Zionism is an Example of National Self-Determination

[Jerry Galinda]

There are certainly elements of the holocaust that are being promoted by Zionist causes that are either outright lies, or half-truths. Certainly events leading up to the holocaust are not as portrayed by many supporting the Zionist cause.

The Nazis tried to push them out, like the British did, but nobody would take them.

That’s why - they killed them.

That’s why - they were killing Jews - everywhere in Europe under Nazi occupation.

[HisSelf]

I do not believe that the Holocaust is being represented untruthfully. I do believe, however, that it is being used to justify some pretty unsavoury things.

[M.Dancer]

blowing up of the King David Hotel by Itzhak Shamir's group remains one of the single biggest (in terms of body count) acts of terrorism in the Middle East, even today

Exaggerate much?

It ranks somewhere in the top 10,000 terrorist acts world wide....

91 were killed.

Meanwhile..

--Aug. 29, 2003

Two car bombs detonated by suicide bombers explode outside the Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf, one of the Shia faith’s most sacred shrines, killing 125 people.

March 2: Ashoura Massacre: Suicide bombings at Shia holy sites kill 181 and wound more than 500 during the Ashura.

February 1:2004 At least 105 people are killed and nearly 250 wounded in Arbil when twin suicide bombers blow themselves up at the headquarters of the two leading Kurdish political parties

February 28: 2005 At least 120 people die when a suicide car bomber in Hilla explodes his vehicle amongst a crowd of people applying for jobs in Iraq's new security forces. 130 more are wounded in the deadliest single attack of the nearly 2-year-old insurgency

July 16: In Musayyib, a suicide bomber blew up a fuel truck in front of a Shiite mosque, killing over 90 and injuring 150.[196][197]

November 23: A series of car bombs and mortar attacks in Sadr City kills at least 215 people and wounds a further 257.

and dozens more.

[jbg]

Last post I made I asked you why you left out of your original post the fact that Israeli self-determination has come at the expense of Palestinian self-determination. You haven't answered that question so I'm going to have to make assumptions.

I'm going to have to assume that you are incapable of reconciling your Zionist-nationalist views with the fact that it conflicts with your support of the self-determination of all peoples, and you're choosing to ignore this fact. You're choosing to ignore that while you trumpet Israel's self-determination, you seek to deny the self-determination of Palestinians - even going as far as denying there is such a thing as a Palestinian nation, (because then, you can't be against Palestinian self-determination if there is no Palestine? Right? - How convenient).

OK, what peoples called themselves "Palestinians" before 1948, or for that matter before the mid-1960's?

[jbg]

Nice try! I despise Nazism, and I do not condone murder.

I'm merely exposing Zionist lies.

I am a Zionist Jew and I am not familiar with any seditious activities in which I am involved.

[M.Dancer]

I am a Zionist Jew and I am not familiar with any seditious activities in which I am involved.

That's because you are a Zionist Jew, Junior grade. Once you become a Zionist Elder of the 7th degree....

[eyeball]

By the way, that's the same Itzhak Shamir who went on to become Prime Minister of Israel.

More proof that terrorism is an effective means to an end. Just ask Nelson Mandela or Gerry Adams. Itzhak Shamir is in good company. Its only a matter of time before people like Bin Laden and Yasser Arafat join this growing list of luminaries.

[eyeball]

OK, what peoples called themselves "Palestinians" before 1948, or for that matter before the mid-1960's?

I think those would be the Philistines or Canaanites. Human beings in either case...Earthlings like you.

Edited May 2, 2008 by eyeball

[BC_chick]

I am a Zionist Jew and I am not familiar with any seditious activities in which I am involved.

You continually claim that Palestinians are religious fanatics for fighting to keep their land and for not accepting their loss after 60 years(oh, sorry, the people who refer to themselves as Palestinians - aka the Arab Muslim inhabitants of the territory formerly referred to as the Mandate of Palestine ).

Yet, when asked directly - on two occassions - you refuse to answer what your non-Muslim countrymen would do if a particular group of immigrants surpassed the majority in your country and declared themselves the rulers of the land.

Your argument is therefore irrational at best since deep down I'm sure you know (I hope you do anyway) that your countrymen would do the same thing even though you are not a bunch of Muslim fanatics.

As long as you blindly support Israel's expansionist policies while robbing the Palestinians of their humanity by demonising them for what you yourself would do if you were in the same predicament.... you are, in fact, taking part in a movement which is comprised of seditious elements (given the nature of the relationship between your country and Israel).

Edited May 2, 2008 by BC_chick

[WIP]

Please. "Homocidal jealousy in the Muslim world" and "homocidal Muslims" are what? In the end, you are calling them homocidal, only that you are ascribing a reason to it (jealousy).

Nice try on the semantics game though.

Semantics! Is English your second language or something? Do you have a better phrase for people who have been teaching their children these kind of messages:

Hamas Bunny, Assud, Replaces His "Martyred" Brother Nahoul the Bee and Vows to Liberate Al-Aqsa and "Eat" Jews

Following are excerpts from the Hamas TV children's show, "Pioneers of Tomorrow", which aired on Al-Aqsa TV February 2-9, 2008.

Nahoul: I can't stand it, Mom, I can't...

Mother: What can I do? You've been sick for a whole month. We went to Al-Arish, but we couldn't get you to Egypt to have an operation.

[...]

Nahoul: All the children of Palestine are dying without treatment. I can't die, I don't want to die... Father...

Attempts to perform CPR on Nahoul fail

Father: Nahoul! Nahoul!

[...]

Child host Saraa Barhoum: Dear children, let me welcome on your behalf our new friend, Assud. Allah be praised, our friend Assud has returned safe and sound to his land, to Palestine, after he emigrated to a different Arab country – a country which is not this noble homeland, dear children.

[...]

Assud: Mom, I want to ask you something.

Mother: Go ahead.

Assud: Where is Nahoul? I haven't seen him for such a long time.

Mother: He went for a walk, and he'll soon be back, Allah willing.

Assud: Where did he go? Who goes out at night?

Mother: What do you want me to do... He'll be back soon, Allah willing.

Assud: Father, where is Nahoul?

Father [whispering to the mother]: How long can we keep what happened to Nahoul from him?

Father [to Assud]: You are a believer, and our God...

Assud: What happened to Nahoul, father?

Father: Allah be praised, you are a believing Muslim, and you know that we place our trust in Allah... Your brother Nahoul got sick...

Assud: What hospital is he in, father?

Father: He's not in any hospital. He died a martyr's death, Allah have mercy upon him.

Assud: No, father!

Assud weeps

[...]

Assud: Just like Nahoul took Farfour's place when he was martyred, I will replace Nahoul, Allah willing. I will bring smiles and joy back to the children of Palestine, and the children of the whole world - the Arab and Islamic world, Allah willing.

[...]

Assud: I come from the diaspora, carrying the Key of Return. This is the Key of Return. Do you see it? Allah willing, we will use this key to liberate our Al-Aqsa Mosque. Here is a picture of the noble Al-Aqsa Mosque. Here it is, can you see it? Allah willing, we are the soldiers of the Pioneers of Tomorrow.

Saraa Barhoum: Yes, Assud, we will continue in the path of Nahoul and Farfour, Allah willing. We will not let them down, Assud.

Assud: We are all martyrdom-seekers, are we not, Saraa?

Saraa Barhoum: Of course we are. We are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland. We will sacrifice our souls and everything we own for the homeland.

Assud: Saraa, I'd like to ask you something.

Saraa Barhoum: What is it?

Assud: How many soldiers of the Pioneers of Tomorrow are there?

Saraa Barhoum: There are many, many soldiers of the Pioneers of Tomorrow.

Assud: Allah be praised.

Saraa Barhoum: By Allah's grace, they will help us liberate our homeland Palestine.

Assud: Saraa, you and I will be the first, right?

Saraa Barhoum: Yes, by Allah's grace, Assud.

Assud: And will we take Al-Aqsa?

Saraa Barhoum: Of course, Assud. We will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of those Zionists.

[...]

Saraa Barhoum [to girl in the audience]: Is there anything you want to share with us?

Girl: Arnoub ["Rabbit"]?

Saraa Barhoum His name is Assud ["Lion"].

Girl: How come you are called Assud, even though you look like a rabbit?

Assud: Because a rabbit is not good. He's a coward. But I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up, Allah willing, right?

Saraa Barhoum: Allah willing. http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1679.htm

AND

Child Stabs President Bush to Death and Turns the White House into a Mosque in a Hamas TV Puppet Show

Following is an excerpt from a puppet show, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on March 30, 2008.

Bush: Who are you? What brings you to my home? How did they let you in, boy? My guards! My soldiers! Get this boy out of here.

Child: Nobody will take me out of here.

Bush: Who are you to come here and threaten me?! You are on my own turf, you little child, you! Get out. My dear, bring your father, your Grandfather, or your mother, so I can talk to them. Get somebody older and smarter than you. What, you came here on your own?

Child: You killed daddy in the Iraq war. It's true, you killed him in the Iraq war. As for my mom – you and the criminal Zionists killed her in Lebanon. You and the criminal Zionists also killed my younger and older brothers in the Gaza holocaust. I'm an orphan, you criminal!

Bush: What are you talking about? Where did you come from? Don't I have enough troubles already? Where did you come from?

Child: I have come to take revenge with this sword – revenge for my mother and my sisters. You are a criminal, Bush! You are despicable. You made me an orphan! You took everything from me, Bush! I must take revenge on you, with this sword of Islam, the Prophet's Al-Battar sword.

Bush: No... No, my dear. I give you my word that this is it. I repent, just don't kill me. Where are my guards? Where are my people? Help! Help! He wants to kill me. Help!

Child: There are no guards, and your people have surrendered, Bush. I have not come alone, Bush. I have brought thousands of thousands of children from Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. You have denied all these children their fathers and mothers. That's why I have come to take revenge on you and on all the criminal traitors who collaborated with you.

Bush: Okay, fine, that's enough. I will give you whatever you want from me.

Child: What can you give me? All I want is one thing. Bring back my father and mother. I don't want anything from you. I don't want anything from you, just bring back my father and mother. I place my trust in Allah. I need to kill you.

Bush: No, my dear. Enough. I will give you anything you want. I also... Enough with that. Come with all your friends to the White House. I will give you food and toys. We will sit in the White House and talk. You will get whatever you need.

Child: You are impure, Bush, so you are not allowed inside the White House.

Bush: What are you saying?! Why am I not allowed into the White House?

Child: Because it has been turned into a great mosque for the nation of Islam. I will kill you just like Mu'az killed Abu Lahab. I will kill you, Bush, because that is your fate.

Child stabs Bush repeatedly

Child: Ahhh, I killed him.

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1729.htm

And these are from children's shows used by Hamas and and the P.A. to start brain-washing children to be filled with hatred so that later on in life, a sizeable number will fill the ranks when they need martyrs. Do you have a better names for this strategy?

As for not allowing the Jews self-determination in other places? How does that refute anything?

My point which nobody likes to even attempt to rebut (I guess it's impossible isn't it?) was that people of all races and religions fight with all means necessary when their guests declare themselves rulers of the land in which they had continually ruled for centuries.

And it's already been pointed out to you by others that Jews were not "guests" in Palestine! There had been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem right from the time the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E. http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.p...e=3/e/230620031

The only interruption of that Jewish presence would have occurred in 1099, when the Crusaders sacked Jerusalem and massacred and expelled Jews, Muslims and Orthodox Christians living in the city. When Saladdin retook Jerusalem in 1187, he allowed Jews, Muslims and the Orthodox to return. After a later treaty with Richard III, Saladdin allowed Christians to worship at their holy sites.

http://www.centuryone.com/hstjrslm.html

This is not a homocidal Muslim attribute - oh, sorry, I mean homocidal jealousy which is particular to Muslims.

I ask again, was it some sort of religion "that ultimately demands control of religious life, law and government, while making apostasy a capital offence" that made the First Nations fight for their land when they realised that the Europeans whom they'd welcomed were actually here to take control of it and rule over it?

(you like the direct quote there btw?)

And yet you still refuse to acknowledge how religious institutions can be used as tools of oppression!

You're comparing apples and oranges anyway! The Aboriginals were like most tribal cultures when the Europeans arrived - they did not have a separate, compartmentalized code of religious doctrines. Their religious and spiritual beliefs were interwoven with their daily practises. Every aspect of life had some spiritual significance. The European example of separating spiritual beliefs from work and daily life was a foreign concept.

There was also no group cohesion among the tribes. They were interested in protecting their lands and their peoples, so in general what went on next door to a neighbouring tribe that might have been an enemy, was no concern of theirs. This allowed for a gradual process of conquest. Many of the Indian wars enlisted rival tribes as soldiers. On the Plains, Pawnee soldiers fought and conducted raids against Lakota and other tribes they considered enemies. The only real attempt to unite came in the 19th Century when the Plains Indians finally took notice of the pioneers, farmers and ranchers that were turning grazing lands for buffalo into farms and cattle ranges. By the time the Lakotas, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa Apache, and a few others I can't remember, all joined together, they were no match for a nation of over 20 million that had just ended a bloody civil war and was anxious to fill in all of the empty spaces between the Western and Eastern states.

So, does that mean that religion is always the root cause of wars? No, and I never said that! My point is that in the Middle East, that feeling of being dominated by foreign infidels has revitalized a closed religious system that has more control over the people than the Communists could have ever dreamed of having!

How about if Chinese immigrants in Canada surpass the 50% mark and take up arms and declare themselves ruler of the land ... is it the religion "that ultimately demands control of religious life, law and government, while making apostasy a capital offence" that would have us trying to fight with all means possible to keep Canada out of their hands... or human nature?

Do the Chinese have a continuous presence in Canada for two thousand years? No! So it's another bad analogy. The modern multi-ethnic, multicultural states in Canada and the U.S. are working on a premise that new immigrants will bring in different languages and cultural norms, but their children will see themselves as Canadians and Americans, and the ties to the homeland start to fade away. So, following your example, even if Chinese become the majority, they should see themselves as Canadians, not as a Chinese Canadian enclave. I don't think that future scenario would play out without the deliberate interference of the Chinese government.

[WIP]

As I said before - I’m afraid that it’s a little more sophisticated problem.

I'm sure it is! And I think I mentioned that when I got started in this self-determination argument. I never spent much time on studying about Germany or European history besides what I learned in school. So the only thing I had to go on regarding this story, was the stories my uncles told me. I don't think I ever believed everything they had to say; when I got older, I realized how much they had little regard for what happened to non-Germans during that time.

Even though the family left Germany long before the outbreak of WWII, they remained Nazi sympathizers throughout their lives, but kept those sentiments quiet, never expressing them outside of a trusted circle of friends and family. So, I'll leave up to my brother to search for deeds or titles, and see what he finds out. I have to many other things I am interested in reading about to take up genealogical research.

[jbg]

Yes, it is jbg. Europeans came to the Americas and were welcomed at first. As their numbers grew and their desire to be the rulers of the land became evident, a bloody battle ensued. History would have us believe the violent battle for the land continued on for centuries before the First Nations accepted their fate. Today, after many many centuries, they are finally trying other means to regain their land, ie, going to court over treaties etc.

Oh, and you never did answer the question, you just answered it with another question.

I ask again:

Would you forgive Muslim or Chinese immigrants' declaring themselves rulers of the USA (once their numbers are big enough) so long as they make the place "better"?

(I do not want your response as the conqueror, I'm asking what you would do if you were the conquered)

You missed my point. My point was that the first settlers, in the case of the US in Jamestown and off the Mayflower, were white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs). Their dominance was short-lived, and in many areas they were eventually "ruled" by more recent immigrants. Bloodshed did not accompany the process. My point being that each step along the way America's essential nature was preserved by the gradual nature of the process and the assimilation of each group into the existing culture. Under those conditions, anyone can become a member of Congress, the Senate or even President without any obejction from me. Thus, they'd be "rulers". I would not agree to any group ruling in a manner that does not respect rights of all people.

At this point I would like to remind you that it was me who was arguing that it's human-nature - and not radical Islam - which makes humans fight for their land when they perceive their guests to be trying to rule over them. You, amongst others, were arguing that it's some sort of Muslim deficiency that makes Palestinians fight as they do for what they see as their land - the place they have ruled over for centuries.

I don't disagree. What I will say is that on balance Islamic societies tend to be more primitive than Western socieities and their "human nature" is less tamed. I have long argued that the Amelkites, Jebusites and other tribes whose peoples were the ancestors to the Arab Islamic people were more violent than even the earliest Islamic people. Indeed, one of the salutory functions of Islam was to tame some of the fierce tribal wars. Unfortunately, bloody schisms developed within Islam, and their relationship to non-Islamic neighbors has been rather bloody. Not that Christian Europe lacked for bloodshed.

I have no idea how you argue in court... but your concession to the similarity in the two scenarios just strengthened my argument. Hope you argue better than that in front of a real judge.

Save the personal attacks.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh, and you never did answer the question, you just answered it with another question.

I ask again:

Would you forgive Muslim or Chinese immigrants' declaring themselves rulers of the USA (once their numbers are big enough) so long as they make the place "better"?

(I do not want your response as the conqueror, I'm asking what you would do if you were the conquered)

You missed my point. My point was that the first settlers, in the case of the US in Jamestown and off the Mayflower, were white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs). Their dominance was short-lived, and in many areas they were eventually "ruled" by more recent immigrants. Bloodshed did not accompany the process. My point being that each step along the way America's essential nature was preserved by the gradual nature of the process and the assimilation of each group into the existing culture. Under those conditions, anyone can become a member of Congress, the Senate or even President without any obejction from me. Thus, they'd be "rulers". I would not agree to any group ruling in a manner that does not respect rights of all people.

I don't disagree. What I will say is that on balance Islamic societies tend to be more primitive than Western socieities and their "human nature" is less tamed. I have long argued that the Amelkites, Jebusites and other tribes whose peoples were the ancestors to the Arab Islamic people were more violent than even the earliest Islamic people. Indeed, one of the salutory functions of Islam was to tame some of the fierce tribal wars. Unfortunately, bloody schisms developed within Islam, and their relationship to non-Islamic neighbors has been rather bloody. Not that Christian Europe lacked for bloodshed.

Save the personal attacks.

Zionist are Nazis - and Nazis belong in silly movies and should not attempt to project their ideals into real life..what good has Zionism and Nazism done the world thus far in general? Not a whole lot that is useful or constructive. Extremism breed extreme conditions and does not make for fair weather or a pleasant earthly existance - trouble makers? Is that to harsh a term? _ As far as real gnostic Christianity --- I would say that there are only a hand ful of Christians left on the planet and there are only hypocrites who practice anti-Christism...so called Christians do the opposite of what was suggested - Muslims do the opposite to what was commanded - Jews - well they seem to have abandoned God and goodness for the most part...and the pesky secularist and atheists are actually a religion on their own - who aggressively try to ram their religion down our thoats...remember atheism is a belief system..so I do not make any individual personal attacks...I attack all persons equally...Religion is evil....GOD on the other hand is creative and generates goodness..to bad about that free will thing...people assume that evil is good these days- I guess it's all about intelligent decision making and most human being are dellusional and because of ignorace of truth and reality - cause problems for all..

[BC_chick]

Semantics! Is English your second language or something? Do you have a better phrase for people who have been teaching their children these kind of messages:

Hamas Bunny, Assud, Replaces His "Martyred" Brother Nahoul the Bee and Vows to Liberate Al-Aqsa and "Eat" Jews

Following are excerpts from the Hamas TV children's show, "Pioneers of Tomorrow", which aired on Al-Aqsa TV February 2-9, 2008.

[...]

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1729.htm

And these are from children's shows used by Hamas and and the P.A. to start brain-washing children to be filled with hatred so that later on in life, a sizeable number will fill the ranks when they need martyrs. Do you have a better names for this strategy?

Religion is the tool, not the cause. I don't know how many more ways I can tell you that other non-Muslim people around the world have resorted to the same savagry when faced with the same scenario...

And it's already been pointed out to you by others that Jews were not "guests" in Palestine! There had been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem right from the time the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E. http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.p...e=3/e/230620031

The only interruption of that Jewish presence would have occurred in 1099, when the Crusaders sacked Jerusalem and massacred and expelled Jews, Muslims and Orthodox Christians living in the city. When Saladdin retook Jerusalem in 1187, he allowed Jews, Muslims and the Orthodox to return. After a later treaty with Richard III, Saladdin allowed Christians to worship at their holy sites.

http://www.centuryone.com/hstjrslm.html

And yet you still refuse to acknowledge how religious institutions can be used as tools of oppression!

You're comparing apples and oranges anyway! The Aboriginals were like most tribal cultures when the Europeans arrived - they did not have a separate, compartmentalized code of religious doctrines. Their religious and spiritual beliefs were interwoven with their daily practises. Every aspect of life had some spiritual significance. The European example of separating spiritual beliefs from work and daily life was a foreign concept.

There was also no group cohesion among the tribes. They were interested in protecting their lands and their peoples, so in general what went on next door to a neighbouring tribe that might have been an enemy, was no concern of theirs. This allowed for a gradual process of conquest. Many of the Indian wars enlisted rival tribes as soldiers. On the Plains, Pawnee soldiers fought and conducted raids against Lakota and other tribes they considered enemies. The only real attempt to unite came in the 19th Century when the Plains Indians finally took notice of the pioneers, farmers and ranchers that were turning grazing lands for buffalo into farms and cattle ranges. By the time the Lakotas, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa Apache, and a few others I can't remember, all joined together, they were no match for a nation of over 20 million that had just ended a bloody civil war and was anxious to fill in all of the empty spaces between the Western and Eastern states.

So, does that mean that religion is always the root cause of wars? No, and I never said that! My point is that in the Middle East, that feeling of being dominated by foreign infidels has revitalized a closed religious system that has more control over the people than the Communists could have ever dreamed of having!

I would like you point out to one post of mine where I denied a Jewish presence on the land. By guests I was referring their presence under *Muslim rule*. You seem like an educated person, I'm sure you can grasp the difference between living somewhere under someone else's rule and declaring yourself rulers of the land.

I suppose you think the people of California should just sit back if the hispanic community declared themselves a part of Mexico saying "well, yeah, I guess they have been here for a while, eh? Maybe we should just let them have it."

Do the Chinese have a continuous presence in Canada for two thousand years? No! So it's another bad analogy. The modern multi-ethnic, multicultural states in Canada and the U.S. are working on a premise that new immigrants will bring in different languages and cultural norms, but their children will see themselves as Canadians and Americans, and the ties to the homeland start to fade away. So, following your example, even if Chinese become the majority, they should see themselves as Canadians, not as a Chinese Canadian enclave. I don't think that future scenario would play out without the deliberate interference of the Chinese government.

Canada hasn't been around for 2 thousand years, so within context, yes, Chinese immigrants have helped build this country from day one.

My point still stands.

Edited May 2, 2008 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

Oh, and you never did answer the question, you just answered it with another question.

I ask again:

Would you forgive Muslim or Chinese immigrants' declaring themselves rulers of the USA (once their numbers are big enough) so long as they make the place "better"?

(I do not want your response as the conqueror, I'm asking what you would do if you were the conquered)

You missed my point. My point was that the first settlers, in the case of the US in Jamestown and off the Mayflower, were white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs). Their dominance was short-lived, and in many areas they were eventually "ruled" by more recent immigrants. Bloodshed did not accompany the process. My point being that each step along the way America's essential nature was preserved by the gradual nature of the process and the assimilation of each group into the existing culture. Under those conditions, anyone can become a member of Congress, the Senate or even President without any obejction from me. Thus, they'd be "rulers". I would not agree to any group ruling in a manner that does not respect rights of all people.

I'm sure there are areas of Israel/Palestine where there is also harmony amongst the people. I'm talking about the bigger picture - First Nations did not give up without a violent fight. They were not Muslim fanatics. Present-day Americans would not give up their land without a fight - you are also not Muslims.

I don't disagree. What I will say is that on balance Islamic societies tend to be more primitive than Western socieities and their "human nature" is less tamed. I have long argued that the Amelkites, Jebusites and other tribes whose peoples were the ancestors to the Arab Islamic people were more violent than even the earliest Islamic people. Indeed, one of the salutory functions of Islam was to tame some of the fierce tribal wars. Unfortunately, bloody schisms developed within Islam, and their relationship to non-Islamic neighbors has been rather bloody. Not that Christian Europe lacked for bloodshed.

Europe has one of the bloodiest histories ever and Arabs were far more englightened until recent history. Sorry, but I'm not buying it that savagry somehow skipped the white genes and planted itself amongst Arabs.

[jbg]

Europe has one of the bloodiest histories ever and Arabs were far more englightened until recent history. Sorry, but I'm not buying it that savagry somehow skipped the white genes and planted itself amongst Arabs.

You are certainly right. And as to FN's, see here:

I suspect that smallpox rather than violence demoralized the native Americans and made their replacement by the European settlers far easier. The Mann book 1491 largely backs up my views on the subject. Apparently, there were approximately 30 million native Americans on both continents pre-Columbus, and the number rapidly dropped by 95% after the first exploration of the mainland. This disruption was without pattern, taking out leaders as well as woman, children and the elderly. My view is that so little was left of intact native culture that there was little resistance to alcohol and other pathologies introduced by the European settlers.

[WIP]

Religion is the tool, not the cause.

You'll have to elaborate on this point because if no one is allowed to challenge the claims of religious authorities, they are free to use religion as the tool of oppression and indoctrination; and cause death and destruction. It does illustrate the fear and reluctance to determine the harm caused by religious beliefs!

During the Cold War, critics of the oppressive features of Communism had no similar reluctance to scrutinize Karl Marx's philosophy in determining what were the features of Communist ideology that made it such convenient tool for controlling the people. But when the tool of oppression is a belief system, most analysts look for extraneous features like poverty and ethnic rivalries to explain the conflict.

I don't know how many more ways I can tell you that other non-Muslim people around the world have resorted to the same savagry when faced with the same scenario...

Really! Are the Tibetans creating equivalent children's T.V. shows like the puppet show featuring a child who goes to Washington, stabs George Bush to death and proclaims that he is turning the Whitehouse into a Mosque? Think we'll see that episode on Sesame Street any time soon? Or this children's claymation show where Jews turn into apes and pigs? http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=arc...amp;ID=SP105005

There are loads of these ghastly, vile shows created to indoctrinate children to grow up to be killers, and there is no legitimate argument to be made to excuse this strategy.

I would like you point out to one post of mine where I denied a Jewish presence on the land. By guests I was referring their presence under *Muslim rule*. You seem like an educated person, I'm sure you can grasp the difference between living somewhere under someone else's rule and declaring yourself rulers of the land.

Okay, but it's a strange choice of terminology! If I look for definitions at Wiktionary I come up with:

guest (plural guests)

1. a recipient of hospitality, specifically someone staying by invitation at the house of another

2. a patron or customer in a hotel etc.

3. an invited visitor or performer to an institution or to a broadcast

.........so calling Muslim Dhimmis "guests" gave me the impression you bought the Palestinian line that the Jews were interlopers who moved in and took their land from them.

I suppose you think the people of California should just sit back if the hispanic community declared themselves a part of Mexico saying "well, yeah, I guess they have been here for a while, eh? Maybe we should just let them have it."

Canada hasn't been around for 2 thousand years, so within context, yes, Chinese immigrants have helped build this country from day one.

My point still stands.

There are loads of Fortress America fanatics who already believe that Latinos are going to try to secede from the United States and rejoin Mexico. But as implausible as it may be, you still have a situation where the land is recognized internationally as part of United States. Not that this doesn't create some messy scenarios; like Kosovo for instance. The territory is recognized as an integral part of Serbia and many important cultural sites are located in Kosovo, but the population gradually shifted to where it is now 90% Albanian. This situation presents a catch22 for International Law. Whose rights are more important? The Albanian Kosovars' rights of self-determination, or the right of Serbia to maintain territorial integrity? And now that Kosovo is being recognized by the U.S. and others, do the Serbian Kosovars have the right to secede and join their enclave with Serbia? It's a mess, but it has nothing in common with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict!

Palestine was a territory created after the dissolution of the last legitimate government ( the Ottoman Empire), so there was no legitimate reason why the boundaries could not be drawn to allow a subjugated minority the opportunity for self-determination. And the original plan for dividing Palestine was to separate the territory between Jews and Arabs. The original British plan didn't even give the Jews any part of Jerusalem, where the was a sizeable Jewish population! So, there was no need for Arabs to be living under Israeli occupation. They wouldn't accept even the tiniest parcel of land to be under Jewish control, so they waged war for total domination and lost.....several times! It's been a long-standing principle that nations under attack are justified if they decide to annex territory to secure their borders. So, there wouldn't be Arabs under occupation, if they hadn't tried the "go for broke" strategy first!

But putting all of the arguments about Palestinian rights for a homeland aside, I'm still amazed at their stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge the economic opportunities that an influx of European Jews brought to the area. Palestine was a poor, decrepit backwater under the Ottomans, who mostly ignored this part of their territory. The Arabs were too blinded by pride and jealousy to notice that the Zionists drained swamps and developed new irrigation technologies that made deserts bloom. Practical people would have noticed these advantages and cut some kind of deal early on to allow them to stay!

[WIP]

I don't disagree. What I will say is that on balance Islamic societies tend to be more primitive than Western socieities and their "human nature" is less tamed. I have long argued that the Amelkites, Jebusites and other tribes whose peoples were the ancestors to the Arab Islamic people were more violent than even the earliest Islamic people. Indeed, one of the salutory functions of Islam was to tame some of the fierce tribal wars. Unfortunately, bloody schisms developed within Islam, and their relationship to non-Islamic neighbors has been rather bloody. Not that Christian Europe lacked for bloodshed.

Save the personal attacks.

It sounds like you slipped in a means to justify those Old Testament calls to slaughter the surrounding tribes! You're treading on thin ice if your forming an argument that there is something unique in the DNA of Arabs which makes them a violent race of people. Anthropologists who study nomadic tribes like the Bedouins, say that these people are violent because their survival depends on their fighting ability(as long as their living the nomadic life). They are constantly on the move, so they have no fortifications to make defence easier. And being ruthless can be advantageous since they might have to kill or drive off another family to take their possessions. If the cause of aggression was genetic, rather than cultural, it wouldn't explain why other nomadic peoples around the world, like the Plains Indians, the Masai in Africa, or the Mongolians in Asia, had similar warrior values.

Islam may have had a positive effect by providing unity and a code of conduct to follow; but it also enshrined warrior values of the Bedouins in a book that most of its adherents believe is a direct revelation from God, which makes "waging war for God" the greatest good. This is not a good thing to have in a time with weapons that could wipe out all life on earth! Reshaping Islam to remove the incentives for waging war are stymied by the demand to apply the Quran literally. The hardliners are strengthened by conflicts with the Infidel West. A real reform movement in Muslim countries won't get off the ground as long as there are rallying points like the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the neverending Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

[jbg]

It sounds like you slipped in a means to justify those Old Testament calls to slaughter the surrounding tribes! You're treading on thin ice if your forming an argument that there is something unique in the DNA of Arabs which makes them a violent race of people. Anthropologists who study nomadic tribes like the Bedouins, say that these people are violent because their survival depends on their fighting ability(as long as their living the nomadic life). They are constantly on the move, so they have no fortifications to make defence easier. And being ruthless can be advantageous since they might have to kill or drive off another family to take their possessions. If the cause of aggression was genetic, rather than cultural, it wouldn't explain why other nomadic peoples around the world, like the Plains Indians, the Masai in Africa, or the Mongolians in Asia, had similar warrior values.

Islam may have had a positive effect by providing unity and a code of conduct to follow; but it also enshrined warrior values of the Bedouins in a book that most of its adherents believe is a direct revelation from God, which makes "waging war for God" the greatest good. This is not a good thing to have in a time with weapons that could wipe out all life on earth! Reshaping Islam to remove the incentives for waging war are stymied by the demand to apply the Quran literally. The hardliners are strengthened by conflicts with the Infidel West. A real reform movement in Muslim countries won't get off the ground as long as there are rallying points like the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the neverending Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Genetics and culture can be self-reinforcing, as is the higher IQ of Ashkenazi Jews pointed out by BC_Chick.

[buffycat]

What a pile of supremiscist BS this whole thread is. But convenient to lay blame on the inferiors eh?

Sickening....

[jbg]

What a pile of supremiscist BS this whole thread is. But convenient to lay blame on the inferiors eh?

Sickening....

Where is there white supremacism? Saying that a religion that has a significant number of white people is entitled to a State?

[Jerry Galinda]

A real reform movement in Muslim countries won't get off the ground as long as there are rallying points like the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the neverending Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

From what I understand - You believe that violence, terrorism - even against Muslim societies - e.g. in Algeria and Egypt and ……….. are caused by “neverending Israeli/Palestinian conflict”.

That lack of modernization of Islam is caused by conflict with the Infidel West (Iraq, Afghanistan ) and so on.

I have many doubts about it.

Conflicts - even wars are (unfortunately) - part of history - are usual part of “life” - therefore - I can’t understand or I don’t know the problem - why “real reform movement in Muslim countries “ is so weak.

[jbg]

The hardliners are strengthened by conflicts with the Infidel West. A real reform movement in Muslim countries won't get off the ground as long as there are rallying points like the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the neverending Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Won't the next "rallying point" be (take your pick):

1. Mohamed cartoons;
   
2. Offensive McLeans articles;
   
3. Offensive Marc Steyn articles;
   
4. Offensive Ezra Levant articles;
   
5. Offensive U.S. Presidents;
   
6. Failure to provide separate swimming pool hours by gender; and/or
   
7. Prosecution of organizers of terror attacks
   

In short people can choose to be offended by anything, if they need a rallying cry. In the US we've had both "remember the Alamo" (directed at Mexico) or "54'40" or fight" (directed at Britain/Canada/BC). Has that obstructed either US peace with Canada or Mexico, or reform movements in the US? After the Holocaust, an undisputed atrocity, its victims picked themselves up, and are now valuable contributors to the world wherever they live. Did (do) they have cause to be "angry" with the butchers that killed 6,000,000 of them? Where are their suicide bombers? Where are the Americans attacking bazaars in Araby after September 11? Where's the anger of the non-Muslim world against Muslims?

Islam's extremely violent start is also well known. Their virtually unhindered spread from the Mecca area to the Atlantic and to the borders of modern India occurred largely at the point of a sword. There were, during those early years, some constructive developments. In many areas, intellectually, they were ahead of Europe, then in the "Dark Ages". They were more tolerant of Jews and Christians than Christians were of Jews and Muslims. At least "dhimmitude" allowed survival, under conditions of degradation and financial servitude.

Their predatory habits on the trade of other peoples is also well-known. One of the great impetuses for the development of shipping was the need to avoid travel through mortally dangerous Muslim lands en route to the Far East. Later, the Barbary Coast pirates and pirates off modern-day Somalia, all Musims, made theft from Europeans (and eventually Americans) and the "white slave" trade an art form. Then as now, it took the Americans to crack down rather than pay tribute.

Edited May 3, 2008 by jbg

[WIP]

Where is there white supremacism? Saying that a religion that has a significant number of white people is entitled to a State?

You're on your own with this one! Is Israel a white country?

[WIP]

From what I understand - You believe that violence, terrorism - even against Muslim societies - e.g. in Algeria and Egypt and ……….. are caused by “neverending Israeli/Palestinian conflict”.

It's seems to be chiefly the main rallying point for Arab states bordering on Israel.

That lack of modernization of Islam is caused by conflict with the Infidel West (Iraq, Afghanistan ) and so on.

I have many doubts about it.

Conflicts - even wars are (unfortunately) - part of history - are usual part of “life” - therefore - I can’t understand or I don’t know the problem - why “real reform movement in Muslim countries “ is so weak.

Many historians point to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire as the pivotal event that caused the rise of radical Islam. Most Muslims around the world didn't seem to have high opinion of the last Islamic Caliphate, considering it to be corrupt and backward. It was slowly ebbing away, but when it was abolished and replaced with a secular state in Turkey, the shockwaves led to the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a desire to bring back Sharia and Islamic government.

Remember, the Caliphate started by Muhammed, was supposed to keep expanding and eventually bring the entire world under one government. It had stalled for several centuries, but it's outright removal provoked some sort of cognitive dissonance that made Muslims turn to their religion even more. Some sort of inferiority complex was set off, judging by their hostility to everything Western; but fighting the "Zionist Entity" seems to be the issue that gets everyone fighting on the same side.

I don't know if Israel can ever be safe from the threat of attack, but if there is no possibility to reach a peace agreement, then it means a bleak future for Israel of border skirmishes and terrorist attacks, and the burden of maintaining a costly military for the unforeseeable future.