Ahmadinejad says Israel will be wiped out

[Pangloss]

Israel's demand that Iran be actually removed from the UN was intereresting. I can't remember that happening before on such a formal diplomatic level. It does underscore the point that the world thought it had pretty much moved past such positions, and it thought wrong.

 

Virtually every nation in the UN has condemned Iran's president's statement, which is a positive sign. Not so positive is the virtually certain knowledge that Iran will continue to do as it pleases.

 

It becomes clear now that Iran (a) intends to acquire nuclear weapons, and (b) believes it has a moral imperative to destroy Israel. This appears to be their position regardless of any other factors, such as its own imminent destruction should it pursue that imperative.

 

Doesn't that effectively sign the nation of Iran's death warrant? Doesn't that demand immediate world military action against Iran? And if not, why not?

[ecoli]

@ eruheru:

Oh. I thought that western media was more biast against the palestinians? I mean' date=' the US is an ally of Israel, so I would have thought that it would have its media be in support of Israel. In my opnion, I always saw it like that (CNN, FOX News, etc.) I think that BBC is not as biased, tho of course it has it's biases. Just a thought.

 

L8er,

 

Tiger [/quote']

 

You'd be surprized. Not as many people support Israel in the US as you'd think. Which is surprizing, considering it's a democracy with similiar ideals to our own.

On college campus's especially, is where palestinians have the most "support" - I by palestinian support, I mean Israeli smear campaigns. For some reason, the political left has it in for Israel, they don't realise that 50% of the population is actually on their side of the political chart, they accuse Israel of being (I'm not making this up) the Nazi's of the 21 century.

 

There are many things on college campus Anit-Israeli's do... they have mock checkpoints, where they have fake guns and force search people to show how terrible it is for the palestinians over there. While I'm denying that it's pretty bad for them, they neglect to mention that the reason they need to checks and stoppoints, is that many of those palestinians want to cross the fence in order to blow up little children on buses. While the situation is regretable, lack of information causes people to believe lies and half-truths.

 

As for the media, check it out. How often do you see little palestinian children in front of the huge Israeli tanks. The evil Israeli's are attacking children, I can't believe it! The truth? The palestinian "freedom fighters" often use children as human shields, because they know that the Israeli's would never attack a child on purpose.

[LazerFazer]

It becomes clear now that Iran (a) intends to acquire nuclear weapons' date=' and (b) believes it has a moral imperative to destroy Israel.

[/quote']

 

I fail to see how that makes it clear that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. And even if they do, who's to say that they have no right in having such weapons? Is it a matter of trust? Then its safe to say that we cannot trust the US, seeing as they all but said 'Screw you' to the UN. Is it because they are a Muslim nation? If so, read my post a while ago. Is it because it threatens poor baby Israel? Well, i guess then Israel should stop with their attacks on Palestinian people. Israel should leave the Palestinians alone, and that includes getting the hell out of all Palestinian territories. And allowing them to trade with anybody they want to. Then we'll see an end to the violence, and then all the nations of the world can unite and recognize Israel as a nation, and then this issue would be dead.

 

And no, I dont support Iran's stance on this, just making a point that theres more than what meets the eye.

 

LF

[ecoli]

I fail to see how that makes it clear that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. And even if they do' date=' who's to say that they have no right in having such weapons? Is it a matter of trust? Then its safe to say that we cannot trust the US, seeing as they all but said 'Screw you' to the UN. Is it because they are a Muslim nation? If so, read my post a while ago. Is it because it threatens poor baby Israel? Well, i guess then Israel should stop with their attacks on Palestinian people. Israel should leave the Palestinians alone, and that includes getting the hell out of all Palestinian territories. And allowing them to trade with anybody they want to. Then we'll see an end to the violence, and then all the nations of the world can unite and recognize Israel as a nation, and then this issue would be dead.

 

And no, I dont support Iran's stance on this, just making a point that theres more than what meets the eye.

 

LF[/quote']

 

If you think that the palestinian terrorist attacks will stop, just because Israel want's to "leave them alone" then you are sorely mistaken. The Arabs want Israel out of that region, and they'll kill every man, women and child to make that happen. So before you label Israel the bad guy (not that I agree with everything they've done) think about that.

 

What happened when the Israeli's pulled out of Gaza? The palestinians promised Jerusalem was next. The "palestinians territories" aren't enough for them, they want everything...

 

Did you know that the creation of a Palestinian state was proposed along with a Jewish one? They didn't want a Jewish state, it was all palestinian or nothing. The palestinians then tried to escape into neighboring countries... and they got turned back at the borders. Yes, I understand that the palestinians deserve land just as much as the Israeli's, but I won't support there desicions to puch the Israeli's out by killing them all.

[Pangloss]

I fail to see how that makes it clear that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons.

 

Iran says it intends to acquire nuclear weapons. They've said many times that while their present effort (they claim) is aimed at power generation (which of course is pointless, since they export 4 million barrels of oil per day), they also consider it well within their sovereign rights to acquire nuclear weapons.

 

That's diplomacy-speak for 'we're going to build them as soon as we possibly can'.

 

As for the issue of whether they have the right to build them, one can say the same thing about Nazi Germany. Of course they have the right. The question is whether we're going to allow it.

[john5746]

... Of the many Muslim conquests in the past' date=' one stands out the most mainly because both Muslims and Christians conquered this place. I'm talking of course about Jerusalem. When the Crusaders conqured it, what did they do? Slaughtered every single occupant of the city. Men, Women, Children. They 'cleansed' it completely. When the Muslims conquered, what did they do? They let people do what they wanted. Those who wanted to leave left, and those who wanted to stay stayed. Again, I tell you, Islam is NOT a religion of killing, war, lies or betrayal.

 

Although I do agree that the future seems very bleak at the moment.

 

LazerFazer[/quote']

 

If memory serves me, I think Muhammed invaded the Byzentine empire, which lead to the invasion of Jerusalem, Eqypt, etc. They slaughtered many, in the name of their religion. The crusaders slaughtered as well. No one is guiltless from an historical perspective.

 

I haven't studied Islam, but I notice 2 main distinctions between Christianity and Islam.

 

(1) Jesus, who may be a mythical figure, is seen as perfect, non-violent person. This offsets Jehovah, who is jealous and violent at times.

 

Muhammed is an historical figure with human failings - he uses violence, etc.

 

I think this may give the appearence of promoting violence, but people from both religions have used violence to suit their needs and religion. Religions are like any product, to increase market share, they advertise that they are the best, unique and good for everyone. That in itself may be OK, but if you extend that to intolerance, then you have a problem.

 

(2) Most civilized countries have seperated religion from government. Muslim countries with secular governments need discourage Isalmic theocracies, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[john5746]

Please' date=' don't talk about things you have no clue about. Have you ever read the Quraan? Have you ever listened to what the 'weirdo clerics' say in the mosques? Have you ever even taken any PROPER courses in the nature of Islam or the ideals within Islam? Well then, I would say you are most definately not qualified to make any value judgements against Islam. Just take a look at the root of the word "ISLAM" (if you don't speak Arabic, then thats gonna be a bit of a problem). It comes from the word Salaam which means peace in Arabic. So, even the Name preaches peace. And the traditional Muslim greeting translates to "Peace be upon you". You want more evidence that Islam is a peace-loving religion? Of the many Muslim conquests in the past, one stands out the most mainly because both Muslims and Christians conquered this place. I'm talking of course about Jerusalem. When the Crusaders conqured it, what did they do? Slaughtered every single occupant of the city. Men, Women, Children. They 'cleansed' it completely. When the Muslims conquered, what did they do? They let people do what they wanted. Those who wanted to leave left, and those who wanted to stay stayed. Again, I tell you, Islam is NOT a religion of killing, war, lies or betrayal.

 

Although I do agree that the future seems very bleak at the moment.

 

LazerFazer[/quote']

 

If memory serves me, I think Muhammed invaded the Byzentine empire, which lead to the invasion of Jerusalem, Eqypt, etc. They slaughtered many, in the name of their religion. The crusaders slaughtered as well. No one is guiltless from an historical perspective.

 

I haven't studied Islam, but I notice 2 main distinctions between Christianity and Islam.

 

(1) Jesus, who may be a mythical figure, is seen as perfect, non-violent person. This offsets Jehovah, who is jealous and violent at times.

 

Muhammed is an historical figure with human failings - he uses violence, etc.

 

I think this may give the appearence of promoting violence, but people from both religions have used violence to suit their needs and religion. Religions are like any product, to increase market share, they advertise that they are the best, unique and good for everyone. That in itself may be OK, but if you extend that to intolerance, then you have a problem.

 

(2) Most civilized countries have seperated religion from government. Muslim countries with secular governments need discourage Isalmic theocracies, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

The 2nd one isn't really religious, just social differences.

[Douglas]

Please, don't talk about things you have no clue about. Have you ever read the Quraan? Have you ever listened to what the 'weirdo clerics' say in the mosques? Have you ever even taken any PROPER courses in the nature of Islam or the ideals within Islam? Well then, I would say you are most definately not qualified to make any value judgements against Islam. [/u']

What we *do* know, is that every terrorist act against the U.S., from Pan Am/Lockerbie to the world trade center was commited by Islamic peope.

[ecoli]

What we *do* know, is that every terrorist act against the U.S., from Pan Am/Lockerbie to the world trade center was commited by Islamic peope.

 

 

I can't remember, was there any connection between Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma city bombing? Do consider that terrorism??

[Bettina]

Please, don't talk about things you have no clue about. Have you ever read the Quraan? Have you ever listened to what the 'weirdo clerics' say in the mosques?

 

My "clue" is what I see, read, and hear in the news. Same place you would get your information. My "clues" are beheadings, death to America, death to Israel, thousands and thousands chanting in the streets, women beaten and stoned in the streets, etc etc.....I could go on and on, and I can name some weirdo clerics in charge of a weirdo religion if you wish...

 

A religion full of hate and dominance is all I see. Look at some Islamic web sites and tell me I don't have a clue.

 

Edit...Sorry for losing my kool.....it is nothing personal, I'm just afraid of what I see coming.

 

Edit2: I wonder if any Islamics are on here ready to kill me for what I just said.

 

Bettina

[Douglas]

I can't remember, was there any connection between Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma city bombing? Do consider that terrorism??

I stand corrected Ecoli.........'chewing on humble pie.'

[ecoli]

I stand corrected Ecoli.........'chewing on humble pie.'

 

even so, you wouldn' be incorrect in saying that many of the terrorist attacks have muslim connections, just not all.

[LazerFazer]

@ecoli:

 

If you think that the palestinian terrorist attacks will stop' date=' just because Israel want's to "leave them alone" then you are sorely mistaken.

[/quote']

 

Well, the answer to this lies in the root of the problem. Why, do you think, would a person give up his/her life, knowing that he/she will not live to see the benefits/repercussions of his/her act? What would cause a promising young person to so willingly forfeit his/her life, for no immediate benefit? Desperation. That’s what. Have you seen the figures of Palestinian poverty? Over 50% of Palestinians live below the poverty line. In Gaza alone, 77% of the population live below the poverty line, with 23% of them living in 'deep poverty'. That means 23% of the people in Gaza cannot afford even basic supplies. Another thing. Israel has repeatedly destroyed the infrastructure of the Palestinian people, and then blamed them for not ensuring peace and stability in the region. Tell me, how can such a state combat terrorism, when the majority of their prisons and police stations have been destroyed by the Israeli army as ‘precautionary measures’? All I'm saying is that if you give the Palestinians a chance, give them a bit of leeway so that they can prove themselves. And then, if they fail to make good use of that time and that chance, then you can continue to blame them.

 

The Arabs want Israel out of that region...

 

True' date=' but we know that’s never going to happen. But don't you think that if the Arab nations see that the needs of the Palestinians are being taken care of, they might be more willing to settle their own disputes peacefully? Look at Egypt. They have a peace treaty with Israel, and nothing bad has come out of it. True, the sentiment amongst the local populus isn't on the side of Israel, but again, can you blame them? They are subject to images of their brothers (in religion at least) under occupation and under oppression. How would that make you feel? Again, once the Palestinians needs are taken care of, the situation will diffuse greatly.

 

And good point about Oklahoma bombings. Just goes to show that its not only 'Muslims' that are 'terrorists', but also other disgruntled people.

 

@Pangloss:

 

As for the issue of whether they have the right to build them, one can say the same thing about Nazi Germany. Of course they have the right. The question is whether we're going to allow it.

 

I don't see how that relates to Nazi Germany. They had NO right to attempt to commit crimes against humanity. Iran, as of yet, has no such intentions. They only intend to acquire the weapons, but perhaps it would be better not to let them have it. After all, you're right, we don't know what they plan on doing with it. The best bet would be to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction. But that's an idealist view on life. That’s never going to happen.

 

@john5746

 

True, the Muslims did use force, but always as a last resort. In the first few years of Islam, the Muslims usually shied away from confrontation as much as possible, and only when they were faced with no other option did they use military force to overcome their enemies. But the point that I was making is that even when force was used, never was there a needless loss of life. Oh, and Islam actually preaches tolerance to all 'People of the book' i.e. Muslims, Jews, Christians. According to the Quraan, these three religions are continuations of each other, with Islam being the final 'product' so to speak. And yes, people have used the excuse of religion to further their own goals, but these people are most definitely not holy fighters (Mujahideen). Once again, Islam only says to use force if you are attacked. Basically, fight fire with fire.

 

Most civilized countries have seperated religion from government.

 

As far as I know (although I could well be wrong)' date=' no other religion actually provides a framework for a political system. Mainly because the areas where they were revealed into already had an established political system, as rudimentary as it was. Arabia was a desert with many different tribes, each vying for their own supremacy. Islam brought along with it a cause to unite all the tribes of the peninsula; a common factor: religion. It also brought along a political framework, its own set of laws, if you wish, that state how a nation should be governed. If you want more info, search Sharia' or Islamic Law on Google (with the end single-quote).

 

What we *do* know, is that every terrorist act against the U.S., from Pan Am/Lockerbie to the world trade center was commited by Islamic peope.

 

You know, I actually agree with you and yet I disagree with you. First, I am warmed that you used the term 'Islamic people' instead of Muslims, although that might have just been a coincidence. As I stated earlier in this post, those who use Islam as a front for attacking innocents are misguided. Islam says to only attack if provoked, and to only attack those that have wronged you or your family/tribe/clan/country/religion/etc. Although it isn't my call to make, I wouldn’t consider these people Muslims unless they make a very strong case for the argument that they were wronged in some way by the people they killed. Just killing innocents to prove a point goes against my morals and against my religion. As I said, even when the Muslims conquered enemy cities, they allowed the occupants to remain there, to keep their religion, and even left the political and social structure in-tact. They most definitely did not promote any type of prejudice or any type of mass-killing.

 

@bettina

My "clue" is what I see' date=' read, and hear in the news. Same place you would get your information. My "clues" are beheadings, death to America, death to Israel, thousands and thousands chanting in the streets, women beaten and stoned in the streets, etc etc.....I could go on and on, and I can name some weirdo clerics in charge of a weirdo religion if you wish...

 

A religion full of hate and dominance is all I see. Look at some Islamic web sites and tell me I don't have a clue.

[/quote']

 

Yes, that’s all you see because that’s all that the news companies feel is worth broadcasting. Do you honestly see in the news a young man helping an elderly woman across the street? Or do you see a young man killing his mother for who-knows-what. You need to look deeper than just the news as your source of information. Also, the news is pretty biased, so don't let that cloud your mind either. And no, I don’t get my information from the news. I get it from living in the Middle East for 9 years of my life. And not once have I seen this "religion full of hate and dominance" in the general populus. As for the "death to Israel..." and people in the streets, it’s only what, 10,000 people out of the entire population of a country? So you can't honestly say that’s the general feeling in the Arab world. And even so, they would have merit, seeing as Israel is primarily responsible for the plight of the Palestinian people. (And don't tell any Arab I said this, but it could well be personal pride. They DID loose 2 wars to the Israelis, and so I'm guessing their pride is just a bit dented because of that.) "Women beaten and stoned in the streets" again, its just a small bit of the population. Those few websites that you see don't represent the entire religion of Islam. Seriously, I suggest you get a reputable translation of the Quraan and read it, if only to see just what Islam is all about.

 

Hope this clarifies some points about the nature of Islam, and also hope you people will spread this knowledge so that more people can become aware of Islam. After all, our strongest weapon is knowledge.

 

Cheers,

LazerFazer

[Tiger's Eye]

Doesn't that effectively sign the nation of Iran's death warrant? Doesn't that demand immediate world military action against Iran? And if not' date=' why not?[/quote']

 

No, no, I don't think so, and I don't see how one can actually say that. I mean, you're practically condemning thousands of people to their deaths without the smallest opportunity of hope to live. I don't think that anyone has the right to do that without at least trying to get through these issues through diplomatic means.

 

All people are entitled to having an identity and having a place to live, but these statements are practically set on 'doing away' with the country, no better than those really harsh words spoken by the Iranian leader earlier, when he called for "A World Without Zionism". To call for 'immediate world military action against Iran' will only lead us into another level of war and chaos, of which I don't think we really need in this already messed up world. Also, I don't think the UN would allow such an act to go ahead so quickly, though another country may again follow the US's example and say "Screw you" and carry on from there.

 

I may be exaggerating, but I really don't think it would be right to call upon the world to respond to Iran with military force without talking first. And I would say the same thing if it were any other country in the same situation. I don't agree with Iran's harsh words (since i believe everyone should have a place to belong to), but I also don't agree with rash actions that could cause more violence that might cost more lives from both sides.

 

@john5746:

 

I see and understand the distinctions that you've made between both Christianity and Islam. Yes, both do have their violent histories that included the slaughtering of many in the name of each religion, but I don't think that either religion promotes intolerance (if that's what you meant. Sry, I had a hard time understanding what you said at the end ). Apparently, as far as I know, Islam (and Christianity, too, I think. Not sure) preaches tolerance of 'the people of the book' (Torah/Jews, Muslims/Quraan, Christians/Bible). Though I suppose that one could describe a religion as a product, the advertisers are none other than the followers. We cannot place the blame for anything on a religion when the interpreters are really at fault. In truth, Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all peaceful religions and all share one God (Allah). The clashes really originate from the flawed humans.

 

(2) Most civilized countries have seperated religion from government. Muslim countries with secular governments need discourage Isalmic theocracies' date=' such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[/quote']

 

Plz be careful when using the word 'uncivilized'. You may not have meant any offense, but in the context of the post, this implies that countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are uncivilized. One should be careful when making assumptions. I suppose that Saudi has its reasons for having it's country built upon a religion, since it does hold Mecca (to where Muslims make pilgrimage at least once in a lifetime), and it's also a monarchy, i believe. And even though some countries may have succeeded in generally splitting religion from gov't, one can't say that it is completely the case. I mean, even the US still has religion in it's disputes (abortion, gay marriage) and pledge of allegiance. And i suppose that if Saudi wants to have a religiously based gov't, then so be it. It is the right of the country, after all.

 

@Douglas:

 

What we *do* know' date=' is that every terrorist act against the U.S., from Pan Am/Lockerbie to the world trade center was committed by Islamic people.

[/quote']

 

That's really a low blow, you know? Though that is true, this does NOT state that all Muslims are terrorists, an analogy that I’ve heard several people make in my lifetime and which is also largely false. I'm an American who lives in the Middle East and is also Roman Catholic. Though I do feel that these terrorists are very much in the wrong (well, more than very much), I don't feel that the religion is to blame. Go ahead and say that all terrorists are Muslim, but don't go ahead and make the generalization that all Muslims are terrorists. Just because certain individuals of a particular religion or ethnicity commit terrible acts, this does not hold the rest of the people of this same religion/ethnicity accountable for the same crime. Do not treat these innocent people with the same cruelty or not-so-friendly feelings that you have towards terrorists, because they have nothing to do with these crimes. I've lived among Muslims for quite some time and have learned that the religion of Islam is NOT a violent religion at all. It preaches tolerance and speaks peace (Arabic, which is the language of Islam, basically, is a language build around the idea of peace: in its greetings, etc). As I’ve said before, the religion is not held accountable for the faults created by the certain followers who may interpret it in some warped way.

 

As a result, I reiterate what LazerFazer said:

 

Please' date=' don't talk about things you have no clue about. Have you ever read the Quraan? Have you ever listened to what the 'weirdo clerics' say in the mosques? Have you ever even taken any PROPER courses in the nature of Islam or the ideals within Islam? Well then, [i']I would say you are most definitely not qualified to make any value judgments against Islam.[/i]

 

Truth: Terrorists who have committed acts against the US are Muslim

Myth: Islam is a religion full of lies, betrayal and violence.

 

Please consider this before making anymore low blows upon the subject.

 

@Bettina:

 

My "clue" is what I see' date=' read, and hear in the news. Same place you would get your information. My "clues" are beheadings, death to America, death to Israel, thousands and thousands chanting in the streets, women beaten and stoned in the streets, etc etc.....I could go on and on, and I can name some weirdo clerics in charge of a weirdo religion if you wish...

 

A religion full of hate and dominance is all I see. Look at some Islamic web sites and tell me I don't have a clue.

 

Edit...Sorry for losing my kool.....it is nothing personal, I'm just afraid of what I see coming.

 

Edit2: I wonder if any Islamics are on here ready to kill me for what I just said.

 

Bettina

[/quote']

 

Yeah, I just saw your post about two seconds ago, and I have to say that…it’s pretty upsetting. A religion full of hate and dominance? You must’ve missed some of the stuff included in previous posts. The religion is NOT held accountable for the flaws created by the followers. Islamic extremists or terrorists that commit crimes against people or another nations of the world have their own interpretations of Islam and the Quraan. It’s not the same for all Muslims, so DON’T insult the religion, because it is NOT a religion of hate and dominance. Again, I myself am not Muslim, but Roman Catholic and I wholeheartedly say that Islam is a really peaceful religion. Should an entire people be held accountable for the crime of a terrorist organization that happens to share the same religion? No. Are all Muslims terrorists because the terrorists that attacked the WTC were Muslim? No. Are all Germans Nazis? No. Do all Iranians want to nuke Israel off the map? I doubt it. These are all stereotypes that plague the world now. Stereotypes that are generally quite untrue and can be quite hurtful. So please try not to lose your cool next time. I know that you’re afraid about this very bleak future, as well all are, I’m sure. But this doesn’t entitle one to be somewhat unreasonable and to go ahead and tell someone that their religion is guilty of preaching violence and ill will, when really, the ill will comes from only certain individuals.

 

There are probably Muslims who are pretty upset by your posts, I’m sure. But in order to prove you wrong, they probably won’t lay a finger on you. They’re not all that low.

 

Tiger

 

@LazerFazer:

 

Long post you’ve got there, chap. Cheers.

[Skye]

Doesn't that effectively sign the nation of Iran's death warrant? Doesn't that demand immediate world military action against Iran? And if not, why not?

Well not necessarily. Iran could stop it's nuclear power program, which would probably satisfy the US. Barring that inspections by the IAEA might be seen as sufficient in ensuring nuclear weapons development doesn't proceed without detection. And barring that the US could destroy the nuclear infrastructure without actually invading or trying to affect the government.

[ecoli]

Well' date=' the answer to this lies in the root of the problem. Why, do you think, would a person give up his/her life, knowing that he/she will not live to see the benefits/repercussions of his/her act? What would cause a promising young person to so willingly forfeit his/her life, for no immediate benefit? Desperation. [/quote']

 

what you see as desperation I see as mis-education. There are camps amoung the Muslims where they teach children to hate westeners.

 

I saw a documentary once when they went into Palestinian territory (can't remember exactly where) and they saw this little child holding this poster. They asked the child who was one the poster. It turns out that that person was a suicide bomber. They are taught, at a young age to worship these "great matyrs" who are "sacrificing" themselves for Allah.

 

After a terrorist attack, you can see Muslims celebrating in the streets... people don't seem to remember the huge celbratory bon fires that were lit to "commemerate" the death of Thousands of Americans.

 

Why would a person kill themselves despite not seeing the benefits (if you can call the death of innocent benefits), it's because these people think that they are doing an act so righteous that they can go to heaven and party with Allah and the 70 virgins that their do. Killing Israeli's and Westeners is considered a holy act.

 

They are raised to believe this. They might be desperate, as you say, but you are missing a big part of the picture.

 

Have you seen the figures of Palestinian poverty? Over 50% of Palestinians live below the poverty line. In Gaza alone, 77% of the population live below the poverty line, with 23% of them living in 'deep poverty'. That means 23% of the people in Gaza cannot afford even basic supplies. Another thing. Israel has repeatedly destroyed the infrastructure of the Palestinian people, and then blamed them for not ensuring peace and stability in the region. Tell me, how can such a state combat terrorism, when the majority of their prisons and police stations have been destroyed by the Israeli army as ‘precautionary measures’?

 

 

Well, like I said... I don't agree with everything that Israel has done, and this is certainly one of them (abot the prison and police station part). I don't doubt their motive. If the Israeli intelligence have recieved information that there is corruption in the police stations, and that is a place where terrorist law low, then they will destroy it.

 

And I know that the Palestinians are poor, but there don't seem to be trying to help themselves out of that one. After the Israeli army left the Gaza strip, they left plenty of good housing that they weren't using anymore. Amoung them were several huge Greenhouses, that were being supported by rich Jews in New York - even after the Israeli's left. Yet, the Palestinians didn't live in the houses, they didn't take them apart and use the lumber for good causes. They burnt the houses down and celebrated that Israeli's were gone.

There are plenty of Muslims living in Israel that enjoy life above the standard of living. Maybe if the the terrorist stop trying to blow the Israeli's up, then they'd realize that they could have that to. Israel is not going to let that hapen, and so plenty of innocents have to suffer because the extremists are calling the shots.

 

It takes both sides to have peace... Israel has pulled out of Gaza, what are the Palestinians doing?

 

All I'm saying is that if you give the Palestinians a chance, give them a bit of leeway so that they can prove themselves. And then, if they fail to make good use of that time and that chance, then you can continue to blame them.

 

and how many Palestinians and Israelis will die before they "prove themselves"?

 

 

True, but we know that’s never going to happen. But don't you think that if the Arab nations see that the needs of the Palestinians are being taken care of, they might be more willing to settle their own disputes peacefully? Look at Egypt. They have a peace treaty with Israel, and nothing bad has come out of it. True, the sentiment amongst the local populus isn't on the side of Israel, but again, can you blame them? They are subject to images of their brothers (in religion at least) under occupation and under oppression. How would that make you feel? Again, once the Palestinians needs are taken care of, the situation will diffuse greatly.

 

Israel won that peace treaty through war. Egypt wanted the Sinai Desert back and Israel wanted peace. But don't forget who attacked who in the first place.

 

And since when do the surrounding Arab nations care about their "Palestinian brothers." As I said before, the Palestinians tried to seek refuge when Israel was created, and they were turned away at the borders.

 

And good point about Oklahoma bombings. Just goes to show that its not only 'Muslims' that are 'terrorists', but also other disgruntled people.

 

 

thank you

 

 

I don't see how that relates to Nazi Germany. They had NO right to attempt to commit crimes against humanity. Iran, as of yet, has no such intentions.

 

They just said that they want to wipe Israel off the map... what do you think there going to do this by peaceful negotiaitons? What constitutes as a crime against humanity for you? How many people have to die before you consider it a crime against humanity?

 

 

True' date=' the Muslims did use force, but always as a last resort. In the first few years of Islam, the Muslims usually shied away from confrontation as much as possible, and only when they were faced with no other option did they use military force to overcome their enemies. But the point that I was making is that even when force was used, never was there a needless loss of life. Oh, and Islam actually preaches tolerance to all 'People of the book' i.e. Muslims, Jews, Christians. According to the Quraan, these three religions are continuations of each other, with Islam being the final 'product' so to speak. And yes, people have used the excuse of religion to further their own goals, but these people are most definitely not holy fighters (Mujahideen). Once again, Islam only says to use force if you are attacked. Basically, fight fire with fire.[/quote']

 

Right, because the Ottoman Empire was able to take over the entire Bysantium empire and much of Asia by asking nicely.

 

 

Yes, that’s all you see because that’s all that the news companies feel is worth broadcasting. Do you honestly see in the news a young man helping an elderly woman across the street? Or do you see a young man killing his mother for who-knows-what. You need to look deeper than just the news as your source of information. Also, the news is pretty biased, so don't let that cloud your mind either. And no, I don’t get my information from the news. I get it from living in the Middle East for 9 years of my life. And not once have I seen this "religion full of hate and dominance" in the general populus. As for the "death to Israel..." and people in the streets, it’s only what, 10,000 people out of the entire population of a country?

 

 

Yes, but unfortunately, those are the people who hold the most sway. It only takes one person to be a suicide bomber. Perhaps not the entire population agrees with what they're doing, but it only takes one organization to cause hundreds of people to die. That's what fanaticism is, it's forcing you ideals on other people...

 

And while the majority of the population isn't rejoicing every time a Westener dies, how many are secretely glad?

[LazerFazer]

@skye:

 

Good point there. See, there is an alternative to war... DIALOGUE AND DIPLOMACY

 

@ ecoli:

 

Well, here goes...

 

what you see as desperation I see as mis-education.

 

Perhaps miseducation' date=' but miseducation arising out of desperation. Once again, look at those economic figures I posted. We always hear about the level of poverty in Africa, but nobody stands up for the Palestinians. But still, miseducation nonetheless. Another reason why we should focus our efforts on things other than basic humanitarian relief.

 

Why would a person kill themselves despite not seeing the benefits (if you can call the death of innocent benefits), it's because these people think that they are doing an act so righteous that they can go to heaven and party with Allah and the 70 virgins that their do. Killing Israeli's and Westerners is considered a holy act.

 

No, I didn't mean killing the innocents as the benefit. Obviously they think that killing the innocents will have some OTHER effect, which is what I was referring to with that. I definitely do not believe that the death of an innocent is something to celebrate about. "Go to heaven and party with Allah". Excuse me, but to borrow a term from Tiger's Eye, that’s a low blow. That is not the case, and do not try to degrade beliefs in a religion simply because you do not agree with them. Yes, dying in the service of your religion is rewarded with instant admission to Heaven, but killing women and children is NOT considered in the service of religion. They haven't done anything wrong to you, and as such they shouldn't have to suffer. And no, killing Israeli's and Westerners isn’t considered a holy act, otherwise all the Muslims in the Western world would be out killing their neighbours. It just shows that there are a few people (relative) who are misguided, and that the entire religion does not support them.

 

And I know that the Palestinians are poor' date=' but there don't seem to be trying to help themselves out of that one.

[/quote']

 

On the contrary, they are not ALLOWED to help themselves out of it. The Israeli army has repeatedly destroyed Palestinian businesses, and has effectively sealed off their connections with the rest of the world. When the Israeli's left, they destroyed everything, so no, there wasn't much, if anything, left for the Palestinians to use. And even so, you've got to give them time. You can't expect them to bounce back from decades of occupation in a single night, week, month, or even a year. It will surely take years for the reconstruction and re-development to become effective, and we just have to wait patiently.

 

Maybe if the the terrorist stop trying to blow the Israeli's up' date=' then they'd realize that they could have that to.

[/quote']

 

Good point there. Yes, the suicide bombings need to stop. There can be no negotiations when the two sides are killing each other. But one side has to take the initiative, and sadly I don't see the Palestinian militants doing that. They are too blinded by their own agendas to realise what needs to be done.

 

Israel has pulled out of Gaza' date=' what are the Palestinians doing?

[/quote']

 

Again, the Palestinians do not have the capability to take matters into their own hands. The Israelis have destroyed almost every correctional facility they had, and they've also all but destroyed the law enforcement capabilities of the Palestinian people. So I ask again, how can a nation that can barely afford to prevent anarchy stop militants?

 

Israel won that peace treaty through war. Egypt wanted the Sinai Desert back and Israel wanted peace. But don't forget who attacked who in the first place.

 

Yes' date=' but there's still peace, even now, decades after the conflict. That's what I was hinting at... that Arab states CAN live with Israel.

 

And since when do the surrounding Arab nations care about their "Palestinian brothers." As I said before, the Palestinians tried to seek refuge when Israel was created, and they were turned away at the borders.

 

Do you think that if the Palestinians had left they would have had anywhere to go back to? Israel would have seized that land, claiming it's unused, and then where would we have been? I'd rather not think about that, but its a fact that cannot be ignored.

 

They just said that they want to wipe Israel off the map... what do you think there going to do this by peaceful negotiaitons? What constitutes as a crime against humanity for you? How many people have to die before you consider it a crime against humanity?

 

Well' date=' I'm assuming they referred to the nation of Israel, not necessarily the people of Israel, so no crime against humanity there. Although I do believe that would be against the UN charter, not sure though. I adhere to the Geneva convention, so what that says is a crime against humanity so do I.

 

Right, because the Ottoman Empire was able to take over the entire Bysantium empire and much of Asia by asking nicely.

 

Your point? And do we REALLY want to go into the numerous military conquests over the centuries? Again, my main point here was that even when Muslims do go to war, they don't attempt to eradicate the conquered people.

 

Yes' date=' but unfortunately, those are the people who hold the most sway. It only takes one person to be a suicide bomber. Perhaps not the entire population agrees with what they're doing, but it only takes one organization to cause hundreds of people to die. That's what fanaticism is, it's forcing you ideals on other people...

[/quote']

 

Exactly, which is why its important to educate people about the truth. So that they can see past the fanatics, and so that they can see past the biases that are presented to them in the news. And also so that they can realise the error of their ways, and try to correct them.

 

And while the majority of the population isn't rejoicing every time a Westener dies' date=' how many are secretely glad?

[/quote']

 

I guess we'll never know. But as long as they don't show their support, the movement will die out eventually.

 

@Tiger's Eye

 

Good points there. And you're most welcome

 

LazerFazer

[john5746]

@john5746:

 

I see and understand the distinctions that you've made between both Christianity and Islam. Yes' date=' both do have their violent histories that included the slaughtering of many in the name of each religion, but I don't think that either religion promotes intolerance (if that's what you meant. Sry, I had a hard time understanding what you said at the end ). Apparently, as far as I know, Islam (and Christianity, too, I think. Not sure) preaches tolerance of 'the people of the book' (Torah/Jews, Muslims/Quraan, Christians/Bible). Though I suppose that one could describe a religion as a product, the advertisers are none other than the followers. We cannot place the blame for anything on a religion when the interpreters are really at fault. In truth, Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all peaceful religions and all share one God (Allah). The clashes really originate from the flawed humans.[/quote']

 

What about 'the people not of the book' hindus, buddhists, etc. ? Religions are no different than race, culture, etc. Another way to classify people in a group, which make it easy to justify killing them as a group. Especially when said group is regarded as inferior.

 

Plz be careful when using the word 'uncivilized'. You may not have meant any offense' date=' but in the context of the post, this implies that countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are uncivilized. One should be careful when making assumptions. I suppose that Saudi has its reasons for having it's country built upon a religion, since it does hold Mecca (to where Muslims make pilgrimage at least once in a lifetime), and it's also a monarchy, i believe. And even though some countries may have succeeded in generally splitting religion from gov't, one can't say that it is completely the case. I mean, even the US still has religion in it's disputes (abortion, gay marriage) and pledge of allegiance. And i suppose that if Saudi wants to have a religiously based gov't, then so be it. It is the right of the country, after all.

[/quote']

 

I said MOST civilized countries, Saudi and Iran are civilized, so they should consider going from a theocracy to a democracy. Countries don't have rights, people do.

[ecoli]

And here we come to an area in which I find myself agreeing with most things you say. Very good posts, you bring up fair points.

 

Well' date=' here goes...

 

 

 

Perhaps miseducation, but miseducation arising out of desperation. Once again, look at those economic figures I posted. We always hear about the level of poverty in Africa, but nobody stands up for the Palestinians. But still, miseducation nonetheless. Another reason why we should focus our efforts on things other than basic humanitarian relief.[/quote']

 

Definately agree. Humanitarian efforts are easily abused. We need to do more.

 

 

 

No, I didn't mean killing the innocents as the benefit. Obviously they think that killing the innocents will have some OTHER effect, which is what I was referring to with that. I definitely do not believe that the death of an innocent is something to celebrate about.

 

Of course you didn't... that was meant to be more ironic then anything.

 

"Go to heaven and party with Allah". Excuse me, but to borrow a term from Tiger's Eye, that’s a low blow. That is not the case, and do not try to degrade beliefs in a religion simply because you do not agree with them. Yes, dying in the service of your religion is rewarded with instant admission to Heaven, but killing women and children is NOT considered in the service of religion.

 

Excuse me, but I didn't mean to make it sound like I'm making fun of the Islamic faith. Most at SFN that know me, know that I accept all people's beleifs as sacred.

That said... what I meant is that it is ironic that these people (the terrorists) think that this is what there going to get when they die, so they feel justified in taking innocent lives. Yet it is so opposite in what the Islamic faith ACUTALLY preaches. Fanatiscm reaches every religion, Jusaism included.

There have been numerous cases where an ultra-orthodox Jew has commited terrorist attrocities against the Palestinians, actions certainly not sanctioned by the Israeli government. Israel has condemed such groups and have made them illegal, but they are very subversive.

 

They haven't done anything wrong to you, and as such they shouldn't have to suffer.

 

Muslims as a people have not done anything wrong to me. But, I do have friends and family in Israel, and every terrorist attack puts them at risk. I hope I never see the day when I see a name I recognize in the news print.

 

And no, killing Israeli's and Westerners isn’t considered a holy act, otherwise all the Muslims in the Western world would be out killing their neighbours. It just shows that there are a few people (relative) who are misguided, and that the entire religion does not support them.

 

Again, of course it isn't by Muslims in general. I do have many Muslim friends, some of them currently or previously residing in the Middle East. I wish I could say the same for terrorist groups. I would certainly hope that the entire religion doesn't support it, but at the same time, I wish they authorities of the religion were more vocal and adament about condemming the actions of the terrorist. From what I hear on the news, it sounds like the leaders of the Muslim world (at least in the Middle East) are all leaders of the terrorist organizations. I hope this is not true.

 

On the contrary, they are not ALLOWED to help themselves out of it. The Israeli army has repeatedly destroyed Palestinian businesses, and has effectively sealed off their connections with the rest of the world. When the Israeli's left, they destroyed everything, so no, there wasn't much, if anything, left for the Palestinians to use.

 

Ok, this is actually only half or 3/4 true. Not everything was destroyed, although things were. Its one of the things the Israeli gov't has recently done that has angered me the most. It's just a big waste of material.

I was told that they did it because they knew that the Palestinians were going to destroy it anyway... but it still makes no sense.

 

Things were left (like the greenhouses I mentioned) and they were destroyed. And these weren't tiny little greenhouses either. IIRC they for hydroponics and research and food production, and worth millions of dollars. They were kept for Palestinian use by private individuals, Jews, who lived in New York. What benefit came out of destroying them? Why would the Palestinians do such a thing?

 

And even so, you've got to give them time. You can't expect them to bounce back from decades of occupation in a single night, week, month, or even a year. It will surely take years for the reconstruction and re-development to become effective, and we just have to wait patiently.

 

yeah, that's true. But I don't think waiting patiently is enough. I think outsiders should get involved with rebuilding, but I don't think too many people are trying to move on this one... maybe they think it'll promote bad relations with Israel... I'm just not sure.

 

Good point there. Yes, the suicide bombings need to stop. There can be no negotiations when the two sides are killing each other. But one side has to take the initiative, and sadly I don't see the Palestinian militants doing that. They are too blinded by their own agendas to realise what needs to be done.

 

Absolutely. The problem is that if Israel takes the initiative and stop responding to terrorist attacks, then many people will die before the terrorists get the message... if they get the message at all. As you said, the might be too blinded by their own agendas to see the need for negotiations. Is it worth taking the risk?

 

Again, the Palestinians do not have the capability to take matters into their own hands. The Israelis have destroyed almost every correctional facility they had, and they've also all but destroyed the law enforcement capabilities of the Palestinian people. So I ask again, how can a nation that can barely afford to prevent anarchy stop militants?

 

It's the same problem as above. The Israeli's can't afford to let terrorists to go uncaptured, which causes problems such as these. Should Israel risk sacrificing it's own citizens so Palestine can start rebuilind? Would the terrorists even let the Israeli's help them rebuild? They seem to want nothing to do with them, unless they're killing them.

 

 

 

Yes, but there's still peace, even now, decades after the conflict. That's what I was hinting at... that Arab states CAN live with Israel.

 

ahh, point taken. Acutally Egypt has been a pretty good neighbor to Israel, there is acutally a surprizingly large Jewish community in Egypt.

 

And Israel and Jordon have been getting along well too, because both are profitting from mining the Dead Sea. There is currently a joint project between the two countries to help preserve the Dead sea, which is shrinking at an astonishing rate of about 1 meter per year, and is projected to dissapear in about 50 years if something isn't done. They're going to build a canal to try and save it, using technology from Israel while most of the labor will come from Jordon (Jordon's population outstrips Israel's, and the jobs are much needed by the Jordinians).

 

It's a prime example of what can be accomplished when working together. It's common intrests such as these that brings the world together.

 

Do you think that if the Palestinians had left they would have had anywhere to go back to? Israel would have seized that land, claiming it's unused, and then where would we have been? I'd rather not think about that, but its a fact that cannot be ignored.

 

I'm not making this up, if that's what you're thinking.

http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=77853

Most Arab refugees never left Palestine at all; they traveled a few miles to the other side of the truce line' date=' remaining inside the vast Arab nation that they were part of linguistically, culturally and ethnically.

 

Jordan was the only Arab country to welcome the Palestinians and grant them citizenship. Arab governments have frequently offered jobs, housing, land and other benefits to Arabs and non-Arabs, excluding Palestinians. One exception was Kuwait, which employed large numbers of Palestinians (but denied them citizenship). After the 1991 Gulf War, more than 300,000 Palestinians were expelled. "If people pose a security threat, as a sovereign country we have the right to exclude anyone we don't want," explained Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasir.[/quote']

 

You seem to think that Israel has something against Palestinians and Muslims in general. Well you're wrong. My parents used to live in Israel, they worked on a farm as migrant workers, for and with many Muslims, who were living comfortably in the land of Israel.

 

 

Well, I'm assuming they referred to the nation of Israel, not necessarily the people of Israel, so no crime against humanity there. Although I do believe that would be against the UN charter, not sure though. I adhere to the Geneva convention, so what that says is a crime against humanity so do I.

 

The nation of Israel IS the people of Israel. They are one and the same. Do you think all those Jews would live so comfortably under a different, perhaps Muslim rulership? I don't think so. Leaders like Saddaam Hussien do not even treat their own Muslim citizens properly, how do you think Jews would be treated?

 

Your point? And do we REALLY want to go into the numerous military conquests over the centuries? Again, my main point here was that even when Muslims do go to war, they don't attempt to eradicate the conquered people.

 

That's not what I meant. Actually Jews lived rather well under the Ottomans and Muslim control of Jerusalem. They treated Jews well and honored them. The christian crusaders, on the other hand, slaughtered hundreds (not sure of exact number, actually, but it was around there) of Jewish villages on their way down to Jerusalem. They don't tell you that in the history books. http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/crusades.htm

Over 5,000 jews were killed in the Rhineland by Christian Crusaders.

 

 

 

Exactly, which is why its important to educate people about the truth. So that they can see past the fanatics, and so that they can see past the biases that are presented to them in the news. And also so that they can realise the error of their ways, and try to correct them.

 

It would be a miricle if this happened, yet it's what we must hope for.

[Bettina]

Hope this clarifies some points about the nature of Islam' date=' and also hope you people will spread this knowledge so that more people can become aware of Islam. After all, our strongest weapon is knowledge.

Cheers,

LazerFazer[/quote']

 

I don't need any more clarification than what was said by the president of Iran. Thats about the most reliable news I can get, and as a matter of fact, the president went into the streets today and fortified his position.....all in the name of Islam. If this is what he said openly....I can't imagine what he dreams about.

 

If you can't direct me to a source that refutes that, then I will stand by my earlier comments about the type of religion Islam is...a fanatical religion bent on killings.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/28/iran.reaction/index.html

 

Bettina

[ecoli]

I don't need any more clarification than what was said by the president of Iran. Thats about the most reliable news I can get' date=' and as a matter of fact, the president went into the streets today and fortified his position.....all in the name of Islam. If this is what he said openly....I can't imagine what he dreams about.

 

If you can't direct me to a source that refutes that, then I will stand by my earlier comments about the type of religion Islam is...a fanatical religion bent on killings.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/28/iran.reaction/index.html

 

Bettina

 

well, at least the world leaders don't seem to be taking it lightly. That would be most disturbing if they didn't take him seriously.

 

I hope he doesn't get away with it, I'm thinking global sancions should be taken, boycotts, UN hearings, etc., until he takes back these words.

 

While I don't think the Iranians will actually do it... they don't have the military, even with nuclear weapons. They wouldn't be able to survive as a country if they attacked Israel, surely Ahmedinejad can see that.

 

If he can't...

[Bettina]

well' date=' at least the world leaders don't seem to be taking it lightly. That would be most disturbing if they didn't take him seriously.

 

I hope he doesn't get away with it, I'm thinking global sancions should be taken, boycotts, UN hearings, etc., until he takes back these words.

 

While I don't think the Iranians will actually do it... they don't have the military, even with nuclear weapons. They wouldn't be able to survive as a country if they attacked Israel, surely Ahmedinejad can see that.

 

If he can't...[/quote']

 

I agree with you on this, and I hope the country as a whole doesn't have the mentality of the suicide bomber who thinks blowing up people is a brave way to enter allahs fantasy realm. I'm worried big time about Iran.

 

But one thing is for sure. Israel will never let Iran get a nuclear weapon...and rightfully so.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

Some well-thought-out posts there, Lazer. Don't agree with everything you said there, but I thought it was an interesting read. Let me just briefly respond to your response to me.

 

I don't see how that relates to Nazi Germany. They had NO right to attempt to commit crimes against humanity. Iran, as of yet, has no such intentions.

 

Well, Hitler certainly didn't announce his intentions to annex the Sudetenland, but his rhetoric before he did so was certainly similar to the kind of rhetoric we're getting out of Iran regarding Israel. That was my main point in comparing the two, really.

 

I don't mena to put words in your mouth, because you haven't actually said this (so please straighten me out if this isn't what you meant), but why would it be okay to say that we should have stopped Germany before WW2, but it's not okay to stop Iran before they get the bomb? Aren't the two situations roughly and reasonably analogous?

 

I'm not really taking major issue with you, by the way. I'm enjoying the discussion. I feel like I have to say that, feeling somewhat responsible for raising the Nazi thread-killing spectre, for which I hope I will be forgiven.

 

One thing I will say is that Iran lacks Iraq's recent history of foreign invasion. It's not a huge asset but it could be an important one when the issue comes up for serious debate (if it ever does).

 

 

No' date=' no, I don't think so, and I don't see how one can actually say that. I mean, you're practically condemning thousands of people to their deaths without the smallest opportunity of hope to live. I don't think that anyone has the right to do that without at least trying to get through these issues through diplomatic means.

[/quote']

 

I definitely agree with you in the sense that you certainly want to exhaust all diplomatic options before you start talking about war. But I still feel like I've raised an interesting question there. There is no "star wars" -- prevention is your only option when it comes to nuclear war.

 

So... how far are we willing to go to prevent nuclear war?

 

If a country said, stated, outright swore that it was going to use nuclear weapons against a specific enemy in the very near future, would that be enough for the world to justify attacking that nation?

 

If so, what, precisely, is the difference between that kind of statement and the one made last week by Iran's president, which appears to present a moral, religious imperative that his own people must wipe Israel off the map?

 

 

Well not necessarily. Iran could stop it's nuclear power program, which would probably satisfy the US.

 

Yah, true enough. I conceed the point.

[ecoli]

If a country said' date=' stated, outright swore that it was going to use nuclear weapons against a specific enemy in the very near future, would that be enough for the world to justify attacking that nation?

 

If so, what, precisely, is the difference between that kind of statement and the one made last week by Iran's president, which appears to present a moral, religious [i']imperative[/i] that his own people must wipe Israel off the map?

 

There are several differences. 1) We don't think Iran actually has nuclear weapons yet. Plans, maybe... intentions, possibly. But the actual weapons? probably not.

2) Iran has not given any dates, and we have no intellegence of any military plans moving into action.

3) There is the possibility that Ahmadinejad said these things for pure political reasons. After all, if they were seriously going to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, why would they announce it too the whole world. It would give them time to prepare, and launch a pre-emptive counter attack. Mayb Ahmadinejad just said this to rile up the Iranians... nothing promotes nationalism and public support like a common, all-evil enemy.

 

I'm sure there are other differences... anybody else want to add to the list?

[Pangloss]

Valid points. I admit I'm looking at this more as a "hypothetical" than a "real".