Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism

[Gandhi>Bush]

i was talking about Germany.

You said that we "kicked their collective asses" after I mentioned anti-semitism in all of Europe. A simple miscommunication, no worries.

you lost me completely here. my apologies.

It could be argued that the that in order to fight the fire of Germany with water, we had to use fire initially.

That is we could not 'love' the hate out of Germany without "out-hating" and out killing it first.

my point is, hate is useless if your ability to use it to kill has been taken from you. who cares if they hate, as long as they are not killing. I will be glad when we have reached this point with Islamic terrorists.

If they hate and keep hating, it is only a matter of time before they are again able to kill. That is why hatred must be our enemy rather than hateful men.

agreed



again, agreed.

Wee!!

not solely. but definately that was a part of todays Germany.

Not at all. The War did not change the hearts of people, the events afterwards did. Thank God we learned from the tragedy of the Treaty of Versailles.

had we not won that war, the killing would have continued possibly through current day.

I agree.

this is a hypothetical. we KNOW what did happen. we can only SPECULATE what may have happened without war.
maybe the Germans would have gotten a nuclear weapon before us, and focused that hatred agains America and the rest of the world.

Perhaps, but Germans wouldn't have hated us if we had prevented the hate after WWI.

good Idea.
the paralells between the Palestinians electing Hamas and the Germans electing Hitler are frightening.

The Germans didn't elect Hitler. He became Chancellor and then took over when... Hindenbergh(?) kicked off. The Nazi party won around 40% of the vote. I hawked my History books about two weeks ago, so I don't have the official stuff.

I think you could dump tons of aid and money into Palestine and you would get NOTHING but better funded terrorists.

I disagree. We should give different forms of aid rather than money. I would have said that this when Fatah was in power.

we will probably have to knock them down before we can pick them up too.

I think we have the oppritunity to pick them up now. We just have to ease tensions between Palestine and Israel. I don't think we can do this by getting angry at people making the "wrong" decision using the democracy that we all believed to be that antidote to the area's problems.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

“In his speech to the PLC, Gandhi harshly criticized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
‘I had a very distorted vision when I came here,’ he said, because the United States media portrayed the Palestinians as terrorists. ‘In this visit, I was able to put the picture in its right perspective.’“ http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040829-013614-8050r.htm

At Oslo Israel agrees to forgive the PLO terrorists (The PLO was created in 1964, which is before 1967) if they will change the PLO Charter (that called for the destruction of Israel). With peace so close there is a rejection of peace and the Second Intifada. With a more peaceful Palestinian leader Israel does a withdrawal. Peace is so close. And now, son of infernal Gandhi, with the Palestinian’s election of Hamas have the Palestinians “put the picture in its right perspective?”

Arun went to Palestine in August. The elections were last week (January). I'm sure he is seeing this with same dismay and dissappointment that I do. Keep in mind that, he's his father's son, not his father.

“PLC Deputy Speaker Hasan Khreisheh, who welcomed Gandhi to the legislature, said a strategy of non-violence would not work for the Palestinians.
He said that whether such a strategy had worked in India or South Africa did not mean it would end the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian areas.
‘Will non-violence stop the combined Israeli-U.S. aggression‘ against the Palestinian people?’ he asked rhetorically. ‘We are not sure,’ he answered.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040829-013614-8050r.htm

Will non-violence stop the combined Islamifascist-Hamas-Arab aggression‘ against the Jewish people? For some reason I don’t think Hasan Khreisheh thought that was the goal of nonviolence.

I'm glad you too agree on something.

I suppose now the son of infernal Gandhi will say that if the Palestinians had chosen non-violence over violence decades ago they could have achieved peace and equality with the Israelis?

Give us a break.

I couldn't care less what Arun has to say on the matter. I will say that nonviolence could have solved the problem years ago.

Side note

Would you mind out of purely personal courtesy that you stop refering to Gandhi as "infernal?" Thank or no thanks, it's up to you.

 

[DivineComedy]

I will say that nonviolence could have solved the problem years ago.

A lukewarm infernal approach could not have solved the problem years ago, for it becomes vomit.

Lukewarm nonviolence has no chance when the other guy is not lukewarm about killing Jews.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

A lukewarm infernal approach could not have solved the problem years ago, for it becomes vomit.

Lukewarm nonviolence has no chance when the other guy is not lukewarm about killing Jews.

There is nothing infernal about nonviolence.

I don't believe in half-assing anything, and I know what you mean about Arun showing up to give a speech and leaving. I'm glad the turn out was big, but I think Arun should have stuck around and make an attempt at something.

 

[aquapub]

Apples>Oranges

On a side note, it seems irrational to me to compare a pacifist spiritual leader with a man charged with running the U.S. military and defending the free world.

Their roles and responsibilities are nothing alike.

If you are suggesting that our military should be run by pacifist policies, I would direct you to the occurances of that in history. Every "leader" who has led a military with that approach, from the Tibetans under siege from China to Jimmy Carter with the Soviets and Muslim terrorists, has been an utter failure.

Pacifists belong in monasteries, not in charge of militaries.

Sorry. I don't want to derail the debate here. But every time I see that signature I just shake my head because it doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[DivineComedy]

There is nothing infernal about nonviolence.

I didn’t say that nonviolence was infernal I said, “a lukewarm infernal approach could not have solved the problem years ago, for it becomes vomit.”

You want nonviolence to work, fine, regardless of your age and infirmity, make it work. I just saw something on the Human Rights Watch website where they are now asking for attack helicopters to protect the innocent in the Sudan. They want the US to take the lead when they rotate around on the Security Council, and why couldn’t it get done before now?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/31/sudan12578.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/31/sudan12582.htm

Please read those links.

I did a post on the Sudan on another board about the blocking motions of the Arab League, and the lukewarm ineffective Secretary-General, before the four hurricanes in Florida damaged my house, and how many dead between then and now because nothing effective was done?

The lukewarm are not willing to put their lives on the line, or willing to order a “soldier” to fight for them. You previously said Gandhi was too old to stop the holocaust, and I agree. I was in the military when Jimmy Carter was president, but a jerk on another message board claims I can’t even defend the legality of the mission in Iraq unless I reenlist; that is quite a common Michael Moore thing these days. {I am bad, I resorted to cuss words.} What it tells me is that nonviolence does in fact need an army to be effective, and to be a leader nonviolence must get hot and order an army into “battle” where there will most certainly see many deaths. It is absolutely imperative to keep from being infernal that we do not put the whole burden of nonviolent success on the innocent civilian victims of violence, especially when the violence comes from foreign groups (that will not police themselves).

The State sponsor of terrorism calls the terrorist a “martyr” when they dress up like a student and walk on a bus to blow up, and people die in an instant without time to say “oh ****.” Forget for a moment any bias against Israeli occupation and just consider the situation as an unbiased observer that just sees the violence and wants to stop it. The civilian victims do not have a chance to stop that terror, because they can’t even see the enemy! Who did you see? You see a foreign power {State sponsor of terrorism that was in violation of a cease-fire resolution like H 32 of UN resolution 687 that required them not to support terrorism} support an act of terrorism. Certainly you would not require a civilian to drop everything and fight for nonviolence on a foreign battle field?

Is nonviolence going to send an army to the Sudan for instance to get in their face? Is a believer in the nonviolence mission going to bow to the jerks and say they are too old, so they can’t send another in their name? I bet the nonviolent army would certainly be spread thinner than our violent army, and I bet it would lose far more lives too.

Many of our troops only survive by killing the enemy. When the car bomb drives up to the checkpoint really fast and does not stop at the first sign, our violent troops open up, yours would just have to take the blast and call headquarters for more troops; a few “innocent” civilians of the former State sponsor of terrorism that can’t read would live, and hundreds on the other side of the blood spattered checkpoint would die when the second car rolls through. {Please, play the game, and think about it.}

I don't believe in half-assing anything, and I know what you mean about Arun showing up to give a speech and leaving. I'm glad the turn out was big, but I think Arun should have stuck around and make an attempt at something.

If he had brought a couple of hundred thousand followers to get in the face of Hamas, and stayed in their face, blocking both sides, things might be different.

I repeat, it is absolutely imperative to keep from being infernal that we do not put the whole burden of nonviolent success on the innocent civilian victims of violence, especially when the violence comes from foreign groups (that will not police themselves).

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I didn’t say that nonviolence was infernal I said, “a lukewarm infernal approach could not have solved the problem years ago, for it becomes vomit.”

You want nonviolence to work, fine, regardless of your age and infirmity, make it work. I just saw something on the Human Rights Watch website where they are now asking for attack helicopters to protect the innocent in the Sudan. They want the US to take the lead when they rotate around on the Security Council, and why couldn’t it get done before now?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/31/sudan12578.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/31/sudan12582.htm

Please read those links.

I did a post on the Sudan on another board about the blocking motions of the Arab League, and the lukewarm ineffective Secretary-General, before the four hurricanes in Florida damaged my house, and how many dead between then and now because nothing effective was done?

The lukewarm are not willing to put their lives on the line, or willing to order a “soldier” to fight for them. You previously said Gandhi was too old to stop the holocaust, and I agree. I was in the military when Jimmy Carter was president, but a jerk on another message board claims I can’t even defend the legality of the mission in Iraq unless I reenlist; that is quite a common Michael Moore thing these days. {I am bad, I resorted to cuss words.} What it tells me is that nonviolence does in fact need an army to be effective, and to be a leader nonviolence must get hot and order an army into “battle” where there will most certainly see many deaths. It is absolutely imperative to keep from being infernal that we do not put the whole burden of nonviolent success on the innocent civilian victims of violence, especially when the violence comes from foreign groups (that will not police themselves).

I believe that if you can help you should, and if you do, you are a saint, but if you do not, you are simply apathetic. Apathetic is not evil, though certainly reprehensible. I still feel that in the end the burden of resistance lies on the oppressed and those who experience injustice. Write letters, make phone calls, get help, that's all fine and good. Get support, get attention, but the final responsibility is yours, and no one elses.

The State sponsor of terrorism calls the terrorist a “martyr” when they dress up like a student and walk on a bus to blow up, and people die in an instant without time to say “oh ****.” Forget for a moment any bias against Israeli occupation and just consider the situation as an unbiased observer that just sees the violence and wants to stop it. The civilian victims do not have a chance to stop that terror, because they can’t even see the enemy! Who did you see? You see a foreign power {State sponsor of terrorism that was in violation of a cease-fire resolution like H 32 of UN resolution 687 that required them not to support terrorism} support an act of terrorism. Certainly you would not require a civilian to drop everything and fight for nonviolence on a foreign battle field?

In said scenario, there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever. Nonviolent or otherwise.

Is nonviolence going to send an army to the Sudan for instance to get in their face? Is a believer in the nonviolence mission going to bow to the jerks and say they are too old, so they can’t send another in their name? I bet the nonviolent army would certainly be spread thinner than our violent army, and I bet it would lose far more lives too.

That would depend on your perspective.

Many of our troops only survive by killing the enemy. When the car bomb drives up to the checkpoint really fast and does not stop at the first sign, our violent troops open up, yours would just have to take the blast and call headquarters for more troops; a few “innocent” civilians of the former State sponsor of terrorism that can’t read would live, and hundreds on the other side of the blood spattered checkpoint would die when the second car rolls through. {Please, play the game, and think about it.}

Our troops have been put in a position that provokes such action. I don't like it, but they have to act as a police force, and thats the best they can do. They have to restore and maintain order. As no doubt you know, I was against the war to begin with, and I would never ask another man to be a martyr. That is a choice a man makes on his own. If he is ordered to do so, it is not martyrdom, it is death. It is unfortunate that men were put into this situation. It is a tragedy.

 

[DivineComedy]

I believe that if you can help you should, and if you do, you are a saint, but if you do not, you are simply apathetic. Apathetic is not evil, though certainly reprehensible. I still feel that in the end the burden of resistance lies on the oppressed and those who experience injustice. Write letters, make phone calls, get help, that's all fine and good. Get support, get attention, but the final responsibility is yours, and no one elses.

It is funny that you say the apathetic are reprehensible and turn right around and say “I still feel that in the end the burden of resistance lies on the oppressed and those who experience injustice.”

Simply reprehensible! No wonder the weak get slaughtered without mercy, and the world stands around and watches, with nonviolence being apathetic and reprehensible there simply isn’t anything for the weak victims of Islamic Sudanese genocide to do except die. Make some phone calls and write some letters of condolences, for the dead never had a chance against the terrorist supporting Islamic Arab League and the Sudanese government.

When you go off to do humanitarian work live off the land of the starving masses, or wonder who is being charitable as they go about their daily lives. Hell, the people who worked to make the airplane you use to deliver food to the famine just might be giving all they can afford to charity.

The point is people have to keep working, and the oppressed masses don’t have time for effective resistance. The “oppressed and those who experience injustice,” still have to feed their families, they can’t all take off from work, so which army (nonviolent or violent) they support has to be the most effective at defense. The problem is that usually the oppressed pay taxes to support the very army that is oppressing them. And if they stop paying taxes to support a nonviolent charity, then the government can claim they are criminals. Two years down the road you forget who started it, and call it a civil war.

In said scenario, there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever. Nonviolent or otherwise.

The name of the topic is “Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism,” and the scenario was the most deadly and most widely used method of Islamic supported terrorism that has resulted the majority of deaths. Which is simply using civilian peaceful disguise to gain entry for the attack, because of some “call” to all Moslem bastards to attack, Jihad, Holy War, “Death to America,” because some government doesn‘t want to put their flag on the war and get what they deserve! :nukeum:

The motive could simply be they don‘t like Jews:

“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).” (The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)) http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

The motive could simply be they don‘t like pagans:

“Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.” (World Islamic Front Statement)

The foreign supported terrorist could have walked into a plane too on 911 as well as into a bus, or into a pizza parlor, or into a Hotel in Jordan, but you say “there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever.”

Well that definitely kills using Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism!

That would depend on your perspective.

From my perspective it is clear nonviolence is apathetic, reprehensible, and totally useless against Islamic Terrorism, because you just argued that it was.

Our troops have been put in a position that provokes such action. I don't like it, but they have to act as a police force, and thats the best they can do. They have to restore and maintain order. As no doubt you know, I was against the war to begin with, and I would never ask another man to be a martyr. That is a choice a man makes on his own. If he is ordered to do so, it is not martyrdom, it is death. It is unfortunate that men were put into this situation. It is a tragedy.

Provokes! So nonviolence believes that a sovereign police force, that has to maintain order, provokes the terrorists. The scenario works for any police force, and any kind of check point, as the motives of the terrorist car bombers can be based on almost anything imaginable.

Maybe the terrorists don’t like baby killing factories! Maybe the ecoterrorists don’t like nuclear power: can you say “fallout.” Maybe the ecoterrorists don’t’ like windmills killing birds for electricity, or pumping water to change the natural landscape that should be a wetland. Maybe after losing a family to genocide the terrorists don’t like apathetic reprehensible nonviolent types going about their lives and saying “in the end the burden of resistance lies on the oppressed and those who experience injustice.” Maybe the ecoterrorists learned in their environmental science class that reservoirs allow more water to evaporate into the atmosphere than fast moving rivers; maybe they don‘t want the speed of the earth’s rotation to change.

Many of our police only survive by killing the enemy. When the ecoterrorist car bomber supported by some whacko foreign power that teaches such martyrdom to their little children drives up to the checkpoint really fast and does not stop at the first sign, our sovereign police open up, yours would just have to take the blast and call headquarters for more police; with you at the helm a few “innocent” civilians that can’t read would live, and millions of people on the other side of the blood spattered checkpoint would die when the second car rolls through and cracks the largest dam on earth. Hopefully the Chinese aren’t stupid in construction or security: actually I think it is too thick for little car bomb. Maybe the foreign supported ecoterrorist commandeered a regularly scheduled tour bus touting another Chinese wonder of the world. And according to you “there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever,” against the ecoterrorists, or the whacko foreign government that supports such acts of ecoterrorism or harbors ecoterrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

Don’t try to save your weak argument for Nonviolence vs. Terrorism, for I am afraid your head will pop like a grape.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

It is funny that you say the apathetic are reprehensible and turn right around and say “I still feel that in the end the burden of resistance lies on the oppressed and those who experience injustice.”

Forgive me if I do not see a conflict.

Simply reprehensible! No wonder the weak get slaughtered without mercy, and the world stands around and watches, with nonviolence being apathetic and reprehensible there simply isn’t anything for the weak victims of Islamic Sudanese genocide to do except die.

Near every country in the world has an army. There are not but a select few people that believe in nonviolence to this degree.

Nonviolence is far less apathetic and infinitely less reprehensible than its violent counterpart.

When you go off to do humanitarian work live off the land of the starving masses, or wonder who is being charitable as they go about their daily lives. Hell, the people who worked to make the airplane you use to deliver food to the famine just might be giving all they can afford to charity.

The point is people have to keep working, and the oppressed masses don’t have time for effective resistance. The “oppressed and those who experience injustice,” still have to feed their families, they can’t all take off from work, so which army (nonviolent or violent) they support has to be the most effective at defense. The problem is that usually the oppressed pay taxes to support the very army that is oppressing them. And if they stop paying taxes to support a nonviolent charity, then the government can claim they are criminals. Two years down the road you forget who started it, and call it a civil war.

Let the government claim they are criminals. You cannot show the tyranny of a government by complying with it.

The name of the topic is “Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism,” and the scenario was the most deadly and most widely used method of Islamic supported terrorism that has resulted the majority of deaths. Which is simply using civilian peaceful disguise to gain entry for the attack, because of some “call” to all Moslem bastards to attack, Jihad, Holy War, “Death to America,” because some government doesn‘t want to put their flag on the war and get what they deserve!

Okay... I'm pretty sure my statement still stands.

The motive could simply be they don‘t like Jews:

“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).” (The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)) http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

The motive could simply be they don‘t like pagans:

“Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.” (World Islamic Front Statement)

Surely this is the main stream opinion!

The foreign supported terrorist could have walked into a plane too on 911 as well as into a bus, or into a pizza parlor, or into a Hotel in Jordan, but you say “there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever.”

You can not fight an enemy that you are oblivious too. If you have any suggestions, I'm listening.

Well that definitely kills using Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism!

Perhaps it hinders it in the fight against terrorists, but it empowers it in the war against terrorism.

From my perspective it is clear nonviolence is apathetic, reprehensible, and totally useless against Islamic Terrorism, because you just argued that it was.

May your words stay in your mouth, and my words remain as they were when they came out of mine.

Provokes! So nonviolence believes that a sovereign police force, that has to maintain order, provokes the terrorists. The scenario works for any police force, and any kind of check point, as the motives of the terrorist car bombers can be based on almost anything imaginable.

The police force is put in place by a secular interloper from the West... or thats how some would see it.

Maybe the terrorists don’t like baby killing factories! Maybe the ecoterrorists don’t like nuclear power: can you say “fallout.” Maybe the ecoterrorists don’t’ like windmills killing birds for electricity, or pumping water to change the natural landscape that should be a wetland. Maybe after losing a family to genocide the terrorists don’t like apathetic reprehensible nonviolent types going about their lives and saying “in the end the burden of resistance lies on the oppressed and those who experience injustice.” Maybe the ecoterrorists learned in their environmental science class that reservoirs allow more water to evaporate into the atmosphere than fast moving rivers; maybe they don‘t want the speed of the earth’s rotation to change.

I think David Cross handled this the best:

I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he ****ing said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds?

Many of our police only survive by killing the enemy. When the ecoterrorist car bomber supported by some whacko foreign power that teaches such martyrdom to their little children drives up to the checkpoint really fast and does not stop at the first sign, our sovereign police open up, yours would just have to take the blast and call headquarters for more police; with you at the helm a few “innocent” civilians that can’t read would live, and millions of people on the other side of the blood spattered checkpoint would die when the second car rolls through and cracks the largest dam on earth. Hopefully the Chinese aren’t stupid in construction or security: actually I think it is too thick for little car bomb. Maybe the foreign supported ecoterrorist commandeered a regularly scheduled tour bus touting another Chinese wonder of the world. And according to you “there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever,” against the ecoterrorists, or the whacko foreign government that supports such acts of ecoterrorism or harbors ecoterrorists.

?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

Okay.

Don’t try to save your weak argument for Nonviolence vs. Terrorism, for I am afraid your head will pop like a grape.

I don't like grapes. :moon:

 

[DivineComedy]

I think David Cross handled this the best:

I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he ****ing said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds?

I think that I find it hard to believe that a bright bulb would think the two-digit IQ of David Cross handled it best when it comes to the definition of “freedom,” but then again I have drank beer with “liberals” that think Osama bin Laden was “playing by the rules of warfare.”

{Maybe there is a bias against Israel that accounts for it.}

{I think if David Cross‘s IQ is above two-digits, then he thinks his audience has an IQ that doesn’t rise above two-digits. I think that I could prove that in a court of law.}

The “One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq” quote where I had an embedded link to the February 23, 1998 fatwa predates David Cross’s moronic joke and that of Osama bin Laden’s explanation of what is “freedom,” and it predates Operation Iraqi Freedom:

February 17, 1998: “While speaking at the Pentagon on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton warned of the ‘reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ These ‘predators of the twenty-first century,’ he said ‘will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.’“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Oh, my G-D, the “axis of evil!”

February 23, 1998: One (“The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people…”), Two (“despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…”), Three (“if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq…”)! http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=59790&postcount=1 {Read it!}

Before the “war,” that “liberal” morons claim George W. Bush started, I used to say it is as simple as “One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq,” with an embedded link to the February 23, 1998 fatwa, which takes into account everything David Cross said, but it does not leave anything out.

“Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.”
(Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech, Monday 01 November 2004, 16:01 Makka Time, 13:01 GMT) http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

“Thousands of Palestinians protested against Denmark this week, and Arab ministers called on it to punish Jyllands-Posten.

Saudi Arabia has recalled its ambassador from Copenhagen and Libya has closed its embassy. Qatar condemned the cartoons.

The Danish-Swedish dairy product maker Arla Foods, with annual Middle East sales of almost $500 million, said it might have to cut 140 jobs due to the boycott.

‘We are losing around 10 million Danish crowns (US$1.8 million) per day at the moment,’ a spokeswoman said.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/655897

Liberty is the freedom to choose, not the liberty to abuse. {“Danish Embassy in Beiruit is set on fire during protests”}

“Yes, vanity needs to be confronted, and the oppressor needs to be confronted, just as those who find it easy to commit evil deeds and throw embers at people, need to be confronted. On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop. Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.It is only normal to say that punishment is a necessity in our world, because what is a necessity in the other world must also be necessary in our world on Earth. But, the punishment in the other world is faire and just, and the prophets and messengers of God (peace be upon them all) conducted punishment and called for it in justice, and not on the basis of suspicions and whims. ” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Tell me bright bulb, can you can tell me who the magical “they” are that Saddam said “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings?”

Does their definition of “freedom” mean they “possess defiant spirits like those of the 19,“ do they “resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas,” like Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, and Timothy McVeigh?

Come on bright bulb, is that your idea of freedom? Should the magical “they,“ be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings?

PS. Bill Clinton threw more than 400 embers at Saddam in Operation Desert Fox. Going without finishing, that was why I was against that WAR!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I think that I find it hard to believe that a bright bulb would think the two-digit IQ of David Cross handled it best when it comes to the definition of “freedom,” but then again I have drank beer with “liberals” that think Osama bin Laden was “playing by the rules of warfare.”
{Maybe there is a bias against Israel that accounts for it.}

David Cross is hilarious.

{I think if David Cross‘s IQ is above two-digits, then he thinks his audience has an IQ that doesn’t rise above two-digits. I think that I could prove that in a court of law.}

What makes you think you could prove it in a court of law if you couldn't prove it online?

The “One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq” quote where I had an embedded link to the February 23, 1998 fatwa predates David Cross’s moronic joke and that of Osama bin Laden’s explanation of what is “freedom,” and it predates Operation Iraqi Freedom:

February 17, 1998: “While speaking at the Pentagon on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton warned of the ‘reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ These ‘predators of the twenty-first century,’ he said ‘will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.’“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Oh, my G-D, the “axis of evil!”

February 23, 1998: One (“The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people…”), Two (“despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…”), Three (“if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq…”)! http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=59790&postcount=1 {Read it!}

{I'd rather not!}

Before the “war,” that “liberal” morons claim George W. Bush started, I used to say it is as simple as “One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq,” with an embedded link to the February 23, 1998 fatwa, which takes into account everything David Cross said, but it does not leave anything out.

“Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.”
(Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech, Monday 01 November 2004, 16:01 Makka Time, 13:01 GMT) http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

“Thousands of Palestinians protested against Denmark this week, and Arab ministers called on it to punish Jyllands-Posten.

Saudi Arabia has recalled its ambassador from Copenhagen and Libya has closed its embassy. Qatar condemned the cartoons.

The Danish-Swedish dairy product maker Arla Foods, with annual Middle East sales of almost $500 million, said it might have to cut 140 jobs due to the boycott.

‘We are losing around 10 million Danish crowns (US$1.8 million) per day at the moment,’ a spokeswoman said.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/655897

Liberty is the freedom to choose, not the liberty to abuse. {“Danish Embassy in Beiruit is set on fire during protests”}

“Yes, vanity needs to be confronted, and the oppressor needs to be confronted, just as those who find it easy to commit evil deeds and throw embers at people, need to be confronted. On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop. Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.It is only normal to say that punishment is a necessity in our world, because what is a necessity in the other world must also be necessary in our world on Earth. But, the punishment in the other world is faire and just, and the prophets and messengers of God (peace be upon them all) conducted punishment and called for it in justice, and not on the basis of suspicions and whims. ” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Tell me bright bulb, can you can tell me who the magical “they” are that Saddam said “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings?”

Does their definition of “freedom” mean they “possess defiant spirits like those of the 19,“ do they “resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas,” like Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, and Timothy McVeigh?

Come on bright bulb, is that your idea of freedom? Should the magical “they,“ be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings?

Okay. I have no idea what's going on. I'm trying to make out something cohesive, but honestly I think you're typing all this out too fast. If you don't mind, stop trying to be condescending with this "bright bulb" stuff. Puppies. That's right, puppies. Why did I say "puppies?" Because I can understand how what I typed out can sound like I'm being a dick, and when you hear the word "puppies," you automatically smile. Don't you? Ehh? Puppies. Yay!

PS. Bill Clinton threw more than 400 embers at Saddam in Operation Desert Fox. Going without finishing, that was why I was against that WAR!

Whoopee!

 

[DivineComedy]

Okay. I have no idea what's going on. I'm trying to make out something cohesive, but honestly I think you're typing all this out too fast. If you don't mind, stop trying to be condescending with this "bright bulb" stuff.

Darn, I thought you were a bright little sprout. I would not expect a dim bulb to know who “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings,” as the vernacular of terror is complicated, but I would expect a terrorist propagandist to know and keep it secret in mixed company.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Darn, I thought you were a bright little sprout. I would not expect a dim bulb to know who “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings,” as the vernacular of terror is complicated, but I would expect a terrorist propagandist to know and keep it secret in mixed company.

Round and round we go...

Shall we act like children or adults?

 

[DivineComedy]

Round and round we go...

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

Look man. Can we have an intelligent discussion like we were having before or can we just let the thread die?

 

[DivineComedy]

Look man. Can we have an intelligent discussion like we were having before or can we just let the thread die?

Dear G>B the thread effectively died when you said this:

“In said scenario, there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever. Nonviolent or otherwise.”
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=219972&postcount=432

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Dear G>B the thread effectively died when you said this:

“In said scenario, there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever. Nonviolent or otherwise.”
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=219972&postcount=432

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

My statement was the truth. A man of violence or nonviolence can do nothing about a bomb that has already been detonated from a man they did not know was a murderer. If you feel differently, as always, I am listening.

 

[battleax86]

My statement was the truth. A man of violence or nonviolence can do nothing about a bomb that has already been detonated from a man they did not know was a murderer. If you feel differently, as always, I am listening.

A man that knows the value of violence has a chance to stop a man before he straps on a bomb. A man of non-violence is destined to be trampled by those who are violent.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

A man that knows the value of violence has a chance to stop a man before he straps on a bomb.

A man of nonviolence cannot? Taking to the cause of nonviolence does not make a man a quadripalegic.

A man of violence, in the situation described. Is just as oblivious as the man of nonviolence, and hence just as powerless.

What did violence or nonviolence do stop 9/11? Nothing we were oblivious. Get it?

 

[battleax86]

A man of nonviolence cannot? Taking to the cause of nonviolence does not make a man a quadripalegic.

In cases of war, it might as well render him just that. You see, a man willing to use violence will take the fight to the enemy before he straps on a bomb and enters an area full of his civilian countrymen. A man unwilling to use violence can do nothing but attempt to reason with a man who will not listen.

A man of violence, in the situation described. Is just as oblivious as the man of nonviolence, and hence just as powerless.

What did violence or nonviolence do stop 9/11? Nothing we were oblivious. Get it?

If Clinton had been willing to use the appropriate amount of violence in 1998 or 2000, when al-Qaeda attacked our embassies and one of our warships, it's likely that 9/11 would have never occurred.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

In cases of war, it might as well render him just that. You see, a man willing to use violence will take the fight to the enemy before he straps on a bomb and enters an area full of his civilian countrymen. A man unwilling to use violence can do nothing but attempt to reason with a man who will not listen.

A man willing to use violence will proliferate the hatred and extremism of the Middle East until he is killed by another man of violence. A man of nonviolence will destroy hatred.

If Clinton had been willing to use the appropriate amount of violence in 1998 or 2000, when al-Qaeda attacked our embassies and one of our warships, it's likely that 9/11 would have never occurred.

What makes you think that? The 9/11 attacks took alot of planning, far more than a year's worth. Supposing you are right, the attack would have just been pushed to a later date. It would have been the 12/3 attacks. Not quite the same ring. You're forgetting that these people hate us. Supposing that Clinton killed all 19 highjackers before they got to America, which he couldn't have in 1998 from what I know, 19 more would have taken their place.

My friend, this is not like any war fought in our nations history. We are not dealing with someone or something that is going to back down as soon as we get through with a country or two. Our enemy here is hatred. Over the years we have let it grow and stagnate, and I think we can agree that this is no longer an option. Afghanistan, Iraq, the hatred, the extremism, is still there, and it will be there as long as a white face is running into Arab lands with his gun out.

 

[battleax86]

A man willing to use violence will proliferate the hatred and extremism of the Middle East until he is killed by another man of violence. A man of nonviolence will destroy hatred.

Your notion ignores the reason for Middle Eastern hatred of America. Their hatred did not start because of our violence. Our violence started because of their hatred and the violence that they committed because of it. Their hatred of us started because of our support for a tiny Jewish state in the Middle East, itself a victim of extreme Islamic hatred, because of our protection of the Saudi government from other "men of violence" (instead of bin Laden's militia doing the protection), and because we do business with the Saudi government. We could evacuate Iraq and Afghanistan, withdraw from Europe and Asia, turn all our guns into sheet metal, grow long hair, live in communes, and sing cumbaya, but that won't end the hatred towards us. The only thing that will get them to stop hating us is to give in to their demands. That would involve selling the oldest, and, until recently, the only, democracy in the Middle East down the river, losing 5% of our oil supply, and damaging our economy beyond belief. It would set the precedent that whenever America does something you don't like, bomb a few of their civilians, kill enough of their soldiers, and they'll do whatever you want to end the hatred. This method has been tried before. It's called "appeasement" and it has never worked since the beginning of time.

What makes you think that? The 9/11 attacks took alot of planning, far more than a year's worth. Supposing you are right, the attack would have just been pushed to a later date. It would have been the 12/3 attacks. Not quite the same ring. You're forgetting that these people hate us. Supposing that Clinton killed all 19 highjackers before they got to America, which he couldn't have in 1998 from what I know, 19 more would have taken their place.

I'm not talking about killing the 19 hijackers. Several of them entered the United States in 1997 and would have been taken by law enforcement, not airstrikes. I'm talking about disrupting the entire network to the point where such an attack would not have been possible. The ring that carried out 9/11 did not and could not operate autonomously until a very short time before the attacks. The full squad was not even the country until late 2000 and they were still taking orders from Afghanistan as late as March 2001. If Clinton had had the cojones to take out bin Laden and the Taliban after the embassy bombings in 1998, the whole plot would have died in its childhood.

My friend, this is not like any war fought in our nations history. We are not dealing with someone or something that is going to back down as soon as we get through with a country or two. Our enemy here is hatred. Over the years we have let it grow and stagnate, and I think we can agree that this is no longer an option. Afghanistan, Iraq, the hatred, the extremism, is still there, and it will be there as long as a white face is running into Arab lands with his gun out.

What are Arab lands, exactly? According to al-Qaeda, Arab land extends all the way from Iraq in the west to Andalusia (Spain) in the east. They consider time to have begun in the 7th century AD and any land that they once controlled to be theirs. My friend, their hatred will not end until the Jews are driven into the sea, the Spanish reconquistadors are removed from Andalusia, and we accept the supremacy of Islam. We cannot placate an implacable enemy. That's not to say that we should go out of our way to antagonize them, but violence will play an unfortunate role in our dealings with them until they are willing to listen to reason.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Your notion ignores the reason for Middle Eastern hatred of America. Their hatred did not start because of our violence. Our violence started because of their hatred and the violence that they committed because of it. Their hatred of us started because of our support for a tiny Jewish state in the Middle East, itself a victim of extreme Islamic hatred, because of our protection of the Saudi government from other "men of violence" (instead of bin Laden's militia doing the protection), and because we do business with the Saudi government.

I don't think most Arabs were angered by Saudia Arabia's request of our protection. I think Usama bin Laden was.

As for Israel, yes it pissed people off. The land did not belong to them. Those that live there now call it home, and it is the only one they know, and it is no surprise that they believe they have a right to it. Those that live in the refugee camps feel that the land was taken from theire fathers and their grandfathers and it is no surprise that they believe they have a right to it.

The size of the country is entirely irrelevant. Near a million people lived in the land that would become Israel and only a little over a hundred thousand were allowed to stay.

A Jewish homeland was declared in a land of Muslims, and a white flag with the Star of David was raised where there was a promise of a crescent. It was wrong what happened to the Muslims of 1947. It is wrong what they did in order to change it.

We could evacuate Iraq and Afghanistan, withdraw from Europe and Asia, turn all our guns into sheet metal, grow long hair, live in communes, and sing cumbaya, but that won't end the hatred towards us.

I agree.

The only thing that will get them to stop hating us is to give in to their demands.

Or a change in their demands.

That would involve selling the oldest, and, until recently, the only, democracy in the Middle East down the river, losing 5% of our oil supply, and damaging our economy beyond belief. It would set the precedent that whenever America does something you don't like, bomb a few of their civilians, kill enough of their soldiers, and they'll do whatever you want to end the hatred. This method has been tried before. It's called "appeasement" and it has never worked since the beginning of time.

I agree, again.

I'm not talking about killing the 19 hijackers. Several of them entered the United States in 1997 and would have been taken by law enforcement, not airstrikes. I'm talking about disrupting the entire network to the point where such an attack would not have been possible. The ring that carried out 9/11 did not and could not operate autonomously until a very short time before the attacks. The full squad was not even the country until late 2000 and they were still taking orders from Afghanistan as late as March 2001. If Clinton had had the cojones to take out bin Laden and the Taliban after the embassy bombings in 1998, the whole plot would have died in its childhood.

I think that if Afghanistan fell, those men would have found something to do that we would all look upon with disdain and tragedy. Hatred is a force that is determined and galvanized by any reciprication of hatred, violence, but can all the same be destroyed, for such a force is unnatural.

What are Arab lands, exactly? According to al-Qaeda, Arab land extends all the way from Iraq in the west to Andalusia (Spain) in the east. They consider time to have begun in the 7th century AD and any land that they once controlled to be theirs. My friend, their hatred will not end until the Jews are driven into the sea, the Spanish reconquistadors are removed from Andalusia, and we accept the supremacy of Islam. We cannot placate an implacable enemy. That's not to say that we should go out of our way to antagonize them, but violence will play an unfortunate role in our dealings with them until they are willing to listen to reason.

And I believe you have a long hard tragedy ahead of you if choose for violence to play such a role. It is an unfortunate as well unnecessary role. Maybe we need to make a few sacrifices, but none of which from our morality. Killing is wrong, and we should not sacrifice that highground.

Their hatred will not end until they can clearly see in crystal clarity without such pollution as hopelessness and oppression and war.

 

[battleax86]

I don't think most Arabs were angered by Saudia Arabia's request of our protection. I think Usama bin Laden was.

That's probably true. Unfortunately, he has been able to spin that off as American protection of a corrupt regime. So, we were faced with the choice of angering the Saudi populace or leaving Saudi Arabia unprotected from Saddam.

As for Israel, yes it pissed people off. The land did not belong to them.

Yes, it did. They have a longer historical claim to the land. Even in recent history, when the Jews began returning in the 1880s, most of the land was a barren desert populated by small, extremely scattered towns and roaming Bedouins.

Those that live there now call it home, and it is the only one they know, and it is no surprise that they believe they have a right to it. Those that live in the refugee camps feel that the land was taken from theire fathers and their grandfathers and it is no surprise that they believe they have a right to it.

Yes, Arab revisionist history can work wonders on people in a bad economic situation. Do you know how the Arabs in the refugee camps ended up there? They weren't driven out by the Israelis. When Israel declared independence in an area about 10% of their originally mandated size, the Arabs rejected the UN partition and invaded, advising the Arab inhabitants of the area to temporarily evacuate until the Arab armies could crush the "Zionist gangs" and drive the Jews into the sea. The Jews begged them to stay. They had nothing to gain from the labor shortages that the Arab evacuation caused. Many Arabs did stay and they currently enjoy more civil rights than any other Arabs in the region. However, the ones that left in anticipation of Israel's destruction found themselves homeless when the invasion failed. Instead of allowing their "brothers" to relocate within their borders, as the Israelis did for the Jews who were evicted from their homes in Arab countries, the Arab nations stopped the refugees at their borders. They have been kept in refugee camps as willing cannon fodder for an Arab world that is too weak to militarily challenge a Jewish state that is less than 2% of their combined size.

The size of the country is entirely irrelevant. Near a million people lived in the land that would become Israel and only a little over a hundred thousand were allowed to stay.

Again, most of those who left had evacuated on their own. They were not forced out.

A Jewish homeland was declared in a land of Muslims, and a white flag with the Star of David was raised where there was a promise of a crescent. It was wrong what happened to the Muslims of 1947.

On the contrary, what they did in 1947 was wrong and now they are trying to play the victims. In 1947, the area was sparsely populated, with a slight Arab majority, much of which can be attributed to illegal and recent Arab immigration from the surrounding regions in the 1930s. Jewish immigration had also increased in the region, in spite of the many British restrictions on them. Even though the Arabs held a slight majority, it was not a "land of Muslims," and no "promise of a crescent" was given in the Israeli territory that declared independence in 1948. Furthermore, the Arabs would have succeeded in creating their second state in what was promised to be Jewish land if they had not invaded the tiny strip of land that the Jews held when they declared independence. They chose the path of violence when the situation did not require it and suffered the consequences.

It is wrong what they did in order to change it.

They were wrong from the beginning and are trying to justify themselves by re-writing history.

Or a change in their demands.

Yeah, good luck with that.

I think that if Afghanistan fell, those men would have found something to do that we would all look upon with disdain and tragedy.

Yeah, like fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and kill 3,000 people. Sure glad that didn't happen. Oh wait... :doh

If we had removed al-Qaeda from Afghanistan in 1998, these men would have been unable to pull off anything nearly resembling the scale of 9/11. The movement lasted until 2001 under the idea that America was weak at heart and would crumble if opposed. The inertia of the high from 9/11 has carried them forward. If they had been taken out in 1998, when the greatest success that al-Qaeda could boast of was the deaths of 12 Americans in Africa, most of their support in the Arab world would have been gone. The 17-year-old Arab boy working in his father's shop would hear about what happened to his best friend's older brother in Afghanistan and would want no part of it. Now, it's too late for that. 9/11 showed that they could be somewhat successful against us. That 17-year-old boy is today's 25-year-old insurgent who knows that his network can strike America. The time for non-violence has come and gone. They will not listen. The only viable course of action is not ending their hatred, but ending their ability to do anything about it.

Hatred is a force that is determined and galvanized by any reciprication of hatred, violence, but can all the same be destroyed, for such a force is unnatural.

On the contrary, hatred is a very natural force. At its most basic level, it's the emotion one person feels toward another when he doesn't get his way or the other person won't do what he wants. Violence is a very natural by-product of it. Human nature is corrupt and has to be taught good, not evil.

For example, you don't have to teach a child to hit another child when that kid is playing with a toy that the first child thinks is his and won't give it to him. You have to teach the child that hitting other people is wrong. Oftentimes, a parent will try to convey this concept to the child through reason, but reasoning with someone who cannot or will not accept reason is all but impossible. At this point, a parent must use some violence of their own, most commonly referred to as "spanking." Spanking has proven itself to be a very effective tool of training children to behave well and not act violently.

Although this is a somewhat simplified look at things, an analogy can be drawn to the current conflict with Muslims. Yes, we would love to end their hatred by non-violent reasoning. However, they refuse to listen and leave us no recourse.

And I believe you have a long hard tragedy ahead of you if choose for violence to play such a role. It is an unfortunate as well unnecessary role. Maybe we need to make a few sacrifices, but none of which from our morality.

Again, it's far too late for that. They have chosen a path of violence. Making "sacrifices," especially the ones that they demand, would not only poke holes in our morality, but teach them how to deal with the Americans in future disagreements.

Killing is wrong, and we should not sacrifice that highground.

Not all killing is wrong and the one who kills first sacrifices that highground, not the one who kills in response.

Their hatred will not end until they can clearly see in crystal clarity without such pollution as hopelessness and oppression and war.

So, tell me, how do we end their oppression and hopelessness? How do we remove the brutal dictators that oppress them and leave them no hope? How do we get rid of a Saddam Hussein or a Bashar Assad or an Ayatollah Khomeini without some measure of violence as an option? This is all secondary to the fact that their hatred for us will not end until we abandon our support for Israel, which holds them back from being able to do anything about their hatred for them. Their hatred for them will not end until they are driven into the sea and the "rocks and trees cry out, 'O Muslim warrior, O Abdullah, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him quickly.'" (The Hadith)

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Our post got too long so I had to chop some of your paragraphs up. Sorry.

Yes, it did. They have a longer historical claim to the land. Even in recent history, when the Jews began returning in the 1880s, most of the land was a barren desert populated by small, extremely scattered towns and roaming Bedouins.

The Canaanites were there first and Yahweh in his infinite wisdom decided that the best course of action would be to "leave alive nothing that breathes." Then came Babylon and then a few others until the Romans kicked them out.

Considering that Islam is the farthest extension of this religious course (Judaism>Christianity>Islam), it could be argued that the Jews and the Muslims are one and both have this historical claim. Both claim Abraham as their father, both claim that it was them that owned the land.

What the land looked like before, frankly, doesn't matter. Some sort of eminent domain conversation is out of the question.

The Jews begged them to stay.

??? Begged them to stay? I've never in all my research heard of anything like this. Could you provide a link so I can see what you're refering to?

Instead of allowing their "brothers" to relocate within their borders, as the Israelis did for the Jews who were evicted from their homes in Arab countries, the Arab nations stopped the refugees at their borders. They have been kept in refugee camps as willing cannon fodder for an Arab world that is too weak to militarily challenge a Jewish state that is less than 2% of their combined size.

It doesn't matter how big it is. If it isn't yours, it isn't yours. Arabs either fled for fear of raising children in a war zone or were run off their land.

http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm - Fairly non biased. Holds both parties equally accountable for their actions.

The conflict was intensified and complicated by the 1948 war. About 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled during the war, and Israel did not allow them to return. Many Palestinian refugees were settled in camps under miserable conditions, where they have remained for several generations.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/israel_5.htm - Slight bias to Palestinians, however, I feel that the statistics are important.

1947: UN takes control over Palestine.
— November 29: A UN plan for dividing Palestine into two countries, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem as international zone, is presented. This plan was immediately met by violent protest from the Arabs. 590,000 Jews and 1,320,000 Arabs live in Palestine (31%).

Again, most of those who left had evacuated on their own. They were not forced out.

Fear of being in a war zone is hardly voluntary.

On the contrary, what they did in 1947 was wrong and now they are trying to play the victims. In 1947, the area was sparsely populated, with a slight Arab majority, much of which can be attributed to illegal and recent Arab immigration from the surrounding regions in the 1930s. Jewish immigration had also increased in the region, in spite of the many British restrictions on them. Even though the Arabs held a slight majority, it was not a "land of Muslims," and no "promise of a crescent" was given in the Israeli territory that declared independence in 1948.

During WWI a single Arab state was promised to Arabs for fighting the Ottoman's i.e. Lawrence of Arabia, but after the war was over they realized that a single power in the area of so much oil would be bad, so they broke it up and installed dictators. See above statistic for population info.

Furthermore, the Arabs would have succeeded in creating their second state in what was promised to be Jewish land if they had not invaded the tiny strip of land that the Jews held when they declared independence. They chose the path of violence when the situation did not require it and suffered the consequences.

I can agree with this, but there were still Arabs whose homes and lineage trace back into the land of Israel. In a culture oriented around a family structure, the line in the sand that kept them from the land of their Grandfathers was an action that didn't exactly bring unity to the area. Especially while their Grandfather's home sat under a Jewish flag. It was an insult.

They were wrong from the beginning and are trying to justify themselves by re-writing history.

How did they try to re-write history?

Yeah, good luck with that.

I would say thank you if I thought you were sincere.

Yeah, like fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and kill 3,000 people. Sure glad that didn't happen. Oh wait... :doh

... Yeah that was kind of my point.

The only viable course of action is not ending their hatred, but ending their ability to do anything about it.

It would only be a matter of time before they regained their ability to act. It is ridiculous to think that you can permanently chain hatred. You have to change it, and you can not do it from a mile in the air with not so precise precision missles.

On the contrary, hatred is a very natural force. At its most basic level, it's the emotion one person feels toward another when he doesn't get his way or the other person won't do what he wants. Violence is a very natural by-product of it. Human nature is corrupt and has to be taught good, not evil.

What is it you hate? I don't mean like "I hate cats" I mean hate in the sense that Usama bin Laden hates America.

For example, you don't have to teach a child to hit another child when that kid is playing with a toy that the first child thinks is his and won't give it to him. You have to teach the child that hitting other people is wrong.

That's based on conditioning. A child doesn't know what pain is until he experiences it or sees it. Until a child falls down, he runs everywhere he goes, yes? Until the idea gets in his head to hit another child, the child doesn't hit. When a child is born all he does is **** himself and cry about it, get hungry and cry about it, sleep and cry when he wakes up, and smile when he gets attention. He doesn't know anything about violence or evil. He knows love.

Oftentimes, a parent will try to convey this concept to the child through reason, but reasoning with someone who cannot or will not accept reason is all but impossible. At this point, a parent must use some violence of their own, most commonly referred to as "spanking." Spanking has proven itself to be a very effective tool of training children to behave well and not act violently.

I've been spanked once in my life in my and father apologized for it. He said it wasn't the right thing to do. When I got into a fight at school I was not hit; I was hurt, but not physically. That is how I learned my lesson.

Although this is a somewhat simplified look at things, an analogy can be drawn to the current conflict with Muslims. Yes, we would love to end their hatred by non-violent reasoning. However, they refuse to listen and leave us no recourse.

They may not listen to what we say on television, but they cannot ignore what is right in front of them. That is why we can't merely speak, we must act and we must act in way that cannot be twisted into propaganda, regardless of whether we think we will be greeted as liberators or not.

Again, it's far too late for that. They have chosen a path of violence. Making "sacrifices," especially the ones that they demand, would not only poke holes in our morality, but teach them how to deal with the Americans in future disagreements.

I was refering to sacrifices as in getting off oil and away from Arab dictators.

Not all killing is wrong and the one who kills first sacrifices that highground, not the one who kills in response.

Where does pre-emtive war fit into all of this?

So, tell me, how do we end their oppression and hopelessness? How do we remove the brutal dictators that oppress them and leave them no hope? How do we get rid of a Saddam Hussein or a Bashar Assad or an Ayatollah Khomeini without some measure of violence as an option?

Well.... This is just off the top of my head so, bare with me... We could stop putting them in power?

We put in the Shah prick in Iran, which directly led to Khomeini's rise.

We supported Saddam until the 90s.

This is all secondary to the fact that their hatred for us will not end until we abandon our support for Israel, which holds them back from being able to do anything about their hatred for them. Their hatred for them will not end until they are driven into the sea and the "rocks and trees cry out, 'O Muslim warrior, O Abdullah, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him quickly.'" (The Hadith)

Who is they? Muslims or the dictators you mentioned? I assume that you are refering to the latter. Dictators do not matter so long as men do not fear them. Just as a democracy, their power is given to them by people. A people's will give power to a democracy, and a people's fear gives power to a dictator. The answer is in people.