According to a recent article by Newsweek's Fareed Zakariah, only 13% of American Muslims believe that suicide bombing is justifiable.By contrast,the figures for France,Jordan,and Nigeria,are 36%,56% and 70% ,respectively.As a muslim,do you believe that suicide bombing is justifiable? Why or why not? Under what circumstances? Is it a question of humanity vs moral responsibility vs. religion? Discuss..
Quote from: dan kauye on December 30, 2007, 02:51:10 PM
According to a recent article by Newsweek's Fareed Zakariah, only 13% of American Muslims believe that suicide bombing is justifiable.By contrast,the figures for France,Jordan,and Nigeria,are 36%,56% and 70% ,respectively.As a muslim,do you believe that suicide bombing is justifiable? Why or why not? Under what circumstances? Is it a question of humanity vs moral responsibility vs. religion? Discuss..
OK first and foremost.. its not justifiable by any standard. Secondly, before we begin to get shocked or draw conclusions that Nigerian muslims are fanatics, lets discuss how many ppl were actually asked the question in each country in order to arrive at the percentages. Maybe 10000 muslims in the US were interviewed and 1300 of them said it was justifiable, so u get 13% or maybe 1000 were asked and 130 said it was justifiable. In Nigeria, maybe 100 ppl were asked and 70 of them said it was justifiable and so we get 70% of Nigerian muslims saying its justifiable as against 13% of americans, when in actual figures, more americans said it was justifiable than nigerians (130 americans to 70 nigerians!).
So DK, get us the actual figures first then we carry on, otherwise the whole deal sounds slightly fishy to me... I dont agree that 70% of Nigerian muslims would regard suicide bombing as justifiable. Someone is out to frame us because the US wants to have AFRICOM stabled somewhere in an African country and an jaded excuse to wage war against nigerian muslims.... far fetched huh? think again..
Quote from: HUSNAA on December 30, 2007, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: dan kauye on December 30, 2007, 02:51:10 PM
According to a recent article by Newsweek's Fareed Zakariah, only 13% of American Muslims believe that suicide bombing is justifiable.By contrast,the figures for France,Jordan,and Nigeria,are 36%,56% and 70% ,respectively.As a muslim,do you believe that suicide bombing is justifiable? Why or why not? Under what circumstances? Is it a question of humanity vs moral responsibility vs. religion? Discuss..
OK first and foremost.. its not justifiable by any standard. Secondly, before we begin to get shocked or draw conclusions that Nigerian muslims are fanatics, lets discuss how many ppl were actually asked the question in each country in order to arrive at the percentages. Maybe 10000 muslims in the US were interviewed and 1300 of them said it was justifiable, so u get 13% or maybe 1000 were asked and 130 said it was justifiable. In Nigeria, maybe 100 ppl were asked and 70 of them said it was justifiable and so we get 70% of Nigerian muslims saying its justifiable as against 13% of americans, when in actual figures, more americans said it was justifiable than nigerians (130 americans to 70 nigerians!).
So DK, get us the actual figures first then we carry on, otherwise the whole deal sounds slightly fishy to me... I dont agree that 70% of Nigerian muslims would regard suicide bombing as justifiable. Someone is out to frame us because the US wants to have AFRICOM stabled somewhere in an African country and an jaded excuse to wage war against nigerian muslims.... far fetched huh? think again..
Aunty Husna kenan,wani abun sai ke.. ;D
It appears that you are not only questioning the veracity of the article but also you're contending the empirical basis(central limit theorem,regression anlysis etc) upon which the poll was conducted or structured.I don't have the answers to any of those questions,but American or not,Newsweek's one of the most credible newsmagazines there is,and Fareed Zakaria's one of the finest writers around,and
he's also a Muslim,may I add.As likely as those figures may have been hyperbolized,there's no denying that the figures,at the very least,give an insight even if roughly,on the subject's stance for or against suicide bombing.Maybe I'm being brainwashed but I don't allow religious paranoia override a simple objective judgement and I don't believe that everything is a conspiracy.All this is quite a digression,my question is still;(regardless of stastical accuracy) is suicide bombing justifiable under any cirmcumstance?
Why or why not? Gives reasons by,say,drawing up verses from the Quran/intellectual perspectives to supplement your opinion.
I've found some research by Professor Jamal Badawi, acclaimed both in the eyes of Western and Muslim society, you can research on him if you want, he knows his stuff and writing is often scientific meaning he provides hard authentic evidence for his point.
So according to Prof Jamal Badawi:
Jihad is not holy war as Western media are always saying aloud. He gives five reasons:
1. This is an English term, used by the Crusaders, it does not originate in the religion Islam and what is happening is what psychologists call projection.
2. No where in the Qur'an will you find the Arabic equivalent of holy war. Holy war in Arabic does not translate as Jihad, this is a common misconception especially amongst non-Muslims. Nor will you find the Arabic equivalent of Holy War in the saying of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, his saying are called hadith.
3. Oxymoron: there is nothing 'holy' about destruction, death, blood, rape and killing of innocent women and children.
4. By definition 'Holy War' means one religion against another religion. In the religion Islam and nowhere in the Qur'an is there any mention that it is permissible for Muslims to fight with people of a different faith solely for that reason. Rather it should be because they are being oppressed or civil liberties eroded etc. etc. Muslims are not allowed to do to a non-Muslim what they can't do to a Muslim, those who do so are not Muslims and have nothing to do with Islam.
5. And finally the term 'Holy War' has some glamour and appeal about it. But nowhere in the Qur'an is there glamorization of War. In the Qur'an chapter 2 verse 216 it says: 'Fighting has been prescribed but it is hated'. Like divorce, which is permissible in Islam, but it is disliked. So similarly war should be the last option.
Jihad has nothing to do with terrorism and it is uneducated journalists who seem to be doing anything but their job: provide accurate and honest reports of the affairs of the world. Terrorism means any act that deliberately victimizes an innocent whether individual, state etc. etc. If it Islam than it has nothing to do with terrorism, and if it is terrorism than it has nothing to do with Islam even if they claim 'in the name of God'. God has not told them to blow up and kill innocent victims for their religion.
So what is Jihad? It is to strive in something, exert maximum pressure to achieve something. In Islam there is such a thing as individual jihad, so if jihad means 'war' and something negative how can an individual do jihad? In Islam there is such a thing as jihad with the Qur'an, which is the holy book of Muslims, so how can you do jihad if it means something violent and death with the holy book of their religion? There are many kinds of Jihad and the two mentioned here have no relation with the battlefield therefore when talking about jihad the problem is distinguishing between which one is being discussed, for example, whenever I hear the word jihad mentioned on T.V it is always in relation to war and they even have the never to call it 'holy war' but this a) isn't the meaning of Jihad b) there are many types of Jihad. I am slowly beginning to understand why my Muslim friends become outraged and angry-you have a few minority exploiting and killing in the name of their religion-totally wrong and condemned in Islam as it would be in any religion, and then you have the people outside totally taking things out of context, rephrasing and distorting information for their own individual gains.
Hope this will help us understand what fisrt of all is Jihad. Then when I get back I'll, by Allah's grace give my view.
Excellent post from Mushin.
Quote1. This is an English term, used by the Crusaders, it does not originate in the religion Islam and what is happening is what psychologists call projection.
2. No where in the Qur'an will you find the Arabic equivalent of holy war. Holy war in Arabic does not translate as Jihad, this is a common misconception especially amongst non-Muslims. Nor will you find the Arabic equivalent of Holy War in the saying of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, his saying are called hadith.
3. Oxymoron: there is nothing 'holy' about destruction, death, blood, rape and killing of innocent women and children.
4. By definition 'Holy War' means one religion against another religion. In the religion Islam and nowhere in the Qur'an is there any mention that it is permissible for Muslims to fight with people of a different faith solely for that reason. Rather it should be because they are being oppressed or civil liberties eroded etc. etc. Muslims are not allowed to do to a non-Muslim what they can't do to a Muslim, those who do so are not Muslims and have nothing to do with Islam.
5. And finally the term 'Holy War' has some glamour and appeal about it. But nowhere in the Qur'an is there glamorization of War. In the Qur'an chapter 2 verse 216 it says: 'Fighting has been prescribed but it is hated'. Like divorce, which is permissible in Islam, but it is disliked. So similarly war should be the last option.
Fair enough...let's accept this to be true. The only exception would be the Crusader quip, which is rather silly, un-informed and even irresponsible.
QuoteJihad has nothing to do with terrorism and it is uneducated journalists who seem to be doing anything but their job: provide accurate and honest reports of the affairs of the world. Terrorism means any act that deliberately victimizes an innocent whether individual, state etc. etc. If it Islam than it has nothing to do with terrorism, and if it is terrorism than it has nothing to do with Islam even if they claim 'in the name of God'. God has not told them to blow up and kill innocent victims for their religion.
Here unfortunately exists a flaw. Dr. Badawi in his expert opinion declares the true islamic concept of jihad to be diametrically opposed to modern-day terrorism, but places the blame for the present misconception squarely at the foot of 'uneducated journalists'. This is even more strange, since he does not fail to mention religious extremism that thrives on this apparent misconception. Objective analysis dictates that blame should equally go to the agents of contemporary 'popcorn' journalism as well as the extremists. In fact, since the jihad misconception is obviously not the invention of the media but that of the from the extremists, Dr. Badawi is better served presenting his ideals as a refutation of erroneous fundamentalist doctrine rather than just the half-baked media presentation.
QuoteI am slowly beginning to understand why my Muslim friends become outraged and angry-you have a few minority exploiting and killing in the name of their religion-totally wrong and condemned in Islam as it would be in any religion, and then you have the people outside totally taking things out of context, rephrasing and distorting information for their own individual gains.
First of all, I daresay that some Muslims who consider themselves separate from the extremists are unwittingly perpetuating this and many other misconceptions about Islam. Let's take this forum as a case in point. Do a search on the word jihad, and you may find that the vast majority of the results all refer to physical combat. Very rarely has it ever been used to denote individual intellectual struggle. Do a search on teh word 'suicide' and you'll find a few examples of Muslims excusing the suicide bombing tactics of Palestinian extremist groups
Secondly, let's take your views on this issue, Muhsin, as another case in point. On a thread Bamalli started about suicide (http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=0f62d3528b96aa2d1c811ed2e637007c&topic=3452.msg34931#msg34931), you clearly expressed strong sentiments against it, as you have done on this thread. However on this thread (http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=0f62d3528b96aa2d1c811ed2e637007c&topic=2743.msg27085#msg27085), you expressed previous support for groups like the Hamas and Fatah, who specialize in such practices! What gives?
Quote from: Cekenah on January 10, 2008, 07:45:26 PM
First of all, I daresay that some Muslims who consider themselves separate from the extremists are unwittingly perpetuating this and many other misconceptions about Islam. Let's take this forum as a case in point. Do a search on the word jihad, and you may find that the vast majority of the results all refer to physical combat. Very rarely has it ever been used to denote individual intellectual struggle. Do a search on teh word 'suicide' and you'll find a few examples of Muslims excusing the suicide bombing tactics of Palestinian extremist groups
Secondly, let's take your views on this issue, Muhsin, as another case in point. On a thread Bamalli started about suicide (http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=0f62d3528b96aa2d1c811ed2e637007c&topic=3452.msg34931#msg34931), you clearly expressed strong sentiments against it, as you have done on this thread. However on this thread (http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=0f62d3528b96aa2d1c811ed2e637007c&topic=2743.msg27085#msg27085), you expressed previous support for groups like the Hamas and Fatah, who specialize in such practices! What gives?
I wish I have enough time to respond to you categorically. But unfortunetly my time won't allow that be rightly done. Any way let me, in a bit way respond.
Sincerely speaking, even when I was bringing that above piece, I hadn't read it throughly but he himself (the writer), I and him have parted way partly. Surprise, uh? Don't be, ok? Do you know why; I have once listened to one documentary from BBC. There, one English prof made it clearly that; analysis and research shows that those taking part in suicide bombing aren't actually doing it upon religious base rather out of frustration, anger and shock treatment and so on. He further stressed that the first case of it was reported to have been carried out by non-muslims--Tenil Tigers of Serilanka. Go check it!
And, if I support what either Hamas or Fatah are doing, think there is nothing wrong. Nothing wrong in protecting oneself and showing resistence to the person, no matter how strong he's, attacking you.
Israel is always killing them, destroying there houses, industries, hospitals and everything, arresting them, beating them up and worst more using them as shield--to protect themselve from attack from other Palastine, which even the so-called UN comdemned and called to be stopped.
Hmmm...as I said earlier; time's against me. But I urge you to pls think and judge the situation fair-mindedly. What do you come up with? Forget about anything like different in religion because I apparently understand you are Christian. There is nothing wrong, still you can be wholly fair in your judgement.
Thanks
Quote from: Muhsin on January 14, 2008, 01:02:50 PM
Hmmm...as I said earlier; time's against me. But I urge you to pls think and judge the situation fair-mindedly. What do you come up with? Forget about anything like different in religion because I apparently understand you are Christian. There is nothing wrong, still you can be wholly fair in your judgement.
Thanks
Cekenah doesnt sound like a christian to me Muhsin, although I havent read anything of his pertaining to religion except the comments he made above. On the other hand, he may be a student of comparative religions or theology.... maybe....
It might be, Aunty Husnaa. But I intuitively smell something more fishy; just a suspense, I believe. How was he/she able to dig out my two thread's he/she gave example with? They existed and died before his/her coming. But it could be possible that he/she located them through research in the archieves.
Muhsin, thank u for ur posts
From the mere mention of sucide, it becomes haram in Islam, before even mentioning killing people of whatever race or religion. trrrr!
Justice, well hmm.... religion aside, thats a tough one. In Palestine, these people are murdered en mass, and are destroyed in many different ways. Thier lives are ever bleak and terminal even in full health. They are compelled to find solutions among limited options. I'm afraid logically, sucide bombing is an option for them(religion aside).Its not the best option and its not the option I will recommend, but it is one of the few ways they have to fight back. Sadly. But Allah knows best.
Safety and peace be upon u
Ibro2g,
Once, since Sheik Ahmad Yasin was alive, when he was talking with a CNN reporter, after Israel had just lauched attack that claimed many Palastinian lives, he vowed to retaliate. And the reporter asked him in what way could they do that because as everyone knows that Israel has weapons and other stuff. He said in the way they used to do it. He further qoute a verse to support their action of suicide bombing. The verse was; "wa'a idduu lahum mastada'atum..." It basically means that Allah says muslims should retaliate such Israel attacks in any possible manner. And theirs is only suicide bomb.
Allah masani.
If only when ppl discuss the Palestinian issue, they'd put religion aside... I mean Islam aside. This is not the armaggeddon every one is thinking about and refusing to voice out.
Quote from: HUSNAA on January 15, 2008, 10:59:16 AM
If only when ppl discuss the Palestinian issue, they'd put religion aside... I mean Islam aside. This is not the armaggeddon every one is thinking about and refusing to voice out.
?
Quote from: HUSNAA on December 30, 2007, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: dan kauye on December 30, 2007, 02:51:10 PM
According to a recent article by Newsweek's Fareed Zakariah, only 13% of American Muslims believe that suicide bombing is justifiable.By contrast,the figures for France,Jordan,and Nigeria,are 36%,56% and 70% ,respectively.As a muslim,do you believe that suicide bombing is justifiable? Why or why not? Under what circumstances? Is it a question of humanity vs moral responsibility vs. religion? Discuss..
OK first and foremost.. its not justifiable by any standard. Secondly, before we begin to get shocked or draw conclusions that Nigerian muslims are fanatics, lets discuss how many ppl were actually asked the question in each country in order to arrive at the percentages. Maybe 10000 muslims in the US were interviewed and 1300 of them said it was justifiable, so u get 13% or maybe 1000 were asked and 130 said it was justifiable. In Nigeria, maybe 100 ppl were asked and 70 of them said it was justifiable and so we get 70% of Nigerian muslims saying its justifiable as against 13% of americans, when in actual figures, more americans said it was justifiable than nigerians (130 americans to 70 nigerians!).
So DK, get us the actual figures first then we carry on, otherwise the whole deal sounds slightly fishy to me... I dont agree that 70% of Nigerian muslims would regard suicide bombing as justifiable. Someone is out to frame us because the US wants to have AFRICOM stabled somewhere in an African country and an jaded excuse to wage war against nigerian muslims.... far fetched huh? think again..
At last, something I can sink my teeth in. Numbers. I see nothing wrong in the methodology used to get these percentages. Remember that these are percentages, not gross numbers. Husnaa, it is irrelevant that the pool measured for the American Muslims was greater than the pool used for the Nigerian Muslims. The
percentage is the important difference. If they found that 70% of Nigerian Muslims agree with the use of suicide bombing, that's significant compared with the 13% of American Muslims. Now you may be right, that your personal experience indicates that 70% is too high, and maybe they used a pool that was biased in favor of the 70% figure (they only asked Kano Nigerians in a particular part of the city, for instance), but you must admit that 70% is a very high percentage no matter what methodology they used. I would think, given the status of suicide in the Qur'an, i.e. that it is haram, most Muslims would find it unjustifiable no matter the cause.
However, Husnaa, I find support for your suspicion. A similar question was asked of Muslims by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in 2002 and the results can be found here:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165 which shows that 47% of Nigerian Muslims supported suicide bombings while 45% opposed them. This is a lot closer than 70%/30%, although I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling from 47% either. The only country close to 70% was Lebanon at 73%. Ivory Coast was second at 56%.
The problem with this discussion, from my point of view, is that even the 13% found for American Muslims is too high. Don't they realize that wrapping your kids in dynamite and putting them on the bus is just wrong, no matter what the other guy is doing to you? Don't they see how the rest of the world sees this as Barbaric (except that I don't think that even Barbaric standards condoned this sort of warfare)? It just amazes me that otherwise sensible people can support such nonproductive actions, killing their own children, naming streets after suicide bombers in Ramallah, and giving large sums of money to the families of the bombers (thereby providing an incentive to these children to be the "family hero" by their deaths). It really makes Muslims look bad, in my opinion, especially since we listen in vain for those voices of reason from the Muslim community speaking out against this outrage.
It's similar to the tendency in some majority Muslim countries to riot in the streets over the publishing of some cartoons. Cartoons! Muslims died in these riots. They had families, parents, children, who will never see them again. And for what? This is where we need the voice of reason to be heard from the mainstream of the Muslim world. But we don't hear anything. When Iran had a competition to submit cartoons that were the most offensive to Christians, do you remember the result? Nothing! Cartoons were submitted, they were all published throughout the world on several websites, prizes were awarded to the winners, and then nothing happened. No demonstrations in the US or in Europe, no condemnation by the Pope, nothing. I know Iran wanted to make some silly point, that Christians can dish it out but can't take it, but that apparently wasn't true.
Back to work, folks, but I wanted to say something about this jihad business, but that has to wait. Have a wonderful day. Jack
Quote from: Jack Fulcher on May 05, 2008, 11:28:59 PM
The problem with this discussion, from my point of view, is that even the 13% found for American Muslims is too high. Don't they realize that wrapping your kids in dynamite and putting them on the bus is just wrong, no matter what the other guy is doing to you? Don't they see how the rest of the world sees this as Barbaric (except that I don't think that even Barbaric standards condoned this sort of warfare)? It just amazes me that otherwise sensible people can support such nonproductive actions, killing their own children, naming streets after suicide bombers in Ramallah, and giving large sums of money to the families of the bombers (thereby providing an incentive to these children to be the "family hero" by their deaths). It really makes Muslims look bad, in my opinion, especially since we listen in vain for those voices of reason from the Muslim community speaking out against this outrage.
Just wanna call your attention you seem to have missed, Mr Jack. When people are push to the end of a rope and nearly falling into some where, a dangerous place, they would do everything, I mean everything, to excape happening of that. Thats what one Hausa popular adage says, which I cannot, for now, remember.
Palastinians are being killed for decades by Isra'el merciless soldiers. I thus presume their impressions is; even if you stay home, decide not to do the
intifadah, someday an attack would defenitlyand unfortunetly reach you, aimlessly. Therefore, lets stand and show resistence by
all means and such include suicide bombing.
Let me tell you again, because I fear you might think I'm pro-suicide action. Nope! Am neither there nor here. I cannot say, because am not absolutely sure, that their actions are justifiable nor its not.
Allah bring peace to all.
Quote from: Muhsin on May 06, 2008, 11:56:23 AM
Just wanna call your attention you seem to have missed, Mr Jack. When people are push to the end of a rope and nearly falling into some where, a dangerous place, they would do everything, I mean everything, to excape happening of that. Thats what one Hausa popular adage says, which I cannot, for now, remember.
Palastinians are being killed for decades by Isra'el merciless soldiers. I thus presume their impressions is; even if you stay home, decide not to do the intifadah, someday an attack would defenitlyand unfortunetly reach you, aimlessly. Therefore, lets stand and show resistence by all means and such include suicide bombing.
Let me tell you again, because I fear you might think I'm pro-suicide action. Nope! Am neither there nor here. I cannot say, because am not absolutely sure, that their actions are justifiable nor its not.
Allah bring peace to all.
Thanks for the post, Muhsin. I know the argument that if you're pushed to the wall you may use any means necessary to resist the oppressor. However, I think you'll agree that this is an especially rare form of resistance. When we felt oppressed by the British we didn't wrap our kids in dynamite, nor were suicide attacks ever used in any strategic or systematic way. We shot their soldiers and hanged their Tory supporters in the colonies. Did the Hausas ever use suicide as a strategy against their oppressors?
You're suggesting that this conflict is all one-sided, which is not my understanding at all. The Palestinians seem to be shooting rockets on a regular basis into populated areas of Israel, and the Israelis are shooting back by attacking those who are shooting and making the rockets. I don't know how people feel in Nigeria, but if the Mexicans were shooting rockets from Tiajuana into San Diego or Los Angeles, I know that we'd have our army in there immediately to make sure the shooters are dead. Period. And there's no question that most of our people would support this.
Now I know there's a disagreement regarding who should be on the land there, and I don't presume to know all of the arguments, but that seems to be entirely irrelevant. The fact is that the Arabs tried to kill the Israelis, but they beat them back in that war (1967), and now occupy the land. The Israelis justify their continued presence there by the fact that the Palestinians (or Jordanians?) and other Arabs in the area have always said that their main goal is to kill the Israelis, and that they need this buffer to make invasion difficult. Or something like this. I'm sure you don't suggest that only the Palestinians be allowed to attack Israel with bombs, rifles, and suicide bombers, while Israel has no right to retaliate.
I personally think that religious arguments saying that God gave us this land exclusively are nonsense. Given the Arab activity during World War II, in support of the Nazis, I think they have little moral authority regarding these issues. They lost, and that's that. This may be harsh, but until they come to realize that both the US and Europe (and even Russia) will prevent the destruction of Israel, they'll be on the losing end of these conflicts. They need to suck it up and make the best deal they can, including trade agreements. If they can take the statement out of their charters and constitutions that say their main goals are the destruction of Israel, I'm sure that they can prosper through their relationships with Israel, the US, and Europe. The US, for one, would eagerly enter into trade deals that would raise the standard of living there significantly, if they had some assurance that Israel won't be attacked.
Quote from: Jack Fulcher on May 06, 2008, 11:12:22 PM
You're suggesting that this conflict is all one-sided, which is not my understanding at all. The Palestinians seem to be shooting rockets on a regular basis into populated areas of Israel, and the Israelis are shooting back by attacking those who are shooting and making the rockets. I don't know how people feel in Nigeria, but if the Mexicans were shooting rockets from Tiajuana into San Diego or Los Angeles, I know that we'd have our army in there immediately to make sure the shooters are dead. Period. And there's no question that most of our people would support this.
Mr Jack,
Is it whats really happening? C'mon...have pity upon the hundreds of innocent souls (children) thats are being killed mana. To be candid enough with my humble self, in some ways I can approve of their suicide action. That came to me after yesterda's post.
I've heard of many news where purely innocent childrens' life were cut short, mostly in BBC's Outlook programme. Let me tell ya, not only Palastenians were among such victims but many Aid Workers, jounalists and the likes are killed. Wallahi Isra'el's action expecially in Gaza strip is and cannot be unjustifiable. Hence, even some non-muslim nations (Russia, for example) always denounce such genocidal action.
Don't wanna say much here because the scene/situation is really back-breaking and mind boggling. Amma, I certainly know and believe Almighty God is witnessing every move. And He'll judge eveyone's action accordingly here and hereafter. Period. Whoever do right or wrong knows.
Bye.
Muhsin, of course I have pity on any person who is killed in this conflict. All I am saying is that what I read here and in the middle east press generally (arabnews.com, ah-ahram.com, e.g.) is that all of the killing is being done by Israel. That's not true. The Palestinians lob rockets and send suicide bombers into poplulated areas of Israel, killing men, women, and kids. Are these undeserving of your pity because they're Jews? I'm not Jewish, and know only a few Jews (mostly at work), but I don't think they deserve to be killed just because they're Jewish. But that seems to be what the Arabs are saying in their many fatwas and official documents, and even in their television shows. Hamas has a television station (al-Aqsa(?) Television) where they talk about killing Jews even in their kids shows. I've seen this (check out www.MEMRITV.org if you doubt this). They had someone dressed up in a Mickey Mouse costume and talking to the kids, encouraging them to take up arms against the Jews. I think his name was Farfour. When they decided to discontinue the character, they had a little skit where some Israeli guy strangled Farfour right in front of the kids! Then the host took phone calls from the kids where she asked what they were willing to do to avenge Farfour's murder. These poor kids said they'd use guns and even martyr themselves to avenge Farfour. This is sick!
This shows an attitude toward killing that makes me doubt these people are ready to run a country. I'm not trying to justify all of Israel's actions in the occupied territories, but I don't see parades in Tel Aviv where their kids wear costumes that include dynamite vests or AK-47s. That's a regular occurance in the West Bank. They name streets after suicide bombers. They give money to the families of suicide bombers, giving these kids an incentive to be the "family hero." There are revolutionaries in South America who have legitimate complaints about the oppressive governments there, but they don't wrap their kids in dynamite. This represents a significant difference in how people view the world. In South America they shoot at the military, kidnap businessmen for ransom, and demonstrate, but no one thinks to wrap their kids in dynamite. If something angers them, they demonstrate and yell, but they don't riot and kill their own people the way the Muslims did about the Danish cartoons. Or that poor lady whose students wanted to name their teddy bear Mohammed. The Sudanese wanted her killed! This is what I see happening in the Muslim world, and it's the same thing that brought me to this board in the first place. Amina Lawal did nothing to warrant being burried up to her neck and then stoned to death, but that was the judgement of the shari'ah courts until people from the west started to complain about it. The willingness of people to stand by and let her (and others) be killed seems to be part of this broader attitude about killing. Am I being unfair?
The behaviour of the Palestinians is directly the result of the illegal Israeli invasion and annexation of their homes and farms and the thousands of Paleatinians , many of them innocent women and children, killed by indiscriminate Israeli armed attacks on Palestinain communities.The palastinian reaction are powdwerpuff compared to the savagery of the well trained and heavily armed Israeli forces.
I suppose you would expect the people of California to meekly wander off if China moved in and took their lands and homes.
This whole conflict is powered by illegal (as per UN decision) behaviour by Israel which gets away with it with American support.
American activity has produced the terrorism it purports to be fighting against.
And you wonder why most of the world hates America.
Perhaps the next question should be " Is the killing of about 700,000 innocent Iraqis justifiable to get rid of one man that America put in power in the first place just because he stopped doing what America told him?"
Or
"Is the reduction of Iraq to a hell on earth justifiable just so America can surround all the Oil installations in Iraq?"
I could go on.
And no. I do not agree with suicide bombing under any circumstance. It is an abomination and I've said so on this site. But if there is a hell Bush and Blair and all their cheerleaders will burn it it because they have slaughtered thousands times more innocent people than all the suicide bombers in the world put together.
Go Dave! You covered decades of history and pages of assumptions in one breath! Just like the good ol' days. BTW, you didn't say anything about my little puppy. It's a Westie, Dave, and his name is Mike. He's developing some skin disease like all Westies do, but he's a great dog! That makes three for us (Bill and Chica are the others). And two cats. We're overrun.
I may not have time for a full answer today, but I'll get started.
Quote from: Dave_McEwan_Hill on May 07, 2008, 11:38:24 PM
The behaviour of the Palestinians is directly the result of the illegal Israeli invasion and annexation of their homes and farms and the thousands of Paleatinians , many of them innocent women and children, killed by indiscriminate Israeli armed attacks on Palestinain communities.The palastinian reaction are powdwerpuff compared to the savagery of the well trained and heavily armed Israeli forces.
I suppose you would expect the people of California to meekly wander off if China moved in and took their lands and homes.
I assume you're talking about the original set up of the modern Israeli state in 1948. Well, Dave, that was before I was born! You too, I'll bet. I've already discussed on this forum the likely reasons they decided to create this state after the war (i.e., guilt, insistence of some Jews, and general ignorance and racism regarding people in the middle east, as well as the Arab's own complicity in the war as blatant supporters of Hitler), but whatever the reasons, good or bad, it's done now and whining about some 60 year old crime won't help anything. Israel's not going anywhere, and the only adult thing to do now is to make the best of a bad situation. My understanding is that, when the Jews came to this area (Trans-Jordan?), the Arab leaders told their people to vacate their lands because the glorious Arab armies were going to drive the Jews into the sea. Didn't work that way.
And your question about the Chinese is a good one. What Californians would do is, with the help of the US Army, get rid of the Chinese invaders. This is the major difference between us and the Arabs - we won't just talk about it. We have the weapons and the technology to do it. We also have the will. So why haven't the Arabs done the same to the Jews? Because the Israelis have better weapons? OK, so why don't the Arabs have better weapons? It's not like they don't have the money - the civilized world dumps billions of dollars into the area in return for the oil we buy to lubricate our machines. What do the Arabs do with it all? Oh, that's right - Mercedes Benz stretch limos, huge mansions and palaces, multiple wives, 13 year old Thai girls, golf courses in the desert, stores selling the latest electronics and other consumer goods made in the West, gigantic theme parks, and water slides. Where are the industrial parks? Where are the Arab automobiles? What do they build themselves? Where are their great universities? Where are the medical research facilities? The Arabs and Persians used to be a great culture with world-leading science, but this was several centuries ago. What have they created with all this wealth? They haven't created anything - they've bought lots of stuff. So why didn't they buy lots of weapons to use on the Israelis? I really can't answer this, of course, and I thought you might have the answer. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, they missed their opportunity in the 1940s and 1950s and now it's too late. And you want my sympathy for these people? Why didn't the Saudis help them? Can it be that there's serious racism and hatred among the people of the region? I do know that the Iranians hate the Saudis and other Arabs, think that they're less than human. Why is this OK?
Oops, out of time. Need to play bridge tonight. Don't let me forget to tell you about our game against the Nigerian national team - what a tough fight that was. Later.....Jack
Jack, interesting reading your posts, i wonder where have
you been hiding all these while?
The question of Israel and palastine has been a matter of
everybody's interest, it is either you are with Israel or you
are with palastine. For decades, this debate has been
going on and on with out an end and there is still no trace
of its end.
As far as I am concern, the Israelis and palastenians are
two brothers fighting, no matter how a third party comes in
to resolve their difference the less he understands the main
motives of their dispute.
We might be basing our facts on either history or what is
happening on ground, but the issue is far beyond that.
Quote from: Jack Fulcher on May 07, 2008, 07:15:46 PM
If something angers them, they demonstrate and yell, but they don't riot and kill their own people the way the Muslims did about the Danish cartoons. Or that poor lady whose students wanted to name their teddy bear Mohammed. The Sudanese wanted her killed! This is what I see happening in the Muslim world, and it's the same thing that brought me to this board in the first place. Amina Lawal did nothing to warrant being burried up to her neck and then stoned to death, but that was the judgement of the shari'ah courts until people from the west started to complain about it. The willingness of people to stand by and let her (and others) be killed seems to be part of this broader attitude about killing. Am I being unfair?
Jack,
You started talking, from the beginning, very constructively, fairly enough and so on. But you brought up another issue where you phenomenally, well... demean that ealier stance. Though this has had been discussed here and on other boards, I believe, and I thus don't like it be more discussed here. Yet I feel like saying one or two words on that would mean sth.
The first two instances were daring or rtather toying with others belief, which I certainly know no religion on this planet would either support or condon such. And to that Amina's dilemma. She's a muslim. Hence she should and would be judged rightly according to Islamic precepts. The reaction that this generated from the so-called human right activists always had me surprising soooo much. Why? Did Muslim say this and that concerning other religion fundementals? Nope. Therefore, thats utterly unjust and unfair.
Quote from: Dan-Borno on May 08, 2008, 09:31:30 AM
Jack, interesting reading your posts, i wonder where have
you been hiding all these while?
The question of Israel and palastine has been a matter of
everybody's interest, it is either you are with Israel or you
are with palastine. For decades, this debate has been
going on and on with out an end and there is still no trace
of its end.
As far as I am concern, the Israelis and palastenians are
two brothers fighting, no matter how a third party comes in
to resolve their difference the less he understands the main
motives of their dispute.
We might be basing our facts on either history or what is
happening on ground, but the issue is far beyond that.
Well said, DB. I've for long this kind of belief. But yet I find it difficult to put a wedge to my worries of Palastinias-Isra'el conflict. Why? Blood is shed and of mostly innocent souls.
Gosh!!!
OK, folks, where were we? Work sure is an annoying activity - interferes with my blabbering. I may have to cut this short, too, but I may get out of that meeting. I don't think I had finished my screed. Oh yeah, Dave made the following point:
Quote from: Dave_McEwan_Hill on May 07, 2008, 11:38:24 PM
This whole conflict is powered by illegal (as per UN decision) behaviour by Israel which gets away with it with American support.
American activity has produced the terrorism it purports to be fighting against.
And you wonder why most of the world hates America.
Perhaps the next question should be " Is the killing of about 700,000 innocent Iraqis justifiable to get rid of one man that America put in power in the first place just because he stopped doing what America told him?"
The UN is a touchy subject here. First of all, it's not quite democratic, since every country gets one vote, even tiny countries. It's also a little anachronistic since it came out of WWII and the same 5 countries each have this veto power. I know we're one of them, but this whole system seems grossly unfair. If each country had a vote proportional to its population I'd be a lot happier with what the organization does.
But beyond this issue of democracy, it's clear to me that the UN is corrupt as heck, and I resent my tax money going to Kofi Anan and his family, and to the other rich families who run third world countries. Not only that, it's highly political and is able to come up with endless projects supported by their "scientists" to find ways to spend the aforementioned tax money. When you do some study of who these "scientists" are, you find they're washed up academics who don't publish in refereed journals any more, but publish only in these UN monographs and pamphlets. A good example of this is their IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports on Global Warming. I thought I'd give them a look since, while I'm not a climate scientist or physicist, my economics background gives me a decent grounding in statistical analysis. They use these statistical models to estimate the effect of various gasses on some closed system they've developed in the lab, and assume that the results apply to the real world. First, the models are designed in a way that would give the results they're looking for, and second, their results are not statistically significant (that is, their estimates aren't robust enough to say for sure that they aren't zero - they may have no effect on temperatures at all!).
Bored yet? Well, just wait! There's more! The IPCC and many other governmental bodies, mainly in Europe but they're catching on in the states, have used these bogus results in order to get millions in government grants to further "study" the problem. However, what do they study? The important question in my mind is just how much of observed temperature change is due to human activity, but very little of this grant money goes to this question. Most is going into the setting up of cap and trade systems and to the study of emission levels. Cap and trade has been used in Europe for several years, but emissions are still going up every year there. Not only that, but the countries who need to be capped because of their increasing emissions - China and India - aren't part of the cap and trade system. China especially is a growing problem since they aren't about to slow down. Any reduction we effect here will be more than offset by unbridled emission increases over there.
So...ah....what was my point??......oh yeah, the UN. I'm not impressed. See what being away for so long has done to me? All that bile has been building up and you get the brunt of it. Sorry.
And you mention that Israel gets American support. Well, of course it does. Jews make up maybe 2% of our population, but they're very influential because they've worked very hard, they've saved and invested, and they own a lot of stuff here. Not much more than 10%, of course, and it's not true that they own the banks and the newspapers and the TV stations. That's nonsense and a stupid rumour that has circulated since before my dad's time. But they are organized, they're highly educated, they're professionals, and they vote in very high percentages. This is why we give them support - it's called democracy. If Arabs were to come to America, settle down, work hard, put their kids into medical and law schools, and assimilate to the point that they're "one of us" and can convince our elected leaders they can help them (or hurt them) in a close election, they'd be able to change American policy. But they haven't even started to do that yet. The most they've done is create the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which is funded largely by Saudi Arabia. But the Arabs in America are relatively few in number and are not at all organized. In fact, they really do fight among themselves a lot, like the Sunnis and the Shi'a.
Oops, here comes that darn meeting. Need to stop now. What a relief, huh? Check out those IPCC reports, Dave. There will be a quiz at the end of the week. Jack
Just come across this, pls Mr. Jack, read it.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/02/8679/
Never mind all the flim flam, Jack. You confuse nobody.
Did Israel illegally and violently invade and annexe large areas of Palestine,driving hundreds and thousands of Palestinians out of their homes and fields?
Did the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis?
Did the US support Saddam Hussein's political ambitions and put him in power?
Is the US led NATO activity in Afhganistan (which is doomed to failure) because of the large oil pipelines running across Afghanistan?
Do you imagine that patronising the people that contribute to this online debate improves your weak arguements, or do you think this is some sort of puerile game?.
Have you ever lived in an Islamic community?
Are ur questions rhetorical Mr. Dave?
OK, I have some time. I think my problem is that I write too much and get distracted into areas that aren't exactly on point. Like my discussion on climate change and the UN reports. That whole discussion was unnecessary, but I sure like to talk, huh?
Let me continue with responding to more of Dave's post of May 7. He says:
Quote from: Dave_McEwan_Hill on May 07, 2008, 11:38:24 PM
American activity has produced the terrorism it purports to be fighting against.
And you wonder why most of the world hates America.
Perhaps the next question should be " Is the killing of about 700,000 innocent Iraqis justifiable to get rid of one man that America put in power in the first place just because he stopped doing what America told him?"
Or
"Is the reduction of Iraq to a hell on earth justifiable just so America can surround all the Oil installations in Iraq?"
I agree somewhat with your assessment that American hegemony has resulted in some reactions from those affected. Fair enough. However, if you read the fatwas written by bin-Laden and other imams in Saudi Arabia and Iran, I think it's clear that American policy is only one problem with them. Specifically, the very existence of Israel is enough for them to declare war against the West. And the behaviors they see gaining favor in the West, e.g., allowing women equal rights; free and unconstrained speech; allowing freedoms for women including travel, work, and mingling with unrelated men; not mainaining a state of hijab by either men or women (am I using that word correctly? I mean covering certain body parts depending on location and age, especially for women but also for men); these are behaviors that literally drive some up the wall, and they use these behaviors as justification for armed conflict. I've been reading a lot since I was here last, mostly writers that spend most of their time studying the middle east, but also I've been reading newspapers whenever I find one that's translated (I'm too old to start learning Arabic or pretty much anything else). It's true that they don't like America's support of Israel, and they don't like our military in Saudi Arabia or any place else over there, but those issues are a small portion of their list of complaints.
I wonder why you think the rest of the world hates America. That hasn't been my experience, but we all are influenced by our family and friends in our weltanshaung (now I
know that's misspelled - it's just a German word meaning world view - sorry). I spent a couple of years (2005-2006) in Mexico helping the firm start up a branch office, and I was continually asked how they could come to the US and work and live. We have a hideous immigrant problem, with people knocking down the doors to be let in. Maybe the people who write the newspapers in other countries have a beef with the US and like to write about it, but the man on the street seems to want to come here. And wherever I've visited, people in other countries are happy to know I'm American and have been very friendly when they find out (except for the French. But the French don't seem to like anybody who isn't French). So I'd challenge your observation that the rest of the world hates us. I do know that leaders (like in South America) like to use America to blame for things that have gone wrong under their administrations, but that's politics. I think most of their subjects would love to have a chance to come here.
As for Saddam, I'd think you'd like the fact that we got rid of the monster. He was responsible for the murder and masacre of more Muslims than any person on earth, after all. I'll agree that he was "our boy" when he was fighting Iran (and gassing all those poor Iranians), but that's the way all this political stuff works. I hate politics, but the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is used by all countries. I'd like us all to join hands and sing Kumbiya around the campfire, but that's only a fantasy for children. Realpolitik (sp?) is what all countries do just to survive - that's why we're all friendly with Saudi Arabia even though we know the Saudi family and their security people are a bunch of murderous thugs. I don't like it, but I don't know how to change it. Until we have a "Kumbiya" world we'll have to put up with unsavory characters like Saddam. And yes, give us credit for at last driving a stake into his and his sons' hearts.
I don't know about your 700,000 figure, but it's bad that so many civilians get killed in wars. We've tried to build technologies with "smart" weapons to reduce civilian casualties, and these have worked to some degree, but when the fighters launch rockets from residential areas, or from mosques, people are going to be killed. If you let an insurgent shoot from your front room and your kid gets caught in the crossfire, whose fault is that? I'd like this to be more like WWII when the combatants wore uniforms, but that isn't what's happening there now. Only one side is in uniform, and I don't think it's cricket when the other side cries foul when someone in civilian clothes gets himself killed.
As for your statement about Iraq being a "hell on earth," I don't think this is true outside of Sadr City. Who are the only two democracies in the middle east? Ans: Israel and Iraq. Of course, sometimes there's a vote someplace else, but not with full participation of opposition parties, and not with a free press, and certainly not with any danger to the ruling party.
And I agree that we're there mainly because oil is at stake. We need it for the machines, and we're willing to pay dearly for it. I'd think you'd be happy for this. The Arabs and Iranians and Iraquis don't have to do anything and we'll send them billions of dollars yearly for it. Given what Saddam tried to do to the oil supply in the early 1990s, I'd say we did what needed to be done for not only our own economy, but for the economies of most of the countries in the world. As long as there are Saddams threatening economies the way he did, we're going to do something.
I need a break. Lunchtime in San Francisco. J
I will not continue this discussion.
The American invasion of Iraq killed many more Moslems than Saddam Hussein ever did (unless you count the carnage of the Iraq/Iran war in which good old America encouraged and supported Saddam Hussein but supplied arms to both sides)
Since when did the fact that Saddam Hussein was a wicked man justify anybody else's wickedness?
That is fallacious argument.
Please stop patronising us.
If there is one consistent fact you stumble across all round the world is the fact that Americans think they are smarter than anybody else while everybody else thinks they are dumber.
So, now I've gone and done it - Dave's mad. Oh well, let me respond to Muhsin and Dan-Borno. Maybe THEY'RE still talking to me. DB, I agree that it looks more like brothers fighting, and I really don't know either of them. As I've said, I was raised a Methodist (just like Hillary!) and didn't meet many Jews until college and in the workplace. I have no religious axe to grind. The problem with this fight, from my perspectivel, is that one of the brothers has vowed to kill the other, while the other just wants to be left alone. I know that's an oversimplification, but this is certainly one of the biggest differences in the two brothers. If I knew that one of the brothers came from my neighborhood and shared my values, I'd probably be biased in favor of that brother. From the point of view of the US, Israel is composed of many people from our country and who share our understanding and support of the Enlightenment (Descartes, Voltaire, Locke, Thomas Jefferson, etc.). It's the only country in that area who is democratic and shares our political values. (I guess Iraq is democratic now.) So it's natural for us to support Israel given these facts. And given what happened to the Jews in WWII, most of the West is unlikely to allow this to happen again, no matter who owns the oil.
And Muhsin, I'm sorry if you think I referring to instances of "daring or toying" with other people's beliefs. Political cartoons try to make a point while being funny at the same time. Some are unsuccessful at one or both of these goals. The Danish cartoons (or at least the couple I saw) were trying to make the point that, from the cartoonist's point of view, Islam has been distorted by some Muslims to the point that the prophet can be thought of as wearing a turban with a bomb in it. This is absurd, of course, but cartoons tend to be absurd to make a point. Of course, it isn't funny, so I'd say that this cartoon failed at achieving its goals. Nevertheless they eventually got a reaction (about a year later when some imams toured the Middle East with these cartoons trying to drum up bad feelings among Muslims). When some Danish Muslims were arrested recently for plotting to behead one of the cartoonists, the newspaper decided to run the cartoons again. Maybe you think they were "toying" with your religion, but they weren't: they were making a point about free speech, which the West views as virtually unlimited. In the words of the newspaper editor: "These Danish Muslims were saying 'We'll get even with you for suggesting that we're violent. We'll kill you.' How absurd is that?"
And that poor teacher in Sudan was neither daring nor toying with Islam. She was trying to teach a class and her students (who apparently didn't know their own religion well enough to know better) decided to call some stuffed bear "Mohammed". How is she to know that such a thing is an insult, let alone a capital offense? Look at this from her point of view: She volunteers to go to Sudan and help the poor by teaching them math and reading skills, and the people demand that she be executed for this?
As for whether any religion would "support or condone" people toying with other religions, my experience here is that the various Christian religions and Jewish religions are respectful at a distance, but that there's no prohibition against "making fun" of a religion, especially Christianity. We have our own TV imams, delivering sermons and soliciting donations, and they're the subject of much comedy here.
Much more is sacred in Islam than under either Christianity or the Jewish religion. I asked a Jewish acquaintence whether they were still governed by Mosaic law, and she said yes. I then asked why the Jews don't stone people anymore, and she laughed and said because "the Jews wouldn't stand for such a thing." A lot is still forbidden in her religion, but they don't stone or otherwise kill people for violations.
And Muhsin, as for your defence of the Amina Lawal case, you say: "She's a muslim. Hence she should and would be judged rightly according to Islamic precepts. The reaction that this generated from the so-called human right activists always had me surprising soooo much. Why? Did Muslim say this and that concerning other religion fundementals? Nope. Therefore, thats utterly unjust and unfair." For you to suggest that human rights activists are "so-called" and therefore not legitimate in some way is just without foundation. The issue, as you remember, was not whether she was a Muslim, but about how can a civilization in the 21st century want to kill a young mother because she had a child out of wedlock? Who does this?? This is why the West and the East is having so much trouble. You seem to think "it's none of your business," while we think that, just like apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s, the suffering of anyone under an unfair system is something we should address. I don't suggest that Shari'ah is, on the whole, unfair, but in this case its application is not fair at all. All the man had to do is swear he wasn't the father, and they let him go. But they were going to kill the mother because she didn't have 4 muslim men who witnessed for her. And I learned on this board, from Mr. Waziri, that forensic evidence is not admitted, so that a DNA proof that he's the father would not be admissible under Shari'ah law.
So no, I don't think that it's ok to do anything you want to someone just because they are Muslim. I've read a lot about Islam and its practice around the world in the past couple of years (a lot of down-time in Mexico), and I know that there are in fact different views about such laws depending on which Islamic country you live in. There's Indonesia and Singapore who don't seem to do this, so it's not something you have no control over.
And I guess I'll finish up on Dave's comments, even though we're not on speaking terms. First of all, Dave, where do you get that 700,000 number for Iraquis killed? I hope it didn't come from that Lancet article that got so much press awhile back. I work with numbers all the time, and their methodology was pathetic, and that's being nice (for me). It was designed to double count the number of dead, and I'd never let my staff do something like this. I suspect it's closer to 100,000, but don't know for sure.
And why do you keep saying that I'm patronizing the people on this board? What do you mean by this? Give me an example instead of making such a broad statement, please. If I am patronizing, I'm not aware of it, and it's unintended. And your statement that Americans think they're smart and everyone else think they're dumb, I just don't understand. I think that the only general statement I can make regarding Americans and the rest of the world is that we, generally, work harder and longer. This includes the British and the Germans, by the way. Just my experience, mind you. The Japanese, on the other hand, put Americans to shame when it comes to work ethic. But don't move to France and try to get any work done on your house, Dave. You'll have to learn to do it yourself.
Time for that next meeting. Ugh! Jack
I forgot, Muhsin, that article you recommended to me at CommonDreams.org. It was interesting, but I'll point out that the author refers to human rights groups as showing support for his position. This is the problem - either human rights groups do good things, or they don't. We can't just quote them when they agree with us, and ignore them otherwise. For instance, Amnesty International is quoted often by those on the left as saying that the Americans have set up a Gulag sort of system; however, there is much said by Amnesty about hangings of young girls in Iran and other Muslim countries for "immodest dress," or about floggings of young boys for eating during Ramadan. Amnesty sees these as human rights abuses, but I don't see these things being quoted by CommonDreams.org or anyone else on the left.
The same can be said about the concept of what's "legal." It is said by some that our invasion of Iraq was illegal, but what does this mean? Clearly we had several UN resolutions saying that if Saddam doesn't satisfy the inspectors that he's gotten rid of his WMDs, the UN nations would take take serious measures to get him out. It appears to me that the term "illegal" is thrown around without much reference to why it is considered so. If the UN gives you permission, is it legal? I've heard some say that the consent of the UN is irrelevant. If that's so, what do we need to do to make it legal? And why is your standard of legality better than someone else's?
Dave (please come back) refers to the illegal invasion of Palestine by Israel. When was this? In 1948 they had the backing of the victorious nations, which right after WWII meant "legal." In 1967, the Arabs were about to push into Israel over a couple of its borders, so Israel felt this was self defense and took over enough land to create a buffer for the rest of the country. Legal? Why not, if it truly was self defense? And if it wasn't self defense, why wasn't it? Is anything done by the Israeli or American armies illegal?
International law is a vague and squishy concept, and reasonable people can disagree. This is the problem I have with articles out of CommonDreams - they don't allow for this concept. They just publish one side, and it's a very strident presentation in my experience.
Too much coffee.....J
I have read several of Dave's senseless rantings on this Arab-Israeli conflict. I say his rantings are senseless because I see no rational behind his reasoning. In his mind, Israel should fold its arms and allow themselves to be bombarded with rockets and do nothing to ward off the attacks. His ludicrous argument which I find totally odd is that Israel annexed Palestinian land and as such are 'illegal' occupiers.
Before I proceed, let me state here that I believe the Palestinians should have their own land base, country of whatever they chose to call it. I agree that the best solution to current conflict is a two state arrangement. This is a plan that the Palestinians have consistently rejected, hence this prolong conflict. I think is it so ridiculous to even think for a second that Israel is going to pack up and leave their country. Injustice or no injustice, palestinians need to realize that the World we live in is not a perfect or a fair World. Black people in America were in slavery for centuries in which time they were striped of their identity, of the cultural heritage, of their families, and even of their humanity. The very Jewish people were enslaved, taken to captivity, brutalized, displaced for centuries. More recently, they were ethnically cleansed by Nazi Germany to near extinction. The black people in South Africa were for years segregated and brutalized by the apartheid white regime, yet the system finally collapse, whites were not sent packing from South Africa. They are all inclusive in the 'new' South Africa. They never paid for their crimes. Europeans haven't paid Africa for the crimes they committed in the continent. So, yes injustice does occur and sometimes, people have to move on with an alternative option.
History has it that there was a sizeable Jewish population living in the region called Palestine prior to WW1 and WW2. History has it that the majority palestinian population would constantly harrass, assault, murder the Jewish residents. Jewish businesses were often attacked, and all these was pre World war 1. If the excuse for today's conflict is that Jews stole Palestinian lands, how do they explain the conflicts prior to World War 1, and World War 2?.
The UN partitioned the region to make room for all ethnic groups given the tension that existed. The hostility was so bad that the prominent Muslim leader joined the Nazi party, met with Adolf Hitler, and that Fascist Benito Mussolini to make plans for the total annihilation of the Jewish people. How brazen is that?
When the UN partitioned the territory, no party was completely satisfied with the arrangement, but the UN did its best under the circumstance especially given the obvious fact that Palestianians could not co-exist with the Jews. Israel wanting to put an end to the debacle, accepted to the plan so they could live in peace they thought. They even got the shittier partition plan than the palestinians. They had poorer and less land for Agriculture. The did not have Jerusalem and Bethlehem either.
The Arabs opted to go to War convinced of an assured victory, but they soon found out that they were in for a long ride. Their defeat in the subsequent wars resulted in loss of territory which Israel never had before. Most of those territories have been returned for peace, yet Hamas and others continue to launch rockets in Israel. When Israel responds as they should, many people here like Dave, become afflicted with amnesia, and ignore what prompts Israeli counter action.
The question to be asked now is this, what would satisfy the Palestinians. What kind of arrangement would be acceptable to them and their supporters in the Arab World. Simply refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist is absolute stupidity. Israel does exist. When black South Africans were being oppressed, they still recognized the presence and existence of the White oppressors. It is stupidity not to recognize the presence or existence of the very people you accuse of kicking your ass everyday. The common sense thing to do is focus on diplomacy and negotiate a settlement so that life can be normal in the region. There has to be a give and take. Opportunities have been lost here, and I am sorry to say, not all demands can be met in circumstance like this. I understand that Palestinians can be very resolute in their cause, but unfortunately, they are dealing with a people that have survived hell on earth, something the palestinians have never tasted. They are just as stubborn, determined, and mean spirited when the situation demands it. I doubt that they'll move one inch from their nation.
Perhaps King should get his facts right before he starts pontificating.
Israel illegally invaded and annexed large parts of Palestine on several occasions and drove the Palestinians out of their homes and off their farms.
Israel still occupies the lands it stole despite being told on many occasions by the United Nations to give them back to their rightful owners. Israel has killed many more than the casualties it has suffered.
Its stupid invasion of Lebanon last year cost thousands of lives.
These are all facts.
At no point did I say that Palestine lobbing shells into Israeli settlements was justified so King should read what I say before he spouts.
What I did say was that the present conflict was caused by Israel stealing the lands and homes of Palestinians. That is also fact.
The only reason Israel gets away with this is that the US supports it in its defiance of the United Nations.
I have no intention of entering into a debate with someone who has no grasp of the facts.
Quote from: Jack FulcherAs for your statement about Iraq being a "hell on earth," I don't think this is true outside of Sadr City. Who are the only two democracies in the middle east? Ans: Israel and Iraq. Of course, sometimes there's a vote someplace else, but not with full participation of opposition parties, and not with a free press, and certainly not with any danger to the ruling party.
And I agree that we're there mainly because oil is at stake. We need it for the machines, and we're willing to pay dearly for it. I'd think you'd be happy for this. The Arabs and Iranians and Iraquis don't have to do anything and we'll send them billions of dollars yearly for it. Given what Saddam tried to do to the oil supply in the early 1990s, I'd say we did what needed to be done for not only our own economy, but for the economies of most of the countries in the world. As long as there are Saddams threatening economies the way he did, we're going to do something.
You had a bad point there Jack.
What the war in Iraq did to the world's economy and the United states's in particular is no good.
Prior to the war a barrell of oil sold for $50-$55 but now it is aiming $200. The US economy,as much as your press is trying to hide is ailing (severely), global price of food is skyrocketing,all attributed to the war in Iraq and America's policing of the world.
Honestly the US ,is paying, and will continue to pay the price for the millions of innocent victims the 'baseless' war has caused.............
'weapons of mass destruction'....sigh
Dave, present your facts. No long talk, no amnesia, no dancing around, none of your crap. Let's do a chronology of events in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Lay out the time line, dates, conflicts, events, etc in a chronological order going back prior to 1914, up until 1948. Since you know so much about facts, lay out your facts. No unnecessary rhetoric please.
Lets stop avoiding the question. Did Israel illegally and brutally invade and annexe large areas of Palestine by driving the Palestinians out of their homes and off their farms?
Once we've had that one answered we can move onto the other facts.
It sounds like King is much more an expert on the historical facts of this case than I am. I have admitted before on this board that I never paid much attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict until the last few years. I'm not Jewish and was quite frankly annoyed at the apparent inability of these people to get along. I'm originally from Los Angeles and if we can get along, given the multitudes of different races and cultures there, I think that anyone should be able to live side by side.
But here's what I do know about the area. Jews and Muslims got along reasonably (except for the occasional pogrom) for centuries until WWII. Then the Arabs took the German side in the war and adopted the German attitude regarding those pesky Jews, i.e., that whatever bad happened to them, the Jews were in some way responsible. It's always easy to be a victim, and all victims need someone to blame for everything. If you can't be a victim, you might have to grow up and take responsibility for your bad decisions.
Then the Germans inconveniently lost the war, and the facts of the Holocaust were discovered (that little Hitler in Iran can deny the Holocaust as much as he wants, but it only makes him look ignorant). The Jews needed some place to live where they could be safe, and the Zionists among them chose the area they are in now. Not all Jews agreed, but enough did that the victorious powers (which became the UN) arranged for them to go there. I don't know how you're using the term "legal," Dave, but this sounds legal to me, from an international law perspective. If the UN (or what eventually became the UN) said it was OK to do this, it was legal. Unless you mean "whatever I don't like is illegal." I hope you don't mean this definition of "illegal."
As for driving them out of what they called Trans Jordan, my understanding is that the Jordanian and other Arab leaders announced that people should leave because their glorious armies were going to crush the "invading Zionist armies," which they tried but were unable to do. First Nasser and then Saddam saw themselves as the modern day Saladin. But they found that the Americans, British, French, Italians and Germans were all supporting the new state of Israel, probably because of their feelings of guilt over the Holocaust. The reality today is that the Israelis will not be driven out of the area, no matter how many of their neighbors vow to do so.
When alcoholics join Alcoholics Annonymous they learn that they need to know the things they can change, change those things, and learn to live with the things they can't change. This is wisdom. The Arabs and other Muslims in the middle east need to achieve this wisdom because it's the only way to live a fulfilling life - if they can't let this anger go, they will die unhappy.
So I hope I'm not "avoiding the question," Dave. It doesn't look illegal to me. It just looks like a history of scapgoating by people who need to stop being victims and start living. Unless being a victim appeals to you. Jack
Dave, here you go again beating around the bush. You claimed to know facts. You alleged that I do not know the facts of this historical conflict. Very well I said. I then asked you to give me a chronology of events sorrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict, and you come up with this ridiculous and pointless question. Not a problem. In any case to answer to your question, NO! Israel did not forcefully annex Palestinian land. Hope that is loud and clear for you. Now, can you give me a chronology of event and the time line? And please, no unnecessary sermons.
King, or shall I say Ete, tone down yr language pls. Be more respectful. Dave is much older than u and therefore deserves that respect. No one is calling yr posts rants or senseless or any of that. You are running true to form unfortunately. That is what got you off the board previously. Pls no matter how much u dont like someone's posts, dont use abusive language when replying. Dont you see that Dave is not retaliating in kind? He is being a a true gentleman in his replies and even Jack Fulcher who apparently sides with you talks in a more civilized and friendly manner.
I dont know what it is about you and the Israeli Palestinian issue.. it brings out the worst in you...
I feel like ignoring your preceeded posts/replies to me, Jack, would likely denotates something which I don't mean to by so doing. Thats the only reason that ignites me to come back up here and say some more few words. Further, am afraid to stumble up here because I see between Dave and King, the wheather is getting boiled.
I only wanna reiterate what I had earlier said that I won't say much words concerning Amina Lawal, Danish cartoon and Sudan school teacher issues. This has had been intensively discussed, indepthley analysed and hotly debated on on many discussion boards. That'll mean reversing our car to an unintened direction, I at least believed.
Keep up the discussion, very interesting, informative and well...educative.
I am still waiting for his presentation whenever he finds time to respond with facts and chronology. I don't think that is asking too much. Husnna, this is a healthy dialogue. I have no clue what you are talking about.
Jack, King,
I am no expert on the palestinian issue and I do think the palestinian people have severe problems of their own, but I do know as absolute fact that the land dispute is not based on the declared state of Israel as at 1948. It is on land "annexed" by Israel after the 1967 war which was not ceeded by the UN and which international law deems illegal. It is not me or you making the assertion it is international law which is fact and which every single country on earth except for Israel, acknowledges.. I was listening to an interview with Tony Blair 2 weeks ago and he used the standard expression for that contentious land "Occupied territories". No government calls that Israelly land (except Israel of course) and that is the bone of contention... They refuse to give it back and the palestinians keep fighting for it .. That, king, is the issue at hand and the bone of contention, not post 1948 state of Israel...
Jack is absolutely correct in that pre WW2 aside natural skirmishes which are bound to exist there was relative harmony between the Jews, Muslims and indeed the oft forgotten Coptic christian community of the middle east. In the short space of 60 years we (proponents of all 3 religions and their secular backers are guilty of this) have conveniently forgotten this and in the quest for power and superiority have bread a generation that know nothing but fighting, death, destruction and hardship.
In re-emphasisng and staunchly dwelling on our differences, we have completely eroded our commonalities and serve to make mutual co-existence ever harder to achieve, if not impossible (just look at Lebanon)... That, I believe is the greatest tragedy of the 20th century, because in countries big and small, rich and poor, near or far, that divisiveness and the ever aggressive quest to dominate the "other" will lead to many more even worse tragedies to come....