Many Key Liberal's Don't Back Israel

[Ivanovich]

Quote from traderNik:

That may be true.

However, would you not agree that the one thing we have been missing since 9/11 is a widespread, organized and unequivocal condemnation of Islamic terrorism by this supposed peaceful majority? I know we haven't seen it here in Canada and I don't think anyone else has seen it. I have been waiting for a march up 5th Avenue by hundreds of thousands of Muslims who make it clear that they disavow completely the maniacs who are suiting up those 6 year old children in jihadist robes and posing them with AK-47s.

There are what, 1.3 billion Muslims?

Here in Canada, what we are hearing is not a condemnation of the extremists, but a condemnation of Canadians who are apparently tarring all Muslims with the same brush. How? By arresting 14 of them who ordered up 3 tons of ammonium nitrate.

You are absolutely correct. And this is, I believe, because of the lack of a centralized lead in the religion. There is no "pope", for instance. So what you have is various factions of Islam looking at the others like the false religion gone wild, so to speak. Sunnis do not even believe Shiites are real Muslims, so when a Shiite blows himself up, the Sunnis all shake their head sadly and go "another devil takes innocent lives".

Various Islamic "sects" if you will, have been trying to become the one voice that leads the religion into the next century. The Caliph is Islam's closest thing to a Pope - the leader of the Ummah - which is the community in Islam. Caliph is short for ""Khalifat Allah" which actually meant "representitive of God" (but was taken from a longer version to mean "successor to the prophet of God aka Muhammad PBUH). The problem lies in that each distinct faction of Islam believes it has the right to be Caliph of Islam because it believes it alone has the successor to the Prophet (PBUH), and therefore dictate Shari'a (law) to the rest of the Ummah (the Nation of Islam). But each sect believes the others claim to be, well...crap.

So there is no centralized voice, and therefore no one to take responsibility to condemn anything.

But after 9/11, you DID have muslim groups standing fast and condemning the act. Today, you do have small groups, even some countries, condemning the behavior of these extremists. It just, unfortunately, does not take a centralized view and therefore no one really listens to it.

If the Pope spoke out against a Catholic group, you can bet there would be an effect. Not so in Islam.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from Ivanovich:

I would be inclined to believe you are correct. Extreme Islam is worse than extreme Christianity or Judiasm. But I suspect this is due to the economic situation that most of the Islam world is in as well. You're not going to find a Jew with a nice mid town apartment and a hundred grand in the bank as willing to strap himself with an explosive belt as you would finding someone barely scraping a living in downtown Tikrit.

I am no so sure about that, all (or many) 9/11 hijackers were college educated middle class guys, on the other side there are hundreds of millions dirt poor christians in Africa and Hindus in India, yet we don't see them blowing themselves up in revenge or to advance their cause.

 

[Pabst]

Quote from dddooo:

I am no so sure about that, all (or many) 9/11 hijackers were college educated middle class guys, on the other side there are hundreds of millions dirt poor christians in Africa and Hindus in India, yet we don't see them blowing themselves up in revenge or to advance their cause.

That's correct. I call it the "O.J. Syndrome." I remember watching ESPN the day Nicole's body was discovered and thinking to myself, no WAY O.J. was involved. Rich, famous guys get so much taint, there's few times they'll jeopardize their lifestyle let alone freedom over a mere broad. Boy, was I wrong. Islamic fanatics are the same way. OBL could have sat around paying for seventy odd virgins each friggin' day. Instead he's spent three decades jihading. Look at the London bombers. Same thing. None of these folks were desperate or thinking what does it matter. that's what's so scary. 16yo girls in America are anorexic, in Palestine they're strapping bombs to their bodies and taking out cafes in TA.

 

[bsmeter]

Quote from dddooo:

I am no so sure about that, all (or many) 9/11 hijackers were college educated middle class guys, on the other side there are hundreds of millions dirt poor christians in Africa and Hindus in India, yet we don't see them blowing themselves up in revenge or to advance their cause.

LOL!

What constitutes a suicide attack?
Suicide attacks, like all other terrorist attacks, are first and foremost aimed at giving their perpetrators widespread media coverage, thereby inflating their own image. For this purpose, the terrorist organizations exploit diverse media venues in order to advance their interests.

It should be pointed out that suicide attacks by terrorists are nothing new; the phenomenon appeared among the Jewish Sicaris in the 1st century , among the Moslem Hashishiyun in the 11th century, and among the Asians in the 18th century(1). In the Twentieth Century too, members of the Palestinian organizations and their colleagues from the leftist organizations perpetrated high-risk attacks which almost cross the border into the realm of suicide terrorism. However, the perpetrators of these attacks nevertheless stood a chance—however minute—to survive; their remaining alive did not tarnish their success in carrying out the attack. However, “modern” suicide terrorism is unique and unlike its predecessors. In the last two decades suicide attacks have been carried out by one or more persons who were aware that they are “human time-bombs.” The suicide bomber carries the explosives on his body or in a vehicle driven by himself and, by personal choice and with full self-awareness, he approaches a previously chosen target and blows himself up. The suicide bomber himself, in accordance with the prevailing circumstances, chooses the time and place to execute the explosion so that it will cause the maximum damage to the target. Defining a terror attack as a suicide bombing depends primarily on whether the perpetrator is killed. In the event that his mission is incomplete, it is not a suicide bombing. The death of the perpetrator is the key to the success of the attack; and he knows in advance that success depends entirely on this death.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=373






I do admire the cohesiveness of Jews. Unlike Christians you people tow the propaganda line regardless of what your political opinions are. It's getting harder these days to tell who the zionists are and who the real jews are. Having made the correction to the propaganda, I'll let you klansmen get back to your mental mastrubation. ROTFLMAO!

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

dddooo and Pabst,

I didn't say Christians were despised by Jews in this country. I said Evangelicals were. I put any doubts about that in the same category as doubts that the mainstream media has a liberal bias.

Anyway, that is a bit off topic. I think the really interesting factor in all this is how did support for Israel go from being a mainstay principle of liberals to something that is now borderline un-PC? Clearly liberals are embarrassed by Israel and just wish it would go away.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Mainstream liberals didn't understand what they understand today.

The impact of the neocons during the Bush Regime has opened many eyes in the liberal ranks to the dangers of Zionism...

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

dddooo and Pabst,

I didn't say Christians were despised by Jews in this country. I said Evangelicals were. I put any doubts about that in the same category as doubts that the mainstream media has a liberal bias.

Anyway, that is a bit off topic. I think the really interesting factor in all this is how did support for Israel go from being a mainstay principle of liberals to something that is now borderline un-PC? Clearly liberals are embarrassed by Israel and just wish it would go away.

 

[claywilk]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Mainstream liberals didn't understand what they understand today.

The impact of the neocons during the Bush Regime has opened many eyes in the liberal ranks to the dangers of Zionism...

This seems like some kinda warp zone or something. Republicans criticizing Democrats for not supporting Israel. Have the ranks of the Republicans simply been invaded with people who simply love war? In the day the freakin Republicans couldn't jump fast enough or high enough to criticize Israel. Now they have some need to prove how much more they support Israel than the Democrats. I'm confused! Please don't use the current Israel War as just another excuse to rattle your sabres. I wish you Republicans would go back to Iraq and defend that war so we can argue about that, let us support Israel like we always have and we can argue about that too. Everyones happy that way!

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Ivanovich:

You are absolutely correct. And this is, I believe, because of the lack of a centralized lead in the religion.

But after 9/11, you DID have muslim groups standing fast and condemning the act. Today, you do have small groups, even some countries, condemning the behavior of these extremists.

Thanks for the considered response.

I guess I missed the Muslim groups condemning these acts, at least in any ongoing way.

With regard to the idea that it is the fractured nature of Islam that precludes Muslim's ability to organize a widespread, unequivocal condemnation of the maniacs... I mean, yes, I guess I can see the point, but how many Muslims are there? 1.1 BILLION? So are we to understand that among the groups into which these 1.1 billion are divided, there is not one group that is large enough that its leaders can put forth a show of condemnation? And what kind of 'leadership' are they unable to provide as a result of the segregated nature of Islam? Is it because they don't want to give their hand away that they can't come out and say

'No matter what internal power struggles we have going and no matter what philosophical or theosophical differences we have among us, we can stand up and condemn the murder of innocent people and the idea that the goal of Islam is to wipe Western culture and Israel and all Jews off the map'?

Anyhow, I can't tell you what a shock it was to find out that here in Canada, a bunch of 19-21 year old kids, most of whom were born here, were involved in the plot to obtain xx tons of ammonium nitrate. I mean, these are kids without a trace of an accent, wearing Nike shirts and playing X-Box and saying 'Yo yo yo' like their fav rap stars and planning to murder as many innocent civilians as they can. What kind of mindset are we talking about here? Why aren't the Wasp kids doing this?

I thought I would find these kids marching down the street saying "We and our families condemn this', not hiding out in the woods studying bomb-making plans.

Anyhow, off topic, sorry...

At any rate, Ivanovich, you answered me honestly and I appreciate that.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Taking issue with a policy is not the same as taking issue with a "people" or group.

spect8or nearly always frames the discussion in terms of race, ethnicity, value of a people, etc.

Spect8or does so, ZZzz, because, when you get down to it, those things are at the heart of the issues. This sounds jarring to liberal ears (hell, even to 90% of so-called 'conservative' ears), but I must repeat, offensive ideas can still be true; the key issue, thus, is whether what I say is true or not, not whether it is offensive.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Ivanovich:


Lastly, I would re-state that it is not Islam we are at war with. It's radical extreme Islam - a sect that is NOT part of mainstream Islam. Islam still is a religion of peace. People stating otherwise do not know shit about it.

In what way is Islam - Koranical and Hadithic Islam - a religion of peace? Such a view is unjustifiable in light of Islamic scripture contains. And not simply scripture, but Islamic tradition, too. If it really is such a religion of peace, why was the very first thing Islam did to conquer others' territory, not stopping until it was defeated in battle?

As I said to Pabst, most Muslims are not nearly this belligerent, but that is a consequance of their laxness, not their religiosity.

All this aside, do you consider that immigration from Islamic countries makes sense? What possible good can it do a non-Muslim country to import Muslims? I can see no such possible good, not even theoretically, let alone the practical results we've already experienced.