the problem of Muslims

[9sublime]

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

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

And the fact that you have said "

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

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

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

 

[TheWaffle]

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

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

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

No?

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

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

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

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

 

[Dave]

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

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

And the fact that you have said "

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

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

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

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

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

 

[9sublime]

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

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

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

 

[Dave]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[9sublime]

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

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

 

[Dave]

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

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

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

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

 

[9sublime]

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

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

 

[Lilly Marlene]

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

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

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

 

[Dave]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

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

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

No?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[palerider]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lilly Marlene]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Dave]

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

http://www.shoebat.com/

 

[Lilly Marlene]

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

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

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