"Remember, remember..." used to be the old chant, but no one seems to actually remember.

Here's an interesting tidbit that I know will strike the familiar chord in the familiar places:


Canberra cleric praises jihadists

April 14, 2007 12:45am

THE most senior Muslim cleric in Canberra has praised Islamic jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mohammed Swaiti yesterday called on God to grant “victory to mujahideen (Muslim holy warriors)” worldwide, The Weekend Australian newspaper reports.

“God grant victory to the mujahideen in his name in all places,” Sheik Swaiti called out twice in Arabic over a microphone at Abu Bakr mosque in Yarralumla in front of about 500 worshippers.

“God grant victory to mujahideen in Palestine, and Chechnya and Kashmir and Afghanistan and Iraq.”

While Sheik Swaiti translated his sermon into English for non-Arabic-speaking members, the imam of Canberra's only mosque omitted the praise for Islamic jihadists in the English version.

How odd.


After the sermon the Palestinian-born cleric denied he was referring to Muslim holy fighters, saying jihad referred not only to fighting but also to self-discipline.

“Jihad means no alcohol and no gambling,” Sheik Swaiti told the newspaper.

“If we followed the jihad of the self ... and followed the Koran, the whole world will be in peace.”

Someone is speaking out against him, however.


But Islamic Society of ACT president Sabrija Poskovic rejected the cleric's suggestion he was not referring to fighters in his sermons.

He said the cleric was too radical and preached the wrong Islamic messages.

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,,21555163-5005961,00.html

So, from the end, one might be able to conclude a little hope. Yet: "imam of Canberra's only mosque". Hmm. Not good. And the "wrong Islamic messages" obliquely supports my little contention that those messages are indeed islamic, of a particular brand. Uniform? No; but of wide dissemination. The reformers have a long, long way to go.

Questions? Comments?

...Insults?

Geoff

Support our troops.

Sam's going to enlist in the U.S. Marines, better do a background check.

Support our troops.

Rather, that seems to be the problem. ;)

I say good!

The guy is a simple minded dimwit parroting the same old ME tripe they've been peddling for the last 1400 years. There is nothing new and nothing novel.

The more people like he get the spot light the more these pathetic beliefs can be shammed and the more likely the next generation of Aussie Muslims will feel bad about this asinine facet of their beleif and, perhaps, do something themselves, to address it.

I can not tell you how many anti-semitic Muslims I've met here. I'd say 80%. Maybe I mentioned this once before, but one of the Ss in in the lab was trying to show his tolerance and he said: "You know, I think everyone who is good will go to Heaven, even the Jews."

"...even the Jews." :bugeye:


Well I suppose it's a start.


I told him I was Atheist and God could go f*ck himself :) I think he was shocked a little....
Michael

Ss?

I can not tell you how many anti-semitic Muslims I've met here. I'd say 80%. Maybe I mentioned this once before, but one of the Ss in in the lab was trying to show his tolerance and he said: "You know, I think everyone who is good will go to Heaven, even the Jews."

"...even the Jews." :bugeye: l

Q: if by some political decision all the Israelis moved to another place, say the US, would the Palestinians still want to kill them?

Only, say, in the final analysis. Like if islam became the world religion. And only then if they wanted equality or something equally silly, like respect as humans. If Jews just stay in their sharia-mandate second- or third-class citizen status, I'm sure all would be "well".

For some people, anyway. Human rights and equality. Pfft. Who needs em?

Only, say, in the final analysis. Like if islam became the world religion. And only then if they wanted equality or something equally silly, like respect as humans. If Jews just stay in their sharia-mandate second- or third-class citizen status, I'm sure all would be "well".

For some people, anyway. Human rights and equality. Pfft. Who needs em?

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

And Palestinians are not fighting a religious war, they are quite literally, fighting for their lives.
Human rights, equality? Like the apartheid wall, the demonisation of the Palestinians, the revisionist history of the Israelis to make themselves victims in a war perpetuated by them, the ethnic cleansing of the inhabitants, human rights is a joke that does not apply to Muslims.

How odd.




And no its not odd that he skipped the message in the English translation, since he knows very well that jihad is a term understood differently by Muslims and the "peace-loving" West (who are "spreading the peace in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine" among other places).

This is amply proven by your diatribe here after the priest himself said he was addressing the mujahideen of the world.

Its like saying support the troops means supporting troops who rape and shoot children in Iraq.

Q: if by some political decision all the Israelis moved to another place, say the US, would the Palestinians still want to kill them?

You ever read the Torah?
Around 580 BC all the Jewish elite were exiled to the Euphrates where the Babylonians could keep an eye on them. 40 years later, when the first Persian empire swept through, they were allowed to return. Of course, not all the Jews returned to the Holy Land immediately, as they had a pretty good life there, what with an irrigated crop system and all.

Do you know when the last Jew left? 1950, with the rise of Arab nationalism.
It appears that regardless of where a Jew is, the Muslims still want to kill them.

You ever read the Torah?
Around 580 BC all the Jewish elite were exiled to the Euphrates where the Babylonians could keep an eye on them. 40 years later, when the first Persian empire swept through, they were allowed to return. Of course, not all the Jews returned to the Holy Land immediately, as they had a pretty good life there, what with an irrigated crop system and all.

Do you know when the last Jew left? 1950, with the rise of Arab nationalism.
It appears that regardless of where a Jew is, the Muslims still want to kill them.

Perhaps you should read some history as well. The last Jew left in 1950, when Israel declared Independence in 1948?

Perhaps you should read some history as well. The last Jew left in 1950, when Israel declared Independence in 1948?

So Israel's independence justifies the treatment of Jews at Iraqi hands?

So Israel's independence justifies the treatment of Jews at Iraqi hands?

Nope, but it explains it.

http://uruknet.info/?p=m32123&s1=h1

You have a link that isn't so blatantly racist?

You have a link that isn't so blatantly racist?

You can check out the article elsewhere if you like, there are references and citations.

Hows this?

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=8958

“God grant victory to the mujahideen in his name in all places,” Sheik Swaiti called out twice in Arabic over a microphone at Abu Bakr mosque in Yarralumla in front of about 500 worshippers.

“God grant victory to mujahideen in Palestine, and Chechnya and Kashmir and Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Ameen.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

lol

Did you mean Amin rather than Ameen?

Did you mean Amin rather than Ameen?

You what? Amen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen)?

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

No, but there's a State of Indifference there regarding dhimmitude, I hear.


And Palestinians are not fighting a religious war, they are quite literally, fighting for their lives.

Are you implying the Israelis are rounding them up and shooting them? Then why has the greatest population growth been in Palestine? And another point: Jordan is as much to blame as Israel in the present-day situation of the Palestinians. How come they don't get rocketed and have suicide bombers attacking them? I can think of a reason, but I imagine you wouldn't accept it since it speaks to that religious war thing you don't believe in.

Then again, so does this link:


Hamas Spokesman: Genocide of Jews remains Hamas goal

http://pmw.org.il/Bulletins_apr2007.htm#b120407

The spokesman quotes from a religious book. I wonder which one?


Human rights, equality?

The wall is to keep out weapons and suicide bombers. It works. And don't give me any nonsense about revisionism: we've already illustrated why that's nonsense and how it's clear that the Israelis didn't start the violence.


human rights is a joke that does not apply to Muslims.

Interestingly, there are others - the Ayatollah, for instance - who would agree with that statement, but not in the way I imagine you originally meant.

Geoff

Nope, but it explains it.

http://uruknet.info/?p=m32123&s1=h1

Actually, your link does explain some things, but not the things you wanted it to:


The total number of Jews in Palestine in 1946 was 608,225 and the total land owned by them was 1,585,365 donums, which represented less than 7% of the area of Palestine. (Walid Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest, Appendix I, pp.841-843)

Wow. Intruders. Invaders. Usurpers!

At less than 7% of the total land of Palestine.

Let's say that again:

At less than 7% of the total land of Palestine.

So the entire enraged-kill-the-evil-Jews movement in that period, the endless rhetoric we've heard about how much land was being grabbed up by the evil, evil, evil Jews...was based, all along, on less than 7% of the total land of Palestine. Which was state land bought from the Turks. That's the extent of political islamic tolerance for the free character of their subject peoples. A "7% Final Solution", if you'll excuse the dark pun.

If ever greater evidence for the extremity and intolerance of the islamofascist mindset were found, I have not seen it.

Sam, you've been complimented before for your links, and I agree. I'm going to bookmark that one for later.

Geoff

Sam's going to enlist in the U.S. Marines, better do a background check.
She can't. She's already in the CIA. This whole anti-American thing is just a ruse to flush out the real anti-Americans.

Actually, your link does explain some things, but not the things you wanted it to:



Wow. Intruders. Invaders. Usurpers!

At less than 7% of the total land of Palestine.

Let's say that again:

At less than 7% of the total land of Palestine.

So the entire enraged-kill-the-evil-Jews movement in that period, the endless rhetoric we've heard about how much land was being grabbed up by the evil, evil, evil Jews...was based, all along, on less than 7% of the total land of Palestine. Which was state land bought from the Turks. That's the extent of political islamic tolerance for the free character of their subject peoples. A "7% Final Solution", if you'll excuse the dark pun.

If ever greater evidence for the extremity and intolerance of the islamofascist mindset were found, I have not seen it.

Sam, you've been complimented before for your links, and I agree. I'm going to bookmark that one for later.

Geoff

Reading comprehension problems Geooooff?:D

My point was that even while the evil nasty Jews owned less than 7% of Palestine - and, prior to that in the earlier troubles before 1946 as far back as 1921, even less than that "less than" figure - they were still hated and attacked by Palestinians.

Yooooour point would be...?

My point was that even while the evil nasty Jews owned less than 7% of Palestine - and, prior to that in the earlier troubles before 1946 as far back as 1921, even less than that "less than" figure - they were still hated and attacked by Palestinians.

Yooooour point would be...?

That you have reading comprehension problems. And probably very little actual knowledge of history.

LMAO - well apparently I have reading comprehension problems, except that Sam won't deign to tell me what they are, or where. I pointed out quite correctly that the war against the Jewish inhabitants was opened in 1948, when they apparently controlled almost nothing of Palestine, and that the conflict had been going on much prior to that, when they owned even less. Hard to see Sam's point here. Oh well. There's a little ad hominem there too, but I'll just put it on the pile.

"7% Final Solution". A chilling but apt phrase.

Ss?sorry, shorthand for "students"

Q: if by some political decision all the Israelis moved to another place, say the US, would the Palestinians still want to kill them?I've thought it over and just as it is now: for most NO for some YES.

Q: Do the majority of Palestinians right now want to outright kill Jews? Probably no. So, of the nuttier religous ones who do want to kill Jews, yes those sort would still probably still want to kill Jews. I mean Mohammed killed or told people to kill, so killing must be a good thing sometimes - right? God's magical book says so.


But why should the Jews leave Israel?

Should the Turks leave Istanbul to the Greeks?
Should the Arabs leave Egypt to the indigenous Coptic's?
Should the Arabs leave Baghdad to the few remaining Assyrians?



Hell Sam, just look at the blood being spilled between the Arabs and the Kurds over Kirkuk. Lets face it, Arabs (whether Jews or conservative Jew/Muslim) don't take kindly to having to move themselves, their four wives, their 35 children and their 590 grandchildren once settled in :p

LOL

The point being that in Kirkuk both people are Muslim, both are Iraqi and they are still trying to kill one another over land!


My guess is it would go something like this:
Probably as soon as the Jews left, some Arab tribes would start chucking rocks at the other Arab tribes over the spoils, maybe because one is Sunnie and the other Shia or maybe not. Soon it'd be all out war and the only thing we'd hear from the Canberra Mosque is that it is all the fault of those vile filthy Jews Jews Jews.... yup all them Jews fault.


And thus it goes all thanks to the president set by Mohammad who murdered all those poor Jews 1400 years ago....


What do you think?
Would they be at peace if the Jews left?

Michael

Are you implying the Israelis are rounding them up and shooting them? Then why has the greatest population growth been in Palestine? And another point: Jordan is as much to blame as Israel in the present-day situation of the Palestinians. How come they don't get rocketed and have suicide bombers attacking them? I can think of a reason, but I imagine you wouldn't accept it since it speaks to that religious war thing you don't believe in.

Let me guess, your reason would be that Jordan is an Islamic country? Strange really when one considers the fairly high proportion of Palestinians who are in fact Christian and are equally resentful and basically hate that Isreal has denied them their rights to their own land, homes, employment, basic human needs in medical care, clean running water and electricity, freedom of movement (imagine having to wait for days to be allowed to visit your mother who may live 20 minutes away because you are denied the right to use a certain road because an Isreali car might be driving down same road?), etc.

Maybe Jordan is not being attacked by rockets because Jordan is not taking part in the continuing human rights abuses against the Palestinians? Could that be why? Hmmm...


In April 2004, Israeli soldiers used 13-year-old Muhammed Badwan as a human shield during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Biddu. The soldiers tied Badwan to the front windscreen of their jeep to discourage Palestinian demonstrators from throwing stones in their direction.

Such actions are condemned by human rights groups as violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 27 states: "civilians who find themselves in the hands of one of the parties are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect...They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof." In Article 28 of the Convention, the official commentary refers to this practice, which was used during World War II, as "cruel and barbaric." Articles 31 and 51 also prohibit the use of physical or moral coercion on civilians or forcing them to carry out military tasks.

The Israeli High Court has issued an injunction against the practice. "You cannot exploit the civilian population for the army's military needs, and you cannot force them to collaborate with the army," said Aharon Barak, President of the Supreme Court of Israel.

Despite this ruling, on July 17, 2006 Israel Defense Force soldiers used six civilians, including two minors, as human shields during an incursion into Beit Hanun. Two boys, one aged 14 and the other 16, were ordered to lead soldiers into an area where a heavy firefight with Palestinian militants had just taken place.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Israel#Human_shields)


I guess if Jordan practiced such atrocities against the Palestinians, then they too would probably not be liked that much.:rolleyes: I can tell you now, if someone did that to my child, I would tear their limbs off with my bare hands and then force it down their throats. I guess I am vengeful that way.

You see Geoff, I detest the whole notion of violence and suicide bombers and all the rest of it. I find it deplorable. But I guess desperation leads to desperate measures. In their position, I do not know what I would have done. My grandmother has a saying. Keep beating a child and one day that child may grow up to hate you and actually may end up hitting you back. Quite apt in this instance, no?


The spokesman quotes from a religious book. I wonder which one?

Yes and? It is basically Government policy in Isreal to remove the Palestinians from their lands and basically eradicate them. Palestinians are treated like vermin in their own country. Deny someone rights and beat them down at every opportunity and they might end up wanting to kill you. People are strange that way.:rolleyes:


The wall is to keep out weapons and suicide bombers.
Hmmm yes. The "wall". Designed to keep out the weapons and the bombers. Fair enough concept. However it also keeps out the innocent Palestinians who are now denied the right to visit their loved ones on the other side of the wall. It also prevents many from going to work. It has also forced some from their homes. Amazing how you are applauding their apartheid Geoff. Actually, quite sad to be honest. I wonder if whites did the same thing today in South Africa (for example) if you would defend their right to do so or whether you would see it for what it actually is. But hey, it's against mostly Muslims, so it's alright, huh?


And don't give me any nonsense about revisionism: we've already illustrated why that's nonsense and how it's clear that the Israelis didn't start the violence.
Imagine your family owned land for generations. You and your family lived in your ancestral home. You have a nice house, a job. And then one day you are ordered from said home and land with little to no compensation. You are forced to live in what is tantamount to a refugee camp without even the most basic facilities. You are denied proper medical care. You are no longer allowed to go out at night. You cannot go where you want to go. You would not consider the actions against you as being violent? Ermm ok.


Interestingly, there are others - the Ayatollah, for instance - who would agree with that statement, but not in the way I imagine you originally meant.
So that gives others the right to further deny them any rights?

I like how you excuse your support of human rights abuses by stating that they also deny many human rights. Quite hypocritical. And expected. But then again, they are mostly Muslims after all. So they deserve whatever they get, don't they Geoff?

Maybe Jordan is not being attacked by rockets because Jordan is not taking part in the continuing human rights abuses against the Palestinians? Could that be why? Hmmm...

Glad to see you back, Bells. I hope all's well.

Actually, my point was rather than Jordan was probably helping to expedite arms to Palestine.

Also this:


The failure of the British government and the United Nations to implement this plan, prior agreement between the Jewish Agency and King Abdullah to divide Palestine between them,[1] and rejection of the plan by the Arabs resulted in the War for Independence, also known as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

Abdullah of Jordan, that is. Where is Jordan now? Are Jordanians not essentially Palestinian in origin? I had thought the plan was to take them in.


I guess if Jordan practiced such atrocities against the Palestinians, then they too would probably not be liked that much...I can tell you now, if someone did that to my child, I would tear their limbs off with my bare hands and then force it down their throats. I guess I am vengeful that way.

All right: and how might you react if, say, your political neighbours had three times in a century invaded your nation for the express purpose of exterminating all of you? Or tried to reduce you to the status of third-class citizens? Or if they launched rocket after rocket and blew up pizza joints and cafes using suicide bombs, maybe? In your perspective, is this allowed to colour your viewpoint regarding societal revenge? Just curious.


Keep beating a child and one day that child may grow up to hate you and actually may end up hitting you back. Quite apt in this instance, no?

Yes! Absolutely! A perfect analogy.

For, as you see, from the 19th century and long, long before - since age immemorial compared to our present one - the status of Jews in Jordan, Palestine and Syria has been a tenuous one, indeed, replete with violence, rapine, murder and extortion. And, some might say, the beaten child has learned to hit back, at long last. Yes, I quite agree with this analogy. You might care to check out one of Sam's earlier threads about a town in Israel where a few rabbis had some ridiculous (and illegal, and unenforceable) dictum or other about land sales, and see what the history of that town was with respect to the Jewish inhabitants and their Arab neighbours.


Yes and? It is basically Government policy in Isreal to remove the Palestinians from their lands and basically eradicate them. Palestinians are treated like vermin in their own country. Deny someone rights and beat them down at every opportunity and they might end up wanting to kill you.

Firstly: No, it is not "Government policy in Israel" to eradicate the Palestinians. This is preposterous. Moreover, your "Yes and?" comment sounds to me as though you're stipulating that the Quran does indeed say that: and it does. So, thanks for agreeing with me, even if obliquely.

Anyway: funnily enough, this sounds exactly like an argument advanced by a witty, genial and roguish fellow known to inhabit SciForums from time to time. No, not that one: me. Let's examine: "Deny people rights and beat them down at every opportunity". "Until they are made to feel oppressed" (Q 9: 29; to which I add Mohammed's well-known rubric "Oppression is worse than slaughter" - did he think it not to apply to his own group, as well? Odd).


Hmmm yes. The "wall". Designed to keep out the weapons and the bombers. Fair enough concept. However it also keeps out the innocent Palestinians who are now denied the right to visit their loved ones on the other side of the wall. It also prevents many from going to work. It has also forced some from their homes. Amazing how you are applauding their apartheid Geoff. Actually, quite sad to be honest. I wonder if whites did the same thing today in South Africa (for example) if you would defend their right to do so or whether you would see it for what it actually is. But hey, it's against mostly Muslims, so it's alright, huh?

Sigh.

Noooo, if you'd read my posts sometime you'd see that it isn't. Nor would I defend apartheid in South Africa. Now, can I opine that you defend the hanging of lippy teenage girls in Iran? No? How about the beating and mutilation of women in islam, including FGM? No? The lashing of adulterous men, and the stoning to death of adulterous women? No? Then kindly refrain, please, Madam Moderator.

My point is that the wall is regrettable but necessary - it reduces deaths. I am sorry that it has forced some from their homes; I am sorry that it prevents some from going to work; I am not sorry that it prevents some suicide attacks, and thereby prevents some Israelis - Arabs, Muslims, Christians and Jews all, I might add - from being shredded by shrapnel or concussive blasts. How much is a life worth, then, Bells? How much for an Israeli life?


Imagine your family owned land for generations. You and your family lived in your ancestral home. You have a nice house, a job. And then one day you are ordered from said home and land with little to no compensation. You are forced to live in what is tantamount to a refugee camp without even the most basic facilities. You are denied proper medical care. You are no longer allowed to go out at night. You cannot go where you want to go. You would not consider the actions against you as being violent? Ermm ok.

Well that's an interesting scenario. Here's another.

Imagine that your family recently emigrated to a new country. You live on land legally purchased from the relevant authority and you live quietly, discreetly, because that's what the old hands in the village warn you to do: don't make too much noise, keep your Sabbath to yourself, make sure your eyes are on the ground as they - they - pass and always speak in a respectful, even obsequious voice. Always. Because anything you do wrong can be used to nullify the hudna, anything can nullify the protection you pay "with both hands", "feeling [yourself] subdued". And feel subdued, they say. Make sure of that. Be sudbued. Don't get noticed. If your family is extorted of all their savings and rendered broke by them, from the next village over, just accept it. Don't make trouble for us! Don't get noticed! If some of your relatives get kidnapped and murdered or beaten or raped or forcibly married to someone...well, what can you do? Don't make trouble. Don't get us all killed. That won't help your sister now. And if they decide to just take your land - also for no recompensation, and no medical care, and no care, period - well, just go and beg in the streets. We'll get by. We'll find a way to survive, no matter what they do to us. Somehow. Just don't get us in trouble. I know they're sniping at our settlements two villages over. I know it's only because we're Jews; don't mention it, it doesn't help, Josiy! I know your cousin was shot, and that they raid us and burn our houses to the ground and shout "Jahoud! Jahoud!"

But maybe, just maybe, that would make you decide to rise up, and throw off the centuries of dhimmitude, and fight to be treated as a human being on land you legally bought. Maybe just. And maybe then, after years of skirmishing and fighting just to be left alone, you find out that five armies of them are coming, coming to kill every last one of you, and take your land, and all your things, and your mother and sisters too. Maybe they call it a pogrom, or a genocide, or a Middle Eastern Holocaust; it really doesn't matter, because at that moment your Uncle Roth is pressing a rifle into your hands and shoving you out the door into the pit trench the two of you dug last week when those bandits showed up. And maybe they've got tanks, and airplanes, and heavy artillery, and all you've got is the rifle Roth gave you and the fucking thing is twenty years old and it looks like he's been hiding it in his shorts all that time.

And then when you've won that war, and the next one in which your political neighbours try to exterminate you, and the one after that, you find that the terrorist organizations in Palestine - one of which gets elected as the Palestinian government - has decided to keep lobbing rockets at you in order to deliberately kill your civilians, which is something you're trying not to do and for which you're absolutely disproportionately pilloried every evening at 11PM even though you're hunting terrorists and the terrorists are hunting...well, you. And your kids. And your wife. And yes, dear old Uncle Roth. Everybody.


So that gives others the right to further deny them any rights?

No. That point was merely for Sam's enlightenment. But it worked with you too. Kudos to me. :D


I like how you excuse your support of human rights abuses by stating that they also deny many human rights. Quite hypocritical. And expected.

Sigh...wrong again. Are you sure you're not a sock puppet? Anyway: no, I don't "excuse" the violation of human rights in any such way. I merely state my support for certain things - like Israel defending itself, and even the horrid, horrid wall - while pointing out the actual hypocrisy in ignoring the fact that these "defenders" of Palestine are radical religious freaks who would do far, far worse to an "insurgent" ethnic minority than the Israelis are doing now, and that siding with them is basically hypocrisy when one damns Israel for doing far less than Hamas would ever do in the same position - and I know you read my link, and for that I thank you. :D I appreciate that the difference may be subtle, but there it is.


But then again, they are mostly Muslims after all. So they deserve whatever they get, don't they Geoff?

No, Bells, that's neither my point nor my personal ethos. My position is that islamic "jurisprudence" created this conflict through the absurd concept of sharia and dhimmitude, and that religio-political overtones in political islam - a point, I might add, that no one here refutes - largely, but not uniformly, created a situation unresolvable in a mutually equitable fashion. The long history of the treatment of Jews, both in the ME (and yes, even in Palestine :eek:) probably didn't help the trust issue much.

But if it lets you sleep better at night to believe that anyone opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah setting an islamist lens over our interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict must be so inclined, then I graciously allow you to believe that until morning light.

Best and best wishes,

Geoff

She can't. She's already in the CIA. This whole anti-American thing is just a ruse to flush out the real anti-Americans.
i've given this some thought too.

Glad to see you back, Bells. I hope all's well.



Getting there. Will be a long road to recovery.


Abdullah of Jordan, that is. Where is Jordan now? Are Jordanians not essentially Palestinian in origin? I had thought the plan was to take them in.
I think the point is that they should never have been forced out of their homes in the first place.


All right: and how might you react if, say, your political neighbours had three times in a century invaded your nation for the express purpose of exterminating all of you? Or tried to reduce you to the status of third-class citizens? Or if they launched rocket after rocket and blew up pizza joints and cafes using suicide bombs, maybe? In your perspective, is this allowed to colour your viewpoint regarding societal revenge? Just curious.
I would imagine the second part of your statement (from where you begin to discuss of the bombings and rockets) stems from the first part of what was done to them. Again, if you continue to beat a child and abuse them, they can and will begin to hit back anyway they know how.

Interesting how you simply cannot fault an army for using children as human shields. I wonder if an Muslim nation did the same thing, if you would be so 'meh' about it and attempt to excuse their behaviour? Such actions by anyone, let alone a legitimate army with the permission of their Government, is deplorable and should always be viewed for what it is.


For, as you see, from the 19th century and long, long before - since age immemorial compared to our present one - the status of Jews in Jordan, Palestine and Syria has been a tenuous one, indeed, replete with violence, rapine, murder and extortion. And, some might say, the beaten child has learned to hit back, at long last. Yes, I quite agree with this analogy. You might care to check out one of Sam's earlier threads about a town in Israel where a few rabbis had some ridiculous (and illegal, and unenforceable) dictum or other about land sales, and see what the history of that town was with respect to the Jewish inhabitants and their Arab neighbours.

I watched this documentary a few years ago about Jewish settlers. They had "reclaimed" Palestinian land and had established themselves quite well in the homes and on the land of the recently departed and deported. Amazingly enough, they were taken aback by the hatred those who were forced to leave felt for them. Their reply? It basically amounted to 'we are Isreali and this is our land'. Hmmm.. tell that to the poor sod who had been forced to leave at gun point from the land his family had owned for nearly 500 years. Does he have a right to be angry and hateful? I would imagine the answer would be yes.

Violence begets violence. Again, the beating the child analogy applies both ways. Why would a young mother feel the need to strap on a bomb to her body and blow people up? To prove a point? Or could it possibly be that it is the only way she feels she has of 'hitting back'? As disgusting as her actions might be, I would imagine being forced to live in the conditions she had been forced to (in a refugee camp where her children have no decent health care, running water and electricity) might have something to do with it. Having to live under a state of constant fear that a tank might just drive down your street and blow up your home or your children might be shot by a soldier might also be a driving factor. The violence goes both ways.


Firstly: No, it is not "Government policy in Israel" to eradicate the Palestinians. This is preposterous. Moreover, your "Yes and?" comment sounds to me as though you're stipulating that the Quran does indeed say that: and it does. So, thanks for agreeing with me, even if obliquely.
Oh?

Do you know what the definition of genocide happens to be under the auspice of the UN charter? Mental harm and a process by which one takes to destroy part or whole of the other is considered genocide. The eradication has been ongoing and constant. The policy has been to dehumanise them and ensure they have absolutely no rights whatsoever, be they Christian or Muslim Palestinians. They are constantly driven from their homes, are under a constant threat of excessive force, are denied the right of freedom of movement even within their own territories. You don't see that as an eradication?


My point is that the wall is regrettable but necessary - it reduces deaths. I am sorry that it has forced some from their homes; I am sorry that it prevents some from going to work; I am not sorry that it prevents some suicide attacks, and thereby prevents some Israelis - Arabs, Muslims, Christians and Jews all, I might add - from being shredded by shrapnel or concussive blasts. How much is a life worth, then, Bells? How much for an Israeli life?

You tell me. Do you think an Isreali life is worth more than the life of a Palestinian?

A few years ago there was this story of a little Palestinian girl who was quite ill with an attack of appendicitis. Because the curfew was already in place, her family were unable to get her to the hospital (road closures between the towns ensured they would have never been able to get her to a decent hospital). So they rang an ambulance. The ambulance was denied entry as it was a Palestinian ambulance. Luckily a local radio station picked up on the story and broadcast it into parts of Isreal. A Jewish couple were so mortified that this child was denied the right to access a hospital to save her life (her appendix had actually blown and she was at risk of dying) that they drove in their car into the camp where the girl's family lived and drove her to the hospital themselves (they were allowed to use the roads as the curfew did not apply to them). Now, in light of this, don't you think that child's life is equally important to the life of an Isreali who the curfews are meant to be protecting?

Seems the Isreali army and the Government policy disagrees with me.


I merely state my support for certain things - like Israel defending itself, and even the horrid, horrid wall - while pointing out the actual hypocrisy in ignoring the fact that these "defenders" of Palestine are radical religious freaks who would do far, far worse to an "insurgent" ethnic minority than the Israelis are doing now, and that siding with them is basically hypocrisy when one damns Israel for doing far less than Hamas would ever do in the same position - and I know you read my link, and for that I thank you. I appreciate that the difference may be subtle, but there it is.
You don't think the Isreali's are capable of far worse? You don't think the only thing that is holding them back is because the world is watching and if they go too far, they might just lose a lot of Western support? You don't think that the cries from the West that Isreal's responses are ridiculously disproportionate are unfounded? Don't be naive.

Isreal would destroy every single Palestinian township if it were given the chance. It would expel all of them and deny them their rights to their homes and land in the blink of an eye if they thought they could get away with it. They too are driven by religious doctrines that freakishly state that God gave them Isreal and be damn to anyone who dares disagree or who happens to live there. Palestinian Christians and Muslims are treated as second class citizens in their own countries. They have no rights whatsoever. Every country and people have a right to self defence. That includes the Palestinians who face and live with the constant abuses they are subject to by the Isreali Government.

You are so blinded by your hatred of Islam that you fail to even recognise that a lot of Palestinians who are victims of oppresion are also Christian. This is not a religious issue but a racial one and a political one. Maybe when you recognise this and look past the Muslim issue, you might just realise that for every action, there is a reaction and this goes both ways. And if you do keep dehumanising a group of people, they will begin to hate you and want you dead.

i've given this some thought too.

Oh puhlease, I don't work for any organisation. I'm just an opinionated loudmouth venting my personal frustrations with the state of the world.:bugeye:

Oh puhlease, I don't work for any organisation. I'm just an opinionated loudmouth venting my personal frustrations with the state of the world.:bugeye:
Gotta maintain your cover.:shh:

Getting there. Will be a long road to recovery.

Well, I'm glad you're intact, anyway. The parts will heal, with time.


I think the point is that they should never have been forced out of their homes in the first place.

Unfortunate, true: but that's war. And they mostly fled their homes because they feared a massacre in 1948. I wouldn't call it poetic justice, but given what was planned for their Jewish neighbours it does have that ring.


I would imagine the second part of your statement (from where you begin to discuss of the bombings and rockets) stems from the first part of what was done to them. Again, if you continue to beat a child and abuse them, they can and will begin to hit back anyway they know how.

Yes! Exactly! Centuries of dhimmitude and sharia by their Arab neighbours predisposed the Jewish inhabitants and migrants to rebel, necessitating a defensible Jewish state. I think this is a breakthrough between us.


Interesting how you simply cannot fault an army for using children as human shields. I wonder if an Muslim nation did the same thing, if you would be so 'meh' about it and attempt to excuse their behaviour?

Excuse me. In which area are Israelis using children as human shields? Please specify.


I watched this documentary a few years ago about Jewish settlers. They had "reclaimed" Palestinian land and had established themselves quite well in the homes and on the land of the recently departed and deported. Amazingly enough, they were taken aback by the hatred those who were forced to leave felt for them. Their reply? It basically amounted to 'we are Isreali and this is our land'. Hmmm.. tell that to the poor sod who had been forced to leave at gun point from the land his family had owned for nearly 500 years. Does he have a right to be angry and hateful? I would imagine the answer would be yes.

And the poor Jew who is evicted from his meagre holdings again and again for hundreds of years by his islamic overlords? I wonder if he might feel untrusting and nervous. Maybe he might even want his own state, so that no one could legally persecute him under sharia any longer. I'm sorry about the displacement of the Palestinians; but they weren't only brought into that position by the intransigence of the Jewish migrants. Maybe if there'd been no dhimmitude, no supremacism, no sharia, there'd have been no Jewish reaction. Can you blame them?


Violence begets violence. Again, the beating the child analogy applies both ways. Why would a young mother feel the need to strap on a bomb to her body and blow people up? To prove a point? Or could it possibly be that it is the only way she feels she has of 'hitting back'?

Or because Hamas tells her that the blood of Jews is halaal, and that Allah wants as much of it spilled as possible, and because (in the old days) Iraq would pay them a couple grand for her death as a shaheed. I agree that the violence goes both ways; but ultimately the Israelis are responding to violence that existed long beforehand, and the violence of a system that supported it.


Do you know what the definition of genocide happens to be under the auspice of the UN charter? Mental harm and a process by which one takes to destroy part or whole of the other is considered genocide. The eradication has been ongoing and constant. The policy has been to dehumanise them and ensure they have absolutely no rights whatsoever, be they Christian or Muslim Palestinians. They are constantly driven from their homes, are under a constant threat of excessive force, are denied the right of freedom of movement even within their own territories. You don't see that as an eradication?

I see that as your opinion; you are overstating the case with hype. And as for genocide (and please cite this ruling of yours), actual genocide is a bit worse; anyway, let's not get diverted here.


You tell me. Do you think an Isreali life is worth more than the life of a Palestinian?

Nope. Now do you think a Palestinian life is worth more than the life of an Israeli?


A few years ago there was this story of a little Palestinian girl who was quite ill with an attack of appendicitis. Because the curfew was already in place, her family were unable to get her to the hospital (road closures between the towns ensured they would have never been able to get her to a decent hospital). So they rang an ambulance. The ambulance was denied entry as it was a Palestinian ambulance. Luckily a local radio station picked up on the story and broadcast it into parts of Isreal. A Jewish couple were so mortified that this child was denied the right to access a hospital to save her life (her appendix had actually blown and she was at risk of dying) that they drove in their car into the camp where the girl's family lived and drove her to the hospital themselves (they were allowed to use the roads as the curfew did not apply to them). Now, in light of this, don't you think that child's life is equally important to the life of an Isreali who the curfews are meant to be protecting?

Yeeeees...and what relation or conflict is there between this and the picture that's got your dander up? The checkpoint people just shooting children now, are they? How does the appendix story and the necessity of checking for weapons create a conflicting political scenario?


Seems the Isreali army and the Government policy disagrees with me.

Eh? I think your invective is getting away from you; that should probably be the other way round.


You don't think the Isreali's are capable of far worse? You don't think the only thing that is holding them back is because the world is watching and if they go too far, they might just lose a lot of Western support? You don't think that the cries from the West that Isreal's responses are ridiculously disproportionate are unfounded? Don't be naive.

I think the Israelis could indeed do worse. And? They don't. As for the cries that the Israelis are disproportionate, they are simply wrong. The Israelis are not (possibly with certain and, I point out, illegal exceptions) targetting civilians. The Israelis take out bomb makers and deliverers and people who attack them. I don't say that Israel is not at all in the wrong, but that they are generally in the right.


Isreal would destroy every single Palestinian township if it were given the chance.

Opinionated vitriol, founded on no evidence and no broad legal justification. :yawn: In contrast, I do indeed know what Hamas would do to the Jewish inhabitants of Israel if they could get away with it: they've said as much, and their religio-political charter demands it, more or less. You have no proof of Palestinian Christians or Muslims being treated as anything approaching the way Jews, Christians and atheists are treated elsewhere; that is, as real second class citizens in their own countries with no rights whatsoever.

Every country and people have a right to self defence. That includes the Palestinians who face and live with the constant abuses they are subject to by the Isreali Government.


You are so blinded by your hatred of Islam that you fail to even recognise that a lot of Palestinians who are victims of oppresion are also Christian.

:yawn: Dull, this. No, that is not the case at all. I recognize that there are Palestinian Christians also and that they feel victimized by the Israelis; they are also victimized by their islamic neighbours. My point is...for the billionth time...that the failure of separation of mosque and state in the societal construction of every single majority-islamic state in the world prevents rational or fair dealing with the situation of religious-minority rights. Write this down for your scrapbook. Political islam prevents equitable dealing with such minorities, which is where the problem originated - in 1948 and thereafter, in the 1920's, and prior even to them in the 1800s. This - to use your "beaten child" scenario - creates anger and/or mistrust. There is only so long one can continue to abuse people before something is done about it. Ergo: Israel. A state where Jews can live without fear of being Jews. I'm sorry your analogy doesn't extend that far, but there it is.


And if you do keep dehumanising a group of people, they will begin to hate you and want you dead.

Like opining that Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians? Or like Hamas wants to exterminate the Jews?

I guess you could just...I don't know, discard the latter comparison, on the grounds of...something. Something intangible I presume, since that's what your argument has been to date.

Best regards,

Geoff

The wall is to keep out weapons and suicide bombers. It works.

Dear Geoff,

The wall seems like quite a vile wasste of money really,

what happens when the palestinains in the west bank get their hands on some Kats




And don't give me any nonsense about revisionism: we've already illustrated why that's nonsense and how it's clear that the Israelis didn't start the violence.

Geoff



One side has nuclear weapons, Apaches, Tanks, Artilery and so on and so forth and the other is so desparate they use themselves

They have both lost all sorts of morality due to a few hard core bastards, it is all very sad.

Their will be no winners in this troubled region until they all look beyond their noses.

a qassam rocket blowing up a house (very rare i know) or a sucide bomber blowing up a bus, against an apache rocket blowing up avechile or house. thier is no difference for the people killed.

Could i say that i will be more worried about an apache attack (or similar) or a suicide bomber, fuck knows!!! I am one of the lucky ones who have not been born into that region.


~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

What is the jihad of the self?

Suicide bombing.

What is the jihad of the self?

Hi Nietzsche

I hope all is well.

It is the inward struggle to better ones self.

Actually thats what Jihad means by my understanding.

~~~~~~~~~
Take it ez
zak

Suicide bombing.

Dear IAC,

it is disturbing that you interpret things like an extremist!!

~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak