Post by: Manedwolf on April 09, 2008, 12:10:19 PM
Quote
Four Palestinian gunmen stormed through the border fence in Gaza and attacked an Israeli cargo crossing in a daring daylight raid. They shot and killed two Israeli civilians who work for the company that supplies fuel to Gaza.
Quote
Two Islamic militant groups, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees, claimed responsibility for the shooting.
Islamic Jihad spokesman Abu Ahmad described the raid as a "unique and complicated operation." The Islamic militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza, said it was a "heroic and courageous" attack.
Islamic Jihad spokesman Abu Ahmad described the raid as a "unique and complicated operation." The Islamic militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza, said it was a "heroic and courageous" attack.
Quote
Cabinet Minister Gideon Ezra said Israel should cut off fuel supplies to Gaza.
I agree.
http://voanews.com/english/2008-04-09-voa48.cfm
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on April 09, 2008, 12:45:08 PM
Quote
Islamic Jihad spokesman Abu Ahmad described the raid as a "unique and complicated operation."
Polite way to say FUBAR?
Post by: Nitrogen on April 09, 2008, 04:06:38 PM
Post by: De Selby on April 09, 2008, 04:59:04 PM
That is the root of this conflict-withholding fuel or dropping bombs is not going to solve it, because contrary to the ideological commitments to violence that some people hold, it is extremely rare that you will cow an entire nation of people into obedience by threatening death or starvation.
Post by: Bigjake on April 09, 2008, 05:11:14 PM
Further proof that threatening people with death does not motivate them to do what you want them to do.
That is the root of this conflict-withholding fuel or dropping bombs is not going to solve it, because contrary to the ideological commitments to violence that some people hold, it is extremely rare that you will cow an entire nation of people into obedience by threatening death or starvation.
That is the root of this conflict-withholding fuel or dropping bombs is not going to solve it, because contrary to the ideological commitments to violence that some people hold, it is extremely rare that you will cow an entire nation of people into obedience by threatening death or starvation.
Which is why the Izzies keep talking peace with them? Or are you reffering to the precision air strikes against KNOWN TERRORIST POSITIONS ( you know, the kind that kill civilians at random??)
wrong again. ;
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 09, 2008, 05:21:19 PM
Further proof that threatening people with death does not motivate them to do what you want them to do.
And what, pray tell, has ever motivated the Palestinians to leave the Israelis alone? The Israelis have tried talking with them, negotiating with them, bribing them, appeasing them, cooperating with them, acquiescing to them, signing cease fires with them, and on and on. None of it has prevented Palestinians from trying to kill Israelis at every turn. None.
The only semi-effective solution the Israelis have found is to try to try to wall off "Palestine" with fences and soldiers and checkpoints. Even that doesn't work especially well. Palestinian/terrorist groups have easy access to artillery and rockets and no qualms about using them.
Post by: De Selby on April 09, 2008, 05:53:00 PM
But anyway, what they have not tried definitely is saying "We recognize your right to remain in your homes as equals to everyone else who lives around you."
And of course they can't-because that would mean no Jewish state, since half the voting population would not be Jewish.
That's another thing that never seems to work out-you can't say "well, you live here, but you can't have rights x y and z because you're not of the race that this state was founded to protect." That never goes over well with people who live there.
A real movement towards liberty for Israelis, away from the Leninist policies of past Israelis governments, is probably the best thing that could happen right now...it might inspire the Palestinians to work for the same on their own terms.
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 09, 2008, 08:33:57 PM
BTW, the Army Spokesman said that, fuel supplies to Gaza will NOT be cut except temporarily, while the army re-evaluates security measures at the fuel depot in question. That might take a few days, but no long-term measures will be taken.
And Shootinstudent, I think you misunderstand.
Palestinians =/= Israeli-Arabs.
Palestinians vote and so forth in their own elections and elect their own leadership (except in Gaza - blame Hamas for thaT).
Israeli-Arabs are, of course, sometimes discriminated against, but they vote and serve in the government, and they are citizens of the country just like the Jewish majority.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 04:31:40 AM
BTW, the Army Spokesman said that, fuel supplies to Gaza will NOT be cut except temporarily, while the army re-evaluates security measures at the fuel depot in question.
Hopefully that takes a few years to evaluate before they re-open it, and then gets delayed again, ad infinitum.
Or hopefully, they can't find any more drivers willing to risk their lives.
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 10, 2008, 07:44:01 AM
But I'm all for no peace - no gas for a few days.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 08:10:02 AM
Maned, we all know that Europe and America won't let us to just starve the Palis out.
But I'm all for no peace - no gas for a few days.
But I'm all for no peace - no gas for a few days.
Europe wouldn't (It might make the radicals there mad, and they'd hurt them! Or burn cars!), but a hell of a lot of America, sick of the "Palestinian" terrorism and who stand with Israel as an ally, sure would.
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 10, 2008, 08:18:05 AM
They're the export market for our agricultural produce, and they provide us with tourists.
We also need their weapons and diplomatic support.
Besides, nobody here relishes in the idea of starving the Arabs. Except the crazy settler people.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 08:19:55 AM
They're on the WATER. They could have a port with an oil terminal if they'd quit blowing up their own stuff, but they won't, so no foreign investment will touch the place.
They're doing it to themselves. If they spent half the time building things that they do building and launching rockets from the roofs of occupied buildings, they wouldn't be living in such squalor. Why should anyone help them?
As it is now, it's like delivering welfare payments to someone who not only won't work, but tries to shoot you when you come to give them their handout.
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 10, 2008, 08:32:47 AM
90% of Hamas budget is actually developing infrastructure, schools (which they use for propaganda), hospitals, etc. in Palestine.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 08:35:35 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 10, 2008, 08:39:23 AM
Where do they get the money?
Three sources:
Donations, drugs, and serving as a de-facto government in Gaza.
Post by: Brad Johnson on April 10, 2008, 09:59:47 AM
Brad
Post by: Bogie on April 10, 2008, 10:24:12 AM
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 10, 2008, 11:08:40 AM
Whose the average Joe going to believe, the people who have been building their schools and hospitals, or the floating leaflets that came from the planes that last week were dropping bombs?
Starving would only breed hatred and radicalization.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 11:13:07 AM
Yes, because starving and isolating NEVER breeds radicalization.
Whose the average Joe going to believe, the people who have been building their schools and hospitals, or the floating leaflets that came from the planes that last week were dropping bombs?
Starving would only breed hatred and radicalization.
Whose the average Joe going to believe, the people who have been building their schools and hospitals, or the floating leaflets that came from the planes that last week were dropping bombs?
Starving would only breed hatred and radicalization.
Or the people who built a Quassam launcher on top of the school they built, and used it to lob rockets at Israel until a missile came back and destroyed it, so they could claim that Israel destroyed the school.
Post by: Nitrogen on April 10, 2008, 11:25:42 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on April 10, 2008, 11:29:13 AM
Perhaps if they don't want to be starved and isolated, they should stop shooting at people trying to bring them food, fuel, and medical attention.
This is a religious/cultural thing, remember? Doing something that makes sense is irrelevant.
Brad
Post by: MechAg94 on April 10, 2008, 12:08:19 PM
Yes, because starving and isolating NEVER breeds radicalization.
Whose the average Joe going to believe, the people who have been building their schools and hospitals, or the floating leaflets that came from the planes that last week were dropping bombs?
Starving would only breed hatred and radicalization.
And that would change things how?
Whose the average Joe going to believe, the people who have been building their schools and hospitals, or the floating leaflets that came from the planes that last week were dropping bombs?
Starving would only breed hatred and radicalization.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on April 10, 2008, 12:48:41 PM
Further proof that threatening people with death does not motivate them to do what you want them to do.
That is the root of this conflict-withholding fuel or dropping bombs is not going to solve it, because contrary to the ideological commitments to violence that some people hold, it is extremely rare that you will cow an entire nation of people into obedience by threatening death or starvation.
That is the root of this conflict-withholding fuel or dropping bombs is not going to solve it, because contrary to the ideological commitments to violence that some people hold, it is extremely rare that you will cow an entire nation of people into obedience by threatening death or starvation.
Much more effective to for suicide bombers to blow up school busses full of children and cafes full of tourists.
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 10, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Perhaps if they don't want to be starved and isolated, they should stop shooting at people trying to bring them food, fuel, and medical attention.
You're basing that on the blind assumption that the vocal/violent extremists represent the attitudes of the common people, which is false. The vast majority abhor violence toward civilians.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 01:27:08 PM
Perhaps if they don't want to be starved and isolated, they should stop shooting at people trying to bring them food, fuel, and medical attention.
You're basing that on the blind assumption that the vocal/violent extremists represent the attitudes of the common people, which is false. The vast majority abhor violence toward civilians.
Would that be the ones launching the rockets from the roofs of occupied schools and apartment buildings, the ones carrying rockets to them, the ones building the rockets, the ones in the streets firing AKs in the air when a rocket hits something, or the ones just living under the rocket launchers?
Post by: taurusowner on April 10, 2008, 01:28:37 PM
Post by: roo_ster on April 10, 2008, 05:18:21 PM
Perhaps if they don't want to be starved and isolated, they should stop shooting at people trying to bring them food, fuel, and medical attention.
You're basing that on the blind assumption that the vocal/violent extremists represent the attitudes of the common people, which is false. The vast majority abhor violence toward civilians.
Then, there was the election which had the Palis electing Hamas to a majority in the Pali gov't.
But don't let facts get in the way of your kumbaya-ism. Because if you did, you could google up several polls indicating similar data showing the majority of Palis are bloodthirsty savages.
The Palis earned their bad reputation the old-fashioned way and deserve nothing better than the back of our hand.
* I can't recall if the +/- was nearer 3% or nearer 5%. No matter, really, as 65% is a pretty convincing and damning proportion. No need to do a recount & search for dangling chads.
Post by: Bigjake on April 10, 2008, 05:47:09 PM
You're basing that on the blind assumption that the vocal/violent extremists represent the attitudes of the common people, which is false. The vast majority abhor violence toward civilians.
Are those the same folks that were dancing in the streets on a certain September morning a few years ago??
Post by: De Selby on April 10, 2008, 08:34:46 PM
How is this representative of all Palestinians? The guys in the West Bank are being nice and quiet in the meanwhile.
BTW, the Army Spokesman said that, fuel supplies to Gaza will NOT be cut except temporarily, while the army re-evaluates security measures at the fuel depot in question. That might take a few days, but no long-term measures will be taken.
And Shootinstudent, I think you misunderstand.
Palestinians =/= Israeli-Arabs.
Palestinians vote and so forth in their own elections and elect their own leadership (except in Gaza - blame Hamas for thaT).
Israeli-Arabs are, of course, sometimes discriminated against, but they vote and serve in the government, and they are citizens of the country just like the Jewish majority.
BTW, the Army Spokesman said that, fuel supplies to Gaza will NOT be cut except temporarily, while the army re-evaluates security measures at the fuel depot in question. That might take a few days, but no long-term measures will be taken.
And Shootinstudent, I think you misunderstand.
Palestinians =/= Israeli-Arabs.
Palestinians vote and so forth in their own elections and elect their own leadership (except in Gaza - blame Hamas for thaT).
Israeli-Arabs are, of course, sometimes discriminated against, but they vote and serve in the government, and they are citizens of the country just like the Jewish majority.
Yes, I understand the distinction as it stands-I was pointing out that the deal offered to the under 20 percent of Israel that is arabs was made possible by their small population figures.
It would not have mattered if no Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza had ever lifted a finger against an Israeli after the 1967 war and if they all begged for citizenship-no Israeli government would ever have granted that. Yet the Israeli government claims that very piece of land, with all the Palestinians on it, as rightfully the territory of Israel. That is always going to be a problem-you can't claim sovereignty over a land with people your country will never recognize as citizens.
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 10, 2008, 08:50:07 PM
Perhaps if they don't want to be starved and isolated, they should stop shooting at people trying to bring them food, fuel, and medical attention.
You're basing that on the blind assumption that the vocal/violent extremists represent the attitudes of the common people, which is false. The vast majority abhor violence toward civilians.
Then, there was the election which had the Palis electing Hamas to a majority in the Pali gov't.
But don't let facts get in the way of your kumbaya-ism. Because if you did, you could google up several polls indicating similar data showing the majority of Palis are bloodthirsty savages.
The Palis earned their bad reputation the old-fashioned way and deserve nothing better than the back of our hand.
* I can't recall if the +/- was nearer 3% or nearer 5%. No matter, really, as 65% is a pretty convincing and damning proportion. No need to do a recount & search for dangling chads.
Sorry, Jfruser, but you are wrong. Statistically sound polling techniques show quite the opposite. Check out the book Who Speaks For Islam? published by the Gallup press. It contains the data from one of the biggest, most thorough world polls ever done, and I can assure you that it is this information that I based my statement from, not any kind of "kumbaya-ism".
Post by: Nitrogen on April 11, 2008, 03:07:29 AM
Perhaps if they don't want to be starved and isolated, they should stop shooting at people trying to bring them food, fuel, and medical attention.
You're basing that on the blind assumption that the vocal/violent extremists represent the attitudes of the common people, which is false. The vast majority abhor violence toward civilians.
Really? Then why do terrorists get elected to office in the Palestinian territories?
Post by: HankB on April 11, 2008, 03:36:54 AM
Perhaps if they don't want to be starved and isolated, they should stop shooting at people trying to bring them food, fuel, and medical attention.
You're basing that on the blind assumption that the vocal/violent extremists represent the attitudes of the common people, which is false. The vast majority abhor violence toward civilians.
Really? Then why do terrorists get elected to office in the Palestinian territories?
As for who's land it historically belongs to . . . who built the Temple Mount, Jews or Moslems?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 11, 2008, 03:47:39 AM
Sorry, Jfruser, but you are wrong. Statistically sound polling techniques show quite the opposite. Check out the book Who Speaks For Islam? published by the Gallup press. It contains the data from one of the biggest, most thorough world polls ever done, and I can assure you that it is this information that I based my statement from, not any kind of "kumbaya-ism".
The issue is mostly the noise made when any slight towards Islam is perceived, contrasted with the deafening silence from the majority whenever a terrorist act occurs in the name of Islam.
Where's the mobs in the streets yelling "not in our name!"...?
*crickets*
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 11, 2008, 07:43:25 AM
Thank god we have smart people like you who can see past the pesky numbers and facts and just kill them all for us.
We'll just fight 'em till their gone!
Post by: roo_ster on April 11, 2008, 12:14:27 PM
A google on the terms:
palestinians poll suicide bomb
brings to light quite a bit of data for your perusal.
This data is not just some outlier. It is repeated and repeatable over time by different organizations. For the social/soft/fuzzy sciences, this is about as conclusive as it gets outside of stone tablets writ on by the finger of God.
FORMAT:
yyyy-mm
polling_org
link_to_article_/_data
Excerpt of the data
2001-12
pcpsr.org
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2001/p3a.html
An overwhelming majority, ranging between 81%-87%, does NOT view the following Palestinian violent acts as acts of terrorism: the assassination of the Israeli Minister Ze'evi by armed PFLP men, the shooting at Gilo in Jerusalem by armed Palestinians, the killing of 21 Israeli youths at the Dolphinarium club in Tel Aviv by a Palestinian suicide bomber, and the killing of 3 Israelis in Nahari in Israel at the hands of an Israeli Arab suicide bomber.
2001-12
http://home.birzeit.edu/cds/opinionpolls/
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-stillman040802.asp
When surveyed in December 2001, 81.8 percent of the Palestinian respondents supported or strongly supported armed attacks against Israeli targets, and 92.3 percent supported or strongly supported armed attacks against Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the same poll, 82.3 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with defining the suicide bombing at the Dolphinarium discotheque that murdered 23 mostly teenage Israelis (and wounded 100 more) as a terrorist attack. 69.4 percent of the respondents questioned would not consider the use of chemical or biological weapons against Israel an act of terror. Thus, a significant number of Palestinians not only favors violent attacks on Israelis, but would support the use of weapons of mass destruction against Israeli civilians.
2002-08
time.com
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020415-227546,00.html
In June a poll taken in the Gaza Strip found that 78% of the population approved of suicide bombings, considerably more than supported peace talks (60%).
2006-02
jmcc.org
http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2006/no57.pdf
When asked about their feelings towards suicide bombing operations against Israeli
civilians, a ratio of (56.2%) still either strongly support or somewhat support such operations
compared with (49.7%) in May 2005 and (75.6%) in April 2003. however, there has been a
steady rise in ratio of those who oppose such operations from (29.3%) in April 2003 to
(38.0%) in May 2005 and to (40.7%) this month.
2007-07
pewglobal.org
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/257.pdf
Palestinians stand out for their broad acceptance of suicide bombing. Seven-inten-
Palestinians say this tactic is at least sometimes justified.
2008-03
pcpsr.org
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/mideast/18mideast.php
According to the poll, conducted last week with 1,270 Palestinians in face-to-face interviews, 84 percent supported the March 6 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, one of Israels most prominent centers of religious Zionism and ideological wellspring of the settler movement in the West Bank. Shikaki said that this is the single highest support for an act of violence in his 15 years of polling here.
(various)
(various)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/poterror.html
[Note: Quite a bit at this website from lots of polling orgs, kind of a one-stop-shop.]
Do you support or oppose launching rockets from the Gaza Strip against Israeli towns and cities such as Sderot and Ashkelon? (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, March 13-15, 2008)
Support
64%
Oppose
33%
--
Do you support or oppose the bombing attack that took place in a religious school in West Jerusalem? (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, March 13-15, 2008)
Support
84%
Oppose
13%
--
How do you feel towards suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians? Do you support them, or oppose them? (Jerusalem Media & Communications Center, February 2006)
Code:
Total West Bank Gaza
N= 1200 N= 760 N= 440
Strongly support 22.4 19.7 27
Somewhat support 33.8 31.4 38
Somewhat oppose 24.3 24.7 23.4
Strongly oppose 16.4 20.4 9.5
No answer 3.1 3.8 2.1
--N= 1200 N= 760 N= 440
Strongly support 22.4 19.7 27
Somewhat support 33.8 31.4 38
Somewhat oppose 24.3 24.7 23.4
Strongly oppose 16.4 20.4 9.5
No answer 3.1 3.8 2.1
A suicide bombing took place on 01.11.2004 at Tel Aviv's central market. Are you with or against such attacks? (Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, November 4 - 8, 2004)
with
54.5%
Against
33.1%
Don't know
12.4%
--
Do you consider Palestinian bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants to be acts of terrorism? (PORI, September 2003)
Code:
Israeli Jews Israeli Arabs Palestinians
Yes 99% 57% 10%
No 1% 31% 79%
Don't Know -- 12% 11%
--Yes 99% 57% 10%
No 1% 31% 79%
Don't Know -- 12% 11%
(various)
(various)
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-03.htm#P316_44017
[Note: This Human Rights Watch article draws data from numerous sources. Funfunfun with footnotes.]
With the collapse of the Camp David talks in July 2000, support for militant actions increased.9 A year later, and nine months into the current clashes, Palestinian researchers found that 92 percent of Palestinians supported armed confrontations against Israeli troops and 58 percent supported attacks against civilians inside Israel.
Post by: Nitrogen on April 11, 2008, 02:18:27 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 11, 2008, 02:24:35 PM
As for who's land it historically belongs to . . . who built the Temple Mount, Jews or Moslems?
Who built Jericho? Or Jerusalem? Or Sodom? Gomorrah? It wasn't the Jews.
Look, populations move around, get forcibly relocated, and get replaced by other groups. The Jew's ancient ties to the land are about as relevant as Mexican claims to California. In other words, not.
Post by: Scout26 on April 11, 2008, 02:38:03 PM
Post by: roo_ster on April 11, 2008, 04:42:04 PM
Quote
69.4 percent of the respondents questioned would not consider the use of chemical or biological weapons against Israel an act of terror. Thus, a significant number of Palestinians not only favors violent attacks on Israelis, but would support the use of weapons of mass destruction against Israeli civilians.
Next time someone tells you, "They're not crazy enough to use WMDs, because they'd kill Palestinians, too!" remember the above and know that the speaker/writer is either ignorant or lying.
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 12, 2008, 01:53:05 PM
I mean...it's not like it was a reputable independent company which keeps all their methods, calculations and findings to the public, right?
Perhaps it is that most of those polls were limited to the Palestinians/gaza strip, etc., whereas the Gallup poll covered all the middle eastern countries, and was more geared toward violence toward the west in general than just the Isrealis (who of course are blameless and perfect and never do anything to incite hatred toward themselves.)
Post by: Bigjake on April 12, 2008, 04:39:50 PM
So are you suggesting Gallup is in the terrorists' pockets?
I mean...it's not like it was a reputable independent company which keeps all their methods, calculations and findings to the public, right?
Perhaps it is that most of those polls were limited to the Palestinians/gaza strip, etc., whereas the Gallup poll covered all the middle eastern countries, and was more geared toward violence toward the west in general than just the Isrealis (who of course are blameless and perfect and never do anything to incite hatred toward themselves.)
I mean...it's not like it was a reputable independent company which keeps all their methods, calculations and findings to the public, right?
Perhaps it is that most of those polls were limited to the Palestinians/gaza strip, etc., whereas the Gallup poll covered all the middle eastern countries, and was more geared toward violence toward the west in general than just the Isrealis (who of course are blameless and perfect and never do anything to incite hatred toward themselves.)
You're right! Serves those rotten zionist bastards right for using precision air strikes against KNOWN bad guys! Next time, We'll carpet bomb them right back to the 7th century (redundancy alert) ala Dresden circa 1944.
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 12, 2008, 07:07:47 PM
Post by: roo_ster on April 13, 2008, 08:53:15 AM
So are you suggesting Gallup is in the terrorists' pockets?
I mean...it's not like it was a reputable independent company which keeps all their methods, calculations and findings to the public, right?
Perhaps it is that most of those polls were limited to the Palestinians/gaza strip, etc., whereas the Gallup poll covered all the middle eastern countries, and was more geared toward violence toward the west in general than just the Isrealis (who of course are blameless and perfect and never do anything to incite hatred toward themselves.)
I mean...it's not like it was a reputable independent company which keeps all their methods, calculations and findings to the public, right?
Perhaps it is that most of those polls were limited to the Palestinians/gaza strip, etc., whereas the Gallup poll covered all the middle eastern countries, and was more geared toward violence toward the west in general than just the Isrealis (who of course are blameless and perfect and never do anything to incite hatred toward themselves.)
No one is suggesting Gallup is a jihadi front org. Keep the tinfoil in the cupboard.
You might want to look at the OP & thread title for context.
Even assuming that the subject (of your book you cite) was the Palis, it would be one poll / data point versus many polls over time by different orgs that showed roughly the same results. What are the odds that your reference is the outlier versus the many other polls by other organizations?
Hokay, why are you asking me or speculating on just who the subject of the book you cited was? Break the sucker open, read it, and get back to us, if you want your posts to have any weight.
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 13, 2008, 05:15:29 PM
One of the great trends it revealed is the prevalence throughout the Muslim world of a core concern about the Palestinian conflict and how the West deals with it. It is precisely the view greatly prevalent in the West of the Palestinians and Middles Eastern peoples in general as ignorant, violent animals that feeds hatred and disfavor toward the west. Another thing these studies showed is that the top things middle eastern people list as what they like about the west is freedom of speech and democracy. The things they list highest in what they despise about thier own societies are extremism and violence. I think it is crucial for us to comprehend that these people are our allies in the fight against extremists/theocracy/terrorism, and that dealing with them as anything but only feeds the problem. Islam is not the problem. To say it is the problem gives credence to the terrorists and insults the people who are otherwise our allies. Islam is nonsensical just as Christianity is but to attack it or the people who practice it only exacerbates the problem, and further ensures greater violence.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on April 14, 2008, 04:13:23 AM
Instead, we are saying, "Attack those that attack us in the name of Islam. And the rest of you, who believe in Islam, do something to distance yourselves from those that claim Islam as their justification to attack us." By that, I'm not saying they should no longer profess Islam, but rather, they should disclaim those that use Islam as their justification for violence as not being a part of Islam.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 14, 2008, 05:09:32 AM
Quote
Islam is nonsensical just as Christianity is...
OK, Tecumseh, whatever.
Ya know, you don't have to live in ignorance. I'm sure they have some books on Christianity down at your local lending library. Happy reading.
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 14, 2008, 05:59:21 AM
I don't care if you're Christian, or Muslim, or Atheist, or Unicornist, I'm not going to call you ignorant just because of your conclusion concerning the existence of certain supernatural beings. To do so is childish and nonconstructive.
If I were so shallow and emotional as to be personally offended I would demand an apology, but as it is I will just note the instance with a heavy sigh.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 14, 2008, 10:34:57 AM
But to call Christianity "nonsensical" is to betray ignorance somewhere along the line. Either you don't know what "nonsensical" means, or you don't know what Christianity actually teaches, or you're poorly informed about some other matters.
And please don't tell me about your Christian past. I'm tired of the "I am/was a Christian, so I can say stupid things" excuse. I've seen plenty of ignorant Christians, anyway.
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 14, 2008, 04:49:35 PM
You say Christianity isn't nonsensical because you are a Believer. Thus the conversation can't go any further.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 14, 2008, 06:20:28 PM
Whatever your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, there is a difference in disagreeing with something, and declaring it nonsensical. Again, a little knowledge would help you, and a little objective thought.
Or, you could just avoid declaiming on subjects in which you are deficient. (Someone's told me that before.
)