French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

Argus · January 25, 2015

The revisionists have no explanation for how and why the Moor kingdom of Andalusia was the most advanced and progressive region in Europe back in the Middle Ages. It was multi-ethnic, multicultural, and very prosperous, until the Catholic autocrats took over and made the kingdom of Spain a theocratic tyranny.

An interesting way of describing the conquest of a Christian land by Muslims while portraying the Christians as the aggressors! It was 'multi-ethnic' but of course, Christians and Jews had no power and were required to pay special taxes. It was about as progressive as Iran is today. If that's your idea of progressive I think we have different definitions of the word. I guess you can't call it tyranny if it's Muslims in charge, eh? Those democratic and progressive people!

That area of Spain was always pretty inventive, industrially and scientifically, and the Moors benefited from that, adn the rich agricultural lands. It was where Christopher Columbus set off for the new world after Spain was freed and united under its Spanish 'theocratic tyranny', and Spain prospered with masses of gold coming into the country from its overseas possessions. I don't think you'll find many Spaniards recollecting the Muslim conquest with fondness, though, so you might want to keep your alternate historical reality to yourself if you ever go over there.

They killed any Moors or Muslims who fell behind their lines, and demanded that Jews remaining, convert to Catholicism or be similarly executed. But, when the Inquisition really got rolling, they didn't trust their Jewish Conversos anyway, and started killing them off also just in case they were secretly practicing Judaism or possibly returning to it at a later date.

The inquisition is wildly exaggerated. My understanding is perhaps 2,000 people were killed in all, which is a fraction of a fraction of the lives lost to the Muslim invasions and wars.

In the more recent examples cited of purges of Christians, Jews and different minority sects in Muslim nations; the question is never asked: how did those minority religious groups live there for so long, and why are they being killed or forced out today....if the story begins and ends with Islamic theology?

You talk as if this was only recent. There have been purges and killings of Christians and Jews throughout the entire history of the Muslim conquest of the middle east. The only real difference today is that many of them can leave now because they know where they can be welcomed.

So, what we have today are "clash of civilization" Neocons, who want to fight against encroaching Islam,

I don't think anyone, even the most brainless feminist and leftist, wants an Islamic style society here in the West. They're simply feeling safe from that, and thus going with their knee-jerk, bleeding heart response to any criticism of people who aren't White, which is to instantly defend those people.

But at current growth rates Muslims will be 7% of the population in ten years, and 15% in 20. That's not a lot of time. What will they be ten years after that? Because those numbers will be at the point then where they will have a heavy influence on our society and our politics. Will we see rollbacks of gay rights, rollbacks of womens rights, laws to bar women from certain professions, restrictions on freedom of speech? I'm betting we'll see the Muslim community trying for all of that in 20-30 years if their attitudes don't change and their numbers continue to climb.

Of course, Leftists don't think more than a few months ahead, so I'm sure such things don't concern them in the least.

I'm reminded of how when Maher Arar was in the news the NDP seized on the opportunity to ingratiate themselves with Muslims by having his wife running under their banner. All was smiles until someone asked the woman about the NDPs gay rights beliefs, and of course she said she absolutely would not support any of them. Whoopsie!

Edited January 25, 2015 by Argus

Rue · January 25, 2015

I can't help but notice but when WIP and Big Guy have responded they have invoked general negative stereotypes about "right wingers", "neo-cons", etc., i.e., people they believe they disagree with.

In so doing they engage in the very cognitive process they chastise the people they stereotype for doing.

I also wonder if they even know what a con is let alone a neo con and what the difference between the 2 are.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Rue

jbg · January 26, 2015

I don't think the sarcasm helps others who are trying to follow this example.

You are cherry picking different events across cultures (Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway vs. terrorist response to religious images) to try provide some kind of evidence I think. It's just flimsy, there's no such thing as an objective "better" in this case.

So you value the reputation of a dead prophet over the lives of real people? I don't think that's what you mean.

Michael Hardner · January 26, 2015

So you value the reputation of a dead prophet over the lives of real people?

No. There's just nothing here in this anecdote of yours, sorry.

WIP · January 26, 2015

I can't help but notice but when WIP and Big Guy have responded they have invoked general negative stereotypes about "right wingers", "neo-cons", etc., i.e., people they believe they disagree with.

In so doing they engage in the very cognitive process they chastise the people they stereotype for doing.

I also wonder if they even know what a con is let alone a neo con and what the difference between the 2 are.

Because there are no positive stereotypes for Neoconservatives (just a fancy name for colonial imperialists), and our age has seen us go too far down the road of greed and individualism, so the right needs to sit in the penalty box until our present environmental ills and warmaking comes to an end.

WIP · January 26, 2015

An interesting way of describing the conquest of a Christian land by Muslims while portraying the Christians as the aggressors!

Christianity came to Spain by way of Visigoth invaders a couple of centuries prior to the Muslim invaders. I don't think the Visigoths were held in high regard.

It was 'multi-ethnic' but of course, Christians and Jews had no power and were required to pay special taxes. It was about as progressive as Iran is today. If that's your idea of progressive I think we have different definitions of the word. I guess you can't call it tyranny if it's Muslims in charge, eh? Those democratic and progressive people!

No, judging from some of the important players in the Moor kingdom, there were a lot of Jews in positions of power, so it doesn't hold true. The Jizya taxes were not always enacted and enforced in the Caliphates, and it has to be noted that non-Muslims were exempt from military service, while Christian nations made no exceptions, when they were raising armies.

That area of Spain was always pretty inventive, industrially and scientifically, and the Moors benefited from that, adn the rich agricultural lands. It was where Christopher Columbus set off for the new world after Spain was freed and united under its Spanish 'theocratic tyranny', and Spain prospered with masses of gold coming into the country from its overseas possessions. I don't think you'll find many Spaniards recollecting the Muslim conquest with fondness, though, so you might want to keep your alternate historical reality to yourself if you ever go over there.

The conquistadors weren't viewed highly in the New World! According to legend, the Mayans poured molten gold down the throats of some captured Spanish adventurers. The gold plundered from the New world, was needed to offset the economic decline that occurred in Spain during the time of Columbus.

The inquisition is wildly exaggerated. My understanding is perhaps 2,000 people were killed in all, which is a fraction of a fraction of the lives lost to the Muslim invasions and wars.

It is noted as the first historical examples of: midnight raids, forced confessions, forced conversions....and there were a lot more than 2000 killed, because most were not brought in for trial.

You talk as if this was only recent. There have been purges and killings of Christians and Jews throughout the entire history of the Muslim conquest of the middle east. The only real difference today is that many of them can leave now because they know where they can be welcomed.

Christian Palestinians weren't persecuted or discriminated against prior to the establishment of the state of Israel; now they are subject to the same ethnic cleansings of being forced out and replaced with Jewish settlements and infrastructure...nothing is said in their defense by the Christian Zionists in America, who look the other way and pretend they don't exist!

Similar thing goes on in Iraq, as one million Christians were living in Iraq at the time Bush decided he had to do regime change! Then, they did nothing to protect Christians or other minorities who were targeted by Sunnis and Shias during the fight against the occupation and control of the country. Bush Administration, nor any bible-waving Christian leaders lifted a finger to help them. They were not being held hostage by Saddam Hussein or any previous government. The right wing narrative fails to explain how all of these religious minorities...including Muslim splinter sects, were able to live in the Middle East prior to western meddling.

I don't think anyone, even the most brainless feminist and leftist, wants an Islamic style society here in the West.
But at current growth rates Muslims will be 7% of the population in ten years, and 15% in 20. That's not a lot of time. What will they be ten years after that?

So, that's why they're dangerous - they breed like rats! And their birth rates never change, whether they live in the ME, Africa, Asia, Europe, or North America....except that they do, like every other immigrant group in North America, the 2nd and 3rd generations have fewer children for the same reasons that most people here have fewer children.

I'm reminded of how when Maher Arar was in the news the NDP seized on the opportunity to ingratiate themselves with Muslims by having his wife running under their banner. All was smiles until someone asked the woman about the NDPs gay rights beliefs, and of course she said she absolutely would not support any of them. Whoopsie!

All that buildup, just to tell me that Maher Arar's wife wouldn't accept NDP policy on gay rights? Good thing there are no fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews who think the same way!

Rue · January 26, 2015

WIP what is a neo conservative? I believe in your last post you now have called them colonial imperialists. What does that mean? You come up with these labels then you subjectively determine anyone with them thinks the same way and then you attribute all these stereotypes to them.

Big Guy does that, Hudson Jones did that using a subjective opinion piece referring to the entire people of Europe plus colonial settler extensions or whatever the phack label it was.

You continue to throw out labels and stereotypes no different than what you accuse others of doing with Muslims.

You also made statements that Christian Palestinians were not persecuted prior to the establishment of Israel. That is just not true. Christians in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, through out the Middle East have been persecuted by Muslims prior to and after Israel's creation. Its a silly thing to say given the sheer volume of historical information available on that topic.

It is true certain Palestinian Christians have identified with Palestinian Muslims in regards to anti Israel beliefs and some formed terrorist groups fighting side by side Palestinian Muslim terrorist groups. It is true certain Palestinian Christian clergy allowed their churches to store weapons for terrorists or be used as terrorist recruiting sites or shelters, However, other Palestinian Christians have been targeted by Muslim extremists or even the former PLO for not siding with them. So it is a very complex issue that can not be simply summarized with you by one subjective generalization.

As well Hussein if you take your time and do the research most importantly attacked Christians. He attacked everyone. He attacked Sunnis, Shiite, Kurds, Jews, Bahaiis, etc. Hussein ordered whole villages wiped out. In his case he had a pronounced clinical paranoia probably conditioned from his childhood and upbring in the military. His role model was Stalin. He believed to survive you kill continuously to show people you mean business and should not be questioned. He strongly believed like Stalin that fear was the key ingredient in rulership, so he killed anyone who even remotely questioned his policies and he killed innocent people randomly for no reason as a deliberate show of force. So to say he did not kill Christians is ludicrous. Many questioned his violence and disappeared. The evidence is there if you want to find it.

As for your projection that people think Muslims are rats, that is you projecting a stereotype on non Muslims.

The very pith and substance of the French terrorist attack came from extremists in the name of Islam using Islam to justify defining people who question Islam through cartoons or simply for being Jews as demons to be killed.

That is insane, illogical behaviour and thoughts leading to the behaviour. It is the product of minds taught to blindly accept and that do not question or can not see more then black and whites.

Yes on one level, satirizing religion can create insult. Sure it can. However rational people don't kill over it.

That is the issue. The attempts to hijack this post to put Jews against Muslims in a contest of who reacts better to viplence, who is treated better by cartoonists, or to try justify the terror as the fault of cartoonists is illogical.

Jews were killed in France simply because they were Jews by people using Islam believing Islam told them to do that as part of a religious war.

There is a clash as Muslims migrate to the non Muslim world but choose to retain certain values of Islam that are in direct conflict with modern Western values.

So for example many non Muslims would not agree with those Muslims demanding public swimming pools be closed off from non Muslims while Muslims swim which is common place in Europe and causes tremendous resentment and friction.

When Muslims ask to be exempt or remain separate from Western society as in the above example, they choose to move into and pick and choose which values they will follow and which ones they will reject while their fellow Westerners can not, it breeds resentment and it creates their own segregation and separation. They choose to segregate and remain apart.

If I invite you to my home for a meal and you start dictating to me what I can serve, how I should serve it, what clothes to wear, what language to use, I say, ah forget it, stay home. If you can't come to my home and show basic courtesy, beat it.

Many of us who criticize Islam extremism and fundamentalism are allied with progressive Muslims, Amidyah and Ismaili Muslims in political beliefs. The fact they are Muslim is not the issue. The fact they embrace certain values as to tolerance and peace is.

.

The point is you should not simply assume all Christians or anyone is a racist simply because they challenge Islam or anyone else for being violent, terrorist or extremist.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Rue

jbg · January 26, 2015

So, that's why they're dangerous - they breed like rats! And their birth rates never change, whether they live in the ME, Africa, Asia, Europe, or North America....except that they do, like every other immigrant group in North America, the 2nd and 3rd generations have fewer children for the same reasons that most people here have fewer children.

Europe is a different story. The cradle to grave social benefits fuels rat-like breeding.

All that buildup, just to tell me that Maher Arar's wife wouldn't accept NDP policy on gay rights? Good thing there are no fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews who think the same way!

They're willing to accept the Left's succor until they don't agree with it.

marcus · January 27, 2015

Christian Palestinians weren't persecuted or discriminated against prior to the establishment of the state of Israel; now they are subject to the same ethnic cleansings of being forced out and replaced with Jewish settlements and infrastructure...nothing is said in their defense by the Christian Zionists in America, who look the other way and pretend they don't exist!

They don't look the other way. They just don't look. It's just not in the narrative that is presented to them, which is pretty much the reason they are how they are. They are ignorant to many facts. This is why they are the perfect group for the Zionist lobby to target and get support from. Not long ago, many of these evangelicals were openly racist towards the Jews. That has changed and it started from the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who have had a huge influence on the direction evangelical Christians have gone.

Edited January 27, 2015 by marcus

WIP · January 28, 2015

They don't look the other way. They just don't look. It's just not in the narrative that is presented to them, which is pretty much the reason they are how they are. They are ignorant to many facts. This is why they are the perfect group for the Zionist lobby to target and get support from. Not long ago, many of these evangelicals were openly racist towards the Jews. That has changed and it started from the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who have had a huge influence on the direction evangelical Christians have gone.

Yes, that's an almost completely U.S. phenomena called Christian Zionism, which I commented on somewhere else recently. It came about after the latest wave of end times millenialism started spreading through Protestant churches beginning in England, but really taking hold in America, when the teachings of John Nelson Darby started taking hold. He was the originator of this Rapture theology that has so many evangelicals expecting to be taken up to heaven before the world descends into chaos.

Darby's other big contribution is the notion that biblical history is a story of God having separate "dispensations" or covenants with different peoples at different times, so unlike the standard Christian theology of God had a covenant with the Jews, but then that was abolished when Jesus came along, the Dispensationalist followers of Darby, are connecting the founding of the modern state of Israel with their interpretation of end times prophecies, and that all the Jews in the world have to gather back again in Israel. So, many of them...especially some Texas oil billionaires, are actually the ones putting up most of the money to build new Jewish settlements in "the holy land."

The Vice documentary series on HBO had a recent feature on the Christian Zionists which through interviews covered most of the essentials, notably that these Christian supporters of Israel are expecting Armageddon to happen there soon and kill one third of Israel's inhabitants....with the remaining survivors making a last ditch conversion to Christianity! So, what kind of friends are these? The kind of friends who instigate a fight, expecting you're going to lose!

WIP · January 28, 2015

WIP what is a neo conservative? I believe in your last post you now have called them colonial imperialists. What does that mean? You come up with these labels then you subjectively determine anyone with them thinks the same way and then you attribute all these stereotypes to them.

Well, I can't explain this multi-headed hydra that believes in using selective application of military force to make the world a better place, any better than Nick Turse - who tells us about the shocking size and scope of using military force on behalf of the empire:

Tomgram: Nick Turse, A Shadow War in 150 Countries

To America’s black ops chiefs, the globe is as unstable as it is interconnected. “I guarantee you what happens in Latin America affects what happens in West Africa, which affects what happens in Southern Europe, which affects what happens in Southwest Asia,” McRaven told last year’s Geolnt, an annual gathering of surveillance-industry executives and military personnel. Their solution to interlocked instability? More missions in more nations -- in more than three-quarters of the world’s countries, in fact -- during McRaven’s tenure. And the stage appears set for yet more of the same in the years ahead. "We want to be everywhere,” said Votel at Geolnt. His forces are already well on their way in 2015.

“Our nation has very high expectations of SOF,” he told special operators in England last fall. “They look to us to do the very hard missions in very difficult conditions.” The nature and whereabouts of most of those “hard missions,” however, remain unknown to Americans. And Votel apparently isn’t interested in shedding light on them. “Sorry, but no,” was SOCOM’s response to TomDispatch’s request for an interview with the special ops chief about current and future operations. In fact, the command refused to make any personnel available for a discussion of what it’s doing in America’s name and with taxpayer dollars. It’s not hard to guess why.

Votel now sits atop one of the major success stories of a post-9/11 military that has been mired in winless wars, intervention blowback, rampant criminal activity, repeated leaks of embarrassing secrets, and all manner of shocking scandals. Through a deft combination of bravado and secrecy, well-placed leaks, adroit marketing and public relations efforts, the skillful cultivation of a superman mystique (with a dollop of tortured fragility on the side), and one extremely popular, high-profile, targeted killing, Special Operations forces have become the darlings of American popular culture, while the command has been a consistent winner in Washington’s bare-knuckled budget battles.

This is particularly striking given what’s actually occurred in the field: in Africa, the arming and outfitting of militants and the training of a coup leader; in Iraq, America’s most elite forces were implicated in torture, the destruction of homes, and the killing and wounding of innocents; in Afghanistan, it was a similar story, with repeated reports of civilian deaths; while in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia it’s been more of the same. And this only scratches the surface of special ops miscues.

In 2001, before U.S. black ops forces began their massive, multi-front clandestine war against terrorism, there were 33,000 members of Special Operations Command and about 1,800 members of the elite of the elite, the Joint Special Operations Command. There were then also 23 terrorist groups -- from Hamas to the Real Irish Republican Army -- as recognized by the State Department, including al-Qaeda, whose membership was estimated at anywhere from 200 to 1,000. That group was primarily based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although small cells had operated in numerous countries including Germany and the United States.

After more than a decade of secret wars, massive surveillance, untold numbers of night raids, detentions, and assassinations, not to mention billions upon billions of dollars spent, the results speak for themselves. SOCOM has more than doubled in size and the secretive JSOC may be almost as large as SOCOM was in 2001. Since September of that year, 36 new terror groups have sprung up, including multiple al-Qaeda franchises, offshoots, and allies. Today, these groups still operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- there are now 11 recognized al-Qaeda affiliates in the latter nation, five in the former -- as well as in Mali and Tunisia, Libya and Morocco, Nigeria and Somalia, Lebanon and Yemen, among other countries. One offshoot was born of the American invasion of Iraq, was nurtured in a U.S. prison camp, and, now known as the Islamic State, controls a wide swath of that country and neighboring Syria, a proto-caliphate in the heart of the Middle East that was only the stuff of jihadi dreams back in 2001. That group, alone, has an estimated strength of around 30,000 and managed to take over a huge swath of territory, including Iraq’s second largest city, despite being relentlessly targeted in its infancy by JSOC.

“We need to continue to synchronize the deployment of SOF throughout the globe,” says Votel. “We all need to be synched up, coordinated, and prepared throughout the command.” Left out of sync are the American people who have consistently been kept in the dark about what America’s special operators are doing and where they’re doing it, not to mention the checkered results of, and blowback from, what they’ve done. But if history is any guide, the black ops blackout will help ensure that this continues to be a “golden age” for U.S. Special Operations Command.

You also made statements that Christian Palestinians were not persecuted prior to the establishment of Israel. That is just not true.

NO, I said that they weren't being forced out of their homes or subjected to mass killings prior to the 20th century, and the European/American intrusions on behalf of oil development.

Rue · January 28, 2015

NO, I said that they weren't being forced out of their homes or subjected to mass killings prior to the 20th century, and the European/American intrusions on behalf of oil development.

You also made statements that Christian Palestinians were not persecuted prior to the establishment of Israel. That is just not true.

Christian Palestinians weren't persecuted or discriminated against prior to the establishment of the state of Israel

NO, I said that they weren't being forced out of their homes or subjected to mass killings prior to the 20th century, and the European/American intrusions on behalf of oil development.

In response to the above comment you made in response to me in your post 686, WIP you in fact stated in post 681 and I quote:

"Christian Palestinians weren't persecuted or discriminated against prior to the establishment of the state of Israel;"

Rue · January 28, 2015

WIp your response in 686 did not answer what a neo con is let alone what a con is. It refers to a lot of things but not the definition of neo con or con. In fact it provides no comment on all on political ideology. It might be helpful you respond to the question I actually asked and that is what the hell is a neo con.

If you don't know just say so. If you are trying to suggest anyone who engages in black ops is a neo con, that is of course illogical.

Engaging in black ops has never been the exclusive domain of any one political ideology.

dre · January 29, 2015

Neocons are the deciples of a plato-worshipping refugee from Nazi Germany who moved to the US and taught political science at the University of Chicago... Strauss.

The idealogy is centered around his belief that the descent into liberalism in the Wiemer Republic gave rise to the Nazis, and that the way to prevent this from happening in the United States was to stop liberalism in its tracks, and the way to do that was to keep the country in a state of perpetual war thereby galvanizing the population against a common enemy and keeping people to fear-dumb to adequately stand up for their own interests. He also talked about "noble lies" where you trick people into going to war by exagerating the threat posed by various adversaries (war on terror come to mind)?

They are known for their foreign policy but interestingly enough they care very little about the rest of the world. Neo-con foreign policy is ENTIRELY centered around domestic goals and reshaping the political landscape in America (while of course loading up their bank accounts along the way).

Ironic that an ideology that was meant to prevent the rise of another movement like the Nazis in Germany has actually become the most destructive force in the world SINCE the Nazis.

Rue · January 29, 2015

YDre you walked into that. Thank you. .Zip over your head. You just couldn't resist pointing out Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany and then to a reference likening him to being almost as destructive as Nazis. Congrats, you again proved my point.

You just couldn't resist bring up someone's origins and saying something disparaging about them in a negative reference to Nazism inferring since they came from Nazi Germany they should no better-classic holocaust inversion.

His origins in Germany and his being a Nazi refugee are thrown back at him.

Interesting you seem to have failed to mention in fact the term was first used as a disparaging remark by socialists against other socialists and morphed into the present day label given to a wide range of Americans such as Henry Scoop Jackson, Truman, Jeanne Kirpatrick, Daniel Monyihan,people from both the Democrats and Republicans.

When I asked the question it was rhetorical because I believe its thrown out by people who think they are leftist and they can just throw it out on anyone who disagrees with them or is not anti United States.

What I also find hilarious about your description is its a crock of bias crap. First off Strauss was one of many given this label. If you even bothered to read his essays you would know he in fact defended liberal democracies. His position roughly summarized was that the West because of a dependence on creating goods to sell, got caught up in material definitions and lost its moral purpose. When he talked of Hitler or Stalin he never stated liberalism caused their ascent to power. That is a crock. He said a confusion as to moral values allowed these leaders to exploit that confusion to present their own to fill that vacuum.

In fact if you knew anything about the traditional definition of liberalism, Nazism is technically an extreme form of it. Liberalism encourages state intervention in society and the use of the state to spread a moral vision. Conservatism on the other hand prefers the individual to do that.

The classic definition of LIberalism would be Jeremy Bentham and the classic definition of Conservatism would be Edmund Burke. Both had ideologies what we call today Liberalism and Conservatism may not even agree with.

If anything Strauss did not like the views of Locke not Bentham. Some call Locke a Liberal, yes.

Strauss was hardly the only academic linked to the origins of this movement. At one point it was thrown at any one who was pro US in the Vietnam war or who was against the civil rights movement. So it lumped in white supremacists with conservatives who were not necessarily anti civil rights just anti affirmative action.

What Strauss believed was that when one defines a political community they should use concepts of legality and justice and not simply define a state by sovereignty or force.

As well if anything he followed Aristotle type cognitive reasoning not Plato and he also followed Christian gospels and Talmudic reasoning and values.

Lol but thanks for telling me Dre. I needed the disparaging insult linked to the Nazis. That sure helped.

WIP · January 29, 2015

In response to the above comment you made in response to me in your post 686, WIP you in fact stated in post 681 and I quote:

"Christian Palestinians weren't persecuted or discriminated against prior to the establishment of the state of Israel;"

thanks for hairsplitting! are you a goddammed lawyer or something similar? You know any uncivil act can be interpreted as violence if you want to be a total a-hole and try to shift attention from issues you find uncomfortable!

Now, I don't know the details on Palestinian life...and I don't really care a whole lot either! My point is that in the Muslim lands where you and your ilk are trying to paint a picture today of a religion with cultures that never allow other religions or splinter sects from Islamic orthodoxy, there nevertheless were minorities like the Christians...some descendants of the original crusader kingdoms of the middle ages, were still living there, and most of the reasons for declining Christian populations in Palestine today is because they have an easier time emigrating to the west than Muslims do! Talk to any if you happen to meet them, they'll tell you themselves!

Rue · January 29, 2015

thanks for hairsplitting! are you a goddammed lawyer or something similar?

... most of the reasons for declining Christian populations in Palestine today is because they have an easier time emigrating to the west than Muslims do! Talk to any if you happen to meet them, they'll tell you themselves!

In regards to the first comment yes, especially the goddamned part.

In regards to the second comment, you are stereotyping and assuming Christian Arabs have an easier time when they immigrate than Muslim Arabs simply because they are Christian. You have zero proof of that, zero.

In fact more Palestinian Muslims have come to Canada per ratio than Christian Palestinians so your comment makes no sense.

WIP · January 30, 2015

In regards to the first comment yes, especially the goddamned part.

Well, that explains the hairsplitting!

In regards to the second comment, you are stereotyping and assuming Christian Arabs have an easier time when they immigrate than Muslim Arabs simply because they are Christian. You have zero proof of that, zero.

In fact more Palestinian Muslims have come to Canada per ratio than Christian Palestinians so your comment makes no sense.

In absolute numbers, there are a lot more Muslim Palestinians than Christians, so unless the numbers (if you can find them) are broken down by percentage, they're misleading or worse. Nobody is keeping official records regarding how many Palestinian immigrants are Muslim or Christian; the information available is secondary and anecdotal. Though it does stand to reason that, as anti-Islam hysteria has grown since 9/11, it would be much harder for any Muslims to get to the West. The government officials who validate or choose to refuse immigration applications are never going to say that the choice was mostly made on religious affiliation, but I'm sure that being an Arab Christian eases the process a lot more than being a Muslim!

I've never bothered to look up this issue before, but the wiki article: Palestinian Christians says this about their diaspora:

Today, Christians comprise less than 4% of the Palestinian population of Israel and the Palestinian territories - approximately 8% of the Arab population of the West Bank, less than 1% in the Gaza Strip, and nearly 10% of the Arab population in Israel.^[2] According to official British Mandatory estimates, Palestine's Christian population in 1922 comprised 9.5% of the total population (10.8% of the Palestinian population), and 7.9% in 1946.^[3] The Palestinian Christian population greatly decreased from 1948 to 1967. A large number fled or were expelled from the area during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and a small number left during Jordanian control of the West Bank for economic reasons. Since 1967, the Palestinian Christian population has increased in excess of the continued emigration.^[4] There are also many Palestinian Christians who are descendants of Palestinian refugees from the post-1948 era who fled to Christian majority countries and converted to the predominant faiths there, and formed large diasporan Christian communities.^[5]^[6]

Worldwide, there are nearly one million Palestinian Christians in these territories as well as in the Palestinian diaspora, comprising over 10% of the world's total Palestinian population. Palestinian Christians live primarily in Arab states surrounding historic Palestine and in the diaspora, particularly in South America, Europe and North America.

I've never researched this topic beyond the anecdotes I have heard from people who've come here from the Middle East, and I was struck by how the claims on right wing Christian fundamentalist/zionist/anti-Muslim sites kept trying to present claims of Christian extermination in Palestine by Muslims. The truth would indicate otherwise, as would the fact that the most dangerous Palestinian guerrilla movement of the 60's and 70's - the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was founded and led by a Palestinian Christian.

Not that any of this has much of anything to do with Charlie Hebdo and Muslim immigrants in France, but the fact that the most extreme right wing Christians who run U.S. right wing media, never mention them or try to pretend that they don't exist! It's just further proof (as if any was necessary) that virtually every time the media defines a war or civil conflict as a religious conflict, it is just further evidence of how lazy and inept they are, and how much they desire simple, one paragraph explanations for complex struggles rooted in: economic decline, discrimination, food shortages etc., and rival religious affiliations are used by both sides in a conflict to justify their violence and reasons to oppress, isolate, expel and sometime exterminate their rivals.

Rue · January 30, 2015

With duer respect WIP because you always make an hoenst effort to respond with well thought out answers, what you claim you have heard from people who've come here from the Middle East might be a bit problematic to rely on. You know we gawd damn lawyers call that heresay evidence. Its not too reliable give it can not be tested first hand for accuracy.

In regards to your second comment you said you were struck by how the claims on right wing Christian fundamentalist/zionist/anti-Muslim sites kept trying to present claims of Christian extermination in Palestine by Muslims.

Again I do not know what that means. It could be those sites are reporting accurate things and because you have negative preconceptions labelling them what you did, you have dismissed what they have said for that reason.

All I am saying is being Christian doesn't automatically make it easier to be an immigrant in Canada and that Palestinian Christians are not all Zionists as you appear to be suggesting. There were Palestinian Christian terror cells in the past that attacked Israel. Whether they still exist no one knows for sure.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Rue

Hudson Jones · January 31, 2015

Palestinian Christians see the Israelis for what they are. Occupiers and international law violators.

Here is a good video which talks about Palestinian Christians:

Back in 1948, when Israel was established, Christians in Palestine made up around 18 percent of the population... Now it is around two percent only.

They have been faced with the same discriminatory policies as Muslim Palestinians, pushing thousands to leave Palestine. In a 2006 poll, Christians living in Bethlehem said Israeli aggression and occupation was the main cause of emigration.

Inside Story discusses the sufferings of Palestinian Christians under the Israeli occupation.

Bonam · January 31, 2015

but I'm sure that being an Arab Christian eases the process a lot more than being a Muslim!

You might be "sure" of that, but you'd be wrong. There isn't even a spot on any of the forms that asks you your religion.

Bonam · January 31, 2015

Anyway, very telling that a thread about a terrorist incident in France has been converted by the usual suspects into yet another Israel-bashing thread. Apparently the other 4302423850293850235849023859045629672867906873 threads on the subject were insufficient.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Bonam

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2015

Anyway, very telling that a thread about a terrorist incident in France has been converted by the usual suspects into yet another Israel-bashing thread. Apparently the other 4302423850293850235849023859045629672867906873 threads on the subject were insufficient.

Yep...it's quite predictable. Like Godwin's Law.....

Hudson Jones · January 31, 2015

Anyway, very telling that a thread about a terrorist incident in France has been converted by the usual suspects into yet another Israel-bashing thread. Apparently the other 4302423850293850235849023859045629672867906873 threads on the subject were insufficient.

You're right. Looks like the usual suspects, WIP and Argus did bring Israel into this thread.