't believe that you're unaware of the great Jewish thinkers who flourished under Muslim rule, such as Maimonides, who was personal physician to the Muslim ruler Saladin, and helped rescue Jews taken captive by the Crusaders.

My point is simple. The treatment of Jews under dhimmitude was no worse, and generally much better, than their treatment by Christians at the same time. This contradicts your argument that Islam is inherently violent, and Christianity isn't.

Capablanca-Fan
24-01-2015, 01:27 AM
You've lost me. What 'atrocity' was I defending? And how is it "ahistorical" to compare the behaviour of Muslims with that of Christians from the same time period?
Of course it is; whinging about the Crusades, a just war with some unjust practises, while ignoring that it was Muslims who were the sole aggressors for the previous centuries. And it's notable that you must go back many centuries to find abuse by the Church, while now it's almost entirely the Islamists who are blowing up buildings and murdering civilians. Christians around the middle east and Pakistan are being murdered and their churches burned down. Even when Muslims who are killed, it's usually by other Muslims.


That's great, but it's 400 years after the period I was referring to. And I can't believe that you're unaware of the great Jewish thinkers who flourished under Muslim rule, such as Maimonides, who was personal physician to the Muslim ruler Saladin, and helped rescue Jews taken captive by the Crusaders.
Maimonides' family was forced into exile from his birthplace in Córdoba when even the Dhimmi status was abolished and everyone had to choose between conversion, execution, and exile.


My point is simple. The treatment of Jews under dhimmitude was no worse, and generally much better, than their treatment by Christians at the same time. This contradicts your argument that Islam is inherently violent, and Christianity isn't.
Not at all. For one thing, as I've pointed out, the violence by Muslims is consistent both with the Koranic verses now in force under Naskh, and with the example of their leader. Aggressive violence by Christians is inconsistent with both the Law of Christ now operative and with the example of Christ.

Capablanca-Fan
24-01-2015, 01:32 AM
Does the Catholic Roman Empire booting the Jews out of Palestine in about 68 CE count?
Talk about anachronistic. The Roman Empire did not become "Catholic" until Constantine, about 250 years later.


Considering that the Jews had been given that land by God how could Christians go against God's word and drive them off?
Again, it was the pagan generals and future emperors Vespasian who crushed Jerusalem in AD 70, then after the Bar Kochba revolt of AD 135, the pagan emperor Hadrian expelled the Jews from the land.

antichrist
24-01-2015, 11:27 AM
Talk about anachronistic. The Roman Empire did not become "Catholic" until Constantine, about 250 years later.


Again, it was the pagan generals and future emperors Vespasian who crushed Jerusalem in AD 70, then after the Bar Kochba revolt of AD 135, the pagan emperor Hadrian expelled the Jews from the land.

How could God let this occur to his Chosen People on their Holy Land by pagans? Could Jews be considered prototype Christians and Muslims?

Ian Murray
24-01-2015, 02:39 PM
... the Crusades, a just war with some unjust practises, while ignoring that it was Muslims who were the sole aggressors for the previous centuries...
The Crusades were not just wars by any stretch of the imagination. European Crusaders had no rational claim to North Africa and the Middle East region of Asia. The lands were taken by conquest, lost to later conquerors, retaken, relost, over millenia. Only the native inhabitants have a just claim to their lands.

Capablanca-Fan
24-01-2015, 03:47 PM
The Crusades were not just wars by any stretch of the imagination. European Crusaders had no rational claim to North Africa and the Middle East region of Asia.
They were trying to restore the rights of Christians that the Islamonazis had trample on over the previous few centuries. So, yes it was a just cause.

Capablanca-Fan
24-01-2015, 03:49 PM
NYC JEWISH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SLAMS PRO-PALESTINIAN ACTIVISTS FOR ANTI-SEMITIC PROTEST (http://therightscoop.com/holy-crap-nyc-jewish-city-council-member-slams-pro-palestinian-activists-for-anti-semitic-protest/)
Posted on Jan 22, 2015

These anti-Semitic sickos in New York disrupted a City Council meeting during a vote commemorating the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. They were upset because City Council members are taking a trip to Israel next month.

Orthodox Jewish City Council member David Greenfield fires back at the disruption, exposing the anti-Semitism of the protesters and pointing out in obliterating terms that these anti-Semites are angry because “Hitler didn’t finish the job”.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpGPzoaNVCU

Patrick Byrom
24-01-2015, 08:18 PM
Of course it is; whinging about the Crusades, a just war with some unjust practises, while ignoring that it was Muslims who were the sole aggressors for the previous centuries. And it's notable that you must go back many centuries to find abuse by the Church, while now it's almost entirely the Islamists who are blowing up buildings and murdering civilians. Christians around the middle east and Pakistan are being murdered and their churches burned down. Even when Muslims who are killed, it's usually by other Muslims.
There seems to be a comprehension problem here, so I'll explain things as simply as I can. There was a Jewish community in Jerusalem under Islamic rule, which was destroyed by the Christian Crusaders. I am not "whinging" about the Christians attacking the Muslims, I am "whinging" about their destruction of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, which was clearly an atrocity (and not an isolated event). Whatever the Muslims may have done, it does not justify the behaviour of the Crusaders towards the Jews.

And I didn't "go back centuries" to find this abuse - you made the original claim about the "abject servitude of dhimmitude" (in #1671), to which I have been responding. But you have been unable to explain why, if they were being treated so badly, the Jews were fighting alongside the Muslims against the Christians. Or why there was a thriving Jewish community (with synagogues) under the 'violent' Muslim rule, but the 'peaceful' Christians slaughtered them.


Not at all. For one thing, as I've pointed out, the violence by Muslims is consistent both with the Koranic verses now in force under Naskh, and with the example of their leader. Aggressive violence by Christians is inconsistent with both the Law of Christ now operative and with the example of Christ.Even if this is true, why should anybody care?! Millions of Muslims live peacefully alongside Christians throughout the world. Whether they are peaceful because they are following their religion, or because they are not, is irrelevant to a non-Muslim. As I've shown above, 'peaceful' Christians can be more dangerous than 'violent' Muslims.

Capablanca-Fan
27-01-2015, 03:05 AM
There seems to be a comprehension problem here, so I'll explain things as simply as I can. There was a Jewish community in Jerusalem under Islamic rule, which was destroyed by the Christian Crusaders. I am not "whinging" about the Christians attacking the Muslims, I am "whinging" about their destruction of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, which was clearly an atrocity (and not an isolated event). Whatever the Muslims may have done, it does not justify the behaviour of the Crusaders towards the Jews.
I'll explain something as simply as I can: atrocities committed during a war do not in themselves prove that the war as such was unjust. Few would doubt that the Allied cause in WW2 was just, but one can argue about whether certain Allied actions were just. So indeed not: the destruction of the Jews cannot be excused, but the Crusades in general were just wars.


And I didn't "go back centuries" to find this abuse - you made the original claim about the "abject servitude of dhimmitude" (in #1671), to which I have been responding.
Which is happening even now. Christians are being thrown out of Islamist-ruled countries, and last century, 800,000 Jews were thrown out of Muslim countries and their property stolen. Yet tiny Israel settled them all, while apparently the Muslim lands 600 times the area still can't settle the alleged Palestinian refugees.


But you have been unable to explain why, if they were being treated so badly, the Jews were fighting alongside the Muslims against the Christians. Or why there was a thriving Jewish community (with synagogues) under the 'violent' Muslim rule, but the 'peaceful' Christians slaughtered them.
Even that was an aberration. St. Bernard of Clairvaux when recruiting for the Second Crusade condemned this atrocoity from the First. Also, contemporary Jewish reports don't corroborate the common claim that the synagogue was burned with Jews trapped inside.


Even if this is true, why should anybody care?!
It should make a huge difference: is the solution to the violence to be more consistent or less consistent with the religion one claims to follow.


Millions of Muslims live peacefully alongside Christians throughout the world. Whether they are peaceful because they are following their religion, or because they are not, is irrelevant to a non-Muslim. As I've shown above, 'peaceful' Christians can be more dangerous than 'violent' Muslims.
As usual, you moral-equivalence types must go back centuries, but even your hero Dawkins admits that today it's not Christians flying planes into buildings or producing suicide bombers. Also, the strongest supporters of Israel today are evangelical Christians, while most Islamic countries want it eliminated, and are themselves judenrein.

Rincewind
27-01-2015, 07:36 AM
Even that was an aberration.

Hardly an aberration. The city of Haifa was captured by the first crusade in the summer of 1100 and the entire population (mostly Jewish) along with the predominately Egyptian garrison were slain.

The crusaders may have liked to think their were emulating christ but their methods were both brutal and indiscriminate.

antichrist
27-01-2015, 08:59 AM
Jono from above post
Which is happening even now. Christians are being thrown out of Islamist-ruled countries, and last century, 800,000 Jews were thrown out of Muslim countries and their property stolen. Yet tiny Israel settled them all, while apparently the Muslim lands 600 times the area still can't settle the alleged Palestinian refugees.

AC: No Jono, the Jews were up to some nasty business mentioned here below. As well the Jews were driving Muslims out of Palestine so tit for tat so to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Pinhas Lavon
The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned civilian targets, cinemas, libraries and American educational centers. The bombs were timed to detonate several hours after closing time. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents" or "local nationalists" with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone.[2] The operation caused no casualties, except for operative Philip Natanson, when a bomb he was taking to place in a movie theater ignited prematurely in his pocket; for two members of the cell who committed suicide after being captured; and for two operatives who were tried, convicted and executed by Egypt.

The operation ultimately became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign as a consequence of the incident. Before Lavon's resignation, the incident had been euphemistically referred to in Israel as the "Unfortunate Affair" or "The Bad Business" (Hebrew: העסק הביש‎, HaEsek HaBish). After Israel publicly denied any involvement in the incident for 51 years, the surviving agents were officially honored in 2005 by being awarded certificates of appreciation by Israeli President Moshe Katzav.[3]

Ian Murray
27-01-2015, 09:15 AM
Hardly an aberration. The city of Haifa was captured by the first crusade in the summer of 1100 and the entire population (mostly Jewish) along with the predominately Egyptian garrison were slain.

The crusaders may have liked to think their were emulating christ but their methods were both brutal and indiscriminate.

They established quite a reputation for savagery, it seems. British cleric and historian George Cox wrote: "In ten days he [Almeric] reached Pelusium; and the storm and capture of that city were followed by a wanton carnage which served to increase, if anything could increase, the reputation of the Christians for merciless cruelty". http://history-world.org/saladin_takes_jerusalem.htm

Saladin was more Christian in his mercy at the surrender of Jerusalem:

The besieged resolved to trust the word of the conqueror, as they could not resist his power. The agreement was made that the nobles and fighting men should be taken to Tyre, which still held out under Conrad; that the Latin inhabitants should be redeemed at the rate of ten crowns of gold for each man, five for each woman, one for each child; and that failing this ransom, they should remain slaves. On the sick and the helpless he waged no war; and although the Knights of the Hospital were among the most determined of his enemies, he would allow their brethren to remain for a year in their attendance on the sufferers who could not be moved away. ibid

antichrist
27-01-2015, 09:39 AM
Jono from above: As usual, you moral-equivalence types must go back centuries, but even your hero Dawkins admits that today it's not Christians flying planes into buildings or producing suicide bombers. Also, the strongest supporters of Israel today are evangelical Christians, while most Islamic countries want it eliminated, and are themselves judenrein.

AC: that's right it is sick how Evangelical Christians are barracking for Israel as they believe that when all Jews are back in Palestine then God will come and rule the world again (or some rubbish to that effect) - what sick and dangerous baloney. The Christians don't care about all the disharmony etc it causes in the M/E but just that their immature stupid prophecy is self-fulfilled. They actually don't care about the Jews at all - the Jews are just pawns to them and if the whole world hates them due to Israeli actions that is okay as well.

Patrick Byrom
27-01-2015, 06:33 PM
I'll explain something as simply as I can: atrocities committed during a war do not in themselves prove that the war as such was unjust. Few would doubt that the Allied cause in WW2 was just, but one can argue about whether certain Allied actions were just. So indeed not: the destruction of the Jews cannot be excused, but the Crusades in general were just wars.
Sigh... :wall: I never said that the Crusades were not a just war. One penultimate time: I was making the point that dhimmitude was not as bad as you said. I notice that you have said nothing to contradict that.


As usual, you moral-equivalence types must go back centuries ... For the definitely final time: I was making a point about your example. You were the one who went back centuries to find an example. :wall::wall:


It should make a huge difference: is the solution to the violence to be more consistent or less consistent with the religion one claims to follow.You mean: "more consistent or less consistent with [your interpretation of] the religion one claims to follow." If a Muslim regards Islam as a religion of non-violence (as I'm sure many do, no matter what you think they should believe), the last thing we should be doing is to discourage them from practising their religion.

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2015, 01:55 AM
Sigh... :wall: I never said that the Crusades were not a just war. One penultimate time: I was making the point that dhimmitude was not as bad as you said. I notice that you have said nothing to contradict that.
Actually, it was very bad: paying a tax, and many other restrictions designed to humiliate.


For the definitely final time: I was making a point about your example. You were the one who went back centuries to find an example. :wall::wall:
Come off it: Islamonazi atrocities are happening right now, while atheopaths must go back centuries to find alleged Christian ones, and they usually come up with the Crusades, which was actually a just war.


You mean: "more consistent or less consistent with [your interpretation of] the religion one claims to follow." If a Muslim regards Islam as a religion of non-violence (as I'm sure many do, no matter what you think they should believe), the last thing we should be doing is to discourage them from practising their religion.
Again, we see atheists become post-modernists, as if all interpretations are equal and there is no objective meaning of a text. But their claims of peaceful Islam are contradicted by their own practices. E.g. General Betray-Us claimed out of one corner of his mouth that Islam is peaceful, but out of the other corner he denounced an obscure Koran-burning pastor for inciting Islamic violence. And of course, we have the captured terrorists, allegedly not real Muslims, but in Guantanamo Bay they were given all the trappings of devout Islam.

Patrick Byrom
07-02-2015, 12:42 AM
Again, we see atheists become post-modernists, as if all interpretations are equal and there is no objective meaning of a text. But their claims of peaceful Islam are contradicted by their own practices. E.g. General Betray-Us claimed out of one corner of his mouth that Islam is peaceful, but out of the other corner he denounced an obscure Koran-burning pastor for inciting Islamic violence. And of course, we have the captured terrorists, allegedly not real Muslims, but in Guantanamo Bay they were given all the trappings of devout Islam.But I didn't say that all interpretations are equal or that there is no objective meaning. My point is that not everyone (to put it mildly) interprets the Koran the same way you do. If a Muslim believes that the message of the Koran is non-violence, which many obviously do, then faithfulness to their religion is not a bad thing.

The fact that some devout Muslims are violent is not in dispute. But the majority of devout Muslims don't support violence. This Pew survey (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/)illustrates the point:

The survey finds little evidence that attitudes toward violence in the name of Islam are linked to factors such as age, gender or education. Similarly, the survey finds no consistent link between support for enshrining sharia as official law and attitudes toward religiously motivated violence. In only three of the 15 countries with sufficient samples sizes for analysis – Egypt, Kosovo and Tunisia – are sharia supporters significantly more likely to say suicide bombing and other forms of violence are at least sometimes justified. In Bangladesh, sharia supporters are significantly less likely to hold this view.

The more devout Muslims would also be those who support sharia. But they are no more likely to support violence than other Muslims (in general).

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2015, 10:02 AM
So many atheopaths, including Commissar Hussein Obamov, downplay current Islamofascist Jihads by bringing up the Crusades of centuries ago. For the record, the crusades were completely REACTIONARY to a multi-century onslaught by jihadists. The purpose of the crusades were to free Christians while the purpose of jihad (Islam’s march) was to conquer and kill the kaffir (non-muslims). There is no moral equivalence to the two.
Watch this quick clip by Dr. Bill Warner regarding these mysterious crusades:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

Rincewind
07-02-2015, 03:21 PM
Please note that Bill Warner's PhD is not in History. It is in Mathematics/Physics

Ian Murray
07-02-2015, 03:55 PM
Note also that the Crusades were launched to win back the Holy Land, i.e. conquer by force, as if the Middle East belonged to Christianity.

antichrist
07-02-2015, 05:32 PM
It was religious and racial terrorism that founded the state of Israel - the Zionists were actually anti-Semitic because they were European and were killing Semitic Palestinian Arabs. And it was religious terrorism because the Zionists were religious Jews killing non-Jews.

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2015, 09:19 AM
Bill Muehlenberg:
A review of God’s Battalions, By Rodney Stark. (http://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/10/11/a-review-of-god%E2%80%99s-battalion-by-rodney-stark/)
HarperOne, 2009.

...
Moreover, the contrast is often made between the bloodthirsty barbaric Christians, and the peace-loving Muslims. But as Stark persuasively documents, none of this is close to the truth. The real story is this: the Crusades were certainly provoked, and the Crusaders were mainly concerned to free the Holy Lands from Muslim oppression and to protect religious pilgrims who travelled there.

Indeed, to properly understand the Crusades, a lot of background information needs to be considered. That is why Stark spends the first hundred pages of his book looking at the 600-year period of Muslim conquests and dhimmitude.

The story of course begins in the seventh century when Muslim armies swept over the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Europe. One Christian land after another was attacked and conquered by advancing Muslim forces.

Stark reminds us that Muhammad told his followers, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’” Therefore a century after his death vast swathes of territory hung under the bloody sword of Islam.

And what of the conquered Christians living under Islamic rule? They, along with Jews, were known as dhimmis. While revisionist historians and Muslim apologists speak of Muslim tolerance here, the “truth about life under Muslim rule is quite different”.

Indeed, the subject peoples had few options: death, enslavement or conversion were the only avenues open to them. Dhimmitude was no picnic. Death was the fate of anyone who dared to convert out of Islam. No churches or synagogues could be built. There was to be no public praying or reading of Scripture. They were at best treated as second-class citizens, and at worst, punished and killed.

And massacres of Jews and Christians were quite common in the centuries leading up to the Crusades. In 1032-1033 in Morocco alone, there were over six thousand Jews murdered. Jerusalem fell to the Muslims in 638. The Dome of the Rock was built from 685 to 691, and churches and synagogues were levelled in the ensuing centuries.

The condition of Christians in Jerusalem was pretty appalling during this period, as was the plight of penitent pilgrims seeking to enter Jerusalem. They suffered much persecution, and risked their lives simply to travel to the holy city. The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre – along with thousands of other Christian churches – under the bloody reign of Tariqu al-Hakim at the end of the first millennia simply served as the climax to all this misery and outrage.

It is in this light of six centuries of Islamic conquest, bloodshed and tyranny that the Crusades must be viewed. They were not always pretty, but life in general back then was not pretty. If Crusader excesses took place, this was just par for the course, as excesses by Muslims and others were more than commonplace.
...
hen there is the myth that the Crusades have been a longstanding grievance amongst Muslims. Not so argues Stark: “Muslim antagonism about the Crusades did not appear until about 1900, in reaction against the decline of the Ottoman Empire”.

Christians today can well argue whether the Crusades were in fact warranted. But any such discussion about the pros and cons of the matter must be made under a clear understanding of what exactly transpired and why. This book admirably serves that purpose, and must be the starting point for any future debates over the topic.

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2015, 09:33 AM
Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity: An Atheist’s Guide
By Robert Tracinski, 27 Jan 2015

...
But in today’s context, it’s absurd to equate Islam and Christianity. Pointing to the Spanish Inquisition tends to undermine the point rather than confirm it: if you have to look back three hundred years to find atrocities, it’s because there are so few of them today. The mass crimes committed under the name of Islam, by contrast, are fresh and openly boasted about.

As an atheist, I have no god in this fight, so to speak. I don’t think the differences between religions make one more valid than another. But as the Charlie Hedbo attack reminds us, there is a big practical difference between them. In fact, the best argument against the equivalence of Christianity and Islam is that no one acts even remotely as if this were true. We feel free to criticize and offend Christians without a second thought—thanks, guys, for being so cool about that—but antagonizing Muslims takes courage. More courage than a lot of secular types in the West can usually muster.
...
The life of Christ versus the life of Mohammed.
Mohammed was a conqueror who gained worldly political power in his lifetime and used it to persecute opponents and impose his religion. He also fully enjoyed the worldly perks of being a tyrant, including multiple wives. Jesus, by contrast, was basically a pacifist whose whole purpose on earth was to allow himself to be tortured to death.
...

And [Christ] said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

This is a very profound idea that goes against the grain of most of human history. I’m a big fan of the Classical world, but the pagans still regarded it as normal, right, and natural that the physically strong set the terms for everyone else. Thucydides famously summed it up in the Melian Dialogue: “The strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Thucydides was clearly critical of that view, but the Classical world didn’t have a clear alternative. As far as I know, Christ was the first to insist that even the lowest, least significant person has value and that we will be judged by how we treat him.
...
Islam has no corresponding idea. The news is constantly bringing us a story of some imam somewhere declaring it consistent with Islam for a man to beat his wife, and the rise of the Islamic State in Syria has provided us current examples of Islam sanctioning slavery, including the capture and systematic rape of sex slaves. This is a religion that is still very much in the “rights of the conqueror” mode, in which the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
...
The early history of Christianity vs. Islam
...
The kingdom of god vs. the kingdom of man.
...
Is God rational?
This was the issue Benedict focused on in his Regensburg speech. He approvingly cited a dialogue in which one of the Byzantine emperors was debating with a Muslim and argued that in Christian theology, God is rational: he acts according to reason and is understandable by reason. He cited a Biblical passage about God being “Logos”—which means both “word” and “reason” in Greek—as evidence that “the world comes from reason” as part of the animating spirit of God’s creation.

Islam rejects this view. Al-Ghazali even rejected the law of cause and effect. The Muslim God does not establish laws of nature and leave them to operate. He is personally involved in causing every natural event by a direct act of will. Thus, al-Ghazali insisted that when a ball of cotton is placed into a flame, the fire does not burn the cotton. Instead, “when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire.”
...
Secular law versus Sharia law.
...
The history of religion in America.
...

antichrist
08-02-2015, 09:45 AM
How can anyone quote Christ when Christ is not a historical figure? As far as we know he did not exist, the Biblical Christ is a compilation of figures, none of them having supernatural powers

Kevin Bonham
11-02-2015, 09:51 PM
Sad to say there has finally been a possibly genuine case of atheist terrorism:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-three-young-muslims-gunned-down-in-north-carolina-at-their-family-home-10037734.html

An American (where else?) atheist and Dawkins fan allegedly killed three Muslims.

Rincewind
11-02-2015, 10:16 PM
Seems more likely to be anti-Islam than pro-athiest but will await further information before making a call on it. While killing three people is a senseless waste of life, in the US it is not that unusual and is not classified as a mass-shooting for FBI statistics.

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2015, 11:57 AM
Apparently a parking dispute with the neighbours and not anti-religious terrorism at all - the alleged killer had volatile parking disputes with a range of people.

Rincewind
12-02-2015, 02:20 PM
Apparently a parking dispute with the neighbours and not anti-religious terrorism at all - the alleged killer had volatile parking disputes with a range of people.

Parking disputes are a major issue with high density living.

So probably not even an anti-muslim hate-crime which is something. The MO was very strange if it was a hate-crime since the killer seemed to target just the three victims in a domestic setting and then turn himself in. If it was an anti-religion hate crime you would expect an attempted mass-shooting at a place of worship or other public religious event.

Garrett
13-02-2015, 03:24 PM
2831

antichrist
13-02-2015, 10:27 PM
Professor Jack Lynch of BDS fame against Israel is coming to Byron Bay next week.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/lynch---bds/4778144

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2015, 01:37 AM
Some Muslims we should support: the Jordanians in their attempt to blow Isis.

After ISIS Burned Their Pilot Alive, Jordanian Foreign Minister Vows To Teach Them A Lesson (http://www.westernjournalism.com/burned-pilot-alive-jordanian-foreign-minister-vows-teach-isis-lesson/).

King Abdullah II is an example of a Muslim leader who is good for his country: no appeasement of terrorists, pro-Western, increased democracy and press freedom, made Jordan's economy towards a freer market, and even had a non-speaking part in the Star Trek: Voyager episode ‘Investigations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_(Star_Trek:_Voyager))’. His father King Hussein was just the same: he threw Arafat and the PLO out of Jordan in 1971. The Jordanians won't be bound by crass "rules of engagement" that tie the hands of American troops.

antichrist
17-02-2015, 06:43 AM
But they weren't always good boys refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jordan

In 1946, independent Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan was formed and shortly admitted to the United Nations and the Arab League. In 1948, Jordan fought with the newly born state of Israel over lands of former Mandatory Palestine, effectively gaining control of the West Bank and annexing it with its Palestinian population. Jordan lost West Bank in the 1967 War with Israel, and since became the central base of the PLO in its struggle against Israel. The alliance between the PLO and the Jordanians, active during the War of Attrition, came to an end in the bloody Black September in Jordan in 1970, when a civil war between Jordanians and Palestinians (with Syrian Ba'athist support) took thousands of lives. In the aftermath, defeated PLO was forced out of Jordan together with tens of thousands of its fighters and their Palestinian families, relocating to South Lebanon.

AC again: and probably due to this experience during the Yom Kippur war in 1973 Jordan had a secret pact with Israel not to attack on that front freeing up Israeli troops to concentrate elsewhere. This could have been a decisive decision. Why should non Arab Jews have any land rights in the M/E - because they joined a stupid religion? Pull the other one.

Ian Murray
21-02-2015, 01:22 PM
Australia's most senior Muslim says it was a mistake to vote for Tony Abbot (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/20/australias-most-senior-muslim-says-it-was-a-mistake-to-vote-for-tony-abbott?CMP=ema_632)
Michael Safi
The Guardian
20.2.15


Australia’s most senior Muslim leader has said he won’t “repeat the mistake” of voting for Tony Abbott, and publicly advised the prime minister to “work in any field other than politics”.

The strong comments by the Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohammed come amid other signs of a serious breakdown in relations between the Abbott government and large elements of Australia’s Muslim communities, ahead of the expected announcement of new security legislation on Monday...

antichrist
22-02-2015, 10:54 AM
Abbott thinks that young terrorist prospects are taking advantage of our dole and taking off crazy. Actually it is the opposite. Leading Muslim figures stated last week that those finding terrorism attractive are those disconnection from the community and the biggest issue is unemployment, same as in Denmark. We already know that Arab Aussies have to apply for more jobs than Anglo Aussies to land a job. Of course there are other negatives but that is the big one, including injustice against Palestinian Arabs for 70 years.

antichrist
22-02-2015, 11:33 AM
In fact two bods who went over and were on SS in Oz were so unhealthy that they could not participate - surely justifying them being on pensions.

Capablanca-Fan
28-02-2015, 11:59 AM
American atheist blogger hacked to death in Bangladesh (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/27/american-atheist-blogger-hacked-to-death-in-bangladesh)
Protests in Dhaka after Avijit Roy, whose blog championed liberal secular writing in the Muslim-majority nation, was attacked along with his wife
Guardian 27 February 2015

But even after this appalling crime by Islamofascists against one of their own, many western atheopaths like Obamov will still insist that Christianity is as dangerous as Islam.

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2015, 03:31 PM
Posts moved

Discussion of whether Obama is really an atheist moved to new thread in this section.

antichrist
03-03-2015, 08:58 PM
All the claims by Israel and her defendants that when Israel gave the Gaza Strip back to the Palestinians that they did not get peace. First it was a unilateral withdraw by Israel with no agreement with the Palestinians. IT was due to Israel no longer being able to control the strip. But more importantly was the situation of the Palestinians there. Gaza Strip is also composed of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians whom are refugees from 1948 and beyond, Gaza is not their home at all but land in Israel is - so why should they stop fighting when they do not have their land back yet. Because of big bully European Israelis whom don't even belong in the Middle East - not likely

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2015, 12:01 PM
Arab Commentators Back Netanyahu On Speech To Congress (http://www.westernjournalism.com/arab-commentators-back-netanyahu-speech-congress/)
Netanyahu said that “even if Israel has to stand alone – Israel will stand.”

Tzvi Yechezkieli, the Arab affairs expert of Channel 10, said that many Arab commentators supported the content of Netanyahu’s speech. He cited a commentator on Al-Arabiya TV, who had said that he could have written a large part of the speech.
Yechezkieli said that the Arab countries are convinced that Obama will not safeguard their security interests in the current negotiations with Iran and will not protect them against Iranian aggression.
Yesterday, Faisal J. Abbas, the powerful Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, published an editorial under the headline: “President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran.” Abbas’ editorial was a reaction to Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC yesterday.
He wrote: “In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.”
The Saudi Daily Al-Jazirah published an article written by Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj, who supported Netanyahu’s decision to speak to the U.S. Congress against the upcoming deal with Iran. He called Obama “one of the worst American presidents” and said that Netanyahu’s campaign against the deal is justified because it also serves the interests of the Gulf States.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2015, 04:00 AM
Where fanatics will fall (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/battlefield-of-ideas-is-where-fanatics-will-fall/story-e6frg7bo-1227246854893)
Our values are better than those of Islam’s extremist madmen, and it’s time we said so.
Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 4 March 2015


[UK Jewish author Melanie] Phillips lamented how Western leaders spoke as one, saying Islam was not the problem. She said that, while millions of Muslims didn't subscribe to violence or extremism … it was lazy thinking to pretend the violence was not a legitimate interpretation of their religion.

Rincewind
05-03-2015, 07:24 AM
Janet Albrechtsen relying Melanie Phillips as a source. Are there any depths of moral depravity that Jono will not plumb?

antichrist
05-03-2015, 08:35 AM
Where fanatics will fall (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/battlefield-of-ideas-is-where-fanatics-will-fall/story-e6frg7bo-1227246854893)
Our values are better than those of Islam’s extremist madmen, and it’s time we said so.
Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 4 March 2015


[UK Jewish author Melanie] Phillips lamented how Western leaders spoke as one, saying Islam was not the problem. She said that, while millions of Muslims didn't subscribe to violence or extremism … it was lazy thinking to pretend the violence was not a legitimate interpretation of their religion.

I would say exactly the same about the Jews and Zionism, racism/apartheid/genocide is a legitimate interpretation of their religion - just read about Joshua, a real Hitler guy. But on the other hand some Jews amongst the very best, they even disown their Israeli citizenship they are so disgusted at the results of Zionism.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2015, 01:31 PM
90% of gays vote liberal Democrat. Yet liberal Democrats appease Islamonazis, and they hate Israel, the one place in the middle east where gays have full human rights. But still there are those who pretend that they are not real Muslims (as at the bottom of the article), while of course every professing Christian who ever did something bad was a true Christian. But more Muslims denouncing the barbarity is a good thing.

Hurled to his death in front of a baying mob: ISIS barbarians throw 'gay' man off building in another sickening day in Jihadi capital of Raqqa (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978890/ISIS-barbarians-throw-gay-man-building-bloodthirsty-crowds-Syria.html)


Young man was thrown from a building in the terror group's 'capital city'
He was accused of being gay by the ISIS militants that control Raqqa
Huge crowds gathered at the foot of the building to watch the atrocity
Some climbed on buildings to get a better view of the gruesome scene


By JOHN HALL FOR MAILONLINE, 4 March 2015

Rincewind
05-03-2015, 02:30 PM
Liberal democrate appease Islamonazis? How ridiculous.

antichrist
05-03-2015, 07:49 PM
90% of gays vote liberal Democrat. Yet liberal Democrats appease Islamonazis, and they hate Israel, the one place in the middle east where gays have full human rights. But still there are those who pretend that they are not real Muslims (as at the bottom of the article), while of course every professing Christian who ever did something bad was a true Christian. But more Muslims denouncing the barbarity is a good thing.

Hurled to his death in front of a baying mob: ISIS barbarians throw 'gay' man off building in another sickening day in Jihadi capital of Raqqa (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978890/ISIS-barbarians-throw-gay-man-building-bloodthirsty-crowds-Syria.html)


Young man was thrown from a building in the terror group's 'capital city'
He was accused of being gay by the ISIS militants that control Raqqa
Huge crowds gathered at the foot of the building to watch the atrocity
Some climbed on buildings to get a better view of the gruesome scene


By JOHN HALL FOR MAILONLINE, 4 March 2015

Jono, I consider homophobia a left over from previous centuries when things were different but can't say why in this thread. Just as I consider religious belief a hang over from previous centuries that does not fit into the modern world. The Palestinians have been knocked to the sh.thouse for 70 years, they need leadership from where ever and Islam have been there for centuries to provide such, and with all religions they have their shocking thought.

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2015, 06:06 AM
Liberal democrats appease Islamonazis? How ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous that liberal democrats appease Islamonazis, but that's just what Obamov is doing by surrendering in Iraq and Afghanistan and now allowing Iran to get nukes.

Rincewind
06-03-2015, 07:42 PM
Of course it's ridiculous that liberal democrats appease Islamonazis, but that's just what Obamov is doing by surrendering in Iraq and Afghanistan and now allowing Iran to get nukes.

You mean the withdrawl from Iraq which Gorge W Bush ordered? Or the recent wave of air strikes against ISIS which Obama ordered?

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2015, 06:22 AM
You mean the withdrawl from Iraq which Gorge W Bush ordered? Or the recent wave of air strikes against ISIS which Obama ordered?

The above leftard is ignoring the surge that GWB ordered, which was widely mocked but turned the war sharply in the Allied favour. ISIS is the result of Obamov's surrender and his ridiculous red line bluff to Assad.

antichrist
17-03-2015, 05:40 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-13/mayfield-jake-bilardi-both-perpetrator-and-victim/6312144
.........
In a recent address to the Lowy Institute, International Crisis Group president, Jean-Marie Guehenno, argued that jihadism had replaced Marxism, and that IS and Al Qaeda had replaced groups such as the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof Gang as the attraction for "lost souls"..........

AC: In a SMH article on him it states that he studied the Palestine/Israel issue - that is a potent issue for any passionate person with a conscious.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2015, 11:08 AM
When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, it was done so with the approval of the United Nations. But today, Israel's enemies routinely challenge the legitimacy of its very existence. So, under international law, who's right? Israel? Or its enemies? With Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12KJa4a0d64

Ian Murray
17-03-2015, 05:26 PM
When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, it was done so with the approval of the United Nations. But today, Israel's enemies routinely challenge the legitimacy of its very existence....
No-one here, apart from AC, routinely challenges Israel's legitimacy, so we don't need hectoring from Prager.

Of more immediate interest are the Israeli general elections tomorrow, and whether Netanyahu can survive recent scandals.

Can Israel’s minorities bring about a change in government? (http://theconversation.com/can-israels-minorities-bring-about-a-change-in-government-38764)
Prof Sammy Smooha
University of Haifa
The Conversation
17.3.15


There are 5.3 million eligible voters living in Israel today (votes may be not cast abroad). Among these voters there are three main minority (non-dominant) groups. Their numbers break down, according to my own estimates, as follows: Palestinian Arabs are 15%, Mizrahim or “Oriental” Jews (who immigrated from Muslim countries) are 30%, and Russian-speakers who arrived after 1989 are 12%.

These three groups differ markedly in their political outlook and their voting behavior. But they may all contribute their share to ousting the present prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, from power.

Here’s why....

antichrist
17-03-2015, 07:40 PM
Finn: No-one here, apart from AC, routinely challenges Israel's legitimacy, so we don't need hectoring from Prager.

AC: No matter what resolutions passed I would not accept the creation of the State of Israel without then referendum supporting such of all Arab peoples living there, and that referendum needing maybe a 75% majority. Now Mister Neo-Colonialist, when the State was approved by the UN what was the intent of Resolutions 181 and 194 and have they been adhered to? And if they have not been adhered to does the State of Israel deserve to exist with UN sanction?

Is my position really extreme as yourself and KB insinuate when taking into consideration those Resolutions?

And while you are at it how can their be justice while the State of Israel exists?

Ian Murray
17-03-2015, 08:53 PM
Finn: No-one here, apart from AC, routinely challenges Israel's legitimacy, so we don't need hectoring from Prager.

AC: No matter what resolutions passed I would not accept the creation of the State of Israel without then referendum supporting such of all Arab peoples living there, and that referendum needing maybe a 75% majority. Now Mister Neo-Colonialist, when the State was approved by the UN what was the intent of Resolutions 181 and 194 and have they been adhered to? And if they have not been adhered to does the State of Israel deserve to exist with UN sanction?

Is my position really extreme as yourself and KB insinuate when taking into consideration those Resolutions?

And while you are at it how can their be justice while the State of Israel exists?
You're a dedicated Don Quixote, resolutely tilting at windmills without thought of surrender. I'm more pragmatic - Israel will not be going away any time soon, so we fight for what we can, notably Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories, including the Gaza blockade.

antichrist
17-03-2015, 09:05 PM
You're a dedicated Don Quixote, resolutely tilting at windmills without thought of surrender. I'm more pragmatic - Israel will not be going away any time soon, so we fight for what we can, notably Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories, including the Gaza blockade.

That is grossly unfair to the refugees in surrounding countries who have as much right as those in the Occupied Territories. The same principles of justice apply to Israel as to Occupied Territories. If there is justice it is impossible for their to be a State of Israel as the land was already occupied by 400 towns and villages of Arabs. The refugees in Gaza Strip etc have not surrendered so they deserve to continue receiving support - are we going to write them off like we have done in West Papua?

I note that you did not answer questions re relevant UN Resolutions

Ian Murray
18-03-2015, 04:01 PM
That is grossly unfair to the refugees in surrounding countries who have as much right as those in the Occupied Territories. The same principles of justice apply to Israel as to Occupied Territories. If there is justice it is impossible for their to be a State of Israel as the land was already occupied by 400 towns and villages of Arabs. The refugees in Gaza Strip etc have not surrendered so they deserve to continue receiving support - are we going to write them off like we have done in West Papua?

I note that you did not answer questions re relevant UN Resolutions
You have family roots and a personal stake in the region, Peter. I don't. I oppose injustices everywhere, but don't have the energy to fight them all. I lean more strongly towards those that involve me and my roots in Australia and Ireland.

antichrist
18-03-2015, 08:52 PM
You have family roots and a personal stake in the region, Peter. I don't. I oppose injustices everywhere, but don't have the energy to fight them all. I lean more strongly towards those that involve me and my roots in Australia and Ireland.

I appreciate that. The IRA taught the Palestinians how to make bombs - I don't begrudge them for that. Those resolutions refer to Israel have to allow all the refugees to return to their homeland in Israel in a practical time - of course when they return to their land there is not much good land left for the Zionist robbers and the State would become a majority Arab area and in time the State would cease to exist in it's current form. No thing wrong with justice.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 12:10 AM
You have family roots and a personal stake in the region, Peter. I don't. I oppose injustices everywhere, but don't have the energy to fight them all. I lean more strongly towards those that involve me and my roots in Australia and Ireland.

That's a fair comment. No one can fight everything. It thus makes sense to fight the worst first, or else fight where you can be most effective.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 12:20 AM
Of more immediate interest are the Israeli general elections tomorrow, and whether Netanyahu can survive recent scandals.

Can Israel’s minorities bring about a change in government? (http://theconversation.com/can-israels-minorities-bring-about-a-change-in-government-38764)
Prof Sammy Smooha
University of Haifa
The Conversation
17.3.15
Apparently not:

WHY CAN’T REPUBLICANS BEAT OBAMA LIKE NETANYAHU JUST DID? (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/17/why-cant-republicans-beat-obama-like-netanyahu-just-did/)
JOEL B. POLLAK, Breitbart, 18 Mar 2015

Benjamin Netanyahu’s surprise victory in the Israeli elections grew even bigger overnight. Not only did his Likud Party edge the opposition Zionist Union in the exit polls after trailing roughly 25 seats to 21 seats just days before the election, but the overnight vote total was even more staggering: 29–30 seats for Likud versus 24 for Zionist Union. In other words, Netanyahu beat the projections by nearly 50%—and humiliated U.S. President Barack Obama, who hoped for his defeat.

There are many reasons that Netanyahu surged toward the end. But they all boil down to one: enough Israeli voters knew that a loss for Netanyahu meant a victory for Obama. And they weren’t going to stand for it. On both occasions when Bibi surged in the polls—just prior to his speech to Congress, and on Election Day—a major theme of campaign rhetoric was the charge that Obama was interfering in the elections. (Those charges have merit, as a Senate committee is about to find out.)

Netanyahu won, in other words, by standing up to Obama. That was not the main purpose of his speech to Congress, and it was not something Netanyahu addressed explicitly. But he didn’t need to. All of his last-minute statements—the warning that foreign governments (in general) were trying to overthrow him, the reversal of his support for a Palestinian state, the alarm that Arab voters were being bused to the polls—were rejections, albeit indirect, of Obama’s policies and interventions.

A simpler answer is that winning elections begins with solidifying your political base. (Win first, compromise later.) Zionist Union led because it had unified what is left of the center-left in Israel. Netanyahu’s late appeal to the fractured right was simple: join, or die. Many of his new seats were cannibalized from other right-wing parties that would have supported him anyway. Netanyahu realized he needed more than their coalition agreements to win; he needed their voters and their seats.

So Netanyahu came home to Israeli conservatives, and they came home to him. That means he will be more politically constrained when he returns as Prime Minister: he will have less room for compromise with Obama or the Palestinians.

But, crucially, it means he will return as Prime Minister–and will remain in office, if his coalition holds, long after Obama is gone.

In fact, his victory is the first brick in the foundations of the post-Obama era. Republicans have much to learn.

Rincewind
19-03-2015, 09:18 AM
Funny how the Israeli election is painted to be all about Obama when he is the president of the US and still will be for the next 21 months. To win the next election republicans need to stop acting like spoilt children and start working on making themselves less toxic to the majority of voters.

Regarding Bibi victory it probably has more to do with ISIS influence leading to a conservative bias. Unfortunately it also mean no resolution in sight for middle east peace.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 12:28 PM
Funny how the Israeli election is painted to be all about Obama when he is the president of the US and still will be for the next 21 months. To win the next election republicans need to stop acting like spoilt children and start working on making themselves less toxic to the majority of voters.
Already done; see November 2014.


Regarding Bibi victory it probably has more to do with ISIS influence leading to a conservative bias. Unfortunately it also mean no resolution in sight for middle east peace.
An interesting admission that conservatives have the best idea of how to deal with ISIS. The re-election of Bibi might see peace by defeating those who seek Israel's destruction instead of new-Chamberlainite appeasement.

antichrist
19-03-2015, 12:44 PM
An interesting admission that conservatives have the best idea of how to deal with ISIS. The re-election of Bibi might see peace by defeating those who seek Israel's destruction instead of new-Chamberlainite appeasement. - Jono from above

Jono, everybody knows that nothing last forever and if you poop on other people when the shoe is on the other foot you get worse back. The whole idea of the Jewish state was done without consultation or agreement with the Arabs whom were the vast majority there - there land is gone, in refugee camps for almost 70 years, Israel has to build massive walls, now Israel worries about an Iranian nuke bomb. That is what Zionism has come down to. Bibi preaches never a Palestinian state, there will never be just one state due to the Jews being out voted. So no solution from the Zionist side. Desperate people do desperate things as we have already seen for decades with suicide bombers - how much longer does Israel want to live in conflict for?

Those UN Resolutions for setting up Israel contained the proviso of re-entry of Palestinian refugees within a practical time, a few years maybe, as that has not occurred the Zionist state can be de-registered for not fulfilling the conditions of it's UN mandate . So my so-called extremist position of dismantling Israel is, strictly speaking, actually backed up by the UN.

And for Mr McFinn, the IRA took centuries to get rid of the Brits, well the Palestinians are still fighting well after 70 years. But I grieve for them as should not have occurred at all - Germany was responsible for the Holocaust, not the Palestinians.

Rincewind
19-03-2015, 02:11 PM
Already done; see November 2014.

:lol:


An interesting admission that conservatives have the best idea of how to deal with ISIS. The re-election of Bibi might see peace by defeating those who seek Israel's destruction instead of new-Chamberlainite appeasement.

Comprehension fail. Rightly or wrongly, there is a bias favouring conservatism when national security is seen as an election issue.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 11:57 PM
:lol:
Well, Republicans ran on a conservative, anti-Obamov platform and won handily, taking the Senate and increasing the House and Governorships. Obamov even proclaimed that his policies were on the ballot, although many Democrats deceitfully tried to distance themselves from him. Whether the new Republican house and Senate will actually legislate like the conservatives they professed to be is an open question.


Comprehension fail. Rightly or wrongly, there is a bias favouring conservatism when national security is seen as an election issue.
Yes, reality has a conservative bias. Appeasement of despots who want to kill you was tried in the 1930s, and is the prevailing leftist view today. But it fails to understand that evil aggressors are deterred only by force.

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2015, 12:24 AM
Bibi preaches never a Palestinian state, there will never be just one state due to the Jews being out voted.
Actually, Bibi said explicitly that if the Palestinians recognize Israel, then Israel would be the first to recognize a Palestinian state. One of my major sources on Israel, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, also supports a Palestinian state. But as long as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas don't think Israel should even exist, it would be folly to recognize them in return. After all, how can a non-existent thing do anything? Israel has already made heaps of concessions and has received nothing in return. But when Egypt and Jordan made peace treaties with Israel, Israel honoured them. That is a way forward.


And for Mr McFinn, the IRA took centuries to get rid of the Brits, well the Palestinians are still fighting well after 70 years. But I grieve for them as should not have occurred at all - Germany was responsible for the Holocaust, not the Palestinians.
But their leaders like Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini was a fervent ally of Hitler and Eichmann in their desire to eliminate the Jews.

Rincewind
20-03-2015, 12:25 AM
Well, Republicans ran on a conservative, anti-Obamov platform and won handily, taking the Senate and increasing the House and Governorships. Obamov even proclaimed that his policies were on the ballot, although many Democrats deceitfully tried to distance themselves from him. Whether the new Republican house and Senate will actually legislate like the conservatives they professed to be is an open question.

American turnout at mid term elections are abysmal. Republicans were able to to get their voters to turn out. None of this has anything to do with the Republican brand being less toxic to Women, Blacks, Hispanics and Jewish voters.


Yes, reality has a conservative bias. Appeasement of despots who want to kill you was tried in the 1930s, and is the prevailing leftist view today. But it fails to understand that evil aggressors are deterred only by force.

Fear not reality. Your inability to not be able to tell the difference between the two explains why you (as a nation) are armed to the teeth.