EPTSomeone ACTUALLY thinks that we should police freedom of speech instead of violent crime and acts of war against people who speak their mind? If it bothers you, don't read/view the media. If you want to blow up a building because someone made fun of something important to you... the person who exercised freedom of speech isn't the problem here...
New Prohibitions on Muhammad Cartoons? - Page 32
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Crushgroove
United States793 Posts
Someone ACTUALLY thinks that we should police freedom of speech instead of violent crime and acts of war against people who speak their mind? If it bothers you, don't read/view the media. If you want to blow up a building because someone made fun of something important to you... the person who exercised freedom of speech isn't the problem here... | ||
|
Crushgroove
United States793 Posts
[QUOTE]On January 17 2011 09:09 Jswizzy wrote: [QUOTE]On January 17 2011 08:52 UberThing wrote:. Back to Iraq Afterwards, one Gulf war later, America fought Iraq and this time overthrew the regime and caused over a million deaths, most of whom were civilians. Who do Iraqis blame for these? The USA because they destroyed the security and law agencies whilst not replacing them. So the crazy people came into the country who blew everyone up and everything up. Bear in mind Iraq was a secular safe country before and very anti-islam extremists. Saddam was not the kindest, but he wasnt the monster he was made out to be. WMDs Btw it is almost 100% the CIA knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the reason they invaded, because if Iraq did have them, the US probably wouldve stayed at home so the mass destruction didnt happen on their armies. This is why they are so anti-Iran at the moment. The only way you could use nuclear in the modern world is if someone invaded you. Iran with nuclear missile means the USA cant do "regime change" there to get oil when Iraq runs dry. [/QUOTE] This is a silly thing to say. You say we GAVE Iraq chemical weapons (this is accurate) Then you say we knew they DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction. News flash: a weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction is a weapon in one of four categories: Biological, CHEMICAL, radiological, or Nuclear. The term actually was originally coined with ONLY chemical weapons in mind....... Has it been determined that we were mostly certain they didn't have operational nuclear weapons? Yes. Is your second statement accurate? very very much no. They had WMD... we gave it to them. Hussein used it to chem bomb 200,000 Kurds.... To say otherwise is ignorant. | ||
|
UberThing
Great Britain410 Posts
[QUOTE]On January 17 2011 09:53 UberThing wrote: [QUOTE]On January 17 2011 09:09 Jswizzy wrote: [QUOTE]On January 17 2011 08:52 UberThing wrote:. Back to Iraq Afterwards, one Gulf war later, America fought Iraq and this time overthrew the regime and caused over a million deaths, most of whom were civilians. Who do Iraqis blame for these? The USA because they destroyed the security and law agencies whilst not replacing them. So the crazy people came into the country who blew everyone up and everything up. Bear in mind Iraq was a secular safe country before and very anti-islam extremists. Saddam was not the kindest, but he wasnt the monster he was made out to be. WMDs Btw it is almost 100% the CIA knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the reason they invaded, because if Iraq did have them, the US probably wouldve stayed at home so the mass destruction didnt happen on their armies. This is why they are so anti-Iran at the moment. The only way you could use nuclear in the modern world is if someone invaded you. Iran with nuclear missile means the USA cant do "regime change" there to get oil when Iraq runs dry. [/QUOTE] This is a silly thing to say. You say we GAVE Iraq chemical weapons (this is accurate) Then you say we knew they DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction. News flash: a weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction is a weapon in one of four categories: Biological, CHEMICAL, radiological, or Nuclear. The term actually was originally coined with ONLY chemical weapons in mind....... Has it been determined that we were mostly certain they didn't have operational nuclear weapons? Yes. Is your second statement accurate? very very much no. They had WMD... we gave it to them. Hussein used it to chem bomb 200,000 Kurds.... To say otherwise is ignorant. [/QUOTE] [quote]As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manufacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[27][/quote] from wikipedia The Iraqi obviously destroyed the stuff sometime before the Iraq Invasion. None were found and the CIA intelligence (it is really extensive and can infiltrate most things) knew this. The second sentence is my claim because I wouldnt think for one minute the US president would send his soldiers to a place where they would face smallpox/mustard gas etc. If sadddam had WMDs, dont you think he would have used it if he was being invaded? It was used in the Iran/Iraq war (started by Iraq) by Iraq, but they did destroy the stuff after the 1st gulf war. EDIT: none was found to be militarily effective | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On January 18 2011 09:10 UberThing wrote: from wikipedia The Iraqi obviously destroyed the stuff sometime before the Iraq Invasion. None were found and the CIA intelligence (it is really extensive and can infiltrate most things) knew this. The second sentence is my claim because I wouldnt think for one minute the US president would send his soldiers to a place where they would face smallpox/mustard gas etc. If sadddam had WMDs, dont you think he would have used it if he was being invaded? It was used in the Iran/Iraq war (started by Iraq) by Iraq, but they did destroy the stuff after the 1st gulf war. Actually Saddam did try and use mustard gas against US forces but the weapons were so old that they failed. Good thing for me because my dad was in the 3rd ID at the time and they were the force that captured Baghdad. Also I was in the Navy and the US military is vaccinated against small poxs and trained in chemical warfare. I have a scar from my shoulder from a small pox vaccination from when I visited Brazil. The only chemical weapons that the US troops can not deal with effectively are blood agents. | ||
|
UberThing
Great Britain410 Posts
Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. if they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem Muslims initially used to face to pray towards Jerusalem, not Mecca. It was changed a few years later Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an ( not directly ) Jerusalem was an important place in Islam (see above). It has the third holiest site in islam. + Show Spoiler + King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it Yes he did. Qur'anic verse (17:1). Muhammed goes there You have made some factually innaccurate claims. I do not want to go into some kind of ancient history lesson because by its nature it is subjective and is inherently bias. Ancient history as a justification for the creation of a modern state? No This is not the issue. What is preventing Jews living in the area with others no problem like they did before the creation of Israel? Racism But there is no justification for the internationally illegal acts which Israel has commited on the "Palestinian" people Why can their not be a single state where jews and people of other faiths can live freely? The way in which Israel conducts itself in the treatment of Palestinian people (who are of Arabs origin) is shocking. btw, there was no need for the "palestinian" label before the state of israel. They were know as arabs. Its because these people were forced to leave their homes that they are called such and it is synonymous with oppression and injustice. They are forced to live as economic and social prisoners in lands which their parents lived freely. Jews have suffered injustice in the past. But conveniently, you do not even touch upon the subject that forcing people to flee their homes and being "racist" towards them is abhorrent. Jews did live peacefully in coexistence with Arabs there before the creation of israel and still could. Its just that the hardline far right (the Zionists) have made Israel into a Jewish state (with the appropriate state instruments) that is inherently and openly racist against arabs and denies them job opportunities and any equality, even though they or their parents were born in those lands. Does zionism=racism? Well yes. Even other peaceful non-racially indoctrinated jews feel strongly about this. Feeling the jewish race is "superior" to others is incompatible with modern values. Does this remind you of the "aryan" race of WW2? The racial discrimination, which permeates the Israeli regime is disgusting. There is nothing preventing there being a single state in the area where they can all live without fear of discrimination or injustice. But those who wish to preserve the Jewish identity through racial policies are preventing this. Those Palestinians who resort to violence are desperate. It is bad but in reality they do very little damage. Do you remember how apartheid was overcome in South Africa? The blacks had to use violence against the whites when they were denied the right to protest. Israel closes down peaceful demonstrations by Palestinians with tear gas and rubber bullets. Youngsters have no jobs because they are economically benign (through no fault of their own). They are angry and protest. So do the women, so do the men. The support that the palestinians showed for Hamas is symptomatic of their desperation. Who is going to stand up for them? Why do they not recognose the jewish state of israel? Because they believe the land should not be divided up into areas for different religions. How can you defend the Israel as a jewish state when it is openly discriminatory against arabs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy | ||
|
UberThing
Great Britain410 Posts
On January 18 2011 09:18 Jswizzy wrote: Actually Saddam did try and use mustard gas against US forces but the weapons were so old that they failed. Good thing for me because my dad was in the 3rd ID at the time and they were the force that captured Baghdad. Also I was in the Navy and the US military is vaccinated against small poxs and trained in chemical warfare. I have a scar from my shoulder from a small pox vaccination from when I visited Brazil. The only chemical weapons that the US troops can not deal with effectively are blood agents. Fair enough. I meant at first to talk about the nuclear WMDs but I overlooked the other types. | ||
|
Spiegel
Australia79 Posts
People should not be punished for speaking ill of something so horrible as Islamic fundamentalism. I think all Religious zealots should be kept in check. if you speak out against Christianity in America you will get the same treatment from Christian fundamentalists. The best way to deal with shit like this is to punish the retribution and be brave enough to keep doing it. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 18 2011 10:08 Spiegel wrote: Freedom of speech is an absolute right granted to every human being except by legal contract. That is to say unless they sign documents that wave their right to share certain information. People should not be punished for speaking ill of something so horrible as Islamic fundamentalism. I think all Religious zealots should be kept in check. if you speak out against Christianity in America you will get the same treatment from Christian fundamentalists. The best way to deal with shit like this is to punish the retribution and be brave enough to keep doing it. Um, you wouldn't get targeted for death by Christian fundamentalists for speaking out against Christianty. You might get boycotted/voted out/protested.. but that happens whenever you speak out against anything a large group strongly believes in (tax cuts, racial integration, environmental protection, etc.) And that is what should be done. However, the general principle is correct, punish any form of illegal retribution (death threats but not boycotts) and be brave enough to keep doing it. | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On January 18 2011 10:15 Krikkitone wrote: Um, you wouldn't get targeted for death by Christian fundamentalists for speaking out against Christianty. Only a matter ot time if you ask me. There is enough crazy extremists in any religion (or idelogical position). http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=13126639 | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
Remmeber Brian Cohen? From the Life of Brian? Seems that this movie provoked reactions that can be compared to the outrage in the muslim world over the comics. To quote from wikipedia: The alleged representation of Christ proved controversial. Protests against the film were organised based on its perceived blasphemy. On its initial release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils – some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film for themselves. A member of Harrogate council, one of those that banned the film, revealed during a television interview that the council had not seen the film, and had based their opinion on what they had been told by the Nationwide Festival of Light, of which they knew nothing. In New York, screenings were picketed by both rabbis and nuns ("Nuns with banners!" observed Michael Palin). It was also banned for eight years in the Republic of Ireland and for a year in Norway (it was marketed in Sweden as '"The film so funny that it was banned in Norway") | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 18 2011 18:37 Electric.Jesus wrote: Only a matter ot time if you ask me. There is enough crazy extremists in any religion (or idelogical position). http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=13126639 They weren't targeted for speaking against Christianity. That is a lot more similar to the terrorist threats from animal rights groups, or terrorist attacks over a country's foreign policies. (they believe the unborn are as valuable as other humans, so killing the murderers/torturers is quite reasonable from a 'defense of others' point of view). And the other examples all show the standard, picketing, voting, etc. that accomplishes anything in a democracy. (even bad things, but still different from violence to accomplish it.) And of course being a member in a group is going to make you dislike ridicule of the group... especially if you deeply identify with the group. | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On January 19 2011 01:38 Krikkitone wrote: And of course being a member in a group is going to make you dislike ridicule of the group... especially if you deeply identify with the group. Yeah, that in-group/out-group stuff seems to be hardwired into us humans. Just think how far we could go as a species if we could get rid of that. | ||
|
innoby
Ireland42 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Why can their not be a single state where jews and people of other faiths can live freely? The way in which Israel conducts itself in the treatment of Palestinian people (who are of Arabs origin) is shocking. btw, there was no need for the "palestinian" label before the state of israel. They were know as arabs. Its because these people were forced to leave their homes that they are called such and it is synonymous with oppression and injustice. They are forced to live as economic and social prisoners in lands which their parents lived freely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZhwHTUuS8 Those Palestinians who resort to violence are desperate. It is bad but in reality they do very little damage. Do you remember how apartheid was overcome in South Africa? The blacks had to use violence against the whites when they were denied the right to protest. Israel closes down peaceful demonstrations by Palestinians with tear gas and rubber bullets. Youngsters have no jobs because they are economically benign (through no fault of their own). They are angry and protest. So do the women, so do the men. The support that the palestinians showed for Hamas is symptomatic of their desperation. Who is going to stand up for them? Why do they not recognose the jewish state of israel? Because they believe the land should not be divided up into areas for different religions. I think you are forgetting one major fact here sir. Isreal did not by any stretch of the imagination start this conflict. They were attacked by 5 countries, and they won the war. Six years later they were attacked again, and again they repulsed the invasion. Immediately following the wars Israel attempted to begin semi-friendly diplomatic ties, what they got in response was overt hostility. Shortly after Israel began to see terrorist attacks, having done nothing in the first place to instigate them. THIS is why the Arabs in Israeli controlled lands are treated so harshly, every time in the prior four decades that Israel attempted to make diplomatic concessions, they were bitten. Their treatment of the Arabs is NOT, I repeat, NOT in anyway similar to apartheid, that is unless the Dutch in South Africa had to deal with decades of suicide bombers and attacks aimed at civilians by the black population in South Africa. Israel has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, earned the right to treat the Palestinians anyway they so choose. Considering how the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, have treated Israel I would say that they are remarkably restrained. | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On January 19 2011 13:01 innoby wrote: Their treatment of the Arabs is NOT, I repeat, NOT in anyway similar to apartheid, that is unless the Dutch in South Africa had to deal with decades of suicide bombers and attacks aimed at civilians by the black population in South Africa. Israel has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, earned the right to treat the Palestinians anyway they so choose. Considering how the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, have treated Israel I would say that they are remarkably restrained. Wow, that must be the most ignorant post I have ever read!! You just justified racism and violation of human rights using the reasoning of a 4-year old. Must I remind you of the declaration of human rights in 1948? Just so you know, tat was a UN declaration, meaning that most countires inclusing Israel subscribed to it. Let me quote: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
Jan 1-11 + 16, 17, 18 ( Israel only retaliates, and only to some of them at most... ) 14 Arab attacks... even more than 2010's January attacks... the Arabs are on the offensive right now... The Arabs got destroyed in 67 in just a mere 6 days, but Israel didn't take a ton of land from them and they even gave most of it back to Egypt. | ||
|
woowoo
France164 Posts
Al Qaeda is doing the same thing than Israel and other extremists, they are using excuses to get power and abuse it. Read the Qran, the Bible, the Vedas, the Gathas, the Zohar, from those books (wich share the same philosophy), extremists are all criminals, all prophets were fighting egoism. Jesus wasn't fighting the Jews but the corruption of Men, religion didn't mean solidarity anymore at those times, some guys had to remind them the purpose of religion. Satan is hatred according to judaism/islam yet their speeches are full of hatred. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 20 2011 00:15 woowoo wrote: Would you like to see a stranger come in your house, claim it's his house because of his own interpretation of a book? Al Qaeda is doing the same thing than Israel and other extremists, they are using excuses to get power and abuse it. Read the Qran, the Bible, the Vedas, the Gathas, the Zohar, from those books (wich share the same philosophy), extremists are all criminals, all prophets were fighting egoism. Jesus wasn't fighting the Jews but the corruption of Men, religion didn't mean solidarity anymore at those times, some guys had to remind them the purpose of religion. Satan is hatred according to judaism/islam yet their speeches are full of hatred. Um, a stranger Can do that if the "book" is a legal document. (make sure your analogies aren't over analogized or they fall apart) | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On January 20 2011 00:21 Krikkitone wrote: Um, a stranger Can do that if the "book" is a legal document. (make sure your analogies aren't over analogized or they fall apart) It could also be the "stranger's" house and you suffer from amnesia due to which you do not recognize that is it his. Bla bla. You can lead every analogy ad absurdum if you try hard enough. It was clear that he was referring to the bible/torah/quran and he has a fair point. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On January 19 2011 13:01 innoby wrote: I think you are forgetting one major fact here sir. Isreal did not by any stretch of the imagination start this conflict. They were attacked by 5 countries, and they won the war. Six years later they were attacked again, and again they repulsed the invasion. Immediately following the wars Israel attempted to begin semi-friendly diplomatic ties, what they got in response was overt hostility. Shortly after Israel began to see terrorist attacks, having done nothing in the first place to instigate them. THIS is why the Arabs in Israeli controlled lands are treated so harshly, every time in the prior four decades that Israel attempted to make diplomatic concessions, they were bitten. Their treatment of the Arabs is NOT, I repeat, NOT in anyway similar to apartheid, that is unless the Dutch in South Africa had to deal with decades of suicide bombers and attacks aimed at civilians by the black population in South Africa. Israel has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, earned the right to treat the Palestinians anyway they so choose. Considering how the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, have treated Israel I would say that they are remarkably restrained. Haha. This is like reading a kid's textbook on American colonial history, everything was perfectly rosy between people with a few random disputes with natives that were settled via the exchange of gifts and food. Hell, I'd be surprised if Israeli politicians themselves still actually buy the complete victim argument, I don't think anyone's taken that card seriously since the 90s. Put it back in the deck, kid. On that note, only a fool would honestly believe that quasi-Biblical claims to land would justify forced immigration and subjugation of native peoples (who, like Gandhi said, cannot be faulted for resisting in any way) and that those claims translate in any way to modern day property rights or provide sufficient moral justification. the Arabs are on the offensive right now... The Arabs got destroyed in 67 in just a mere 6 days, but Israel didn't take a ton of land from them and they even gave most of it back to Egypt. Nalgene, what's your point? Who are "The Arabs"? Does that blanket generalization cross state boundaries? Are the Syrians on the offensive? Egyptians? Saudis? Who? Blanket generalizations do much more harm than good, especially when it comes to that particular region of the world. I mean, really?: On January 18 2011 05:43 nalgene wrote: January 16 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired three mortar shells at Israel, all of which exploded in an open area near a kibbutz in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported. The Color Red siren did not sound. 2011 ( 12 attacks in one month so far ) Israel became a state in 1312 b.c., two millennia before Islam Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood After conquering the land in 1272 b.c., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. it was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. even under Jordanian rule, (east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an ( not directly ) King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. if they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem it's like, they don't acknowledge the existence of a jewish homeland in the qu'ran there was enough material to get a 20% purity in iraq... good enough for weapons there was also a wikileaks article that did eventually "prove" something that was already proven... According to you, Israelites conquered that region and made it their homeland for thousands of years. Does length of time determine proper ownership now? Muslims have controlled that land since the 7th century, how can you possibly think that length of ownership means anything at all? Muslims "conquered" that region and made it an integral part of their lands, how is that ANY different than what the ancient Israelites had done? I guess Greece should control much of Turkey then, as the Eastern Roman Empire ruled over those lands for...well, about a thousand years. A thousand years of legal, religious, and cultural kinship that puts the ancient Israeli kingdoms to shame in its complexity. The entire map of Europe would have to be redrawn and the Americas...wow, I wouldn't even want to tackle that. I just don't understand how people can use this argument like it actually means anything; that historical ties to a land necessitates moral justification of modern-day property rights, that one's homeland as prescribed by religious teaching does not, in any way, really mean anything at all when it comes to reality. Repeating the idiocy behind many of the Zionist arguments and justifications without giving it critical thought and without thinking about how well that belief structure functions in the modern world is the height of ignorance. Lastly: The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years Did you actually think before writing this? Palestine has been controlled by Islamic powers from 634 AD until ~1918. The Ottomans weren't Arab by ethnicity, granted, but what a foolish thing to say. Oh, except for the Crusades. So that land has only been Arab for about 1200 years. | ||
|
innoby
Ireland42 Posts
On January 20 2011 00:52 Elegy wrote: Haha. This is like reading a kid's textbook on American colonial history, everything was perfectly rosy between people with a few random disputes with natives that were settled via the exchange of gifts and food. Hell, I'd be surprised if Israeli politicians themselves still actually buy the complete victim argument, I don't think anyone's taken that card seriously since the 90s. Put it back in the deck, kid. On that note, only a fool would honestly believe that quasi-Biblical claims to land would justify forced immigration and subjugation of native peoples (who, like Gandhi said, cannot be faulted for resisting in any way) and that those claims translate in any way to modern day property rights or provide sufficient moral justification. Nalgene, what's your point? Who are "The Arabs"? Does that blanket generalization cross state boundaries? Are the Syrians on the offensive? Egyptians? Saudis? Who? Blanket generalizations do much more harm than good, especially when it comes to that particular region of the world. I mean, really?: According to you, Israelites conquered that region and made it their homeland for thousands of years. Does length of time determine proper ownership now? Muslims have controlled that land since the 7th century, how can you possibly think that length of ownership means anything at all? Muslims "conquered" that region and made it an integral part of their lands, how is that ANY different than what the ancient Israelites had done? I guess Greece should control much of Turkey then, as the Eastern Roman Empire ruled over those lands for...well, about a thousand years. A thousand years of legal, religious, and cultural kinship that puts the ancient Israeli kingdoms to shame in its complexity. The entire map of Europe would have to be redrawn and the Americas...wow, I wouldn't even want to tackle that. I just don't understand how people can use this argument like it actually means anything; that historical ties to a land necessitates moral justification of modern-day property rights, that one's homeland as prescribed by religious teaching does not, in any way, really mean anything at all when it comes to reality. Repeating the idiocy behind many of the Zionist arguments and justifications without giving it critical thought and without thinking about how well that belief structure functions in the modern world is the height of ignorance. Lastly: Did you actually think before writing this? Palestine has been controlled by Islamic powers from 634 AD until ~1918. The Ottomans weren't Arab by ethnicity, granted, but what a foolish thing to say. Oh, except for the Crusades. So that land has only been Arab for about 1200 years. Great let me remind you that Isreal has claims to the land predating Islam as a whole. If you want to argue that they had control of the land for longer fine, I'd win that argument... Unless that is you try to use UNESCO's revisionist claims that Ruth's tomb (even though it has been genetically shown that 95% of ALL known Jews share certain genetic markers that show that they are related to the person buried there.) is actually an ancient Islamic Mosque. You'll probably ignore this simple fact too, claiming that I am using religious statements to prove a point. Now if we want to accuse Isreal of human rights violations, then more blame falls on the Arab world than on Israel. It is against most UN rulings to use "humanitarian aid" to conceal weapons shipments. Which Arab "humanitarian organizations" have been doing for decades. So I have a question for you, why do you defend the Islamic world when they have stated that they want Jews exterminated? Where have I heard that before, Oh, that's right Hitler. I don't hear any of you "peace and goodwill" people decrying Isreal's treatment of Palestinians arguing that it was wrong of us to charge most of Germany's military with warcrimes Post WWII. The difference here is that instead of having the short end of the stick, the Jews now have the upperhand. All in all, no matter what you try to claim to back up your stance that Isreal is wrong, every shred of evidence you have, is taken out of context. Palistine had control of the land prior to Isreal, true, but they drove the Jews out many centuries before. Isreal limits the movements of all Palistinians, true but they didn't at first until the Palistinians showed an intent to kill any Jew that was readily available for them to attack. Isreal was just arbitrarially created to appease europe's guilty conscience. True, but not before an indepth study to determine a fair border to a land that is their anscestral home. Isreal is an agressor in the region, now yes, but they weren't when they got there, they were attacked first, and they won, then they were attacked again, so now yes they do take agressive action to protect their citizens. Anyone that claims that Isreal is the sole country to blame in the middle east is wearing blinders to the Violence done to them with out any provokation from them. How easily you people forget who the agressors really were, yes it's 40 years later but in all honesty every concession Isreal has been willing to make has been turned down by the poor opressed palistinian. Hell they even killed their own well respected leader when he got close to a real honest peace treaty that would restore palistinian lands. Or have you forgotten that too. | ||
| ||
