Under the shadow of the Iraq war, Israel practices asassination....

[spect8or]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

That the Muslims you knew were brainwashed into hate by religious leaders is not surprising.

Many good Christians in this country hated (and still do hate) Blacks, homosexuals, minorities, Jews, Indians, etc.

As I recall, quite a number of indigenous "Americans" were displaced to advance our "Democracy."

Christianity hardly has a fully peaceful, loving, and accepting history.

That one religion hates another religion is nothing new, is it?

Is the cause of that hatred and mind conditioning by religious leaders, who twist "scripture" to fit their agenda an act of God, or an act of man?

The problem has its roots in ignorance, mind conditioning, knee jerk reactions, excessive emotionalism, fanaticism, etc.

How do you combat that?

By killing all of them?

By become equally emotionally, equally fanatical, equally hateful?

Is that what YOUR religion teaches you?

Christians hating blacks, Jews and Indians is something that those particular Christians might do. It doesn't really have anything to do with Christianity itself, and if there are some Christian religious leaders teaching this then clearly they are a miniscule minority, so why even bring it up?
The beliefs my Arab friends hold, on the other hand, are really quite mainstream islamic beliefs. You can keep dodging and running from this but the truth of will stand. You can keep claiming that this is "twisting" the 'real islam' (which you know all about, right? Yeah right), but when such views are held by a great majority of a religion's practitioners, don't you that maybe, just maybe, it is 'mainstream', rather than 'twisted'? I understand this reality may not be particularly pleasant to you but it is reality.

How do you combat that, you ask? Well, reform, obviously. As you rightly mention, Christianity doesn't have a squeaky clean history itself, but only a true moron would claim the practices and attitudes of Christians today are the same as those responsible for the Inquisition. Christianity eventually was reformed and refined to what we have today and even though I'm not religious, I would agree that Christianity does much good for the world. See? It doesn't require "killing all of them"? That's absurd. Why would you even mention that? Or being "equally fanatical"? Where have I ever suggested that? But sure, it does require employing 'violence' (ooh ahh, oh no!) where appropriate. And gee, I don't know about you, but I think when someone makes it clear to you, in word and action, that he wants to terminate your ass, then yeah, responding in kind tends to be appropriate.

 

[ARogueTrader]

I wholly agree with Islamic reform, and we should be funding Islamic reformers who have a more evolved interpretation of Islam.

The problem of course, is that the poor and disenfranchised, where the negative aspects of hate spreads, where a demon is needed to attack, a.k.a., America, gravitate to angry religious leaders, rather than quiet peaceful loving people offering acceptance as the way.

The poor hate the rich, the weak hate the powerful, this is new?

This has nothing to do with the prophet Mohamed though, it has to do with human nature and the perversion of religion by those with political agendas.

The solution? Education, sharing the wealth, bridle capitalism when it tramples the poor in its wake, etc.

Quote from spect8or:

Christians hating blacks, Jews and Indians is something that those particular Christians might do. It doesn't really have anything to do with Christianity itself, and if there are some Christian religious leaders teaching this then clearly they are a miniscule minority, so why even bring it up?
The beliefs my Arab friends hold, on the other hand, are really quite mainstream islamic beliefs. You can keep dodging and running from this but the truth of will stand. You can keep claiming that this is "twisting" the 'real islam' (which you know all about, right? Yeah right), but when such views are held by a great majority of a religion's practitioners, don't you that maybe, just maybe, it is 'mainstream', rather than 'twisted'? I understand this reality may not be particularly pleasant to you but it is reality.

How do you combat that, you ask? Well, reform, obviously. As you rightly mention, Christianity doesn't have a squeaky clean history itself, but only a true moron would claim the practices and attitudes of Christians today are the same as those responsible for the Inquisition. Christianity eventually was reformed and refined to what we have today and even though I'm not religious, I would agree that Christianity does much good for the world. See? It doesn't require "killing all of them"? That's absurd. Why would you even mention that? Or being "equally fanatical"? Where have I ever suggested that? But sure, it does require employing 'violence' (ooh ahh, oh no!) where appropriate. And gee, I don't know about you, but I think when someone makes it clear to you, in word and action, that he wants to terminate your ass, then yeah, responding in kind tends to be appropriate.

 

[I Missed Boat]

Quote from aphexcoil:

I guess things like the Geneva Convention, civilized court trials and world opinion don't apply in this "war on terrorism."

Everyone knows that whatever Israel does, it is from the hard-core backing of the United States. When was the last time the United States condemned something that Israel did? Even this time around, the State Department said, "We have to review the situation." Well, what the hell is there to review? Israel just killed three people -- one of which was the target, while the other two were "collateral damage."

So I suppose now we should just return our attention to our "hostage" situation in Iraq and kindly ask for him back?

All is fair in war and love. This situation just keeps going 'round and 'round.

Actually, in war if you see an enemy soldier, and he hasn't surrendered, you can kill him (from a distance or not). And this enemy is one who, if he escapes, will continue to lead plans for large scale killings of civilians. Nothing wrong with what they did!

 

[I Missed Boat]

Quote from 50 cent:

The Zionists don't scream that they are being attacked. Rather it is the Arabs ("the lions") who scream.

And then you come and symphasize with "the lions", that are being attacked by the "wild eyed crazies", which are suddenly defined by you as "the lambs". According to your rhetoric, it is the lambs that occupy the lions. ???????

You keep contradicting yourself over and over again.

By now it is very apparent that your only cause is nothing more than getting attention at all costs, even at the cost of exposing your stupidity. That you practice high English does not hide the extremely low level of the content of what you are actually saying. Not to mention that you contradict yourself over and over again, and the funny thing is that you don't even notice it! Or perhaps you do notice it but you simply gloat with pleasure that you are finally getting some attention.

Nice catch on that contradiction. I should've noticed it myself.

 

[I Missed Boat]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Ahhhh, so YOU have the CORRECT understanding of Islam and know with absolute certainty what Mohamed did. You have historical records written by historians, recorded on video tape, never translated, nor interpreted by Christian bias.

You have that magical understanding of what happened nearly 1500 years ago. You have the original manuscripts that Mohamed himself wrote, you have the original notes of those embedded reporters who followed Mohamed daily and objectively and accurately reported only fact.

Or do you just pray to the God of your understanding and he reveals the TRUTH of Islam and Mohamed's intentions to you?

That would put you on the same level as the prophet Mohamed, wouldn't it.

One religion bashing another religion, how novel.

Yesiree, and Revelations is a mathematical formula clear as a sunny day.

Casting stones is the way of Christianity.

All those Muslims who don't murder Americans, who live in America, who live peacefully with Christians and Jews must be going to hell for their betrayal of Mohamed's "words."

You are just another literalist who interprets according to your own religiousness and bigoted bias.

OK, so let's say Mohamed has, over the centuries, been misinterpreted. Fine, then they are following the teachings of those who wrote the books for the religion from the early days to the letter, at least if indeed that what has been described about the books is accurate. What you are arguing over is far from the central point (its practically semantics) that he was making, even though it is also quite a bit of a reach (oh everyone who ever recorded the history of Mohamed's teachings is wrong, and every translation has been tainted, and alien devils have conspired to cast Mohamed in a bad light, blah blah blah).

 

[I Missed Boat]

Well, there was no way that propagandist, BS articles like this crap weren't going to be printed as soon as we ended up in conflict in the Middle East. Anything that happens there, all those who hate Jews and see vast conspiricies everywhere create or flock to these wild fictions! If we end up playing any kind of hardball with Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program, the same thing will happen, and on and on and on!

Quote from ARogueTrader:

For the open minded, this is worth a read:

War on Iraq - Conceived In Israel


Here are some snippets:

In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder only noted in passing 'what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy - security for Israel.' If Israel's security were the real American motive for war, Schroeder went on: 'It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state.'1 Is there any evidence that Israel and its supporters have managed to get the U.S. to fight for its interests?

======================================

To understand why Israeli leaders would want a Middle East war, it is first necessary to take a brief look at the history of Zionist movement and its goals. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the idea of expelling the indigenous Palestinian population (euphemistically referred to as a 'transfer') was an integral part of the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine. 'The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary,' historian Tom Segev observes. 'In practice, the Zionistists began executing a mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants ... ''Disappearing'' the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence ... With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality.' However, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly proclaim their mass expulsion intent because 'this would cause the Zionists to lose the world's sympathy.'4 The key issue was to find an opportune time to initiate the mass expulsion process that would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, Ben-Gurion would write: 'What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out - a whole world is lost.'5 The 'revolutionary times' would come with the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the Zionists were able to expel 750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the indigenous population), and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish state, though the area did not include the entirety of Palestine, or the 'Land of Israel', which Zionist leaders thought necessary for a viable state. The opportunity to grab additional land took place as a result of the 1967 war; however, the occupation of the additional territory brought the problem of a large Palestinian population. World opinion was now totally opposed to forced population transfers, equating such an activity with the unspeakable horror of Nazism. The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, had 'unequivocally prohibited deportation' of civilians under occupation.6 Since the 1967 war, the major issue in Israeli politics has been what to do with that territory and its Palestinian population.

 

[I Missed Boat]

Quote from spect8or:

How dumb are you man? Are you that unaware of the Islamic scholars who have supported the more violent interpretations of Islam? Your desperate hope to attach moral equivalence to all sides is clouding your ability thinking straight.

Furthermore, how many Arabs have you ever known? I have had dozens of close Arab friends. Some I have been so close with that we did everything together; I ate at their place, slept there, was invited to their weddings etc. These are your 'normal' everyday, hardworking, trying-to-make-a-better-life-in-the-west Muslims. Do you have any idea of the extent to which they agree with the position of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (that seek to obliterate Israel)? Of the absurd theories of Israeli world-domination they outright believe? Of the 'suck shit America' attitude they had to 9/11? No, they wouldn't go out and do terrorism (at least, I highly, highly doubt it) -- like I said, these are normal, pretty well off actually, people -- but yes, absolutely yes, they agree with so much of what the extremists do it is scary. I would make a hefty wager that this is normal thinking for the majority of the world's muslims.

My experience as well. And after 9/11, when Muslim community leaders were speaking out in the US, Muslim organizations were speaking out, and the press was interviewing these people, nearly all of them excused the actions of the terrorists, at least partially.

 

[ARogueTrader]

My issue is with men who pervert religion, not prophets of God.

I agree 100% that what the terrorists do is wrong, even though I can understand their point of view.

I have never hit a woman, even when I was married, although I fully understand the emotions that drive men to hit women.

What bothers me, is the position that the one side is absolutely right, and the other side absolutely wrong.

In an area of gray matter, especially when it comes to politics driven by religion, I find most of the time both sides are equally at blame for these long running conflicts.

We are hardly neutral and objective, which is one of the reasons that the Arabs have a hard time trusting us.

Why don't the Swiss create a "roadmap" to peace?

So we are not neutral, and the prevailing attitude is that when something happens in which Israel could be viewed as practicing terrorism, they are supported without question before the facts are in by most Americans. We are in a sense brainwashed to a particular point of view, rather than susupending judgment until all the facts are in.

I believe the USA should view Israel in a more detached light, fully understanding both points of view.

It is for sure that both sides are emotional, both sides are fully engaged on that level, and both sides are unwilling to compromise much. Both sides are also coming from religious beliefs about who "owns" the Holy Lands.

It is our job, only because we have the power, to act in a manner that is free from the influence of guilt, money, power, and history to act judiciously.

Like so many Americans, I was brought up to think that Israel could do no wrong.

On further examination, looking at both sides, I see their purity is less than expected.

I have a hard time supporting someone just because they are "less wrong."

Quote from I Missed Boat:

OK, so let's say Mohamed has, over the centuries, been misinterpreted. Fine, then they are following the teachings of those who wrote the books for the religion from the early days to the letter, at least if indeed that what has been described about the books is accurate. What you are arguing over is far from the central point (its practically semantics) that he was making, even though it is also quite a bit of a reach (oh everyone who ever recorded the history of Mohamed's teachings is wrong, and every translation has been tainted, and alien devils have conspired to cast Mohamed in a bad light, blah blah blah).

 

[I Missed Boat]

Quote from spect8or:

What are you about ART? Scoring points? Stop wasting everyone's time will ya? It's clear you've gone too far now and it'd hurt your ego too much to admit you've been spouting bs, so just leave it alone huh?

"That is why I prefer to take religion out of the issue, and just deal with criminals on the level of common law and common sense, not on the basis of religious principles."


So which is it, ART? Do you want to include the religious angle, or don't you?

A better idea, just go for a walk or have a coffee or something and admit to yourself that maybe your desperate hope to apportion blame equally (it's obvious, man, really) may not be the best way to look at this issue.

Actually he pays lip service occasionally to apportioning blame equally, but then always comes back to laying nearly all the blame on Israel. Remember that these are "wild-eyed" and "crazy" Israelis who manufactured our war with Iraq, and the "Palestinian" terrorists are just poor folks doing what they gotta do.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Honestly, in America, do we hear equal representation of both sides of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict?

Do we listen objectivley and dispassionately?

Quote from I Missed Boat:

Actually he pays lip service occasionally to apportioning blame equally, but then always comes back to laying nearly all the blame on Israel. Remember that these are "wild-eyed" and "crazy" Israelis who manufactured our war with Iraq, and the "Palestinian" terrorists are just poor folks doing what they gotta do.