Is it racist to hate Muslim extremists?

[M.Dancer]

Do the "Palestinians" have the "resources" to be an independent country?

Well, if they don't, I guess the operative questions would be " Why not? " and " What should be done about it? " .

If the two-state solution cannot work, I guess there is always the one-state solution.

Well....not every nation is graced with viable ports of entry, flowing fresh water, abundant natural resources and an educated, sophisticated population and responsible government.

[ScottSA]

Do the "Palestinians" have the "resources" to be an independent country?

Well, if they don't, I guess the operative questions would be " Why not? " and " What should be done about it? " .

If the two-state solution cannot work, I guess there is always the one-state solution.

How about nothing? I think I want to start the republic of ScottSA in the Okanagan, but while I have lots of fruit and an increasing number of wineries, there's a real dearth of industry and flat land. Not to mention only one old army base and a couple armouries with Shermans stuck in front of them, gaurenteed to turn any prospective war into the Limp of the Light Brigade. It's not fair, and I'd like the world to fix things for me please. Quick, before I blow up a Jew.

[Rue]

In the Troop Surge thread, I opined on the issue of Muslim extremists and the conversation shifted to one of racism. Not wanting to hijack the thread, I'm moving the issue here and posing the question: is it racist to hate Mulim extremists?

Not if the reason you hate them is because they are violent extremists. It would be racist I suppose if you hated them because you hate the fact that they are Muslim. Many Muslims hate Muslim extremists too.

I think it is no different then say here in Canada. When we see a person commit a crime, and we point out they are black or white, the question is does that make it racist?

To me when we get into the ism words like racism, sexism, etc., are we not talking about the exercise of using negative generalizations to negate an entire perceived group of people? No one complains if we do it in a positive manner, its when we do it in a negative manner.

As a Jew I find it offensive and anti-semitic when people who claim to be criticizing Israeli foreign policy or Israeli government policies, use the word "Jew" and engage in negative comments that generalize all Jews in a negative way and has having the same negative characteristics when criticizing Israel.

I think for example, when discussing Muslim terrorists, what happens is some people don't just limit their criticism to the terrorist behaviour, they go the next step and start generalizing ALL Muslims believe in terrorism and its a religious thing.

I think its true many terrorists are Muslim and we often use the word Muslim terrorist to differentiate it from say terrorists in other parts of the world, but we all know the line between Mulsims and terrorists has been blurred by the constant use of the word in a negative way, just as the word Zionist has now become the popular way to make a disparaging codified reference to a negative generalization about Jews who support Israel and live outside Israel.

To me I read what people say and look for the context of how they say it. It usually becomes evident by the number of generalizations they make and whether those generalizations are negative or positive, where there head is at.

I noted today there was a story in the Toronto Star about some lady in Vaughan, Ontario running a questionable day care operation and at the end of the story, Star writer chose to describe her as a Jew from the Ukraine. It had nothing to do with the story at all so I would question why was it placed in the story and does placing it in the story do nothing more then incite people to hate her because she is a new Canadian immigrant from the Ukraine who is Jewish since the rest of the story is about negative things she has done.

I think say black people are concerned that when crime is reported it is always pointed out the criminals are black and they feel they only read negative stories about blacks in that context and never positive ones.

There is no doubt our press likes to dwell on the negative and not the positive, and so when it identifies race or ethnicity, etc., its often done in a negative story. So does that fuel racism and intolerance or are the press merely doing their job and reporting things?

I would say when we criticize groups or people we simply need to take care not to generalize about an entire group of people.

I know when I wish to discuss terrorists in the Middle East, I try to say Hamas or PFLP, but there are so many terrorist groups I sometimes refer to them as Muslim terrorists or Muslim fundamentalist groups. It may very well be Muslims feel this keeps muddying their good name buy connecting it to terrorists who they do not feel represent their religion or views, and so I think its understandable why people whose religion or group is group referred and connected to negative things, get nervous and concerned.

No I am not sure if there will ever be a way to speak in a way that does not offend someone.

[Rue]

Huh? I was talking about land in Lebanon, where the "fighters" hang out among civilians. If they want to fight Israel, let them form armies, and go to war.

More informed people than you or I have already gone to great lengths discussing the origins of terrorism as a tool for asymetrical warfare. For all the talk of Iran and Syria supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, you do not see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard blowing themselves up in pizza parlours because they actually *have* the resources to field armies. Palestinians do not.

With due respect what you said makes absolutely no sense. Hamas, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, Al Fatah, Hezbollah, are funded with millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, and an elaborate network of charities and businesses.

To say terrorists simply engage in terror because they can't accord to fight conventionally is a silly thing to say and you should be embarassed to say it.

Terrorists choose the tactics they do not because they do not have enough money but precisely because they feel they can't win a conventional war-no more, no less.

Your assumption they are poor victims left to no other means to express themselves is a joke.

Would it also not dawn on you that people without money have other means other then terror even if it was the case they were poor?

Using your anaology how do you explain what Martin Luther King or Ghandi were able to achieve?

You really need to find out just how much financial funding goes on with terrorist groups and what financial resources are under their domain before you make such comments.

May I suggest you first start by finding out how many billions the PLO misappropriated and placed in French and Swiss bank accounts fueled by selling heroin and hash hish.

May I also suggest you find out just how much money Hezbollah gets from Iran or the fact for example just this year Sudan provided $10 million in funds to Hamas.

[Remiel]

It's not fair, and I'd like the world to fix things for me please.

Now that is a wonderful explanation of how the State of Israel was founded...

...Could your replies be any more pathetic?

[Rue]

Do the "Palestinians" have the "resources" to be an independent country?

Well, if they don't, I guess the operative questions would be " Why not? " and " What should be done about it? " .

If the two-state solution cannot work, I guess there is always the one-state solution.

Yes there is ample precedent for democratic states in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world. Muslim theocracies are nothing but tolerant of their non Muslim minorities. They do not engage in humanr ights violations against say Hindus or Christians with dark skin or Bahaiis, or gays, or communists, or

Jews, or trade unionists, or feminists. They avoid coruption, political police forces and enjoy open elections.

Yes you are right. A One state solution along the lines of Iran, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Algeria, would work. Brilliant. I wish I had thought of that.

[Remiel]

Terrorists choose the tactics they do not because they do not have enough money but precisely because they feel they can't win a conventional war-no more, no less.

May I suggest you first start by finding out how many billions the PLO misappropriated and placed in French and Swiss bank accounts fueled by selling heroin and hash hish.

If one is to assume that the only " right " way to wage war is to field armies, then would we not have to condemn the resistance movements of the Second World War? I am certainly not going to do that.

In terms of the second point, I thought Yasser's Al Fatah was the controlling power of the PLO. So, it would seem odd to think that the other groups would say to themselves, " Well, Fatah has all this money that they squirreled away to make themselves rich. I guess we'll just sit back and relax and wait for them to give it back! "

Lastly, why do you assume that when I said a one state solution, I meant an Islamic state? That stinks of the notion that Arabs are incapable of anything else, and taken at face value, it would seem racist. Yet, we have proof that it is possible for Muslims to get behind secular government, like in Turkey. Which is not to say that Turkey is a model either, but it shows that it should be *possible* to break new ground. I would of thought that since Israelis are so positively " wonderful " that they may have it in them to make Israel and Palestine work, somehow, but your sarcasm seems to show that this may not be the case.

To make a variation on a recent comment, " There will never be peace in the land of Israel until Jews and Palestinians learn to hate their neighbours more than they hate each other. " What they really need is a common enemy.

[Rue]

"If one is to assume that the only " right " way to wage war is to field armies, then would we not have to condemn the resistance movements of the Second World War?"

You respond by fusing or mixing two distinct things, guerialla or resistance units that only enagge in war against soldiers or military targets with terrorists. The difference? The resistance or underground in Europe did not have convenants and charters calling for the world wide murder and death of specific religious or ethnic groups nor is your comparison of the tactics used by the World War Two underground to what Hamas does even deserve a response. That said, even the resistance movements may have engaged in illegal or criminal activities as would conventional soldiers. What you refer to as the "right" way is your phrase. Some of us believe any use of murder or violence is not right.

"I am certainly not going to do that."

You did precisely that my equating what the resistance did in World War Two to what terrorist cells are doing today. You in fact insult the memories of people in the resistance who did not and would never engage in what Hamas or PFLP or Hezbollah do.

"In terms of the second point, I thought Yasser's Al Fatah was the controlling power of the PLO. So, it would seem odd to think that the other groups would say to themselves, " Well, Fatah has all this money that they squirreled away to make themselves rich. I guess we'll just sit back and relax and wait for them to give it back! ""

Hello can you please try read about the PLO? It was/is an umbrella organization of over 300 autonomous cells each with their own leader doing their own thing often at cross purposes to one another and whose only thing in common is the desire to eradicate Israel. Arafat controlled Al Fatah nothing else. Andyes when the other groups saw Arafat funneling money they lined up for their percentage of kickbacks. Where have you been? Would it not dawn on you some of these so called impoverished terrorists took money under false pretenses and used their liberation guises to legitimize their organized criminal activities and no they weren't all thinking of Palestinian civilians. One of the reasons Hamas came about was precisely because the Muslim Brotherhood was disgusted at the wide spread coruption. Now Hamas today, has fallen for the same internal coruption.

"Lastly, why do you assume that when I said a one state solution, I meant an Islamic state? "

Oh here comes the I never meant anything by what I said denial. So tell me. Show me a state in the Middle East that is a one state government other then Israel that is not Muslim? Um uh um, no problem the Muslim world will have no problem with a non Muslim country in their midst. No wait. They do have a problem.Oops.

"Yet, we have proof that it is possible for Muslims to get behind secular government, like in Turkey."

In case you haven't noticed, comparing the Muslim Middle East countries to Turkey is absolutely ludicrous given the Turkish approach to Islam and the rest of the Middle East's approach to Islam is like comparing apples to oranges.

Not only that to suggest Turkey is a model of the one state you suggest is way past absurd. But if you want to believe Turkey is a role model for the world be my guest.

In regards to your suggestions about Israelis being progressive I must say you are even more progressive then any Israeli I have ever known and so I call on you to take every single Jew and Muslim out of the Middle East and settle them in your neighbourhood and show them how it is done.

Another arm chair expert lectures others how to be tolerant. Why don't you start in your own neighbourhood.

What is it with this need to act like missionaries and lecture Israel and of course all Middle East Muslims using your analogy? Do you feel morally superior or in the position to be able to lecture them? Do you have need to proseltyze people? By any chance do you have a beard or a holy book in your hand when you make these comments? Do you stand on a mountain?

You know I am sorry to make such comments, but your lecturing gets absurd because it assumes you know better and are in the position to lecture people in a conflict how to get along. Sorry, and I did not mean to be personal but I have to take what you say tonque in cheek.

Any solution for peace will come not from you or so called experts like you who lecture from safe cushy places, but by the people on both sides of the conflict who have suffered and continue to suffer and no they are not in your head space precisely because they are tramatized and both sides will need a considerable period of time seperated before they can heal and even talk about joint projects.

No you can't take victims of terrorists on both sides and shove them into one country. That is ludicrous.

[Black Dog]

*Shuffles in from vacation*

Say, i wonder what's on the ol' MLW forums today?

*click click click*

Oh ferfucks...look, people. I've been gone, like, three weeks. And you clowns still haven't sorted out the Middle East? jbg? Dancer? Mr. Anderson? Anyone? Bueller?

[Remiel]

In regards to your suggestions about Israelis being progressive I must say you are even more progressive then any Israeli I have ever known and so I call on you to take every single Jew and Muslim out of the Middle East and settle them in your neighbourhood and show them how it is done.

You know I am sorry to make such comments, but your lecturing gets absurd because it assumes you know better and are in the position to lecture people in a conflict how to get along. Sorry, and I did not mean to be personal but I have to take what you say tonque in cheek.

Any solution for peace will come not from you or so called experts like you who lecture from safe cushy places, but by the people on both sides of the conflict who have suffered and continue to suffer and no they are not in your head space precisely because they are tramatized and both sides will need a considerable period of time seperated before they can heal and even talk about joint projects.

No you can't take victims of terrorists on both sides and shove them into one country. That is ludicrous.

Unfortunately, I have not had the chance to go back in time and invite all of the Jews fleeing Europe to come to Canada. We probably would of gotten a lot of good out of that, had it happened, but it didn't. Turning away the Jewish refugees was one of the most shameful things the government of this country ever did.

You're right when you say that the solution will not come from people who lecture from a safe distance, but that also applies to all of the people around here who seem to be more anti-Muslim than pro-Israeli. If the crime is being an armchair general, than it matters not which side you play on.

Lastly, perhaps it is ludicrous, but sometimes it doesn't seem anymore ludicrous than allowing the status quo to go on and on ad infinitum.

[jbg]

Do the "Palestinians" have the "resources" to be an independent country?

Well, if they don't, I guess the operative questions would be " Why not? " and " What should be done about it? " .

If the two-state solution cannot work, I guess there is always the one-state solution.

Well....not every nation is graced with viable ports of entry, flowing fresh water, abundant natural resources and an educated, sophisticated population and responsible government.

Then what are people doing there, unless supported by the UNWRA fool's paradise? Heck, the Israelis made the desert bloom. Why can't the Islamists? Oops, too busy fighting ancient battles.

[Black Dog]

Then what are people doing there

You're kidding, right?