the problem of Muslims

[usaisthegreatest]

with so many Muslims in the US today, I think it is more dangerous for our security.

[southside]

How can yo say something like that? this is straightout racism, being Muslim is the same as being Christian or Jewish, it is a religious belief. they are good muslims and bad muslims just like there are good christians and bad christians

[Grounded]

How can yo say something like that? this is straightout racism, being Muslim is the same as being Christian or Jewish, it is a religious belief. they are good muslims and bad muslims just like there are good christians and bad christians

Well said!

You can't just judge others because of their race.

[USMC the Almighty]

Don't be so quick to pull out the racist card. Have an open mind. Historical data of the last 15 years shows that Muslims are more likely to attack the U.S. than any other faction of people.

Further, look at the names of the 21 people caught this past summer planning to blow up planes in the UK and U.S. All Muslims. Now, I'm not advocating banning Muslims from this country, but I do believe that it's perfectly legitimate to be a little more worried when you get on a plane with a Muslim than you do with a Jewish person.

We should listen to sensible Muslims like Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of the al-Arabiya news channel, who wrote in the Arab News two years ago what our own officials struggle to say:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. ... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men.''

[palerider]

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. ... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men.''


Terrorism has not become an islamic enterprise, it has always been an islamic enterprise beginning with its "prophet" and their own holy books say that those who do not engage in jihad against the infidel are lesser in the eyes of allah than those who do.

[southside]

well, the Muslims countries simply do not have enough fire power to fight face to face against countries like US and Israel when they invade their countries. Take the Palestine-Israel thing as an example, if Palestinians are terrorist, then Israelis are simply state-sponsored terrorists. If teh Israelis are armies, then Palestinians are simply badly equaped, guerrilously warfare army.

[palerider]

well, the Muslims countries simply do not have enough fire power to fight face to face against countries like US and Israel when they invade their countries. Take the Palestine-Israel thing as an example, if Palestinians are terrorist, then Israelis are simply state-sponsored terrorists. If teh Israelis are armies, then Palestinians are simply badly equaped, guerrilously warfare army.

Read some history. Islam is what it is and today it is exactly what it has been since mohammed made it up. If you intend to apologize for them, then I suggest that you take the time to actually learn about them and if you learn about them, apologizing becomes much more difficult.

[Lilly Marlene]

Read some history. Islam is what it is and today it is exactly what it has been since mohammed made it up. If you intend to apologize for them, then I suggest that you take the time to actually learn about them and if you learn about them, apologizing becomes much more difficult.


But it CAN be done, all the same.
Please join nearly 1500 people who have seen it done, in the thread "Define Conservatism".

:p

[palerider]

But it CAN be done, all the same.
Please join nearly 1500 people who have seen it done, in the thread "Define Conservatism".

:p

Yes, you can apologize for islam. You can also wear a red nose and clown shoes to church, but one looks a bit silly doing it. Apologizing for a group of people who deliberately kill women and children in markets strikes me as very sad.

[Lilly Marlene]

Yes, you can apologize for islam. You can also wear a red nose and clown shoes to church, but one looks a bit silly doing it.

Umm, what say we just let people read the thread and decide for themselves what looks silly ?

I find it very instructive that you hope to conjure up visuals of red noses and clown shoes to prejudice the reader's view of those who disagree with you.

By contrast, I am content to let the discussion speak for itself.


Apologizing for a group of people who deliberately kill women and children in markets strikes me as very sad.

Muslims as a group do not do that. A few of them do that.
If anything is "very sad" palerider it is your continued insistence upon incriminating such a huge number of people for the misdeeds of only a small segment of them.

I think your posts have illustrated the blind spot on some people's part about why the small segment does these things.

They would not be reduced to fighting for their land with stone-throwing and rockets, if our government were not supplying their enemies so abundantly with cutting edge weapons.

[southside]

yes, palerider, first of all, i am a history major and i have lived in Middleeast, Israel, and United States for many years. as far as i can see, Muslims committed a lot of atrocities in the past, but so did the Christians and the Jews. I suggest you take off your arrogant american face for a few days and a take tour to the Muslim countries. you should see both sides of a conflict before giving out your opinion

[palerider]

Muslims as a group do not do that. A few of them do that.
If anything is "very sad" palerider it is your continued insistence upon incriminating such a huge number of people for the misdeeds of only a small segment of them.

You keep pointing this out. But the muslims who are in charge, those who are calling the shots are doing it. The ones that aren't are either silent because they approve or are silent because they are scared. Either way, silence implies concent.

I think your posts have illustrated the blind spot on some people's part about why the small segment does these things.

They would not be reduced to fighting for their land with stone-throwing and rockets, if our government were not supplying their enemies so abundantly with cutting edge weapons.

Lilly, this is what they have done as long as they have been in existence and they remain in a 10th century mindset today. It doesn't matter how many muslims are non violent so long as those who are are calling the shots. Of what possible use is a group, however large, of people who don't aprove but remain stone silent?

[palerider]

yes, palerider, first of all, i am a history major and i have lived in Middleeast, Israel, and United States for many years. as far as i can see, Muslims committed a lot of atrocities in the past, but so did the Christians and the Jews. I suggest you take off your arrogant american face for a few days and a take tour to the Muslim countries. you should see both sides of a conflict before giving out your opinion

The past the past the past. I myself used to teach history. Every culture can look back and see things they have done in the past that they aren't particularly proud of. Muslims, however look back on the past and see the present and the future. They are called to fight all of mankind until no one is worshipped except allah and the muslims that are in control and always have been in control fervently believe that.

The large number of muslims who disapprove but remain silent are completely irrelavent.

[Lilly Marlene]

You keep pointing this out.

That's because you keep making the same unjust accusations.

But the muslims who are in charge, those who are calling the shots are doing it. The ones that aren't are either silent because they approve or are silent because they are scared. Either way, silence implies concent.

You told me in the other thread that you had read "all of" my citations. The one from The Tidings article made it indisputably clear that they neither are consenting nor remaining silent.
Have you managed conveniently to forget you read it, just because it manifests the inaccuracy of your claim ?

Lilly, this is what they have done as long as they have been in existence and they remain in a 10th century mindset today. It doesn't matter how many muslims are non violent so long as those who are are calling the shots. Of what possible use is a group, however large, of people who don't aprove but remain stone silent?

As above.

And I would like also to address something you wrote to southside (but I forget what it is now, let me go check).

[Lilly Marlene]

Ah, here it is:

. They are called to fight all of mankind until no one is worshipped except allah and the muslims that are in control and always have been in control fervently believe that.


You are mistaken, as I tried patiently to show you by reminding you of the dhimmitude laws.
You cannot continue to claim that "the Muslims who are in control" want to vanquish anyone who does not worship Allah - your claim is plainly contradicted by dhimmi.


The large number of muslims who disapprove but remain silent are completely irrelavent.

So why not whack them right along with the others - is that still your attitude ?
You know,
You oughta really consider southside's suggestion about taking the tour.
I myself am convinced that if you were to actually talk to some Muslims, look them in the eye, hear what their perception of this whole thing is ...that you would revisit this position you have manufactured in whatever chaos of polar night.

[palerider]

That's because you keep making the same unjust accusations.

They are not unjust if they are true.

You told me in the other thread that you had read "all of" my citations. The one from The Tidings article made it indisputably clear that they neither are consenting nor remaining silent.
Have you managed conveniently to forget you read it, just because it manifests the inaccuracy of your claim ?

Lilly, a few anonymous web sites hardly constitute speaking out. You have no way of even being sure that any of the links you provided to me are indeed owned or operated by muslims. The web sites don't reflect reality, and they are certainly not going to alter the actions of those who are in charge.

[palerider]

You are mistaken, as I tried patiently to show you by reminding you of the dhimmitude laws.
You cannot continue to claim that "the Muslims who are in control" want to vanquish anyone who does not worship Allah - your claim is plainly contradicted by dhimmi.

You feel free to make that claim all you like, but every time someone shouts Allahu Akbar just before they kill, the lie is put to that position.

So why not whack them right along with the others - is that still your attitude ?

My attitude is that there are a group of people who want to kill us because we do not worship thier god. They have decreed that this is a fight to the death. I believe them and believe we should do all we can to introduce as many of them to their god as possible, as quickly as possible.

You oughta really consider southside's suggestion about taking the tour.
I myself am convinced that if you were to actually talk to some Muslims, look them in the eye, hear what their perception of this whole thing is ...that you would revisit this position you have manufactured in whatever chaos of polar night.

Lilly, I have talked to muslims, and I have visited the middle east. I don't know any muslims who are terrorists, but then I also don't know any who take to the streets in protest of what the minority are doing. If the object but do nothing (aside from some anonymous safe protest on the internet) of what use are they? Their silence only bolsters the ones who are doing the killing.

[USMC the Almighty]

yes, palerider, first of all, i am a history major and i have lived in Middleeast, Israel, and United States for many years. as far as i can see, Muslims committed a lot of atrocities in the past, but so did the Christians and the Jews. I suggest you take off your arrogant american face for a few days and a take tour to the Muslim countries. you should see both sides of a conflict before giving out your opinion

The question isn't who has committed the most atrocities in the past. We're (or at least I'm) talking about the present. The thread is titled "the problem with Muslims" indicating that the opening poster wanted to discuss the problem with current day Muslims. Today, in my estimation, Muslims are the most likely to strap themselves with bombs and walk into a pizze parlor.

[usaisthegreatest]

I actually don't mind if we talk about Muslims in the past as well. By the way, I am not against muslims or anything, but I just want to point out that to us Americans, Muslims seem to be more dangerous. Moreover, I do not say for sure that Muslims are more aggressive or violent people. Maybe it is us who did too harm to them, or maybe they are in fact are a violent group of people. I just want to hear what everybody else thinks about this issue.

[Lilly Marlene]

Lilly, a few anonymous web sites hardly constitute speaking out. You have no way of even being sure that any of the links you provided to me are indeed owned or operated by muslims. The web sites don't reflect reality, and they are certainly not going to alter the actions of those who are in charge.


As you may recall from the article I linked in the thread "Define Conservatism", it was not 'a few anonymous websites' at all.
The symposium was in real time, as the article describes:

These points were stressed by a rabbi, Muslim Imam and Mennonite Christian during a Sept. 14 "Peace Symposium" at Marymount College in Rancho Palos Verdes...

[Lilly Marlene]

You feel free to make that claim all you like, but every time someone shouts Allahu Akbar just before they kill, the lie is put to that position.

Simple logic tells us that Muslims do not institute dhimmitude laws for non-Muslims to live by in Muslim nations - and at the same time chafe at the bit to kill every last non-Muslim.
You cannot have it both ways palerider.

Most of the Muslims shouting Allah Akbar and then killing a non-Muslim ...are doing it because of illegitimate involvement in their affairs, which has been the tendency of our government since the late 1940s.


My attitude is that there are a group of people who want to kill us because we do not worship thier god. They have decreed that this is a fight to the death. I believe them and believe we should do all we can to introduce as many of them to their god as possible, as quickly as possible.



I suggest that the US should test the premise on which you base your attitude, before "doing all we can to introduce as many of them to their God as possible" ?

Let's see what happens if we refrain from manipulating their affairs financially or politically, overtly or covertly.

Let's see if they still wish to kill us after a few years of our having exited from out of their business.

Does that sound fair ?

[Lilly Marlene]

I actually don't mind if we talk about Muslims in the past as well. By the way, I am not against muslims or anything, but I just want to point out that to us Americans, Muslims seem to be more dangerous. Moreover, I do not say for sure that Muslims are more aggressive or violent people. Maybe it is us who did too harm to them, or maybe they are in fact are a violent group of people. I just want to hear what everybody else thinks about this issue.


usa, there is quite a bit of history there ...one bright line is the Balfour Declaration (I believe the US and Britain have been more or less "of a parcel" in the Muslim mind in many ways and for good reason). That incident of the history has been discussed recently by USMC and myself in the thread titled "US - Israeli Relationship" in this Mideastern section...
in fact here is the last page of that thread, where we discuss the deceit and betrayal involved in that incident; that will show some of the source of the bad blood:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=802&page=5

Another bright line was when the US government deposed the rightfully elected ruler of Iran in 1953 and installed more or less a puppet (Reza Pahlavi) who would be agreeable towards US corporate interests. That - and incidents like that - have sparked much ill will.

Muslim extremists are mostly from one sect - the Wahabbhist strain of Islam which is of relatively recent origin.
Other than that it is hyperbole which makes people think all Muslims hate non-Muslims and wish to kill them.

More later hopefully,
Lilly

[palerider]

Muslim extremists are mostly from one sect - the Wahabbhist strain of Islam which is of relatively recent origin.
Other than that it is hyperbole which makes people think all Muslims hate non-Muslims and wish to kill them.

More later hopefully,
Lilly


Perhaps you can explain then lilly why jordan, which also didn't exist before the palestinian mandate has not been plagued by the sort of violence Israel has. The only bit of land under contention in jordan is the west bank which they annexed, but Israel occupied in a defensive war.


As to terrorists belonging mostly to one sect, whip out your counting fingers and lets tick off the list.

The sunis, shiites, sufis, kkarijites, wahhabis. ismalis. zadis, fatimids, nizari, alawis, and even the druze have engaged in terrorism. Did I miss anyone? All sects of islam are violent lilly. Perhaps there are those in each sect that don't engage in violence, but all are represented.

[southside]

the number of muslims died in the hands of Israel and US military forces is much greater than the number of Israelis and Amerians died in the hands of terrorists. If you look from Muslim perspective, Israel and US are much more violent

[palerider]

the number of muslims died in the hands of Israel and US military forces is much greater than the number of Israelis and Amerians died in the hands of terrorists. If you look from Muslim perspective, Israel and US are much more violent

Israelis wear uniforms and identify themselves as representatives of their governments. US soldiers wear uniforms and identify themselves as representatives of their government. Muslims don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians, they use women and children as shields, they go about killing women and children rather than attacking the military. They are terrorists and anyone who apologizes for terrorists is no better than a terrorist themself.

[Lilly Marlene]

Perhaps you can explain then lilly why jordan, which also didn't exist before the palestinian mandate has not been plagued by the sort of violence Israel has. The only bit of land under contention in jordan is the west bank which they annexed, but Israel occupied in a defensive war.

Yes, there is a reason for that, evident in the history of Transjordan. A few minutes ago in this post I referred you to a link but just now I realized it was the wrong link and I removed it. I must come back to this later as time and computer access permits - please be patient because this week is way crowded.



As to terrorists belonging mostly to one sect, whip out your counting fingers and lets tick off the list.

The sunis, shiites, sufis, kkarijites, wahhabis. ismalis. zadis, fatimids, nizari, alawis, and even the druze have engaged in terrorism. Did I miss anyone? All sects of islam are violent lilly. Perhaps there are those in each sect that don't engage in violence, but all are represented.


A lot of that violence between the Sunnis and Shiites is towards one another.
I am unfamiliar with the others you listed except the Wahhabists. I will have to read about them later and get back to you on that.

[Lilly Marlene]

Israelis wear uniforms and identify themselves as representatives of their governments. US soldiers wear uniforms and identify themselves as representatives of their government. Muslims don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians, they use women and children as shields, they go about killing women and children rather than attacking the military. They are terrorists and anyone who apologizes for terrorists is no better than a terrorist themself.


As though the wearing of uniforms entitles people to do any vile thing they want to and still be cloaked in honor !!!

The statements you make against Muslims are the broadest generalizations I've heard in some time, palerider.
And it does not advance your case to make pronouncements like that last one, where you menace people with being labeled as "no better than a terrorist themself".

More later - so noisy here now that I keep having to edit and stuff.

Lilly

[southside]

They are terrorists and anyone who apologizes for terrorists is no better than a terrorist themself.

first of all, i am not apologizing for the terrorist, but i do feel sympathy for the innocent muslims. wearing a uniform doesn't mean anything, Hitler's army wore uniforms, do yo think they are honerable in killing the jews? and yo better apologize for your language, because this last line is really offensive, and we are having a discussion here, not a dissing on each other

[palerider]

first of all, i am not apologizing for the terrorist, but i do feel sympathy for the innocent muslims. wearing a uniform doesn't mean anything, Hitler's army wore uniforms, do yo think they are honerable in killing the jews? and yo better apologize for your language, because this last line is really offensive, and we are having a discussion here, not a dissing on each other

For what it is worth, yes, nazis were more honorable than muslims who go about hiding within a civilian population, and killing women and children in the name of their god. Both were scum, but as scum goes, nazis were a more honorable variety of scum. At least they identified themselves as combatants and didn't use women and children for shields.

And I won't apologize for my language. If it offends, then perhaps you should re-examine your postion. And of course you are apologizing for the terrorists. Attempting to make light of the differences between uniformed combattants and terrorists is just one more example of your apologetics.

[palerider]

As though the wearing of uniforms entitles people to do any vile thing they want to and still be cloaked in honor !!!

The statements you make against Muslims are the broadest generalizations I've heard in some time, palerider.
And it does not advance your case to make pronouncements like that last one, where you menace people with being labeled as "no better than a terrorist themself".

More later - so noisy here now that I keep having to edit and stuff.
Lilly

We are in large part known, lilly, by the people we associate with. That includes people whom we apologize for. Muslims who are actively terrorizing nearly every country on earth certainly don't warrant any sort of apology and the "theoretical" silent majority of muslims don't either. Silence implies concent. It is as simple as that. If I see evil happening and do nothing, or say nothing, then I become part of the evil.

[Friendindeed]

Palerider and Lily, round two I see.

For what it is worth, yes, nazis were more honorable than muslims who go about hiding within a civilian population, and killing women and children in the name of their god. Both were scum, but as scum goes, nazis were a more honorable variety of scum. At least they identified themselves as combatants and didn't use women and children for shields.

I can't even believe you are defending Nazis.

southside made a good point about the uniforms, that was the objection you raised before. Now you seem to be changing your complaint.

And I won't apologize for my language. If it offends, then perhaps you should re-examine your postion. And of course you are apologizing for the terrorists. Attempting to make light of the differences between uniformed combattants and terrorists is just one more example of your apologetics.


No body here has apologized for acts of terrorism, not southside and not Lily.
You do not see any of the acts of terror that have been done against Muslims, you only look at their offences. That is too one-sided.

[southside]

okay palerider, i am not going to continue this insane arguements. it is stupid to argue against some extremeist like yo

[Koios]

Just remember to keep your cool guys.

Soutside, while palerider made a very bold statement, if that is truly his belief I think he is entitled to it. However I do not think he elaborated enough so it didn't really strengthen his argument and instead just came out as an offensive statement.

[usaisthegreatest]

Yes, you guys need to keep it cool. Palerider, I think your statement is a little too aggressive. Although I agree with your views, I think you can elaborate a little more about your reasoning, not just calling someone a terrorist. Southside, I think you should not take Palerider's statement too personally. This is just a political debate after all.

[palerider]

I can't even believe you are defending Nazis.

Does saying that nazis were a more honorable sort of scum than terrorists constitute defending them? Identifying oneself as a combattant is more honorable than pretending to be a civilian among civilians until the killing begins.

Honor is defined as having honesty and fairness in ones actions. The nazis may have been wrong, but they were honest about who they were. Muslim terrorists aren't.

southside made a good point about the uniforms, that was the objection you raised before. Now you seem to be changing your complaint.

Nope. I am not changing my complaint. Just adding. One is allowed to have multiple problems with a group like this.

No body here has apologized for acts of terrorism, not southside and not Lily.
You do not see any of the acts of terror that have been done against Muslims, you only look at their offences. That is too one-sided.

I see acts of terror done against muslims. I have pointed out that all through history they have been as violent against themselves as they have been against everyone else. I also pointed out that it is their own holy books that tell them to kill muslims who are not following allah's order to wage war with all of mankind until no one is worshipped but allah.

Apologizing for muslims who are not publicly apologizing for themselves is like being the child of a violent and drunken father who has had fights with practically everyone in town. How sad is it for a child to tell people that his father really isn't like that once you get to know him when everyone has seen the same child walking to school with a broken arm and black eye that surely came from his father.

Your apology for a group of people who aren't apologizing for themselves is meaningless. Sites such as the ones lilly directed me to are not even apologies, they are simply there suggesting that I close my eyes to reality and agree with them that islam is a nice guy once you get to know them and I am supposed to ignore the fact that they are telling me this in such a way that the real islam doesn't ever find out who the infidel is is that is telling me what islam is like.

And of course terrorists have been apologized for here. Any talk that suggests that any outside government interference is just cause, or any cause for that matter, for their actions is an apology.

People who apologize for others when they have no real power to effect the actions of those they are apologizing for are enablers. You do no favor for the theoretical majority of peaceful muslims by apologizing for them. If they disapprove and truely believe that islam is meant to be a religion of peace (in spite of its entire history) then they need to take it away from the terrorists and make it what they claim it is. Presently, silence implies concent.

[palerider]

Yes, you guys need to keep it cool. Palerider, I think your statement is a little too aggressive. Although I agree with your views, I think you can elaborate a little more about your reasoning, not just calling someone a terrorist. Southside, I think you should not take Palerider's statement too personally. This is just a political debate after all.


further elaboration here.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3110&postcount=35

[palerider]

okay palerider, i am not going to continue this insane arguements. it is stupid to argue against some extremeist like yo


Interesting that is you who is actually calling names isn't it? Extremist? Care to prove that? I have laid out my arguments and rather than tear them down and show their error, you call names.

[palerider]

Interesting article by an ex islamic terrorist:

Clip:

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009890

[Eternal]

the Nazi's used their uniform to justify their actions and attempted to keep their true intentions secret for as long as possible so i'm not too sure they were any better

[palerider]

the Nazi's used their uniform to justify their actions and attempted to keep their true intentions secret for as long as possible so i'm not too sure they were any better

I am not suggesting that they were good old boys. They were the scum of the earth, but at least you could see them coming and you could identify them as your enemy. For what it is worth, that is more honorable, and far less cowardly, than hiding within the civilian community.

[USMC the Almighty]

I am not suggesting that they were good old boys. They were the scum of the earth, but at least you could see them coming and you could identify them as your enemy. For what it is worth, that is more honorable, and far less cowardly, than hiding within the civilian community.

He's right. I don't see what's all that offensive. Their goals and aspiration were equally reprehnsible, but at least they wore uniforms, had military infrastructure, didn't hide in "sacred" religious institutions, etc.

[Friendindeed]

But you are wrong about that palerider, because the Nazi's represented themselves as something they were not. They said they were Christians and they said they were democratic.
So the only way they fit what you are saying is they wore uniforms.

[Friendindeed]

Palerider, before you started asking about the Jordan Lily asked you a question in post 21.
Here was the question,


I suggest that the US should test the premise on which you base your attitude, before "doing all we can to introduce as many of them to their God as possible" ?

Let's see what happens if we refrain from manipulating their affairs financially or politically, overtly or covertly.

Let's see if they still wish to kill us after a few years of our having exited from out of their business.

Does that sound fair ?


I would like to see you answer that.

[palerider]

Palerider, before you started asking about the Jordan Lily asked you a question in post 21.
Here was the question,
I would like to see you answer that.

Sure. Let me answer it with a clip from an article that I posted today.

Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

[palerider]

But you are wrong about that palerider, because the Nazi's represented themselves as something they were not. They said they were Christians and they said they were democratic.
So the only way they fit what you are saying is they wore uniforms.

Sorry, I am not wrong. Nazis identified themselves. When they walked down the street, one knew that a nazi was walking down the street. When they walked into a market, everyone knew that a nazi was there. Even if early on, people didn't know what nazis really were, they could look at them and know that that person there in the uniform, isn't necessarily the same as me. He isn't pretending to be just like me. He isn't trying to blend in as if he were ashamed of being identified for what he is.


Apologize to someone else.

[Friendindeed]

How does that answer the question ?
I am asking you to answer the question taht Lily asked you yesterday, not with a clip from an article but in your own words.

[Friendindeed]

Sorry, I am not wrong. Nazis identified themselves. When they walked down the street, one knew that a nazi was walking down the street. When they walked into a market, everyone knew that a nazi was there. Even if early on, people didn't know what nazis really were, they could look at them and know that that person there in the uniform, isn't necessarily the same as me. He isn't pretending to be just like me. He isn't trying to blend in as if he were ashamed of being identified for what he is.

I guess you are forgetting that those who fought the American Revolution did not wear uniforms and hid in the trees and bushes.


Apologize to someone else.

Huh ?

[palerider]

It points out that there are Christians who have lived among muslims for a very long time, under exactly the same conditions sociological, and political and they do not go about killing in the name of their god. Read the article that I linked to earlier today. It is by a man who was once a terrorist. He explains very well how your constant apologies for islam do no favors for islam.

[Friendindeed]

If we are going to post dueling articles then let me go get one that some one sent me.

[palerider]

If we are going to post dueling articles then let me go get one that some one sent me.


Don"t bother. If it tells of the "peaceful" islam, it is a blatant lie and I am not interested in lies. Islam is what it is and for all those who aren't out bombing.

Silence implies concent.

[palerider]

I guess you are forgetting that those who fought the American Revolution did not wear uniforms and hid in the trees and bushes.
Huh ?

So now now you go to the point of suggesting that the men who fought for our freedom from the king were the same as muslims who kill infidels because their god tells them to.

Tell me, exactly how low are you willing to go in order to apologize for islam and the terrorists who represent it?

[Friendindeed]

So you expect people to read your article probably from Jihad Watch at the same time as telling me you won't read anything with another point of view ?

[Friendindeed]

So now now you go to the point of suggesting that the men who fought for our freedom from the king were the same as muslims who kill infidels because their god tells them to.

Your complaint against Muslims has been thta they do not wear uniforms and identify themselves when fighting. The American revolutionaries did not do that either. Make of it what you want.

Tell me, exactly how low are you willing to go in order to apologize for islam and the terrorists who represent it?

Another personal attack from you ?

[Friendindeed]

Incidentally, the "Huh?" you quoted from me was not attached to my remark about the Revolution it was about when you said to apologize to someone else.

[palerider]

So you expect people to read your article probably from Jihad Watch at the same time as telling me you won't read anything with another point of view ?

Actually it is from the wall street journal. And to date, you have not pointed out any inaccuracies from the site in question so your incessant ad hominem attacks are pointless.

If your article is describing peaceful islam, it is a lie since islam is not a peaceful religion. Of what value is a point of view that is a blatant lie?

[palerider]

Incidentally, the "Huh?" you quoted from me was not attached to my remark about the Revolution it was about when you said to apologize to someone else.


If you feel like you must apologize to someone for islam, apologize to someone else. Islam should be apologizing for itself and since it isn't, your apologies are empty and meaningless.

[Friendindeed]

So now now you go to the point of suggesting that the men who fought for our freedom from the king were the same as muslims who kill infidels because their god tells them to.


The problem is that you have not proved Muslims are killing people because their God tells them too.

You failed to answer Southside's point about how many more Palestinians are killed than Israelis.

You failed to answer Lily's point about why Muslims would make special laws for non-Muslims if they just want to kill them all.

You also did not answer Lily's question about whether we
should try getting out of their affairs first and see if they stop terrorist activities towards the west after that.

Until you answer those points you really have nothing here except religious prejudice.

[Friendindeed]

If you feel like you must apologize to someone for islam, apologize to someone else. Islam should be apologizing for itself and since it isn't, your apologies are empty and meaningless.

You call it apologizing for Islam, I call it correcting inaccurate information from you about Islam.

The WSJ is gung ho for this war, what do you expect them to say ?

[Friendindeed]

Actually it is from the wall street journal. And to date, you have not pointed out any inaccuracies from the site in question so your incessant ad hominem attacks are pointless.


Actually now that I think about it, the site in question, Jihad Watch, was the one that you quoted about the so called Andalusian myth. That was proven wrong by a video posted on that thread.

[usaisthegreatest]

Palerider, again, I agree with your views on the Muslim issue. However, I would not give Nazi credit for wearing uniforms and I do not think they are better than the Muslims. Nazi have the military power, so that they can openly declare war against the rest of man kind. Nazi can be described as a open jerks while Muslim terrorists are sneaky thefts.

[palerider]

The problem is that you have not proved Muslims are killing people because their God tells them too.

They prove that themselves every time one yells allah akbar just before blowing someone else up.

And I have answered the rest of these impotent apologetic points as well. That you didn't like the answers is irrelavent, but I will reiterate, just for you.

You failed to answer Southside's point about how many more Palestinians are killed than Israelis.

What does the body count have to do with anything? The palestinians are the aggressor here. And the fighters hide behind women and children using them as shields against the military which in and of itself causes more deaths. The israeli military wears uniforms and the palestinians can easily idenitify who they are fighting with and yet, they routinely target civilians instead of military personnel.

You failed to answer Lily's point about why Muslims would make special laws for non-Muslims if they just want to kill them all.

Again, what difference does it make? She has recalled a 10th century law. I have never made the claim that islam is sane. The religion was made up by a war mongering pedophile to justify his never ending search for women and treasure. He claimed new relelations were made to him by allah every time he needed to justify a new atrosity. Who in their right mind would expect for it to make sense or be consistent?

You also did not answer Lily's question about whether we
should try getting out of their affairs first and see if they stop terrorist activities towards the west after that.

Of course I did. Christians and other religions as well live in exactly the same conditions as muslims, and experience the same influence from outside governments on their lives and yet, muslims are the ones who are carrying out terror campaigns against not only the outside influences, but their own people. The problem isn't outside governent influences, the problem is islam.

Until you answer those points you really have nothing here except religious prejudice.

I have said nothing about islam that isn't the truth. If you call truth telling prejudice, then perhaps you should refer to your dictionary. Prejudice is defined as an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. Since I have thoroughly described my positon on islam and have given 1000 years of historical reasons for it leading up to the present, my positon can hardly be defined as prejudice.

[palerider]

You call it apologizing for Islam, I call it correcting inaccurate information from you about Islam.

I am still waiting for you to point out those inaccuracies. Where are they?

The WSJ is gung ho for this war, what do you expect them to say ?

Again with the ad hominem attacks. The article was written by a man who used to be a terrorist. Can you point out any inaccuracies in his story or not?

[palerider]

Actually now that I think about it, the site in question, Jihad Watch, was the one that you quoted about the so called Andalusian myth. That was proven wrong by a video posted on that thread.

Nope, the information about the andalusian myth came from another site and was not proved wrong by anything. The video posted failed to recognize the constant uprisings that were violently put down during the entire time islam held spain and therefore was not true. It ignored the massacres, it ignored the crucifictions, it ignored the incredible number of exiles. It was a lie. It was a fabrication. It was a fantasy. It ignored actual history in favor of a dream that never happened.

[palerider]

Palerider, again, I agree with your views on the Muslim issue. However, I would not give Nazi credit for wearing uniforms and I do not think they are better than the Muslims. Nazi have the military power, so that they can openly declare war against the rest of man kind. Nazi can be described as a open jerks while Muslim terrorists are sneaky thefts.

Islamic terrorism is very well funded. They could certainly wear uniforms if honor was any part of their makeup. They intentionally hide within civilian communities for the explicit reason of getting civilians killed in order to create more grist for western media mills. As much as I despise nazis for their socialist outrages, they are still not as low as islamic terrorists and that theoretical majority of good muslims who remain silent and have always remained silent in concent.

[Friendindeed]

palerider, your answer to anything that contradicts you is to say that the website is lying or leaving things out, or that it doesn't matter.

There is no arguing with someone who does that because they are coming from an emotional level only and will not let facts stand in their way.

You posted an article and I will be back in a little while to post mine.

[palerider]

palerider, your answer to anything that contradicts you is to say that the website is lying or leaving things out, or that it doesn't matter.

It is no more than a web site espousing a fantasy view of islam. You have no idea whether it is even run by muslims.

And the fact is, that none of them address the violent nature of islam.

There is no arguing with someone who does that because they are coming from an emotional level only and will not let facts stand in their way.

You are right. You are far too emotional on this issue. Apologizing for people who aren't apologizing for themselves. Ignoring a constant stream of violence since the 10th century in favor of a fantasy about a peaceful islam. You certainly don't appear to be letting the daily fact of violent islam stand in your way.

You posted an article and I will be back in a little while to post mine.

Save your time unless it addresses the inherent violent nature of islam. Anything that doesn't is a lie. History speaks too loud on the issue.

[Friendindeed]

Here is the article:

Zionism And The Birth
Of Middle East Terrorism
Terrell E. Arnold
3-31-7


Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, is the most important work on the history of Palestine that has appeared in decades. Its central focus is the manner in which the Zionists designed and executed a plan to expel the Palestinian people from their homeland, to erase the history of those people from the landscape of the new state of Israel, and to create an ersatz history of the region to tell a false Israeli story. Pappe's history, told with integrity and clarity, provides an essential framework for understanding the birth and development of Middle East terrorism and insurgency. That may not have been Pappe's goal, but the inevitability of Palestinian insurgency emerges clearly from his account.

The first myth to die under Pappe's pen is Israeli innocence.

The Israeli version of Middle East turmoil has it that the entire fault lies with the Palestinians. While Lord Balfour's declaration may have been written with the good Lord's fingers crossed behind his back, the declaration actually specified that nothing was to be done to disturb the rights of the people already in Palestine. The declaration, realistic or not, expected that Jews who migrated to the region would somehow fit in the spaces between Palestinians.

However, there was no unoccupied space worth occupying. Rather, the Palestinians-close to a million of them-lived in more than a dozen towns and a thousand villages. Since the economy was traditional agriculture, each Palestinian village was the home and gathering place for villagers who farmed the surrounding near countryside. Since most human movements were on foot, the reality of community design was that the peasant farmers as well as their landlords created a new village cluster when distances exceeded the practical norms for daily foot travel between village and farmlands. Many of the villagers did not own the land they farmed; Palestinian landed gentry often owned it, but the villagers were wedded to the land as their principal if not sole livelihood.

Over centuries the size and shape of these communities had been well defined by the realities of traditional agriculture, that combination of land, water, climate, and lifestyle needed to sustain a given population. For centuries that combination was productive, but as the population slowly expanded there simply were no empty spaces. Here the Zionist design hit an insuperable barrier: There actually was no place for a Jewish national home in Palestine.

Initially the Zionist response to the space problem was to buy land from landowners who were often absentees. In traditional practice, the villagers working the land went with it when the land was sold, but that practice did not serve the purposes of the Zionists. Palestinians were pushed off the land the Zionists bought and Jewish immigrants replaced the Palestinians. Resistance to this intrusive pattern of displacement caused two Palestinian uprisings before World War II. The British suppressed both rebellions rather harshly and dispersed much of Palestinian leadership. However, perhaps surprisingly, no Palestinian insurgent group emerged from that experience.

The second myth the Zionists invented was that the Palestinians left voluntarily.

The problem, as Pappe defines it for the Zionists, was that leaving the Palestinians on the land did not allow creation of the Jewish national home either rapidly or expansively enough to meet their scheme. The newborn United Nations organization notionally set out to solve this problem right after World War II by partitioning Palestine. The UN neither consulted the Palestinians nor considered their interests. Rather its solution gave more that half of Palestine- in fact most of the best lands-to the new Jewish national home. However, the Palestinians still occupied all of it; Pappe estimates the Zionists had acquired less than 6% of the land at that stage. The UN scheme, innocently it seems, but certainly ill thought out, was that the Palestinians and the new Jewish settlers would live together.

That scheme simply did not fit Zionist plans. To reject it David Ben Gurion-eventual first Prime Minister, then de-facto leader-conceived stage one of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Pappe says the operation was called plan D. The ensuing process is what the Palestinian people call the Nakba or catastrophe of 1948. Ben Gurion and his core group took two Israeli terrorist groups, Stern and Irgun, as well as the young security force called Haganah and began to clear the land of Palestinians. During 1947 and 1948 these forces systematically murdered many Palestinian males and expelled the Palestinians from more than 500 villages and many from the traditional towns of Palestine except Jerusalem. They pushed more than 800,000 Palestinians into exile to Jordan-then including the West Bank-and surrounding countries.

Several massacres by Zionist terrorists, such as the killing of the people of the village of Deir Yassen near Jerusalem, received little to no international attention at the time (Albert Einstein and a small group of American Jewish notables wrote a letter about it to the New York Times, while Alfred Lilienthal's early 1950s book, What Price Israel, called sharp attention to it), but the great bulk of this Zionist war crime went virtually unnoticed in the United States and elsewhere in the west. Despite objections from knowledgeable officials in the State Department, the Truman administration, in power throughout the process, took no note of the crimes. Rather, in 1948 the United States was the first country to "recognize" the new state of Israel. That recognition essentially blessed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Zionist myth number three says that Israel was founded in a barren wilderness that the Israelis made flower.

The Zionist PR scheme was to pretend they were putting deserving Jews into empty Palestinian lands. Pappe puts this myth to rest very persuasively. In a most literal sense, the Zionists buried the evidence. Systematically, as the Palestinian people were expelled their villages were destroyed. Buildings were pulled down and plowed under. In many cases fruit and olive trees, many centuries old, were kept but they were surrounded by new plantings including evergreens and other trees. Landmarks that were distinctively Palestinian were destroyed. The result was an "Israelized" landscape that, visitors were told, was the greening of the barren land that had existed before Jewish settlers transformed it. For people who knew little to nothing about the region or its history, meaning most Americans, the myth was persuasive at the time, and it pretty much remains so. But the myth can persist only if people ignore the fact that more than four million Palestinians-the Nakba refugees, their children and grandchildren-today are crammed into the confining space of about 10% of their historic homeland, imprisoned by walls, razor wire and Israeli checkpoints in the least desirable parts of Palestine.

[Friendindeed]

Continuation of the article:


Myth number four is that the Israelis are the innocent victims of Palestinian terrorism.

This has to be the most carefully contrived and media protected fiction in history. For example, back last July the Israel Defense Force invaded Lebanon. While the IDF was unable to find and decimate Hezbollah-the Shi'a insurgent group in southern Lebanon-as planned, Israeli aircraft conducted a virtual carpet bombing of the coastal regions of Lebanon, largely destroying the country's economic infrastructure. However, while the Lebanon campaign had the world's attention, the IDF undertook a similar attack on the Gaza Strip and West Bank open-air prisons of the Palestinians. That campaign of bombing, strafing, assassination and harassment of the Palestinian people has continued to the present. The Palestinians sporadically have fought back with rocket fire and suicide bombings, but the casualty count is brutally lopsided. Hundreds of Palestinians are killed or injured for every Israeli. The Israelis now have in prison more than 11,000 Palestinians, while the alleged cause celebre of the recent attacks is Palestinian confinement of one IDF soldier.

Palestinian insurgency and terrorism are children of the Israeli pattern of repression.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the areas where 90% of Palestinians are presently confined, have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. The link between that condition and the evolution of Palestinian insurgent/terrorist groups is absolutely clear.

Why is it that insurgent/terrorist group formation did not begin with the Nakba? The answer is inexact, but an article by the PLO representative to the United States, Afif Safieh, that appeared in the American Jewish paper, FORWARD, suggests the explanation. By way of background, at the time of the Nakba many Palestinians appear to have believed that surrounding Arab countries would come to their rescue, and sporadic if weak military ventures by Egypt and others appear to have sustained this dream. The 1956 war that involved US, Britain and the Israelis should have demonstrated the hopelessness of that strategy, but the really decisive setbacks were Israeli capture of the West Bank in the 1967 war followed by the indecisive 1973 war. These failures persuaded Palestinians, as Safieh, put it, "that there was no military solution to the conflict" as well as no chance of a unitary Palestinian state in which Israelis and Palestinians could live together. As David Ignatius of the Washington Post noted in an August 2006 article, the 1973 war appeared to jolt all the players into recognizing that they had a stake in making peace.

That realization penetrated many different segments of the Palestinian people who were then variously dispersed in refugee camps in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and surrounding countries. But, while moving toward negotiations, the Palestinians were not prepared to abandon paramilitary moves. According to Safieh, " the PLO aimed to remain a military factor so as to be accepted as a diplomatic actor."

The PLO, however, was not able to exert a singular control of Palestinian military impulses. Formed in 1964 in Egypt as a Palestinian nationalist umbrella group, the PLO has a history that reflects the ups and downs of the Middle East peace process. After Israel's successful 1967 war, the PLO became a breeding ground for militant groups. Initially Yasser Arafat brought his Fatah group into the PLO and the organization carried out numerous attacks against Israel and in the region. Dissatisfied with the PLO performance, the Abu Nidal organization (ANO) spun off from it and became the most aggressive Middle East terrorist organization. Reflecting extensive militant factionalism, other groups emerged, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in 1967, the PFLP General Command in 1968, the Palestine Liberation Front in the mid 1970s, Palestine Islamic Jihaad in the mid 1970s, and various splinter groups of the above.

Most important groups formed in later years were Hamas in 1987 and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in 2000. While Abu Nidal, Fatah, PFLP, and PFLP General Command carried out numerous attacks both within Palestine and Israel as well as regionally, the new arrivals, Hamas and Al Aqsa Brigades, confined their activities to Israel and Palestinian territory. With the death of Abu Nidal in 2002, that group appears to have curtailed its activities, and the recent pattern of Palestinian insurgent activity has been pretty much confined to Israel and the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. A year before the 2006 Palestinian elections Hamas declared a unilateral ceasefire and concentrated on political action that resulted in Hamas winning a majority of the assembly. That ceasefire still stands as Hamas policy, although there have been a few lapses by Hamas hardliners.

[Friendindeed]

Conclusion of the article:


The peace process has moderated Palestinian terrorism patterns even as the Palestinians continued to lose ground.

Deciding in favor of the political process in 1974, Arafat pretty much held the PLO to a non-violent stance until the mid 1980s. That was partly responsive to the first Camp David round during Jimmy Carter's presidency. However, the prospect that those accords would actually go anywhere had pretty well dimmed by 1985. Nonetheless, the peace process received another boost via the signature of the so-called Oslo Accords by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. The Accords were actually signed in Washington, DC in a meeting hosted by Bill Clinton, and the better term for the document is a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self Government Arrangements for Palestine.

While the Accords have been widely touted as a breakthrough and a binding set of principles for the parties, as Rabin pointed out in a letter to Arafat, the Declaration stated that "permanent status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders are to be excluded from the interim arrangements and that the outcome of the permanent status talks should not be prejudged or preempted by the interim arrangements." While this letter made clear that Israel had neither given anything away nor committed itself to doing so, Rabin was assassinated in November 1995. The gunman who did it said he was fearful that Rabin would give part of the holy land to the Palestinians. In effect, subsequent history has demonstrated that the assassin actually had nothing to fear; to date all Israeli leaders have successfully avoided giving away anything, except maybe the promised turnover of control over the Gaza Strip. The word "maybe" applies because even though Sharon executed a high-profile withdrawal from Gaza, the IDF still has the Strip locked down, regularly bombs it and rigorously controls traffic in or out.

King Abdullah's renewal of an Arab League peace proposal is the first significant move in several years.

While early in the Bush administration the so-called Roadmap was proposed by the US, EU, UN and Russian Quartet, the most substantial feature of the map is a set of admonitions to the Palestinians as to what they must do to move toward negotiations. In any case, neither Ariel Sharon nor his successor Ehud Olmert signed on to the Roadmap, and so far the Israeli posture on King Abdullah's renewal of the Arab proposal is equally non-committal. Shimon Perez, the vice premier, said last week "the Saudi initiativehas merits." He summed it up cautiously by saying: "You come with your positions, and we will come with ours." That actually could represent a step forward, if the Israelis were to come to the table prepared to make real, here-now concessions on the final status issues that were supposed to have been settled-under the Oslo Accords-by negotiations no later than 1999. However, the Arab initiative calls for the Israelis to move back to the 1967 Green Line, as well as for resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem, in exchange for peace with the Arab world. Israeli refusal to talk about giving ground on such issues has effectively scuttled any prior peace initiative.

Compared to past proposals the Arab initiative lands in a much different Palestinian milieu.

All previous negotiations have occurred with Yasser Arafat in the Palestinian lead and with his Fatah party politically in charge of the process. Since the January 2006 elections Hamas has had the political lead. Hamas leadership has proved exasperating to the US and Israel because Prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and other Hamas leaders have adopted the normal Israeli line: no concessions in advance. If Israeli leadership were to accept that even-handed concept, negotiations probably could begin tomorrow. For Israel to sit down for talks, however, it would have to start by accepting the fact that willingness to sit down on the other side of a negotiating table and do business with them is the only advance recognition Hamas seems prepared to extend.

If one reads Ilan Pappe's work carefully, the Zionist leadership of Israel is hung up firmly, perhaps terminally, on three issues: Any right of Palestinian return beyond the West Bank and Gaza, any concession of territory beyond the Gaza Strip and the slivers of Palestine now contained in the Bantustans where Palestinians are now confined, and any genuine concession of equality to the Palestinian people. The Zionist hope has been that their own resistance and unrelenting pressure from the United States would keep the 4 million Palestinians at bay until Israeli facts on the ground make any Palestinian state impossible. Then the Palestinians can either leave or remain in a slave status to the Israelis.

Hamas, it would appear, has forced the issue. Having refused to make any concessions, Hamas has reserved the right to apply as much force against Israel as Hamas resources can muster. The only thing holding that posture in check is the possibility, now dangled collectively by the Arabs together, that peace can be had for a simple price: Israel gets the part of Palestine it has confiscated so far, but only up to the 1967 green line; while the Palestinians get the rest of Palestine and some just settlement for their expulsion. Any simpler, more forgiving statement of the options is unlikely. Any hard line refusal of the Zionists to negotiate on the merits of those proposals is likely to assure renewal of older groups or the birth of new Palestinian groups to continue the struggle.

[palerider]

Your article is flawed from the beginning. Zionism and the birth of middle east terrorism. In order for the premise to be true, there must have been no islamic terrorism prior to the presence of the state of israel. Hardly the case. The islamic terrorism has been non stop since the 10th century. Terror, massacres, violence, war, exile, slave trade. You name it. Find an article that reflects the true nature and history of islam if you want to convince me. This one does neither.

[9sublime]

I've noticed a really anti-muslim thing is going on in this forum since I joined.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6557003.stm

Theres a nice link.

[palerider]

I've noticed a really anti-muslim thing is going on in this forum since I joined.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6557003.stm

Theres a nice link.

Islam is a violent religion. Most of the violence in the world at this time may be laid at their feet. Those who are not engaged in the violence rarely, if ever are seen voicing their opposition to those who are. Silence implies concent.

Speaking the truth about islam is not anti muslim, it is merely speaking the truth.

[vyo476]

Terror, massacres, violence, war, exile, slave trade. You name it.

Congratulations, you just described world history since the 10th century, not just Islamic history. Sure, they have a rotten record in regards to human rights. That doesn't make Islam "inherently violent," just like you can't call the German people "inherently violent."

Study some Sociology and some Philosophy and maybe you'll start to realize where we're coming from on this. Applying your own societal norms to a radically different culture is entirely unfair.

And if you abhor so strongly Islam's "violent" history, don't you suppose that propagating dislike and distrust, the seeds of violence, is a losing course of action?

[9sublime]

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
-- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5


Seems all a bit similair to Islam really now doesn't it.

[palerider]

Congratulations, you just described world history since the 10th century, not just Islamic history. Sure, they have a rotten record in regards to human rights. That doesn't make Islam "inherently violent," just like you can't call the German people "inherently violent."

The problem is that islam still has a 10th century mindset.

Study some Sociology and some Philosophy and maybe you'll start to realize where we're coming from on this. Applying your own societal norms to a radically different culture is entirely unfair.

But applying the norms of civilized behavior to a culture that belives it is honorable to strap on bombs and kill women and children in markets is fair. Plenty of cultures live under the same type of conditions that people in islamic countries live under and yet, they don't embark on terror campaigns that span the entire world.

And if you abhor so strongly Islam's "violent" history, don't you suppose that propagating dislike and distrust, the seeds of violence, is a losing course of action?

Islamic violence isn't just history. It has gone on, unabated, since the religion was founded. In fact, if you read the qur'an, you will find that allah says that 99 of 1000 muslims are destined to hell and the only way to be sure of paradise is to die in jihad fighting for allah. Islam is and always has been violent.

[palerider]

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
-- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5


Seems all a bit similair to Islam really now doesn't it.

Now produce some news stories of Christians acting upon those words. I can quote passages from the qur'an calling on muslims to kill the infidel and then provide multiple stories from the news on a daily basis where they are carrying out the very verses.

[vyo476]

Now produce some news stories of Christians acting upon those words. I can quote passages from the qur'an calling on muslims to kill the infidel and then provide multiple stories from the news on a daily basis where they are carrying out the very verses.

So why is it that so few of the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world today aren't running around gunning down every infidel they see?

This passage of the Qur'an might be insightful:

Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers and others beside them who may be unknown to you, though Allah knows them. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged. (8:60)

This is one of several important passages defining jihad. The operative phrase here is "enemies of Allah" and it is in the construction of this phrase that the principle difference between extremists who blow up markets and peaceful Muslims who just want to live their lives without being bothered lies. Some radical Muslims, our friend Bin Laden amongst them, would take this to mean "anyone who does not directly espouse the principals of Islam." More moderate Muslims would take this to mean, "anyone who directly threatens our livelihood." Some of the most liberal Muslims would tell you that the only way to tell an enemy of Allah is if such an enemy had already made an attack against Muslims - meaning that their vision of jihad is as self-defense. Remember, the word "jihad" itself means "struggle," not "crusade" as so many people in the US these days seem to think.

[palerider]

So why is it that so few of the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world today aren't running around gunning down every infidel they see?

The silence of the theoretical majority of peacefull muslims implies their concent of the actions of the jihadists.


This is one of several important passages defining jihad. The operative phrase here is "enemies of Allah" and it is in the construction of this phrase that the principle difference between extremists who blow up markets and peaceful Muslims who just want to live their lives without being bothered lies. Some radical Muslims, our friend Bin Laden amongst them, would take this to mean "anyone who does not directly espouse the principals of Islam." More moderate Muslims would take this to mean, "anyone who directly threatens our livelihood." Some of the most liberal Muslims would tell you that the only way to tell an enemy of Allah is if such an enemy had already made an attack against Muslims - meaning that their vision of jihad is as self-defense. Remember, the word "jihad" itself means "struggle," not "crusade" as so many people in the US these days seem to think.

But the theoretical majority of peaceful muslim "moderates" don't dare speak out publicly on like this because according to islam, if they do, they become infidels themselves. The simple fact is that allah, through mohammed commanded muslims to fight until no one is worshipped but allah. Anyone who does not worship allah is an enemy of islam.

And the struggle is over when no one is worshipped but allah.

[vyo476]

The silence of the theoretical majority of peacefull muslims implies their concent of the actions of the jihadists.




But the theoretical majority of peaceful muslim "moderates" don't dare speak out publicly on like this because according to islam, if they do, they become infidels themselves. The simple fact is that allah, through mohammed commanded muslims to fight until no one is worshipped but allah. Anyone who does not worship allah is an enemy of islam.

And the struggle is over when no one is worshipped but allah.

Le gasp! The alarmist speaks!

The majority of Muslims don't speak out on that because it has nothing to do with them. They're not killing anyone and they don't believe they have to. There are plenty of Muslims out there who publicly condemn the actions of extremists, and a lot of them get blown up for it. If Allah is commanding them to fight why the hell aren't they?

"Anyone who does not worship Allah is an enemy of Islam." That is what Osama Bin Laden believes. Religion is interpretive. There are many Mulisms that believe in peaceful coexistence because that is how they interpret the Qur'an. There are others who believe in the violence perpetrated by likes of Bin Laden. A religion isn't based on strict adherence to one set of guidelines and if it was then I think you'd see a very different Catholic Church today (as in, either they would still be "crusading" or there never would have been crusades at all).

All world religions share one principle: you take what you can out of them. Just as there are many splinters of Islam out there, there are many splinters of Christianity. I invite you to look up the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas and compare it with the Community of Christ in any number of states (Maine being the one where I encountered it). They are so radically different from each other that while several of the terms are the same (Jesus, God, etc.) everything else is completely different.

[9sublime]

Now produce some news stories of Christians acting upon those words. I can quote passages from the qur'an calling on muslims to kill the infidel and then provide multiple stories from the news on a daily basis where they are carrying out the very verses.


Well, lets not forget the crusades now. That was a march of everyday Christians, priests, government members and soldiers (wearing uniform, therefore not making them terrorists?) on a very similair mission.

[palerider]

Well, lets not forget the crusades now. That was a march of everyday Christians, priests, government members and soldiers (wearing uniform, therefore not making them terrorists?) on a very similair mission.


Read some history. The crusades were a response to muslim aggression. By the time the crusades began, islam had already conquered the christian holy lands, nearly all of spain, and a large part of italy.

[palerider]

Le gasp! The alarmist speaks!

The majority of Muslims don't speak out on that because it has nothing to do with them. They're not killing anyone and they don't believe they have to. There are plenty of Muslims out there who publicly condemn the actions of extremists, and a lot of them get blown up for it. If Allah is commanding them to fight why the hell aren't they?

So if biggoted white KKK members begin to actively kill blacks, you wouldn't bother speaking out against them. You would be content to remain silent and allow blacks to believe that either you approved of what they were doing or might be under one of those hoods yourself?

Are you aware that the kkk can't march or protest without first gaining a permit far in advance? This isn't because they are disliked, this is because the local law enforcement must arrange to protect them from the surrounding population. The vast majority of whites don't approve of them to the point that they must have police protection to appear in their klan garb in public. There is no sense of concent with regards to the general white population and the kkk.

Silence implies concent.

[vyo476]

So if biggoted white KKK members begin to actively kill blacks, you wouldn't bother speaking out against them. You would be content to remain silent and allow blacks to believe that either you approved of what they were doing or might be under one of those hoods yourself?

Are you aware that the kkk can't march or protest without first gaining a permit far in advance? This isn't because they are disliked, this is because the local law enforcement must arrange to protect them from the surrounding population. The vast majority of whites don't approve of them to the point that they must have police protection to appear in their klan garb in public. There is no sense of concent with regards to the general white population and the kkk.

Silence implies concent.

There is a fundamental difference between the KKK and Islamic terrorists. Those Islamic terrorists are far, far more effective at what they do than our brand of white-hooded yahoos who like to ride around on horses lynching black people. A Muslim in a Middle Eastern country who is making too much noise against what the terrorists are doing becomes a target and is eventually killed in an entirely unpleasant way. Silence doesn't imply consent, it implies fear, and considering they're the ones living in a country with daily bombings, ambushes, and suicide bombings, I hardly blame them.

Take into account that a lot of Arab Muslims still don't like us too much, as Americas are foreign aliens to them and we've been doing nothing but messing with them now for a long, long time. Do you suppose that a lot of them are going to go out of their ways to speak out against terrorists when A) doing so isn't going to change the terrorists' minds and B) they're probably going to get blown up for it and C) they don't particularly like Americans anyway. The American vision of the "bigger man" includes standing up for someone who is being attacked regardless of how you feel about him, but that's the "bigger" man. Just let them be men.

[9sublime]

Oh, so the crusades were ok because they were in response to some Muslim aggression over Holy Lands that were hardly populated with Christians in the first place?

Well, if mindless slaughter in response to Muslim aggression is OK, well then its fair to say that mindless slaughter in response to Western aggression is ok too then?

If that is the case, then you should be in full support of Palenstinian militants who attack Israel after Israeli forces launch a completley over the top attack on perfectly innocent people?

But you don't, do you?

[palerider]

Oh, so the crusades were ok because they were in response to some Muslim aggression over Holy Lands that were hardly populated with Christians in the first place?

Some historical research on your part is in order. The holy lands were occupied long before the 7th century when islam came onto the scene. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that muslims were the rightful landlords of the holy lands. Christians were there 7 centuries before islam was even invented, and jews were there for thousands of years before the christians. Islam is, was, and always has been an aggressor.

Well, if mindless slaughter in response to Muslim aggression is OK, well then its fair to say that mindless slaughter in response to Western aggression is ok too then?

You are comparing western military tactics to the tactics of muslims? Is that the basis for your argument?

If that is the case, then you should be in full support of Palenstinian militants who attack Israel after Israeli forces launch a completley over the top attack on perfectly innocent people?

But you don't, do you?

Tell me, how did Israel come to occupy the west bank in the first place? Are you suggesting that they are the aggressors here? Are you saying that they drew first blood? You might also consider that the soldiers of israel wear uniforms that identify them as combatants to anyone who looks. Can the same be said for islamic "soldiers" or do they hid among women and children and readily use them as shields as their religion teaches?

If you are going to hold an opinion, it is always better to base it on truth rather than whatever politically correct drivel is in fashion.

[palerider]

A Muslim in a Middle Eastern country who is making too much noise against what the terrorists are doing becomes a target and is eventually killed in an entirely unpleasant way.

Exactly right. Because to speak out against islamic terror is to identify oneself as an infidel. Only good muslims fight the infidel. Bad muslims are infidels themselves. Those who cower in fear, are not, in reality, muslims.

Silence doesn't imply consent, it implies fear, and considering they're the ones living in a country with daily bombings, ambushes, and suicide bombings, I hardly blame them.

Fear of being identified as an infidel. Fear of being known as a bad muslim. Fear of being killed for speaking out against allah's warriors.

[vyo476]

Exactly right. Because to speak out against islamic terror is to identify oneself as an infidel. Only good muslims fight the infidel. Bad muslims are infidels themselves. Those who cower in fear, are not, in reality, muslims.



Fear of being identified as an infidel. Fear of being known as a bad muslim. Fear of being killed for speaking out against allah's warriors.

No, fear of being killed for their differing beliefs because extremists are willing to go that far to propagate the image of Islam which you hold dear, pale rider. To speak out against Islamic terror is to identify oneself as an infidel ONLY IN THE EYES OF THE TERRORISTS. Religion is an interpretative animal and those who have interpreted it radically have used enormous means to make their views known worldwide. What enormous means can moderate Muslims, who really just want to be LEFT ALONE in their beliefs, use to compete with a sect willing to (for instance) fly air planes into skyscrapers?

The bottom line is that your extreme view of Islam is not shared by a majority of Muslims.

[9sublime]

Are you suggesting that they are the aggressors here?

Yes.


The Jews had not been the owners of any of Palestine for a very long time. And as the Palenstinians are not Jews, they shouldn't have to accept it is the Jews rightful holy land.

Its like someone coming into your house and telling you that they were the owners 40 years ago and they want it back. They also have the support of various powerful organizations more powerful than you.

So they move into your house against your wishes, and in your eyes totally illegally. They say they have come back here because it is part of their religion to live in the house they were born in or some crap like that which you don't believe.

So what do you do? Tell them its fine and you will live peacefully giving up half of your house to them and be their best friend?

I doubt you would, I think you would be more likley regard them as your worst enemy in your life, and you would regard them as the aggressor as well.

It's a naive thing to believe Israel ever would, or ever will work. Israel knew that they would be met with fierce resistance, but they fight just as dirty as the terrorists now, killing thousands of civillians with minimum precision attacks.

The Jewish people had lost the holy land long ago, and nobody is the 'landlord' of a country as you say.

As for a political viewpoint being in fashion, thats a stupid thing to say that is not debaiting, its just plain ignorance and a very cheap shot because I'm hardly one of the 14 year olds who walk around wearing Che Guevara t-shirts.

[palerider]

No, fear of being killed for their differing beliefs because extremists are willing to go that far to propagate the image of Islam which you hold dear, pale rider. To speak out against Islamic terror is to identify oneself as an infidel ONLY IN THE EYES OF THE TERRORISTS. Religion is an interpretative animal and those who have interpreted it radically have used enormous means to make their views known worldwide. What enormous means can moderate Muslims, who really just want to be LEFT ALONE in their beliefs, use to compete with a sect willing to (for instance) fly air planes into skyscrapers?


Sorry guy, the qur'an states quite clearly who is a good muslim and who is a bad one and states explicitly that muslims who turn from their faith are to be killed and their faith demands fighting the infidel until no one is worshipped but allah.

It is the "peaceful" muslims that have interpreted islam radically, not the jihadists. There are 100 passages in the books of the qur'an demanding violence for every one that proposes peace. And many of the single verses that you see that propose peace are not given in the context of the verses before and after for very specific reasons.


The bottom line is that your extreme view of Islam is not shared by a majority of Muslims.

Silence implies concent. Any muslim that isn't speaking out against the violent nature of islam, is promoting it.

[palerider]

Yes.
The Jews had not been the owners of any of Palestine for a very long time. And as the Palenstinians are not Jews, they shouldn't have to accept it is the Jews rightful holy land.

There has never been a palestine, a palestinian language, nor a palestinian people. They are an arab fabrication. There was a block of land set aside for Israel and a block of land several times as large that was called the palestinian mandate. Jordan has occupied about 80% of the palestinian mandate and kicked the natives off and yet, you don't hear a word about that since the jordanians are not jews. This isn't about the land, it is about jews.

Its like someone coming into your house and telling you that they were the owners 40 years ago and they want it back. They also have the support of various powerful organizations more powerful than you.

As for a political viewpoint being in fashion, thats a stupid thing to say that is not debaiting, its just plain ignorance and a very cheap shot because I'm hardly one of the 14 year olds who walk around wearing Che Guevara t-shirts.

You have defended your position several times now referring to historical inaccuracies that you either believe is fact, or are using as a deliberate misrepresentation because they are politically correct. You tell me which. If you genuinely don't know the history, then your position is based in untruth, if your postition is based on deliberate PC misrepresentation then it speaks for itself. Either way, the defense of your position is not rooted in historical fact and therefore your position is not valid.

[9sublime]

My historical inaccuracies have hardly been great, and I hate this political correctness society. Show me where I have used it to misinturpret things.

And you say my views are not valid because I cannot quote dates and figures on the crusades and other events in the holy land thousands of yearsa go, but this hardly makes my opinions invalid, or the points I make on everything to do with Israel and Islam as it is today.

And the fact that you have said "

"There has never been a palestine, a palestinian language, nor a palestinian people. They are an arab fabrication." shows your complete and utter racism, ignorance and arrogance to anything in the Middle East.

If you honestly believe this, your points are not valid either.

AND you still havn't denyed or admitted that you would react the same way as to the intruder in your home as the Palestinians have to their equivilant, IN CONTEXT (no suicide bombings, airstrikes etc.)

[TheWaffle]

The silence of the theoretical majority of peacefull muslims implies their concent of the actions of the jihadists.

Can I again point out how absurd of a statement this is...

Palerider are you out on the streets everyday protesting the molestation of little children throughout the world?

No?

"Then you imply your consent to the actions of pedophiles and sexual predators throughout the world."

You weren't out there fighting against the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, you're Christian right? The vast majority of Rwandans are Christian too. So naturally you must agree with their policies of slaughtering.

I don't go out and distance myself from the racism inherent in a great number of Baptist parishes in the United States because I come to the natural assumption that no one is dumb enough to confuse the son of a liberal Protestant with a Southern Baptist who believes in the Aryan Brotherhood.

These "silent masses" you speak of, it never even crosses their mind that they would be compared with radical terrorists. If you want to argue that there need to be more vocal opponents to terrorism fine, but don't come out and try to say that Muslims condone terrorism.

[Dave]

My historical inaccuracies have hardly been great, and I hate this political correctness society. Show me where I have used it to misinturpret things.

And you say my views are not valid because I cannot quote dates and figures on the crusades and other events in the holy land thousands of yearsa go, but this hardly makes my opinions invalid, or the points I make on everything to do with Israel and Islam as it is today.

And the fact that you have said "

"There has never been a palestine, a palestinian language, nor a palestinian people. They are an arab fabrication." shows your complete and utter racism, ignorance and arrogance to anything in the Middle East.

If you honestly believe this, your points are not valid either.

AND you still havn't denyed or admitted that you would react the same way as to the intruder in your home as the Palestinians have to their equivilant, IN CONTEXT (no suicide bombings, airstrikes etc.)

If you really feel that the Israel/Palestine situation is about land being stolen, let me ask you a question.
Why didn't Palestinians fight the Jordanians the way they are fighting Israelis?
After all, Jordan is occupying "Palestinian land" and has been for quite some time. If you remember after the 1948-1949 war for Israeli Independence, there was plenty of the territory given as an "Arabian Palestine" that was gobbled up by Trans-Jordan and Egypt. In fact, around 75% of what used to be the land given for an Arabian Palestine is occupied by Arab Jordanians. The only difference is that Israel is home to Jews. This isn't about palestinian land. This is about non-muslims on muslims holy land.

And Palerider is right, there never was a nation called Palestine. There was an area called Palestine that was under British mandate after WWI, but it was never established as a nation until it was divided into a Jewish Palestine and an Arabian Palestinian state (Trans-Jordan). The people that today call themselves Palestinian are the descendants of what was left the invading Arab armies of the '48-'49 war. The soldiers that fled after the war became the "Arab Palestinian refugees."

[9sublime]

But saying Palestine isn't a country because of its moderatley short existence is like saying the Czech Republic isn't a real country, its just an offshoot of Czechoslovakia that doesn't count.

And you can't say that the people of the area, who NOW live in Palestine didn't have their land stolen. It doesn't matter what the land was called before, the fact is they were forced to give it over.

I think you would react just as badly if you were forced to accept a large influx of Muslims into your state on religious grounds, taking your houses, farms etc. when you don't even believe in the same religion.

[Dave]

But saying Palestine isn't a country because of its moderatley short existence is like saying the Czech Republic isn't a real country, its just an offshoot of Czechoslovakia that doesn't count.

And you can't say that the people of the area, who NOW live in Palestine didn't have their land stolen. It doesn't matter what the land was called before, the fact is they were forced to give it over.

I think you would react just as badly if you were forced to accept a large influx of Muslims into your state on religious grounds, taking your houses, farms etc. when you don't even believe in the same religion.

You misunderstood my post. Palestine was never recognized as a country under the British Mandate. It was an area controlled by Great Britain, nothing more. Would you consider the U.S. Midwest to be its own country? Thats pretty much the only thing I could equate Palestine to.

You still didn't answer my question. If this were about establishing a Palestinian state, and having a "right to return," then Jordan would be the most likely target, not Israel, yet Jordan has not suffered one single attack from Palestinian terrorists. The only reason Israel is being attacked is because of the hatred of the Jewish people.

[9sublime]

Because Jordan doesn't launch ruthless, indiscriminate strikes against any Palestinian person, ordered by their government?

I know suicide bombers do the same thing, and I think its disgusting, but Israels strikes are from an established government in an MEDC. Sure, they should go for Jordan too if they attack Israel, but Israel have done more to them now, and they probably can't fight a war on both fronts.

[Dave]

Because Jordan doesn't launch ruthless, indiscriminate strikes against any Palestinian person, ordered by their government?

I know suicide bombers do the same thing, and I think its disgusting, but Israels strikes are from an established government in an MEDC. Sure, they should go for Jordan too if they attack Israel, but Israel have done more to them now, and they probably can't fight a war on both fronts.

Israel attacks Palestinian terrorist targets because they were attacked first. The PLO could just as easily attack Jordan, but they don't want to. They have never even spoken out against Jordan taking Palestinian land. There have been no threats, or any form of aggressive rhetoric against Jordan at all. They have actually tried to get the West Bank returned to Jordan. The reason? Jordan is an Arab nation. The truth is that the Palestinians have their state already, and it is called Jordan.

Israel is not even saying that Arabs are not welcome in its country. Arabs enjoy the same rights that Jews have in Israel. The Jews were simply looking for a place to live, and the Arabs refused them that. Before 1880, there were actually very few Arabs actually living in the area. Israel was an uninhabited wasteland for the most part. Then Jews began a mass migration to the area to rid the land of swamps and malaria. Once Jews settled there, there was a mass migration of Arabs drawn by job oppertunities, better living conditions, and the areas prosperity. There was never any claim that Jerusalem was Muslem holy land until after Jews had set up shop there. No one ever told the Arabs that this was Jewish land. It was not until the 1948-49 war that Arabs were even told to leave the region, and even then, they were removed by the invading Arab armies. Israel has never stolen land from peaceful Arabs. Even after the Six Day War when Israel captured the Sinai Desert, Arabs were fully expecting to be evicted from their land there, but General Moshe Dayan actually asked them to stay, and told them they were welcome there. In an attempt to appease the Arabs, Israel gave back the Sinai (oil fields and all) back to Egypt for nothing more than a peice of paper. The only reason Egypt did not recieve the Gaze strip is because they did not want it since it was filled with 800,000 fanatical terrorists. Had Israel done to the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip what the Arabs would have done to Israel, Israel could have easily gotten rid of all Arabs in its land and made these lands part of a greater Israel. However they chose not to do this, and took the high road of letting Arabs live in their land. Why is it so hard for you to see that Israel is not the aggressor here?

[9sublime]

OK, you have given me some interesting facts, and I'm not stubborn on any political stance I have. I still think that the whole plan was completley unfeesable and unfair on anyone living in the area, and that it was bound to draw trouble from the Arab nations. However, when you see articles like this you realise that Israel is hardly helping the situation seeing as it is a rich, western style nation.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/03/opinion/edbouck.php

[Lilly Marlene]

Dave,
whatever arrangements were made between Egypt, Jordan and the area called Palestine did not offend the people of Palestine in the same way because it did not cause them to lose their orchards, their schools, etc., and be carted off to some refugee camp.

When you repeat that model of the area being uninhabited wasteland, you are giving credence to the revisionist history of persons like David Horowitz. I'm sure his intentions are honorable but the fact is that he is simply mistaken about that.

I will acknowledge that I have read your post in a real rush cuz gotta leave now, so if I have misunderstood you I apologize in advance.

[Dave]

Dave,
whatever arrangements were made between Egypt, Jordan and the area called Palestine did not offend the people of Palestine in the same way because it did not cause them to lose their orchards, their schools, etc., and be carted off to some refugee camp.

When you repeat that model of the area being uninhabited wasteland, you are giving credence to the revisionist history of persons like David Horowitz. I'm sure his intentions are honorable but the fact is that he is simply mistaken about that.

I will acknowledge that I have read your post in a real rush cuz gotta leave now, so if I have misunderstood you I apologize in advance.

The arrangements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria did not offend the Arabs in Palestine because they were still living under Arab rule, and not having to see Jews in power. The refugee problem was a direct result of the 1948-49 war, so I cannot see Israel as being responsible for the problem since it was defending itself against Arab aggression. Arab nations intentionally refused to absorb these "refugees" after the war to keep the problem real. Since WWII, this situation is the only one where a refugee population has not been absorbed by another country. I'm not seeing where you are finding that the Jews of Israel are responsible for the destruction of any Arab orchards or schools. I would be very interested to see your sources for this.

I am not suggesting that all of of the land now called Israel was uninhabited. Of course, there was Jerusalem (which, contrary to popular opinion, is never mentioned in the Koran) and several other cities, but there was a large amount of swampland, and a big malaria problem before the Jewish migration. They were responsible for clearing a great deal of the land and making it habitable, and improving the living conditions for both Arabs and Jews in the area.

If Arabs laid down their arms today, there would be an end to violence. If Jews laid down there arms today, there would be an end to Israel.

[palerider]

Can I again point out how absurd of a statement this is...

Palerider are you out on the streets everyday protesting the molestation of little children throughout the world?

No?

Are there numerous anti pedophile organizations our there denouncing them and doing everything they can to protect children from pedophiles? Haven't we made pedophillic behavior against the law and attatched severe punishment to the behavior? We clearly stand against pedophiles.

Muslims have done nothing of the sort against violent islamists. No laws against jihad but they do send money to the familes of bombers. Your analogy fails.

You weren't out there fighting against the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, you're Christian right? The vast majority of Rwandans are Christian too. So naturally you must agree with their policies of slaughtering.

Actually I was. I wrote to numerous members of congress and the senate inquiring as to why we were standing by. I have said that I favor flexing our military muscle anywhere such actions are taking place.

I don't go out and distance myself from the racism inherent in a great number of Baptist parishes in the United States because I come to the natural assumption that no one is dumb enough to confuse the son of a liberal Protestant with a Southern Baptist who believes in the Aryan Brotherhood.

Once again, aryans who want to march in this country must apply for permits well in advance so the police can arrange to protect them from the citizens of whatever community they plan to march in. The feelings of americans about aryans are quite clear. I doubt that "radical" (read as good) islamists need fear any of the people they hide behind.

These "silent masses" you speak of, it never even crosses their mind that they would be compared with radical terrorists. If you want to argue that there need to be more vocal opponents to terrorism fine, but don't come out and try to say that Muslims condone terrorism.

But muslims do condone terrorism. They allow terrorists to hide in their midsts. They act as human shields. Silence implies concent.

[palerider]

Dave,
whatever arrangements were made between Egypt, Jordan and the area called Palestine did not offend the people of Palestine in the same way because it did not cause them to lose their orchards, their schools, etc., and be carted off to some refugee camp.

Lilly. The "palestinians" live in camps because it is their choice to be separated from the jews. Plenty of arabs live and move freely within israel and even hold elected office in the government. Palestinians are where they are because they choose to be where they are.

When you repeat that model of the area being uninhabited wasteland, you are giving credence to the revisionist history of persons like David Horowitz. I'm sure his intentions are honorable but the fact is that he is simply mistaken about that.

Not revisionist lilly, truth. The ihabitants of that area were bedoin and bedoin were nomads. They had no permanant settlements. They had no concept of land ownership.

[Lilly Marlene]

Dave, in your most recent post on this thread you wrote that you would like to see a source for the statements I made.

Here is one (which palerider can continue to ignore but which hopefully you will read).

It is written by Jews, a fact I mention in hopes of disabling the customary accusations of "antisemitism".

When you're done with this, I have several others:


http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

[Dave]

We might have to agree to disagree over this. We have competing sources that claim opposite things to be true, so I don't really know how to have a debate over this. I don't really want to have a my source vs. your source fight, so I'm not really sure how to proceed with this. I would encourage you to do a little research on Walid Shoebat, A former Palestinian terrorist turned advocate for Israel.

http://www.shoebat.com/

[Lilly Marlene]

Yes, I've heard W. Shoebat speak on a television program, and I've also read "Unholy Alliance" by David Horowitz.

I realize that what we have here is two very different stories from two peoples who BOTH had ancestors in that area at that time ...
what do we do, who do we believe ?

It seems that we will never really know for sure, so the best policy is to encourage - now in the modern day - what would do the least harm to everyone at this point.

[vyo476]

Pale rider, I have a question. Let's say you met a Muslim and took the time to get to know him. He tells you that he just wants to worship his God in his way and be left alone (you've affirmed the existence of such people). What would you tell him?

[Rokerijdude11]

theyre food stinks

[9sublime]

That their silence on terrorism is actually supporting it probably.

And when said that he is therefore a peadaphile because he doesn't speak out about it, he said he doesn't need to because the West has lots of anti-peadaphile organizations while Muslims don't have anti-terrorism organizations.

Well, shock and horror, but I'm afraid they do palerider,

http://www.freemuslims.org/

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

http://www.m-a-t.org/


So you are either going to have to retract your comment about silence being a sign of support, because many of the average Muslims have not remained silent over this (they just don't get the media attention) or admit that because you are not part of an active antipeadaphile organization you are a peadaphile.

Which one is it going to be?

[palerider]

And when said that he is therefore a peadaphile because he doesn't speak out about it, he said he doesn't need to because the West has lots of anti-peadaphile organizations while Muslims don't have anti-terrorism organizations.

Which one is it going to be?

Tell me, are you honestly trying to equate a few sites that you quite honestly don't have any idea who is running to a series of laws and legal preccedents that can put one in prison for engaging in an action and can also put one in prison for protecting one who is engaging in the action as is the case with anti pedophilia laws here.

An organization can hardly be compared to THE LAW.

[9sublime]

Tell me, are you honestly trying to equate a few sites that you quite honestly don't have any idea who is running to a series of laws and legal preccedents that can put one in prison for engaging in an action and can also put one in prison for protecting one who is engaging in the action as is the case with anti pedophilia laws here.

An organization can hardly be compared to THE LAW.



An anti-peadaphile organization is not the law, it is an organization that supports or tries to tighten etc. anti-peadaphile laws. These anti muslim sites have been set up by average everyday Muslims against jihad, meaning that not every Muslim is silent.

[Rokerijdude11]

and since there food stinks.....................






so do they!!!


Currie anyone?

[Lilly Marlene]

Maybe they think we and our food stinks too.
So what.
**************

9sublime, good points !
And let me hold palerider's feet to the fire once again here by pointing out that the conference in California - attended by representatives of Christianity, Judaism and Islam - was an event in real time, not "some website".

[palerider]

An anti-peadaphile organization is not the law, it is an organization that supports or tries to tighten etc. anti-peadaphile laws. These anti muslim sites have been set up by average everyday Muslims against jihad, meaning that not every Muslim is silent.

You have missed the point entirely. Your pedophile analogy fell flat on its face because we, as a nation, have decided that pedophilia is a crime and have decided that not only will we put pedophiles in jail, but those who at