SEE ACTUAL PA TV VIDEO CLIPS ENCOURAGING CHILDREN TO BECOME MARTYRS

[MMMMMM]

In another thread, Cyrus wrote:

"That's not the solution. The solution is simple: Teach, somehow, yourselves that Palestinian children are not taught that Jews are dogs and monkeys or that they drink Muslim blood. Those children are human beings like Jews are."

Of course they start out like children anywhere, but they are being taught to believe the most destructive things-- including absorbing sytematic indoctrination to become suicide bombers.

Here's the proof:

Watch these video clips from PA TV:

- Young Children Convinced of Death as a Shahid as Ideal:
Two 11 year old girls articulate their personal goal to Die for Allah - Shahada, explaining that “all Palestinian children” see Shahada because of its promised grand Afterlife, as more worthwhile than living. [PA TV June 2002]

- Palestinian Journalist to 7-yr olds:"Don’t be afraid to die".
A Palestinian journalist asked a second grade child if he feared death. When the child hesitated, the journalist shook her head to signal that the correct answer was “no”, even for 7-year-olds. [PA TV Oct. 29, 2000]

- Farewell Letter Music Video:
A young boy leaves a farewell letter to his parents and goes off to seek Death for Allah - Shahada - describing the death he aspires as “sweet.” This PA indoctrination clip is designed to offset a child’s natural fear of death, by depicting Shahada as heroic and tranquil. [PA TV 2001- 2003, repeatedly]

- "We Teach Children Shahada" - Head of Children's Org.:
In English, PA leaders have denied that they encourage their children to aspire to Shahada. However in Arabic, the PA continues to express pride in educating children to aspire to Shahada, portraying it as a national achievement. The Director of the Palestinian Children’s Aid Association candidly reiterated this PA educational policy, on PA TV. [May 4, 2003]

- Al Dura Calls Children to Follow him to Paradise - Clip:
Through a child actor, this music video portrays a delightful Paradise of Muhammad Al Dura, whose death in a crossfire was broadcast on TV. He is portrayed flying a kite, frolicking on the beach and even at an amusement park. The clip opens with the invitation to other children from Al Dura: "I am waving to you not in parting, but to say 'follow me'”. [PA TV Dec 25, 2000 and repeatedly since then]

- Yasser Arafat's Message to Children - "Be a Shahid":
Arafat explains that dead Palestinian children- Shahids - are “the greatest message to the world”.
[PA TV Jan. 15, 2002]

Also check out the reports, cartoons, photo library, PA textbook examples, etc.

It's all documented here, with links to view the actual PA TV footage. I watched the first link and found it deeply abhorrent, tragic, but not surprising. However for some who cannot believe or deny that Palestinian children are being routinely indoctrinated into an actual death-cult, here's the proof in video, textbook excerpts, reports, etc. as well as evidence of other nefarious teachings (such as religious leaders explaining the rewards of the 72 virgins, describing the infamous Protocols, etc. Video clips of these and more are available through links on this site.)

http://www.pmw.org.il/new/

[bigpooch]

I had a problem downloading the videoclip, but the text
seemed quite illuminating. Another piece of the puzzle to
explain the sheer number of willing suicide terrorists. It
is extremely sad that the value of human life has been
totally eradicated from their minds, replaced with an evil
indoctrination, allowing them to act reprehensibly without
any element of guilt.

[MMMMMM]

I used Windows Media Player to play the first Video Report, "Ask For Death". Another clip didn't seem to run. A month or so ago I may have had to DL an update to Windows Media Player in order to watch a news video on CNN or some other news site.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Chris Alger]

Now watch. A month or so from now you're going to tell us about your "evidence" showing that Palestinian children are indoctrinated to be terrorists and suicide bombers. But it doesn't say that though, does it? Shahid isn't a synonym for "terrorist" or "fighter" -- it's anyone who's killed by Israel.

One could just as easily argue that indoctrinating children about martyrdom is a religous response to the widespread trauma inflicted by Israel occupation forces on Palestinian children. Did Londoners during the blitz more frequently tell their children about the paradise of heaven and the promsie of afterlife? Then it must prove that they have no regard for life and indoctrine their children to love death. So who can really care if London is bombed to rubble? Who can really care if Israel, since 1987, has killed seven times as many kids under the age of 18 as Palestinian terrorists, or if Palestinian children are locked up under curfew, suffer malnutrition from the closures, can't play, go to school, walk down the street or even sleep without terror of random gunfire and shelling, or having to run from their homes at midnight when the bulldozers come to demolish them, or live on constant fear of learning that a friend or family member has been killed by the conquering army?

Shame on you.

[ACPlayer]

Palestinian children dont count, they are terrorists in training.

Dont you get it!!

Totally asymmetric. Oops, I need to look up that word.

[Gamblor]

One could just as easily argue that indoctrinating children about martyrdom is a religous response to the widespread trauma inflicted by Israel occupation forces on Palestinian children.

That is the sickest thing I have ever heard.

The thought that people like you exist is so traumatic to me, that I am teaching my little brother that he must kill himself in order to eliminate propagandists like yourself from the world. Don't get on the bus.

[MMMMMM]

Watch the videos, Chris, and read more on the website. Clearly the PA is glorifying and encouraging both shahidism and suicide-bombing.

Shame on YOU for denying it when the evidence is staring you straight in the face.

[Gildersneeze]

Fine, I'll play the troll, or the Devil's Advocate, or whatever here.

Is it truly terrorism, or guerilla war?

The Palestinians are fighting against a country that has US backing (and compared to Palestine's net worth, that would be comparable to an unlimited supply of money), one of the most highly trained air forces in the world (the IAF), US weaponry, much more Armor (armor as in Armored vehicles, like tanks).

They're also in the position of being told that "hey, your land that you've been living in for a long damn time? Well, we're going to take all the displaced Jews that no one wants to claim after World War Two, and give them a big chunk of it. It's also going to be in a location that's been highly contested by people of varying faiths."

The US is not without fault at all in this situation. We talk a good game of setting up peace, but we continue to fund and train Israelis in military exercises.

To give my answer to the question I posed, I lean mostly toward guerilla warfare on the part of the Palestinians. I can respect them for trying to stand up for their rights as people to have their own homeland in pretty much the only way they can. However, the one misgiving I have which pushes my view slightly toward terrorism on their part, and it's a big misgiving is this: I cannot respect the fact that they do NOT deferentiate between military and civilian targets.

I'd fully support the Palestinian effort to defend themselves from what looks like an aggressor nation backed by nearly limitless funding through guerilla tactics if they only attacked military personel. I can't get behind sucicide bombers attacking Israelies who are not members of the Israeli military. Running into a crowded restaurant or a bus full of civilians not actively involved in combat and attempting to kill them all by detonating an explosive device is horribly ignoble, inhumane, and a cowardly act. Training children to believe that doing such a thing signifies a great victory against Israel is even more despicable.

It's a difficult situation to "pick sides" in, and I'd be most happy if the United States backed out of supporting Israel for the time being, and offered to help both countries equally if and only if they could acheive and maintain peaceful relations.

And before anyone calls me an "anti-semite" for thinking that the Palestinians are in the right in their cause (but NOT right in many of their methods of fighting for said cause), the term "Semite" applies to both those of Jewish/Israeli and Arabic descent. It was an early Middle-Eastern language group, not a race. Look it up. Ah, hell, here's a quote from Sam Hemod, an expert in world affairs.

"If one looks into the history of the word, "semite", it has to do with a language group and no more. The semitic languages are, at least according to most linguistic experts, Amharic (spoken in Ethiopia and Eritrea, the lands once known as Abyssinia), Arabic (spoken in all the Arab countries and in many Muslim countries because it is the language of the Qur'an), Hebrew (spoken in Israel and by some Jews and others outside of Israel), Aramaic (spoken primarily by the Chaldeans of Iraq and by some Catholic and Maronite Christians in the world, at least in their church services if not in their homes or business) and Syriac (spoken by a few in various parts of Syria and in the Middle East). Incidentally, according to most linguists, Abraham, the father of the Jews and Arabs, spoke Aramaic, that was the language of the land at the time, not Hebrew."

[jokerswild]

I've already seen the USA Marine Corps Ads, thanks anyway.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Chris Alger]

I got as far as the part where the little girl insists that "no child loves death" when I realized what a waste of time this was. As your post suggests, the captions describing the videos say nothing about suicide bombers or terrorism, contary to your repeated assertions that martyrdom and terrorism are synonmous. I appreciate how you gained this impression, given that the propaganda website you got it from is dedicated to the proposition that Palestinians are Untermenschen.

This is the rationalization for state terror we saw in Vietnam, when morons like Gen Westmoreland would claim that "the oriental philosophy" places a lower value on human life. He also had plenty of fodder: the propaganda from the other side, another army of the poor, claiming that they don't care if they die in greater numbers, they prefer death to foreign military occupation and will keep coming no matter how much the U.S. tortures their country. And it worked.

[MMMMMM]

You didn't look very far before forming your utterly wrong opinion.

PA TV video clips include:

- A song in concert praising the first woman suicide terrorist who blew herself up in Jerusalem, was broadcast three times in one week on PA TV in May 2002. The song extols and praises both Idris and her act of suicide terrorism. It has since been broadcast many times. The concert glorifying Idris was held in Egypt. [PA TV May 12, 2002 through July 24, 2003]

- Palestinian Authority religious teacher, Dr. Ibraham Maadi, mandates suicide bombing as religious necessity so that the “Muslims will subjugate the Jews.” "Blow them up in Hadera, Tel Aviv and Netanya..." he demands on PA TV.
[PA TV Aug. 3, 2001]

The above are clear examples contrary to your assertion, and there are many more such examples, which you will see if you explore the information available on this site more fully.

My point is not that the Palestinians are untermenschen, as so you wrongly surmise, but that they are being indoctrinated into a depraved ideology from early childhood. It is especially distressing that the PA would so indoctrinate children.

[Zeno]

The follow is from Nietzsche’s The Antichrist . I have change one word in the quote, and put the changed would in brackets. I thought of changing the word to religion but the definition for religion can be interpreted to be rather broad (some say it just a value system etc), so I did not go this route. Perhaps just the specific 'religion' under consideration should be inserted, if it fits. Some religions however may not fit, for instance Buddhism.

[ QUOTE ]
I call Islam [Christianity] the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, and the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish on the human race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another quote - this one from Luther Burbank

[ QUOTE ]
The word 'religion' has acquired a very bad name among those who really love truth, justice, and charity. It also exhales the musty odor of sanctimony and falsehood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever excuse anyone may come up with (and there will be some to do so) for the explicit message(s) illustrated in the website the implicit message is clear and unequivocal. And to deliver such messages into the minds of the young when they are so trusting and malleable is not only disgusting and disingenuous but illustrates the depravity that religion can drive some people into, especially when coupled to political agendas. This is one of great dangers that the Founding Fathers knew about and tried to prevent against in the framing of the Constitution. It is better to error on the side of a great separation of religion and political structure than to risk the intermingling of the two.

Is the behavior of the adults justified? Some will say yes. And they will use any means of jargon, propaganda, twisted logic, disingenuous word play, and obfuscation to ‘prove’ their stance. Not only just as Nietzsche points out, but as illustrated by the website itself. (And no ad hominem arguments about old Friedrich, that is outside of the subject at hand anyway).

It will be interesting to see to what depths people will crawl to justify such behaviors.

-Zeno

[Chris Alger]

Someone wrote a song about the first woman suicide bomber, so you claim that Palestinian children are trained to be terrorists so they'll meet 72 virgins? Brilliant! Never mind that there are over 3 million people in the occupied territories, and if 10% of them were inclined toward committing terrorism there wouldn't be any occupation, and probably no Israel.

It's what racists do: they take a few examples of bad conduct and extrapolate it to the entire population, ignoring the logical contradictions all the way. It's no different that saying because Gamblor belongs to a group of Zionist fanatics who celebrate Jewish terrorists, that "Jewish culture" promotes murder.

[MMMMMM]

The examples provided are thematic, not isolated incidents.

That there is a death-cult, which indoctrinates Palestinian children and holds a significant percentage of the entire Palestinian population in thrall, is undeniable.

This has nothing to do with racism, but much to do with the power of ideas which sometimes seem to take on lives of their own, so to speak. Have you ever heard of mind-viruses? The Palestinian death-cult is a striking example of a very strong and virulent meme.

[Chris Alger]

The only "theme" that comes from these isolated glorifications of martyrdom is your endless racist raving about your assumption that they somehow prove a "death-cult" that glorifies suicide and murder. The only point, of course, is to denying the political context of Palestinian violence and to dehumanize Palestinian victims of Israeli violence.

[Gamblor]

If it were possible to separate the Palestinian cause from the overarching Arab cause, you would most certainly be correct. But from the dawn of Arab imperialism through to the nationalist movement that sprang up after WWII, they have made it clear that no non-Arabs will be welcome in any part of the Middle East and North Africa, and it seems the Jews, once again, have paid the price.

We talk a good game of setting up peace, but we continue to fund and train Israelis in military exercises.

You'd be surprised. Most of the training goes the other way. Mainly because, in 55 years no less, Israel is far more experienced at warfare than the US.

Regarding your fear of being labeled anti-semitic, I will leave you with a quote from Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist.

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

[Gamblor]

For someone so concerned with "propaganda", your rhetoric and ignoble use of words like "victims" is appalling.

Most of all, your claim that these glorifications are isolated, when they are publicized and disseminated by the government on official government television, is downright laughable.

[Zeno]

In my opinion your mask is slipping and I think that you have deep-seated hatreds that come out under pressure and debate. You accuse M of being a racist when I see no justification for such a claim and you do so to deflect, mislead, and otherwise cloud the issues at hand, and I think deliberately so. Some of the Palestinians, by evidence of this website anyway, appear to be dehumanizing themselves, in my opinion.

Religion when it co-mingles with politics, nationalism and hatred can become a very ugly mixture and degrades both politics and religion. Behaviors like those displayed in the website are practiced by numerous peoples, though obviously to varying degree of excess, not just in Palestine, and it victimizes everyone- and should be condemned outright, not coddled and tolerated; I don’t care how isolated you insist it is.

There is something almost unnatural about some of your recent posts in this tread. I find them particularly disgusting. And I predict that they will become even more so – if you cannot restrain your passions.

This appears to happen to almost all threads or posts that deal with Israel or Palestine questions. Which I think is further evidence of the deep divide that religions not only cause but also inflame.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

Chris,

I'm not claiming any racial basis for these acts or ideologies. And clearly they are thematic, not isolated, incidents.

Also, the PA is especially culpable for broadcasting that which encourages Palestinian children to seek death. The implicit message of many such broadcasts shown on P.A. TV is clear indeed. And the explicit message, also broadcast by the PA, is summed up quite well by the broadcasted exact words large-printed on center screen with a neutral background:

"Seek Death. Life Shall Be Given To You."

Now, Chris: don't you find that message the least bit sick and twisted?

Also, isn't it deplorable for adults to be encouraging and indoctrinating young children to "seek death"?

[Chris Alger]

I usually don't respond to your criticisms because they're typically so vague I have no idea where you're coming from. Much of this is no exception.

"Some of the Palestinians, by evidence of this website anyway, appear to be dehumanizing themselves, in my opinion."

No question. But what's the point? If it's only "some," then the same can be said about any nation, particularly those under stress, and the statement conveys nothing. If it's "the Palestinians" who are supposed to have "dehumanized" themselves, then corollary is "the Palestinians are dehumanized," and to treat them as less than human follows logically. Prima facie, that's a racist statement.

"and should be condemned outright, not coddled and tolerated; I don’t care how isolated you insist it is."

I have no problem with an across-the board condemnation of the sort you suggest. Hardly any but religious fanatacs would. But what you're ignoring is persistent efforts to "dehumanize" an entire nation by pointing to isolated instances of repulsive behavior and arguing that one should assume they reflects a national pandemic arising from religion, culture or some other immutable characteristic. That's racist too.

[Gamblor]

Hardly any but religious fanatacs would. But what you're ignoring is persistent efforts to "dehumanize" an entire nation by pointing to isolated instances of repulsive behavior and arguing that one should assume they reflects a national pandemic arising from religion, culture or some other immutable characteristic. That's racist too.

Nobody is dehumanizing them. They're human beings, after all.

I am denationalizing them, proclaiming the group, as a whole (if we are to use the concept of nation literally), as unfit for statehood, and unfit for self-determination within close confines of a Jewish State. This conclusion is the result of the proposed leadership (either Arafat's documented embezzlement of public funds and use of terrorism as a political strategy, or Hamas' outright Muslim fanaticism and declaration of the whole shebang as "occupied"). Furthermore, sit a Palestinian Arab next to a Jordanian Arab. It's the same ethnicity.

Now, do Palestinian national rights imply that Sephardic Jews deserve a state separate from Ashkenazi Jews?

[Chris Alger]

I agree that this particular message is wrong and repulsive. It is not anywhere near as repulsive, however, as the Israeli practice of invading the occupied territories and killing and maiming children -- over 700 killed and thousand wounded since 1987 -- which is something that evidently concerns you very little.

More to the point, it doesn't prove, as you said above, that Palestinian children are subject to "sytematic indoctrination to become suicide bombers."

All you've got are messages encouraging Palestinian children not to fear death and that their deaths will be justified and noble if made for some greater good, specifically if they die defending their homeland against Zionist aggression.

Is encouraging children to risk their lives for political goals repulsive? Most people automatically say yes. On closer examination, however, it turns out that most admit that it depends on the circumstances.

In 1947, 4,515 Jewish refugees, holocaust survivors, including 655 children, tried to sail from France to Haifa. The British refused to let them disembark in Palestine and after ramming and disabling the Exodus forced them to return to France. The refugees refused to disembark in France, lauching a hunger strike in unbearable heat and horrific sanitary conditions.

Nobody describes the Exodus incident as one where parents victimized their children by compelling them to starve. And nobody should. The Exodus incident is proudly hailed by all Israeli patriots has ilustrating the desperation, heroism and willingness to sacrifice that reflects the finest values associated with the birth of Israel.

Interestingly, in his hugely successful novel "Exodus," Leon Uris embellished the story by having the children on board threaten to commit suicide -- to martyr themselves -- unless they were allowed into Palestine. Nobody who read the novel came away with the feeling that a "themes" of Zionism include death cultism and the cruel exploitation of children to accomplish political goals.

It's one thing to encourage children to murder innocents. Its another to encourage them to sacrifice themselves on the alter of national determination. Both can reasonably be criticized. But while the former is almost universally condemned we tend to like or dislike the latter depending on whether we approve of the cause.

You just lump them together in a pathetic attempt to prove your racist theory about the "cultural" inferiority of Arabs.

[Chris Alger]

So whereas Jews and other nations are and always have been such without qualification or the need to satisfy some sort fo normative test, the nationality of Palestinians is fundamentally differnt, something that can be earned (questionable) or lost depending on whether they're leaders and various factions meet with your approval.

It's not like you're dehumanizing Palestinians, you're just saying, as usual, that they're just not as human as most other national groups, especially Jews. It's not like you're racist or anything ....

[Gamblor]

It's not like you're dehumanizing Palestinians, you're just saying, as usual, that they're just not as human as most other national groups, especially Jews. It's not like you're racist or anything ....

Not even close. As usual, it is actions, not skin colour or ethnicity that defines the degree of "humanness", and the degree and scope through which the murder-cult has permeated Arab society, specifically "Palestinian" Arab society, is enough. The Arab dream of one united Arab nation from Pakistan to Morrocco is... well... "The Emperor has no clothes!"

"Racist fascism", brought to you by Pan-Arab imperialism. Paid for in part by Elf Oil.

[Gildersneeze]

[ QUOTE ]
If it were possible to separate the Palestinian cause from the overarching Arab cause, you would most certainly be correct. But from the dawn of Arab imperialism through to the nationalist movement that sprang up after WWII, they have made it clear that no non-Arabs will be welcome in any part of the Middle East and North Africa, and it seems the Jews, once again, have paid the price.[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]The overarching WHAT!? Look, The Palestinians are pissed off because we snagged part of the land they lived in for years and shipped a bunch of people there and told them their ancestral lands didn't belong to them anymore. Don't look for the conspiracy when there is none. Otherwise you just sound like the people who go on about the Zionist conspiracies. Oh, and Jews have NOT paid the biggest price with the most lives in history, so stop acting like they do. Stalin killed far more Russians than Hitler killed people of any nationality or creed. An estimated 50 million Russians died in the Gulags or through strange disappearance.

And if you want to blame someone for "once again, the Jews [paying] the price," blame the Allies after WWII telling the Palestinian Arabs to get the hell out of a large chunk of their homeland, a homeland with religious ties, and just *poof* making a country for the displaced Jews right in the middle of a place where people feel extremely strongly about their vastly different religious beleifs. The Palestinians are not at fault for being angered, here.[ QUOTE ]
We talk a good game of setting up peace, but we continue to fund and train Israelis in military exercises.

You'd be surprised. Most of the training goes the other way. Mainly because, in 55 years no less, Israel is far more experienced at warfare than the US.

[/ QUOTE ]Doesn't matter which way the training goes. It matters that if Israel needs some new tanks or fighter jets, the US opens the wallet and the armory and says "here!"[ QUOTE ]
Regarding your fear of being labeled anti-semitic, I will leave you with a quote from Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist.

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

[/ QUOTE ]No, no it's not. It's anti-Israeli. It cannot be anti-Semitic to want to sanction a specific sub-group of Semitic people over another subgroup of Semitic people. JEWS ARE NOT THE ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. Palestines are just as Semitic as any Jews.

Plus, that quote is foolish to take stock in, regardless of whether you actually know what "Semite" means or not. How is it bad to want to put sanctions on only Israel, and NOT bad to militarily and monetarily support only Israel? Smells like bullsh*t to me.

[Gamblor]

The overarching WHAT!? Look, The Palestinians are pissed off because we snagged part of the land they lived in for years and shipped a bunch of people there and told them their ancestral lands didn't belong to them anymore. Don't look for the conspiracy when there is none. Otherwise you just sound like the people who go on about the Zionist conspiracies.

The difference, is that the Arabs actually extended their reach from historical Arabia (the Saudi Peninsula) throughout Northern Africa. They means by which they did this? Islam. How else do you think Islam spread from tiny Arabia into the dominant religion from Morocco to Malaysia? Pixie dust? Brush up on your Anwar Shaikh. This ain't no conspiracy theory.

Oh, and Jews have NOT paid the biggest price with the most lives in history, so stop acting like they do.

You might be right, if Jewish murder were limited to the Holocaust. Unfortunately, it's a continuous theme from the ancient Romans to the Crusades to the Inquisition to Russian pogroms. You tell me how Judaism went from the most prevalent religion on earth to 13 million today.

...Palestinian Arabs to get the hell out of a large chunk of their homeland, a homeland with religious ties...

You mean the religious ties that were adopted after Muhammad slaughtered everyone who dared oppose him?

More importantly, Muslims, who comprise 20% of the Israeli population are more free to practice their brand of Islam than Muslims who live in Mecca. Nobody cuts off your hand for stealing in Israel, or stones a woman who is raped, or burns your eyes out with acid if you happen to poke someone in the eye.

JEWS ARE NOT THE ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

Now you're really retarded. Anti-semitism has taken on a colloquial meaning long accepted to mean the hatred of Jews.

You want to get particular, fine, we'll call it anti-Judaism.

How is it bad to want to put sanctions on only Israel, and NOT bad to militarily and monetarily support only Israel? Smells like bullsh*t to me.

It is bad, simply because if all nations in the middle east were as democratic, free, and willing to sacrifice so much in the name of peace, it would be a much quieter place. Except for all the parties. Those would be loud.

Why no sanctions on Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed education or to drive an automobile? Why no sanctions on Jordan, which allows systematic torture of not only criminals, but the criminals' families? Why no sanctions on Malaysia, who's prime minister just claimed, in front of the entire Summit of Islamic leaders, that "Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them... they created concepts like human rights so it would be wrong to persecute against them."

Why no sanctions? Because the Jews just aren't evil enough to blow themselves up in the restaurants of people who persecute them.

The worst Jewish terrorists, the Eztel (Irgun Z'va'i L'umi), even had the common courtesy to call ahead to tell them they were leaving a bomb in the King David Hotel, and gave everyone 30 minutes to evacuate. If a Palestinian aspirations were noble, they would do the same.

[MMMMMM]

The sad thing thing is that I know you actually believe what you have written.

[Gamblor]

It is not anywhere near as repulsive, however, as the Israeli practice of invading the occupied territories and killing and maiming children -- over 700 killed and thousand wounded since 1987 -- which is something that evidently concerns you very little.

It concerns us all greatly. But the fault for the invasion lies with the indoctrinators and murderers, not with those attempting to arrest them for killing Israeli citizens, and facing armed resistance to a just arrest. Arabs arrested for terrorist activities are subject to the same innocent until proven guilty trials that all Israelis are subject to, as evidenced by the recent Pass

More to the point, it doesn't prove, as you said above, that Palestinian children are subject to "sytematic indoctrination to become suicide bombers."

It absolutely does. The message is broadcast explicitly towards children by its very medium: Television. More explicitly, music videos. For your sake, we'll call it the Arab version of MTV. Name me a single American kid that has never seen MTV.

Watch the clips. The clips show, explicitly, the dramatization of suicide bombings as well as murder of Israeli soldiers.

Is encouraging children to risk their lives for political goals repulsive?

Absolutely not. But the difference between risking one's own life and deliberately taking another's life is vast.

The children of the Exodus were not asked to walk into British army bases and throw knives and sthoot officers. Your story of suicide is total fiction and should be regarded as such and is written by a fiction writer. Arab suicide-murder-cult propaganda is disseminated by the official government television station.

Imagine C-SPAN telling your child to murder a bunch of evil Jew-monkeys. Then, imagine yourself agreeing with the station.

[Zeno]

Just because some Palestinians dehumanize themselves (and it is probably a small minority) does not lead to the conculsion that all Palestinians should be treated as 'less than human'. Not to me. I make no great leap of faith in this direction.

[ QUOTE ]
But what you're ignoring is persistent efforts to "dehumanize" an entire nation by pointing to isolated instances of repulsive behavior and arguing that one should assume they reflects a national pandemic arising from religion, culture or some other immutable characteristic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you insinuating that I have personally made such claims? And done so persistently? If so find them. And you made the great leap from “some” to ‘national pandemic’. I made no such claim.

I found the website to be repulsive in the context of the mixture of politics and religion and the exploitation of children by adults. I believe I made that clear in my post - if not, I state it here and now for the record. It is also so obvious that such behaviors are not isolated to one particular group of people that a statement to this fact should not be necessary, in my opinion, but I added it anyway in my previous post so there could be no doubt. Instead, you either missed it or misconstrued my statements to blend a concoction of racism that is not justified.

-Zeno

[Gamblor]

Most importantly, it should be noted that while Alger claims the suicide-murder cult is restricted to all but the "religious fanatics", and at the same time claims the Palestinian Authority is a secular institution...

These commercials have appeared on mainstream, official Palestinian Authority television.

I will say it again for those not listening.

It's not the people themselves who are inferior. It is their actions and the actions of their "elected" leadership.

The rest (for example, that they are completely indistinguishible in any way from Jordanian Arabs), is icing.

Queen Rania herself is Palestinian. Palestine is dead. In fact, it never existed as an Arab political entity.

[MMMMMM]

Chris,

Evidently, the Palestinians have an unusually strong "death-cult" as compared to most other countries or cultures. So be it. That doesn't mean they should be treated as less than human and I'm not suggesting they should be treated as less than human (although a fence to keep suicide bombers out just might prove to be necessary).

Why do you consider culture, religion and ideology to be "immutable characteristics"? Skin color is an immutable characteristic, but beliefs and habits are mutable. Faulty or pernicious beliefs are sometimes subject to change depending on the person and his/her level of realization. Therefore, criticizing an ideology as harmful or backwards is in no way racist. Nobody is born with immutable beliefs. And humans can indeed change their belief systems upon gaining more and better information. Actually, to suggest, as you do, that particular beliefs are an immutable characteristic of certain human beings is, IMO, actually to dehumanize those human beings to a significant extent. Such a view belittles the seeds of inherent greatness contained in the human spirit.

Therefore, criticizing the death-cultism that has permeated Palestinian society is appropriate, because such criticism draws much-needed attention to an already warped and sick belief system which requires remedy.

You seem to equate criticism of culture or ideologies with racism, and far too readily. My gripe is with pernicious illogical ideologies (and especially those which exploit children and breed violence). If certain groups of people tend to embrace more illogical harmful ideas than do others, well, they get more criticism. Very simple. And don't tell me that people cannot change their ideas. We are humans, not animals or robots. Those human beings who embrace depraved ideas should be told that their ideas are wrong, illogical and depraved--and hopefully then they might think about their ideas a bit critically, if even a little bit.

Stupid and harmful ideas need more light and attention, not less, so that their fallacies may be exposed.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because some Palestinians dehumanize themselves (and it is probably a small minority) does not lead to the conculsion that all Palestinians should be treated as 'less than human'. Not to me. I make no great leap of faith in this direction.

[/ QUOTE ]
The dehumanized Palestinians are probably a small minority? And we shouldn't treat all Palestinians as non-human, but maybe just a lot of them, or just the probable small minority?

I'm only serious in trying to point out the obvious problems when one ambiguously uses phrases that smack of group defamation. Several people use this forum to casually associate Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims) as animals, murderers, terrorists, cultural inferiors, and so forth in the cause of denying virtually all Palestinians the very rights that they deem in alienable to Israelis, Americans or just about any other group.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you insinuating that I have personally made such claims?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know perfectly well that you entered this thread claiming that I unfairly accused MMMMMM, not you, of racism. Obviously I mean him, not you.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Evidently, the Palestinians have an unusually strong "death-cult" as compared to most other countries or cultures. So be it. That doesn't mean they should be treated as less than human and I'm not suggesting they should be treated as less than human (although a fence to keep suicide bombers out just might prove to be necessary).


[/ QUOTE ]
How the hell do you know how strong the death cults of "most other countries and cultures" would be if they all had roughly the same grievances as the Palestinians? "So be it" indeed.

And of course you're suggesting that they be treated as less than human. You don't think they have the same human rights as other groups. Whenever Cyrus and I finally convince you in one of these threads that the human rights violations are real, your regular response is that the Palestinians, never the Israelis, should move elsewhere. Other groups should protect and enforce basic human rights, but you've argued repeatedly that the Palestinians should forfeit theirs. That's very much along the lines of treating people as less than human. Then there's your casual association of Palestinians, Arabs, etc. with murder, terror, child abuse and so forth, only to get coy ("gosh, I don't mean all of them") when someone calls you on it. And fo course your endless assumptions about comparative sociology, as in the above, courtesy of the pro-Israel press and websites.
The "security fence" is a good example. According to you, Israeli defense is a matter of "necessity" (and if the fence puts another 17% of the West Bank on the Israeli side, well that's just the price Palestinians have to pay to ensure Israel's security). But no such necessity or right of security applies to the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. Their rights are limited to non-violent protest and complaining. If they resort to force, this simply proves their cultural propensity toward violence. By implication, their rights should be forfeited or at least put on hold until they change their culture and religion. It's beyond insane.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you consider culture, religion and ideology to be "immutable characteristics"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never applied it to just "ideology." Culture and religion generally are not susceptible to change except over an extremely long period of time. Given enough time, nothing is immutable, including skin color.

"My gripe is with pernicious illogical ideologies (and especially those which exploit children and breed violence)."

NO it isn't. Your gripe is almost exclusively limited to the pernicious illogical ideologies of Muslims and Arabs, not Tamils or Japanese, or Hindus or Americans. You single out particular groups for exclusive treatment and merely pretend that you're simply offering examples of some larger problem. Further, you inivoke it as a rationale for dneying basic rights to the groups you've targeted, in a fashion that you would never consider to be fair if applied to Americans.

Example: Many people in country X are racists, a few violently so. So how much national sovereignty should the citizens of country X be compelled to give up, and which rights should be qualified, as a result of this character defect?

None? I agree. So how does "death cultism" among some Palestinians justify depriving all Palestinians of the right to vote for those that make the laws they must obey, to name just one from a long list?

Or perhaps you believe they have rights in theory, but no right to resort to violence to combat their denial by some external power? Or maybe the right to resort to violence, but only against military targets with no possibility of collateral killing of innocents, unlike Israel and the U.S.?

Or perhaps as much right to resort to violence to defend basic rights as those claimed by Israel and the U.S. -- anything goes, as long as civilians are deliberately targeted -- but not the "right" to complain about or prevent American bullets from killing them in the process? Just exactly where do you draw the line?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm only serious in trying to point out the obvious problems when one ambiguously uses phrases that smack of group defamation. Several people use this forum to casually associate Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims) as animals, murderers, terrorists, cultural inferiors, and so forth in the cause of denying virtually all Palestinians the very rights that they deem in alienable to Israelis, Americans or just about any other group.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point(s). Well said and thanks for the response.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

"NO it isn't. Your gripe is almost exclusively limited to the pernicious illogical ideologies of Muslims and Arabs, not Tamils or Japanese, or Hindus or Americans."

Yes, because the pernicious illogical ideologies in question are particularly virulent and damaging. Religious death-cultism will one day threaten the entire world: wait and see, when terrorists or fanatic religious leaders eventually get their hands on nuclear WMD technology and the means to deliver it.

As for many of your other comments: the particulars of Palestinian rights etc. invoke an entire related, immense, but off-the-point discussion which we have dealt with in many other threads and doubtless will discuss again. My point in this thread, and my view, is that religious death-cultism is evil and destructive--and is far too widespread in Palestinian society (and to a lesser but still unacceptable degree, in Arab and Muslim society as well).

[Gamblor]

Several people use this forum to casually associate Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims) as animals, murderers, terrorists, cultural inferiors, and so forth in the cause of denying virtually all Palestinians the very rights that they deem in alienable to Israelis, Americans or just about any other group.

You want to know the Hebrew word for Arabs?

B'nei dodim.

Cousins

[censored] off.

[Chris Alger]

"As for many of your other comments: the particulars of Palestinian rights etc. invoke an entire related, immense, but off-the-point discussion which we have dealt with in many other threads and doubtless will discuss again. My point in this thread, and my view, is that religious death-cultism is evil and destructive--and is far too widespread in Palestinian society (and to a lesser but still unacceptable degree, in Arab and Muslim society as well)."

Just like some segregationists preferred to discuss, during the civil rights era, how the problem of black men raping white women was "far too widespread," as if it could be anything but.

[Gamblor]

Just like some segregationists preferred to discuss, during the civil rights era, how the problem of black men raping white women was "far too widespread," as if it could be anything but.

Of course. MLK had been advocating and publishing his demands that black people rape white women, and the segregationists were evil for refusing to allow for civil rights.

But wait! King did not advocate such things. He preferred the peaceful struggle. And that's why he succeeded and eventually his struggle was recognized as legitimate.

What makes your claim so audacious, is that the leader of the Palestinian people claims to love peace, claims to be so interested in side-by-side holding-hands walking-down-the-yellow-brick-road-of-peace, yet he is never seen out of his soldier's uniform and carries a pistol on his hip at all times, and his personal TV station broadcasts the images that started this thread.

Oh, and chalk another one up for UN Arabist-bias. The UN, whose mandate is peace among the nations, would naturally allow only one man, an Arab, to address the General Council with an open, loaded firearm on his person.

[MMMMMM]

Another fine example of your inability to offer conceptually appropriate comparisons.

You very well know that the Arab and Muslim worlds (and especially the Palestinians) have a problem today with death-cultism; clearly more so than do the Occidental or Oriental worlds. That you deny it and offer inappropriate comparisons shows that you either are living on another planet (a fantasy planet) and in a state of denial, or that you are deliberately clouding the issue. Of course, that is par for the course for you.

When someone points out the illogic and bigotry of the Islamic religious/political system, you cry "racism." When someone criticizes the sick twisted death-cult belief system that has taken hold of far too many, and the cynical psychological abuse of youngsters by the PA (which seeks to use them as political pawns), you claim it is only to be expected.

I suspect you have issues no psychologist could likely resolve. You have firmly sided with and become an apologist for some of the most depraved thinking in modern times, and you do not seem to realize that it is unusually depraved. You also continually resort to making inapplicable comparisons in order to divert criticism.

As another poster once put it: "What's it like to be living in a world where everything is upside down"?

[Cyrus]

I'l rise to the defence - amidst the cacophony of the gallery.

"[To Chris Alger:] your mask is slipping and I think that you have deep-seated hatreds that come out under pressure and debate."

Them's fighting words g'be hard to back up.

"You accuse M of being a racist when I see no justification for such a claim."

Really? M has been accusing a whole "culture", a whole "religion" and a whole "race" consistently and viciously for as long as I can remember. All the faults lie with the Ay-rabs and all the righteousness with the Holy State of Greater Israel. Come on, Zeno, what have you een reading?

"Some of the Palestinians, by evidence of [that] website anyway, appear to be dehumanizing themselves."

That there are Palestinians of evidently sane mind who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to kill "the enemy" , any kind of enemy, even children, should give pause to thinking people. I had assumed that such people frequented this forum of "advantage players". While it is correct to condemn the terrorist acts of sucide bombers without reservation (something which Alger has always done), wouldn't it alsoe be correct to assess and analyze the why's and the how-we-came-to-that's (ditto Alger) ?

You folks shirk from staring to its face the truth belied by those criminal (oh, yes) but also utterly desperate acts : The people behind those actions are at their wits' ends, in more ways than one. Without a home, without any prospects for freedom, without a land, without anyone helping them out, without dignity in their own country, without a hope - the "choices" left to them by the triumphant Sharons are simple: Give up -or- die.

"Religion when it co-mingles with politics, nationalism and hatred can become a very ugly mixture and degrades both politics and religion."

Now, you're talking!..

So what is it about Zionist fanaticism (that ol' mixture of religious absolutism plus nationalist extremism) that numbs American psyche? Organised and "clean" Israeli terror closer to your heart, folks, than the "uncivilised" killing practiced by the suicide bombers?

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, when you can separate, in your thinking, the criticism of ideas from the criticism of race, you will have come a long way IMO. And just because 12 people, or 1.2 billion people, believe something, doesn't make that thing any more true or logical or factual. And if that belief system encourages bigotry and oppression against nonbelievers and against women, that belief system deserves to be criticized. It's not bigotry to point out bigotry, even if that bigotry is systematically practiced on massive scale. Size does not imply validity.

Regarding the Palestinians: if you can't condemn the cult of death-worship and suicide-bombing which has so infected the Palestinians, as being inherently depraved and twisted, and an unnatural response to adversity, you still have a long way to go in your thinking. And I sincerely hope that you will condemn the PA after watching the evidence of how it manipulates the minds of young children for cynical use as pawns in a political game.

Also, I never said problems over there were 100% the Arabs' fault and 0% the Israelis' fault, as you seem to imply.

And "at their wits' end" is no excuse for suicide bombing to kill innocents. It's even less excuse for multimillionaires like Arafat to urge young children to go out and get themselves killed in order to further his political goals.

Read the website, and watch the clips, and see if you don't come back with a sense of deep abhorrence for the ideological architects and the propagators of the Death-Cult of the Palestinians.

[Gamblor]

The people behind those actions are at their wits' ends, in more ways than one.

Are they really?

Cause the Arab riots of 1920 suggest otherwise, as do the suicide bombing campaign in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Bali. Wits are apparently quite short on this crew.

*Zoink*

[Zeno]

The thread was specifically at issue with the PA Video. That is what I responded to.

I have repeatedly criticized religion as a whole, regarding it as causing more harm than good to civilization and in many instances inflaming hatred and bigotry. It is a powerful tool in the hands of misguided people that use it to twist and degenerate minds, make people into pawns, and further questionable political agendas.

The above applies across the board. There is evidence of this in almost all lands, peoples, or countries.

You can speak to or call out specific instances of such occurrences as examples of the whole. The topic of discussion was the PA. Obviously some people in Israel can be condemned for using the same misguided tactics. As can some people in America etc, the list is rather long, as you well know.

I rarely participant, much less read, many of the threads about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Your post is one reason why. No rational discussion is really possible. Almost immediately passions are inflamed and rational discussion/debate becomes almost impossible. I am also not that knowledgeable about all the details, intricacies, and history of this most contentious problem – and would most likely be unable to contribute anything meaningful in this area. Others are more qualified to speak to the specific political and/or technical issues. The undertones of the religious aspect of the conflict interest me, which is why I participated in this thread, against my better judgment I might add.

I have a hypothesis that Chris and you have a difficult time seeing this conflict in any objective manner or form. Gamblor may also have difficulty in this area. This is of course understandable from the point of view that it is such a deep, violent, and contentious conflict involving so many different issues at multiple levels. Perhaps subconscious hatreds bleed out in times of unending stress. This is just an observation on my part. I could be wrong. But your post suggests otherwise and isn’t it possible that this is a major reason this conflict continues with no resolution in sight. And that both parties are to blame?

Beyond the above I really have nothing more to say or add. I should have listen to my better judgment side and stayed out of this altogether. I have no doubt that the above will be misconstrued or misinterpreted or taken as too ambiguous etc. and that somehow I to am a racist or bigot. This almost seems inevitable for anyone that even tries to discuss the topic of Israel or Palestine. So be it.

But I want to say that my racism involves everyone, as befitting a misanthrope, and I condemned the whole stinking human race and its unending stupidity.

I withdraw from this thread. I have no wish to continue.

-Zeno

[Gamblor]

You know that thing you call morals?

Before Confucius' Golden Rule, before any moral structure, when man was simply a barbaric nomad, the Jews brought the world out of pagan worship and the self-pleasure-centric world, in which theft and murder were daily occurences.

The bible is a collection of stories written by Moses beginning in 3500 BC. As books were added to it over thousands of years, it stil hasn't lost its original message:

V'ahavta l'reyacha camocha.
Love thy neighbour as thyself.

Yep, another Jewish invention. I'm inclined to believe this is the real cause of antisemitism. Here came these people who set down rules for society rather than allow us to give in to our every whim, for example, killing someone because I don't like them. It was Jews who said the King is not above the law, and Solomon and David were still subject to God's laws, just like the lowliest peasant. Read Mein Kampf - Hitler explains very clearly his utopia as a world where each individual is entitled to make his own rules for himself and self-pleasure is the highest morality.

Bullsh*t Religion has done more harm than good. It is people who "edit" religion to satisfy their own preconceived notions that do more harm than good.

[andyfox]

For an elegant refutation of your view of western religion, I heartily recommend Frederick Turner's Beyond Geography: The Western Spirit Against the Wilderness.

[Cyrus]

I will address a few of your points and take off as well.

"I have no doubt that [my post] will be misconstrued or misinterpreted or taken as too ambiguous etc. And that somehow I too am a racist or bigot."

Not me. I think you are neither. I think that you are true to your misanthropic stance in not seeing either side being up to any good. A good start - but you're doing yourself a disservice if you leave it at that.

"The thread was specifically at issue with the PA Video. That is what I responded to."

I simply cannot examine the issue or comment on it in vitro, as if it is self-contained and all-explaining. The whole Israel-Palestinian conflict comes into the picture, as with eveything that concerns those two sides, even a friendly baseball game between 'em.

"I have repeatedly criticized religion as a whole, regarding it as causing more harm than good to civilization and in many instances inflaming hatred and bigotry."

We agree on that. However, this mess began as a religious (re)conquest by the Israeli side and degenerated into an all-religious conflict only recently, with Palestinian Muslim parties taking over the resistance. For almost fifty years this was a nationalist issue for the Palestinians, pure and simple : Another nation came and took their homeland.

Muslim fundamentalism and its terrorist offshots are to be condemned in the strongest language, yes, but aren't you curious, for example, as to how fundamentalism has come to be the dominant force in Palestinian resistance ? (Sad hint : The Israelis had everything to do with that development, since it marginalised the secular and truly "dangerous" PLO.)

"The topic of discussion was the [Palestinian Authority]. Obviously some people in Israel can be condemned for using the same misguided tactics."

Don't just examine the conflict from the point of view of religion, which happens to be one parameter only, albeit an important one. Examine it from a power balance point of view as well. Which is the most important parameter of all.

"Your post is one reason why ... No rational discussion is really possible. Almost immediately passions are inflamed and rational discussion/debate becomes almost impossible."

Amidst the clamor and the cacophony of human passions, one should be able to distinguish argument and logic. Especially if one is a bona fide misanthrope, that ability should come naturally. And I submit that there have been many arguments here for a rational and humane way out of this conflict, such as the solutions I have supported (eg One State solution; or, complete peace as-we-are with Palestinians abandoning any claims for anything more than what they have now and let genetic take their course, etc).

"I am also not that knowledgeable about all the details, intricacies, and history of this most contentious problem."

May I respectfully suggest that this might be one of the reasons why you feel so disgusted with the whole thing and want nothing to do with it? An attitude that suits just fine the party holding the power in the conflict! That party would like nothing better than the world turning its back disgustedly to the whole thing. (I propose to you to read two books, one to be recommended by Gamblor and one by me. My recommended primer would be, what else, Avi Shlaim's --a Jew's!-- book, "The Iron Wall". Look it up.)

"Perhaps subconscious hatreds bleed out in times of unending stress. Isn’t it possible that this is a major reason this conflict continues with no resolution in sight? And that both parties are to blame?"

Before we blame both parties equally, I would give the following example: In a situation whereby we are holding someone at gunpoint, is it us or the guy held at gunpoint that must behave more prudently and peacefully? On which side lies more the burden of bringing the situation to a peaceful conclusion?

(Answer: No, it's not "the other guy", you NRA bums! We have the goddamn gun.)

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

When one is faced with statements such as the one I will quote herebelow, one doesn't know where to begin in formulating a mirth-free, serious answer. One's mind boggles:

"The Jews brought the world out of pagan worship and the self-pleasure-centric world, in which theft and murder were daily occurences."

Oh, my God in Jewish Heaven! Are you really that backward?? Is that your view of times past? Have you any idea what was happening in places such as Europea circa four or five centuries before Jesus Christ was born (as the Scriptures claim)? Do you really think that the "pagans" that happened to live in ancient Greece or Rome were only "pleasure centered" and offered nothing to the world except "theft and murder"??

Do you really have the chutzpah (or is this some kinda dare you're stuck in) to even suggest that this or that religion, even if it is your religion, will save us in this "evil world" ? What year are you living in? (And I note in passing that you are fond of accusing the other idiots of being "religious fundamentalists"! What a sad joke.)

...You are admirable in your stubborn temerity. Serves me fine, though, 'cause as I've said, your posts do more harm to that Zionist crap than mine and Alger's combined! Keep up the good work.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

Thanks for keeping up the "good work"!..

"It is actions, not skin colour or ethnicity that defines the degree of "humanness" ..."

Although grammatically suspect, this statement is actually correct - but no, Gamblor being Gamblor, he won't leave it at that!

"...and the degree and scope through which the murder-cult has permeated Arab society, specifically "Palestinian" Arab society, is enough."

Hmmm, who's murdering whom, down there? Isn't your argument dead on its tracks if we were to just examine the number of dead, wounded, maimed and imprisoned of each side? ( And I don't even have to use your math, whereby one Jew equals ten gentiles.)

"The Arab dream of one united Arab nation from Pakistan to Morrocco is... well... "The Emperor has no clothes!""

LOL - check out one naked Gamblor streaking by!...

The Pakistanis are Arabs?? You don't even have your racism down pat, yet.

As to the bit about "one united Arab nation", aren't you tired recycling crapola? Nobody takes this seriously any more after the Suze war - and that was in the 1950s. You don't even have your bigotry down pat, yet.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Chris Alger]

Arafat "claims to love peace" but is secretly plotting and planning for any opening he can use to destroy Isreal and drive its 5 million residents into the sea. Anyone who doesn't see this is a fool. And how do we know it?

Because he "carries a pistol on his hip at all times."

Stupid or crazy? Maybe we need a poll.

Have you even slightly curbed your ridiculous hypocrisy by resigning from terrorist-worshipping Betar yet?

[Chris Alger]

"I have a hypothesis that Chris and you have a difficult time seeing this conflict in any objective manner or form."

The funny thing is that this might be true because pro-Israel, anti-Arab bias is so pervasive in media and discourse that even a moderate degree of objectivity is difficult to muster.

Two groups of millions of people, self-styled nations, have claims to the same land. One is poor and has no military force save local police and militia. The other is rich and a regional superpower, backed by the most powerful country in the world. Leaders of the weaker group, over substantial minority dissent, have for nearly 16 years proposed: give us sovereignty over one-fifth of the land, give limited redress to the grievances of the millions you have displaced, and you can have the rest. It recognizes the right of the strong country to live in peace with secure borders. It has since qualified its compromise by further agreeing to limited, demilitarized sovereignty while allowing Israel substantial water and other rights in the territories it occupies. It's leaders have requested opportunities to negotiate the details of this compromise continuously.

The leaders of the other have responded with illegal and internationally condemned colonization, land expropriation, military occupation and terror. They have purposely wrecked the economy of the weaker, so that nearly half of all children in the occupied territories are threatened with malnutrition. It has killed or wounded about ten or so Palestinians every day for the last four years, mostly civilians. It has demolished thousands of homes. And refuses all attempts at negotiation and refuses to recognize any national right of the Palestinians over anything: not self-defense, not land, not water, not borders, not airspace, nor even the "electromagnetic spectrum."

The weaker group responds with ad hoc resistance, mostly in response to military incursions. Over the objections of officials, a relative handful respond with extremely brutal terrorism. The terrorists among them have also inflicted massive death and suffering, but on a much smaller scale. Repeated attempts at foregoing terrorism in exchange for reciprocal measures on behalf of Israel have been refused on every single occasion.

The dominant power rejects all proposals to even discuss the resolution of the dispute until the subjugated people cease all resistance (which it calls "terrorism," regardless of the target) and advocacy of resistance to the occupation. It demands, officially, that the weaker group enter a prolonged, temporily undefined period of "absolute quiet" prior to any agreement.

That's an objective thumbnail, virtually unarguable.

The official and mainstream American consensus, including that of most liberals, is that the weaker power has victimized the stronger, that the stronger wants peace compromise while the weaker obdurately deamands war, and that the culture of the weaker group is riddled with an unfathomable resentment too firmly grounded in religion and culture to harbor much hope of any peaceful resolution. All claims of the stronger group to basic national rights are inviolable, absolute, inarguable. Nearly all similar claims of the weaker group are, at best, suspect. The best solution amounts to providing the stronger group with the military and economic aid it needs to consolidate its grip while refraining from pressuring it to compromise.

It is difficult to find words to describe the sheer insanity of this position. Harder still to do so "obejctively," whatever, given the context, that means.

[Chris Alger]

That the Palestinians "have a problem today with death-cultism" proves "the illogic and bigotry of the Islamic religious/political system," and anyone who finds this overgeneral or racist is "an apologist for some of the most depraved thinking in modern times," probably resulting from some sort of psychological malady.

You must mean Soviet-style psychological problems: the refusal to embrace irrational and ignorant thought when to do so would contradict indoctrinated ideology.

[Chris Alger]

Probably not very. Nor Canadians as a rule.

You are though.

[MMMMMM]

First of all, I didn't say the Palestinian death-cult proves the bigotry of the Islamic religious/political system, but listed them as two things.

If you find this racist you are indeed wrong: read MEMRI for verbatim, publicly racist, bigoted quotes by countless imams and even state leaders--or just check the laws of most of the Arab states to find how non-Muslims and women are systematically and legally discriminated against.

So who's the bigot? The one who points out genuine bigotry in a system (which I pointed out), or the one who claims the one pointing out the bigotry is a bigot (your false claim that I am a bigot)?

In other words Chris, it isn't slander or libel if it's demonstrably true. And it this matter it is overwhelmingly demonstrably true. So why don't you criticize the REAL bigotry: the Islamic system of laws. Are those following Islamic Arab laws themselves bigots, or are they merely esconsced in an inherently and grossly bigoted system? You tell me. But you should blame that which is bigoted, not the people who point it out.

[Gamblor]

One is poor and has no military force save local police and militia.

Wrong. They have the backing of billions of dollars from Iraq and Iran.

Leaders of the weaker group, over substantial minority dissent, have for nearly 16 years proposed: give us sovereignty over one-fifth of the land, give limited redress to the grievances of the millions you have displaced, and you can have the rest.

Not even close. They have never agreed to such a proposition, instead insisting on "right of return". The methods by which they demand the destruction of the Jews have only become more sophisticated and political.

It recognizes the right of the strong country to live in peace with secure borders. It has since qualified its compromise by further agreeing to limited, demilitarized sovereignty while allowing Israel substantial water and other rights in the territories it occupies. It's leaders have requested opportunities to negotiate the details of this compromise continuously.

Only because the Jews has shown it won't give up so easily as in the past.

They have purposely wrecked the economy of the weaker, so that nearly half of all children in the occupied territories are threatened with malnutrition. It has killed or wounded about ten or so Palestinians every day for the last four years, mostly civilians. It has demolished thousands of homes.

Nice rhetoric. No context. Your claim of economic discrimination is hilarious.

And refuses all attempts at negotiation and refuses to recognize any national right of the Palestinians over anything: not self-defense, not land, not water, not borders, not airspace, nor even the "electromagnetic spectrum."

To negotiate under the fire of terrorists, to negotiate from a weak position, is suicide. If the Arabs don't get another state, they still have influences from 300 million others. If the Jews don't have a Jewish state, they are exiled, once again.

The weaker group responds with ad hoc resistance, mostly in response to military incursions.

Lies. See Arab riots of 1929, 1939, and Peel Commision Report.

Over the objections of officials, a relative handful respond with extremely brutal terrorism. The terrorists among them have also inflicted massive death and suffering, but on a much smaller scale.

Polls constantly show upwards of 75% of Arabs support suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, and kidnappings. Notice that Arab captives are sent to jail, while Jewish captives come home in a box. For an accurate depiction of the relative value of human life, Israel recently handed over 400+ captives in exchange for the remains of 3 soldiers (including a non-Jewish Bedouin! Racists.)and only 1 living human. Conclusion: Humans are valuable in and of themselves for Israelis. Humans are nothing more than a tool for Arabs to acheive goals.

Repeated attempts at foregoing terrorism in exchange for reciprocal measures on behalf of Israel have been refused on every single occasion.

They have never forgone terrorism. Hudnas, as the cease-fires are called, are the method by which they call off the dogs and take time to feed them instead.

Keep trying.

[Gamblor]

However, this mess began as a religious (re)conquest by the Israeli side and degenerated into an all-religious conflict only recently, with Palestinian Muslim parties taking over the resistance. For almost fifty years this was a nationalist issue for the Palestinians, pure and simple : Another nation came and took their homeland.

No dice.

Actually, this began when the Arab conquest of Jewish Jerusalem in 640 AD, during which Nebuchadnezzar exiled the Jews and dismantled the Jewish kingdom.

Examine it from a power balance point of view as well. Which is the most important parameter of all.

NO NO NO NO NO

That is NOT the basis of morality in this world. In this world, there is absolute right and wrong, and moral relativism is a hideous beast indeed.

The law is the manner by which we determine right and wrong.

Resolution 242, the prevailing resolution governing this conflict, calls for the withdrawal from occupied territory pending a final settlement.

The lack of the word "the" before "occupied territory" was explicitly because the signatories could not agree on which territories were indeed occupied and which were disputed. Furthermore, there has been no final settlement, and thus Israel is not in violation of this resolution.

The rest of your post is subjective opinion and as such would be unfair to attack, as fallacious as your assumptions and conclusions may be.

New Shooter!

[Cyrus]

...And to think that I get flak when I call Zionist ideology an anachronism! People get upset and challenge me to prove that "outrageous insult"! Cue Gamblor and his terrific posts, proving my point beyond dispute. Watch:

"[The Middle East conflict] began when the Arab conquest of Jewish Jerusalem in 640 AD, during which Nebuchadnezzar exiled the Jews and dismantled the Jewish kingdom."

See? How about that? We gone back fifteen hundred years! (But, no, it's not an anachronism, no sir. To qualify, I guess, one's got to go back to at least Neanderthal!)

"In this world, there is absolute right and wrong, and moral relativism is a hideous beast."

Actually, absolute right and absolute wrong do NOT exist - but I didn't expect any better from a practicing manichean. (You are trying to say something about right and wrong and it comes out all wrong.)

As to moral relativism, I happen to agree that it is an ugly beast indeed. Which is presicely why I suggested that Zeno and other readers start paying attention to the power balance in the region. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I submit that Israel holds absolute power over the Arabs, iuncluding of course the Palestinians. You can do the math.

"There has been no final settlement [of the Occupied Territories], and thus Israel is not in violation of this resolution [U.N. 242] ."

LOL. Thanks. I am trying to convince some moderate pro-Israelis that Israeli hardliners such as you will never accept that Israel has violated UN Resolutions, US directives or international law - and those moderates refuse to believe it. They argue that Israel breaks the law, knows that it breaks the law and admits that it breaks the law, in the name of self-defense. But then along comes one of your posts, yet again!..

Keep up the good work.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Gamblor]

Hmmm, who's murdering whom, down there? Isn't your argument dead on its tracks if we were to just examine the number of dead, wounded, maimed and imprisoned of each side? ( And I don't even have to use your math, whereby one Jew equals ten gentiles.)

Ah yes, the numbers argument.

Shall we examine the method of murder then?

The IDF intelligence, has received a tip from a local man that a known terrorist is planning an operation out of Kalkilya, and will be dispatching a bomber at 5pm tomorrow. This man is the man suspected of planning the recent murder of 15 people riding a bus in Jerusalem.

(Side note: any language other than murder, i.e. to attack, resistance, etc. is to whitewash the lives of the victims, and minimize the crime perpetrated)

The IDF puts together a unit, usually of the Golani brigade, and enters Kalkilya to arrest the terrorist so that he may stand trial in an Israeli court, in which the rule of law governs and is outside any political influence (in fact, it often rules against the government on Arab claims).

A picture of the terrorist in hand, the commander leads his unit around a corner, when a Molotov cocktail explodes 15 feet from his tank. Suddenly, fire comes from inside a house. More fire from the other side of the street. 18 year old soldiers, using the tank as cover, fire back at the source, while obeying IDF doctrine (http://www.idf.il/english/doctrine/doctrine.stm) and the "Ruach Tzahal" Spirit of the army, a card with a list of eleven rules soldiers must follow and carry on them at all times.

They are:
<ul type="square">
Military action can only be taken against military targets.
The use of force must be proportional.
Soldiers may only use weaponry they were issued by the IDF.
Anyone who surrenders cannot be attacked.
Only those who are properly trained can interrogate prisoners.
Soldiers must accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested.
Soldiers must give appropriate medical care, when conditions allow, to oneself and one's enemy.
Pillaging is absolutely and totally illegal.
Soldiers must show proper respect for religious and cultural sites and artifacts.
Soldiers must protect international aid workers, including their property and vehicles.
Soldiers must report all violations of this code. [/list]

No such rules govern Arab armies or Palestinian Arab "resistance fighters".

Soldiers under fire, unfortunately do not have time to look out for passersby when returning fire, and often others are often caught in the middle.

4 shooters and a young boy playing in the street during the firefight are killed.

The soldiers find the perpetrator under cover of fire, the arrest is made, the soldiers exit the town.

"Israelis kill 5 in Kalkilya, pictures at 11"

Every day. Day in and day out. This is your "occupation"

[Gamblor]

Chris Alger called me racist.

If he implies that I believe that a person, on account of his race alone, ought to be treated differently from any other person, he is simply put, an idiot.

I believe that the history of the Arab nation, and the belligerent actions of the leadership of said nation toward my nation, and given popular support of that leadership, leads me to the conclusion that my existence, and the Arabs under their current leadership's existence, in the same land, are mutually exclusive.

[Gamblor]

See? How about that? We gone back fifteen hundred years! (But, no, it's not an anachronism, no sir. To qualify, I guess, one's got to go back to at least Neanderthal!)

I wonder what life was like in Saudi Arabia fifteen hundred years ago?

Oh, right. It hasn't changed. And neither has their mentality towards Jews (and Europe's apparently).

Actually, absolute right and absolute wrong do NOT exist - but I didn't expect any better from a practicing manichean. (You are trying to say something about right and wrong and it comes out all wrong.)

So simply having power is a recipe for evil? I'm recalling a post in which you have claimed to fire an employee. I suppose you are absolutely evil and absolutely corrupt in their eyes too.

I am trying to convince some moderate pro-Israelis that Israeli hardliners such as you will never accept that Israel has violated UN Resolutions, US directives or international law - and those moderates refuse to believe it. They argue that Israel breaks the law, knows that it breaks the law and admits that it breaks the law, in the name of self-defense. But then along comes one of your posts, yet again!..

UN resolutions? Don't forget that Israel was the only country who voted in favour of 242, and every single Arab nation voted against. Israel has abided fully by that, and the Arabs have refused. All future resolutions belong in the trash until the first one is accepted.

US directives? So Israel must compromise its sovereignty for a few billion dollars? Something tells me not even you go for that much in Greenwich Village.

It appears, ultimately, that you've missed the whole point of Zionism, so I'll say it again for you, real slowly this time:

If 3 thousand years of history, up to the present day, has shown the Jews anything, it's that they can't rely on other governments and nations to provide them equal rights, protection, and ultimately the real end of anti-semitism. Given that, the only people who are prepared to look after and ensure the freedom of the Jews are... you guessed it, the Jews. Upon review, it's easy to see why the moral imperative of Jews' need for a homeland trumps the Arabs' desire for another homeland.

Laying security responsibility with the UN is suicide. You'll recall Egypt's banishment of the UN from the Sinai during the Suez crisis, and how the UN stood up strongly to the decree. The UN is the only peace-loving organization that allows an observing member to address the organization with a loaded gun on his hip. So, that being said, whether or not Israel abides by UN resolutions only matters depending on how much stock you place in UN resolutions.

[Gamblor]

Have you even slightly curbed your ridiculous hypocrisy by resigning from terrorist-worshipping Betar yet?

How many buses did Etzel blow up? Zero.

How many drive by shootings? Zero.

The King David Hotel staff were warned a half hour before the detonation to evacuate the building.

The Jerusalem Railway station bomb was detonated by a British sapper who picked up the bomb, not the Eztel, who wrote a sign saying "Danger: Explosives".

Let's examine Palestinian terror:

Arabs pack their bombs with nails and bolts to maximize casualties and the pain suffered by them.

Arabs bomb crowded areas without warning to ensure maximum casualties.

See, the difference, that Jewish terrorists go to great pains, even to sacrifice the chance of success, to try to minimize casualties while getting their point across?

[Chris Alger]

One way of illustrating the absurdity of this crude fabrication of "how it happens" is that 40% of those murdered by Israel during its "targeted assasinations" aren't even purported targets.

What really happens is more like the following account from Israeli Air Force pilot Yonathan Shapira (http://boards.charlierose.com/board/topic.asp?ti=5456), describing the "targeted killing" of a Hamas operative in Gaza:

"On this specific mission a one-ton bomb was dropped (equal to a hundred suicide bombs) on a house in the Al-Deredg quarter in Gaza, one of the most crowded neighborhoods in Gaza, indeed in the whole world. During this action 14 human beings were killed and more than 150 others were wounded. Four families, 9 children, 2 women and 2 men, were wiped out by the crew of the airplane that executed this mission and hit the target in the full belief that they were defending Israelis."

Another pilot continues the list:

"On August 31, 2002--when Darama was annihilated and with him 4 children.

On April 8, 2003--when Arbid and Al-Halabi were annihilated and with them 2 children and 5 adults.

On June 10, 2003--During an attempt to annihilate Rantisi, a girl, a woman and 5 men were killed.

On June 11, 2003--when Abu-Nahal was annihilated and with him 2 women and 5 men.

On June 12, 2003--when Salah Taha and with him a one-year old infant, a woman and 5 men were annihilated. And more, and more..."

It is atrocities like these that compelled Shapira and more than 20 other pilots to issue the following statement condemning events that you deny ever take place, joining more than 500 active duty troops and reservists who refuse to participate in this mass murder: <ul type="square"> We, veteran pilots and active pilots together, who served and still serve the State of Israel during long weeks each year, object to perform illegal and immoral orders of attacks that the State of Israel performs in the territories.
We, who were raised to love the State of Israel and to contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in the attacks of the air force in concentrations of civilian population.
We, for whom the IDF and the air force are inseparable parts of us, refuse to continue and harm innocent civilians.
These actions are illegal and immoral and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation, which corrupts Israeli society as a whole. [/list] Of course, these guys live in Israel and merely carry out the missions you describe, whereas you live in Canada, contend that your Arab "cousins" are culturally inferior to the point of forfeting any right of nationhood, belong to an organization that applauds terrorists and subsribe to the infantile notion that the occupied territories and the inhabitants and their property within them are "up for grabs" by whomever has the most guns.

So maybe we should take your word for it.

Under UN Security Council Resolution 242, Israel's occupation is, as Kofi Annan recetently put it, "illegal." It has as much right to kill people who live in of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and West Jerusalem as burglars have to kill those who use violence to defend their homes. Although the Palestinian bombers are every bit as cruel as Israel's founding father terrorists, Israel has no right to invoke self-defense until withdraws and stops "the bombing of civilian areas, the assassinations, the unnecessary use of lethal force, the demolitions and the daily humiliation of ordinary Palestinians." (Anan)

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
How many buses did Etzel blow up? Zero.

[/ QUOTE ]
It tended to riddle them with bullets, just as your terrorist hero attempted, killing a couple of dozen in this fasion during the Arab rebellion. Passenger trains were the preferred target of IZL bombs. But attacking buses was more of a Haganah tactic. Etzel's favored location for bombing was bus stops (and marketplaces, hotels, cafes, etc.) As for Haganah's glorious accomplishments, Sharon likely incinerated a half dozen civilians on a bus in 1948 (according to Morris, citing official documents containing young "Arik's" own account).

[ QUOTE ]
How many drive by shootings? Zero.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sound more like Palmach, including Dyan.

As for the "warning" issued to the King David, this is no different that Israel being "warned" not to occupy the territories and kill Palestinians unless it wants to suffer the consequences. Bottom line: you defend Israeli terror while deploring Arab terror simply because their goals, not their tactics, are different. If you were Arabic you'd probably be dancing in the street every time Hamas whacked Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

Here's a short list:

November 25, 1940 S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants.

February 24, 1942 S.S. Struma exploded in the Black Sea, killing 769 illegal Jewish immigrants. Described by the Jewish Agency as an act of "mass-protest and mass-suicide."

November 6, 1944 Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.

July 22, 1946 Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.

October 1, 1946 The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

June 1947 Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

September 3, 1947 A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

December ll, 1947 Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 13,1947 Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.

December 19, 1947 Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

December 29, 1947 Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

December 30,1947 A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the "Carmel Brigade" attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.

1947 -- 1948 Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land; since then, they have been denied the right to return or been given compensation for their property. After their expulsion, the "Israeli Forces" razed to the ground 385 Arab villages and towns out of a total of 475, and obliterated their remains.

January 1, 1948 Haganah terrorists attacked a village on the slopes of Mount Carmel; 17 Arabs were killed and 33wounded.

January 4, 1948 Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

January 5, 1948 The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime.

January 7, 1948 Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

January 16, 1948 Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948 Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.

February 15, 1948 Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children..

March 3, 1948 Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa (a 7 story block of apartments and shops) by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured. The Stern Gang claimed responsibility for the incident.

March 22, 1948 A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.

March 31, 1948 The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.

April 9, 1948 A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children.Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.

April 16, 1948 Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there.

April 19, 1948 Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists.

May 3, 1948 A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May 11, 1948 A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

April 25, 1948 -- May 13, 1948 Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. They stripped and carried away verything they could, destroying what they could not take with them.

[Chris Alger]

MEMRI scans the press of the Arab world and clips selected hate speech. One could do the same for the American media and come to equally valid conclusions.

The Arab countries discriminate against women? Stop the presses. Let's see, until the 1970's women weren't even allowed to serve on juries in Texas. We're a few decades more advanced (no thanks to the American right wing). This definitely proves, as you like to say, that the Arabs are permanently mired in the middle ages.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The lack of the word "the" before "occupied territory" was explicitly because the signatories could not agree on which territories were indeed occupied and which were disputed. Furthermore, there has been no final settlement, and thus Israel is not in violation of this resolution."

[/ QUOTE ]
But you claim they're all disputed, no? So by its terms 242 can't possibly be violated by Israel and it means nothing at all, and its drafters formulated it for no reason. Old legal axiom: and interpretation of a statute which renders it meaningless should be rejected when reasonable competing interpretations are available.

The French version, one of several official ones, contains the definite article.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
They have never agreed to such a proposition, instead insisting on "right of return".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's merely a straightforward deliberate lie, proving once again what a waste of time it is to read anything you write.

[Gamblor]

Yes. But you claim they're all disputed, no? So by its terms 242 can't possibly be violated by Israel and it means nothing at all, and its drafters formulated it for no reason. Old legal axiom: and interpretation of a statute which renders it meaningless should be rejected when reasonable competing interpretations are available.
Almost.

Almost had me.

You ought to know that in international law, it is the English version that is the reference point. The french version is irrelevant.

You're right, occupied territories in the resolution were generally accepted to mean the entire region outside the Green Line and all of Gaza. Considering the planned Expulsion of Jews from Gaza, I'd say that argument is over.

But I will concende that the Judea/Samaria region is, for the purposes of the resolution, "occupied". The resolution, however does not call for the withdrawal from "all"/"tout" of the occupied territories. There were two intents of Resolution 242: to call upon Israel for territorial withdrawal; and to call upon the Arab states to recognize Israel and its right to live in peace and security. Hence the term "land for peace."

Israel was never required either to return to the precise June 4, 1967 borders or to make territorial concessions unilaterally in the absence of peace and security guarantees from the Arab states. As the Syrians and Lebanese may know, this hasn't happened.

[Gamblor]

Copying an unresearched list without the slightest context of why those battles took place (Arab rioting), to say nothing of the arms possessed by the Arabs killed, from a website that links to an article claiming the WTC was packed with explosives the day of the attacks is pitiful.

[Gamblor]

"The Jews brought the world out of pagan worship and the self-pleasure-centric world, in which theft and murder were daily occurences."

Read it clearly:

The world, 4000 years ago, was devoted to pagan worship.

The ancient Greeks were masters of pleasure worship. Their gods were symbols of the sources of the pleasure - love, the sun, etc.

Theft and murder are strictly prohibited by Jewish law, and had not been prohibited outright, against any person, regardless of status, by any written law beforehand.

The rest of your post in no way resembles what I believe, so I will dismiss it out of hand.

[Gamblor]

I do not condone the methods of assassination.

I wasn't a pilot, but I have served in the Territories, and the refuseniks are as impressionable by Arab propaganda as you appear to be.

[Gamblor]

I do not condone the methods of assassination.

I wasn't a pilot, but I have served in the Territories, and the refuseniks are as impressionable by Arab propaganda as you appear to be.

What makes you an idiot, you see, is that I wasn't even talking about the targeted killings. Targeted killing is the last resort, and only reserved for those who have caused so much death and destruction, often on the order of hundreds of casualties, that every minute they are alive is a direct threat to Israelis.

I was referring to your claim that Israeli soldiers wantonly murder people for no reason other than to perpetuate the occupation and "mass murder", and you start on another topic entirely.

Good try.

[MMMMMM]

"MEMRI scans the press of the Arab world and clips selected hate speech. One could do the same for the American media and come to equally valid conclusions."

Hogwash. In no way could one find, in American media, the number or depth of bigoted statements found in Arab/Muslim presses. It's not even close. And furthermore, one could not find an equivalent number or strength of bigoted statements amongst even American religious leaders (compared to their Islamic counterparts).

"The Arab countries discriminate against women? Stop the presses. Let's see, until the 1970's women weren't even allowed to serve on juries in Texas. We're a few decades more advanced (no thanks to the American right wing)."

The USA is far more than a few decades advanced overall with respect to women's rights and you jolly well know it, you shameful propagandist. Despicable: to attempt to equate women's rights in the USA with women's non-rights under Islamic law. Utterly despicable. Look up Islamic abuses under Human Rights Watch/Women or some such website and you will find your attempted equivalence falls flat on its face. I repeat your attempt to claim rough equivalence is immensely unsupported by the facts and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for attempting to portray rough equivalence for a system which systematically tramples the rights of women.

[MMMMMM]

Chris Alger: "As for the "warning" issued to the King David, this is no different that Israel being "warned" not to occupy the territories and kill Palestinians unless it wants to suffer the consequences."

No, it would be roughly equivalent to the Palestinians warning that a specific discotheque, or a specific bus, or a specific building, would be blown up very shortly and that everyone should clear out.

Conversely, the rough equivalent of the Palestinians' "warning" Israel not to occupy the territories and kill Palestinians or suffer the consequences, would be if the Israelis "warned" the Palestinians not to occupy some large swath of land and kill Jews, or suffer the consequences.

Chris: you have an incredible track record of utilizing inappropriate comparisons and very poor analogies. The above is one of many examples. I routinely have to correct your inappropriate comparisons.

Seems you have put the cart before the horse: you learned to argue and write before you really learned to think. And the bad part of it all is that your lack of clarity in thought leads you to poor conclusions, and distorts your arguments. It also leads you to consistently claim equivalences where the equivalence is often minor, besides the point, or even nonexistent.

The difference between the Israelis warning the occupants of the King David Hotel to leave before it was blown up, and your conjectured example, is not only due to a difference of speficity and size: it is also different because the Israelis were attempting to minimize casualties. Contrast this with the Palestinian terrorist organizations who routinely attempt to maximize casualties. But such obviousconceptual distinctions seem to routinely escape you. Either you really can't think properly, or you are only trying to score points for one side and deliberately claim equivalences where you know they do not exist. Either way, there is something seriously mixed up in Algerville.

[Chris Alger]

So now even the eyewitness accounts of Israeli pilots are "Arab propaganda." Let's see: Haganah archival documents, Israeli historians, all human rights groups, and now Israeli's elite military are all nothing but conduits for Arab propaganda emanating from some unknown source. What kind of idiot could doubt it?

Normal people think that "targeted" killings would be less likely to injure innocent bystanders than the common IDF practice of shooting into crowds of rock-throwing kids. (Israel claims the thousands of bullets that have found their marks were "accidents," but the forensic evidence -- disproportionate head and chest wounds -- suggest the troops take pretty careful aim. A number of IDF soldiers have admitted to this terrorist tactic.)

The reality is that Israel "targets" both the "militants" and whomever happends to be in the area. This way, they kill two birds: the guy they have and the people they hate, who have learned to run and cower in terror when the Apache helicopters come hunting. Given the scope of Palestinians' compromise offer, Israeli terror appears to be working. Too well, in fact, for now Israel has made it apparent that it is not interested (and maybe never was?) in any peaceful resolution of the conflict short of building the outer wall of the largest concentration camp in world history.

"Targeted killing is the last resort, and only reserved for those who have caused so much death and destruction, often on the order of hundreds of casualties, that every minute they are alive is a direct threat to Israelis."

Oh, sure. Like Dr. Thabet Thabet? How many Israelis was he responsible for killing? Dr. Rantisi? An antisemite to be sure, but he was one of Hamas's political leaders, appearing frequently at rallies, not a Qassam bomb maker. And notice how this "last resort" tactic is never short of new targets whenever Israel wants to retalliate for something, or otherwise make a point.

The reason Israel uses targeted killings is that its preferred practice of random shooting and shelling (3 million rounds fired in the territories during the first few weeks of the intifada) generated international condemnation and heat from its American paymasters. So it pretends to attack "terrorists" while netting quite a few of the other intended, innocent targets as well. That's why Israel has the worst record for "targeted" killlings than any country in the world.

[Chris Alger]

"No, it would be roughly equivalent to the Palestinians warning that a specific discotheque, or a specific bus, or a specific building, would be blown up very shortly and that everyone should clear out."

That's slightly more accurate, with this caveat: the warning being so ineffectual that most people die anyway. 91 people perished in the King David Hotel bombing. Do you think they preferred to stay in it?

And it would make no more difference to the conventional wisdom than if Palestinian bombers attacked only military targets (which is how they started). About half of all suicide bombers attack military targets, yet the practice is synonymous with murdering civilians. Remember: to Israel and the American media, anyone who shoots at a soldier or vehicle of the occupying army is a "terrorist" or "militant" and therefore fair game.

[Chris Alger]

242, as its preface indicates, implicitly contemplated minor border adjustments, not the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

"Israel was never required either to return to the precise June 4, 1967 borders or to make territorial concessions unilaterally in the absence of peace and security guarantees from the Arab states. As the Syrians and Lebanese may know, this hasn't happened."

Only because Israel refuses to let it happen. Syria has offered full recognition and peace in exchange for full withdrawal since at least Rabin. Barak refused. Now Israel wants to keep the Golan settlements and build more, hence no deal. As for Jordan, the occupier of the West Bank, it has formally recognized and remained at peace with Israel since 1994. And Israel still refuses to withdraw.

BTW, the occupation is illegal both under 242 and the Fourth Geneva convention.

[Gamblor]

So let me get this straight:

Syria is a nation allied with the man who dropped Scuds on another nation uninvolved in the Persian Gulf War, simply because that nation was allied with another nation. That being said, why didn't the US bomb Syria during that War, if that is allowed?

But I digress. Syria steadfastly, since day 1, refused to recognize Israel. Now, that Israel has shown its strength and conquered strategic Syrian land, it is prepared to offer peace and recognition suddenly, in exchange for what?

Israel's main water source and the prime strategic location to launch an attack on the Galilee (Mt. Hermon).

What kind of fool are you?

[Gamblor]

Do you think they preferred to stay in it?

Yes. The warning was accepted by the Palestine Post head office. The British (along with 13 Jews and about 40 Arabs) perished because the security refused to acknowledge the threat and heed the warnings, instead keeping the warning secret. In fact, the entire kitchen staff of the hotel made it out alive.

About half of all suicide bombers attack military targets, yet the practice is synonymous with murdering civilians.

Not true. They are different acts. Suicide bombers who attack soldiers not on duty are terrorists. Suicide bombers who attack soldiers in combat are not, and can accurately be labelled "resistance fighters", even if they're dead. But the key ingredient is this: Suicide bombers who attack buses in Tel Aviv neighbourhoods and suicide bombers who attack army posts are members of the same organization, and since their "bosses" plan both events, they are terrorists.

[Zeno]

Cyrus,

That was an excellent and very civil reply. You gave me something to think about. I have many interests, but I will try to read some of the books you suggested.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

Chris,

Thanks for the honest assessment and the synopsis. I see that the synopsis is under attack, which I guess is no surprise. I am befuddled, to put it mildly, about this whole issue and plan on stepping back for a rest.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

Most of the Old Testament (to use the Christian name) was most probably written by a series of authors over a wide span of years. Moses most likely did not write much if any of what christain people call the Old Testament. And it was put into written form much later than the date you suggest, though oral tradition and written fragments no doubt preceded the more complete version. And much of the Old Testament may have been borrowed from a whole series of other sources and then grafted onto the main themes found in early writings and/or traditions. The Babylonian captivity is one example were borrowings were probably made. Another is the adaptation of customs and stories of neighboring tribes or groups of people the early Semitic settlers lived amongst.

As to morals etc, many different peoples have developed systems of morals and do so independently. There are common themes and consensus for some of the basic principles regarding human behavior. There is also a wide disparity among other moral behaviors or actions, for example, marriage, sexual habits, child rearing, how to deal with certain types of criminal behavior, moral or civil codes etc.

I disagree that religion has been an overall good to humanity. It's frequent use to justify violent actions, inflame hate, and as an excuse to subjugate and abuse the weak is clear throughout history. In addition, the damage religion does to destroy clear and rational thinking coupled with the promotion of credulity and submission to authority is immense. The PA video (and website) is a clear indication of the powerful and deceitful use religion is put to. It is pervasive and abhorrent, though the PA video is an extreme example. The damage religion does in a more everyday way is much more subtle and devious. Christianity, for example, in conjunction with fascism made if very easy for a supposed civilized people to systematical kill millions of Jews, and about a half million Gypsies, and other people deemed unfit or undesirable. The underpinnings of this mechanical slaughter are to be found in religion.

Other examples are almost too numerous to even mention.

-Zeno

[Gamblor]

My claim was that moral structure was first introduced by Jews.

How many catastrophies, annihilations, genocides, and mass murders have been perpetrated by religious Jews?

Even Jews in general?

My opinion is that all religion after the Jews is the result of changing religion to suit human wants and needs.

If Arab imperialism, for example, was the goal, then Islam, where "unbelievers" are infidels and must be destroyed, was a perfect vehicle.

It goes on. But Judaism, the first monotheistic religion, prohibits forced conversion as a way to prevent against bastardization of the religion - one can't be forced to believe anything.

[Chris Alger]

"Syria steadfastly, since day 1, refused to recognize Israel."

Untrue. Syria offered to recognize Israel in 1949 -- full peace, exchange of ambassadors and apsorbtion into Syria of 250,000 to 500,00 Palestinian refugees. In exchange, Syria asked for a border on the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River, with shared water rights for both countries. This offer by itslef would have largely resolved the Middle East conflict and avoided the wars of 1967, 1973 and God knows what else.

Israel, as usual more interested, usual, in "showing strength" than in negotiating peace, rejected it out of hand.

Your condemnations of other countries for remaining hostile to Israel are just as hypocritical as your condmenations of non-Israeli terrorism.

[MMMMMM]

My own view is that every time the Arabs tried to attack Israel, Israel should have taken (and kept) more land.

Come to think of it that might be a good way to deal with the perpetual problem of Palestinian suicide bombing. Offer the Palestinians a generous amount of land in exchange for "guarantees" of security and peace (we all know what those "guarantees" are worth don't we)--but stipulate that every attack from the date of the agreement will result in x square miles being taken back (or, if necessary, being taken outright from land that is currently Palestinian turf).

Odds are that within 10 years the Palestinians wouldn't have any land left at all because they would have managed to suicide-bomb themselves out of all of it.

[Gamblor]

Syria offered to recognize Israel in 1949 -- full peace, exchange of ambassadors and apsorbtion into Syria of 250,000 to 500,00 Palestinian refugees. In exchange, Syria asked for a border on the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River, with shared water rights for both countries. This offer by itslef would have largely resolved the Middle East conflict and avoided the wars of 1967, 1973 and God knows what else.

Husni Za'im, the military dictator who took over Syrian government, planned an assassination of Ben-Gurion, hoping that a general would rise to power in Tel Aviv and they would unite to take over the Middle East together. This was a high point in Syrian-Israeli relations, true, and the Israelis were more concerned with security than peace at that point, true, but let's examine the facts, using an analogy I've heard:

American revisionists in the early nineties tried to blame Harry Truman for the Cold War, freeing Joseph Stalin of blame. Arab, American, and Israeli revisionists blame Israel for the current Arab-Israeli conflict. The way they achieve this, is by ignoring fundamental facts. For example:

1) Israel accepted the United Nations partition plan and the Arab states did not.

2) Israel was invaded by five states within hours of its birth

3) Israel is democratic and its enemies are not

The Soviet Union's recently opened archives are making Stalin's American apologists look like fools.

When the state archives of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt someday open, we may be saying the same of Alger, Cyrus, Shlaim et al.

[Chris Alger]

"to deal with the perpetual problem of Palestinian suicide bombing"

How is it a "perpetual problem?" It was nonexistent until Israel punished the Palestinians as a result of Baruch Goldstein's murder rampage. Those doing the bombing have agreed to stop, and preeiodically have stopped, in exchange for an Israeli cease-fire, which Israel has always refused to consider. The bombings have always resumed in response to Israeli violence.

This doesn't excuse terrorism, but if you want to speak about it seriously you should be accurrate.

That you think Israel is entitled to land "every time the Arabs tried to attack" and also entitled to keep it's own land plus Arab land "every time Israel attacked" (1956, 1967, 1982) is another example of the hypocritical double standard you apply in this case.

The first step in any solution: ignore the double standard bearers.

[MMMMMM]

"The bombings have always resumed in response to Israeli violence."

It was never, though, the other way around?

"That you think Israel is entitled to land "every time the Arabs tried to attack" and also entitled to keep it's own land plus Arab land "every time Israel attacked" (1956, 1967, 1982) is another example of the hypocritical double standard you apply in this case."

It's an example of how the world works, and frequently for good reason. It has often been well-borne out by history, too. Aggressors may lose land when their attacks are beaten back. If they never lost any land, there would be only a freeroll of sorts for territorially expansionist states (win = gain land, lose = don't lose any land).

Gamblor also pointed out that the Arab states rejected the partitions while Israel accepted it.

"The first step in any solution: ignore the double standard bearers."

Funny you should mention this. We just had a discussion about the existence of Arab/Muslim double-standards throughout the Middle East (the widespread legal and societal discrimination by Arabs and Muslims against women and non-Muslims). You essentially refused to acknowledge it as generally being worse than elsewhere (a laughable retort) and called me a bigot. Yet you have no problem now with crying "double-standards" for much less cause. So: who's really the hypocrite here?

"Ignore the double-standard bearers"

Yeah right. You would be ignoring every Arab or Muslim state in the world.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Gamblor, did you live in Israel?
if so I can see why you are so passionate about this.

[Gamblor]

It was nonexistent until Israel punished the Palestinians as a result of Baruch Goldstein's murder rampage.

Ah yes, so when one Jew goes crazy, the Arabs have a right to "resist" neverendingly. Yet when a whole host of Arabs go crazy, Jews are expected to restrain themselves.

Those doing the bombing have agreed to stop, and preeiodically have stopped, in exchange for an Israeli cease-fire, which Israel has always refused to consider. The bombings have always resumed in response to Israeli violence.

Ah yes, so when Jeffrey Dahmer agrees to stop eating people, the police are expected to cease their attempts to arrest him? Good one.

[Gamblor]

Born there, spent the early part of my life there, then went back for high school and a year of service. Now back here finishing school and waiting for law school to begin.

Will likely end up back there. If it's still around.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think Gamblor presents a point of view that many of us here have never experienced. I cna see why he is so pasionate about it. I have my opinions on this topic which go both with and against everyones here, but I think everyone should really step back and try to see his point of view. This would be very interesting if there was a Palestinian on here debating with you.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think Gamblor presents a point of view that many of us here have never experienced. I cna see why he is so pasionate about it. I have my opinions on this topic which go both with and against everyones here, but I think everyone should really step back and try to see his point of view. This would be very interesting if there was a Palestinian on here debating with you.
I havr enjoyed reading a lot of the responses, but now it seems like everyone, or maybe a few, have resorted to name calling and overall disrespectfullness. This is a very serious topic, one which should be discussed about as adults. The name calling makes it sound like a school yard argument.

[Chris Alger]

"You essentially refused to acknowledge it as generally being worse than elsewhere . . . ."

I refuse to acknowledge that your tidbits of crude propaganda prove that the cultural failings of Islam are worse than everywhere else, as you continue to insist based on nothing more than your assumptions about such foreign evils. I also refuse to acknowledge that these failings have any particular implications for policy, particularly the use of political repression and military force, as you have also advocated.

For example, how is the Palestinian "death cult" you speak of worse than that of Japan during WWII, or any other society under hostile military occupation for nearly four decades? How are the Palestinian suicide bombers worse than the Tamil Tigers? How is dsicrimination against women in Muslim countries worse than it is in India? More to the point, what research have you done to prove any of this, other than cutting and pasting a few tidbits from anti-Arab websites? My point, obviously, is that you don't know what you're talking about and merely parrot the received wisdom of Israeli chauvanists and the anti-Muslim Christian right.

So I'm not applying a double standard, I'm trying to show that you don't have any "standards" at all.

As far as double standards go, the old argument that Israel "accepted" UNGAR 181 while the Arabs rejected it has to take the cake. Israel has probably violated more UN resolutions than any country in the world (certainly this is true since the late 1960's). Its defenders routinely pooh-pooh these violations on the grounds that GA resolutions are non-binding on UN members. You apparently have no problem with this, given the flaws of the UN. But when it comes to the one resolution that Israel briefly agreed to (yet never returned to, despite Arab urging as early as the late 1940's), the UN then becomes a beacon of international consensus and law, that last great hope for world peace, etc.

It is simply sickening to argue that generation after generation of Palestinian children must be doomed to squalor and oppression on the grounds that a handful of foreign Arab tyrants briefly opposed the partition of Palestine nearly 60 years ago, especially given Israel's flouting of the UN and especially from the hyper-hypocritical mouth of Gamblor, who's own organization expressly condemned any partition of Palestine, still asserts its desire that Israel conquer both sides of the Jordan River, applauds the use of terrorism and worships terrorist "martyrs" (its term) who have tried to further this goal.

[MMMMMM]

I don't bother archiving things I read because I read for my own enlightenment and not to win arguments. However I've read far more than enough to speak with certainty--as you would agree, IF you took the time to really read up on Arab/Muslim double-standards in culture and in law. I provided an excellent website regarding PA indoctrination on TV which you largely dismissed--as you have generally dismissed probably every other article or factoid I ever cited supporting my contentions. Furthermore, HRW and NOW would disagree with you heartily regarding the severity and breadth of Islamic/Arab oppression of women and minorities, as would many other human rights watch type organizations.

The Japanese Kamikaze death-cult was horrid also. But we're talking about today because the problems are of today. (And at least the Kamikazes stuck to military targets. They didn't go after kids on schoolbuses or at birthday parties).

It is IRRELEVANT to the argument if women are discriminated against elsewhere such as India. The POINT is that the ENTIRE SWATH of Arab/Muslim nations systematically discriminates against and oppresses women and non-Muslims. THAT'S a big point which is not mitigated by lesser examples elsewhere. The discrimination is profound, widespread and systematic, and you are taking a highly immoral stance by trying to minimize the significance of it.

Your lawyerish arguments are also truly sickening. You don't care about the truth (as regarding Islamic law and culture) or about compassion (e.g. for the people of Iraq) but only seek to score points for your side. You also consistently defend the worst on earth (such as Saddam), and regularly attack the one country that has done more to spread liberty, and has given more to the world, than any other country in history. In short you are on the wrong side of just about everything and you can't even see the bigger picture. You defend the bad guys and attack the good guys. Your arguments generally end up working themselves out to defending or apologizing for evil, and your attacks are typically against the best this imperfect world has to offer.

[Cyrus]

"The world, 4000 years ago, was devoted to pagan worship."

Ah, I see you are changing the time line again! First you are claiming that we have everything from the Jews who nailed the goddamn thing somewhere like "2,000 years" ago. Now, you are taking it back to "4,000 years". OK, then pray tell, my inestimable friend, what exactly were the Jews doing 4,000 years ago?

(Answer: They weren't faring better than our fellow human Chinese!)

(Unnecessary Warning: Your racist impulses will prompt you to yet another howler when you attempt to respond to this post! But that's what you're here for.)

"The ancient Greeks were masters of pleasure worship."

Epicurus maybe -at a very gracious stretch of my tolerance- but this would be news to Plato or the pre-Socratics. Your statement is flat-out incorrect, in every respect. (Do you have any idea how laughably ridiculous the whole of your post is?)

"Their [the Greeks'] gods were symbols of the sources of the pleasure - love, the sun, etc."

You are so wrong it beggars belief! As they say in China, "The teacher pointed out the moon to the fool but the fool was looking at the teacher's finger". (Would you consider reading up anything of value, beyond the claptrap you feed your brain with, if ithat meant that you would come off better in this kind of discourse? Just think about it.)

"Theft and murder are strictly prohibited by Jewish law, and had not been prohibited outright, against any person, regardless of status, by any written law beforehand."

Yeah, (LOL!) "theft and murder" were freely allowed in ancient Babylon, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece and especially in that cradle of uncivilised behavior, that end-all of philosophical thought, ancient Rome.

...You do weddings?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gamblor]

4000 Years ago is about the time Abraham, when he wandered out of Mesopotamia, after "Lech Lecha m'artzecha" - Go, take yourself from your land". But not before he smashed the idols of his fathers' worship. Or so the Germans would have us believe.

Epicurus maybe -at a very gracious stretch of my tolerance- but this would be news to Plato or the pre-Socratics. Your statement is flat-out incorrect, in every respect. (Do you have any idea how laughably ridiculous the whole of your post is?)

Having read Meno and Republic, I do in fact know that Plato valued "virtue" and knowledge above all else. Yet no religion was based on Plato's teachings, despite his followers.

Their [the Greeks'] gods were symbols of the sources of the pleasure - love, the sun, etc."

Perhaps if I worded my claim more appropriately, you might understand. On the other hand, it is english, but I'll do my best.

The ancient Greek/Roman gods are symbols of that which makes life easier. The Immortals' real world-based incarnations were lakes, the sun, forces of nature. They prayed to the gods so they wouldn't have to deal with the natural forces that could hurt them, and to encourage the natural forces that helped them. There was no moral code demanded of them by the gods. It was simple. You worship the gods. But you are not required by the gods to act in any way towards your fellow man, unless the God had a particular stake in a man.

Judaism was different - it placed equal weight on actions towards God and fellow man. The 10 Commandments themselves are proof of that. The first 5 all have to do with man and god. The second 5 are man and fellow man. (I will spare you the rabbinical discussion regarding #5, Honour thy Father and Mother, but it is in fact a Man and God commandment).

"theft and murder" were freely allowed in ancient Babylon, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece and especially in that cradle of uncivilised behavior, that end-all of philosophical thought, ancient Rome.

You seemed to ignore that I wrote: regardless of status

Are you telling me that if Caesar himself were to kill a slave then he would be punished? Gladitorial combat would fall under this category as well. You likely would have been selected for the games, as it was not strength of mind that was among the prioritized criteria.

[Chris Alger]

"It is IRRELEVANT to the argument if women are discriminated against elsewhere such as India. The POINT is that the ENTIRE SWATH of Arab/Muslim nations systematically discriminates against and oppresses women and non-Muslims. THAT'S a big point which is not mitigated by lesser examples elsewhere."

1. What makes it a "big point"? Is it because more women are subject to discrimination in Arab countries than in India, or that the dsicrimination is worse, or both? Which is it and how did you determine it?

How, for example, did you balance the rule against women driving cars in Saudi Arabia with the Indian practice of widows being burned alive? How did you account for the disparate treatment of women have made in places like Qatar, Tunisia, Morocco, and Turkey compared to Saudi Arabia? If you didn't do a careful comparative study, then we'll know that you're singling out Arabs and Muslims to vent hostility that stems from something you don't want to be honest about. (Most likely because you've been taken in by the American right's racist hype that flows from the current political situation). This explanation certainly fits the pattern, as you constantly denounce Arab/Muslim discrimination, terrorism, etc. and turn a blind eye to it elsewhere, including those places where you bear some responsibility. You also routinely describe the problems you perceive with these countries as resulting from "culture" and "religion," things that apply to almost all people within a group (sometimes by definition), not any particular faction, political dispute or temporary crisis, again based only on your assumption. Finally, you constantly argue that these problems are worse and more thoroughly ingrained in Arab/Muslim societies, and yet it always turns out that you are, as always, merely making assumptions.

In short, you revel in using thin evidence and isolated examples to lump huge numbers of diverse groups, individuals and cultures in the same rotten category. What kind of person does such a thing other than a hard core racist?

2. I didn't say discrimination was "mitigated" by anything. I accused you of singling out Arab and Muslim cultures as somehow being significantly worse than all others. You still haven't come up with any evidence for your claim and merely assume that all other cases amount to "lesser" examples. How did you determine that they're "lesser example elsewhere"? Answer: you didn't, obviously, and are, as usual, simply making things up.

[Chris Alger]

Excusing terrorism such as the planting of bombs in market places on the grounds of "Arab rioting" is no better than your carbon copie in Islamic Jihad (surprise, surprise). "Unresearched?" Which of these events never occurred? IZL used bomb after bomb against innocent civilians, and you evidently think it's just dandy.

[MMMMMM]

Anyone who read extensively on such subjects would conclude as I did, that discimination against and oppression of women is highly prevalent in Arab and Muslim societies. The laws themselves are disciminatory, as are the laws discriminating against non-Muslims in Islamic lands.

You seem to want a 100-page comparative analysis with full footnotes. I suggest that anyone reading on the web and searching such topics as "honor killings", "female circumcision", "human rights watch women islamic law", "dhimmitude", "human rights abuses islam", "sharia women's rights" etc. will very quickly find broad and deep evidence to support what I am saying. Furthermore if you just check the laws of Islamic states you will find definitive legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Of course there are other examples of discrimination against women in the world, as you point out, but the point is that the vast Islamic bloc discriminates against women and non-Muslims both legally and in society. Any widespread institutionalized discrimination is especially deserving of opprobrium. The very vastness of the Islamic system is precisely why it is especially important to condemn it as a bigoted. Pockets of discrimination may be just as evil elsewhere, but the more widespread and institutionalized bigotry is, the more people it adversely affects. Hence my harangue.

[Gamblor]

Correction:

IZL used bomb after bomb against British political targets and warned any innocent civilians, as well as gave them ample time to evacuate.

If the next Jihad Islami bomber announced his intention before he put his 5 shekels into the bus driver's box, and said you all have 5 minutes to get off the bus, I'd be more inclined to believe their goals were political, not murderous.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Chris Alger]

Right, "excellent point!"

Except it's an utter lie. And look who accepted it without question and thoughtlessly assumed it true? Guess which common human failing rooted in ignorance and fear motivates people to behave this way?
<ul type="square">... the upsurge of Arab terrorism in October 1937 triggered a new dimension into the conflict. Before, Arabs (and, less frequently, and usually in retaliation, Jews) had sniped at cars and pedestrians and occasionally lobbed a grenade, often killing or injuring a few bystanders or passengers. Now, for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centers, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed -- for the first time more or less matching the numbers of Jews murdreed in the Arab pogroms and rioting of 1929 and 1936. This "innovation" soon found Arab imitators and became something of a "tradition"; during the coming decades, Palestine's (and later, Israel's) marketplaces, bus stations, movie theaters, and other public building became routine targets, lending a particularly brutal flavor to the conflict.

The Irgun bombs of 1937-38 sowed terror in the Arab population and substantially increased its casualties. Until 1937 almost all of these had been caused by British security forces (including British-directed Jewish supernumeraries) and were mostly among the actual rebels, but from now on, a substantial proportion would be caused by Jews and suffered by random victims. The bombs do not appear in any way to have curtailed Arab terrorism, but the do appear to have helped persuade moderate Arabs of the need to resist Zionism and to support the rebellion.

The first Irgun attack occurred on November 11, 1937, killing two Arabs at a bus depot near Jaffa Street in Jerusalem, and wounding five. Three days later, on November 14, a number of ARabs were killed in simultaneous attacks around the country -- a day that the Irgun thereafter commemorated as teh "Day of the Breaking of the Havlaga (restraint). On July 6, 1938, an Irgun operative dressed as an Arab placed two large milk cans filled with TNT and shrapnel in the Arab market in downtown Haifa. The subsequent explosions killed twenty-one and wounded fifty-two. On July 15 another bomb killed ten Arabs and wounded more than thirty in David Street in Jerusalem's Old City. A second bomb in the Haifa market -- this time disguied a a large can of sour cucumbers -- on July 25, 1938, killed at least thirty-nine Arabs and injured at least seventy. On August 26, a bomb in Jaffa's vegetable market killed twetny-four Arabs and wounded thirty-nine. [/list] Moris, Righteous Victims, p. 147 (citing prior Hebrew language scholarship, including publications by the Israeli Defense Ministry Press).

Sound like British military targets to you? Sound like the civilians were all "warned away?" What did you expect from a compulsive liar, someone who's so preposterous that he claims the 136 victims of the King David Hotel bombing "preferred" to be blown up rather than heed the "warning"?

This isn't controversial or even disputed. Until he was Prime Minister, everyone with any understanding of this conflict, on both sides, referred to Mechaem Begin as a terrorist, and for excellent reasons.

And the purported distinction between political murder (Irgun) and just plain murder (all Palestinian terrorism) is specious. Both groups murder for the same reason: to terrorize the civilian population into changing their ways. Gamblor objects to one solely because the perpetrators are members of another tribe. When members of his tribe does it, he falsely denies it until the evidence is overwhelming, then tries to rationalize it, then finally admits that he thinks its just great, that such murderers deserve to be applauded rather than punished, in stark contrast to the animals and monsters on the other side.

[Chris Alger]

" suggest that anyone reading on the web and searching such topics as "honor killings", "female circumcision", "human rights watch women islamic law", "dhimmitude", "human rights abuses islam", "sharia women's rights" etc. will very quickly find broad and deep evidence to support what I am saying."

And what are you saying? That Islam causes honor killings and female circumcision?

[Gamblor]

How are you wrong? Let me count the ways:

1) I denied that the Zionists resorted to terror as a political tactic against the Arabs, and I steadfastly maintain that denial. The obviousness of this should penetrate even your thick skull when considering that the Arabs had no political influence over the Jewish rebellion against the British. The attacks on Arabs were, as Morris points out, retribution on Arab terror attacks on Jews.

2) The warnings were on British targets, as only British soldiers could be accused of suppressing Jewish statehood. Arab targets were worthy of reprisal considering Arab terrorism was not emanating from any organized institution or state, but from the civilian population. The Etzel organization was clear that attacks on Arabs were retribution on Arab terror, while the goals of attacks on British were political and thus a warning was necessary. Which only furthers my point that Arab terror is not political in nature, but murderous and genocidal.

What did you expect from a compulsive liar, someone who's so preposterous that he claims the 136 victims of the King David Hotel bombing "preferred" to be blown up rather than heed the "warning

Aw, I'm blushing /images/graemlins/blush.gif. Speaking of compulsive liars, I never made such a claim, and Pinnochio himself might be ashamed. You give liars a bad name. My claim was that the British authorities chose not to evacuate the building. It is far more likely that the innocents inside did not even know there was a bomb. There was no such thing as e-mail forwarding at that time.

And the purported distinction between political murder (Irgun) and just plain murder (all Palestinian terrorism) is specious. Both groups murder for the same reason: to terrorize the civilian population into changing their ways.

Another oversimplification.

Palestinian murder is to suppress Jewish sovereignty in Israel, is genocidal, and is to further the goal of Arab sovereignty over the Arabian continent. To separate the Palestinian Arabs from the rest of the Arabs (politically)is a sham, in that Palestinian Arab terror is funded explicitly by Arab states including Syria, Iran, and Iraq (although likely no more money from Iraq). Jewish terror (on Arabs) was a response to Arab terror, was completely self-funded, and was intended to discourage future terrorist attacks on Jewish villages. Unfortunately they didn't count on the depth of the Arab inclination towards murder as an ideology. Infidels!

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
What did you expect from a compulsive liar, someone who's so preposterous that he claims the 136 victims of the King David Hotel bombing "preferred" to be blown up rather than heed the "warning

Aw, I'm blushing . Speaking of compulsive liars, I never made such a claim, and Pinnochio himself might be ashamed. You give liars a bad name.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me, to MMMMM, right here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=511149&amp;page=0&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1):

“91 people perished in the King David Hotel bombing. Do you think they preferred to stay in it?”

Your direct response, right here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=511228&amp;page=0&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1):

"Do you think they preferred to stay in it?

Yes."

The problem with lying all the time is that you can't remember what you've said because everything is equally fictional.

[MMMMMM]

"And what are you saying? That Islam causes honor killings and female circumcision?"

I'm saying that "honor" killings and female "circumcision" are exceptionally brutal examples of gender discrimination/oppression, and are found in some Islamic societies, and that gender discrimination/oppression is quite widespread in Muslim societies. Consider these two specific types of atrocities as two symptoms amongst many, if you will.

Examples of laws oppressing women are numerous and can be easily found in:

"Women in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia face government-sponsored discrimination that renders them unequal before the law - including discriminatory family codes that take away women's legal authority and place it in the hands of male family members - and restricts women's participation in public life."

http://hrw.org/women/

Now of course, abuses against women do occur all over the world. To my way of thinking, government-sponsored abuses rank with the most pernicious. For a country to have legal code which backs up such discrimination and oppression is the very antithesis of good and fair government, and is an insult to the humanity of its citizens.

[MMMMMM]

I failed to make clear which paragraph of Gamblor's I thought constituted the "excellent point."

Gamblor wrote:

"Correction:

IZL used bomb after bomb against British political targets and warned any innocent civilians, as well as gave them ample time to evacuate.

If the next Jihad Islami bomber announced his intention before he put his 5 shekels into the bus driver's box, and said you all have 5 minutes to get off the bus, I'd be more inclined to believe their goals were political, not murderous."

It was the second paragraph, not the first, which I considered to be the excellent point. Of the first paragraph I do not know which version is true, his or yours (or somewhere in between). But I'll bet you'll mostly agree that Gamblor's second paragraph:

"If the next Jihad Islami bomber announced his intention before he put his 5 shekels into the bus driver's box, and said you all have 5 minutes to get off the bus, I'd be more inclined to believe their goals were political, not murderous."

is, if not an excellent point, at least a good point.

In my n/m post I almost elaborated in order to avoid confusion, but refrained for reasons of expediency, and because I trusted (perhaps too much) in the reader's capacity to divine the intended meaning.

[ThaSaltCracka]

naw it is a excellent point

[Cyrus]

"4000 Years ago is about the time Abraham, when he wandered out of Mesopotamia."

Stop right there. What, are we supposed to take the Bible as a historical document of record? Oh, my aching sides.

If you are on a mission to educate us about the righteousness of monotheistic religions, especialy Judaeo-Christian monotheism, you are addressing the wrong crowd, baby! (This ain't the Catskills.)

"Having read Meno and Republic, I do in fact know that Plato valued "virtue" and knowledge above all else. Yet no religion was based on Plato's teachings, despite his followers."

And this, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that Plato philosophized, instead of creating a religion, our Gamblor considers it to be a disadvantage. (Do you have any idea how laughably ridiculous the whole of your post is?)

(And by the way : Don't try to summarize what Plato was all about, please. Don't do that when people are drinking.) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"The ancient Greek/Roman gods are symbols of that which makes life easier. The Immortals' real world-based incarnations were lakes, the sun, forces of nature."

Do you have any idea why and [/i]how[/i] the Greeks had their gods created? (That's right, the Greeks were not denying that their gods were their own invention. It's a philosophical thing, you wouldn't understand.)

"[The Greeks] prayed to the gods so they wouldn't have to deal with the natural forces that could hurt them, and to encourage the natural forces that helped them."

Boy, are you wrong. And you're supposed, remember, to be explaining things to me! (Do you have any idea how laughably ridiculous the whole of your post is?)

"There was no moral code demanded of [the ancient Greeks] by the gods. It was simple. You worship the gods. But you are not required by the gods to act in any way towards your fellow man, unless the God had a particular stake in a man."

Those foolish things will always remind me of you! Listen, briefly, the ancient Greeks examined morality first and foremost, in more ways than you'd like to know - and, what's more, they chose by themselves to have their rules of moral conduct (primarily towards the City State). As free men, they chose - and did not mask this, conveneiently, as some "orders" from up high, from the gods' chambers, from some religion. Olympus and the gods of had a radically different origin and function in ancient Greece than what your railroaded, closed, Betar-infested mind knows.

This is the Greeks' great legacy, or at least, one of their great legacies, Athenian democracy, i.e. the choice of free men to be ruled by the laws of their own making and the rulers they elect - as opposed to "God-given" rules and "God-selected" rulers. (It's a social thing, you wouldn't understand.)

"Judaism was different - it placed equal weight on actions towards God and fellow man. The 10 Commandments themselves are proof of that."

Yep, religious fundamentalism above democracy and freedom of Man, I know where you're coming from! I personally happen to know very, very well where you're coming from, don't you worry. It's some others here, some of whom are supposedly libertarian (!), that are fooled into thinking, hey, this is about defending a rugged individual (Israel) against the bullies (the Arabs). Your kind of religious fanatic knows how to hide its true colors well and good, I give you that.

"Are you telling me that if Caesar himself were to kill a slave then he would be punished?"

Caesar would get away with lots of things in Rome because he was Caesar in Rome. And slaves were slaves. This was not much different than what was happening in other peoples' cultures (including the Jews') whereby killing, for instane, was sanctioned under a number of circumstances. Are you telling me that Jews had invented a perfect equality under the law, a perfect democracy two thousand years ago? Yes, you would be prone to think that. It would be on a par with your other absurd (and un-Historical) howlers.

"You likely would have been selected for the games, as it was not strength of mind that was among the prioritized criteria."

This from the man who claimed that Pakistanis are Arabs only two posts ago. The display of imbecilic chutzpah continues.

...Keep up the good work.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gamblor]

What, are we supposed to take the Bible as a historical document of record? Oh, my aching sides.

Yep. You are. I'm not allowed to believe? Fascism from Cyrus himself.

If you are on a mission to educate us about the righteousness of monotheistic religions, especialy Judaeo-Christian monotheism, you are addressing the wrong crowd, baby!

No mission. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. Yep, I'm Jewish. Deal with it. I'm sure you'll survive.

I know where you're coming from! I personally happen to know very, very well where you're coming from, don't you worry.

You've been itchin' to tell us, haven't you?

(Do you have any idea how laughably ridiculous the whole of your post is?)

You have something to prove don't you? It kills you. Let it go.

Olympus and the gods of had a radically different origin and function in ancient Greece than what your railroaded, closed, Betar-infested mind knows.

Wait a minute. Betar is a secular organization (at least as secular as the PA /images/graemlins/grin.gif). Yet I'm here to prove the legitimacy of religion-based ideology! What gives? Logical Reasoning lessons were so Grade 4.

they chose by themselves to have their rules of moral conduct (primarily towards the City State).

But not towards their fellow human being?

This from the man who claimed that Pakistanis are Arabs only two posts ago. The display of imbecilic chutzpah continues.

Nope. I claimed that Pakistan, as a state with Islam as it's majority religion, is the result of Arab imperialism.

Come on, you're makin it too easy. Give me something to think about at least.

[Gamblor]

You carelessly ignored the rest of the paragraph.

Doesn't wash, my boy.

[Cyrus]

"Yep. You are supposed to take the Bible as a historical document of record. I'm not allowed to believe?"

But of course you are "allowed" to believe! You are also "allowed" to say pretty much any inanity you want. Even that the Earth is ten thousand years old. Even that the Earth is the center of the universe. Even that Jehovah dictates that you do nasty things to gentiles - with the exception of Americans, as long as they pay off Israel through their taxes, like you wrote...

Or that Jews are "the light upon nations". (This would save us so much in electricity !)

"Yep, I'm Jewish. Deal with it."

I have nothing against your Jewishness, despite you trying to portray this as being a dispute about race. I don't have particular fondness or hate for any race or tribe. But I have a lot to say against religion and especially monotheistic religion, including the Judaeo-Christian or Muslim kinds, which are backward and (in this day and age) barbarous when compared to ideas first propagated by Man two millenia ago.

There's nothing to "deal with" except that.

"Betar is a secular organization (at least as secular as the PA )."

Yeah, at least as secular as the NSDAP. They were secular too. Absolutely.

"I'm here to prove the legitimacy of religion-based ideology!"

Do you realize that you have been putting up tons of posts about Muslims this and Muslims that, when you are the exact same coin, only its other side? You are a religious ideologue. A religious fundamentalist.

(Have you not realized yet that your posts are actually working against your cause? I'm glad you haven't.)

"[The Greeks] chose by themselves to have their rules of moral conduct, primarily towards the City State. --But not towards their fellow human being."

Please. Get a book.

"I claimed that Pakistan, as a state with Islam as it's majority religion, is the result of Arab imperialism."

No, baby, you claimed that Pakistan is part of Arab land, which extends "from Morocco to Pakistan" - your words. It had nothing to do with "Arab imperialism", as you now say, nor with "Islam". In your racist mind, those schwartzen in Pakistan register as Ay-rabs too, because they are Muslims and ...nearby. Well, sorry but Pakistanis are not Arabs. (Get a map.)

"Give me something to think about."

Trying to make you think would be an exercise in futility.

..Keep up the good work.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

Chris Alger just proved (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=515142&amp;page=0&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1) that you were lying.

Instead of drawing more attention to it, wouldn't it have been better to let it die quietly and pretend it never happened?

...Keep up the good work.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Gamblor]

Even that the Earth is ten thousand years old. Even that the Earth is the center of the universe. Even that Jehovah dictates that you do nasty things to gentiles - with the exception of Americans, as long as they pay off Israel through their taxes, like you wrote...

What planet are you on (Hint: it's few billion years old)? "Jehovah" as you like to call him dictates nothing of the sort to everyday gentiles. It's the murderous barbaric gentiles that wander the ancient middle east (and modern day United States) raping and pillaging the inhabitants of ancient Canaan. If you can name me a single time in recorded history in which the Jewish nation initiated violence... well, you can't.

I have nothing against your Jewishness, despite you trying to portray this as being a dispute about race.

Of course. The Jewish race. So now the religious are biologically inferior? No Jewish Race my man, it's a nation in the sense of shared identity, customs, and history. You are the one that keeps bringing up race.

But I have a lot to say against religion and especially monotheistic religion, including the Judaeo-Christian or Muslim kinds, which are backward and (in this day and age) barbarous when compared to ideas first propagated by Man two millenia ago.

So you have a problem with the intolerance of religions? Okay, just checking. My sides hurt.

Do you realize that you have been putting up tons of posts about Muslims this and Muslims that, when you are the exact same coin, only its other side? You are a religious ideologue. A religious fundamentalist.

I have? No, I haven't. And religious fundamentalism is only wrong when combined with intolerance. Would you care to remind me of the last time Jews went to forcibly convert gentiles to their religion (Nope? okay, I read ya)? Unfortunately, you seem to have the intolerance down pat, without religion at all! And I must say, you are far more self-righteous than any fundamentalist I've ever met.

your racist mind, those schwartzen in Pakistan register as Ay-rabs too, because they are Muslims and ...nearby. Well, sorry but Pakistanis are not Arabs. (Get a map.)

Oh! I get it! You know what I'm really thinking, even though I say something else! You know me better than I know myself? What a relief. Care to tell me what I'm going to have for breakfast tomorrow morning?

No, Cyrus, the Pakistanis are not Arabs, and I have made exactly ZERO sweeping statements about Muslim or Arab "character" or "race".

Smile, baby, you look a little stressed.

[Gamblor]

Alger proved what now?

Here is the question:

Do you think they preferred to stay in it?

Alger's synopsis of my response:

"Yes."

My actual response to Alger's questionhere (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=511228&amp;page=0&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1):

Yes. The warning was accepted by the Palestine Post head office. The British (along with 13 Jews and about 40 Arabs) perished because the security refused to acknowledge the threat and heed the warnings, instead keeping the warning secret. In fact, the entire kitchen staff of the hotel made it out alive.

Uh oh. If you're having trouble with any of the words, just sound out the letters. From the bold above, it should be plainly obvious to anyone who isn't a miscreant, that the "Yes" was facetious, tongue-in-cheek. It should be more obvious when considering that the Etzel entered through the hotel kitchen, and the kitchen staff all survived because the Etzel allowed them to leave. But the security team did NOT warn the workers in the offices. It wasn't quite the Super Bowl in that hotel.

What kind of question is "Do you think they preferred to stay in it?" The hilarity of even posing such a question is what prompted the "Yes", and the rest of the paragraph explains my actual answer to Alger.

Why such a chip on your shoulder? You aren't going to avenge all those schoolyard beatings from your youth on the internet. Go take up online poker or something, and you can blame all these losses on luck instead.

[Cyrus]

"You aren't going to avenge all those schoolyard beatings from your youth on the internet. Go take up online poker or something, and you can blame all these losses on luck instead."

What a rebuttal. I am crushed.

"The kitchen staff all survived because the Etzel allowed them to leave. But the security team did NOT warn the workers in the offices."

You can twist and turn the facts as much as you please but the fact remains that those people you so admire were terrorists. Those "proud Jewish fighters" murdered in cold blood Arab men, women and children (in order to expedite the Palestinians' terror and subsequent flight from your Motherland), British soldiers (when Britain was trying to settle things as best as possible between Jews and Arabs), a United Nations envoy (Count Bernadotte who started as fervently pro-Israeli but was horrified by your terrorist heroes' acts) and a score of others, throughout the years. Through bombings, knifings, whippings, gunhots and stranglings.

Your distortion of the facts in the case of the hotel bombing is simply one more evidence. Even when Chris Alger exhibits the lie in your claims as to what went down (it's History, for pete's sakes!) you try to weasel out to some irrelevancy.

"Why such a chip on your shoulder?"

You are mistaking my consistent (unnerving, I know!) rebuttal of your ravings, which come from a self-confessed supporter of fascism, with "chips-on-a-shoulder". Are you as confused with poker chips?

(...Did I mention that you should keep up the good work? Keep up the good work.)

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

"It's the murderous barbaric gentiles that wander the ancient middle east (and modern day United States) raping and pillaging the inhabitants of ancient Canaan."

Of course. We are all barbarians except for the Chosen Ones, the Noble Race, the Light upon Nations, which would be ...Deutschevolk? No, sorry, the Jews. Thanks for once more breaking open your supremacist, fascist frame of mind.

Keep up the good work.

"No Jewish Race my man, it's a nation in the sense of shared identity, customs, and history. You are the one that keeps bringing up race."

I am bringing up the word "race" (which you shirk from) in the course of pointing out your racism. You are a rare species and I'm sorta glad to have you among us : A Betar brown shirt! An out-and-out racist !

Keep up the good work.

"Religious fundamentalism is only wrong when combined with intolerance. Would you care to remind me of the last time Jews went to forcibly convert gentiles to their religion ?"

You are confusing fundamentalism with imperialism. (I know what you are up to, actually, so I'm saying that rhetorically.) The Israelis, you have explicitly claimed, should not trust anybody but the people of their own "shared identity, customs, and history". Moreover, they must not be prepared to grant equal rights to any gentile in their Holy Land. Plus, Jews should, again as you have explicitly claimed, be placing Religion and its "ideology" (!) above all else!..

But no, no, no, you are not a religious fundamentalist!.. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

By the way, Woody, can I say just one thing? This religion-above-all-else shtick? Oooooh, I don't know. This is oone thing that (trust me, Woody) doesn't go down well with this audience! Them poker fiends kinda hip 'n savvy, y'know.

But do keep up the good work!

"The Pakistanis are not Arabs!"

Glad you realized that. Better late than ever.

"I have made exactly ZERO sweeping statements about Muslim or Arab "character" or "race"."

I should put up a link here to one of the myriad of your posts whereby you have made exactly the kind of sweeping (and intolerant) statement about Arabs and Muslims that you now deny - but I will let you do this on your own, in your next posts. You're a cinch not to disappoint me.

Keep up the good work!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gamblor]

Your distortion of the facts in the case of the hotel bombing is simply one more evidence. Even when Chris Alger exhibits the lie in your claims as to what went down (it's History, for pete's sakes!) you try to weasel out to some irrelevancy.

Well show me otherwise. There is no distortion of the facts, as Eztel documents are widely available to any researcher. The warning was given, time was provided to evacuate the building, and the security team didn't notify the employees of the British government inside the hotel. That's cold hard facts. Now, if you'd care to prove me wrong with evidence from the archives of Arab countries, by all means give Abdullah, Assad, or Mubarak or Arafat a call and see if they're willing to show the world how peaceful they have been by exposing their archives to the world.