Thread: Israeli airstrikes in Gaza leave over 225 Palestinians dead

At least 225 dead as Israel hammers Hamas-run Gaza


GAZA CITY (AFP) - Israel hammered Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, killing at least 225 people in retaliation for rocket fire, in one of the bloodiest days of the decades-long Middle East conflict.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said "Operation Cast Lead" against the Islamist movement, which has also left some 700 wounded, will continue "as long as necessary."

"The battle will be long and difficult, but the time has come to act and to fight," he said.

...

Yahoo! News

---

What a sad day for the Palestinians. Israel's terror antics must be crushed by the Muslim world if the region is to witness any form of lasting peace. These air-strikes are simply the latest reason in a long list of reasons why Israel should not exist. Many Hamas leaders have vowed instant retaliation, and to their cause I send my support. Truly, Israel's barbarity knows no limit, and its ability to do as it pleases remains unquestioned. The Western world, by and large, has no moral incentive to help the afflicted Palestinians; however, this is a despicable insult to the Muslim world, and it should be treated as such.

Could this attack be the straw that breaks the camel's back? While many of us were busy shopping today, desperate to take advantage of the widespread sales and blowouts, the Palestinians were being struck by Israel's indiscriminate air force. If the Muslim world truly wishes to put an end to Israel's reckless carnage, it is imperative they gather, discuss, and fiercely retaliate. The entire conflict has been elevated to a level incapable of recognizing civil discourse and diplomacy.

Thank goodness Iran has prepared a freighter full of humanitarian supplies for Gaza. Hopefully people will begin to realize that Gaza is the largest concentration camp in the world, ironically run by Jews.

I send my condolences to the Palestinians, and I wish them the best.

Originally Posted by The Pride

Israel's terror antics must be crushed by the Muslim world

Seems to be the only way Muslims know how to deal with that which they disagree. Crush the infidels.

Israel should not exist

Islam should not exist.

Many Hamas leaders have vowed instant retaliation

Of course, Islam is the religion of peace, is it not?

and to their cause I send my support

You support violence.

this is a despicable insult to the Muslim world, and it should be treated as such.

Yes, everything that does not comply with the Islamic world of myth and superstition is an insult, and they react violently, in agreement with Islamic tenets.

If the Muslim world truly wishes to put an end to Israel's reckless carnage, it is imperative they gather, discuss, and fiercely retaliate.

The religion of peace fiercely retaliates.

The entire conflict has been elevated to a level incapable of recognizing civil discourse and diplomacy.

You adequately and succinctly demonstrate the level of violence necessary to incapacitate civility and diplomacy.

(Q)

Seems to be the only way Muslims know how to deal with that which they disagree. Crush the infidels.

It isn't simply a matter of "disagreeing" with the Israelis, if you haven't already noticed. Israel has just killed over two-hundred twenty five Palestinians, the majority of which were regular citizens, just like you and me. When an attack of this magnitude is committed against your people, it is indisputably illogical to refuse retaliation. What does "crushing the infidels" have to do with this most unfortunate story? If you ask me, the Muslims have been far too tolerant in dealing with this most volatile Jewish question.

Islam should not exist.

Islam is a personal choice to undertake a specific way of life; Israel is a Zionist abode created by wealthy financiers and major-city bankers.

Of course, Islam is the religion of peace, is it not?

Some consider it to be, and by your tone, I take it you disagree. That's fine. Based on my meticulous and long-ranging studies, it is a religion of self-defense. When attacks are committed against your people, Islam demands retribution and tireless fighting in the will of Allah. Perhaps it is strict observance of this command which has preserved the persecuted Palestinians. That being said, I do not see the relevance of Islam to this situation. The Palestinians could be of any religion (or lack thereof), and their reaction would be just as vengeful, if not more so. Their vow to avenge their losses is not motivated by religion; it is merely an instinct hardwired into all humans. This isn't simply a competition or some petty rivalry; it is a genuine struggle for survival. Whatever motivates them to fight back is, in my opinion, a valid belief, and it should be encouraged.

You adequately and succinctly demonstrate the level of violence necessary to incapacitate civility and diplomacy.

If supporting the Palestinians in their struggle to stave off the beastly Israelis is considered violent, then yes, I suppose I am "violent". Of course, this story isn't about me, so let us refrain from making it so.

I am curious as to why you haven't uttered a single word in reference to Israel's attacks today. From what I've gathered in your post, you haven't even acknowledged the reality of the strikes, and the suffering they have caused. Do you believe my support of the Palestinians to be more hurtful to the intentions of civility and diplomacy than Israel's indiscriminate airstrikes? Do you believe Israel's pursual of "collective punishment" tactics is justified? I am striving to avoid the moral argument here, because I sincerely believe you are incapable of feeling sympathy for those who you classify as your "enemies". Bearing that reality in mind, I will simply ask for your take on this event, and inquire as to whether you believe it was justified, or if it was instead a barbaric act exercised by a terrorist state.

You wouldn't happen to be Jewish, would you? Your unquestioning support of Israel and innate hatred of Islam would seem to indicate so. How delightful! If you'd like to expand our debate about the airstrikes into a larger critique of Israel and its history in general, I would be most grateful. You seem to be a feisty critter, and I've been itching for a debate!

He's an atheist Zionist Jew. Whatever that means, but mostly it means that he only has bad things to say about non-Jews and will not speak a word against the Israeli state.

It doesn't matter what the Palestinians do. If they agree to take the Jews escaping from the holocaust as citizens of their future state they are anti-semites. If they protest being raped and shot by the Irgun, they are a joke. If they run away because they have no arms and are shot if they come back home because the Jews "deserve a national home", if they demand their land back rather than kill the Jews, they are terrorists. If their elected government is kidnapped and put in Israeli prisons, then they are militants. The fact that they are refugees in their own country, so Jews from anywhere in the world can speak a resurrected ancient language and indulge in a fantasy of a religious homeland based on a 2000 year "exile", is irrelevant. Because its all Islam's fault that Jews were being denied the "freedom" to spit on the faces of their Christian neighbors. How anti-semitic of them. After all, any place in the world would take in 2 million immigrants who desire to build a religious state that excludes the native inhabitants. And if not, there's always reservations.

My heart goes out to the Palestinians in Gaza. Not only are 50% of them under 15 and have been under blockade regarding food, medicine and basic civic services, with rudimentary "gestures" of "aid" since Israel's "withdrawal" in 2006 but they have no place to escape to because of the apartheid wall and the military checkpoints. They are locked in while Israel bombs them with impunity and have nowhere to run or hide from the missiles. They are sitting ducks.

He's an atheist Zionist Jew. Whatever that means, but mostly it means that he only has bad things to say about non-Jews and will not speak a word against the Israeli state.

I am far too familiar with his type.

As for the rest of your post, I agree: it is indeed a very sad situation which could erupt at any time. How do you feel about the two-state solution? If you are a proponent of the one-state solution, what type of government would you propose? I don't believe the two sides can ever come to terms and learn to coexist; history has shown the area to operate fluidly only when settled by one people. Seeing as how the Israelis are unwelcome strangers and the Palestinians are native and continuous inhabitants, it only stands to reason that the Israelis should pack their bags and return to where they came from.

Such a cataclysmic response to generic "rocket attacks" seems utterly ridiculous to me. Seeing as how the reports of rockets are coming from Israeli sources only (to my recollection, journalists are barred from many of the Palestinian regions), I question their legitimacy. Israel acted similarly in the summer of 2006 when it leveled entire towns in Lebanon for the alleged capture of two IDF soldiers. Although I am vehemently against the UN and refuse to recognize its pleas, Israel is a member, so it must be held accountable to its demands. Fortunately for Israel, there is a convenient loophole to their massacres - veto power.

Hopefully the Muslim world will not soon forget this day. Unfortunately for the one and a half million prisoners in Palestine, these strikes are only the beginning (according to an Israeli general).

Just look at India and Pakistan. Thats what the best possible scenario of a two state solution would look like [I hear the two countries have troops at their respective borders today and they've been two states for 60 years already].

Both Israelis and Palestinians are fully aware that a two state solution is only a fantasy. The movement for a one state is gaining momentum and even Ehud Olmert has warned that the window of opportunity is barely open a crack. He knows too well that the settlements have destroyed any hope for a two state and the Palestinians have become aware of the Israeli tactics and are moving into West Jerusalem and demanding Israeli citizenship. I think Hamas is stupid and short sighted. But as I am not a child of 60 years of intense military occupation and forced to live in a giant prison, I reserve judgement on their worldview.

IMO, the time for a two state was 1947, the 1965 war [which was fought by Israel "preemptively" to get hold of the aquifers] has destroyed it. It will not happen, simply because there is no space for the Palestinians to have that state. The Jews are clinging to their "Jewish" state and will probably continue to kill Palestinians for another two generations, before the demographics ensure that there is no division possible. I doubt the Palestinians will give up, who would? and the violence and being cut off makes them only more nationalistic by giving them a cause.

So it does not really matter what anyone thinks they want, a one state is inevitable. I support the self determination of the Palestinians and their right to come back to the country from which they were forcibly expunged by zionist fanatics. That is their right. How it happens, one state for all or Jewish state/non-Jewish state will depend on them.

Such a cataclysmic response to generic "rocket attacks" seems utterly ridiculous to me.

Oh come on, the rocket attacks have nothing to do with it. How many Israelis died in the rocket attacks? Zero. This is merely because Hamas refused to continue the cease fire since the Israelis have not lifted their two year blockade on Gaza. Hamas decided they did not achieve their goals so the cease fire was pointless. The rockets make the Israelis look bad in election season. But kill a few hundred Palestinians and the Israeli blood lust is sated, which is all that election season is about.

Hopefully the Muslim world will not soon forget this day

The Arabs are no fighters, so expecting them to launch an attack is a pipe dream. Iran is possibly the only country there that is willing to fight, but they would be suicidal to do so. Regardless of popular propaganda, Muslim nations will only fight as a last resort, which is why you have to occupy them before they will get involved. War is only permitted for self defence.

Originally Posted by The Pride

When an attack of this magnitude is committed against your people, it is indisputably illogical to refuse retaliation.

Yes, indisputably, Muslims will retaliate, that is the only course of action open to them. I don't disagree with what you say Muslims will do under these circumstances.

If you ask me, the Muslims have been far too tolerant in dealing with this most volatile Jewish question.

What would give the illusion Muslims were tolerant?

Islam is a personal choice to undertake a specific way of life; Israel is a Zionist abode created by wealthy financiers and major-city bankers.

Marvelous Islamic propaganda you preach.

Based on my meticulous and long-ranging studies, it is a religion of self-defense. When attacks are committed against your people, Islam demands retribution and tireless fighting in the will of Allah.

Of course, but it is the so-called "attacks committed against your people" which is the underlying issue. Absolutely anything a Muslim wishes to imagine can be considered an "attack" even when it has nothing to do with people, and they will react violently. This has been demonstrated quite clearly with the published cartoons of Muhammad.

Their vow to avenge their losses is not motivated by religion; it is merely an instinct hardwired into all humans.

Nonsense. It is retribution demanded by Muhammad.

If supporting the Palestinians in their struggle to stave off the beastly Israelis is considered violent, then yes, I suppose I am "violent". Of course, this story isn't about me, so let us refrain from making it so.

You made it about you when you went off demanding full scale annihilation of the zionists.

I am curious as to why you haven't uttered a single word in reference to Israel's attacks today. From what I've gathered in your post, you haven't even acknowledged the reality of the strikes, and the suffering they have caused.

It's really quite a moot point, I'm not in favor of deaths on any side of holy wars, so I'm not exactly in favor of your support for retaliation.

I sincerely believe you are incapable of feeling sympathy for those who you classify as your "enemies".

There is only one enemy, the ideologies, not the people.

Bearing that reality in mind, I will simply ask for your take on this event, and inquire as to whether you believe it was justified, or if it was instead a barbaric act exercised by a terrorist state.

Clearly, it was a barbaric act, but I see no reason for you to support an act of equal barbarity.

You wouldn't happen to be Jewish, would you? Your unquestioning support of Israel and innate hatred of Islam would seem to indicate so.

I am neither Jewish, nor Muslim, nor Christian, nor Mormon, nor [insert favorite delusional ideology here]...

Good input!

Oh come on, the rocket attacks have nothing to do with it. How many Israelis died in the rocket attacks? Zero. This is merely because Hamas refused to continue the cease fire since the Israelis have not lifted their two year blockade on Gaza. Hamas decided they did not achieve their goals so the cease fire was pointless. The rockets make the Israelis look bad in election season. But kill a few hundred Palestinians and the Israeli blood lust is sated, which is all that election season is about.

True. What is most startling to me is how gullible people are. I was browsing through some of the comments on Yahoo's news section, and most of them were revolting and ripe with stupidity. People sincerely believe today's strikes by Israel were warranted as a retaliation to the rockets, oblivious to Gaza's imprisonment. I am surprised at how little activity there is in the "Free Palestine" movements in Western nations, especially when one takes into the account the popularity of the "Free Tibet" protests. It just goes to show you how scared people are of criticizing Israel at the risk of being labeled an "anti-Semite".

The Arabs are no fighters, so expecting them to launch an attack is a pipe dream.

They did twice before, did they not? What's stopping them from doing so a third time comes down to two factors: most of their leaders are either corrupt kings or simply indifferent to the Palestinian plight, and Israel has a nuclear arsenal capable of striking any Arab city in existence. I don't believe Israel would hesitate for a second to use them, which is part of the reason why they are so worried a Muslim neighbour might obtain one.

Iran is possibly the only country there that is willing to fight, but they would be suicidal to do so. Regardless of popular propaganda, Muslim nations will only fight as a last resort, which is why you have to occupy them before they will get involved.

I do not believe Iran would be suicidal to do so. Hezbollah's guerrilla tactics were enough to force Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in '06, if you recall. Iranians are relentless in battle, as the Iraq-Iran war would indicate. During the course of that eight year war, Iranian martyrs would dress in white and walk over fields known to have mines simply to allow their army a clear course. Let us not forget the Russian factor: they are very much in support of Iran, and have a military which is capable of erasing Israel from the map within a day. A fact many people overlook is that Israel is more afraid than Pakistan that it is of Iran. Pakistan is a nuclear country, and the support of Palestine is a very popular theme amongst its people. The best thing that could happen to Israel is yet another war with Pakistan and India (this would make it their fourth, wouldn't it?)

That being said, I do not think Iran would fight Israel to help the Palestinians; if they fought Israel, it would be for national security only.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

He's an atheist Zionist Jew.

One can almost feel the hatred seething through the venomous delivery of your bigotry and racism, Sam. I notice you chose to label me what you hate most. Does it help to justify your beliefs with Islamic propaganda? Does it solidify in your mind a reason to remove my head from my body if you ever happened to meet me? Do I not meet with your standard of bronze age myth and superstition?

Originally Posted by The Pride

Good input!

True. What is most startling to me is how gullible people are. I was browsing through some of the comments on Yahoo's news section, and most of them were revolting and ripe with stupidity. People sincerely believe today's strikes by Israel were warranted as a retaliation to the rockets, oblivious to Gaza's imprisonment. I am surprise how little activity there is in the "Free Palestine" movements in Western nations, especially when one takes into the account the popularity of the "Free Tibet" protests. It just goes to show you how scared people are of criticizing Israel at the risk of being labeled an "anti-Semite".

Not so much gullible as misinformed. Zionist propaganda is very fierce in the US and all Arab media available to them comes filtered through the zionist lens of Memri. So they have a very distorted view of Arab thought.

They did twice before, did they not? What's stopping them from doing so a third time comes down to two factors: most of their leaders are either corrupt kings or simply indifferent to the Palestinian plight, and Israel has a nuclear arsenal capable of striking any Arab city in existence. I don't believe Israel would hesitate for a second to use them, which is part of the reason why they are so worried a Muslim neighbour might obtain one.

Times have changed. Many of these countries are run by western puppets and even the ones that are not e.g. Iran have more to lose and will gain nothing by military force. You forget, the Americans will send in cluster bombs by overnight express to help in delivering the New Middle East by ensuring "birth pangs"

I do not believe Iran would be suicidal to do so.

Maybe, but Iranians per se will not fight under Ahmedinejad. Lets see who comes next.

Pakistan is a nuclear country, and the support of Palestine is a very popular theme amongst its people. The best thing that could happen to Israel is yet another war with Pakistan and India (this would make it their fourth, wouldn't it?)

The Pakistanis too will not get involved unless they are pulled into it. The ummah feeling is highly exaggerated. Muslims are very decentralised as a people

That being said, I do not think Iran would fight Israel to help the Palestinians; if they fought Israel, it would be for national security only.

Yup.

Originally Posted by (Q)

One can almost feel the hatred seething through the venomous delivery of your bigotry and racism, Sam. I notice you chose to label me what you hate most. Does it help to justify your beliefs with Islamic propaganda? Does it solidify in your mind a reason to remove my head from my body if you ever happened to meet me? Do I not meet with your standard of bronze age myth and superstition?

Have you ever considered the theatre as a profession? I think you're being very silly. Why would I hate you? Its a statement of fact. Thats what you are, no matter how you struggle to pretend otherwise. I don't know what all the self deception is meant to achieve, but the very fact that you jump in whenever Jews are criticised and have never, ever in all your anti-theistic rantings ever said a word about zionism or Israel, gives you away completely. I know many other atheist zionist Jews who do not even have that problem and can still be objective on the issue, but you're utterly incapable of it, so why pretend otherwise?

Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with being atheist/zionist/Jew. But there is something very wrong in thinking this gives anyone the right to create a Jewish state where the majority of people are non-Jews or kill Palestinians for not accepting this spurious right.

Not so much gullible as misinformed. Zionist propaganda is very fierce in the US and all Arab media available to them comes filtered through the zionist lens of Memri. So they have a very distorted view of Arab thought.

Arabs have a history of great tolerance, openness, and fantastic hospitality. It truly is a shame how poorly they are portrayed by the far-reaching Jewish media.

Maybe, but Iranians per se will not fight under Ahmedinejad. Lets see who comes next.

Iranians have never been too fond of Ahmadinejad, but I've read that his demonization in the Western media has made him a very popular figure at home.

The Pakistanis too will not get involved unless they are pulled into it. The ummah feeling is highly exaggerated. Muslims are very decentralised as a people

As a self-described historian (that is a fancy way of saying, "I do not have a piece of paper saying I am a historian, but I do a lot of free-time research"), I can tell you that the decentralization of Islam, and its reduction into ethnically defined nation-states, has absolutely shattered the Muslim superpower. Muslims were once centralized and at the very gates of Vienna; "decentralization", or more properly, "nationalization" has deteriorated the concept of Ummah. To understand whether or not centralization is a good idea for Islam, Muslims merely have to study what their enemies have strived for in the past, and that is the abolition of the Caliphate.

As a self-described historian (that is a fancy way of saying, "I do not have a piece of paper saying I am a historian, but I do a lot of free-time research"), I can tell you that the decentralization of Islam, and its reduction into ethnically defined nation-states has absolutely shattered the Muslim superpower. Muslims were once centralized and at the very gates of Vienna; "decentralization", or more properly, "nationalization" has deteriorated the concept of Ummah. To understand whether or not centralization is a good idea for Islam, Muslims merely have to study what their enemies have strived for in the past, and that is the abolition of the Caliphate.

Well just to be clear again, you won't convince me. I'm a great fan of anarchy and support decentralisation as an essential ingredient of free thought. I'm an ijtihadi Quran only Muslim and I do not believe in centralised or organised religion.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Have you ever considered the theatre as a profession? I think you're being very silly. Why would I hate you? Its a statement of fact. Thats what you are, no matter how you struggle to pretend otherwise. I don't know what all the self deception is meant to achieve, but the very fact that you jump in whenever Jews are criticised and have never, ever in all your anti-theistic rantings ever said a word about zionism or Israel, gives you away completely. I know many other atheist zionist Jews who do not even have that problem and can still be objective on the issue, but you're utterly incapable of it, so why pretend otherwise?

Your delusional fantasies have never known any bounds before, Sam. I see they continue to rule your worldview regardless of fact.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Your delusional fantasies have never known any bounds before, Sam. I see they continue to rule your worldview regardless of fact.

I don't know why I even bother.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

I don't know why I even bother.

It is rather strange that you go to such great lengths to be intellectually dishonest, Sam. Why do you do it?

Well just to be clear again, you won't convince me. I'm a great fan of anarchy and support decentralisation as an essential ingredient of free thought. I'm an ijtihadi Quran only Muslim and I do not believe in centralised or organised religion.

That's understandable. My goal isn't to convince you of anything, and I sincerely hope I haven't said anything which would indicate so. Besides, where would be the joy of debate if you simply conceded to everything I said? Arguing against my perspective forces me to expand upon it; nodding your head in agreement every time I state something simply softens my stance and wastes my intellect.

In regards to being a "Qur'an only Muslim", I question your understanding of Islam. The Qur'an is certainly the indisputable guide for Muslims, but the hadiths offer a rich history not available in the Qur'an. Besides, the hadiths detail how many of the Qur'an's requirements should be carried out.

I can't objectively argue the superiority of centralization over decentralization in theory, but I can argue which has the more impressive history, and it is centralization by a landslide. The entire concept of an empire is reflective of centralization; it is a concentration of power in a given system which has the ability to dictate rules and the direction of the nation. Such empires were the backbone to Islam when it reached its greatest strength. Anyway, how exactly do you view decentralization? How do you respond to the fact that Muhammad demanded a Caliphate, and forbade multiple caliphs? I am a little uncertain as to how you would like to see Muslim societies function.

Originally Posted by The Pride

That's understandable. My goal isn't to convince you of anything, and I sincerely hope I haven't said anything which would indicate so. Besides, where would be the joy of debate if you simply conceded to everything I said? Arguing against my perspective forces me to expand upon it; nodding your head in agreement every time I state something simply softens my stance and wastes my intellect.

Thats a relief, I have become too accustomed to arguing with people who do not understand the above.

In regards to being a "Qur'an only Muslim", I question your understanding of Islam. The Qur'an is certainly the indisputable guide for Muslims, but the hadiths offer a rich history not available in the Qur'an. Besides, the hadiths detail how many of the Qur'an's requirements should be carried out

There is one sahih Hadith from the Prophet which says, “Do not write from me anything except the Qur’an and whosoever has written anything from me other than the Qur’an should erase it.” Thats the hadith I follow. I like to think that a man as far ahead of his time as Mohammed would think better than to want his followers to be bogged down by a different social milieu. Why do you think no Hadith was written for one hundred years after Mohammed? It was forbidden.

I can't objectively argue the superiority of centralization over decentralization in theory, but I can argue which has the more impressive history, and it is centralization by a landslide. The entire concept of an empire is reflective of centralization; it is a concentration of power in a given system which has the ability to dictate rules and the direction of the nation. Such empires were the backbone to Islam when it reached its greatest strength. Anyway, how exactly do you view decentralization? How do you respond to the fact that Muhammad demanded a Caliphate, and forbade multiple caliphs? I am a little uncertain as to how you would like to see Muslim societies function.

Did Muhammed demand a Caliphate? Did he forbid multiple Caliphs? The problem with hearsay testimony collected 200 to 800 years after they happen is that its very difficult to separate the motivations and social conditioning of the testifier from the actual words spoken. Two important points which the study of the Quran and Hadith has illuminated to me is that Islam is an individual religion with no authority figure and that the isnad only gives the correct chain of narration, which tend to be rather poor for early utterances [most likely to be correct, but the system was not yet developed then] and rather too clean for later narrations [which brings to mind what they say about the narration itself]. Does accurately knowing who said it say anything about what they said? A quick glance at newspapers today and you can see how impossible that would be. Read Alf lail wa lail and you can understand how incredulous the claim. If not for the practice of hifz started by Hazrat Umar, it would be difficult to sustain any credulity on the substance of the Quran itself. Taking the rational point of view, I like to stick to the most relible medium of instruction and apply my own judgement rather than wonder if Ibn Tammiyya got it right or not.

On centralisation:

The earliest Muslim societies was "under" the Prophet, but not really, since he did not take a step without consulting his wife and companions and often made decisions based on their input even if he disagreed [and turned out to be right to disagree]. And at no time was the Muslim world ever "centralised". That was only under the Ottomans and even they ran a millet system where everyone followed local rules, it was also a very capitalistic rather than religious empire. The Rashidun were not interested in an Empire, which is why they retreated to Mecca even after helping their brethren in Persia and were not interested in converting anyone. Mohammed was on pretty good terms with the Byzantines and in fact, the very first Ummah, as declared in the Constitution of Medina by the Prophet, included the Jews and pagans. The first madrasah was established in Morrocco by a Morroccan woman, not in Arabia by the Prophets companions. The idea of a centralised religious structure has never been a part of Islam. If that were true, then after 1400 years, you'd not still have the same ethnic groups following a cultural and political structure that was more representative of their pre-Islamic past than their Islamic teachings. In fact, even though they did all learn Arabic, even the Mongols and Turks, the language of business was still Persian. The Persians had the trade routes over land you see. Which is why all the present structure to Islam has been bequeathed by Persian scholars and Persian and Mongol empire builders, followed by the Turkics.

Anyway, this is far far away from the topic, but its a major issue in the Middle East, because people in the west don't realise that just like being European does not make a Frenchman a Pole, being an Arab does not make a Palestinian a Saudi. In fact, most people do not even know that Middle Eastern Jews are also Arabs. Its a culture, not a religion.

I am a little uncertain as to how you would like to see Muslim societies function

Go back to the beginning. Iqra, bismi rabbi. Knowledge is power and progress. Everything else will follow.

IMO the airstrikes are nothing compared to blockade and the silly-boy antics of maliciously cutting power, water, moving checkpoints, seizing assets, etc. It's just hard to count the objective harm of those latter actions, which are relentless and so un-newsworthy. A military body count stands out.

Originally Posted by The Pride

Gaza is the largest concentration camp in the world, ironically run by Jews.

That's the crux of the problem isn't it? The Jewish blind spot. Well, and to be honest precious few countries did permit Jewish refugees, so they (e.g. UK USA Canada etc etc) weren't much better than Nazi Germany.

If we can be honestly ashamed then we may move on. If we can't, then we're as dumb as Israel today, and we'll say nothing. This embarrassed silence grows more pathetic daily, which makes it all the more embarrassing.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

one state is gaining momentum... demographics

The Zionists openly speak of this as a growing problem... needing solution. Apparently the Palestinians breed like vermin. Who knows what is said privately.

I want to think that horrible line of thought must lead to Jews facing the blind spot because it becomes glaringly obvious. This is an apocalyptic hope. It is like hoping an alcoholic rolls his car so he'll realize he has a problem. It's a bad way.

Originally Posted by The Pride

[Israel's terror antics must be crushed by the Muslim world if the region is to witness any form of lasting peace.

Did you happen to notice the part of the news article that said it was in retaliation for rocket fire?

samcdkey

There is one sahih Hadith from the Prophet which says, do not write down anything I say or do, nothing except the Quran. Thats the hadith I follow. I like to think that a man as far ahead of his time as Mohammed would think better than to want his followers to be bogged down by a different social milieu. Why do you think no Hadith was written for one hundred years after Mohammed? It was forbidden.

Whether or not the hadiths were forbidden is immaterial; what is most important is that they were recorded, and they were done so with every intent to preserve Muhammad’s actual words and teachings. I attest to their occasional unreliability, and I recognize they were illegal during the era wherein the Muslims were governed from Mecca (the hadiths began to materialize once the Islamic capital was shifted to Damascus via Mu’awiya and his reign as Caliph). Yes, I am also familiar with the fact that Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abi Dawood, al-Tirmidhi, and all of the other major hadith composers whose names I have forgotten, meticulously scanned hundreds of thousands of hadiths each, with only about 1-2% of the total making the cut and being published in the major books. The distinction between a “reliable” and “unreliable” hadith was very arbitrary, and it naturally differed from one composer to the next. The only tool which served the composers in such a situation was the hadith’s given isnad, as you mentioned. Isnad, of course, was based on memory, so it clearly wasn’t foolproof.

I am also aware of the fabrication of hadiths. I have read accounts of rogues who admitted to the fabrication of hadiths, some numbering as high as 4,000 each. Of course they were executed, but that did little to remove the fabricated hadiths from circulation (an estimated 600,000 hadiths were in circulation at one point). These types of problems are deep-rooted in hadiths, which is why they have no authoritative value, meaning they cannot be the basis for any legally-enforced laws. They do, however, serve as fantastic guidelines, and they help enrich the character of Muhammad, his companions, and his daily encounters. The hadiths have traditionally been relied on for complex issues for which the Qur’an has no distinct judgment for. Should we follow them, based on the discrepancies I’ve described above? Not necessarily, but I suppose that is every individual’s decision to make. When I read a hadith which states, “Muhammad forbade multiple Caliphs”, I think to myself: “Based on the earliest sources of Muhammad, what is more reasonable - his support of one spiritual leader for the Muslim world, or many opposing leaders?” Those types of questions subsequently inquire further historical knowledge. Even the Caliphs of Muhammad’s very own generation, the Rashiduns, elected one Caliph, regardless of the dismay it may have caused. We notice the Rashiduns are called the “rightly guided ones” for a reason: they were centralized in practice, and followed Muhammad’s teachings, which demanded a single leader to unite the new converts, and to avoid civil discord. When the battle for Caliph began late in the reign of Uthman, much blood was shed, resulting in the deaths of Islam's most prominent figures.

Two important points which the study of the Quran and Hadith has illuminated to me is that Islam is an individual religion with no authority figure and that the isnad only gives the correct chain of narration, which tend to be rather poor for early utterances [most likely to be correct, but the system was not yet developed then] and rather too clean for later narrations [which brings to mind what they say about the narration itself].

There is certainly no political authority in Islam, nor is there any demand for subservience to a specified government. There is, however, the authority of the Qur’an, and a requirement in acknowledging its precedence over all affairs stained by man. Natural born leaders have, throughout history, used their unique and personal outlooks to create centralized empires which they believed to be adequately backed by the Qur’an. I am of the opinion that a single Ummah would be most beneficial to the Muslim world, with its laws derived from the Qur’an to the people's greatest ability. I wouldn’t expect such an Ummah’s authority to be any different from the nation-states we live in today; the only difference would be its complexion: religious unity rather than ethnic unity. I strongly support the preservation of races, and I strictly observe laws of homogeneity and cultural uniqueness; of course, all of that can preserved while maintaining a single set of laws, a single military, a single currency, etc. The embodiment of differing peoples by religious unity is idealized in the Qur’an; you call it centralization, whereas I call it the basis of any Caliphate. The Ottomans are most famous for this when one considers how centralized their structure of power was, yet how free their people were in retaining their own traditions and customs.

As an interesting side note, I would like to make a hasty reference to the terms Khilafat and Caliphate (this I where the real debate kicks in). “Caliphate” is simply the English word based on the Arabic Khilafat, invented in 1614. One would expect their meanings and applications to be the same, but they aren’t. This doesn’t seem overly important, but it is, especially when trying to understand its meaning when used in the Qur’an. Khilafat, the Arabic term, is understood to be more of a spiritual empire; similarly, kalif is understood to be a spiritual leader of Muslims. Caliphate, on the other hand, is viewed as a historical entity - more properly, an empire. It is understood to have clear political and militaristic implications, and is often affiliated with the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abassid, Safavid, Mughal, and Ottoman Empires; similar, caliph is understood to be the leader of such a religious empire, wielding power much like a king. Clearly, the Arabic terms refer more to spirituality and abstractness, whereas the English terms refer more to political movements and concrete systems.

If not for the practice of hifz started by Hazrat Umar, it would be difficult to sustain any credulity on the substance of the Quran itself.

When you say “hifz”, are you referring to “hafiz”? If so, then I think you’re mistaken with your fact about Hazrat Umar. Although Hazrat Umar was a hafiz, and he was the predecessor to Hazrat Uthman, who turned the concept of memorized verses from different dialects of Arabic into a written format with only its original dialect, the concept of hafiz began with Muhammad. Muhammad would memorize the verses revealed to him, and share them orally with his family and companions; he would also share them with the city’s timid converts as he visited the Sanctuary. I recall when Muhammad was having a conversation with Walid, the infamous Abu Jahl’s uncle, who was considered to be the chief of Makhzum and the unofficial leader of the Quraysh. When discussing his intents, Muhammad was encountered by a blind man who begged to hear Muhammad recite the Qur’an. As the story goes, Muhammad’s conversation with Walid was ruined, but it just goes to show you how even the blind men of Mecca memorized the verses (the practice of a hafiz) with such vigor. This was all before Umar’s encounter with Nuaym Abdullah and his subsequent conversion to Islam. Umar continued the trend, but it certainly predated him.

As for your point, “... it would be difficult to sustain any credulity on the substance of the Qur’an itself”, I disagree: the practice of memorizing the Qur’an instead of writing it down was practiced by Muhammad himself because he knew most Meccans were illiterate. Muhammad argued that written verses could not be read by most Meccans, and he knew they could be destroyed or altered by evildoers; if they were memorized, however, they could never be tarnished. This is why the early hafiz were never given any special recognition: it was such a common ability. Nowadays it warrants special attention because most people have become content with simply reciting the Qur’an from its written format.

Taking the rational point of view, I like to stick to the most relible medium of instruction and apply my own judgement rather than wonder if Ibn Tammiyya got it right or not.

Your own judgment is very valuable, and even those who say personal judgment is not valued are guilty of relying on it themselves. We all tend to interpret verses to our own liking, and we all tend to formulate excuses for our religious shortcomings - even the most objective of us. That being said, the line must be drawn somewhere. I take pride in my knowledge of Islam and its history, and I like to think that I’m above average when it comes to understanding such a sensitive topic. Then I realize, is my judgment really more valuable than, say, the classic hafiz, who would not only memorize the entire Qur’an, but also the entire body of hadiths as well, isnad included? Do I really know more than the scholars who dedicate their lives to studying Islam, or am I being arrogant? That’s where the debate is.

The earliest Muslim societies was "under" the Prophet, but not really, since he did not take a step without consulting his wife and companions and often made decisions based on their input even if he disagreed [and turned out to be right to disagree].

I see it differently. Studying the companions of Muhammad, I notice many Meccans went to Muhammad for advice, and always settled their disputes by listening to his viewpoints. Muhammad expressed his feelings and asked Khadija for advice after seeing Gabriel, but that was one of the few times Muhammad asked others questions and consulted them for their advice. After the revelations, Muhammad became what I would call an unofficial leader: nobody anointed him as king, but the Muslims would not question his authority. Also, Muhammad’s death caused great panic amongst the Meccans, as many saw it as the death of their religion, clueless as to how Muhammad, their great leader, could die. The Meccans were dependent on Muhammad when he was alive, and they watched his mouth in awe for the next thing he would say. He was a family man, if that’s what you’re getting at; he was also a natural born leader, too. The Meccans adored Muhammad's presence and strived to impress him on the streets, and for good reason: he was the leader, and the best one at that.

And at no time was the Muslim world ever "centralised".

Hmm? Of course it was centralized! The fact that all Caliphs, even Muhammad’s closest friends, made all the major decisions about Islam’s destiny, proves Islam had allowed an organization of power. The Rashidun Caliphs all made spiritual, political, and military decisions, proving they had authority over such matters. Let me illustrate the power and authority of the very first Caliph, Abu Bakr, who was Muhammad’s best friend and closest companion. After Muhammad died, many Arab tribes began to withdraw from the Muslim state. They had given their loyalty to Muhammad as an individual and paid the Islamic tax because of this allegiance. Once Muhammad died, of course, this allegiance ended, as did the payment of the tax. When the Muslim tax collectors, lead by Abu Bakr, came to collect their taxes, they refused to pay. The rebellions became so serious and widespread that Abu Bakr dispatched troops to bring the deserters back into the realm of the Caliphate. The rebellions, known as the ridda wars, were over within two years, and the renegades had been suppressed. The obedience of the military to its leader, Abu Bakr (who was, admittedly, very much instructed by Umar behind the scenes), was played out in this historical fact, as was the collection of taxes from those who disharmonized with the Caliph’s rule. This is centralization of power, and it is seen in all empires. Empires tend to centralize and concentrate power, which is why the Rashiduns are considered to be an empire. The first in a long list, if I might add.

When the zealous Kharjites killed Ali and ended his reign, his followers pledged their loyalty to Hasan. Of course, Hasan’s followers were not nearly as numerous or resourceful as the Syrian Mu’awiya, who more or less purchased the seat of Caliph from Hasan. Now the capital shifted from Mecca to Damascus as Mu’awiya “Islamisized” his followers in a region (Syria) where his political and military power was already established. Mu’awiya didn’t change his structure of power to suit Islam; he changed the interpretation of Islam to suit his structure of power. This story is similar to the Abbasids and their central power in Baghdad, the converted Oghuz-Seljuks and later Ottomans in Istanbul. They were all centralized empires, many of which fought each other for power (such as the Turkish conquer of Arab power, and the Ottoman rivalry with the Safavid Shias).

Is the history of Islam’s centralization a bad thing? Well, not if you support centralization, which I do. I can offer many more similar examples, but this post is large enough as it stands. Speaking in modern terms, I truly believe a return to centralized principles - that is, the unity of divided nation-states into a single spiritual empire - could alleviate the majority of the Muslim world's troubles. The fact that the most prominent enemies of Islam have fought tooth and nail to prevent this establishment merely strengthens my belief in this concept.

Anyway, this is far far away from the topic, but its a major issue in the Middle East …

Don’t worry about it! This is my thread, and I have given permission for this most irrelevant outgrowth of a debate.

Note: Please do not think I disagree with everything you have said just because I have typed a large post. In fact, I agree with a lot of what you said, and I think you have surprising and unique insight into the ideal structure of power behind Islamic nations. I was pleasantly surprised to see the effort and information in your post, so I simply wanted to return the favor. If you have read my long, boring post in its entirety, then I will be very grateful.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Did you happen to notice the part of the news article that said it was in retaliation for rocket fire?

Dude, we each see what we'd like to see. What would you like to see? Honestly.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Did you happen to notice the part of the news article that said it was in retaliation for rocket fire?

Dude, we each see what we'd like to see. What would you like to see? Honestly.

What would I like to see? Maybe this hate-filled thread sent to the trash.

Originally Posted by The Pride

What a sad day for the Palestinians. Israel's terror antics must be crushed by the Muslim world if the region is to witness any form of lasting peace. These air-strikes are simply the latest reason in a long list of reasons why Israel should not exist. Many Hamas leaders have vowed instant retaliation, and to their cause I send my support. Truly, Israel's barbarity knows no limit, and its ability to do as it pleases remains unquestioned. The Western world, by and large, has no moral incentive to help the afflicted Palestinians; however, this is a despicable insult to the Muslim world, and it should be treated as such.

Could this attack be the straw that breaks the camel's back? While many of us were busy shopping today, desperate to take advantage of the widespread sales and blowouts, the Palestinians were being struck by Israel's indiscriminate air force. If the Muslim world truly wishes to put an end to Israel's reckless carnage, it is imperative they gather, discuss, and fiercely retaliate. The entire conflict has been elevated to a level incapable of recognizing civil discourse and diplomacy.

Thank goodness Iran has prepared a freighter full of humanitarian supplies for Gaza. Hopefully people will begin to realize that Gaza is the largest concentration camp in the world, ironically run by Jews.

I send my condolences to the Palestinians, and I wish them the best.

That's why the Muslim world will always be on bottom. They only have the most basic retaliation response. Like a caged animal lashing out at the humans that hold it prisoner they want to act without strategy or intelligence, and hope their anger and determination alone will accomplish something.

It's not that they haven't been provoked. They certainly have. It's that we live in a world that requires more than will.

The Isrealis (Note that I don't say "jews". Not all jews are Isrealis, nor do I think all jews support this stuff) have built a machine, and you can't defeat a machine with your bare hands. You have to build another, better machine to beat their machine with, or you might as well give up now. You won't win.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Such a cataclysmic response to generic "rocket attacks" seems utterly ridiculous to me.

Oh come on, the rocket attacks have nothing to do with it. How many Israelis died in the rocket attacks? Zero. This is merely because Hamas refused to continue the cease fire since the Israelis have not lifted their two year blockade on Gaza. Hamas decided they did not achieve their goals so the cease fire was pointless. The rockets make the Israelis look bad in election season. But kill a few hundred Palestinians and the Israeli blood lust is sated, which is all that election season is about.

If zero Isrealis died, then I'd suspect highly that the rockets weren't even fired by Palestinians. It's right out of the "1984" play book, and certainly not different from the way Israel has acted in the past.

Originally Posted by The Pride

The Arabs are no fighters, so expecting them to launch an attack is a pipe dream.

They did twice before, did they not? What's stopping them from doing so a third time comes down to two factors: most of their leaders are either corrupt kings or simply indifferent to the Palestinian plight, and Israel has a nuclear arsenal capable of striking any Arab city in existence. I don't believe Israel would hesitate for a second to use them, which is part of the reason why they are so worried a Muslim neighbour might obtain one.

It comes from lessons learned. You can't just go out and fight. Was it Tsung Tsu that said this? "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win"

The Arab leaders haven't won yet, so they're not going to war. Their formal militaries are way behind technologically, and would only serve as target practice on the battle field, while Isreali diplomacy is situated so that Isrealis can pretty much go around and commit all the genocide they want if another round of suicide bombers starts blowing them up. Either way the Arabs would lose, and be humiliated more than they are already if they attacked.

The key to a successful battle strategy is to leave all the moral judgments out of it. Just consider the cold hard realities you're faced with. What resources are at your disposal? How can they be used to take away your opponent's resources?

What is your final goal? (IE. what would count as a "victory"?) Knowing that allows you to find the shortest distance between where you are and where you want to be.

Is it the goal of Islam to tear down the whole modern world? Well, that probably won't work out. The modern world has a lot more tanks and guns. Is the goal to merely remove Isreal's power over the modern world? It's important to find the smallest goal that will get you what you want. (Smaller goals are better to shoot for, because it's more important to succeed than it is to try hard. There's no "A for effort" in war.)

If Arab leaders want to use bad strategy in their war, then they deserve to lose, regardless of what attrocities have been, or are being, committed against them.

It appears that this thread has turned to the discussion of religious beliefs, going by Kojax's words.

Why is it that people consider Muslims to be violent and aggressive, seeking only endless war? Islam does not wish to wage war; Prophet Muhammed considered Christ to be a prophet, or someone sent by God to help the world, and peace is what Islam believes in. Jihadis and other Muslim reactionaries are the ones who are misguided and delusional - not all Muslims believe in their views. In fact, the contempt for Muslims so greatly resembles Hitler's hatred of Jews that I'm starting to wonder if one of history's most fundamental lessons has gone unlearnt.

As to the missile strikes, I sympathise with those affected. Murder and bloodshed for any cause is never to be accepted as necessary. Religion is irrelevant, in any case; to raise it to the rank of national importance is a fool's act, and a fool's decision. Why can't the Palestinians be accepted, I fail to understand.

Pride:

Thanks for your post. After Aisha led the Sunni faction against Ali, Islam was no longer one entity and it has been splitting into various streams of thought ever since. The Abbasids had no effect on the Indian Islam, although it was the Arabs who took it there as traders in the lifetime of Mohammed. The Mongols turned Iraq and Iran Shia after 600 years of Sunni Islam, but had little impact elsewhere and none at all in Arabia and Yemen. The Moors had little influence below the Levant though their impact on Europe was astounding [and in fact was the golden age of the Jews]. The Seljuk Turks were very much interested only in their own system and had a Genghis Khan like tribal system of open religious tolerance and loyalty to the khan. The so-called centralisation only appears to be such because while focusing on the Moors, no one looks at the simultaneous Islam in Malaysia, for instance, or what that system was. And I agree with you that the Khilafat and the Caliphate have got all mixed up, indologists and orientalists have rewritten a lot of history for us savages.

P.S. trying to cut back the off topic chatter

kojax:

That's why the Muslim world will always be on bottom. They only have the most basic retaliation response. Like a caged animal lashing out at the humans that hold it prisoner they want to act without strategy or intelligence, and hope their anger and determination alone will accomplish something.

Oh? So if the same thing happened to say, Americans, they would sit back and chant Buddhist hymns? Can you name ONE country which would NOT want to retaliate if bombed like that? The difference is the exceptionalism accorded to Muslims, as if they should somehow be different from everyone else. I claim that the Palestinian response to 60 years of intense military occupation has been the most muted of all people in history, even Nelson Mandela spoke up in favor of violent retaliation to occupation and spent years in prison as a terrorist.

In his statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the trial on 20 April 1964 at Pretoria Supreme Court, Mandela laid out the clarity of reasoning in the ANC's choice to use violence as a tactic. [41] His statement revealed how the ANC had used peaceful means to resist apartheid for years until the Sharpeville Massacre. [42] That event coupled with the referendum establishing the Republic of South Africa and the declaration of a state of emergency along with the banning of the ANC made it clear that their only choice was to resist through acts of sabotage. [42] Doing otherwise would have been tantamount to unconditional surrender. Mandela went on to explain how they developed the Manifesto of Umkhonto we Sizwe on 16 December 1961 intent on exposing the failure of the National Party's policies after the economy would be threatened by foreigners' unwillingness to risk investing in the country.[43] He closed his statement with these words:
“ During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.[31]

Similarly the Palestinian resistance turned violent after the second intifada and due to the high body count from daily violent military insurgencies by the Jews.

The Isrealis (Note that I don't say "jews". Not all jews are Isrealis, nor do I think all jews support this stuff)

So if the Jews all left Israel, there would still be a struggle for a Jewish state? Its not a Druze problem or an Armenian problem and the "Arab" Israelis are simply Palestinians who prefer not to live in a concentration camp and by virtue of being descended from one of those Palestinians allowed to stay to fulfill labour requirements, have had the good luck to be able to remain in their homes. Its a problem of the Jewish fantasy that their adopted Canaanite God has given them the land of Palestine for their "national" home. Lets not pretend its anything else. Else the non-Jewish demographic and birth rate would not be pored over with such vile attention to detail among the Jews. Or American Jews would not be using Arab front organisations to buy land from non-Jews in Palestine and then selling it to Jews in Europe and elsewhere. For a really long time. Or there would not be a "right of return" for Jews from around the world while Palestinians languish in refugee camps. Would they be there if they were Jews?

e.g.

Some Arab Israelis object to Hatikvah due to its explicit allusions to Judaism. In particular, the text’s reference to the yearnings of “a Jewish soul” is often cited as preventing non-Jews from personally identifying with the anthem. Notably, Ghaleb Majadale, who in January 2007 became the first Arab to be appointed as a minister in the Israeli cabinet, sparked a controversy when he publicly refused to sing the anthem, stating that the song was written for Jews only

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatikva...ewish_Israelis

Their formal militaries are way behind technologically, and would only serve as target practice on the battle field, while Isreali diplomacy is situated so that Isrealis can pretty much go around and commit all the genocide they want if another round of suicide bombers starts blowing them up.

Agreed, the US Jewish lobby has been very advantageous in giving Israel the freedom to commit as many massacres as they like with no accountability.

Is it the goal of Islam to tear down the whole modern world? Well, that probably won't work out. The modern world has a lot more tanks and guns. Is the goal to merely remove Isreal's power over the modern world? It's important to find the smallest goal that will get you what you want. (Smaller goals are better to shoot for, because it's more important to succeed than it is to try hard. There's no "A for effort" in war.)

Where do people get these ideas? Why would "Islam" which is not a monolithic entity want to "tear down" anything? Look at the pluralism of opinion within the religion itself, look how easily Muslim parents send their children to Christian and Jewish and western and other schools. The fear and loathing is on the other side.

While the ideal would be for Jews to keep their religious fantasies to fantasies, pack up and go back to where they came from [as the Romans, Greeks, Crusaders, British, Dutch, French and Portuguese did before them], I'd settle for them stopping their racist discrimination against the Palestinians and accepting the right of Palestinians to live in their own land.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Did you happen to notice the part of the news article that said it was in retaliation for rocket fire?

Dude, we each see what we'd like to see. What would you like to see? Honestly.

What would I like to see? Maybe this hate-filled thread sent to the trash.

Why? This is the absolutism of religion at work. Who are you to push your morals on the absolutism of Islam? What form of logic or absolutism do you use to consider it 'hate-filled?'

I'm just curious.

Contrast:

Originally Posted by samcdkey

While the ideal would be for Jews to keep their religious fantasies to fantasies... I'd settle for them stopping their racist discrimination against the Palestinians and accepting the right of Palestinians to live in their own land.

Originally Posted by (Q)

This (thread) is the absolutism of religion at work.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What would I like to see? Maybe this hate-filled thread sent to the trash.

Where is the intolerance?

Originally Posted by Pong

Contrast:

Originally Posted by samcdkey

While the ideal would be for Jews to keep their religious fantasies to fantasies... I'd settle for them stopping their racist discrimination against the Palestinians and accepting the right of Palestinians to live in their own land.

Originally Posted by (Q)

This (thread) is the absolutism of religion at work.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What would I like to see? Maybe this hate-filled thread sent to the trash.

Where is the intolerance?

It looks to me like the OP is calling for a Muslim jihad against Israel. How do you see it?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It looks to me like the OP is calling for a Muslim jihad against Israel. How do you see it?

I see that as one particular in the OP highlighted in your mind, which the gist of the thread ignores. The gist appeals to tolerance and aims for a peaceful solution. It isn't hate filled. Have anything constructive to add in this way?

I think Harold, you're accustomed to polarizing sides so that one side is righteous. Your first post.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It looks to me like the OP is calling for a Muslim jihad against Israel. How do you see it?

Not so sure. If I see it as you do, will I be a hypocrite?

kojax

That's why the Muslim world will always be on bottom. They only have the most basic retaliation response. Like a caged animal lashing out at the humans that hold it prisoner they want to act without strategy or intelligence, and hope their anger and determination alone will accomplish something.

If you re-read my first post, I said the Muslim states should gather, discuss, and then fiercely retaliate. You'd be surprised as to how effective a few changes in oil policies could prove. Defeating Israel would certainly require a change of heart in the United States; that is, a plan must be conceived to not only convince the Americans of halting their financial and armament support for Israel, but forcing them to. It was precisely this predicament which caused the oil embargo of 1973, which I will detail below.

In its pre-emptive war in 1967, Israel stole the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, a part of southern Lebanon, and Syria's Golan heights. In its retaliatory war in 1973, Egypt (handsomely supplied with Soviet-weaponry) had the upper hand against Israel, which caused Golda Meir, the Israeli Prime Minister, to collaborate with Henry Kissinger in an attempt to pressure the U.S. government into supporting Israel, which it agreed to do.

The Arab states, as you can imagine, were not very pleased with the U.S.'s decision to support Israel, especially because most Arab states were allied with the U.S. and slowly cutting ties with the Soviet Union. As a counter to the American-Israeli collaboration, the Arab states, lead by King Faisal of Arabia, defied the delinquent duo and, through their domination of OPEC, slashed oil exports by 5% every month to the point where Americans had to purchase gas only ever other day, as there was much rationing going on. The price of fuel in America quadrupled over this time period. The oil embargo helped the Arabs make enormous profits from record-breaking oil prices, but it also did something else: it instilled confidence in many third-world oil-producing countries, and proved to be a means for which these countries could sway profound political power worldwide. Did the oil embargo ultimately achieve its goal? Well, its goal was to remove Israel from all the land it obtained illegally in its pre-emptive 1967 war; the aftermath to merely a year of embargo was as follows:

• "The Nixon Administration also began a parallel set of negotiations with Arab oil producers to end the embargo, and with Egypt, Syria, and Israel to arrange an Israeli pull back from the Sinai and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was sufficient to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974. By May, Israel agreed to withdraw from the Golan Heights."

Second Arab Oil Embargo, 1973-1974

Oil is only one weapon, although it is certainly a powerful one with colossal implications. Iran and Pakistan, who have always had a good relationship, could elevate their global standings considerably with a military partnership. It would seem to be a very strategic move as well, when one considers Iran's recent attempts to win over Arab support for its nuclear program, and Pakistan's growing threats from India. Taking into consideration Pakistan's nuclear capabilities and Iran's developing sites, proliferation of such weapons could be hastened and easily tip the scales of power in favor of the Muslim world. As it stands, Israel's only major advantage over its Muslim neighbours is its nuclear weapons and ICBM programs; other such weapons are routinely sold by Russia to Iran, the two of which have good relations. Back to Pakistan: I've read accounts of the citizens there to be very supportive of a return to Khilafat. Unity amongst the Muslim world shouldn't be too difficult, in theory: the majority of Muslims want it to happen, and the nation-states in existence today are weak and easily manipulated. Besides, if Israel and Turkey can have a military partnership, why not Iran and Pakistan? Or any two Muslim states, for that matter?

You have to build another, better machine to beat their machine with, or you might as well give up now. You won't win.

I agree. Israel’s military, of course, was given everything it needed on a silver platter from the get-go. I laugh when people make the argument that a nation of immigrants with a national IQ of 90 have the means to create a top-five army by the sweat of their own brow in a matter of four or five decades. American ultra-Zionist, Dov Zakheim, is a Jewish Israeli deep-rooted in the White House. It was under Reagan’s administration that squads of American F-16s and F-15s, classified as “military surplus”, were sold at a fraction of their market value to Israel. Regarding the nuclear weapons, the French assisted the Israelis with reactor designs and constructions as early as the early 1950s. These are just a few examples of how Israel has relied on various Western nations to assist it in its weapon programs. The few cases I mentioned here are but the tip of the iceberg.

So, that was then, and this is now. As it stands, Israel has a far superior military to its Arab neighbours, although it quietly fears Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and Iran’s relationship with Russia. I am of the opinion that, so long as nationalists such as Putin run Russia, Israel will be kept mildly in check. Russia cannot afford to lose Iran to Israel’s antics, and by profusely selling weapons and interceptor systems to Iran, it is letting Israel know to watch what it does. God forbid Russia will fall under globalists for a second time.

Anyway, there are plenty of unique ways to do war with Israel. Arab nations could exploit Israel’s shortage of water, for example, if it could eschew basic morals for the duration of a war. If another war were to happen, the fear of it being the last one for one side or the other could trigger “dirty” fighting, by means of chemical and biological weapons, many of which are dangerously cheap and easy to make. What the Arabs (and Iranians, too, as Israel’s aggression very much concerns their own national security) have to do is use their advantages: they are far superior in numbers; they are geographically supported; they have Muslim neighbours who share their agenda who happen to have nuclear arms and nuclear sites; they dominate OPEC and oil exports worldwide; etc. If Turkey’s secular system were to be overthrown, Israel’s chances of survival would virtually perish.

All of this talk about military preparation isn’t due exclusively to the Palestinian plight; it is for defending the Muslim world from Israel’s future strikes, which are bound to happen. If the leaders of Israel's enemies do nothing to congregate, plan, and retaliate, then I agree: they deserve to lose, regardless of the morality behind the matter.

Interesting info on Zakheim. I did not know this of him. His father was a member of Betar which joined forces with the Haganah, Irgun and Stern terrorist gangs during the nakba. It would be interesting to see how many of those guys have sons in the US government. Rahm Emmanuel's father also participated in the nakba. Both Zakheim and Emmanuel are Israeli passport holders.

samcdkey

Thanks for your post. After Aisha led the Sunni faction against Ali, Islam was no longer one entity and it has been splitting into various streams of thought ever since. The Abbasids had no effect on the Indian Islam, although it was the Arabs who took it there as traders in the lifetime of Mohammed. The Mongols turned Iraq and Iran Shia after 600 years of Sunni Islam, but had little impact elsewhere and none at all in Arabia and Yemen. The Moors had little influence below the Levant though their impact on Europe was astounding [and in fact was the golden age of the Jews]. The Seljuk Turks were very much interested only in their own system and had a Genghis Khan like tribal system of open religious tolerance and loyalty to the khan. The so-called centralisation only appears to be such because while focusing on the Moors, no one looks at the simultaneous Islam in Malaysia, for instance, or what that system was. And I agree with you that the Khilafat and the Caliphate have got all mixed up, indologists and orientalists have rewritten a lot of history for us savages.

Good points!

I'm a little embarrassed to say that outside of a few key names, dates, and events, I do not know much behind India's Muslim (Mughal) empire; nor have I delved into the subjects of Malaysian and Indonesian Islam, although I do know it spread to such locations by Muslim traders. My scope of knowledge becomes fuzzy in such areas, as I am far more accustomed to the Middle Eastern, Northern African, and European histories behind Islam.

Interesting info on Zakheim. I did not know this of him. His father was a member of Betar which joined forces with the Haganah, Irgun and Stern gangs during the nakba. It would be interesting to see how many of those guys have sons in the US government. Rahm Emmanuel's father also participated in the nakba. Both Zakheim and Emmanuel are Israeli passport holders.

He's a member (or perhaps, he was a member - I forget) of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). If I were to detail the eerie history behind the CFR and how it became so involved in the U.S., it would blow your mind. They (the Zionists which you refer to) are far more involved in the CFR and FRS than they are in the Federal government. Zakheim and Emmanuel are two examples of American Zionists who work fervently with government officials to benefit Israel politically and militarily. As you mentioned, their families often have a history of participating in Jewish terrorist organizations (namely, Haganah and Irgun). So much for Obama's promise of change, huh?

Originally Posted by The Pride

Hopefully people will begin to realize that Gaza is the largest concentration camp in the world, ironically run by Jews.

Isn't the southern border of Gaza controlled by Egypt? Why don't they open the gates to this "concentration camp" and allow free movement and commerce between Gaza and Egypt?

Originally Posted by The Pride

Good points!

I'm a little embarrassed to say that outside of a few key names, dates, and events, I do not know much behind India's Muslim (Mughal) empire; nor have I delved into the subjects of Malaysian and Indonesian Islam, although I do know it spread to such locations by Muslim traders. My scope of knowledge becomes fuzzy in such areas, as I am far more accustomed to the Middle Eastern, Northern African, and European histories behind Islam.

Because most people only talk about the "highlights". e.g. the Mughal Empire which came to India 700 years after Muhammed, did little to spread Islam in India. The earliest Islam in India came to South India and in fact the second oldest Masjid in the world, about 1300 years and second only to the Haram Sharif in Mecca is in Kerala.

There is an interesting parable attached to it of an Indian king who embraced Islam and went to meet the Prophet, he is apparently buried in Yemen somewhere.

He's a member (or perhaps, he was a member - I forget) of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). If I were to detail the eerie history behind the CFR and how it became so involved in the U.S., it would blow your mind. They (the Zionists which you refer to) are far more involved in the CFR and FRS than they are in the Federal government. Zakheim and Emmanuel are two examples of American Zionists who work fervently with government officials to benefit Israel politically and militarily. As you mentioned, their families often have a history of participating in Jewish terrorist organizations (namely, Haganah and Irgun). So much for Obama's promise of change, huh?

I've been following the neo-Zionist organisations for some time now. The Heritage group, PNAC, AIPAC, the Brookings Institution, CFR, to name a few. Its interesting that CFR sent a detailed report on conducting the Iraq war in 1998 to oust Saddam Hussein. Zakheim was one of the signatories on that report.

Source

Zakheim is VP of Booz now and they won no-bid contracts from Homeland Security which upped their ante from 2 million to 70 million dollars. Interestingly, Homeland Security also has many CFR members. CFR also includes members from Blackstone and Caterpillar. Its a nice little fraternity. Pardon my French but the Americans are royally f*cked. :P

Oh, boy. Now we're getting into the crackpot conspiracy theories. Say, have you fellows read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

No, its some crack stuff written by the Russians, I hear. I mostly read Israeli newspapers and blogs for news about Zionists. They are pretty informative. :P

Oh, and I also watch CSPAN, its pretty good too.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by The Pride

Hopefully people will begin to realize that Gaza is the largest concentration camp in the world, ironically run by Jews.

Isn't the southern border of Gaza controlled by Egypt? Why don't they open the gates to this "concentration camp" and allow free movement and commerce between Gaza and Egypt?

Because Egypt signed an agreement with the US and Israel that they would not do so.

Egypt will reopen the Rafah crossing to Palestinians even if Cairo’s initiative to mediate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas fails, according to assessments by Israeli defense officials. The Israel Defense Forces, meanwhile, is taking steps to be able to limit mass marches to the fence separating Gaza and Israel.

Although Egypt denies it, evidence is mounting that Cairo and Hamas recently reached an understanding to open the crossing regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.

Israeli officials on Monday told Suleiman during his visit to Israel that Jerusalem would not agree to a cease-fire unless substantial progress is made in negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit, the IDF soldier abducted by Hamas in June 2006.

Defense officials also told Suleiman that Israel would not agree to open the Rafah crossing without such progress, conditioning their consent on Shalit’s release to Egypt. Suleiman expressed reservations about the demand, arguing that a cease-fire would help facilitate the deal for Shalit’s release.

However, Egypt could reopen the crossing without Israel's consent as part of Cairo's negotiations with Hamas. If Egypt does that, it would be violating understandings on the crossing it undertook under American pressure in November 2005.

The agreement Egypt signed then put the crossing under European supervision under security requirements demanded by Israel. The crossing has remained all but sealed since Hamas' seizure of power in the Gaza Strip last June, after which Israel imposed a strict blockade on the enclave.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/983285.html

They do break the agreement when things get bad, as they did when the Israelis started pounding yesterday and I am sure many Egyptians covertly assist the Gazans as well, but the US does all it can to pressure them to close them when they do so [through blackmail over aid money, usually].

Here is what the Jewish Policy Center has to say about that

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/article/327

American taxpayers pay Egypt $2 billion dollars a year to ensure they comply with the Israelis.

samcdkey

Because most people only talk about the "highlights". e.g. the Mughal Empire which came to India 700 years after Muhammed, did little to spread Islam in India. The earliest Islam in India came to South India and in fact the second oldest Masjid in the world, about 1300 years and second only to the Haram Sharif in Mecca is in Kerala.

That's incredible! I am stunned as to how a mosque could be built in India 1,300 years ago.

I've been following the neo-Zionist organisations for some time now. The Heritage group, PNAC, AIPAC, the Brookings Institution, CFR, to name a few. Its interesting that CFR sent a detailed report on conducting the Iraq war in 1998 to oust Saddam Hussein. Zakheim was one of the signatories on that report.

Source

Zakheim is VP of Booz now and they won no-bid contracts from Homeland Security which upped their ante from 2 million to 70 million dollars. Interestingly, Homeland Security also has many CFR members. CFR also includes members from Blackstone and Caterpillar. Its a nice little fraternity. Pardon my French but the Americans are royally f*cked. :P

You know your stuff. If I have the patience, I will outline the CFR's dubious origins tonight.

Harold14370

Oh, boy. Now we're getting into the crackpot conspiracy theories. Say, have you fellows read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Was that a cheap shot at me? I hope not!

History is a long list of conspiracies, each unfolding after the other. To assume small sects of people are collaborating in secret to further their own agendas and ambitions is not the making of a conspiracy theorist; rather, it is the basis to nearly all historical events. Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this very general, and very theoretical, argument, then please mention something specific we could both tear into.

As for the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ... of course I've read it! Name me one good historian who hasn't. Refusing to read the Protocols is as silly as refusing to read Mein Kampf: sure, you may not agree with what it says, or who says it, but it has a rich historcal value to it that cannot be found anywhere else! The Protocols, by all measures, are an interesting work with a foggy history, although I can help clear the course if you'd explain your grievances. My edition of the Protocols is very unimpressive from the outside: a small red booklet held together by staples. The text is painfully small, if I might add. What many people don't know is that there are various editions of the Protocols, although the ones which are available today (or at least, the ones which I've encountered) are all shortened versions.

@ The Pride & samcdkey. I appreciate the informed discussion.

@ Harold14370. Why don't you too?

Originally Posted by The Pride

History is a long list of conspiracies, each unfolding after the other. To assume small sects of people are collaborating in secret to further their own agendas and ambitions is not the making of a conspiracy theorist; rather, it is the basis to nearly all historical events. Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this very general, and very theoretical, argument, then please mention something specific we could both tear into.

As for the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ... of course I've read it! Name me one good historian who hasn't.

I haven't read it. For the same reason I don't believe in the Hadiths, I don't waste my time reading conspiracy theories. I think they cloud the judgement because they are so fantastic you'd have to be a machine not to be affected by them. I guess its because I work in science, but I always like to have internal controls and access primary literature for anything I read up on. Hence I restrict my readings and review to bipartisan sources after carefully investigating them. Its how I realised that the same person who started MEMRI [along with an "ex"-intelligence director from Israel], and "translates" Arabic media FREE for the western press, also works in US for a think tank, the Hudson Institute. Very interesting woman, she is also connected to various neo-Zionist think tanks and if you look her up, you'd be surprised how extensive her network is. Her name in a group alone now causes me to give them a second look.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Meyrav_Wurmser

Pong

@ The Pride & samcdkey. I appreciate the informed discussion.

@ Harold14370. Why don't you too?

He's bitter because my opening post wasn't "neutral", which means I didn't criticize Israelis and Palestinians equally, even though the former is far more guilty than the latter. I chose a side to represent in this thread, and I did it with distinction: pussyfooting is not my type of game. That being said, I have no problem with his pro-Israeli viewpoints per se, although I do not welcome his allegations of a "conspiracy theory". Such antics do little to enrich the debate, as they serve only as slanders against arguments which are otherwise difficult to discredit.

Excuse my bluntness, Pong, but are you a Chinaman? What's your general standpoint on the Arab-Zionist rift? You seem well-informed.

samcdkey

I haven't read it. For the same reason I don't believe in the Hadiths, I don't waste my time reading conspiracy theories. I think they cloud the judgement because they are so fantastic you'd have to be a machine not to be affected by them.

I've read them, and here's my verdict: they describe ongoing trends to a tee, which is a virtue of the book you cannot argue against, considering you haven't read it. The Protocols discuss discreet methods of controlling industrialized societies, be it through the educational system, debt instruments, anti-religious propaganda, etc. The details within the book are very much accurate, as Henry Ford proclaimed. As to whether or not they truly were issued or reissued at the First Zionist Congress held at Basle in 1897 under Theodore Herzl, of if they were instead created by the Czarist secret police to hinder the Jewish-dominated Bolshevik uprising in Russia, is up for debate. I have enough knowledge on the topic to argue either side convincingly, so I usually like to test people's knowledge by challenging their interpretations on the book, whatever they may be. My problem isn't with the people who believe or disbelieve in the Protocols; my problem lies within the people who have been hellbent on removing it from circulation. Censorship is not for me: if you don't want your children reading it, that's fine - but don't tell me what I should not read.

I've read them, and here's my verdict: they describe ongoing trends to a tee, which is a virtue of the book you cannot argue against, considering you haven't read it.

Have you ever noticed how after you hear or read about something, you come across references to it everywhere? Its called bias.

Censorship is not for me: if you don't want your children reading it, that's fine - but don't tell me what I should not read.

Agreed.

Have you ever noticed how after you hear or read about something, you come across references to it everywhere? Its called bias.

It certainly is!

That's fine, though: I have an "agenda", and I'm not afraid to admit it. We all do. Everybody steps into a discussion with prior knowledge on which side they are going to support, and which side they are going to attempt to discredit. I have distinct likes and dislikes, as all great men do. Perhaps complete impartiality is a redeeming quality for judges, but I have yet to come across an accomplished man who didn't do things his own way. I try to be exceedingly polite and understanding of others and their ideas, but it takes the sun and the moon to convince me I'm wrong. If I do change my mind about a topic, it is because I have done the research to convince myself of my shortcomings.

I can tell you're the same way.

Originally Posted by The Pride

I can tell you're the same way.

Very smart of you.

Yeah, I am not afraid to stand for my position either. I think anyone who is neutral on an issue is either lying or uncaring. I always give the example of coming upon a child being raped. Would you be neutral in such a circumstance? Thats my ruler. There is a victim and there is an oppressor. Maybe the oppressor can find justifications for his position. But if between the rapist and the raped, you can't tell who is the victim, you're not neutral, you're brain dead. Even if the rapist was raped as a child, he is still not the victim here.

Update

• Arab protesters demand response to Gaza
  
  BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Protesters burned Israeli and U.S. flags on Sunday in a string of Arab countries and demanded a stronger response from their leaders to Israel's attack on Gaza.
  
  "Arab silence is behind the bombings," read a banner held by one of several thousand people who turned out in the Sunni Arab city of Samarra north of Baghdad.
  
  ...

Yahoo! News

• Israeli troops mobilize as Gaza assault widens
  
  GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip --
  
  Israel widened its deadliest-ever air offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers Sunday, pounding smuggling tunnels and a central prison, sending more tanks and artillery toward the Gaza border and approving a reserves callup for a possible ground invasion.
  
  Israeli leaders said they would press ahead with the Gaza campaign, despite enraged protests across the Arab world and Syria's decision to break off indirect peace talks with the Jewish state. Israel's foreign minister said the goal was to halt Gaza rocket fire on Israel for good, but not to reoccupy the territory.
  
  With the two-day death toll nearing 300 Sunday, crowds of Gazans breached the border wall with Egypt to escape the chaos. Egyptian forces, some firing in the air, tried to push them back into Gaza and an official said one border guard was killed.
  
  ...

The State

Some type of a public response is warranted. Most Arabs simply want their governments to react; they aren't too picky as to what type of reaction they get. The worst thing the Arab leaders could do right now (or the leaders of any Muslim nation, for that matter) is remain silent. I am curious as to how the Turks and Persians are responding to this affair.

There are mass rallies all across the Arab states. Do you have al Jazeera?

Iran



http://www.payvand.com/news/08/dec/1138.html


Turkey



http://erkansaka.net/blog2/2008/12/m...nians_mur.html

Thanks for the photos.

People have their hearts in the right place across the Middle East. Seeing the Palestinian flags being waved in those countries is a very scintillating sight.

As for Al Jazeera, no, I do not have access to it on television. For clear images of the scenes and the public backlash cross the Middle East, I resort to CNN which, unsurprisingly, is avoiding the issue. Imagine the reaction if a Palestinian suicide bomber had killed three hundred Israelis!

You can watch al Jazeera on youtube, but fyi, they interview Israelis, so be prepared to feel homicidal at their BS :P

http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish

Although, I just switched on CNN and amazingly, a Palestinian minister was being interviewd and they actually asked him all the right questions!!!

I'm assuming the Israelis keep bringing up the excuse about rockets, as though they were unprovoked and very damaging. Don't ninety-nine percent of them hit open fields, miles away from civilization? I saw a few pictures of the alleged rockets used against Israeli citizens by Hamas, and I have to say, they would have no impressive range to them whatsoever. Are the rockets purportedly launched from Gaza? If so, what a joke!

I also wonder as to how Hezbollah is responding. I wonder if they will send weapons and ammunition to stave off the pending IDF ground attack, or if they will involve themselves in the skirmish.

By the way: in the image you posted of Iran, why are the signs written in Arabic? I can't image the Persian and Arabic tongue to have the same alphabet.

So what is the Farsi script, in your opinion? Haven't you seen Mughal calligraphy? Their primary language was also Persian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian...rsian_alphabet

Modern Iranian, Persian, and Dari are normally written using a modified variant of the Arabic alphabet (see Perso-Arabic script) with different pronunciation and more letters, whereas the Tajik variety is typically written in a modified version of the Cyrillic alphabet.

After the conversion of Persia to Islam (see Islamic conquest of Iran), it took approximately 150 years before Persians adopted the Arabic alphabet in place of the older alphabet. Previously, two different alphabets were used, Pahlavi, used for Middle Persian, and the Avestan alphabet (in Persian, Dîndapirak or Din Dabire—literally: religion script), used for religious purposes, primarily for the Avestan language but sometimes for Middle Persian.

I was merely curious as to why they looked so familar in written format. This -

• "Modern Iranian, Persian, and Dari are normally written using a modified variant of the Arabic alphabet ..."

- is news to me.

Interesting. Differen't languages don't come very natural to me, although they should to you, you being an Indian and all. I couldn't imagine living in a country where every province spoke a different language.

Well I speak Urdu, which is Persianised Hindi in Arabic script.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/urdu.htm

I couldn't imagine living in a country where every province spoke a different language.

Yeah every Indian is at least trilingual [native, state, national languages]

Wow, not very many people seem to be interested in politics on this forum. A shame!

I came across this whilst browsing:

• Anti-Israeli protests across Europe
  
  ...
  
  Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was outraged by a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the operation is likely to continue.
  
  "To go and bomb these defenseless people, and to openly say that this operation will be a long-lasting one, that it will be this or that, to me, is a serious crime against humanity," Erdogan said at a meeting of his ruling Islamic-rooted party.
  
  Turkey is Israel's closest ally in the Muslim world but Erdogan said he was appalled that the attacks came as his country was helping mediate peace talks between Syria and Israel. He said the attacks were a "show of disrespect" toward Turkey.
  
  ...

Island Packet

Erdogan is certainly the best Prime Minister Turkey has had in quite some time now. The AKP's most recent victory, and Abdullah Gul's election, indicates to me that the Turks want a change. I would like to see some Turkish leadership in this situation, considering they are on the best terms with Israel, as far as Muslim nations go.

Talk is cheap!

Originally Posted by The Pride

Excuse my bluntness, Pong, but are you a Chinaman? What's your general standpoint on the Arab-Zionist rift?

I'm posting from the Mecca of Multiculturalism, Vancouver. So to me one-state (pluralistic) seems obvious, foolproof, and fruitful.

I dunno how to make Israel accept immigrants/returns without discrimination though. Most countries still discriminate, essentially if not explicitly by colour/religion, and most folk outside my little exception seem okay with that. How can you oppose something you also support?

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm posting from the Mecca of Multiculturalism, Vancouver. So to me one-state (pluralistic) seems obvious, foolproof, and fruitful.

I dunno how to make Israel accept immigrants/returns without discrimination though. Most countries still discriminate, essentially if not explicitly by colour/religion, and most folk outside my little exception seem okay with that. How can you oppose something you also support?

Do you know any state that evicts native inhabitants because of religious fantasies of a god given homeland? And maintains its demographics by giving citizenship to immigrants on the basis of religion or ethnicity? The Palestinians are not immigrants, they are refugees driven out by a minority population with a majority of foreign religious brethren. Kinda like if the 2% of Muslims in Canada were to call all 1.5 billion of their brethren to create an Islamic state and then declared it dar al islam, kicking out a majority of the non-Muslims. Would you then be an immigrant? Or a refugee? Would it be acceptable for the Muslims to do that? Create a religious state in someone else's land by force, against the wishes of the people living there?

Originally Posted by samcdkey

And maintains its demographics by giving citizenship to immigrants on the basis of religion or ethnicity?

Pretty much all the Arab countries do that, don't they? If I'm not mistaken, the Jews were originally from the Middle East. Maybe you can tell me where in the Middle East they can live now, except Israel.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Pretty much all the Arab countries do that, don't they?

Never been to an Arab country I see. Every "Arab" country has natives from as far back as you can test. You must be confusing it with European colonialism, they replace native populations who are forced to live on reservations with foreign immigrants based on <insert supremacist characteristic>

No, I havent been to any Arab countries but I can read. Yes, other religions can live there as second class citizens. And they do indeed restrict immigration on the basis of religion.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, I havent been to any Arab countries but I can read. Yes, other religions can live there as second class citizens.

I sincerely hope you're kidding. I mean have you ever looked at the indigenous people in countries colonised by the west? Even the Jews knew better than to have their national home anywhere in the pogrom infested western nations. 2000 years of exile in the west [forced upon them by the Romans and Christians] and they still pine for Palestine.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, I havent been to any Arab countries but I can read. Yes, other religions can live there as second class citizens.

I sincerely hope you're kidding. I mean have you ever looked at the indigenous people in countries colonised by the west? Even the Jews knew better than to have their national home anywhere in the pogrom infested western nations. 2000 years of exile in the west [forced upon them by the Romans and Christians] and they still pine for Palestine.

No, I am not kidding. We are discussing other Middle East countries, not the West, and we are discussing current immigration policies, not what happened centuries ago.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, I am not kidding. We are discussing other Middle East countries, not the West, and we are discussing current immigration policies, not what happened centuries ago.

So name one Middle Eastern country that evicts native inhabitants based on religion and replaces them with foreign non-native immigrants based on religion. And tracks their birth rate and demographics.

Centuries ago? The native indigenous Americans are still second class citizens.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

So name one Middle Eastern country that evicts native inhabitants based on religion and replaces them with foreign non-native immigrants based on religion. And tracks their birth rate and demographics.

Centuries ago? The native indigenous Americans are still second class citizens.

I hadn't heard anything about evicting Palestinians based on religion. As I said, ALL the Arab countries control immigration based on religion. Yes, they track religion.

Indigenous Americans have all the rights of any American. At any rate, you are changing the subject because we are trying to answer the question whether any other state "maintains its demographics by giving citizenship to immigrants on the basis of religion or ethnicity."

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I hadn't heard anything about evicting Palestinians based on religion.

Oh? you haven't heard of the Jewish settlements where Palestinians used to live and where foreign Jews now live while non-Jewish Palestinians are compressed into 2% of their original area?

As I said, ALL the Arab countries control immigration based on religion. Yes, they track religion.

Indigenous Americans have all the rights of any American. At any rate, you are changing the subject because we are trying to answer the question whether any other state "maintains its demographics by giving citizenship to immigrants on the basis of religion or ethnicity."

I lived in the Middle East for five years. I don't know any Arab country that replaces natives with non-natives on the basis of religion. Please support your accusation or take it back.

I have noticed Americans are clueless about what is going on with native Americans. I may open a thread on that later. Meanwhile you can look up how the feds are stealing their resources and undermining their sovereignty.[img][/img]

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Oh? you haven't heard of the Jewish settlements where Palestinians used to live and where foreign Jews now live while non-Jewish Palestinians are compressed into 2% of their original area?

I have just read the Wikipedia article on Israeli settlements and didn't see anything about eviction, except for some of the settlers being evicted from their settlements.

I lived in the Middle East for five years. I don't know any Arab country that replaces natives with non-natives on the basis of religion. Please support your accusation or take it back.

I never said they replaced natives. I said they control immigration based on religion, they track citizen's religion, and non-Muslims do not have the same rights of citizenship. Have you ever heard of the term "dhimmi?"

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I have just read the Wikipedia article on Israeli settlements and didn't see anything about eviction, except for some of the settlers being evicted from their settlements.

And who are the "settlers"?

I never said they replaced natives.

Then your response is pointless, every nation can control immigration into its land. Problem is, thats the right of the native, not the immigrant.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

And who are the "settlers"?

The settlers were the Israelis who had moved onto land formerly occupied by Palestinians. And I take it you think no non-Muslim should ever live on some land that was once occupied by a Muslim, or else you will assume that the Muslim was "evicted."

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The settlers were the Israelis who had moved onto land formerly occupied by Palestinians. And I take it you think no non-Muslim should ever live on some land that was once occupied by a Muslim, or else you will assume that the Muslim was "evicted."

Where did the settlers come from? Where are the Palestinians who were living on that land? What happened to them?

Here, in case you forgot:

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Where did the settlers come from? Where are the Palestinians who were living on that land? What happened to them?

I don't know. You tell me.
Have you conceded the point that Muslim countries do not extend full citizenship rights to non-Muslims? That could explain why the Israelis do not want Israel to become a Muslim country.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I don't know. You tell me.
Have you conceded the point that Muslim countries do not extend full citizenship rights to non-Muslims? That could explain why the Israelis do not want Israel to become a Muslim country.

Muslim countries extend full citizenship rights to their native citizens under their own laws. The Jews occupy the state of Palestine, which belongs to the Palestinians, 99% of them being foreign Jews engaged in a religious fantasy. Its not a question of "wanting" since immigrants do not decide how natives want to live. Unless you think [illegal] immigrants should dictate state policies.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Muslim countries extend full citizenship rights to their native citizens under their own laws.

All right, let's start with Saudi Arabia. According to this web site.
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Disc...di:Arabia.html

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims.

The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice.

Do you dispute any of that? Do you support the Saudi Arabian policy?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

All right, let's start with Saudi Arabia. According to this web site.
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Disc...di:Arabia.html

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims.

The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice.

Do you dispute any of that? Do you support the Saudi Arabian policy?

And ? Which non-Muslim native have they evicted and replaced with Muslim foreigners? I think you need to distinguish between foreign Jews occupying native Palestinians for religious reasons and a KINGDOM enforcing its own rules.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

And ? Which non-Muslim native have they evicted and replaced with Muslim foreigners? I think you need to distinguish between foreign Jews occupying native Palestinians for religious reasons and a KINGDOM enforcing its own rules.

I take it you support the Saudi Arabian rules, then?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I take it you support the Saudi Arabian rules, then?

I support the right of any people living on their own land to make their own rules, yes. Now if the Saudis were to move to the US, slaughter the Americans and put any survivors in a ghetto where they alternately starved and bombed them to force them to accept these rules, then I would oppose it. Because immigrants who move to some other land should not kill the people who live there for not accepting their religiously ordained rules.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I take it you support the Saudi Arabian rules, then?

I support the right of any people living on their own land to make their own rules, yes. Now if the Saudis were to move to the US, slaughter the Americans and put any survivors in a ghetto where they alternately starved and bombed them to force them to accept these rules, then I would oppose it.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

I support the right of any people living on their own land to make their own rules, yes.

As long as they are Muslims, right? The Christians and Jews may live there but they have no say in the government. Nor may they freely practice their religion. And you agree with that, correct?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

As long as they are Muslims, right? The Christians and Jews may live there but they have no say in the government. Nor may they freely practice their religion. And you agree with that, correct?

Same as I agree that Americans have a right to vote against gay marriage. I may disagree with that opinion, but I don't think Saudis should decide if American gays should get married or not. Its called sovereignty of a state.

I am still waiting for you to respond if you think foreign immigrants entering the country against the wishes of the people living there have a right to decide how natives should live there and if they have the right to impose their religion and replace native inhabitants with foreigners who share their religion.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

I support the right of any people living on their own land to make their own rules, yes.

Except the US, and Israel, and Sweden, and Denmark, and...

Originally Posted by (Q)

Except the US, and Israel, and Sweden, and Denmark, and...

Not at all. I can still disagree with their choices. But I don't think NATO should invade and bomb them into submitting to a foreign ideology. Or that they should be packed into ghettos and starved if they refuse to allow a Muslim majority state under sharia in their country. Which is my argument with Jewish immigrants creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Not at all. I can still disagree with their choices.

Which I believe Harold was also alluding. Kapeesh?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Which I believe Harold was also alluding. Kapeesh?

I'm still waiting on his input on whether foreign immigrants can decide state policy for native inhabitants.

Would you say that Jews were indigenous to the Middle East? Where in the Middle East would you suggest they go?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Would you say that Jews were indigenous to the Middle East? Where in the Middle East would you suggest they go?

Would you say Americans are indigenous to the Americas? I suggest that 2000 years is a long time to be shackled by ethnicity. They should go back to where they came from, be it India, Russia, Europe or America. The Middle Eastern Jews who comprise maybe less than 10% of the Israelis should be permitted to go back to their respective countries or stay in Palestine, as they wish. Middle Eastern Jews [Mizrahi] are also second class citizens in Ashkenazi Israel. Europeans who have lived in Europe for 2000 years have no claim to indigenous roots [which btw for the Jews are with the Kurds and Turks, not the Arabs] unless the US, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada and Australia are willing to vacate their countries for the indigenous populations. The Romans occupied the Netherlands for several hundred years 2000 years ago. Do they [as modern Italians] have any claim on it? Then why do Jews who occupied Canaan 2000 years ago for several hundred years, have any claim on Palestine?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by samcdkey

He's an atheist Zionist Jew.

One can almost feel the hatred seething through the venomous delivery of your bigotry and racism, Sam. I notice you chose to label me what you hate most. Does it help to justify your beliefs with Islamic propaganda? Does it solidify in your mind a reason to remove my head from my body if you ever happened to meet me? Do I not meet with your standard of bronze age myth and superstition?

Why does Q use an epilepsy inducing avatar?

That does not seem like a nice thing to do to other forum participants.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by The Pride

[Israel's terror antics must be crushed by the Muslim world if the region is to witness any form of lasting peace.

Did you happen to notice the part of the news article that said it was in retaliation for rocket fire?

Do you believe that murder is an appropriate response to vandalism? Most Palestinian rockets land in open fields, where they do nothing but throw dirt into the air.

If a child throws a dirt clod at an adult, is the adult justified in murdering the child?

Harold:

You should know that all Israelis do not toe the fantasy line. Apart from the IDF troops who refuse to serve and expose Israeli policies in the occupied territories, ie shovrimshtika, there are also the shministim [or twelfth graders] who refuse to participate in the mandatory military service and go to prison instead as they do not wish to perpetuate the occupation.

Ultimately, the decision to end the occupation will come from the occupier, people like you and me can only express our opinions on the tragic situation.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

I'm still waiting on his input on whether foreign immigrants can decide state policy for native inhabitants.

No, that is another one of your fallacious, off-topic ratholes, which you hope Harold will follow down.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Oh? you haven't heard of the Jewish settlements where Palestinians used to live and where foreign Jews now live while non-Jewish Palestinians are compressed into 2% of their original area?

I have just read the Wikipedia article on Israeli settlements and didn't see anything about eviction, except for some of the settlers being evicted from their settlements.

You are one funny man. Wikipedia is controlled by an Israeli. If anyone prints anything on Wikipedia that Israel does not like, that something is either removed by some citizen working for Israel, or it is removed by the wikipedia people.

Go try it. Go to wikipedia and add something you know that is true, but that Israelis do not like. You will either not be able to add it because the subject is locked, or your post will be removed or replaced.

Go try posting "Killer Jews decide to murder Palestinians for Christmas. 300 dead palestinians so far". That statement is factually true. Israel is filled with jewish people. Therefore the jewish people dropping bombs on Palestinians are killers. It is right after christmas, so saying "Killer Jews decide to murder Palestinians for christmas", is a factually true statement.

That factually true statement will be removed from Wikipedia pronto.

I am honestly astounded this conversation is taking place here. Almost all internet forums are monitored by Israelis and pro Israelis. They usually have threads like this removed and the people posting in them banned by launching a barrage of complaints from 3 or 4 real people and 100 sock puppet accounts.

Originally Posted by mbokohutu

I am honestly astounded this conversation is taking place here. Almost all internet forums are monitored by Israelis and pro Israelis. They usually have threads like this removed and the people posting in them banned by launching a barrage of complaints from 3 or 4 real people and 100 sock puppet accounts.

I've had some Jews call for my banning in internet forums. Some of them even pretend to be atheists. The funny thing is, I post mostly using Israeli sources.

Originally Posted by mbokohutu

You are one funny man. Wikipedia is controlled by an Israeli. If anyone prints anything on Wikipedia that Israel does not like, that something is either removed by some citizen working for Israel, or it is removed by the wikipedia people.

Go try it. Go to wikipedia and add something you know that is true, but that Israelis do not like. You will either not be able to add it because the subject is locked, or your post will be removed or replaced.

This article was gleaned from Islamic propaganda websites, yet it remains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Originally Posted by (Q)

This article was gleaned from Islamic propaganda websites, yet it remains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

You missed his point.

Here, take a look at these emails from CAMERA

http://electronicintifada.net/downlo...-wikipedia.pdf

Originally Posted by samcdkey

You missed his point.

I refuted his point.

Your article says nothing about Israelis.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Your article says nothing about Israelis.

Why would it? It is an article created by Muslim propagandists to promote Islam.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Your article says nothing about Israelis.

Why would it? It is an article created by Muslim propagandists to promote Islam.

So its your contention that Israelis hate everything about Muslims?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by mbokohutu

You are one funny man. Wikipedia is controlled by an Israeli. If anyone prints anything on Wikipedia that Israel does not like, that something is either removed by some citizen working for Israel, or it is removed by the wikipedia people.

Go try it. Go to wikipedia and add something you know that is true, but that Israelis do not like. You will either not be able to add it because the subject is locked, or your post will be removed or replaced.

This article was gleaned from Islamic propaganda websites, yet it remains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Excuse me Mr Q, but as you are pro Israel, your veracity is a 0 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Did you guys ever find any WMD in Iraq?

Oh wait. That was a lie wasn't it?

Originally Posted by samcdkey

So its your contention that Israelis hate everything about Muslims?

Or, more precisely, Muslims hatred of everything non-Muslim.

Originally Posted by mbokohutu

Excuse me Mr Q, but as you are pro Israel, your veracity is a 0 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Hi Happeh! :-D

Originally Posted by samcdkey

I've had some Jews call for my banning in internet forums. Some of them even pretend to be atheists. The funny thing is, I post mostly using Israeli sources.

Ummm. It is basically impossible to hold a conversation about the world without using Israeli sources.

All major western news organizations are run by Israelis.