|
« Tories in a twist
Main |
December 17, 2003
Oldest hatred, latest chapter
The hysteria is not confined to Europe. This piece about events at San Fransisco State university paints a terrifying picture of the demented Jew-hatred that is now infecting American campuses. Try this for a flavour: 'One British journalist, resembling the picture of Dorian Gray with all his vices on his face, couldn't hide his vampiric thirst for Jewish blood behind the mask of impartiality. And you’d have to be pretty gullible to believe all the staged fraud in his "documentary". Scene: an Arab woman shows that Israeli soldiers left plastic bags full of dog feces after a military raid. The bag looks like it contains the work of 50 dogs or an elephant. 'Can you imagine an Israeli soldier carrying a loaded gun with ammunition on a dangerous military raid, scraping dog-droppings and dragging the bag all the way from Israel (Arabs don't keep dogs because they consider them unclean animals) to the occupied territories in order to leave it in some unknown house? Yes, this is a major insult for all Arabs, so let's just stage it for the film! This “dog-shit insult” was exhibited in another British "documentary" together with accusations of Israelis using poison gas. 'Watching these films, I saw that Palestinian Arabs have become professional victims and actors in the "Israelis-and-Jews-Are-Horrible-Child-Murderers” series. These films are constantly shown in Europe and especially in the Middle East due to heavy demand and plentiful funding...What is strikingly serious in all these films is that if one were to count the most often used words, these words would be "humiliation" and "Kill the Jews!" Even in the most peaceful and idealistic documentary, made by a Jewish director, a young boy asked what he wants to do when he grows up is prompted by his father: "Kill the Jews!" When asked to draw a picture of his future he draws himself killing Israelis'. Question: who was the British journalist? Posted by melanie at December 17, 2003
Comments
My money's on Pilger. Posted by: Patrick Bramwell at December 17, 2003 04:25 PMNot to be picky, but Pilger's an Ozzie, not a Brit. Could have been Fisk. He blows through the Bay Area quite often. Posted by: Susan at December 17, 2003 04:55 PMHmm. Americans are notoriously bad at confusing Aussies and Brits. What clue does the statement that the journo looked like a dissipated old roué give us? The only picture I've seen of Fiskie is that woebegone blood-spattered one after he'd been duffed up by a bunch of Afghans for being a filthy lackey of the colonialists, and Pilger always looks like he should be presenting nature documentaries on BBC2. Posted by: David Gillies at December 17, 2003 05:58 PMThe writer of the article is a Russian emigre, and she could have very likely mixed up Pilger and Fisk. But really, what does it matter? Aren't Pilger and Fisk really the same person? Their "writings" certainly sound the same. Posted by: Susan at December 17, 2003 06:13 PMOT but congratulations to al-Reuters for winning the 2003 Dishonest Reporting Awards http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/2003_Dishonest_Reporting_-Award-.asp Posted by: Travis at December 17, 2003 07:05 PMPilger may be an Aussie but he got his start in Britain. Posted by: Murph at December 17, 2003 11:05 PMI don't follow this one at all. What is being advanced here? Is it some kind of notion of a universal anti-Semitism? If so, I am fairly certain that Melanie has previously done a better job of supporting her thesis. In the middle-east, the Arabs (of all the Arabic nations) just categorize Israelis as "Jews". This is really just a rationalist viewpoint, as they see the occupied Palestinians as (rightly) not full members of the Israeli state. And as Jewish people comprise by far the greatest ethnic quotient in Israel when you discount the Palestinians, it is really just a matter of calling a spade a spade, isn't it? So now that the context is correctly applied, it really is not startling to hear brainwashed children talking about killing "Jews". They don't care about the racial precept, they are just following established norms of cultural characterization. So what IS this piece saying about the "demented Jew-hatred" that is sweeping the world? Not a whole lot. Aside from a soft-on-the-Palestinians film being shown at some university campus in San Francisco (a known bastion city of the left) what here is displaying the anti-Semitic epidemic? It's a beat up. Gotta bang that drum really loudly you see, so that the important audience in Tel Aviv will notice, and send an approving, condescending smirk this way occasionally. "So what IS this piece saying about the "demented Jew-hatred" that is sweeping the world? Not a whole lot. Aside from a soft-on-the-Palestinians film being shown at some university campus in San Francisco (a known bastion city of the left) what here is displaying the anti-Semitic epidemic?" I guess you haven't been following the news lately. Here are some good places to start: And if I could be bothered trolling enough pro-Muslim stilted sites, I'm sure I could come up with even more articles infering (rightly or wrongly) that anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise. Same for white supremacist sites; the vilified white minority! Same for the Sami in Finland, Catholics in Russia & Northern Ireland, Basques in Spain and any other pet oppressed group that thinks itself such. They are all alike in one genuinely important and relevant respect. They are what Anderson referred to as "Imagined Communities" living and whining in a 21st century where we are supposed to be seeking greater human unity, not more special super delicate priviledged treatment for (cynical) super special oppressed exclusivity gangs. "But really, what does it matter? Aren't Pilger and Fisk really the same person? Their "writings" certainly sound the same. "
"They are what Anderson referred to as "Imagined Communities" living and whining in a 21st century where we are supposed to be seeking greater human unity, not more special super delicate priviledged treatment for (cynical) super special oppressed exclusivity gangs." So you don't think there is ever violence against people because they are members of a particular group? Not only Jews, but blacks, homosexuals, women, and yes, Muslims, might take issue with you. As I advised you on another thread, you might want to study some history. I don't know what "Imagined Communities" are. I do know that I don't want to live in a bland global McCommunity, with no history, culture, language, cuisine, music, art that has a particular flavor. Yes, people of all colors have heritages that are meaningful to them that they want to preserve. I used to listen to a lot of British trad music - those are white people, and they have distinct cultures too, that they care about. And if they disappeared I would lose magnificent poetry, music, and stories. I could say the same about various African, Asian, South American, Jewish, Northern European, and other ethnicities. Sorry if you feel excluded, but being hateful about that makes about as much sense as feeling aggrieved because someone doesn't consider you part of their blood family. If you aren't, you aren't. But you can always be adopted - if there is a culture you care about that really speaks to a part of your soul. I know so many Jewish converts who feel that way. They just always felt when they were with Jews that they were "home," and they decided to make it official. You just seem to be a very supercilious snide pissy person, who can't stand the idea that other people care about each other and want their beautiful civilization to survive. How do you propose to create "greater human unity" when you sneer at other humans? You don't create unity by treating other people like shit. Funny thing, most bigots are like that. Posted by: Yehudit at December 18, 2003 11:13 AM""But really, what does it matter? Aren't Pilger and Fisk really the same person? Their "writings" certainly sound the same. " Oh puleeze. She's talking about two individual journalists, and she's also being humorous. Get a grip. Posted by: Yehudit at December 18, 2003 11:14 AM"And if I could be bothered trolling enough pro-Muslim stilted sites, I'm sure I could come up with even more articles infering (rightly or wrongly) that anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise. Same for white supremacist sites; the vilified white minority! Same for the Sami in Finland, Catholics in Russia & Northern Ireland, Basques in Spain and any other pet oppressed group that thinks itself such." Certainly, Mr. T. However, the difference is that those "anti-Muslims" or anti-whomevers have "sentiments" and are not taking these out and attacking Muslims or old white men, etc. Too bad the reverse is not true—Muslims ARE attacking innocents every day of the week, all over the world. And what is more, their clerics are encouraging such attacks especially against Jews and Americans. Indeed, the "holy" Qu'ran even states that Jews are lesser beings as "apes and pigs": "... They are those whom Allah has cast aside and on whom His wrath has fallen and of whom He has made some as apes and swine..." (5:60); "...You have surely known the end of those from amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, in consequence of which we condemned them: Be ye like apes, despised" (2:65); and "when, instead of amending, they became more persistent in the pursuit of that which they were forbidden, we condemned them: Be ye as apes, despised" (7:166). 5:60; 2:65; 7:166 I'll bet that if dear old bigoted, intolerant, misanthropic, misogynistic Mohammed were alive today the Americans would get the "apes and pigs" designation as well or something ever "better." LOL There is a difference between "sentiments" and acting out violently on those "sentiments," Mr. T. While there are other terrorists world-wide, none are going global like radical Islam. But, you never know. They might see the Islamists' success rate and begin to do their thing. Oh, sweet anarchy— just what Osama ordered. ;-) Lili The real problem in the world today is rabid Anglophobia. It is the constant wail of the great unwashed that the British, or even their most evolved form, the English are somehow to blame for the manifold inadequacies of tribal peoples. If only this nation would develop a more overtly and strident nationalist approach to rebuff these deluded litanies of woe from those not selected to be British or born to be English. Posted by: Verily at December 18, 2003 01:48 PMI'd say Yehudit's response to Mike T. was a KO. Posted by: kid charlemagne at December 18, 2003 03:43 PM"I used to listen to a lot of British trad music " What pray, is that ?- Posted by: Romulus at December 18, 2003 05:47 PM"So you don’t think there is ever violence against people because they are members of a particular group? Not only Jews, but blacks, homosexuals, women, and yes, Muslims, might take issue with you. As I advised you on another thread, you might want to study some history." Yes, please, be so utterly inane as to use the “Your views oppose my take on things being absolutely THIS way, so logically (to me) you must believe the polemical opposite of me”. If you keep this up, I’ll classify you as being unable to debate rationally. I never stated, or even inferred that any “group” does not suffer “any” attacks. I merely inferred that much of the attacks that are (constantly) being discussed, are quite probably distorted and exaggerated. Before I go off to study some history (which I did, an undergrad degree in the subject and 2 others, from a University in Australia) why don’t you go learn about common debating fallacies and deliberate misdirections. “I don't know what "Imagined Communities" are.” Sounds like I’m not the one lacking education in socio-historical matters. “I do know that I don't want to live in a bland global McCommunity,” The word I used was “unity”. If you take American generic culturalism from that, then it’s your fantasy. “with no history,” The United Kingdom is now a single political entity, where once there was 12 warring dark-age kingdoms, each with their own language, culture and political interests. Now tell me, has Britain lost any of its “history”? “culture,” Same deal. “language,” Languages that are archaic and used by small numbers of people die out. It is the law of the linguistic jungle. “cuisine,” Tell that to Jamie Oliver. “music,” Oh please. “art that has a particular flavor.” In Britain you can witness Celtic art, Anglo-Saxon art, Norman Art, Danish Art, etc, etc. They have lost nothing by engaging in greater secular political unity, and abandoning dark-age ethnocentrism. “Yes, people of all colors have heritages that are meaningful to them that they want to preserve. I used to listen to a lot of British trad music - those are white people, and they have distinct cultures too, that they care about. And if they disappeared I would lose magnificent poetry, music, and stories. I could say the same about various African, Asian, South American, Jewish, Northern European, and other ethnicities.” What world do you live in? I know history quite well. Do you? Ever heard of the Vandals? Or the Visigoths? Probably not. They were peoples with all the things you mentioned above and now they are gone. They did not stand the test of history. Human universalism is a great tide, an unrelenting inertia that even the pre Bronze-age ethnocentrism of Judaism will some day have to give way to. It doesn’t care how we feel about it. “Sorry if you feel excluded, but being hateful about that makes about as much sense as feeling aggrieved because someone doesn't consider you part of their blood family. If you aren't, you aren't. But you can always be adopted - if there is a culture you care about that really speaks to a part of your soul. I know so many Jewish converts who feel that way. They just always felt when they were with Jews that they were "home," and they decided to make it official.” They felt at “home” because they had made the brave step backwards into a tribalist perspective. “Our people?”. Who else talks like that in the 21st century aside from Jews? You are living as though the Romans were still around. And for your information my ancestors were Norse and Celtic, and I do not lack for any cultural colour or grounding that you claim to have the sole monopoly on. The only difference is that my ancestors, whilst still proud of their culture, were open to CHANGE. And they weren’t ethnocentric goons. Why are so many Jews so afraid of cultural assimilation? Assimilation the word may frighten post-modernists, but the fact is, assimilation os a merging, a blending, not an incidence of one side overcome another, leaving nothing left of what was. “You just seem to be a very supercilious snide pissy person, who can't stand the idea that other people care about each other and want their beautiful civilization to survive.” You expect me to believe that you have studied history? Give me a break. “Your” history perhaps. History does not weep. It does not regret, it does not look back in sorrow. It is a discipline that is undertaken with a deliberate scientific detachment, in the attempt to learn from the past, and not repeat the errors found there. Judaism does not have an introspective philosophy as a vital part of its ethos, something that even the Catholic Church had to start to embrace with Vatican II. Without that, Judaism will go on looking outward for the causes of its problems, to the “constant threat” of the hordes of “anti-Semites” whose existence, for them, MUST continue. For without them, how long will you remain fused together, without the common, eternal enemy? “How do you propose to create "greater human unity" when you sneer at other humans?” I sneer at backwardness, not Humans. As all people with a grain of sense tend to do. And I don’t profess to have all the answers. But I do know a regressive and retrograde movement when I see one. When I do, I argue against its adoption or validation. “You don't create unity by treating other people like shit.” Such passion. Forgive me if I do not see much difference in my scorn for your tribal backwardness, and your scorn in my inability to behave like a good little brainwashed Gentile. “Funny thing, most bigots are like that.” Your middle name wouldn’t be ad, would it? Surname Hominem? ----- Oh, and Kid Charlemagne, THAT was a KO. Just like my earlier post was to your "arguments". Any more contenders for the title? “Certainly, Mr. T. However, the difference is that those "anti-Muslims" or anti-whomevers have "sentiments" and are not taking these out and attacking Muslims or old white men, etc.” Actually, they are. My, what an insular view of other people’s sufferings you have. Oops, I forgot. Only the Jews can suffer, right? “Too bad the reverse is not true—Muslims ARE attacking innocents every day of the week, all over the world. And what is more, their clerics are encouraging such attacks especially against Jews and Americans. Indeed, the "holy" Qu'ran even states that Jews are lesser beings as "apes and pigs" If I say Judaism is a backward religion, and Israel is anti-Democratic and somewhat uncivilized in its treatment of its ethnic minorities… that means I *must* believe that the Muslims are as pure as the driven snow? Why? Because it has nothing to do with the west. It is not our business. If the Jews want to go all out crazy, fine, but I don’t want to sponsor it. Same for the Muslims. My interests and my loyal devotion begin and end with my land, and those allies that have proven over the course of time to be reliable, loyal and willing to contribute to conflicts, should they occur. Where were the Israeli troops in Korea? Or Malaya? Or Vietnam? Or the various crisis' in the Persian Gulf w/Iran? Or in the Gulf War? Or the second Gulf War? Or East Timor? I understand that Israel has pressing security concerns at home, but to not even send a miserable damn platoon to one of the abovementioned conflicts as a part of its commitment to the alliance? How do they call themselves allies? Why do we send them billions of dollars? Why? “They are those whom Allah has cast aside and on whom His wrath has fallen and of whom He has made some as apes and swine..." (5:60); "...You have surely known the end of those from amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, in consequence of which we condemned them: Be ye like apes, despised" (2:65); and "when, instead of amending, they became more persistent in the pursuit of that which they were forbidden, we condemned them: Be ye as apes, despised" (7:166).” Who is this passage referring to? It makes no clear declaration. “I'll bet that if dear old bigoted, intolerant, misanthropic, misogynistic Mohammed were alive today the Americans would get the "apes and pigs" designation as well or something ever "better." I’m not a defender of Mohammed. I merely pointed out in a post that Islam considers Jesus Christ to have been a prophet. Judaism considers him to have been evil. I see NOTHING in either the quote, or your sneering blurb, to refute that WHATSOEVER. “There is a difference between "sentiments" and acting out violently on those "sentiments," Mr. T.” Again, Russia & Northern Ireland. Israel does not suffer these things alone. “While there are other terrorists world-wide, none are going global like radical Islam. But, you never know. They might see the Islamists' success rate and begin to do their thing. Oh, sweet anarchy— just what Osama ordered. ;-)” The point of this? Did I ever ague for Osama or Muslim fundamentalism? “The real problem in the world today is rabid Anglophobia. It is the constant wail of the great unwashed that the British, or even their most evolved form, the English are somehow to blame for the manifold inadequacies of tribal peoples.” The most evolved form of British person is an Englishman? What an absurd statement. Only Anglocentric English people who believe that the Angles and the Saxons “settled” in Britain and “civilized” the “barbaric” Celts could even ponder such jibberish for a split-second. “Oh, pu-leeze. If you think Israel is even remotely like the 3rd Reich, go study some history. This trivializing of the Nazi horror has to stop. You've totally discredited yourself right there. Not because anyone is trying to "suppress" you, but because you are simply grossly ignorant. Go learn.” “If you think this and this, then you should go pot a plant”. Is THAT your refutation? You don’t have a counter-argument, just the recommendation that I go study something that I have degrees in? Did you even debate in high school? I think not, with this kind of garbage. Israel is VERY similar to the Third Reich. It has a limited spectrum of political variation within its core “Volk”; in Israel’s case, the Jews, and they are very much an inclosed racial exclusivity just like the mythical Aryan was to the Nazis. Just like the Nazis, Israel and indeed Judaism has its inner core of serious “belivers”. They want to see Israel not just go on existing, but to realize its fullest potential in the creation of “Greater Israel”. Grossdeutschland under the Nazis = Greater Germany. The Palestinians, as I have comprehensively delineated under another post on this site, do not enjoy even remotely the same legal/social living circumstances as Jews under the Israeli regime. Much like the utermenschen in Nazi Germany. Do you remember the German Nuremberg “Blood and Honour” laws? That an Aryan woman could not legally marry a Jew? WELL, as of June this year, it has been illegal for a non-Jewish person to marry a Jewish woman and become an Israeli citizen. That was a law that just bore on citizenship. It has been illegal for a non-Jew to marry a Jew inside of Israel for as long as I can remember. What does that SAY MY FRIEND? Discredited you say? Thoroughly rejected? But what about this? "Congress to this day has failed to hold formal hearings for the record on the Liberty affair. This is unprecedented and a national disgrace." -- Admiral Thomas Moorer, who went on to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff… Or this? "To speculate on the motives of an attack group that uses unmarked planes and deprives helpless survivors of life rafts raises disturbing possibilities," [Navy lawyer Lieutenant Commander Wlter L. Jacobsen] wrote [for the US Navy's Naval Law Review], "including the one that the Liberty crew was not meant to survive the attack, and would not have, but for the incorrect 6th Fleet radio broadcast that help was on its way - which had the effect of chasing off the MTBs [motor torpedo boats]." Or this? "The Israelis got by with cold-blooded, premeditated murder of Americans on June 8, 1967," said Phillip F. Tourney, president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, in July 2000. "There is widespread cynicism that our elected officials will not go up against the powerful Israeli lobby out of fear… This cover-up must be investigated, now." Or this? “The attack on the Liberty was no accident” Says former CIA Director Dick Helms” Or this? Reading reports of [Jay] Cristol's whitewash of the devastating attack, which killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 172 others, was the last straw for Captain Ward Boston, senior legal counsel for the Navy's Court of Inquiry. Commander-in-Chief Naval Forces Europe, Boston and the late Rear Admiral Isaac "Ike" Kidd were Or this? “Virtually the entire US intelligence community now agreed that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate.” -- From the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Magazine Or this? Affidavit of Counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry’s investigation For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of the USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them. Ward Boston, Captain, USN, JAG (Ret.) ------ “If you don't supply detailed facts for each of these smears, I'm just going to ignore them. And if you do, I'm going to debunk them.” Mike Harari, leader of the Mossad “kidon” assassination teams killed (accidentally) a Norwegian Citizen, and he is still wanted by Interpol for questioning over the man, who was a waiter in a small Norwegian town. Now, we all know that the Kidon teams have been very busy. Probably even now. If you are naïve enough to believe otherwise, or naïve enough to believe that they would kill Arabs in a heartbeat but defer from wasting politically dangerous non-Arabs, whose views might endanger Israeli interests, then I have this great bridge I want to sell you. “Another point: Also, no one in Israel can marry someone of another religion, because there is no civil marriage in Israel, and all the recognized religions (which is all of them) will only perform weddings for people of the same religion. So many Israelis go to Cyprus to get married, and come back to live in Israel, and their marriages are recognized. There are more than a few Arab-Jew marriages in Israel.” None that have been performed in Israel. You have singularly failed to disprove my point; you only put your own spin on it. “Oh, people of mixed-faith marriages live there, they just had to go to the small length of GOING OVERSEAS to GET MARRIED.” Do me a favour. If you can’t “debunk” something I am saying, save your breath. The facile apologetics for what is really just state-sanctioned ethnic exclusivity makes me ill. This crap was SUPPOSED to end back in 1945. “I am not defending this policy, but you make it sound like it is some sort of racial purity measure instead of something applied across the board.” So if it applies to all non-Jews, then it is okay? What are you smoking man? “So anyone reading Mike's supercilious propaganda might want to assess it in light of the lies and distortions I have already exposed.” WHAT point did you debunk? What factoid did you expose as nothing more than “supercilious propaganda”? Just saying that you have done something doesn’t make it so junior. You are a spin artist, and a cheap one at that. “Also, Mike, I could post a long list of countries where one indigenous people is considered the standard, and most of them would not be in the Middle East, they would be in Europe, Africa, and Asia. I don't notice you being outraged about any of those.” This site seems to attract a lot of Israeli apologetics, and please, don’t get distracted. It is Israel that we are discussing, yes? Leave the Strawman fallacies out of it. “If it isn't conscious bigotry against a minority, then what is it? Do you not hold the Arabs accountabel for anything? You seem to have a case of condescending racism yourself. "It is a given." Oh, well, I guess we musn't question it then.” Are you FREAKING DEAF? Here, let me repeat. "To the Arabs of the region, to be “a Jew” and to be “an Israeli” is totally synonymous. That this was brought about by the exodus of Jews from Arabic countries to Israel, or their expulsion is by the by. But it is a distinction that has little to do with conscious racism. Had you lived there, you would know this. It is a given." “Yes, I noticed Mike didn't respond to that one.” "I also recall that there were people living in Canaan before the mythical Hebrew tribes were “led” to the “promised land” after so much “slavery” in Egypt. Which by the way never had slaves, and used paid labourers to build the pyramids. No archaeological evidence WHATSOEVER for the trans-Sinai migration either, even thought this herd of hundreds of thousands of people supposedly crossed it REALLY SLOWLY." "There is archeological evidence for the Jews being in Israel - inscriptions that correlate with Bible chronicles - since at least 800 BCE. That's almost 3000 years in one spot. Before that, we are not sure whether they migrated from somewhere else, whether they conquered the Canaanites or intermarried with and absorbed them." WOW!! WHAT A SPIN!!!! My breath has been taken away by the way you selectively recite historical factoids. You forget the long exile imposed on the Israelites by the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Why? Did you “forget”? How about the fact that Josephus quite clearly tells us that the Jews were COMPREHENSIVELY expelled from Judea after the revolt of 70AD? Some would have stayed, sure. Those most adept at kissing Roman butt, no doubt. But the mass of the population from then onwards were Greeks, Phoenicians, Persians, Anatolians, Cappadocians and Galatians (Celts!). Not Jews! And so it remained right up until the turn of the 20th century, when, in 1900, a census was taken, revealing that there were still only some 15,000-30,000 Jews living in the area, amid millions of gulf Arabs. Face it man. To a historian who does not care about politics, the modern-day Jewish claim to that land is about as realistic as my claim to some chunk of the eastern Scottish seaboard. No, wait, my DIRECT ancestors were actually living there 200 years ago, so my claim is actually ONE HELL OF A LOT more valid. Isn’t it? “But so sweet of you to care about the poor Canaanites. How do you feel about all the other peoples which have disappeared or been displaced around the globe since the Bronze Age? Are they just as interesting to you if you can't use them as a stick to beat the Jews with?” Canaanites, Hebrew, Visigoths and Vandals. They’re all gone. Their descendants lost in the swirl of nations. The people that call themselves “Jews” living in Israel are an “imagined community” of their own crafting. They are descended from Europeans mainly, some Mediterranean, Greeks, and peoples that were Jewish practitioners in Arabic lands—but are otherwise physically indiscernible from the Arabs they claim to be totally unrelated to. “The last long bit you quoted was cut and pasted from somewhere, and you should supply a link or a source of some kind.” My work, my research, written long before I visited this site. “But I would be curious to hear about your life in Israel. How long were you there, and where exactly? In what capacity? Did you have Israeli friends? Did you hate Israel before you arrived, or did something cause you to become such a bigot later?” Wow. The Mossad interrogation begins. I was in the region for many years, although not all of it was spent in Israel. I lived in Haifa, and later Tel Aviv. My capacity? None of your business. Yes, and I still have more than a dozen (secular) Israel friends that I communicate with regularly. I have never hated Israel. In fact, I briefly entertained notions of remaining there permanently and entering the IDF. No, that is not a joke. I am not a bigot. Race is stupid backward nonsense invented by one bunch of idiots to justify forming a cool exclusive group of whatevers. Humanity is an extended family of mutts. That is that. I don’t hate Jews. The idea that I hate Jews is yours. If I hated Jews, I would say “God, I hate Jews!” but I don’t. The slag-title of “anti-Semite” is worthless to me. I don’t care what you label me. My perception is my own, and no amount of PC thuggery will part me from it. Nor will it alter my views. They were developed over long, hard, personal experience, and your naïve bleatings about polemical crap just makes you look like you are debating in school. I am a universe away from that young man. “You're very good at insinuation, Mike.” Thanks. “Would you please specify what this "largest illegal invasion since the Dark Ages" is?” The unauthorized immigration of hordes of Jewish immigrants from Europe, and the violation (by both sides) of the UN partition plan, and the diplacement (ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians. But to be fair, at least the Arabs accepted the revised version of the Partition, even if it was still HOPELESSLY tilted in favour of the newcomers. “And compared to what legal authority were other migrations/invasions "illegal"? How coyly sophistic. You know that invading and annexing territories that don’t belong to you is naughty, right? “I didn't realize there was some consistent international court operating since the Dark Ages.” Just historians, looking on with dismay at the same old mistakes, being continually repeated actually. "You didn't respond to Mike's question, Mike. You just shifted ground and started a new attack. you seem to do that a lot. Along with the snide tone." How is this a counter? Or are you just acting like a sports commentator? “Oh, he didn’t really return the serve that well that time, he just shifted ground and started a new attack.” If you have a point of contention with what I said, please voice it. If I ignore a remark by someone, it is because of either: a) I missed it Look, that’s it for me for a few days. This stuff wears me out. Get this through your skulls knuckleheads, I don’t hate Jews or love the Arabs. I don’t want either side to win, or lose. If they can work it out, great. I don’t care, so long as nobody goes nuclear. I don’t hate anyone, as it happens. “Hate” is like “love” these days. It is a word thrown around cheaply, and it is losing what meaning it has left. “Hate” does not run around arguing on comment boards all day long. Hate builds suicide bombs, and it sends missiles into crowded tenement buildings. Yes Yehudit did skewer MT rather nicely. Too bad he hasn't bothered to read what she said. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 18, 2003 06:54 PMSure Mike T. Israel is just like the Third Reich, that is why the Arabs like Israel. They certainly were pro Nazi in World War II their Mufti was a guest in Berlin. Do us all a favor and stick your Jew hating head in an oven. Also thanks for wasting so much band width with your tin foil hat moon bat conspiracy theories. Posted by: Travis at December 18, 2003 07:11 PMMike Talisman "And if I could be bothered trolling enough pro-Muslim stilted sites, I'm sure I could come up with even more articles" Well you certainly trolled enough of those sites to get to "prove" that the Israelis cold bloodedly shot up the Liberty. "Well you certainly trolled enough of those sites to get to "prove" that the Israelis cold bloodedly shot up the Liberty. No Barry, I got them from ONE source, the site run by the SURVIVORS of the attack. You know, the guys that 9 out of the 10 Liberty "investigations" did not bother to even speak with or interview? They are all ex-navy, and the quotes they put up are referenced. "Most probably those naval guys got their butts busted for a stupid operation and are out to get even." They lost 34 of their friends that day, burned, smashed and ripped apart before their eyes, by an ALLIED nation. Show a grain of sympathy for good Americans, will you? Or are people that criticize Israel automatically not good Americans? "Sure Mike T. Israel is just like the Third Reich, that is why the Arabs like Israel." Half-assed Strawman fallacy. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. "They certainly were pro Nazi in World War II their Mufti was a guest in Berlin." So was the current King of the British Empire. Next. Both are strawmen to this argument, and not relevant. "Do us all a favor and stick your Jew hating head in an oven." Am I a Jew hater? Where is your evidence? Can you show me a shred of proof for my supposed "hatred"? Or do you often form opinions based on nothing? "Also thanks for wasting so much band width with your tin foil hat moon bat conspiracy theories." Which you have not even made ONE SENTENCE of an effort to discount or discredit. If my stating of undeniable realities is such mumbo-jumbo, then why can't you poke holes in even one thing I've said? Just one. C'mon, I'm a nutcase "hater" right? Surely you can land one blow. Can't you? "Yes Yehudit did skewer MT rather nicely. Too bad he hasn't bothered to read what she said." Nice sports commentary. Now, do you have any counters to my assertions? Or are you still skulking from the last oratory ass-whipping I gave you Andy? MT From one Australian to another: you are a wanker mate. Posted by: Murph at December 19, 2003 04:03 AM"So was the current King of the British Empire" Oh no he was not....I do not believe King George VI ever visited Germany Posted by: Romulus at December 19, 2003 06:29 AM"Am I a Jew hater? Where is your evidence? Can you show me a shred of proof for my supposed "hatred"? Or do you often form opinions based on nothing?" Not to try to argue logic with a brick, but... "Oh no he was not....I do not believe King George VI ever visited Germany" The one that became King for a little bit then. Edward Windsor. He did visit Germany under the Reich, although I grant, not as King. "Not to try to argue logic with a brick, but... Do people that deny the existence of UFO's "hate" aliens? Or the same for the Loch Ness Monster? How about Atheists? have they arrived at the conclusion that God does not exist because they "hate" God??? Or do they come to their repective conclusions based upon calm, reasoned reflection and examination of the evidence? The latter, methinks. That was silly. Try much, much harder. "From one Australian to another: you are a wanker mate." Care to explain why? There is a reason, right? Or is disagreeing with your views the only qualification? (The post above this is mine too, I just forgot to put my name in.)
How many times do I have to prove you people wrong before you will re-examine your ignorant perceptions of Israel? Honestly, how do you arrive at your beliefs? Are they issued to you like combat boots? Do you just say to yourselves "well, they gave me them, so there is no handing them back now." I am doing nothing more evil than stating my reasons for believing that Israel is NOT an angelic state. That is IT. I do not state that the Arabs are BETTER than them, or more WORTHY human beings. I do not find Islam more progressive than Judaism. If anything, they are as backward as each other. If any of you disagree, move to the middle-east for a while. See if secular liberal democracy isn't the ONLY way for humans to live. That is all that I assert. Yet I am an "anti-Semite" a "Jew-Hater" a "nazi" and whatever other uncreative epithets you can drudge up. Why do you do that? You DO realise, I HOPE, that by attacking me for simply defending my assertion that the USA, the UK, and Australia should mind their own interests, and not those of Israel, you are PROVING that your FIRST allegiance is to ISRAEL. Any NORMAL person that lived in the USA, the UK or Australia would simply say: "Well, I don't agree with him that we should stop supporting Israel, so I'll point out to him why it IS in our interest." But you don't. You only act like mindless little Israel protecto-drones, hurling yourselves and your STUPID insults at me in a flurry of indignance. Why are you so offended, any of you, if you are not Israeli or Jewish? I have criticized NONE of you. From now onwards, I am making my policy to ignore outright any posts on this subject that are purile ad Hominem attacks, or facile strawman distractions. Otherwise, if you have ANYTHING relevant, bring it on. Mike, "I do not find Islam more progressive than Judaism. If anything, they are as backward as each other. If any of you disagree, move to the middle-east for a while. See if secular liberal democracy isn't the ONLY way for humans to live". I would define a 'progressive' society as one based upon democracy, pluralism, and a legal sytems that enshrines rights based on individual liberty: in other words, yes, a liberal secular state. Whilst you are right in stating that a secular liberal state is not the only way for humans to live it is more progressive and protective of human rights than the alternative totalitarian models: including state-enforced Islam based on the sharia legal system.
Hmm. Familiar protestations from Mr T. Interesting that he doesn 't want to say what he was doing in Israel. Spooky, even. Posted by: Dave F at December 19, 2003 10:22 AMJews separate,although often very unwillingly, inorder to preserve.Muslims separate inorder to impose.Talisman wants to separate too,inorder to disappear Posted by: Prof. J. Edwards at December 19, 2003 11:25 AMNice to see that Andrew is at last being open about what national flag it is that HE salutes to. This is a comment posted on my blog by MT. Funny this that he didn't read the post, just reacted vicirally to the Israeli flag. Note to MT: I am not Jewish nor Israeli, but I do believe they have a right to exist unlike you. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 19, 2003 01:47 PMRaving Moonbat Mike: Many people visited Berlin before the war including Lloyd George and Edward Windsor. The Mufti was in Berlin during the war calling for the destruction of Jews and trying to raise volunteers for the two Muslim SS Divisions being raised from Muslims in the Balkans. Nice try Crocodile Dundee. Posted by: Travis at December 19, 2003 02:24 PMTravis, the persons such as Lloyd George visited Germany pre-war as guests of the German Ambassador in London......why that should be a problem I don't know......there was even a British Embassy in Berlin. The two SS-Divisions you refer to were Bosnian Muslim units which carried out war crimes against Serbs and Jews and had to be restrained by the German SS. The Grand Mufti, I believe was Yassir Arafat's uncle and he did visit Berlin during the War; and Ribbentrop did instigate a coup in Baghdad as I recall in 1941. There are three different aspects at different periods. Posted by: Romulus at December 19, 2003 02:30 PMWOW! Ya go away for a while and Mr. T gets on a roll. :-D Too bad his "logic" is as twisted as that of the Arabs. Mikey, I presented quotes from the Qu'ran which were written by Mohammed AGAINST the Jews and you said: "Who is this passage referring to? It makes no clear declaration." The PASSAGES (plural) are referring to the Jews. It is written in the so-called "holy" book of Islam, the Qu'ran, that Jews are: “They are those whom Allah has cast aside and on whom His wrath has fallen and of whom He has made some as apes and swine..." (5:60); "...You have surely known the end of those from amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, in consequence of which we condemned them: Be ye like apes, despised" (2:65); and "when, instead of amending, they became more persistent in the pursuit of that which they were forbidden, we condemned them: Be ye as apes, despised" (7:166).” Please look up the passages to understand what Islam is all about. These are the passages that Islamic clerics, terrorists and ordinary people alike quote to justify persecution of Jews. There are hundreds of other passages that invoke violence against the "unbelievers"—that's the rest of us Mr. T. Islam is about bigotry and intolerance of ANY OTHER peoples or religions except Muslims. Regardless of what is claimed about the "Religion of Peace" the Qu'ran proves otherwise. Rather than having "hijacked" Islam the Islamofascist terrorists are following it to the letter. The only reason others are even tolerated is as Dhimmis (people of lesser status) is because these keep the Islamic state alive by having to pay jizah (poll tax). That too is in the Qu'ran! Go to Saudi Arabia and see that in action to the Nth degree. The Saudis, if you recall, are the Muslims who have spread Wahhabi Islamic terrorism all over the globe justifying it with these: • "Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29) • "Slay those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay jaziah out of hand and are utterly subdued Surah Al-Tawbah (Repentence)," Ayah 29, . . Just a few Surahs on violence against the "other" & Jews: 9:73; 2:190-192; 47:8; 4:74,76; 4:95,96; 9:5; 5:34,35; 8:39; 8:65; 9:29; 5:60; 2:65; 7:166 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/quranindex.html Look under "Jews" in the index. Here I'll help you: Jews, 5:69, 22:17
As for sending Israel money. When the Arabs, the Muslims and the Euros stop supporting Islamic terrorism, then we can stop supporting Israel. Your position is untenable as well as ignorant. Lili
Romulus I did not say that there ws anything wrong with people visiting Germany before the war. The Mufti (who was realted to Arafat) was in Berlin as an ally of the Nazis. Posted by: Travis at December 19, 2003 04:14 PMMT, the moonbat troll, wished me a Happy B-day yesterday by hoping I would choke on my cake. All this because I am pro-Israel/Jew. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 19, 2003 05:30 PM"MT, the moonbat troll, wished me a Happy B-day yesterday by hoping I would choke on my cake. All this because I am pro-Israel/Jew." Is cake Kosher? ;-) I'd rather have chopped liver with onions! Lili
"USS Liberty issue, which the US government is entirely satisfied was an accident. "
maybe they were "satisfied" in all these cases.....no self-respecting nation would be though ! Posted by: Romulus at December 19, 2003 06:27 PM"Tough to find that kind of language in the Bible or other holy books against EVERY other peoples and religions" Pity really.....must get back to fundamental Puritanism and castigate the Heathen Hordes Posted by: Trace at December 19, 2003 06:30 PMNone of you moonbats raging against the Israelis in the Liberty case can come up with one palusible reason why Israel would attack the ship and one plausiible reason why the USA would cover up an act of war against herself. Posted by: Travis at December 19, 2003 07:13 PMYou have to admit, mike is funny! I don't hate Papua New Guineans. I have no particular feelings about them, one way or the other. This is why I DO NOT spend all my spare time thinking up Papuans conspiracy theories and trolling pro-Papuan web sites insulting people and spoiling for a fight. If I did, you'd have to ask why the obsession. Did a Papuan bully me as a child? Do I feel inadequate compared to my Papuan peers? "I've told you how evil and stupid you all are, at length, and you do not believe me! You trust your own lying eyes instead! Why? Why?!" You have to admit it's funny. Posted by: angua at December 19, 2003 07:17 PMIsrael was not allowed to send troops to any of the Gulf conflicts or to East Timor, for the simple reason that any Israeli involvement would have smashed the coalition involved in the Gulf Wars I&II and smashed any agreement in the Security Council. In all these conflicts, one of the belligerants if not both, were Islamic. In fact when Israel raised the possibility of help, the US explicitly told Israel to keep out.
Angua (in response to your response to MT),
rob Before you go rushing to Mike Talismann defence these are some comments left by him on other sites. "Nah, he looks more like your sister Dave." "Yeah, but does it compare to the priceless work the IDF did at smearing their own shit all over the walls of the PA headquarters and a school in Jenin?" "Because totally biased, inflexible polemicists like yourself have alienated even the more open-minded among the Imam's. Aren't you a freaking idiot?" "Yeah, let's string up the politically-elected and overwhelmingly popular leader of the Palestinian cause. Screw negotiation and compromise. "It's okay when I[Dave] say it, 'cause I'm a Jew! We never do any victimizing, we are always the victim! And if one of our Kidon[assassination] teams realises the great Zionist dream and kills Arafat, even THAT we will spin into US being the true VICTIM!" Some of his comments have been removed. I apologize Melanie for using up your space on this but Mike Talismann has been harassing others as well. He also seems to repeat a lot of stuff from http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/. and has been banned from Tim Blair`s http://timblair.spleenville.com/ site to Posted by: Gary at December 20, 2003 04:41 AMThe real problem in the world today is rabid Anglophobia. It is the constant wail of the great unwashed that the British, or even their most evolved form, the English are somehow to blame for the manifold inadequacies of tribal peoples.” The meaning of the evolved form Mike Talisman, Rob, of course this is not "solely a pro-Israeli website". In fact, I think Melanie is more anti-Jew-hatred than pro-Israeli in her views. My point was not that the Papuan situation is identical to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's that I would not rant and rave and post 7,000 word diatribes and spread whacked-out conspiracies and insult people about ANY topic unless I felt strongly about it. mike obviously does not like Jews and Israelis. So what's the other strong feeling that he could have about them that causes this behaviour, hmmm? I am still trying to answer his "Am I a Jew hater? Where is your evidence?" question. Posted by: angua at December 20, 2003 05:14 AMtally, I understand your point. And it probably is correct from the Welsh, Irish, or Scots POV, though I would ask a Scot. “Hmm. Familiar protestations from Mr T. Interesting that he doesn 't want to say what he was doing in Israel. Spooky, even.” Familiar? If they are familiar, why haven’t you learned anything yet? Are you a thicky? And I wasn’t doing anything even remotely spooky in the middle-east. I spent most of my time doing what I do anyplace else. “Jews separate,although often very unwillingly, inorder to preserve.Muslims separate inorder to impose.Talisman wants to separate too,inorder to disappear” Pass me the bong man. You’ve had one too many tokes today. Even for an academic. “This is a comment posted on my blog by MT. Funny this that he didn't read the post, just reacted vicirally to the Israeli flag.” That’s “vicerally” Mr Uber-Author/Actor/Singer/Self-Lover. And I dislike the way you put Israel’s interests before those of your own nation. It reeks of geopolitical naivety. Insisting on the abolishment of the Israeli state? When did I do that? Quote me at will. Reform is not the same as extermination, but don’t try to teach Andy subtle distinctions like that, you’ll just be wasting your time. In his mind, you’re either zealously in favour of everything that Israel does… or you are a Jew-Hating Nazi that wants to devour Jewish children whole. There is no in-between. He is like a child in respect. The lack of critical analysis as well as the whining tone. “Raving Moonbat Mike:” Here we go. “Many people visited Berlin before the war including Lloyd George and Edward Windsor. The Mufti was in Berlin during the war calling for the destruction of Jews and trying to raise volunteers for the two Muslim SS Divisions being raised from Muslims in the Balkans. Nice try Crocodile Dundee.” He knew where they [the Jews] were headed, if they had the choice. Of course he would do that kind of thing, however despicable. He thought he was defending his lands. You can’t impose post-modern standards of ethical political/military conduct onto another time. Do that and you’ll lose all contextual understanding. “WOW!” They say that astonishment is the child of ignorance. I see they were right in this case. “Ya go away for a while and Mr. T gets on a roll. :-D” Yeah, “ya” do find that. “Too bad his "logic" is as twisted as that of the Arabs.” […] “Mikey, I presented quotes from the Qu'ran which were written by Mohammed AGAINST the Jews and you said: "Who is this passage referring to? It makes no clear declaration." The PASSAGES (plural) are referring to the Jews. It is written in the so-called "holy" book of Islam, the Qu'ran, that Jews are: So is Orthodox Judaism. One of my best friends was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family, and he even nearly became a rabbi, having gone so far as to attend Rabbinical College in Boston. The things he has told me about common Orthodox Jewish practice, the way they vilify Christians AND Muslims alike, made me awaken from my slumber. To them, there are only Jews. All others are “cattle”. “Regardless of what is claimed about the "Religion of Peace" the Qu'ran proves otherwise. Rather than having "hijacked" Islam the Islamofascist terrorists are following it to the letter… [rant continues]” I’m not an advocate or supporter of Islam. I don’t know how many times I have to restate that. Really, it is kind of pathetic that people can’t understand how another person might NOT take a side on foreign issues like this. Well, I can, because it is not my conflict. If group A invades and conquers land X, and group B, the natives of land X, resist them, by any means, I don’t care. I don’t care about that in the same way that I don’t really care (and none of us really do, let's face it) about AIDS in Africa, about the starving multitudes there, or ethnic conflict in Kashmir. I’m an Australian. I care about Australia and the nations that have proven to be Australia's true friends in the past. When war comes to my land, then I will care, I will advocate a “side”, and I will fight. Israel, while not doing a DAMNED thing for my nation [or any other, outside of Israel], expects us to support it in every way possible? Why should we? They have not fought in a single war by our sides. Not one. They are renown for not even sharing the intelligence they gather. So SCREW THEM. Screw the Arabs too, and SCREW every other side that uses violence to maintain the status quo or advance their "cause". I owe neither side a DAMNED THING. It is such arrogance that Israelis and pro-Israeli advocates get righteous and make claims about “Pro-Arabism” or “anti-Semitism” when all a person might do is NOT elect to support Israel. How utterly PATHETIC. That is CHILD'S rationale. “As for sending Israel money. When the Arabs, the Muslims and the Euros stop supporting Islamic terrorism, then we can stop supporting Israel. Your position is untenable as well as ignorant.” No, we can STOP supporting Israel now because it is not in our interests to do so. It never, ever was. They have nukes, and a military far more technically advanced than my nation's. They have proven they can take care of themselves, even when the Arabs attack en-mass. And those Israelites that have been born in nations other than Israel need to get with the program. We non-Jews will not be dragged into their ideologically allegiance-confused miasma. You are either Australian, British, American OR Israeli. Israel is not synonymous with the others, and its interests CERTAINLY are NOT. “MT, the moonbat troll, wished me a Happy B-day yesterday by hoping I would choke on my cake. All this because I am pro-Israel/Jew.” No, I posted that because you’re a bit of a dick. You don’t know what my motives are for the things I do Andy. YOU may think you are God; but I, and God, don’t. Nice going quickly erasing the message too. Can’t have any dissent. People might start to suspect that you aren’t the messiah. Freaking peacock. “Pity that ONLY the US Government is "satisfied" by this fantasy.......then again they were satisfied about the Tonkin business and soft on the USS Pannay attack by Japan and the attack on USS Stark by Iraq..........for some reason the USA is quite supine when their ships get attacked...oh and I forgot USS Pueblo....... Maybe they were "satisfied" in all these cases.....no self-respecting nation would be though !” Yet another wonderful post by Romulus. Very well said my friend. "Tough to find that kind of language in the Bible or other holy books against EVERY other peoples and religions" // Pity really.....must get back to fundamental Puritanism and castigate the Heathen Hordes” Trace, this board is full of absolutists. You shouldn’t be surprised when they make assertions that are just flat out “black and white” style analysis of otherwise complex issues. They want simple answers. Sophisticated, critical thought makes their wee brains ache. “None of you moonbats raging against the Israelis in the Liberty case can come up with one palusible reason why Israel would attack the ship and one plausiible reason why the USA would cover up an act of war against herself.” How about this Travis? ------------------- [Taken from http://www.ussliberty.org/why.htm] Why did Israel attack? We are frequently asked, "Why did Israel attack?" The fact is, we may never know until they tell us, and what they tell us may or may not be true. We know it was deliberate. We know they knew they were killing Americans. We must speculate about the reasons for that decision. But some distinct possibilities are frequently presented by experienced and knowledgeable people. We were an intelligence ship and they were doing something that they did not want the US to know about. One popular writer of Jewish fear-literature, John Loftus, writes in "The Secret War Against the Jews" that Israel attacked deliberately because Israeli authorities believed that USS Liberty was relaying Israeli war plans to Egypt in order to assure the destruction of the Jewish State. That is patently ridiculous, but widely accepted even in Israel. Loftus claims to have documented his position through interviews with long lists of "retired old spies" whom he refuses to identify. While Loftus may be correct about Israeli paranoia, he is totally wrong about Liberty's mission. Liberty's primary mission was to collect intelligence on the Soviet forces in the area. The ship didn't even have a qualified Hebrew linguist aboard. So why did they attack? 1. The planned invasion of the Golan Heights which was set to start a few hours after Liberty's arrival in the area. When Liberty arrived, the invasions was postponed for 24 hours, Israel was attacked, and the invasion took place the next day, or, 2. It is possible that they were afraid that Liberty might learn and report to the United States that Israeli forces were executing up to 1,000 Egyptian Prisoners of War at El Arish at the very moment that Liberty was just 13 miles off shore. Israeli apologists dismiss this story as untrue. Israeli historian Michael Oren in his book "Six Days of War" and in published articles has dismissed the claim as untrue claiming that, if it were true, there would be mass graves and great outcries from Egypt for justice. Behold! There are mass graves and there are cries for justice. Attention is invited to: CNN reporting on the subject which reports mass the mass graves http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9509/mass_graves/ and a TIME Magazine story which reports the outcry: http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/95100 ------------ Whatever the precise motive Travis, they did it ultimately because they knew that they could GET AWAY WITH IT. Look around this board. These people are why. They have been brainwashed since birth by television and movies produced by people with… let us say… their own, very personal reasons for supporting Israel, unconditionally. Then, through their stilted programs and articles, they make you believe that you feel the same way. Moreover, that YOU arrived at these conclusions yourself. But lacking evidence to the contrary, because it is withheld from you in the mainstream media, have you been able to form a fair opinion? Of course not. If you are spoon-fed love of Israel, you will most likely not going to hunt ardently for information to the contrary. In the end, apathy is their ally Travis. That considered, do you think that any president that is up for re-election will ever do a thing to possibly attack the Israelis? When LBJ found out that it was the Israelis attacking Liberty, he ordered the relief fighters that were on the way to SAVE THEIR COUNTRYMEN to RETURN TO THEIR BASE. Why would he do that man? THINK! Because he feared losing the Jewish vote. (because, in his mind, evidently, they cared more about Israel than the nation of their birth) Now go away and think about the implications of that for a while. “You have to admit, mike is funny!” Only at parties and Bar Mitzvahs. “I don't hate Papua New Guineans. I have no particular feelings about them, one way or the other. This is why I DO NOT spend all my spare time thinking up Papuans conspiracy theories and trolling pro-Papuan web sites insulting people and spoiling for a fight. If I did, you'd have to ask why the obsession. Did a Papuan bully me as a child? Do I feel inadequate compared to my Papuan peers?” Ugh. I hate debating with children. If you squash their idiotic below-par non-comparisons, YOU look bad, when THEY start to cry piteously. So I will allow Rob Maynard to deftly annihilate this heap of rubbish. “Angua (in response to your response to MT), If this is a serious discussion website and not merely a means to re-confirm various anti-muslim, anti-arab prejudices then it may be wise to try to logically engage in debates rather than making silly, spurious comments. Nicely said Rob. "I've told you how evil and stupid you all are, at length, and you do not believe me! You trust your own lying eyes instead! Why? Why?!" You have to admit it's funny." Nah, that sucked. I don’t think any of you are evil. [Stupid…? well…] You’ve just been misled. You’re just not really independent-thinkers. Yet. Quit grazing with the herd and come run with MY pack. “Israel was not allowed to send troops to any of the Gulf conflicts or to East Timor, for the simple reason that any Israeli involvement would have smashed the coalition involved in the Gulf Wars I&II and smashed any agreement in the Security Council. In all these conflicts, one of the belligerants if not both, were Islamic. In fact when Israel raised the possibility of help, the US explicitly told Israel to keep out.” Quite true. I concede the issue of those two conflicts. Yet Israel is yet to contribute troops to UN missions in strife-torn areas of the world. Not even one or two as advisors. That is a shitty philosophy. And they are notorious for not sharing intelligence (as well as spying on US). They have been recently “outed” for having known in advance about the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut, but not warning the Americans. Why? I’m sure you’ll ask. Very simple. Israel had a spy inside the group that bombed the barracks, and since he was one of only 3 or 4 men within the group that had prior warning of the intended target, they were not willing to risk harm to him. One Mossad asset is worth 200-300 Americans. That is Israeli thinking for you. NOT an isolated incident. You people might want to start thinking about the character of the nation you defend so zealously. Think they would do the same for you? Think again. Evidence for Israel’s prior knowledge of this bombing was first brought forward in ex-Mossad Katsa (case-officer) Victor Ostrovsky’s first book. It is available through Amazon. “MT seems to have sacrificed sanity and reason to maintain consistency in his hatred of Jews.” Show me a sane person anywhere. And I don’t hate Jews. Accuse me of hating Jews again, and I’ll cease all debate with your worthless ass. ". Firstly, I was not aware that this was soley a "pro-Israeli" website " Melanie's fault I fear.....she writes for the Harmsworth press in England through the Daily Mail, and the Black press in the form of the Jerusalem Post; so I should think the routing of mail from the JP site has led some to think this is a Jerusalem Post website and ignores somewhat the Daily Mail........if you look at the length of each thread it is evident that the fixation on one topic generates most comment. Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 05:42 AMBut MikeT loves Arafat. http://principlesofpragmatism.blogspot.com/ Posted by: Gary at December 20, 2003 05:44 AMSo, mike, before you rush off in a huff: Why ARE you so obsessed with Israel and the Jews? I know why I am -- it's the monthly cheque I get from Sharon for my participation in the Zionist conspiracy to take over the world. But what's your reason? Posted by: angua at December 20, 2003 05:46 AMTo be honest (a) I can't be arsed trawling through various webistes to determine whether MT is an anti-semite or not and (b) my underlying suspicion is that the argumentative stratergy of many people on this site is to predicate some psychological hatred of Jewishness to individuals rather than listen to what they have to say. Still, it seems like many of the interesting issues which this forum raises are skirted around. To name but two. 1)Why, for example, does Lili trawl through the Koran looking for instances of racial incitement but not do the same for any other cannonical religious text? Believe me, if you look hard enough you can find messages of hatred, mass murder etc etc in any religious doctrine. As i've said in previous posts this is a question of the historical receptivity of particular ideas and nothing that can be predicated upon any religion as such. This has to be linked with the humiliation of Palestinian people. I find the following quote (from a link cited in Phillip's article) interesting - and very much wrong. "Considering that Israel has more computers per capita than the US, it is no wonder that "humiliation" is the second most repeated word in these films. When your people are staring into a donkey's ass while other people across the street are looking at a computer screen, it is a humiliation." There seems to be some idea here that Jewish Israelis made the "land bloom" - something of which Arabs are incapable of (related to their religious doctrine, way of life etc)and that the sense of humiliation they feel is intimately bound up with their failiure in this respect. Now this is ultimately wrongheaded. We can think of many reasons why Israel is economically sucsessful (the endless supply of funds from the US - the cheap supply of Palestinian labour)and many reasons why Palestinians feel humiliated (the checkpoints which SOLEY guard illegal settlements, the house demolitions etc. etc.). 2) I am puzzled by the way in which certain indefensible aspects of Israeli law are skirted over in the debate. As a prime example - the new regulations concerning the inter-racial marriage of Israelis and those living in the occupied territories. If you want to defend this then you have to do so on the basis of some sort of cold utilitarian logic (in which case Israel is not the beacon of western liberal values it claims to be)or refute it (in which case you have to deal with substantive issues regarding the nature of Israel as a Jewish state). Rob, good points. This is totally going to shake Mike's world, but I (like other Jews and/or supporters of Israel to a lesser and/or greater degree) can only speak for myself when I try to answer your second question. (I basically agree with you on your first question: Islam as a religion is not the problem.) Others may have different views. Like every other country, Western or otherwise, Israel is imperfect. I don't know who you are talking to who tells you that Israel is ideal in every way. I certainly don't think so. HOWEVER, I have noticed a trend in people bringing Israel's various imperfections up. They seem to think this is somehow a trump card in every debate on the subject. "But Israel does not have civil marriage./But Sharon is a nasty mean man./But Mossad is not a social services agency./But Israeli Arabs can experience discrimination." These things may or may not be true, but they are not actually excuses for terrorism or anti-Semitism. If we are discussing, for example, the status of the Palesitians, then the marriage restrictions are a relevant argument, whether you want to defend it or not. If we are discussing anti-Semitism in France or suicide bombings in Tel Aviv or (as in Melanie's post) unbalanced and deceptive propaganda films, it really isn't. Even if I agree with you that the marriage restrictions are the worst human rights abuse in the history of all history, this does not mean that the little boy in the documentary should be indocrinated to "Kill the Jews!" Posted by: angua at December 20, 2003 08:33 AM"The meaning of the evolved form Mike Talisman, Oh, thank you Tally so much for the dissertation on the history of the British peoples. Why did I ever bother reading history & ancient history at Sydney University, when I could have just come over to your house and listened to you blather? What you are referring to here, actually, is DEVOLUTION. The somewhat retrograde movement of national de-centralization. And speaking as a person from a very old Scottish family, I can assure you that the “British” Empire was something that all peoples of the British Isles (with the exception of the Irish) were fully in support of. That they have now decide to devolve into local parliaments is largely out of a resurgent ethnocentric pride. They wish to recapture something of the independence that their forbears willingly gave away. Sure, the Welsh were conquered and annexed the England, but the Union of Great Britain with Scotland was just that, even if carried out under some fairly shady political maneuvering. The “British” Empire brought wealth to all of the people of the United Kingdom, and they had no problems with it (aside, again, from the Irish). Oh, and dear, don’t be naïve. It always was an “English” Empire. The infrastructure of power was always kept in London. Even when the Stewarts/Stuarts came south, they became “English” so fast it would have made their former Scottish courtier’s head’s collectively spin. But you couldn’t have “grubby” Scots ruling over the English long, so they were all booted out or killed, being replaced by nice Saxon-related William of Orange and his bunch of in-bred maniacs. The Scots & Welsh didn’t care about being called British. They just didn’t want to be called “English”, a distinction that is barely even considered by the world media today. Consider: When two American talking heads, talking about either the “Allies” in WW2 or the coalition in Afghanistan or Iraq, what are the UK contingent almost always referred to as? England. ‘In the dark days of the blitz, where Hitler was at the Channel, preparing for operation Sea-Lion, ENGLAND stood alone, against the Hun…' Where was the distinction? They never bothered, and this pissed off the Scots and Welsh, who preferred the collective reference, because THEY were fighting and dying too. Just being ignored by Anglo-Saxon-Centric retards. Oh, and if you feel that it is "strange" that Canadians, Australians and Americans refer to the British as entirely seperate people, YOU'RE the weird one lass. Mainly because they are not "British" but American, Australian and Canadian. You are thinking in terms of enthocentrism. Get with the concept of the Nation-State babe. It's more hip and less racial. “However, I have never seen mike comment on anything but an Israel-related topic. If it's not Israel-related, he'll bring Israel into it, don't you worry.” What tripe. This is a site that seems to attract an inordinate amount of Israeli apologetics. I am vehemently against that philosophy. If I had about 10 more hours in the day, maybe I could get around to writing posts on poetry or something. But I don’t, so nyah. “(He sent me an Israel-related hate email, and the last dozen posts on my little weblog are about my stress at work, local elections, and humourous dating incidents.)” Umm… want me to post the letter here? I bet you don’t. I accused you in the letter of: "And, of course, there's nothing "psychologically bizare about having intelligent argument". I just haven't seen any coming out of mike." You mean to say, of course, that you ignore me when I get technical. There is an extensive post that I did, under another of Melanie’s articles, wherein I delineate why it is that Israel is not a proper democracy. Because it is accurate commentary, nobody has been able to even touch it. I suggest you go look at my political policy analysis and tell me if it is less intelligent than your posts about loving or hating Papua New Guineans. [Eyeroll.] “I am sorry, but I do not consider someone telling me I do not exist to be an intelligent argument -- though I may try that the next time rent is due.” You can’t get over that, can you? You just do not understand what Anderson meant about “Imagined Communities”, even after I explained his thinking. What makes you YOU, dear CHILD, is not being a “Jew”. YOU are a HUMAN BEING. Being a “Jew” is a silly made-up cultural distinction. You aren’t a “Jew”, there is nothing substantial about being a Jew any more than there was to being an “Aryan” in Nazi Germany. Lost of pageantry is done up to make it look like there is (for both) but there isn’t, and wasn't. No substance, whatsoever. You are a part of one species dear, and calling yourself this, or that, and claiming that the old book that your ancestors wrote, claiming that God loves them most, is really just infantile. Nobody takes that serious. Not anyone worth talking to anyhow. “My point was not that the Papuan situation is identical to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's that I would not rant and rave and post 7,000 word diatribes and spread whacked-out conspiracies and insult people about ANY topic unless I felt strongly about it.” Yet you are unable to take any of my assertions and counter them in a calm, rational manner. I’m sorry, either that means you are a very poor debater, or your views are quite simply erroneous and won’t stand up to testing. “Mike obviously does not like Jews and Israelis.” [Sigh] Yeah, that’s why I lived and worked among them for more than 8 years. I am on the verge of not bothering with this kid anymore. She is gratingly irrational. “So what's the other strong feeling that he could have about them that causes this behaviour, hmmm? I am still trying to answer his "Am I a Jew hater? Where is your evidence?" question.” Are people that argue vehemently against certain (note: not all) policies of the Government of Turkey automatically haters of Turks? How old are you? You can be PASSIONATE about something and devote a good deal of that vehemence to the effort of pointing out what is WRONG with it. Do people do that solely because they hate the whole? Or because they are trying to chip away at the imperfections, leaving something changed, something better than it was previously? My feelings for the Jews and for Israel are my own. My passion for the subject stems from my long years of experience with them and with Israel. It is my business, and you should have the humility to admit to not having the first vaguest notion of where it is that I am coming from. Because you really, really, don’t. “Mike hates the Jews! (You all can thank me later.)” Can’t follow the procedure of replying under the C&P quotes eh? How little of a surprise that is. I was replying to DP actually, the quote from his post was the last that I dealt with. It was not an open invitation to snickering little schoolgirls, sorry. “But MikeT loves Arafat. Gary, I suspect, is in love with me. Not content to merely slurp silly sarcasms about my blatant anti-Semitism, he follows me around from board to board, making sure that everyone knows how imperfect I am (ie: that I have lost my temper, and insinuated that I slept with people’s sisters, or that they have ugly sisters, OR that THEY sleep with their sisters, if I really am pissed off.) Now Gary, as a final trick, is going to wheel out for us a person who has not lost their temper in their lives. Oh, and Gary, you can’t use Jesus. He got upset with the moneylenders in the Temple, remember? And even Ghandi got pissed off with his weirdo prostitute son. So he is off-limits too. As for that URL that he C&P on the post, that URL used to be my blogsite. Then some lovely Pro-Israeli hacker slammed it, and I could no longer access it. THEN, when I created a new blog, someone (probably the same someone who hacked it) got the URL from Blogspot and set up a mirror site to my old one, only with lots of lovely sarcastic “I love the Arabs” BS. Proving once and for all to me just how much integrity members of the Pro-Israeli gang have. Happily, there is a silver lining. My lawyers have on staff computer experts, who are even now tracing the identity of the person who is fraudulently posting under my FULL name. I expect to have that site closed and the individual responsible for it just that much poorer by mid-2004. :-) Good luck Gary. Oh, and please tell your Mossad friends not to park in my car-space anymore. “So, mike, before you rush off in a huff: Why ARE you so obsessed with Israel and the Jews?” I’m not rushing off anyplace, sorry to disappoint. And my motivations are my own. So long as I deal with you fairly, and don’t hand out racist fantasies, crappy fallacies and outright BS in the way all the rest of you do to me, that is all you need to know. “I know why I am -- it's the monthly cheque I get from Sharon for my participation in the Zionist conspiracy to take over the world. But what's your reason?” I have more respect for Mossad and the Shin Bet to believe that they would hire you, kiddo. Now go get to work on your colouring books. We can talk again in say, 10-20 years. “To be honest (a) I can't be arsed trawling through various webistes to determine whether MT is an anti-semite or not and (b) my underlying suspicion is that the argumentative stratergy of many people on this site is to predicate some psychological hatred of Jewishness to individuals rather than listen to what they have to say.” My God… reasoning… and not from my lips… Dare I read further? “Still, it seems like many of the interesting issues which this forum raises are skirted around. To name but two. 1)Why, for example, does Lili trawl through the Koran looking for instances of racial incitement but not do the same for any other cannonical religious text? Believe me, if you look hard enough you can find messages of hatred, mass murder etc etc in any religious doctrine. As i've said in previous posts this is a question of the historical receptivity of particular ideas and nothing that can be predicated upon any religion as such. 2) I am puzzled by the way in which certain indefensible aspects of Israeli law are skirted over in the debate. As a prime example - the new regulations concerning the inter-racial marriage of Israelis and those living in the occupied territories. If you want to defend this then you have to do so on the basis of some sort of cold utilitarian logic (in which case Israel is not the beacon of western liberal values it claims to be)or refute it (in which case you have to deal with substantive issues regarding the nature of Israel as a Jewish state). Rob Maynard, you rock. ""Is there something psychologically bizare about having intelligent argument?. . " So, I guess and "intelligent" argument is one with which you agree, right Mr. Maynard? Otherwise, if anyone points out truths and facts with which you do not agree—then, that is unintelligent. LOL "So is Orthodox Judaism. One of my best friends was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family, and he even nearly became a rabbi, having gone so far as to attend Rabbinical College in Boston. The things he has told me about common Orthodox Jewish practice, the way they vilify Christians AND Muslims alike, made me awaken from my slumber. To them, there are only Jews. All others are “cattle”." Regardless of Jewish Orthodoxy, they are NOT strapping on bomb-belts by the score and blowing up innocents in pizza parlors or flying airplanes into high-rise buildings. You can talk about "weird" practices of Orthodox Judaism all you want, but, they are NOT killers who are incited to murder by their Rabbis! "No, we can STOP supporting Israel now because it is not in our interests to do so. It never, ever was. They have nukes, and a military far more technically advanced than my nation's. They have proven they can take care of themselves, even when the Arabs attack en-mass." It IS indeed in our "interest"! The Israelis are the only democracy in the region. There is no trusting the medieval Arabs. They can't get away from tribal warfare. As to the nukes. Can you prove that? "No, I posted that because you’re a bit of a dick. You don’t know what my motives are for the things I do Andy. YOU may think you are God; but I, and God, don’t."
"1)Why, for example, does Lili trawl through the Koran looking for instances of racial incitement but not do the same for any other cannonical religious text? Believe me, if you look hard enough you can find messages of hatred, mass murder etc etc in any religious doctrine. As i've said in previous posts this is a question of the historical receptivity of particular ideas and nothing that can be predicated upon any religion as such. Lili does not "trawl" she studies Islam and why it is such a damned backward "religion" that will take us all under if we let it! Why don't YOU look into the Bible for such text? The reason you won't find them is because there are very few in comparison to the Qu'ran. Additionally, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury et al. are not standing in their pulpits every Sunday screaming for a Christian jihad against the "unbelieving" Muslims! "This has to be linked with the humiliation of Palestinian people." What a whole lot of CRAPOLA that is! The "humiliation" of the Palestinians or any other Arabs is entirely of their own making. The Palis called the second intefadah in 2000. The Jews did not "make" them go for jihad instead of a nation. "There seems to be some idea here that Jewish Israelis made the "land bloom" - something of which Arabs are incapable of (related to their religious doctrine, way of life etc)and that the sense of humiliation they feel is intimately bound up with their failiure in this respect. Now this is ultimately wrongheaded. We can think of many reasons why Israel is economically sucsessful (the endless supply of funds from the US - the cheap supply of Palestinian labour)and many reasons why Palestinians feel humiliated (the checkpoints which SOLEY guard illegal settlements, the house demolitions etc. etc.). The Israelies DID make the desert bloom! And they DO have more Nobel Prizes than other peoples, especially the Arabs/Muslims. As to the funds. The Arabs have spent BILLIONS of $$$ on TERROR. Had they put that into development, they might be somewhere by now other than having the whole world look at every Arab/Muslim as a potential Islamist with terror on his mind, Mr. Manard. " Being a “Jew” is a silly made-up cultural distinction. You aren’t a “Jew”, there is nothing substantial about being a Jew any more than there was to being an “Aryan” in Nazi Germany. Lost of pageantry is done up to make it look like there is (for both) but there isn’t, and wasn't. No substance, whatsoever. " Let's just tell that to the Muslims. They'll want to give up being Muslims and become "human beings" instead—I am sure! " . . .It is my business, and you should have the humility to admit to not having the first vaguest notion of where it is that I am coming from. Because you really, really, don’t. . ." That appears to be true, Mr. T. No one can figure out what your problem with reality is. And BTW—don't you have a job? I mean, how do you find the time for these diatribes of irrationality about the "evil" Jews vs. the poor, maligned Arabs those paragons of peace? Do you know how much bandwidth you have taken up with this drivel, Mr. T? Have you considered Trafalgar Square? http://www.camvista.com/england/london/trafsq.php3 I'm sure someone will listen to you there. Perhaps the pigeons? ;-) Lili “we hate the kuffar [unbelievers] as a matter of Deen [religion] for the sake of Allah (swt), it is nothing personal. We do not hate the jews for their noses or the way they look; Allah (swt) is the one who created their looks, our hate for them is for the sake of Allah alone.” Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamic organisation based in Britain. MikeT,My "Mossad friends" while tracing your physical and internet movements have discovered that your entire knowledge of Israel is not from livening and working in Israel or Sydney University because you have been to nether places. But from sites like http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ , they have also discovered you live in a half-way house with no car no job and no friends except the voices in your head when not medicated. Posted by: Gary at December 20, 2003 11:19 AMShit a brick, who is that freak? I'm not too concerned by this Mike Tail person, but the nature of that university is a bit of a worry where they are making documentaries like that. I'd like to know the name of the journalist as well. Sounds like a senior editor to me. Posted by: Scott Wickstein at December 20, 2003 11:34 AM"There seems to be some idea here that Jewish Israelis made the "land bloom" - something of which Arabs are incapable of (related to their religious doctrine, way of life etc)and that the sense of humiliation they feel is intimately bound up with their failiure in this respect. " "There seems to be some idea here that Rhodesian (south African) Whites made the "land bloom" - something of which Black Africans are incapable of (related to their religious doctrine, way of life etc)and that the sense of humiliation they feel is intimately bound up with their failiure in this respect. " Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 11:57 AM"The British (Scottish and Welsh) government of the UK are quite happy with this.They refuse to say the word "England",
Scotland has a Regional Government under Act of Parliament with limited tax-raising powers, under the Barnett Formula it gets 110% of each £ spent in England....it is wholly dependent upon The Exchequer in London.
The rule of Ramsay MacDonald and Blair-Brown and their Scottish Government in London has also been a marked debacle. "Britain" is an eighteenth-century construct after the Duke of Cumberland smashed the tribal heathen in Scotland before which it was like Afghanistan is today.
“So, I guess and "intelligent" argument is one with which you agree, right Mr. Maynard? Otherwise, if anyone points out truths and facts with which you do not agree—then, that is unintelligent. LOL” Look to yourself for that rule dear. Mr Maynard certainly did not set it up. And by the way, the rule (as you lot have created it) seems to be “Argue against us and you are an anti-Semitic hater with no job, no life and nothing but love for Arabs.” “Regardless of Jewish Orthodoxy, they are NOT strapping on bomb-belts by the score and blowing up innocents in pizza parlors or flying airplanes into high-rise buildings. You can talk about "weird" practices of Orthodox Judaism all you want, but, they are NOT killers who are incited to murder by their Rabbis!” So the ghastly acts of others that kill MORE people mitigate the unworthy actions of others? Neat! So by your logic, all Hitler has to do to be totally in the clear ethically is wait for some other dictator to come along and kill more people than he did. Opps, wait, Stalin did that. But he had some Jewish pals, so we won’t give him too much of a bad rep. Oh, and Rabbi Kahane incited pious Jews to kill Arabs. Remember? And as I recall, that is precisely what happened, a follower of his, an uzi machine gun, and alot of dead Muslims in a Mosque. Ring any bells? “It IS indeed in our "interest"! The Israelis are the only democracy in the region. There is no trusting the medieval Arabs. They can't get away from tribal warfare. As to the nukes. Can you prove that?” Israel is not a democracy. In another post I have gone to some effort to delineate why this is the case. Go read it. The Arabs are backward, but their backwardness is no mitigation for wanton Israeli aggression. And lastly, you can’t be serious. You are denying that Israel has nuclear weapons? How coy. And idiotic. Okay, if Israel does not have lots of lovely nukes, why was it that Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at the Dimona plant where the nukes (that don’t exist) are made, went to Australia, then London, telling the world that they did. Now, if he was lying, why did Mossad agents totally illegally kidnap him from Rome using yet another allegiance-confused American Jew to act as the sexy bait. Then they took him to Israel, and locked him in a little box with no windows for the rest of his life. He is the man with the dubious distinction of having spent longer in solitary confinement than any other person in the world. This was done even though the cat was already out of the bag. He was to serve as a precautionary tale. Talk, and this is what will happen to you. Israel… the progressive and humane country. “Now you are going over the edge, Mr. T! Only a "bit" of one?” Well, if I say that he is a ‘big dick’, he might confuse that for me insinuating that he possesses one of those. And according to his sister, he doesn’t. “What a whole lot of CRAPOLA that is! The "humiliation" of the Palestinians or any other Arabs is entirely of their own making. The Palis called the second intefadah in 2000. The Jews did not "make" them go for jihad instead of a nation.” Yeah, the grubby Arabs, why shouldn’t they accept the crappy deal that wasn’t the slightest bit realistic? What, do they have STANDARDS now? “And they DO have more Nobel Prizes than other peoples, especially the Arabs/Muslims.” Whoa, statement verging on the insinuation of Jewish racial superiority there. Watch it honey. “Let's just tell that to the Muslims. They'll want to give up being Muslims and become "human beings" instead—I am sure!” Oh, they will. When I have realized my “evil” goals of making Zionistic Orthodox Jews and their starry-eyed Gentile lackeys realize that they need to get with the new world equality program, Islam is my next target. I like to set my goals realistically like that. “That appears to be true, Mr. T. No one can figure out what your problem with reality is. And BTW—don't you have a job? I mean, how do you find the time for these diatribes of irrationality about the "evil" Jews vs. the poor, maligned Arabs those paragons of peace?” It is Saturday night here dear. Don’t be pushy. I work hard enough during the week as it is. And I am a quick typist. And lastly, I don't defend the Arabs. But you know that. “Do you know how much bandwidth you have taken up with this drivel, Mr. T? Have you considered Trafalgar Square? http://www.camvista.com/england/london/trafsq.php3 I'm sure someone will listen to you there. Perhaps the pigeons? ;-)” If Melanie asks me to back off, I will. But until then, I will answer all criticisms of my views and myself, tit-for-tat. “we hate the kuffar [unbelievers] as a matter of Deen [religion] for the sake of Allah (swt), it is nothing personal. We do not hate the jews for their noses or the way they look; Allah (swt) is the one who created their looks, our hate for them is for the sake of Allah alone.” Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamic organisation based in Britain.” Typical Islamic morons. That kind of rhetoric doesn’t surprise me. “This British organization, openly declares its intention to work to reestablish the Caliphate — the single political, religious, and military leader who will rule the Islamic world as the successor of the Prophet Muhammad — “in order that Islam dominates the World (Izhaar ud-Deen) and becomes the World order.” Really? Now that is surprising. I guess it was preordained though, what with the failure of Arabic Nationalism. Something had to take its place. I hope these people remain in the minority. “I would not choose Israel as an ally, but we must recognise that Israel, the US and all other "kuffar" States are under attack by the same religious fanatics. The destruction of Israel and the extermination or forcible conversion of the Jews would be followed by an escalation of the Jihad against the West.” A well stated rationale for your beliefs. I don’t agree with you, I think your analysis is a little too black and white, but I respect the fact that you have gone to some length to think it through. In my experience, Gulf Arabs will not go for this. Certainly the Jordanians will not. Nor the Egyptians or the Iranians. And without them, no such Caliphate is likely in the near future. “MikeT, My "Mossad friends" while tracing your physical and internet movements have discovered that your entire knowledge of Israel is not from livening and working in Israel or Sydney University because you have been to nether places.” Ha Ha! You actually think that my little rants are threatening enough to warrant Israel and the Mossad watching me? Man, you are something. You flatter me too much though. And I am a graduate of Sydney University, although that is no great boast anymore. The place is riddled with idiotic leftists and brain-dead academics. Much like any other I expect. And I have lived in Israel, the experience reforming my entire life. I have also lived briefly in Turkey, Greece and the United States. Although not always under “Talismann”. ;-) “But from sites like http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ , they have also discovered you live in a half-way house with no car no job and no friends except the voices in your head when not medicated.” You forgot to mention that the half-way house belongs to your sister, and that we get it on like rabbits. Seriously though, I don’t have much time for the JTR and their ZOG theories. I am more impressed by this site, which is hosted the JTR. http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/wvr.htm It is a work by a skilled academic, and every factoid that it asserts that I have read and bothered to check has held up. You should all take the time to check it out. You might learn something. "“MikeT, My "Mossad friends" while tracing your physical and internet movements have discovered that your entire knowledge of Israel is not from livening and working in Israel or Sydney University because you have been to nether places.”
Mike T. just one more question before I suggest you kill yourself. How are you able to type while wearing a straitjacket? Posted by: Travis at December 20, 2003 02:18 PMTwo points: 1) Trace, Talisman and Romulus (and various other handles he/she employs) are all, in reality, the same individual. 2) Whilst having a pathological Jew hater on the forum who appears to fairly represent the mood of Britain has served the very useful purpose of demonstrating the enormous dangers British Jews face, it is, on the other hand, starting to stifle legitimate debate. 3) With the above in mind, would it be possible for Melanie to ask posters to sign up to this forum first by using a legitimate e-mail address (not Hotmail, Yahoo etc.)? I think she'll find that the racists, and other such odious riff-raff, will disappear back beneath the floorboards where they usually reside (courage not being one of their more prominent personal characteristics). Posted by: Charles at December 20, 2003 02:42 PM"Mike T. just one more question before I suggest you kill yourself. How are you able to type while wearing a straitjacket?" Classy. Nice to see your true self revealed Travis. I say to people that accuse me of hating Jews, 'I don't hate you, and I don't really "hate" anyone.' Travis wants people that disagree with him to just die. Hitler and Stalin had the people to make it happen for them. Do you admire them as much as I suspect you do Travis? "Two points: 1) Trace, Talisman and Romulus (and various other handles he/she employs) are all, in reality, the same individual." Melanie can verify our IP addresses if she wants to Chucky, and seeing as I'm quite sure that the three of us come from seperate countries, that would be tough to fake. And that you resulted to this is just LAME by the way. "2) Whilst having a pathological Jew hater on the forum who appears to fairly represent the mood of Britain has served the very useful purpose of demonstrating the enormous dangers British Jews face, it is, on the other hand, starting to stifle legitimate debate." You will show me where I make a remark that reveals me to "hate Jews". By hatred, I assume you mean the irrational anger that drives men to kill other men, or seek their death or destruction. I have only ever advocated reform, both in Israel and Judaism. If you cannot show me the evidence upon which you base your assumptions, I will take the bold step (yet not without evidence) of assuming that you are a complete prat. Oh, and I'm not "representative of the British Mood" or "the danger British Jews face". Why? Because I'm Australian, you jerk. How many of my posts did you actually READ before you jumped in wildly assuming? "3) With the above in mind, would it be possible for Melanie to ask posters to sign up to this forum first by using a legitimate e-mail address (not Hotmail, Yahoo etc.)? I think she'll find that the racists, and other such odious riff-raff, will disappear back beneath the floorboards where they usually reside (courage not being one of their more prominent personal characteristics)." So people who espouse beliefs that are the ideological/theological mirrors of your own can rest easy in the obscurity that the net allows, but not your opponents? How facistic. I have supplied my email here in the past, as well as the URL to my website. What did it get me Chuck? A TON of porn spam. And a pro-Israeli hacker wiped out BOTH of my websites, and is now generating libelous jibberish on the first one. You should really think about not assuming about things you know nothing about Chuckie-Duckie. Like Israel. You are quite clueless. Do us all a favour and just shut up Charles. Go give Carmilla a good seeing to amid your bloody talking roses. By the way Charles... where is YOUR email? You didn't type it in. You're not just another hypocrite are you? Mike Talisman,
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn! I really don't know why you people think opposition or criticism of Israel / Judaism also entails lavish adoration, or even basic agreement with their enemies. I think the Arab nations suck. I can't make it more plain than that. Islam sucks, it is backward, and violent, and retrograde to humanity. I've lived among Jews, and I know how intelligent (as opposed to the greater % of Arabs) Jews can be. They can do better than they are now, and I encourage them to do so, because they stand the greatest chance of "getting" my message. I'll deal with the desert-dwellers later. " “I would not choose Israel as an ally, but we must recognise that Israel, the US and all other "kuffar" States are under attack by the same religious fanatics. The destruction of Israel and the extermination or forcible conversion of the Jews would be followed by an escalation of the Jihad against the West.” " Mr. T: "A well stated rationale for your beliefs. I don’t agree with you, I think your analysis is a little too black and white, but I respect the fact that you have gone to some length to think it through. In my experience, Gulf Arabs will not go for this. Certainly the Jordanians will not. Nor the Egyptians or the Iranians. And without them, no such Caliphate is likely in the near future. "
Lili: “Regardless of Jewish Orthodoxy, they are NOT strapping on bomb-belts by the score and blowing up innocents in pizza parlors or flying airplanes into high-rise buildings. You can talk about "weird" practices of Orthodox Judaism all you want, but, they are NOT killers who are incited to murder by their Rabbis!” Mr. T: "So the ghastly acts of others that kill MORE people mitigate the unworthy actions of others? Neat! So by your logic, all Hitler has to do to be totally in the clear ethically is wait for some other dictator to come along and kill more people than he did. Opps, wait, Stalin did that. But he had some Jewish pals, so we won’t give him too much of a bad rep." I criticize Israel plenty for the settlements. I do not believe that their reactions to Islamic terror are "overkill" (no pun intended.) If suicide jihadis appeared in the Western world, we would do EXACTLY the same thing! The populace would become very, very bloodthirsty, even the pacifist Euros. ;-) "Oh, and Rabbi Kahane incited pious Jews to kill Arabs. Remember? And as I recall, that is precisely what happened, a follower of his, an uzi machine gun, and alot of dead Muslims in a Mosque. Ring any bells?" Oh, what BULLSHIT red herrings these arguments are. Certainly there is a difference between an occasional crazy, such as Kahane and our very own Oklahoma criminal terrorist bomber. Pulling these people out as examples is ludicrous. Why? Because, there are not millions of them. There ARE millions of Muslims who support radical Islam! Terrorists are not getting their funds from Norwegian Lutherans. There are not thousands of Kahnes preaching "death to the unbeliever" every Shabat. But, there are thousands of Islamic clerics doing just that with the Qu'ran to back them up, Mr. T. The Saudis just arrested several THOUSAND of these buggers. And there are thousands more all over the world inciting the "true-believer" to murderous jihad. And that is another thing, you keep IGNORING the FACT that it is the Qu'ran that is the terror manual. The "holy" document that makes terror against the infidel justifiable in Muslim eyes. "The Arabs are backward, but their backwardness is no mitigation for wanton Israeli aggression. " More BULLSHIT! You are on a roll, Mr. T. LOL The Israelis RETALIATE to Palestinian/Islamic AGGRESSION! The Palis started this in 2000 with the second intefadah. Just as they started it before Israel was ever a state with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who in 1919 was training suicide jihadis and ultimately collaborated with the Nazis for the destruction of the Jews. Let's be honest, here, the Qu'ran is an anti-Semitic, misanthropic, misogynistic document. One CANNOT find that kind of hate rhetoric in any other major religion's holy book. "Yeah, the grubby Arabs, why shouldn’t they accept the crappy deal that wasn’t the slightest bit realistic? What, do they have STANDARDS now?" The deal was a good one. Even stupid Arafat wanted to accept it earlier this year because he realized he did a dumb thing. Now all the donor built Pali infrastructure is destroyed thanks to Arab Islamic terrorism. "“And they DO have more Nobel Prizes than other peoples, especially the Arabs/Muslims.” Whoa, statement verging on the insinuation of Jewish racial superiority there. Watch it honey." Mikey, pooh, I call a spade a spade. Jews, like Arabs are not a race. When you or anyone else can show the world what Arabs or Muslims have done to move the world forward in the last 500 to 1000 years then you will have a case. In the mean time, the Jews are very, very clever people. They have done a lot for humanity. Arabs can only boast of self "humiliation." They are humiliated because they lack pride—the pride to get off their a**es and do something besides whine and support Islamic terror. Please post some information as to the developments and inventions of Arabs, Muslims in even the last 100 years. Please, do that! "It is Saturday night here dear. Don’t be pushy. I work hard enough during the week as it is. And I am a quick typist." Hmmm—a hard working, dateless, quick typist alone in front of his computer on a Saturday night. LOL Of course, it is a fact that lots of Aussie males are gay. . . "1) Trace, Talisman and Romulus (and various other handles he/she employs) are all, in reality, the same individual." I don't believe that for a minute, Charles! Especially Romulus and Mr. T. "I have supplied my email here in the past, as well as the URL to my website. What did it get me Chuck? A TON of porn spam. And a pro-Israeli hacker wiped out BOTH of my websites, and is now generating libelous jibberish on the first one." Aww—those of us who post real e-mail addresses employ blocking software. You should try it. Computer literacy is a good thing. You aren't Arab are you? They don't want to deal with technology either except to kill the "unbeleiver." ;-) We need a bit more humor. Laughing at Mr. T. is just not enough. "Saudi Arabia bans cuddly toys" "The ban singled out stuffed-animal toys and dolls of brides. It made no mention of male dolls and it was not clear if these were banned as well. The order also prohibited the importation of crucifixes and models of Buddha, the newspaper said. . . " Oh, those tolerant Saudis–the paragons of Islam. Teddy bears and bride dolls are so decadent, so threatening to pure Islam. And of course, the trappings of any other faith are not to be tolerated in a pure, misanthropic Islamic state. My position continues to be that if Israel were to "disappear" tomorrow, that Islamic terror against the "unbelievers" (that means the rest of the world) would not stop. Islam needs a Reformation. Without that, there will NEVER be peace, Jews, Israel or not.
Here is a little something for Romy. ;-) The dear keeps complaining that we "dumb" Americans just don't understand the "sophisticated" Euros: "Stuck on Calypso’s Island" ". . . Europeans: You can see what we need is more communication — what concrete steps need to be taken to resolve the issue? Dumb American: For starters? Perhaps forgive Iraq's multibillion-dollar debt to France and Germany that Saddam ran up for imported weapons that killed thousands of his own people and some of us as well. Build a couple of aircraft carriers and learn how to use them to promote freedom and democracy. Impose a trade embargo on Syria and Iran. Don't give any more money to those who funnel it to suicide bombers on the West Bank. If you are in NATO, send 50,000 troops to Afghanistan to finish off those who attacked your ally; otherwise get out or dissolve NATO. . . " "And so it typically goes. Most of these European interlocutors are impressively educated. They are naturally inquisitive and well versed in the nuances of culture. But there is also a great fear among them — almost as if the United States is a painful reminder that the world might not be so calm beyond their shores. If we would just not stir things up, leave it alone, not worry about it — the "problem" of terror might go away — as if the Soviet Union once collapsed due not to billions invested in American deterrence, but to a change of heart by well-meaning Marxists in Moscow. Europeans fixate on American and Israeli foibles — and not the far greater transgressions of Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or Arabs. Why? Because we alone listen to them, and with us they are not overwhelmed by the magnitude of a Grozny, Tibet, mass hangings in Tehran, the obliteration of an entire town in Hama, or the gassing of Kurds. And of course Mr. Bush does not threaten to cut off any European journalist's testicles, or brag about not clicking his heels to Germans. I'm sure that the Europeans are light-years ahead of us in the use of public transportation. They probably are wiser in their per-capita energy utilization, and their primary and secondary education may be superior. But there is also something of Calypso's island about them. For all their professed enjoyment of food, shelter, and lovemaking, the Europeans are bored silly with their listless routine and are increasingly timid — this from a great people who should not, but really do, live in terror of their own past. Like Odysseus in his comfy subservience to Calypso, these mesmerized and complacent sensualists sometimes contemplate leaving the comfort of their fairyland atoll and in boredom weep nightly, gazing out at the seashore. But as yet they lack the hero's courage to finally build a raft and sail rough seas to confront suitors who are trying to crash their civilization. This war would be over far sooner if 350 million Europeans insisted on a modicum of behavior from Middle Eastern rogue regimes, rounded up and tried terrorists in their midst, deported islamofascists, cut off funding to killers on the West Bank, ignored Yasser Arafat — and warned the next SOB who blew up Europeans in Turkey, North Africa, or Iraq that there was a deadly reckoning to come from the continent that invented the Western military tradition. Indeed, European sophistication and experience, combined with real power, could be a great aid to the West in its effort to promote liberal and consensual governments outside its shores. But if they do not even believe in the unique legacy of their civilization, then why should we — much less their enemies? So for now we should not lament that the Europeans are no longer real allies, but rather be thankful that they are still for a while longer neutrals rather than enemies — these strange and brilliant people who somehow lost their way, and no longer can distinguish between a noisy Knesset and Arafat's hangmen, much less between those racing to topple a tyrant in Baghdad and others lounging at Sebrenica." Read whole conversation here. It's a good one: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200312190847.asp My sentiments exactly! Lili
Hi Lilith: I posted that same comment about Teddy Bears a couple of days ago from Die Welt.....it seems GI Joe is acceptable....but not his real life form as GI in Saudi. This thread is always the biggest and will go on till the end of time or until the CRE gets involved. As for Charles......well he is one of those oddballs you always find online.....he is probably running through a proxy on some university server whilst he spams us with viagra and vicodin Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 05:57 PM"If you are in NATO, send 50,000 troops to Afghanistan to finish off those who attacked your ally; otherwise get out or dissolve NATO. . . "
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp
Oh, someone asked where this all encompassing anti-terror law is. Well, here's one from the EU: "European Militant Network Shut Down
All the suspects were charged with "association with the aim of international terrorism" — a charge introduced in Italy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/nov/22italy.htm The US has had one since the Oklahoma bombing. Hundreds of Jews are not traveling to where-ever to "defend" Judaism against the "unbelievers" Mr. T. Lili You know Lilith, you are probably right...maybe it is time Europe built its own defence and NATO disappeared....and that Europe built its own war machine.....then they won't need to import US goods and you can enjoy your dollar and Europe can pursue its own objectives. Just Email Blair and tell him how sick Americans and Jews are of his attempts to ingratiate himself with them and that you consider British efforts in the Gulf to be worthless. Tell him to stick his war dead and f@@@ off because you as an American want Europe to f@@k off and let Israel and the US run round the world together like Austria and Germany in 1914. You despise Europe and reject anything Britain does......well fine write to your Senator and ask him to push for breaking ties with Britain and Europe........join with Chirac he shares your opinion 110%. You are the nearest thing to a Gaullist I have ever heard from in the US Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 06:08 PM"Damn right Lilith....you email Tony Blair and tell him to get British forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now !" LOL I don't even have the guts to e-mail GW, Romy. They are arresting people and keeping them locked up without charges. Although, in true democratic fashion, the courts are now coming out of their stupor and challenging at least the arrest of US citizens and keeping them without charge. It's about time that the rule of law ruled again! Lilith Well, here's one from the EU:
"You despise Europe and reject anything Britain does......well fine write to your Senator and ask him to push for breaking ties with Britain and Europe........join with Chirac he shares your opinion 110%. You are the nearest thing to a Gaullist I have ever heard from in the US " Gees, Romy. How many times do I have to tell you that I LOVE Europe— especially some countries. I don't want to "break ties" with anyone— well, except maybe the radical Arabs/Muslims. And I don't "reject anything Britain does"—except for the food. ;-) Love the gardens though as long as lunch comes from across the channel. I just want people to be responsible for themselves. That means Europe can pay for its own defense. That way, we Americans can have more discretionary income to spend in Europe. See? Win, Win! ;-) Lilith Damn right Lilith....you email Tony Blair and tell him to get British forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now !" LOL I don't even have the guts to e-mail GW, Romy. They are arresting people and keeping them locked up without charges"
I just want people to be responsible for themselves. That means Europe can pay for its own defense. That way, we Americans can have more discretionary income to spend in Europe. See? Win, Win! ;-)" Much less actually, since your exports depend on Boeing and other defence exports to Europe.....and with projections of a further 30% devaluation of the US Dollar you will find 'discretionary income' a thing to dream about Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 06:21 PM"The EU has NO Counter-Terrorism Law because Judicial Matters are a NATIONAL not an EU matter" Funny—sometimes you seem like an intelligent man–and other times. Here are a few links to the EU Parliament on that very issue, Romy. European Parliament report on the role of the European Union in combating terrorism (2001/2016(INI)), Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs; http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc02/EDOC9520.htm Regardless of whether the EU has such a law—these laws have been passed all over the world, especially in Europe and the rest of the West, since 9/11. I need to go write some HTML. This is tedious! Lili
The European Union is NOT a sovereign body....it has NO role in national security matters......it is a bi like the WTO. Since you are so keen on Terrorism Acts read up on them from the DORA through Prevention of Terrorism Acts (which Blair's party always opposed) to the Terrorism Act 2000 which is used more widely by our Police than your police would ever dare......and maybe you can look at 18B detainees. Still, terrorism only got exciting when the US woke up and found they had dished out visas to bin Laden's men to take flying lessons ! In another couple of years Americans will be bored by it all and lose interest....then bin Laden will start again Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 06:30 PM"Much less actually, since your exports depend on Boeing and other defence exports to Europe.....and with projections of a further 30% devaluation of the US Dollar you will find 'discretionary income' a thing to dream about" Are you living on the planet with the rest of us, Romy? It is the Euro economies that are in the toilet at the moment and have been for a long time. The US has had tons of growth this year. (Although I am not sure I believe the figures.) Regardless, the Euro is up. That, means, dear Romy, that Euro exports are not affordable by Americans or anyone else. See? Also, tourism to Europe is down. That is also bad for Europe. See? We aren't even purchasing French wines. That is BAD for Europe, not so much the US. You have it all backward. I suggest econ 101 and thereafter a solid investment course. I, and many others, made 45% plus in the market this year alone, which gave me and a lot of other American lots of "discretionary" income. How did you do? Lili Yes Lilith, just when in US history has a President injected as much credit into the US economy ? The US borrows from China and Japan $50 bn each month......and has a trade gap = 5%+ GDP which is unsustainable and which is why the Dollar is collapsing. When the US has to start retrenching after November 2004 Euroland will go further into slump as China becomes hyper-competitive. The USA is now where Britain was in the 1960s (and now) unable to afford the lifestyle which credit has facilitated. All enterprises grow fast on debt.....some crash when asked to repay Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 06:42 PMYes Lilith, so long as US corporates can book 10% returns on their Pension Funds and book it into the P&L (in violation of IAS) fictional profits will grow.......but the US cannot export if Euroland slumps further, and if Saudi Arabia asks for oil to be purchased in Euros both Europe and the US are screwed. It is not US or Europe any more......China is the new paymaster for the US; it is China which buys Treasuries and makes the things you consume......why do you think layoffs are mounting in Euroland ? It is US credit junkies which kept the world economy afloat....but China is deflating it. Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 06:45 PMBTW Lilith, I'll burn you and any academic in the Us off the block in Economics.....never did find anyone in Academia there with a superior grasp Posted by: Romulus at December 20, 2003 06:47 PM"BTW Lilith, I'll burn you and any academic in the Us off the block in Economics.....never did find anyone in Academia there with a superior grasp" Sure, that's why the Euros are doing so much better—grasping. What is the percentage of Euros owning homes again? Over 68% of Americans own their own homes. My personal residence is about three times as large as the average Euro home and you could probably fit 10 average apartments into such a house. I am pretty typical for my income bracket in the US. Oh, Romy, "grasping" as you do at econ, (and everything else) you must really be swimming in BIG bucks! Right? I would be willing to bet that you live in one of those crummy little British row houses or worse yet a council flat and wear tattered tweeds. I'll bet you even look mouldy around the edges because you can't afford to groom yourself properly. I'll match my sense of econ and economic status against yours any day. And I don't live on credit. BTW—credit is GOOD! It is what has lifted the ordinary human to be able to live like kings of old. Muslims don't believe in credit. The Qu'ran says it is "bad." So, they are dirt poor. Besides, if we spend it and eat it they can't take it away from us. ;-) You still have not yet disclosed what your point is. I have been asking for weeks. It just seems to be if I say "white," you say "black" and vice versa. I agree that China is the place to watch. I agree that GW has mismanaged the US economy and done a "bad" thing going to war without allies. Invest, Romy, invest in China so you can get out of those mouldy tweeds and that cold, nasty flat. LOL See ya. I need to go purchase the bubbly (not French) and lobster for the Holiday. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 20, 2003 07:16 PMmike, THANK YOU, from the bottom of my heart. I don't think I laughed this hard in days. I am about to spend the next few days enjoying good food, good drinking, and good company (with people of every ethinicity and religion). There will be more laughter, presents, sharing, and fun, and I should be back in January. I hope that your sadness, loneliness, and paranoia don't affect the holidays for you too much. Meanwhile, remember: when anything goes wrong anywhere (such as a free Internet service not working reliably), the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOS did it! To you, personally! Because we care so much about what you have to say. (PS -- I think Enetation is back online now. Please go to my site and comment. I'd love to see how you will be able to connect recipe requests and job stress complaints to Israel. I know you can do it!) Posted by: angua at December 20, 2003 10:11 PMTo all, lili, 1) Are you seriously suggesting that Islam as a doctrine **alone** is responsible for Islamic terrorism? If not, what makes a religious teaching into an organised campaign of terror? Sorry - something of a long post after my initial diatribe. I agree with your point about post lengths, Rob. On the previous "oldest hatred" thread I posted a very succinct response to Mike the Wanker, and he responded with an endless diatribe that didn't address any of the points I brought up. Posted by: kid charlemagne at December 21, 2003 01:47 AM “In your "experience." ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! I guess you did not "experience" the 9/11 attacks or those on Turkey or the thousands of Wahhabi mosques built all over the world by the Saudis. The Gulf Arabs, SPECIFICALLY the Saudis, are the breeders, supporters, sponsors and exporters of Islamic terror. More than any other group the Saudi Wahhabis are responsible, Mr. T. They have spent Billions of $$$ on terror, Mikey.” As for your points specifically on Saudi Arabia, you are more or less correct, but you generalize way too much. “I criticize Israel plenty for the settlements. I do not believe that their reactions to Islamic terror are "overkill" (no pun intended.) If suicide jihadis appeared in the Western world, we would do EXACTLY the same thing! The populace would become very, very bloodthirsty, even the pacifist Euros. ;-)” I’ve not seen you criticize Israel once, so I guess I’ll have to take your word for that. “Oh, what BULLSHIT red herrings these arguments are. Certainly there is a difference between an occasional crazy, such as Kahane and our very own Oklahoma criminal terrorist bomber. Pulling these people out as examples is ludicrous. Why? Because, there are not millions of them. There ARE millions of Muslims who support radical Islam! Terrorists are not getting their funds from Norwegian Lutherans. There are not thousands of Kahnes preaching "death to the unbeliever" every Shabat. But, there are thousands of Islamic clerics doing just that with the Qu'ran to back them up, Mr. T. The Saudis just arrested several THOUSAND of these buggers. And there are thousands more all over the world inciting the "true-believer" to murderous jihad.” It is not a red herring when YOU are alleging that ONLY Islam is the religion that incites its followers to go out and kill all [insert religion here] And that is what you did! So I showed you that you were wrong, and that the very religion that you support, does the exact same thing on occasion. “And that is another thing, you keep IGNORING the FACT that it is the Qu'ran that is the terror manual. The "holy" document that makes terror against the infidel justifiable in Muslim eyes.” Yet by virtue of encouraging its adherents to ignore the sufferings of others, or by inaction allow them to come to harm, the Koran is not alone in such uncompassionate diatribes. Just go read your Talmud. I don’t disagree that Islam is dumb and violent dear, this is the message you must TRY to get. I merely state that it is not ALONE in that. "More BULLSHIT! You are on a roll, Mr. T. LOL The Israelis RETALIATE to Palestinian/Islamic AGGRESSION! The Palis started this in 2000 with the second intefadah. Just as they started it before Israel was ever a state with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who in 1919 was training suicide jihadis and ultimately collaborated with the Nazis for the destruction of the Jews. Let's be honest, here, the Qu'ran is an anti-Semitic, misanthropic, misogynistic document. One CANNOT find that kind of hate rhetoric in any other major religion's holy book." They are retaliating huh? Now that is funny. Okay, you want to go tit-for-tat right back to the beginning of the conflict? I mean, your logic is that striking back against the first blow is okay, right? Okay… so who invaded who dear? ;-) "The deal was a good one. Even stupid Arafat wanted to accept it earlier this year because he realized he did a dumb thing. Now all the donor built Pali infrastructure is destroyed thanks to Arab Islamic terrorism." The deal was shitty on a number of levels. I will delineate precisely why this was so in another post later. “Mikey, pooh, I call a spade a spade. Jews, like Arabs are not a race. When you or anyone else can show the world what Arabs or Muslims have done to move the world forward in the last 500 to 1000 years then you will have a case. In the mean time, the Jews are very, very clever people. They have done a lot for humanity. Arabs can only boast of self "humiliation." They are humiliated because they lack pride—the pride to get off their a**es and do something besides whine and support Islamic terror.” The Jews are no more genetically inclined to higher intelligence than any other people Adolf. They just have access to better education than their neighbours. “Hmmm—a hard working, dateless, quick typist alone in front of his computer on a Saturday night. LOL Of course, it is a fact that lots of Aussie males are gay. . .” Wow, I must be really getting to you if that kind of purile crap is what you feel you need to hurl back. Good. Glad to know that you have such a thin skin. Oh, and Lil? You’re Jewish. No Gentile lackey that I have ever known has expended such vitriol and such sheer writing effort into the defence of Israel. Tell the truth. “Aww—those of us who post real e-mail addresses employ blocking software. You should try it. Computer literacy is a good thing. You aren't Arab are you? They don't want to deal with technology either except to kill the "unbeleiver." ;-)” Yep, I did get to you. How easy was that? "mike, THANK YOU, from the bottom of my heart. I don't think I laughed this hard in days. I am about to spend the next few days enjoying good food, good drinking, and good company (with people of every ethinicity and religion). There will be more laughter, presents, sharing, and fun, and I should be back in January. I hope that your sadness, loneliness, and paranoia don't affect the holidays for you too much. Meanwhile, remember: when anything goes wrong anywhere (such as a free Internet service not working reliably), the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOS did it! To you, personally! Because we care so much about what you have to say. (PS -- I think Enetation is back online now. Please go to my site and comment. I'd love to see how you will be able to connect recipe requests and job stress complaints to Israel. I know you can do it!)" Merry Christmas to you too, la bellissima Apologina. “I agree with your point about post lengths, Rob. On the previous "oldest hatred" thread I posted a very succinct response to Mike the Wanker, and he responded with an endless diatribe that didn't address any of the points I brought up.” What a little brat you are kid. Yes, you *pretended* to be all polite and asked me why it was that Israel is not a democracy. And I typed my ass off to give you as complete an answer as was possible. I pointed out a plethora of reasons why Israel is undemocratic when it comes to the “non-Jewish” minorities within its borders. Go read it again. Or for the first time. Or whatever. If you whine about it here again, I will re-print it here, so that everyone can see that you are full of it. This thread is about as edifying as a Stormont sit-down. Perhaps the catharsis is necessary but it seems that nobody has any intention of really conceding a single letter of any word in any assertion that anyone else utters. It is a universal impasse dear friends. One that has lasted for thousands of years and will continue for thousands more or until the final nuclear solution - whichever is the sooner. In the meantime would you not all be happier if you called a truce to enjoy Hanukka or Christmas or whatever other festivities you prefer to get you through the darkest days of winter. After which the sap will start rising and you will all feel better. Then perhaps this blog will not be festooned with so many underlined blue gateways to even more bottomless reservoirs of sectarian vitriol. Luckily, some of it is amusing, but most of it is deeply depressing for those who strive to maintain hope that humanity is, in the round, progressing. Sholem - for God's sake! Posted by: Perplexed at December 21, 2003 03:07 AM"To all, Well, sure, Mr. Maynard, however, when one makes a logical argument it is wise to support that argument with facts and not simply opinions so the other person can be persuaded, wouldn't you say? "lili, I generally support my positions with links or quotes, Rob. Sorry if you feel they are the "same platitudes." I will admit that the Qu'ran, being a simple, short book, is rather repetitive and not very well written compared to say the Bible which is much more interesting and literary. (No, I am not a Christian. I only look at these things from a comparative religion point of view.) I could quote more Islamofascists, they tend to have more rambling "logic." ;-) "1) Are you seriously suggesting that Islam as a doctrine **alone** is responsible for Islamic terrorism? If not, what makes a religious teaching into an organised campaign of terror? " Yes! The aim of Islam is to take over the world as written in the Qu'ran. "Holy war means the conquest of all non-Moslem territories. Such a war may well be declared after the formation of an Islamic government worthy of that name, at the direction of the Iman or under his order. It will then be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic Law into power from one end of the earth to the other." Ayatollah Khomeini
"2) Why did Israeli's "make the desert bloom"? Do you seriously deny that US backing in addition to the cheap supply of Palestinian/Russian immigrant labour is of importance? If not is this a question of one way of life being more productive than another? Does this make one way of life better than another?" Certainly, they had help, Rob. But, it was their brains and their labor as well, not just "cheap" immigrants. Additionally, the Palis have had plenty of funding from both Arab and Western donor countries alike. And yes, I believe that if a civilization is productive it is BETTER than one who is not. The Arabs are NOT productive. They are at this time in history about as backward as one can get without living in the stone age. That is ENTIRELY their choice because of Islam. The richest among then, the Saudis, can't wipe their own back-sides without expatriate help, much less turn on their computers or run their failing society. When over 280 million Arabs only have the GDP of less than that of Spain, and 1.5 BILLION Muslims only have a literal handful of Nobel Prizes to their name, and in over 500 years NOTHING has happened in Islam to move Muslims forward, something is very, very wrong. That "something" is Islam. People don't want to admit this. But, it is time to face that truth. BTW—where would Europe or the US be without "cheap" immigrant labor? "3) Are settlements OK or not? Can you in any way identify with Palestinians whose freedom of movement, water supply etc is severely restricted by these outposts? Is this not humiliating? " I have always said the settlements are NOT OK. Always! Certainly I can "identify" with people who live under severely restricted conditions—having done so myself during my lifetime. HOWEVER—It is the fault of the Palestinians themselves. They could have declared a state just as Israel did way back in the 40s. Additionally, they, the Palestinians, started the terror. A majority of their population support the intefadah and the terror. Look at their reaction to the Iraqi issue and the capture of their benefactor Saddam, who used to give 25K per suicide bomber. So, they are getting what they deserve. I don't think that the Israelis should sit back and permit "freedom of movement" for suicide jihadis to come across the border! Do you? Would you in our societies? "4) Do you really think that Palestinians got a "good deal" at Camp David (I genuinely can't be arsed to discredit this ludicrous assumption with you again, Lili). If so - how do you know? Were you part of the negotiating team? " Don't be sarcastic, Mr. Maynard or I shall dismiss you! YES, I do think it was as good a deal as they will EVER get. The Palis have a habit of cutting off their noses to spite their faces because their mission is to have it ALL. They want to destroy Israel and that is not acceptable. "Was the 2nd Intifadeh not more a response to the bankrupsy of Oslo and the belief that Israel would never make a decent deal in accordance with International Law?" I believe that Israel did offer a decent deal. Certainly, Arafat should have stayed at Camp David and begun, BEGUN to negotiate. However, he went "home" and called the intefadah. Now, he's made a mess and lots of innocents on both sides are dead or worse, his infrastructure is destroyed and he can start from scratch. I believe that the current violent situation is almost entirely the fault to the Arabs and their mission to destroy Israel rather than recognize it and live side-by side in peace. Here is yet another quote from the Qu'ran, that misanthropic book, that may interest you (3 separate, excellent, well recognized translations): 005.051 Now, IF islam is this "Religion of Peace and love and tolerance" then why is their so-called "holy" book riddled with passages such as the above? Why do Muslims believe these passages? Why do Islamic clerics, ordinary people and terrorists alike quote these passages to justify bigotry and hatred against the "other"? Why has there never been a formal Reformation with refutation of such EVIL passages? It is time the world woke up to the FACTS about Islam, and not simply swallowed the platitudes and LIES that Islam is a religion of peace. It is NOT! Islam was born of the sword and continues to try to conquer the world via violent means. Islamic Imperialism and hegemony is the aim here. There is evidence ALL over the world of this. Islam is seeping into all cultures and will eventually take them over either violently or by out-breeding the indigenous peoples. That is their clearly stated aim. I would provide links, but you don't like them. ;-) Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 21, 2003 05:45 AM"It is not a red herring when YOU are alleging that ONLY Islam is the religion that incites its followers to go out and kill all [insert religion here] And that is what you did! So I showed you that you were wrong, and that the very religion that you support, does the exact same thing on occasion." Don't put words into my mouth, Mr. T! I am saying that ONLY Islam's so-called "holy" book is chock full of violent passages against the "unbeliever." Millions of Islamic militants quote the Qu'ran and many, many are committing terrorist acts in the name of Allah. That is not the case for Jews. Again—Jews, en masse, don't quote the book of Joshua and murder innocents by the thousands world wide in the name of G-d or Yaweh— neither do Christians, neither do Hindus or Buddhists. Even though Muslims try to erroneously point out that the Oklahoma bomber was a Christian. He did NOT commit his crime in the name of Christianity! And, he was ONE guy. Other terrorist organizations tend not to commit their crimes in the name of their religions. And most of all, they are not world-wide as are the Islamic terror organizations. The cohesive factor is Islam and the Qu'ran. Islam is UNIQUE in that it not only has a so-called "holy" book that incites violence against the "other" but, it also codifies its laws to do the same. Sharia law is Islamic law. Islamic law is misanthropic and misogynistic! That, Mr. T. is the DIFFERENCE between Islam and the Talmud. The laws of a secular state are not based in religion regardless of the tenets that guide them. Christianity is not a violent religion REGARDLESS of how misused it is. The New Testament does not invoke violence against non Christians and Jews! "They are retaliating huh? Now that is funny. Okay, you want to go tit-for-tat right back to the beginning of the conflict? I mean, your logic is that striking back against the first blow is okay, right? Okay… so who invaded who dear? ;-)" There NEVER was a nation called Palestine! There were plenty of Jews living in the Holy Land before the founding of Israel. I believe that Jews have a historical right, just like Arabs, to live in the region. However, if you REALLY want to go back to the "beginning" then Islam invaded territories that belonged to the Jews and the Christians long before Islam was a gleam in Allah's eye. THAT is WHY there was a First Crusade because Islam conquered the Holy Land. But, perhaps they did not teach that in your history courses down under. They don't teach that in Muslim history courses either. Muslims prefer to "forget" that Islam started the enmity between the rest of the world and itself. Why? Because Mohammed wanted to build an Islamic empire. The only way he could do that is to require the "one for all and all for one" Ummah, "Islamic nation." It's written in the Qu'ran. You should read it sometime, Mikey. "The Jews are no more genetically inclined to higher intelligence than any other people Adolf. They just have access to better education than their neighbours." I never said anything about "genetics." Jews, are from many nations, races, ethnicities and socioeconomic groups and STILL they excel. The Arabs have just as much access to education as do the Jews. They should teach something in their maddrassas besides jihad. It is a FACT that in Islamic countries, particularly Arab countries, students don't study math, technology or literature—instead they study "religion"—meaning Islam. That is PRECISELY why Arabs and Muslims are so backward! They have tons of unemployable people with "religious studies" degrees. The PROOF is in the pudding—Nobel Prizes and development. Muslims don't have any to speak of. Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize does not count. ". . . Oh, and Lil? You’re Jewish. No Gentile lackey that I have ever known has expended such vitriol and such sheer writing effort into the defence of Israel. Tell the truth. . ." Actually, I am about as "Aryan" as they come— blonde, green eyed, not a drop of Jewish blood and I have my family tree for hundreds of years back. BTW—I don't defend Israel as much as I tell the truth about violent, misanthropic, misogynistic Islam. Lili: “Aww—those of us who post real e-mail addresses employ blocking software. You should try it. Computer literacy is a good thing. You aren't Arab are you? They don't want to deal with technology either except to kill the "unbeleiver." ;-)” Mr. T: "Yep, I did get to you. How easy was that?" "Get to me"? Huh? I just think you are a whiner about the fact that you got porn spam and hacked. There are ways to counter that. Is it your mission to "get" to people, Mikey? If so, I notice that many more simply ignore your drivel. Perplexed, I for one, don't give a fig what anyone does as long as they don't advocate and or commit violence against innocents. Therefore, I have a problem with radical Islam. It is my "mission" to tell the truth about Islam. That, seems to get to the Mr. Ts of the world whose mission is simply to "get" to others. And of course, Muslims don't like it when you point out their religion has a few problems with tolerance. "Say Islam is a Religion of Peace or—we'll kill you." Is the usual refrain. LOL Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas to you too! I think we'll celebrate the Solstice tomorrow. Not too many Pagans strapping on bomb belts screaming "Tannenbaum über alles." ;-) Lili
"Europe (the West) is nothing but a collection of unjust dictatorships; all of humanity must strike these troublemakers with an iron hand if it wishes to regain its tranquility. If Islamic civilisation had governed the West, we would no longer have to put up with these barbaric goings-on unworthy even of wild animals." They are working on this part. Coming to the West by the millions. It's the JOOOOOS! Always, the Joooos who are responsible for everything that goes wrong for poor Muslims. "When the imperialists, the traitorous and tyranical governers, the Jews, the Christians and the materialists have all gotten together to distort the truths of Islam and mislead the Moslem peoples, it is more than ever our duty to carry out an active propaganda campaign." Yep, just strap on a bomb-belt and broadcast your ad. "There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Moslem men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel." " Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure, even the hair on his hand and his body hair, his nails and all the secretions of his body." "A non-Moslem man or woman who becomes a convert to Islam automatically has a pure body and pure saliva, nasal secretions and perspiration." In other words, Muslim s**t doesn't stink. ;-) "Wine and all other intoxicating beverages are impure, but opium and hashish are not. " And on that note: "U.S. Navy Busts Drug Boats in Arabian Sea" Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA — U.S. sailors seized an estimated $3 million worth of drugs Saturday as an Arab sailing crew in the northern Arabian Sea tossed the bags overboard. Authorities were investigating whether Al Qaeda was linked to the shipment. The seizure of 85 pounds of heroin came a day after the U.S. Navy announced the Dec. 15 confiscation of two tons of hashish believed tied to Usama bin Laden's terror network. That seizure, in the Persian Gulf, was considered by Western analysts to be some of the first hard evidence of Al Qaeda links to drug smuggling. . . "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106312,00.html It appears that selling drugs to destroy the "infidel" and the Jews is sanctioned by Allah or at least the self appointed Islamic clergy. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 21, 2003 06:56 AM“When over 280 million Arabs only have the GDP of less than that of Spain, and 1.5 BILLION Muslims only have a literal handful of Nobel Prizes to their name…” “Don't be sarcastic, Mr. Maynard or I shall dismiss you! YES, I do think it was as good a deal as they will EVER get.” Now that is revealing. Here is a short list of reasons why the offer by Barak at Camp David was as worthless as all the rest. It is by a Jewish journalist named Akiva Elder, and it was published in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. ------------------------------------------ Members of the panel of experts working alongside the Palestinian negotiating team, who have American passports in their possession that open Israel Defense Forces roadblocks, have embarked in recent weeks on a round of appearances throughout Israel. They lecture at living room meetings in homes in Herzliya and meet with forums of confused intellectuals in Jerusalem. The questions repeat themselves: There is always someone who will ask why Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat reacted with such violence to the very generous proposals of former prime minister Ehud Barak? Had they really been prepared to accept Barak's proposal for an exchange of territories? And how could a pointed question about the right of return fail to be asked? The young Palestinians, among them a legal adviser from New York and a doctoral student in law from Oxford, pull out an answer - in excellent English - to every question. When Barak embarked on a spate of attacks against Arafat under the heading "I exposed his true face," the members of the Palestinian panel decided that this time they would not neglect Israeli public opinion. Under the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) logo, they collected the typical questions asked by Israeli listeners and next to them detailed the Palestinian positions and their version of Camp David and the events that snowballed from it. Their version, especially concerning the map that Barak proposed there, is quite close to the one that Robert Malley, former U.S. president Bill Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, is now publishing in the world press (to Clinton's displeasure). The weak points in their 11 replies, from the perspective of the Israeli questioner, remain in the areas of the violence and the right of return. It is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to explain the transition from the blow-up of the negotiations to the blowing-up of explosive devices. It is not easy to go along with the right of return while convincing suspicious Zionists that they are planning to send the refugees to Canada, with no right of return. But the importance of the document is in the obvious effort the Palestinians are making to rehabilitate the trust in them among supporters of compromise in Israel and to allay their anxieties. If this publication is put together with the little ladder Arafat has been given in the form of observers in the territories, and if Arafat does indeed make use of it to stop the violence - the document can perhaps boost the trampled status of talks and a compromise. The document was written both in Hebrew and in English. The following is the English version: 1. Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal? For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a `re-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation. 2. Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967? No. Israel sought to annex almost 9 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered only 1 percent of Israel's own territory. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease." However, the issue is not one of percentages - the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95 percent of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners - cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities - but the remaining 5 percent is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population. Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population. 3. Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap? The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any idea that is consistent with a fair peace based on international law and equality of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of equal value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be annexed by Israel. However, Israel's Camp David proposal of a nine-to-one land swap (in Israel's favor) was viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine belief in Israel's commitment to a fair territorial compromise. 4. How did Israel's proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian state? Israel's proposal divided Palestine into four separate cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and consequently subject movement of Palestinians within their own country to Israeli control. Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting the Palestinian economy to Israeli control. Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders, thereby allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people and goods but international movement as well. Such a Palestinian state would have had less sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government. 5. How did Israel's proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem? The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighborhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli colonies and would remain separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem. 6. Why didn't the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals? The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as was accepted by both sides at the Madrid Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN [Security Council] resolutions (which call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David - especially at the Taba talks - the Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the resolution of the key permanent status issues. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated. Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians. Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek to establish a viable, sovereign state on their own territory, to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and colonies (which are universally recognized as illegal), and to secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context, particularly with respect to security and refugees, it is up to Israel to define these needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing them. 7. Why did the peace process fall apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement? Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration - i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations [Security Council] Resolutions 242 and 338. But the peace process delivered none of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline in their economic situation. Israeli colonies expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the construction of settler "by-pass" roads and the proliferation of Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in the implementation of agreements. In sum, Palestinians simply did not experience any "progress" in terms of their daily lives. However, what decisively undermined Palestinian support for the peace process was the way Israel presented its proposal. Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened Palestinians that his "offer" would be Israel's best and final offer and if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider "unilateral separation" (a euphemism for imposing a settlement rather than negotiating one). Palestinians felt that they had been betrayed by Israel who had committed itself at the beginning of the Oslo process to ending its occupation of Palestinian lands in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. 8. Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel? Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and reiterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory - not including East Jerusalem - increased by 52 percent since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party. 9. Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise? The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine (23 percent more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN Partition Plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22 percent. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental rights or the viability of their state. 10. Have the Palestinians abandoned the two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine? The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions on both sides, with extremists in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the Palestinian Authority or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the two-state solution. The two-state solution, however, is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and bypass roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel. Without a halt to such construction, a two-state solution may simply be impossible to implement - already prompting a number of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will never allow the Palestinians to have a viable state and Palestinians should instead focus their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli citizens. 11. Isn't it unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees? The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution. Obviously, there can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without resolving one of its key components: the plight of the Palestinian refugees. There is a clearly recognized right under international law that non-combatants who flee during a conflict have the right to return after the conflict is over. But an Israeli recognition of the Palestinian right of return does not mean that all refugees will exercise that right. What is needed in addition to such recognition is the concept of choice. Many refugees may opt for (i) resettlement in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a newly independent Palestine (though they originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel) or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country where they currently reside. In addition, the right of return may be implemented in phases so as to address Israel's demographic concerns. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=55523&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0 Now, Lili, if you are going to argue any further that they rejected a good deal, the “best hope” for a Palestinian state, please deal with the facts introduced in this article and display why they are erroneous. If you cannot, that is an unspoken declaration that you are unable to, and therefore, logically, your position is flawed. “The Palis have a habit of cutting off their noses to spite their faces because their mission is to have it ALL. They want to destroy Israel and that is not acceptable.” And the Israel hawks want to remove the Palestinians to Jordan, which is equally unacceptable. You might want to point out that not all Palestinians want to make Israel extinct too. Statistics alone state that it is the case. "Now, IF islam is this "Religion of Peace and love and tolerance" then why is their so-called "holy" book riddled with passages such as the above? Why do Muslims believe these passages? Why do Islamic clerics, ordinary people and terrorists alike quote these passages to justify bigotry and hatred against the "other"? Why has there never been a formal Reformation with refutation of such EVIL passages?" ---------------- Michael Asheri, a Jewish American immigrant to Israel, notes modern Jewish apologetics and dissimulation about the subject of idolaters: "Once we get out of the area of friendship and business [with non-Jews],... it is obvious that to the Jewish way of thinking, many of today's If some of the Gentiles are not idol worshippers, why does this Asheri next addresses the reason for Jewish secrecy about this delicate subject: the fear of anti-Jewish hostility as a response to the Jewish anti-Gentile tradition. There is, says Asheri, "an important reason for not making apparent our attitude in this respect and that is darchet shalom, keeping the peace, between There are other things about Jewish identity that are best not discussed too publicly. One of the principles of traditional Jewish law, notes the Israeli social critic Israel Shahak, is that a Gentile's life must not be saved. He cites a line in the Talmud (Tractate Avodah Zarah, 26b): "Gentiles are neither to be lifted (out of a well) nor hauled down (into it)," i.e., if a non-Jew falls into a well a Jew is religiously forbidden from saving his/or her life. The highly respected Jewish theologian Maimonides takes this example to comment that "it is forbidden to save [non-Jews] if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued." [SHAHAK, p. 80] (In this context of Jewish religious tradition, Shahak sardonically notes the extremely uncompromising position many outraged Jews can find themselves in when they so vociferously complain that so many countries "stood by and did nothing" to help Jews during the Jewish Holocaust.) As far as Maimonides is concerned, we will refer to him heavily here. His opinions are highly relevant in our own day. Maimonides is neither obscure to modern Orthodox Judaism, nor obsolete. He is an integral part of modern Orthodox discourse; according to the New Encyclopedia Brittanica (1993), Maimonides is recognized "as a pillar of Orthodox faith -- his creed became part of the Orthodox liturgy [and he is known] as the greatest of Jewish philosophers." [NEW ENCY BRIT, 7, p. 708] Israeli professor Michael Harsegor explains another angle to Jewish self-absorption, in the tale of the "Good Samaritan" from the Christian New Testament tradition (Luke 10:33-34.) Two Jews, a Cohen and a Levite, pass a non-Jewish man who had been physically attacked and left behind for dead by robbers. Per traditional Jewish religious conviction, the passing Jews do not stop to aid the injured man. Eventually a Samaritan passes and stops to help the fellow in distress. As Harsegor notes, in explaining this parable of pan-human Christian teachings, "It is wrong to cling to the Torah, like the Cohen and Levite, and do nothing more. You have to be humane, like the Samaritan, who Conversely, rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, an immigrant from the United States to Israel, has commented that "If you saw two people drowning, a Jew and a non-Jew, the Torah says you save the Jewish life first. If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish Other disturbing views from Jewish religious literature and tradition include: "When we withhold mercy from others [it] is equal to that for doing (merciful deeds) to members of our own people." [SHAHAK, p. 96] "If the ox of a Jew gores the ox of Gentile, the Jew is not required to pay damages, but if the ox of a Gentile ... gores the ox of a Jew, the Gentile is required to pay full damages." [MISHNAH, BABA KAMA 4:3] If after taking a purification bath, a Jewish woman sees a dog, pig, donkey, horse, leper, or a non-Jew ("heathen") before she "meets a friend," she has to take the bath over again. [GANZFRIED, p. 42] "One should not be alone with a heathen belonging to one of the seven peoples [the Biblical tribes of Canaan from which non-Jews are traditionally understood to have descended], because they are apt to commit homicide." [GANZFIELD, p. 52] Likewise, "cattle should not be kept in the barns of heathen-owned inns, out of suspicion that they may practice sodomy with them." [LIPMAN, E., 1974, p. 235] "The Talmud is in disagreement over whether Jews may rob Gentiles," says Jewish scholar Gordon Lafar, "but even the liberal authority Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri agrees that a Jew who finds something that was inadvertently lost by a Gentile is not obliged to return it." [LAFAR, p. 189-190] In this regard, for example, in 1980 Brooklyn rabbi Dovid Katz wrote a book about the 613 mitzvot (i.e., commandments; singular: mitvah) that a good Othodox Jew is expected to fulfill. (Katz notes them as "divine decrees"). [KATZ, D., 1980, untitled preface page] Among those is Mitzvah 69: "It is a positive commandment to return a lost object to a Jew, as the posuk says (Vayikra 22), 'You should return to your brother.'" Of interesting note here are some of the detailed explanations of this: Katz highlights the Jewish religious "law" as stated by an old -- and obviously still influential -- Talmudic expert, Rambam [i.e., Maimonides]: "3. One is allowed to keep a lost object of a gentile and he who returns it commits a sin because he is supporting the wicked people of the world. But if he returns it to sanctify G-d's name, by their saying that the Jews are honest people, it is allowed an praiseworthy to return it. Where there will be a profaning of G-d's name one is forbidden to keep the lost object and must return it ... In traditional law, Jewish physicians may break the Sabbath (i.e., the rest day) and work in order to help seriously sick Jewish patients. But there are conflicting opinions in religious texts about helping non-Jews, and the allowance to aid ill Gentiles on the Sabbath is not as clear. Apologetic rabbi Immanuel Jacobovitz notes that "the special sanction to disregard religious laws in the face of danger to life originally operated only in regard to Jewish lives, An Israeli commentator, Uri Hupperet, is more blunt about the traditional reasons why Orthodox Jewish doctors might help Gentiles on the Sabbath: "Saving a Gentile's life is also subject to pragmatic reasoning. A Gentile who is in immediate danger of losing his or her life can http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/03jech.htm ----------- Now, I don’t know about you Lili, but to me that sounds like a bunch of pretty shitty people. Don’t you think? If I was a polemicist like you, I could point to this, and the Jewish nutcases, like the settler that shot up a Mosque filled with Muslim kids with an Uzi, and Rabbi’s like Kahane, and then using all that condemn all Jews as nasty, bloodthirsty, morally bankrupt duplicitous bastards. But not all Jews are though. Just the kinds of people that believe that killing Arabs is okay, that it is “natural” for Russian Jews of Slavic descent to show up in Israel and turf Palestinians out whose ancestors worked their land for a thousand years. Those Orthodox Jews that support the settlement, are bigots towards Muslims openly and Gentiles on the sly. Those people suck, and they need to wake up and join the 21st century JUST as much as their fundie Muslim and Christian counterparts do. That is why you will always be wrong Lili. Polemicists, absolutists, they are naïve and ignorant in the worst way. They believe that everything is all one way, or all the other. And as such their capacity to REASON is retarded from the start. “It is time the world woke up to the FACTS about Islam, and not simply swallowed the platitudes and LIES that Islam is a religion of peace.” "....thousands world wide in the name of G-d or Yaweh— neither do Christians, neither do Hindus or Buddhists." "There NEVER was a nation called Palestine!" “There were plenty of Jews living in the Holy Land before the founding of Israel. I believe that Jews have a historical right, just like Arabs, to live in the region.” There were a few thousand at the turn of the century, in a sea of millions of Arabs. Your assertion is beyond ridiculous. "However, if you REALLY want to go back to the "beginning" then Islam invaded territories that belonged to the Jews and the Christians long before Islam was a gleam in Allah's eye." And the Canaanites were there before the Jews. And more people before them. The Jews were briefly tenants, not possessors or natives. "THAT is WHY there was a First Crusade because Islam conquered the Holy Land." How ignorant. Get those stars out of your eyes. Pope Urban seized upon the letter from the Emperor, Alexius, appealing for help against the Turks only because he wanted to be able to assert the control of the western Church over those lands that were the traditional preserve of the Greek Orthodoxy. Not out of any altruism. [Sigh.] "They don't teach that in Muslim history courses either. Muslims prefer to "forget" that Islam started the enmity between the rest of the world and itself." ------------------------- Judaism had, of course, antipathy for Christianity from the latter's very inception. Christianity evolved out of Judaism; it was founded and propagated by Jews dissatisfied with the direction of the seminal faith as guided by its leaders. "Popular hatred of the Temple priest and the rich," says Lenni Brenner, "became the basis of Christianity, and the New Testament must be seen as the last major production of the Jewish religious genre." [BRENNER, p. 42] The new faith branched out of Judaism as a distinctly different -- and to Jewish minds heretical -- religious view. At this point in history, Judaism was the dominant religious force (vis a vis Christianity) in Jerusalem; Christianity was embryonic and Jews were the persecutors. Christians hoped that Jews would join their new, universalistic faith. Edward Flannery writes that: "The synagogue resented Christianity's claims and in the emerging conflict struck the first blow. Hellenist Jewish converts to the Church [Saint] Stephen was killed, as were the two Jameses, though James the Less was killed through the action of the high priest, not the majority of Jews. Peter was forced out of Palestine by the persecution of Herod Agrippa I, and Paul endured flagellations, imprisonment, and complaints by Jews to Roman authorities, and threats of death at Jewish hands. Barnabas' death (60 AD) at the hands of Jews in Cypress is unanimously reported by early hagiographers." [FLANNERY,p. 27] By 80 AD Jewish ritual had incorporated a daily curse against Christians: "May the minim [heretics] perish in an instant; may they be effaced from the book of life and not be counted among the Just." [FLANNERY, p. 28] In 117 CE Jews were involved in the death of St. Simeon, the bishop of Jerusalem, and unrepenting Christians were massacred by Jews in the Bar Kocha revolt (132-135 AD) against the Romans. Christians were severely persecuted under Roman rule, while Jews -- after initial revolts against Rome -- largely prospered. "Christians were subject to mounting and systematic persecution from the time of Emperor Trajan (98-117 CE) onwards," notes Robin Spiro, "The Jews, by and large, fared better than the Christians at the hands of the Romans, and retained the majority of their special privileges." [SPIRO, p. 17] As Christianity grew in later centuries, attacks, riots, pogroms, rebellions -- or whatever else one chooses to polemically label them -- were instigated BY Jews AGAINST Christians in Palestine and other parts of the Old World. Simon Dubnov notes that "in 556, during bouts in the circus in Caesarea, the Samaritans, assisted by Jewish youths, attacked the Christians. The Christians were beaten soundly. Several churches were razed and Stephanus, the governor of Palestine, was killed ... In Antiocha ... in 608, the local Jews rebelled; since they predominated in numbers they killed many Christians, including the patriarch Anastasias, whose body they dragged through the city streets ... In other localities (Scytopolis, for instance) the Jews were hostile toward the Christians. During commercial transactions, they would not even accept money directly from the hands of a Christian; they had to throw their coins into water, where the Jews would then retrieve them." [DUBNOV, p. 24-25 v. 2] When the Persians invaded Palestine in 614, Jews joined as "auxiliaries" in slaughtering Christian neighbors. "Jewish warriors," says Simon Dubnov, "along with Persians, now assaulted numerous Christian churches (a church legend exaggerates the number of dead to 90,000). Many churches, including the one of Christ's grave, were razed to the ground ... In hostile acts towards Christians the Jew did not lag behind the Persians. Bitter resentment ... found an outlet in atrocities." [DUBNOV, p. 216, v. According to a Christian monk of the times, Strategius of Mar Saba, Jews bought "a large number" of Christian prisoners from the Persians, "who they then slaughtered just as one might buy cattle to slaughter." [SCHAFER, p. 192] "Even as the Persians were approaching Palestine," notes Peter Schafer, "the Jews appear to have risked an open revolt against the Christians and allied themselves with the Persians." [SCHAFER, p. 140] The Persians were soon driven out, however, by Heraclius of Christian Byzantium. When a Jewish leader, Benjamin of Tiberias, was asked why he had previously justified the cruelties against Christians, the Jewish patriot is reported to have answered, "Because they were the enemies of my religion." [DUBNOV, p. 218, v.2] For centuries a range of ridiculing and hostile defamatory material about Christ was popularly circulated in the Jewish communities, eventually written as Sefar Toledoth Yeshu. "It enjoyed wide circulation among the general Jewish population." [JACOB, W., 1974, p. 11] The earliest known copy found in modern times was discovered in a synagogue built in the seventh century. Christ, it was said, practiced witchcraft and was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier or, by other accounts, a "disreputable man of the tribe of Judah." [SHAHAK, p. 98, FLANNERY, p. 34, GOLDSTEIN, p. 148] The book, “in Hebrew and Yiddish was, but is not now, in common circulation," wrote Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner in 1926, "yet the book may still be found in (manuscript) and in print among many educated Jews. Our mothers knew its contents by hearsay -- of course with all manner of corruptions, charges, omissions, and imaginative additions -- and handed them on to their children." [KLAUSNER, p. 48] In the early years of Christianity Rabbi Tarphon of Jerusalem declared that "Christians were worse than heathens and one Rabbi Meir proclaimed that the New Testament was "a revelation of sin." [FLANNERY, p. 34] The Talmud also accused Jesus of a variety of sexual indiscretions and that he had been condemned by God to boil for eternity in "boiling excrement." Jewish religious texts also enjoined pious Jews to burn whatever New Testament volumes they came across. (Israel Shahak notes that this was publicly performed in Israel in 1980 by a Jewish religious organization, Yad Le'alchim). [SHAHAK, p. 21] A Chabad-sponsored Internet web site notes that" "The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus of Nazarene': 1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a). 2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a). 3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh -- which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b). "The false, rebellious message of Jesus has been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of the Jewish people, as G-d commanded. Unfortunately, http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/02hos.htm --------- So, the Jews are the natural allies of the Christians huh? [Laughs himself sick] See? No ancient religion is without hatred for all the others dear. They competed in the old days. But it is not “PC” to talk about the Jews ever doing awful things to Christians, back in the day when there were more Jews than Christians. Is it Lili? "The PROOF is in the pudding—Nobel Prizes and development. Muslims don't have any to speak of. Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize does not count." “Actually, I am about as "Aryan" as they come— blonde, green eyed, not a drop of Jewish blood and I have my family tree for hundreds of years back.” BS. Type “God” for me Lili. "Get to me"? Huh? I just think you are a whiner about the fact that you got porn spam and hacked. There are ways to counter that. “I for one, don't give a fig what anyone does as long as they don't advocate and or commit violence against innocents.” Not true. Lili argues against me because I don’t support Israel. No other logical conclusion can be drawn. I do not support Islam, or the Palestinian cause. I say so repeatedly. “Therefore, I have a problem with radical Islam. It is my "mission" to tell the truth about Islam. That, seems to get to the Mr. Ts of the world whose mission is simply to "get" to others.” Someone please explain to me the logic of this statement. It eludes me. “And of course, Muslims don't like it when you point out their religion has a few problems with tolerance. "Say Islam is a Religion of Peace or—we'll kill you." Is the usual refrain. LOL” As opposed to the Jewish response: “Say Judaism is the least bit in need of reform and we will wreck your website, libel you with every anti-Semitic insinuation we can, and then just brand you nuts or a Nazi or something.” On the contrary, I did concede a point to someone who raised the matter of Israel and both gulf wars. “It is a universal impasse dear friends. One that has lasted for thousands of years and will continue for thousands more or until the final nuclear solution - whichever is the sooner. In the meantime would you not all be happier if you called a truce to enjoy Hanukka or Christmas or whatever other festivities you prefer to get you through the darkest days of winter. After which the sap will start rising and you will all feel better. Then perhaps this blog will not be festooned with so many underlined blue gateways to even more bottomless reservoirs of sectarian vitriol. Luckily, some of it is amusing, but most of it is deeply depressing for those who strive to maintain hope that humanity is, in the round, progressing. Sholem - for God's sake!” I agree to the ceasefire, and I retire from the ongoing conflict for the duration. I see that Lili has entirely ignored your sincere and noble suggestion however. How like an Israeli. HOLY COW! ! ! Do you have all this crap on your boiler plate so you can post it over an over an over again, Mikey? Lili: ""....thousands world wide in the name of G-d or Yaweh— neither do Christians, neither do Hindus or Buddhists." Mike T: "Ah ha ha! You said G-d! You are unwilling to write “God” in its complete form! So that makes you either a Mormon or a Jew. Which is it dear? You have openly denied being Jewish, I would like to know if that is true." Speaking of inability to reason. I knew you would jump on that, Mr. T. You are really certifiable, Mikey. LOL It was an EXAMPLE. You know—l was talking about Jews so I wrote G-d. I am willing to write the name GOD all day long: GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD. I am neither Jewish nor Mormon. I don't do organized religion, Mikey. Just because I said "Holy Cow" above does not mean I am a Hindu either, sweetie. LOL "As opposed to the Jewish response: “Say Judaism is the least bit in need of reform and we will wreck your website, libel you with every anti-Semitic insinuation we can, and then just brand you nuts or a Nazi or something.” Judaism has already been formally reformed, Mr. T. There is even a branch called "reformed" and a few others besides. Judaism is one of those nice religions that lets one take it or leave it. One is pretty free to believe or not as one chooses. Unlike Islam, where the whole crock is "immutable." Man, oh, man nothing like a loser with a computer and a large hard-drive with "Jews are the cause of all wrongs in the world" for brains. (It's not libel if it is true, little dude.) "I agree to the ceasefire, and I retire from the ongoing conflict for the duration. I see that Lili has entirely ignored your sincere and noble suggestion however. " Yes, indeed, that is why Mr. T took just a little, teeny-weeny bit more than anyone else of space here. ;-) "How like an Israeli." ROTFLMAO!!!!! An "Israeli" me, ME an Israeli. Mikey, you sound more and more like an Arab who sees a Jew behind every tree—everyone and anyone who defends and likes Jews is suspected of being one. I happen to admire Jews—a lot. I DON'T admire Arabs for much of anything. When they can do something besides export Islamic terror, buy Western whores and whine about being humiliated, then they can get back to me. Thank GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD that the Jews are running the world. Because, if the Muslims were running it we'd all be living in the 7th century. I don't do veils and I don't submit to dumb men who need the Qu'ran to tell them they are worth two women and need a face full of hair to assure them of virility. A simple construction of analogies. Courtesy Dr. Andrew Bostom: Pre-Civil rights Reform Era Southern US = Present Day Islamic Societies White Southerners = Muslims ================== I would add one more of my own: Hitler's "Mein Kampf" = Syed Qutb's "Milestone" http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/index_2.asp inspired by Mohammed's Qu'ran http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/index_2.asp Thanks for the chuckles, Mikey. I really have to go now. . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HEHEHEHEHEHE, HOHOHOHOHOOH, (walks away holding sides laughing uncontrollably at Mr. T. who has been very generous with his brand of whacked-out humor today.) Lili The non-Israeli, non-Jewess, non-religious defender of freedom and secularism against radical, misanthropic, misogynistic Islam. Posted by: Lilith at December 21, 2003 09:25 AM[Add to Lili's title: "Unless of course, it is Israel we are talking about, in which case, there is no case." - Ed] Hitler's "Mein Kampf" = Syed Qutb's "Milestone
[Where's Melanie?] I read a bit of the material above. Less literate, less well-organized, but reminiscent of Erasmus and Luther in their famous argument over free will. Proofs (actually more often proof texts) flying like WsMD but no casualties. Me? I see Israel's recrudescense as a temporal reward for having brought the world monotheism. Also, I think Jewish girls are cute. I also believe that it wouldn't make much difference if Jews and Christians discovered in their holy book that they were enjoined to kill Muslims. Both of these religions long ago submitted to the rigours of textual criticism so that only a small minority of either group believe in the literal truth of the scriptures. Not so in Islam where they take the Koran quite literally. There hasn't been a scholarly effort to read that work other than literally since Averroes nearly a thousand years ago. That difference escapes some here; nevertheless, loosing some 17th c. German scholars on the Koran might end up being more important than capturing Sodamn Insane. [And it's "who invaded WHOM" goddam it!] Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at December 21, 2003 01:53 PMNow THAT was the most worthwhile post that I have seen here yet. Have you got your own page Theo? Posted by: Mike Talismann at December 21, 2003 06:35 PMLili "Hitler's "Mein Kampf" = Syed Qutb's "Milestone" Trace: "Obviously a book reviewer...which did you enjoy most ?" LOL! Actually, Trace, neither is "enjoyable" as they are simple works of little literary or intellectual value. At least communism "seemed" logical even if it doesn't work. But, there is very little logic to Islam or fascism. Both are simply espousing hatred and annihilation of the "other" while taking no personal responsibility for self inflicted societal problems. "There hasn't been a scholarly effort to read that work other than literally since Averroes nearly a thousand years ago.. . ." Oh, but there has been, Theo. However, he is a Western scholar—again—a German writing under the pseud of Christoph Luxenberg due to the fatwa threat. Therefore, it may be dismissed by the literate and especially illiterate Muslims. Particularly since those "houris" (virgins) has been re-translate to raisins. It hardly seems worth strapping on a bomb-belt for 72 raisins. ;-) But, they are "white" raisins, those are always preferred by Muslims, at least for the sort of activity for which they will be used in the Islamic Paradise: Rivers of non-intoxicating wine and perpetual erections for 72 white raisins. Ah—every screwed up, sexually repressed Muslim's dream. LOL The book "Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache" It appeared in the Journal of Qur'anic Studies: Here is a dismissive review of the book with some "interesting" Arab logic: http://bismikaallahuma.org/Reviews/luxemburg.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pakistan bans Newsweek's Quran issue (Scholar doubts book's origin)
In a book sure to touch off a storm when it's published this fall, the German scholar says faulty transcription of the original Quranic text has resulted in errors of interpretation. Using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg, he questions the Islamic rule that women must cover themselves and asserts the Quran originally was a Christian document. "The article is insulting to the Quran," Pakistani information minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, told the Associated Press. Customs authorities have been notified to seize copies of the magazine, said Ahmed, according to the AP. The offending article is on page 40 of Newsweek International's July 28 edition. "The decision was taken to prevent religious violence and control law and order situation," he said. Ahmed insisted Pakistan has freedom of expression, but said the government expected the media to be careful about the religious sensitivities of Muslims, Agence France-Presse reported. . . .'' ---------------- Funny that Bible basher scholars never have to use pseudonyms for fear of death from the faithful. Sure, sure there is "free" expression in Islamic countries—but, we must be aware the "religious sensitivities" of Muslims! Even in if these Muslims are living in the West, they must have special privileges. Yes, of course, how silly of us Westerners to believe that the "free expression" thing runs both ways. Now, Muslims can say ANYTHING at all about other religions and they can go for murderous jihad with impunity—killing innocents by the thousands while expecting their raisins in Paradise for that. Killing and dying for "holy" jihad is not murder or suicide—it's martyrdom. They are HELPING the infidel get to Allah. "Say Islam is the Religion of Peace or well kill you" continues to be the peaceful refrain of tolerant, peaceful Islam. So, "who" IS on first? ;-) Lili
Lilith he has called me a Jew and an Israeli (or agent thereof) as well. Like you I am pagan/Deist type. I do however believe that Islam is the greatest threat to our way of life since Soviet Communism. I mean its isn't exactly if they hide their feelings towards Jews and all other kuffirs. It rather simple. In the Koran there are two realms. 1. The realm of Islam (ie obediance to Alllah & his prophet and 2. the realm of war. Bet Mike T has never even cracked the cover of a basic book on Islam much less the Koran. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 21, 2003 09:45 PMIt is the naive, ignorant, misinformed and cowardly MikeTs of the world that will hand civilization over, lock stock and barrel to the Islamofascists in the name of PC multiculti appeasement. We must be aware of Muslims' "religious sensitivities." Right! Since when are Muslims EVER aware or even remotely respectful of ours? I don't know about you, Andrew, to paraphrase an American patriot— as for me, give me liberty or give me death! They can have their "dar al Islam" (land of Islam) and I will be happy to live in the land of civilization instead of medieval, backward Islam. Islam, where women are used as breeders for more violent jihadis who long to go to Paradise for 72 white raisins. If it is war they want (dar al-harb)—no problem either! I may not approve of everything GW has done, particularly without our so-called allies, however, anything we can do to get these cowardly Islamofascists to turn-tail and run is just fine with me. Let them stay in the 7th century in dar al Islam! Let them not come to the West and try to turn our civilization into a 7th century Caliphate. One wonders whether that illiterate 7th century camel driver, Mohammed, ever gave thought to the fact that even he and the peaceful Jesus were the product of woman? I just had a vision—Islam is once again at the gates of Vienna. . . can you imagine millions of Western women taking up arms against radical Islam? Look out mufti! Hang on to your turban Mohammed, these free, in shape, Western women want it, with your moustachioed head and your short-hairs, on a pike. LOL Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 21, 2003 11:04 PMDear Mikey Sicne the grownups allow you to cut and paste long winded bullshit from the Internet, do you think that they will allow you to use a onecil or crayons next year? Posted by: Travis at December 21, 2003 11:21 PMJust came across this again: NO HEAD SCARVES IN FRANCE!!! http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20804&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs "We regard this as an extremist decision aimed at preventing the development of Islamic values" in France, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in his weekly press conference. God, one would certainly hope so! Islamic misanthropic values are in direct conflict with freedom, democracy, the rule of law and a secular state—not to mention Islam being in conflict with human rights particularly of half of the population—women. "This decision goes against civil rights and will undermine the image of France in the Islamic world," Once again, one hopes so! Perhaps those millions of hopeful Islamic emigrants will want to stay home in those perfect Islamic states and promote religious freedom in dar-al Islam? Perhaps our soldiers could get Bibles or other religious materials in their care packages? How about if Saudi Arabia permitted other religions besides Islam? How about if Egypt stopped jailing Christians? How about if Islamofascists stopped murdering "infidels"? How about if Islam became tolerant of the "other" and of Jews too and actually promoted those "civil rights" in dar-al Islam instead of just demanding them in dar-al-harb. . . One can dream, can't one? What is always so bizarre about this controversy is that there is NOTHING in the Qu'ran that states women must be shrouded—all they have to do is "cover their ornaments." Although, the so-called "prophet" Mohammed was all for having women in purdah (behind the wall)—protected like prize breeding cattle. "The wives of the Holy Prophet were enjoined to remain within their private quarters, to avoid display of adornments and to be cautious in their talk with other persons (vv. 32, 33). "The other Muslims were forbidden to enter the private rooms of the Holy Prophet and instructed to ask whatever they wanted from behind the curtain."(v. 53). "All the Muslim women were enjoined to cover their faces with their sheets if and when they had to go out of their houses.(v. 59). " Numerous other passages on purdah (prison) here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau24.html What is it about the fragile egos of Muslim men that they cannot handle half the human race, women, being free and able to determine their own destinies? It appears that if Muslim men cannot be masters of their own fates due to their own indolence, they become control freaks for their women. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 21, 2003 11:56 PMIn the words of Shakespeare... Me thinks you all doth protest too much. You're a bunch of Israeli apologetics with too much time on your hands. I'm off to use my time more wisely than with your ugly asses. To our kind (and patient) host Melanie, to Romulus, Rob Maynard, Trace & Theo, a very Merry Xmas or Chanukah, or whatever it is that you do. Be back in a few weeks. Oh, and the rest of you incestous thickies have a nice holiday too. Oh, and to you too Perplexed. Perhaps you especially. Christ did, after all, single the peacemakers out as being particularly groovy baby. Ta Ta! Posted by: Mike Talismann at December 22, 2003 01:18 AMLili, "1) My point is not about the levels of hatred contained in the Koran - this is not what I dispute and endless pages of links and quotes have little bearing on this issue. I have never claimed Islam to be a religion of peace. What I dispute is that any religious doctine can bring about peace and harmony OR incite violence and hatred **on its own**. The key question is what historical contingencies underly the acceptance/rejection of religious doctrine." Certainly the "endless pages of links and quotes" have LOTS of bearing on the issue, Rob. Muslims INSIST that Islam is a "Religion of Peace". They quote the Qu'ran as "proof" of same. "Killing one human is the same as killing all of humanity—blah, blah, blah." However, when you challenge them with the later, superseding violent passages, they try to explain it away with some CRAP about the "roots of terror." Blaming everything on the Jews and now the Americans; never taking responsibility for anything. That is the Arab way. Had the Arabs recognized Israel instead of trying to destroy it, there would be peace. The Qu'ran is a unique document that has more hatred and violence than any other "holy" book against the "other." For you to use the same excuses about "historical contingencies" is nonsense! If that were the case then Hindus and Buddhists et al. should be religious terrorists as well, given what they suffered at the hands of imperialist Europe and China. What about the indigenous peoples of whatever region who were oppressed by imperialists, why are they not religious terrorists? Islam, Islam, Islam—that is the answer. The ROOT of this terrorism is that unholy book the Qu'ran and until there is a Reformation with a formal refutation of the violent texts there can be no peace.
I find your reasoning faulty if not ludicrous, Rob. ObL did NOT write the Qu'ran, he merely quotes it as do the other terrorist, the Islamic clerics, the rulers and the people. Those hateful passages were supposedly dictated by the Angel Gabriel to our ever loving, tolerant Mohammed. I maintain that the "historical circumstances" are the fault of the Arabs/Muslims. Why is it that Arabs/Muslims are not "humiliated" by their self imposed backwardness? Why are they not "embarrassed" by Islamic despotism and terror? They are "humiliated" by the arrest of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, the man, the Muslim who killed MILLIONS of Muslims. But they not humiliated that Muslims, MUSLIMS, are sabotaging the Iraqi infrastructure and MURDERING other Muslims. "3) When you say more productive peoples = better peoples, I cannot help but think of analogies with South Africa where one of the reasons that blacks were denied access to power was on the basis that they were lazy or backward. Actually, is not colonialism in general premised on this claim." Now they have plenty of access to power, they have had access for years in Africa (not S. Africa) and they have made a muddle of it. Indeed, there are black Africans such as the Ghanaian economist George Ayittey who states that it is Africans who are responsible for their dilemma and that aid only serves to make the problem greater. I agree with that stance. It is time for Africa to become productive. It is time for an African solution. http://www.american.edu/cas/econ/faculty/ayittey.htm It is also time for Muslims, especially Arabs, to become productive. It is time for an Arab solution! Muslims have not been denied access to power, they have it. They use it inappropriately via Islam. Imagine what a world it would be if all did their parts? "4)"So, they are getting what they deserve. I don't think that the Israelis should sit back and permit "freedom of movement" for suicide jihadis to come across the border!" Yes, certainly the settlements are about expansion, Rob. However, the "freedom of movement" is entirely the result of Palestinian terror. I told you, I don't agree with the settlements—never have. But, it is a fact that the Palestinians were free to move about prior to calling the intefadah. They cooked their own goose! I have stated before that Sharon is a war criminal and that he and Arafat both should be tried and convicted. As to the wall, I think it is a good thing. Better these peoples should be separated. The Palestinians need to build their own economy and stop being beggars from the world community and cheap labor for the Israelis. "5) It is clearly obvious that Camp David was not a good deal. When you say that this was the "best deal" they could get does this mean that the less powerful side should roll over when more powerful interests are concerned? Is this not precicely the sort of arrogance that fuels the anger of Palestinians? Certainly we KNOW! The offer's points have been made public. You don't like links or long posts so, I suggest you look it up yourself, Rob. It was a good compromise that could have been negotiated to be even better. But, Arafat did not want to do that. He wanted it all via the intefadah. Now he has it "all"—total destruction and still no state. No side can have it all. There must be compromise. The Palestinians, particularly Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. have NEVER wanted to compromise. They say so all the time. They want to DESTROY Israel. Why don't you believe them? I could give you REAMS of info on that. To date they have not disarmed and dismantled their Arab and Euro funded terror organizations. "As to who started the Intefadeh - Sharon's wee visit to the Haram esh Sharif/Temple Mount was not particularly constructive was it?" EXCUSE ME!!! You're kidding right? The Temple Mount was holy to Jews thousands of years PRIOR to the appearance of Islam. The Palestinians want to take the al Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount and make it their own for Islam alone. That, in my opinion is not correct! Do you think they have the right to take this Jewish holy site away from the Jews who were there first and had more than one temple on the site in ages past? They also want Jerusalem. That is not OK either. At the very least, Rob the Temple Mount site, like Jerusalem should be shared don't you think? But, the Palis don't want to share Jerusalem either. Sharon had every right to go to the Temple Mount. Besides, it is a fact that the Palis planned the uprising at the site. So, tell me Rob, WHY are Muslims not "humiliated" by their self inflicted state of misery? Why do they always blame everyone but themselves for their messes? On occasion, there are Arab/Muslim writers who tell the truth and take their miserable, failed societies to task. But, they are few and far between because if they do too much of that some mufti issues a fatwa and some crazy jihadi then tries or succeeds to murder the truth teller. Islam from the very beginning has blamed the Jews and the "infidel" for anything bad that happened to Muslims. That is in the book—the "unholy" Qu'ran. It won't change until there is a Reformation. We'll never live that long! Let us hope that the serious terror warnings are not portends of things to come for a "Happy Holiday" from the "Religion of Peace." They already did their bit for Ramadan. . . The "Religion of Peace" is the "Religion of Pieces"—BLOODY pieces—body parts! Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 22, 2003 04:19 AMAre you nuts Rom? I'm neither Jewish nor "anti-Gentile". However I AM anti-looney-leftist. My comments about Pilger and Fisk was anti-looney leftist, not "anti-Gentile". Good lord, I thought you hated Marxists too. Posted by: Susan at December 22, 2003 08:22 PMI couldn't stay away. And I was amply rewarded. "Inbred thickies". Is that what passes for "logical arguments" in your world, Rob? Posted by: angua at December 22, 2003 08:25 PM"I couldn't stay away. And I was amply rewarded. "Inbred thickies". Is that what passes for "logical arguments" in your world, Rob?" You might have noticed that it was my name under that post, not Rob's. I say you "might have", because you "might have" noticed only in an alternate universe where you are in fact, not an incestuous thickie. Susan, took you a long time to respond to such an early post ! I don't think Fisk is a leftie. and I don't think he is like Pilger. Robert Fisk lives in Beirut and is married to an Arab.....his views are coloured by his ties......I thouht he was excellent on the mess NATO created in Kosovo/Serbia, but disagree with im on much of his other coverage....but I do think he is very differently focused from Pilger who is still on his Vietnam 'trip' Posted by: Romulus at December 22, 2003 10:28 PMI was talking to Rob because he mentioned that he was looking for "logical arguments". I wouldn't dare accuse you, mike, of either looking for logical arguments, offering them, or being able to recognize them if they carried a sign saying "i am logical argument" and possibly singing a little "logical argument" song. Posted by: angua at December 22, 2003 10:43 PM". . . possibly singing a little "logical argument" song." "The Non-Standard Logic Song" Tune: Accountancy-Shanty (Monty Phyton) The gods did not reveal, from the beginning, (Xenophanes) It's fun, to draw an implication, There is no reason for a default; (into fade out)
========= Lili :-D Posted by: at December 23, 2003 12:29 AMI like that. You know, if I was gifted in drawing, I bet I could draw a decent cartoon on that very topic To one side would be some Palestinian kid, disposed, his family home destroyed by Israeli bulldozers because some second cousin or uncle blew themselves up. He is bone thin from the lack of a decent diet, because his inform mother is unable to wait for hours at a time at a checkpoint along the “Peace Wall” to get to the nearest markets. When she gets some relative to go, they find out that all the food is spoiled, because the4 Israeli authorities have deliberately shut off running water or electricity to the entire area for the 9th time that month. So the kid is malnourished, uneducated (because his school got blown up in the last Israeli incursion) and then his mother dies, so he has to go live in some internment camp, where the older and stronger boys take what little he has and pack-sodomizes him in true Arab fashion. Oh, and now he does not walk so good, because of the shrapnel that got lodged in his knee when the IDF shot a missile into a packed suburb in order to kill one terrorist that they “thought” was there. It was all very surgical, but there will be no surgery for this kid, because his will never be an Israeli citizen, and will never qualify for social security, let alone afford medical insurance. Okay, so the hypocrisy of the situation is more than a little exaggerated here. But the fact remains to this day, that the creation of Israel was only tolerated in the first place because of one essential reason (all international Zionist lobbying aside). The Jews were victims of the most industrialized killing that man had ever devised. But they were only the largest social grouping to be targeted. These days we tend to think they were the only ones. Why? Simple. As Professor Finklestein put it, “The Holocaust has become an Industry, and the Jews are its professional, victimized executive cadre.” That’s the way it is folks. Frankly, I'm more astounded at the fact that there are people who claim to have studied the ongoing conflict, and yet they are astounded when Arabic kids (like the one above) cheerfully dream of getting rid of the Jews. It is either grossly naive, or willfully blind. The above was in response to these sections of Melanie's article by the way: "Watching these films, I saw that Palestinian Arabs have become professional victims and actors in the "Israelis-and-Jews-Are-Horrible-Child-Murderers” series." "What is strikingly serious in all these films is that if one were to count the most often used words, these words would be "humiliation" and "Kill the Jews!"" Mikey's promise: "From now onwards, I am making my policy to ignore outright any posts on this subject that are purile ad Hominem attacks, or facile strawman distractions. . . " Posted by Mike Talismann at December 19, 2003 07:46 AM http://www.melaniephillips.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=232 ====== Have you noticed, Mikey how everyone is ignoring your "facile strawman distractions" not to mention your " purile ad Hominem attacks"? There are "professional victims"—and then—there are PROFESSIONAL really, really, facile strawmen. ;-) Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 23, 2003 05:58 AMAh—They are eating their own again and in a Muslim holy site too. For shame! "Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher screams as he is assaulted by Palestinians while praying in Jerusalem's Old City December 22, 2003. Witnesses said he fell unconscious after the attack but Israel's ambulance service said he was in good condition after being taken to hospital for treatment. REUTERS/Ammar Awad": It is always so telling when terrorists look like they are scared s**tless! Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 23, 2003 06:23 AMHate breeds hate. Obvious, but true... Mostly. Yet despite the brickbats tossed at him, the ignorance of his arguments - and denial attempted through shouting, posturing, and quoting rubbish (honourable mention to Lili, mind, because she seems to understand the nature of debate) - MT has only ever resorted to calling you thickies. Well done MT, you're a symbol of what's needed in these posts and the wider debate - turn a cheek to the worst of it, preserve some dignity and try to counter polemic with debate. Not sure it's got you anywhere, but I've been encouraged reading your posts. It's all got a bit out of hand towards the end, but then there's been a constant stream of (mostly) rubbish from the other side. Look folks, stick to what's going on - we're hoping that two groups of people can get along. Claiming that one group wants to destroy the world is meaningless - it will never happen. I've heard some wild allegations in my time, from loons on either side, and they are *always* wrong - the worst never comes to happen. Stay vigilant, sure. Keep working against hatred, certainly - the "evil" (as Bill Hicks said, do we really have such a concept nowadays?!) won't be stopped by magic - but avoid the more hysterical arguments. They just make you look stupid and naive. Which point, I think, has been made by MT several times. JB Posted by: Jake at December 23, 2003 10:48 AMI honestly don't know what to say. Thank you JB. You've made an otherwise bleak Christmas worthwhile. If I can ever return the favour, write me, and let me know. Ooh, how touching! *puke* Actually, Jake, if you look closely you'll see that Mike uses plenty of ad hominems and quotes plenty of rubbish. Your admiration for him is quite unfounded. Posted by: reggie at December 23, 2003 02:55 PMConsidering I've not even laid eyes on you before, and you probably know me to about the same degree, I think I'm safe in labeling you as an assumptive blowhard. You're also an ignoble little child. This is Christmas, moron. If you haven't got anything nice to say, then save your baseless insults for December 26. By the way, you've managed to come off looking quite jealous that somebody had anything nice to say about me. What's wrong? Nobody love you anymore? Here's some advice... It's your ATTITUDE. Bet it was David Hirst Posted by: M.S.Stewart at December 23, 2003 05:28 PMLast go before New Year – hope you all enjoy your holidays. Sorry its along one. Angua, Romulus, "The Qu'ran is a unique document that has more hatred and violence than any other "holy" book against the "other." For you to use the same excuses about "historical contingencies" is nonsense!If that were the case then Hindus and Buddhists et al. should be religious terrorists as well, given what they suffered at the hands of imperialist Europe and China. What about the indigenous peoples of whatever region who were oppressed by imperialists, why are they not religious terrorists? Islam, Islam, Islam—that is the answer." It’s not about excuses. My argument, again, is that you place too much weight upon religious ideas as some sort of causal factor in people’s actions. Religion is only a means for people to try to make sense of their lives. Firstly, most people who claim to follow a particular religion are unaware of its full implications, its history etc. Secondly, certain parts of religious teaching only have a resonance for people when they are presented as offering some form of opposition to a shitty life. Islamic fundamentalists manipulate this situation for their own ends - they deliberately prey on the dispossessed for their own distorted ends. Opposition to a shitty existence in framed in terms of opposition to the Jews or to “Western decadence”. On the question of other religions not having adopted terror and why. Firstly, to contextualise. Hindu's blatantly have engaged in very significant acts of terrorism in India. Christians, of course, make pretty good terrorists if required - CF Northern Ireland, the actions of the Maronite Christians in Lebanon etc. Acts of terror take place between indigenous African communities on a scale inconceivable to westerners, largely framed in terms of religious or cultural terms. Buddhists are something of an anomaly – but perfectly capable of acts of detached fanatical violence. However, I take your point to be more than this – that only Muslims target “us” (not only westerners but also Muslims seen to capitulate towards western values) to such an extent. Furthermore, I take your claim to be that this is often blamed upon “western imperialism” whilst people of many other religions or cultures (equally victims of empire or imperialism) do not respond in this way. Now, I think that we really have to admit that Western Imperialism in its **modern phase** is focused predominantly on the Middle East - having the most plentiful source of fossil fuels on the planet. Without ignoring the conquest of India, the colonisation of South America and others, I think they are largely removed from living memory. So, for example, we have seen the US backing of the Shah in Iran, a history of British genocide in Iraq, the cynical support of Saddam Hussein’s regime by the US, the US maintenance of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia (the Saudi’s were disgracefully referred to as “our friends” by the reverend Blair a month ago). Of course, the US backing of Israel for its geo-strategic role is central. In Central Asia we saw the backing of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, many of whom ended up emerging as the Taliban, and continue to see the arming and funding of appalling regimes such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan by the US and UK governments. So when you say… "I maintain that the "historical circumstances" are the fault of the Arabs/Muslims. Why is it that Arabs/Muslims are not "humiliated" by their self imposed backwardness? Why are they not "embarrassed" by Islamic despotism and terror? They are "humiliated" by the arrest of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, the man, the Muslim who killed MILLIONS of Muslims. But they not humiliated that Muslims, MUSLIMS, are sabotaging the Iraqi infrastructure and MURDERING other Muslims." 2) “it is a fact that the Palestinians were free to move about prior to calling the intefadah.” It’s not a fact – settlements placed unbearable restrictions upon Palestinians (separate roads, checkpoints etc) prior to the intefadeh. Their number doubled through the Olso period – when Israel was allegedly in a “peace process”. They place restrictions IN THEMSELVES, irrespective of Palestinian terror. These are not only restrictions upon movement but on resources i.e. swimming pools for settlers, days without running water for Palestinians. 3) “No side can have it all. There must be compromise. The Palestinians, particularly Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. have NEVER wanted to compromise. They say so all the time. They want to DESTROY Israel.” You are right about compromise. You don’t seem to be able to recognise that the issue is less black and white than this. (a) You often claim that if the Palestinians had accepted the terms of 1948 then they would have a state. Now, I don’t think that the division of the land in 1948 was reasonable. It was only pushed through the UN by, US bullying. It gave Jews, who were a minority, a ludicrously disproportionate share of the land. It went against the wishes of the indigenous peoples – both Arab and a significant number of Jews. 4) “Certainly we KNOW! The offer's points have been made public.” Offer points in the media range from 60% of West Bank/Gaza to 95% from what I’ve read. There does not seem to be much consistency. So I don’t KNOW. 5) “The Temple Mount was holy to Jews thousands of years PRIOR to the appearance of Islam. The Palestinians want to take the al Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount and make it their own for Islam alone. That, in my opinion is not correct! Do you think they have the right to take this Jewish holy site away from the Jews who were there first and had more than one temple on the site in ages past? They also want Jerusalem. That is not OK either. At the very least, Rob the Temple Mount site, like Jerusalem should be shared don't you think? But, the Palis don't want to share Jerusalem either. Sharon had every right to go to the Temple Mount. Besides, it is a fact that the Palis planned the uprising at the site.” Firstly, I don’t care whatsoever about who owned what place when. I’m only interested in pragmatic solutions to a fairly complicated demographic situation in the region. "Mostly. Yet despite the brickbats tossed at him, the ignorance of his arguments - and denial attempted through shouting, posturing, and quoting rubbish (honourable mention to Lili, mind, because she seems to understand the nature of debate). . . Ah—I see, Jake. Then one must deduct that the Islamic terror attacks are simply not related to anything like organized Islamic terror organizations. That these are not being funded and supported by Islamic governments and Muslims world wide. Perhaps it's all a figment of the imagination? Please tell it to the victims of Islamic terror. Jake, I am not claiming the Islamists want to destroy the world THEY are claiming that and I, as well as many others legitimate scholars believe them. Whether they succeed or not is entirely up to the rest of us. That is where this debate comes in. When you read radical Islamic literature, the Qu'ran, the hadith, the Friday prayers of raving Muslim clerics for jihad, the school books filled with hatred, etc. then get back to us. As to Mikey—when he begins to actually debate facts and issues instead of tossing ad hominems at people who don't agree with his stance, as well as supposing every defender of Israel's right to exist must be a "Jew," then we can stop thinking he is a mean-spirited social misfit looking for moral support on the internet. "They just make you look stupid and naive." What is stupid and beyond naive is the idea that you don't believe that there are people who want to KILL us and destroy civilization as we know it. That they want to use our freedoms against us and are succeeding in many cases. There was a Jew who said about the Holocaust, "If people say they are going to kill you—believe them!" Hint—the evidence is in the dead and the maimed from Islamic terrorists ALL OVER THE WORLD! Lili Lili, you place yourself in the same category as scholars. I'd go along with that, simply because you are perhaps one of the most polemical, and yet completely, fundamentally ignorant people I have ever debated this subject with. You really, really, really don't know how it works Lili. How it has always worked. Believe me when I say you are better off in not knowing. In your perception of this world, there are still things to believe in, and pitiless, irredeemable monsters to fight against. I envy you that. It must be a reassuring philosophy. But you presume too much. Altogether. Oh, and one last thing Lili. I have, to date, not once disagreed with any of the notions that you put forward about Islam. Not one. I have merely pointed out to you that when you say fundamentalist Islam is backward, repressive, racist and violent, it is not the ONLY fundamentalist monotheistic religion to be so. I have not once argued that Islamic Militant / Terror groups have designs on doing as much damage as possible to the west, Israel included. When you stalwartly fixated upon the suicide bombings, I merely tried to help you to see that this is not the initiator of the conflict. They are a counter-strike, that followed previous Israeli counter-strikes, which followed previous Arabs ones... going back decades, in a tit-for-tat war. If you think that either side has the monopoly on morality, or justice, then you are just an uneducated or biased jerk. Go live there, if you dare. Then you'll see. I pointed out ONLY, with ALL of you apologists for Israel, that Islam is not the ONLY illicit player in the game. I could agree with you 110% about what Islam is, and is not, but as soon as I begin to say: "However, Israel also is this..." and INSTANTLY you would be on me like a pack of slavering animals, trying to rent me limb-from-limb. Do you know what that kind of behaviour tells me? What that says, flatly, to the world, about your viewpoint? About your beliefs and allegiances? It says that to you, Israel's interests come first. Before even logic itself. Either you think Israel incapable of any human error, deceit, or treachery... or you are consciously saying to yourself that to be loyal to Israel, you must fight me, lie to me, distract me with strawmen arguments - whatever - even though you know that I am right. I am NOT saying that Israel is entirely at fault, or even 50% at fault. BUT IT DOES HAVE ITS SHARE. Deny even that much, which you are doing, and you are either deluded, uneducated, or extremely, deliberately duplicitous. Two parts: ". . . Pilger is still living in the 1960s and gives the left a bad name with his ultra-simplistic, dogmatic anti-american response to any argument. . . "It’s not about excuses. My argument, again, is that you place too much weight upon religious ideas as some sort of causal factor in people’s actions. Religion is only a means for people to try to make sense of their lives." Rob, EVERY Islamic terrorist act is done in the name of Islam. They quote the Qu'ran that TEACHES and INSTRUCTS the way of jihad—Islamic terror. Radical Islam is following, TO THE LETTER, the mandates of Islam as dictated by Mohammed. It is you who don't place enough weight upon these religious ideas. Certainly religion is a means for people to make sense of their lives. But, Islam is DIFFERENT and unique. It is a WHOLE system for living. It CONTROLS the lives of the believer EVERY waking moment in every endeavor of life. (Sorry about the caps. I'm not shouting. The system won't accept HTML, otherwise I would emphasize with italics.) "Firstly, most people who claim to follow a particular religion are unaware of its full implications, its history etc. Secondly, certain parts of religious teaching only have a resonance for people when they are presented as offering some form of opposition to a shitty life. Islamic fundamentalists manipulate this situation for their own ends - they deliberately prey on the dispossessed for their own distorted ends. Opposition to a shitty existence in framed in terms of opposition to the Jews or to “Western decadence”. " It is precisely BECAUSE of Islam that these people are dispossessed! Hundreds of years ago, when Islam was not so insular, when it had exposure to other cultures and ways of life, (after having conquered these with the sword) there was also more openness and debate among the Islamic community. However, and this is a BIG, however, IF the "believers" actually follow "true" Islam as it is written in the Qu'ran and in the hadith then, they are following RADICAL Islam just as Mohammed dictated it. That is why there must be a formal Reformation in which these latter, violent passages of jihad and war against the "unbeliever" are refuted. "Firstly, to contextualise. Hindu's blatantly have engaged in very significant acts of terrorism in India." Hindus have adopted nationalism and terrorism BECAUSE they retaliate against Islamic extremism. Each time there is a Muslim terror attack the Hindus get more and more militant. However, there is nothing in Hindu scripture akin to holy jihad against ALL OTHERS, as there is in Islam. "Christians, of course, make pretty good terrorists if required - CF Northern Ireland, the actions of the Maronite Christians in Lebanon etc. Acts of terror take place between indigenous African communities on a scale inconceivable to westerners, largely framed in terms of religious or cultural terms. Buddhists are something of an anomaly – but perfectly capable of acts of detached fanatical violence." Regardless of the sins of Christian terror through the ages it is NOT, NOT, NOT a doctrine of Christ. That is the difference. Christ says, "Peace, love, turn the other cheek; love your enemy," etc. While Islam says convert the "unbelievers" to Islam or KILL them!!! People who happen to be "Christian" and who are also terrorist do not invoke Christianity and commit their acts of terror in the name of Jesus. While Islamic terrorist invoke the Qu'ran and commit their acts of terror in the name of Allah. "Allahu akbar," (God is Great) is the slogan just before the jihadis blow themselves up. The phrase "ALLAHU AKBAR appears in green Arabic script on flag of the supposed "secular" nation of Iraq. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/flags/iz-flag.html The sword of Islam is on the Saudi flag. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/flags/sa-flag.html That makes things pretty clear about the "peacefulness" of Islam or the idea that Islam rules certain nations. The Swiss have a version of the Templar cross. But, Switzerland is neutral. They only launder terrorist and fascist funds. ;-) Perhaps the US should have a small depiction of the atomic cloud, just as a "reminder" to terrorists of the possibilities? "However, I take your point to be more than this – that only Muslims target “us” (not only westerners but also Muslims seen to capitulate towards western values) to such an extent. Furthermore, I take your claim to be that this is often blamed upon “western imperialism” whilst people of many other religions or cultures (equally victims of empire or imperialism) do not respond in this way. Now, I think that we really have to admit that Western Imperialism in its **modern phase** is focused predominantly on the Middle East - having the most plentiful source of fossil fuels on the planet. Without ignoring the conquest of India, the colonisation of South America and others, I think they are largely removed from living memory." Rob, the WHOLE world runs on petroleum and its products. Life as we know it would STOP—literally without oil. We BUY ME oil. We don't steal it or get it for free. Many Arab economies are based in oil. Without selling it they would starve. To be frank, I prefer Western "imperialism" and Western "hegemony" to the Islamic alternative. As to "Western values." What the Hell is that? Freedom instead of "submission," democracy instead of despotism, Capitalism instead of socialism or fascism, pluralism instead of bigotry, the rule of secular law instead of misanthropic sharia. Certainly, I'll take Western values instead of Islamic, codified bigotry any day! Of course, we back whosoever is useful for our interests. That is the way of the world, Rob. Each nation must do what is good for its people. I agree that we have often miscalculated and only looked at the short term. However, hindsight is 20/20. IF 9/11 never happened or had been prevented, we'd still all be muddling along with the pacifists of the world denying even more vehemently the threat of radical Islam. That, to me is the "good" that came from 9/11— that now, the whole world is aware of the threat of radical Islam to civilization as we know it. Certainly, the West has had a role in the political and economic landscape of the ME. We do what we need to to make our societies good for OUR people. It is NOT OUR responsibility to see that Arabs/Muslims get better societies. That is the responsibility of Muslims, especially Arab Muslims! Certainly, we are NOT responsible for the tenets of Islam. These people live under radical regimes, to a greater or lesser degree because of Islam not in spite of it. They "want" sharia law because it promises "paradise" on earth. Except none of them can yet figure out that Islam is a form of mind control, just as communism and fascism are. That the promised perfection of the Islamic state cannot happen under Islam—that can only happen under free, Western capitalism, pluralism and the rule of secular law. And, most importantly, they don't understand that the ONLY reason Islam was great 1,000 years ago was because of the contributions of OTHER nations and peoples whom Islam had conquered via the sword. When these peoples stopped being dhimmis, paying the poll tax, innovating and inventing then Islam started to slip—which, according to scholar Bernard Lewis was about 400 years after its founding. Islam is a conduit and NOT an innovator. It cannot be, with the tenet of "submission" and that ALL things are "Allah's" will." That stifles the sort of progress that is made by free will and personal responsibility. Those are the tenets of Western thought and civilization not Islam. Islam is about submission and the abdication of personal responsibility which Arabs and other Muslims are only too glad to do. Clearly, Islam promotes and fosters a culture of blame. Continued below:
Rob, I have said over and over, that I don't think there should be settlements. That Israeli water policies, etc. are not fair. However, Palestinians were able to move about prior to the intefada!!! Many thousands had jobs in Israel. I can post news reports of Pali leaders, including Arafat, saying that the intefada was a mistake. "You are right about compromise. You don’t seem to be able to recognise that the issue is less black and white than this." I believe that BOTH the Palestinians and the Israelis want to make the issue complicated. The bottom line is to stop terrorism you simply STOP! To stop settlements you simply STOP! "(a) You often claim that if the Palestinians had accepted the terms of 1948 then they would have a state. Now, I don’t think that the division of the land in 1948 was reasonable. It was only pushed through the UN by, US bullying. It gave Jews, who were a minority, a ludicrously disproportionate share of the land. It went against the wishes of the indigenous peoples – both Arab and a significant number of Jews." I don't agree at all! The Palestinians were moved off the land because the Arabs asked them to because they wanted to wage war. The Arabs lost, the Palis never got to go back. None of the other Arab nations, such as Palestinian Jordan, would accept the Pali refugees. "(b) HOWEVER, what we are faced with now is the demand for a pragmatic solution based on an acceptance that history cannot be reversed. I think that Israel should have a state to represent the interests of those living (broadly) within its 1967 borders. I think that Palestinians should have a state to represent those people that live in the West Bank, Gaza and Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem. I also think that each state should undertake to represent minority groups and to include them as full citizens." Agreed. But, what WE think doesn't matter a whit. It is the Israelis and Palestinians who must agree. And they seem not to be tired of fighting. "(c) The question is, therefore, how does each side react to the necessity of this compromise. Yes, there are Palestinians who claim they want to destroy Israel as a whole. HOWVER, if you look at any opinion poll, most ordinary Palestinians are in favour of a two-state solution, so long as it does not take the piss (i.e. Camp David)." I'm sorry ALL polls show that MOST Palestinians support continuing the intefada! MOST!!! A GREAT majority of the Palestinians support the intefada. That means they support terrorism. "We have to distinguish between rhetoric and an underlying acceptance that the Palestinian dream of regaining all they have lost will never be achieved. Even Hamas recognise this to some extent – their official position is to go for a two-state solution as a pragmatic compromise but never to accept it as right in terms of Islam." What exactly have they "lost"? The Palestinians want MORE than they ever had without a state. They want the "right of return" of the MILLIONS they have bred since they were forced out by the Arabs. That is not acceptable! When has a nation that won a war ever returned territories it conquered? Why should Israel do that without a guaranteed peace? "(d) . . . the Israeli right want to “destroy” and prospects for Palestine just as Hamas (at least in their rhetoric) want to “destroy” Israel. You seem to accept that settlements are a form of expansionism but not attribute the same aggressive intransigence to a significant and powerful group of Israelis that you wrongly attribute to ALL Palestinians." When the Pali polls shown different numbers, then one may suppose that Palestinians AS A PEOPLE do not support terror. When terrorists no longer put rat-poison into the explosive belts of human bombs and no longer send diseased jihadis (Hepatitis, etc.) into "battle" to deliberately infect those innocent terror victims who are not killed outright. When they no longer print school books that incite terror against the Jews or leave out a map of Israel entirely, then one might suppose that the Palestinians AS A PEOPLE do not support terror. When Pali parents no longer dress their babies up as suicide jihadis with "fake" explosive belts, when Pali children are no longer shown marching with masked militants and real guns, when Palis children no longer go to camps to learn terror techniques then we MIGHT suppose Palestinians AS A PEOPLE do not support terror. Until then, one must suppose that the Pali declared state of war has made a WHOLE people psychotic in their support for Islamic terror against innocents as sanctioned by the Islamic "holy" book—the Qu'ran. Regarding the Camp David issue, I continue to say that Arafat SHOULD have negotiated. But, it's a moot point. That offer is no longer on the table. "Firstly, I don’t care whatsoever about who owned what place when. I’m only interested in pragmatic solutions to a fairly complicated demographic situation in the region." It matters NOT what you or I care about, Roger. The fact is that both the Israelis and the Palestinians care passionately about this subject. Neither is willing to recognize the "legitimate" claims of the other. What is legitimate of course, is in the eyes of the beholder. When enough people die, they will quit. "However, my point was that Sharon’s visit to the complex was a deliberately organised political attempt to derail any hope of peace and to undermine Barak’s position." Sharon had EVERY RIGHT to go there! The Palis planned a violent response. That has been proven. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that Jews have no right to go to the Temple Mount anytime they want just to appease the Palestinians. They will fight until there is so much death, so much suffering that neither side can stand it any longer. We see some progress with the people's effort in Geneva. But, there is still a long way to go. Perhaps they will fight until no one is left standing? To be honest, the world is fatigued by this craziness. Why should any of us care? We should ALL stop giving either side funds. Let them duke it out until they have lost so many that the few left can start over. I have always been for cutting both Israel and the Palestinians as well as other Arab nations, like Egypt, off from ALL funding—until they behave like civilized peoples and accept personal responsibility for the state of their failing societies! Bon chance! And Happy Christmas. Lili ". . .If you think that either side has the monopoly on morality, or justice, then you are just an uneducated or biased jerk. . . " "I could agree with you 110% about what Islam is, and is not, but as soon as I begin to say: "However, Israel also is this..." and INSTANTLY you would be on me like a pack of slavering animals, trying to rent me limb-from-limb." Mikey, your reading skills are simply not up to par. Why don't you take a reading comprehension course in the New Year? It is your continual, flailing about and ad hominem attacks of people, the name calling (as above) that make you an undesirable sparring partner. ". . .It says that to you, Israel's interests come first. Before even logic itself. Either you think Israel incapable of any human error, deceit, or treachery... or you are consciously saying to yourself that to be loyal to Israel, you must fight me, lie to me, distract me with strawmen arguments - whatever - even though you know that I am right. . . " Do you know what your adolescent behavior tells the rest of us, Mikey? That you have failed to mature into an adult who can judge the facts on their own merits. That you only want YOUR way. It you don't get it you flail about and begin to "hit" the others with expletive deletives and name calling. Sorry, I don't play those games and most of the others appear to be tired of your recalcitrant behavior as well. Petulance will get you ignored, Mikey. Take a lesson from Rob Maynard. He can argue a point with those who disagree or differ with him without attacking and calling people names. Holy Cow! Even Romulus does better than you, Mikey. "I am NOT saying that Israel is entirely at fault, or even 50% at fault. BUT IT DOES HAVE ITS SHARE." Most of us, especially me, are also saying that, Mikey. Except you can't hear us over your shouting, name calling and knee jerk reactions. Why don't you go have a nice glass of eggnog with "punch" and look up that reading comprehension course? ;-) Just, GROW UP! Lili Here is WHY the so-called "road map" is not working. If Palestinian attack— Israel retaliates. That is the way it has always been—and NOT vice versa! Hamas et al. have vowed to push Israel into the sea! Who is the aggressor? Who recruits suicide jihadis and sends them to deliberately target innocents? Who stages Palestinian martyr's "funerals" only to have the "martyr" get up again to die another day? Who lies at every opportunity inflating casualty figures and calling them "massacres"—Jenin comes to mind. Who is the aggressor? Islam! ========== ZOA:Palestinian Arab Violations of the Roadmap - Week #34 December 16, 2003 - December 22, 2003 The Road Map requires the Palestinian Arabs to undertake concrete steps to . . . (During the first 34 weeks since the Road Map was issued, there have been a Attacks detailed here: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=19239 --------------- It is the same BS as with other Muslims. Radical Islam ATTACKED the US on 9/11 and numerous times prior to that. We finally RETALIATED with massive force and now the Muslims are whining about an American "war of aggression" against "poor, defenseless, non-threatening" Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was a haven and training ground for Islamic terrorism. Iraq was supporting Palestinian terrorists and had WMD that were used against its own people. ObL DECLARED war on the US years ago. Who is the aggressor? Islam! And why should the US not retaliate against these savages? Why should the whole world not come down like a ton of bricks on these vermin? --- Anyone snowed in on Christmas Eve? Lili
You can't ignore me, because you are a petty, lonely old bitch that has nothing to do with her Chritmas than get the last word in. You have ignored every single post that I made that was on topic. You did not so much as touch my topic showing how Barak's peace deal WASN'T a peace deal. So fuck off, you insignificant little piece of shit. You are an armchair warrior, who will be thrilled to send off 18 year-olds from every other family but your own, to fight wars that cooler heads are working to avoid. Go to hell, you fuck. Will respond to your posts after the festive season Lili. Posted by: rob maynard at December 25, 2003 02:40 AMMike, Lili, Has to be last post (hopefully) as many differences are irreconcilable. Surely, in both cases, the protagonists identify the rightness of their cause in terms of some religious end. It matters not what the true doctrine of Islam/Christianity offers in each case only that the PROTAGONISTS THEMSELVES THINK that their religious belief offers some justification for their actions. To put the point differently, you appear to agree that Muslims do not have a monopoly on terror - only that Islam is unique in providing a doctrinal basis for such acts - a basis absent in any other religion. However, I don't know why this is really relevant when protagonists of terror of all creeds ASSUME that what they do is justified by their religion. It matters not what YOU think about their interpretation of scripture. 2) So...we have to look to something other than the basis of scripture to explain why people use religion as an ideological cover for carrying our atrocities. Again, it suited the IRA to present blowing up the residents of Ulster as being somehow legitimated by their Catholicism. It suits Islamic Fundamentalists to present the genuine resentment of the west (for reasons I have explained) in terms of Islam and to generate, from this basis, a murderous terror. It matters not whether either claim is theologically correct. Only that theology is often a convenient tool to justify and motivate terror. 3) I have to say that I dispute wholeheartedly what you say about our attitude to the developing world. Surely, foreign policy should (at least) operate within the boundaries of international law. It is not a question of us having mis-calculated a foreign policy that has backfired in our faces but that what we did was MORALY WRONG. Furthermore, I think that our energy needs in the west (especially the US) are grossly over exaggerated so that the strategy of securing petroleum at any moral cost cannot be justified. I suppose that makes me a liberal utopian and you a hard hearted realist – and I’m not sure if this can ever be reconciled in an internet forum. 4) The solution is to STOP terrorism? My point was that if (Palestinian) terrorism were to stop today there would STILL be a network of Jewish only roads, STILL be a ridiculously disproportionate amount of water used by Jews in the West Bank/Gaza and STILL be an unbearable network of check points ensuring the viability of such settlements. These things are not reducible to being a response to terror (against Israel within its current borders) but are the product of the expansionist Israeli right. 5) You can still (logically) be pro-intefadeh and in favour of a two state solution. The former is a question of means and the latter a question of ends. Yes, most Palestinians support the intefadeh as they have lost faith in any peace process. They also are in favour of a genuine two-state solution as a reasonable result as any poll proves. BTW the intefadeh encompasses anything from civil disobedience, to throwing stones, to attacking soldiers in the occupied territories, to attacking settlements, to suicide bombings in Israel. 5) On the foundation of Israel. 6)Does it matter what we say about what constitutes a good solution? "Has to be last post (hopefully) as many differences are irreconcilable." Well, Rob, the thread is too long and difficult to load. But, since it is the Oldest Hatred there will be another and another. Hope you had a marvelous Holiday. Mine was great! Went to several wonderful musical and dance performances, ate and drank at "decadent" repasts, watched beautiful people and reflected on the wonders of Western civilization. Ah, what pleasure in this life instead of the next. ;-) "1) I still don't know what hangs on your assertion that acts of terror committed by Christians (for example) are not authorised by the word of Christ and those by Muslims are. (By the way, Let me be honest, I don't have the theological knowledge to dispute/affirm either of these assertions . . ." Because, Christ NEVER, EVER said "kill" anyone like Mohammed did! Christ was the "Prince of Peace." If you don't have the theological knowledge why are you even arguing the point, Rob? ". . .If Maronite Christian's kill around 2,000 Palestinian refugees in (apparent) retaliation for the assassination of their leader - does it really matter . . ." Certainly it matters! Because this was a ONE TIME event of revenge, the thing that pushed the community over the edge. It was not done exclaiming the virtues of Christianity. "Surely, in both cases, the protagonists identify the rightness of their cause in terms of some religious end. . . " Again, these people did not invoke Christ in their deeds because there is NOTHING that Christ said that could be quoted as justifying or condining such violence. ". . .However, I don't know why this is really relevant when protagonists of terror of all creeds ASSUME that what they do is justified by their religion. . . " All terrorists DO NOT invoke their religions, Rob. Most terrorists are pretty secular criminals regardless of the religion they happen to have been born into. Islamic terrorists are ALWAYS Muslims. And there are literally thousands of terrorist acts committed by Muslims in the name of Islam each year. They KILL the "infidel" in the name of their Allah! "2) . . .It suits Islamic Fundamentalists to present the genuine resentment of the west (for reasons I have explained) in terms of Islam and to generate, from this basis, a murderous terror." Rob, READ THE QU'RAN!!! "It matters not whether either claim is theologically correct. Only that theology is often a convenient tool to justify and motivate terror." Is certainly is theologically correct. Islam is a militant, violent, misogynistic, misanthropic religion. Just READ, the Qu'ran, Rob. " . . . I suppose that makes me a liberal utopian and you a hard hearted realist – and I’m not sure if this can ever be reconciled in an internet forum." Rob, I am all for being my "brothers' keeper." However, at some point, the world has to learn to pull itself up by its own boot-straps. Half a century of aid is quite enough. You should read George Ayittey: http://www.aworldconnected.org/people.php/78778.html Additionally, the WHOLE world runs on oil. The poorest woman, in some backward village in the third world carries her water in a petroleum product, plastic bucket. Life as we know it would STOP without petroleum products. Sure the war was "morally wrong." But, that does not make leaving Saddam in power morally right. ". . . . These things are not reducible to being a response to terror (against Israel within its current borders) but are the product of the expansionist Israeli right." I think it is wise to separate these peoples. The wall will do that. The wall is not to keep the Palis in, it is to keep the murderous jihadis out. "Remember, again, that such settlements increased by 100% during the (peaceful) Oslo period." The settlements need to be dismantled. ". . . BTW the intefadeh encompasses anything from civil disobedience, to throwing stones, to attacking soldiers in the occupied territories, to attacking settlements, to suicide bombings in Israel." The intefada is murderous jihad, Rob. End of story! "5) On the foundation of Israel. . . " We'll have to agree to disagree. I maintain that the Palis could have called a state at any time since the inception of Israel. Your version of history is not mine. We appear to have read different books. "6)Does it matter what we say about what constitutes a good solution? . . ." I don't think either side is working with much logic, Rob. Although, the Israelis have the upper hand in the logic department while the Palestinians tend to have it in the hysteria department. Quite frankly I, like so many other people the world over, am suffering from intefada fatigue. I have real problems getting up any sort of sympathy for people who did this to themselves and who teach their children that murderous suicide jihad against innocents is something to be aspired to. How will millions of Palestinians get rid of their self-inflicted psychoses? Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 27, 2003 08:15 AMExcerpts from Palestinian sermons or why I cannot get up much sympathy for the Palestinians. Can you imagine clerics in the "infidel" world saying such things at any time, much less on a regular basis? The Muslims would be SCREAMING and demonstrating: "discrimination," "racism," "religious bigotry." ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! ----- Antisemitism and Calls to Kill Jews "Annihilating" Jews by Palestinians becoming suicide bombers and "detonating" themselves in their midst, and by saving "a bullet is order to stick it in a Jew's head," are examples of the many calls for killing Jews in Palestinian sermons. Islamic Hadiths are often cited as inspiration for such actions. Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi explained, "Palestine will be, as it was in the past, a graveyard for the invaders - just as it was a graveyard for the Tatars and to the Crusader invaders, [and for the invaders] of the old and new colonialism… A reliable Hadith [tradition] says: 'The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them.' What could be more beautiful than this tradition? 'The Jews will fight you' - that is, the Jews have begun to fight us. 'You will be set to rule over them' - Who will set the Muslim to rule over the Jew? Allah… Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land… Oh Allah, accept our martyrs in the highest heavens… Oh Allah, show the Jews a black day… Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters… Oh Allah, raise the flag of Jihad across the land… Oh Allah, forgive our sins…" [19] Similarly, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya stated, "O brother believers, the criminals, the terrorists - are the Jews… They are the ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them: Allah will torture them at your hands, and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them… The Jews are like a [gas] pedal - as long as you step on it with your foot, it doesn't move, but if you lift your foot from it, it hurts you and punishes you. This is the case of the Jews." [20] Within sermons, Jews are commonly referred to as the descendants of pigs and apes, and as calf-worshippers. As Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi stated, "All spears should be directed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah, the nation that was cursed in Allah's book. Allah has described them as apes and pigs, the calf-worshipers, idol-worshipers… Whoever can fight them with his weapons, should go out [to the battle]; whoever can fight them with a machinegun, should go out; whoever can fight them with a sword or a knife, should go out; whoever can fight them with his hands, should go out; This is our destiny… The Jews have exposed their fangs. Nothing will deter them, except the color of their filthy people's blood; nothing will deter them except for us voluntarily detonating ourselves in their midst. They have nuclear power, but we have the power of the belief in Allah… We blow them up in Hadera, we blow them up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya." [21] On another occasion, Sheikh Madhi added: "Oh beloved of Allah… One of the Jews' evil deeds is what has come to be called 'the Holocaust,' that is, the slaughter of the Jews by Nazism. However, revisionist [historians] have proven that this crime, carried out against some of the Jews, was planned by the Jews' leaders, and was part of their policy… These are the Jews against whom we fight, oh beloved of Allah. On the other hand, [what is our belief] about the Jews? Allah has described them as donkeys." [22] On the September 11th Attacks Conspiracy theories against America and Jews are the subject of many sermons dealing with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the September 11, 2001 attack. Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, speaking about the first attack, stated, "Oh those who pray, you have brothers wrongly and aggressively jailed in America. They have been forgotten. They were charged with false claims about the bombing of the World Trade [Center] in New York. We, from the Al-Aqsa Mosque and on your behalf, demand the release of these prisoners, who are monotheistic Muslims." [29] Weeks after September 11th, Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri stated again that Muslims were not involved, and in fact that Americans were responsible: "Oh Muslims, oh brothers, believers, everywhere, our Prophet used to deal in Friday's sermons with current events of his time and I will follow him and also discuss some religious rulings connected to the current international events following the [attacks] that took place in America on the 11th of this month. First, there is a religious legal rule that man is innocent, namely, in Islam, a human being is innocent until he is proven guilty. It is not allowed to blame a human being and then tell him 'prove you're innocent.' Therefore we tell America: 'It is forbidden to accuse a person before the beginning of the investigation.' Until now, the American administration could not present proof to convict the accused in the [attacks] in New York and Washington, [because] it is possible that there are other elements inside America who carried out these [attacks]." [30] ----- "We are convinced of the [future] victory of Allah; we believe that one of these days, we will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, enter Jaffa as conquerors, enter Haifa as conquerors, enter Ramle and Lod as conquerors, the [villages of] Hirbiya and Dir Jerjis and all of Palestine as conquerors, as Allah has decreed… 'They will enter Al-Aqsa Mosque as they have entered it the first time…' "Anyone who does not attain martyrdom in these days should wake in the middle of the night and say: 'My God, why have you deprived me of martyrdom for your sake? For the martyr lives next to Allah'… "Our enemies suffer now more than we do. Why? Because we are convinced that our dead go to Paradise, while the dead of the Jews go to Hell, to a cruel fate. So we stand firm and steadfast, in obedience to Allah… "The Jews await the false Jewish messiah, while we await, with Allah's help… the Madhi and Jesus, peace be upon him. Jesus's pure hands will murder the false Jewish messiah. Where? In the city of Lod, in Palestine. Palestine will be, as it was in the past, a graveyard for the invaders - just as it was a graveyard for the Tatars and to the Crusader invaders, [and for the invaders] of the old and new colonialism… "A reliable Hadith [tradition] says: 'The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them.' What could be more beautiful than this tradition? 'The Jews will fight you' - that is, the Jews have begun to fight us. 'You will be set to rule over them' - Who will set the Muslim to rule over the Jew? Allah… Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. "But the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. "We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land… Read a compilation of these horrific "sermons" by tolerant clerics of "Peaceful Islam" in their places of worship, here: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2403 ---- The Palestinians and radical Muslims are like the proverbial dog who chases the car. Once they 'catch' the car will they know what to do with it? Back to the 7th century "paradise" of Islam. . . Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 27, 2003 04:48 PMA room without books is like a body without a soul. Posted by: Cutler Betsy at January 25, 2004 11:20 AM |
