• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism

Tashah said:
I've looked into this avenue myself and keep abreast of new opportunities. Since Afghanistan and Iraq are militarily occupied, they will comply if the issue is pressed. As for the others... don't hold your breath waiting for the 'We love America' rapture.

I won't hold my breath. Holding my breath wouldn't change much of anything. I do believe that with as much political and financial weight that the United States holds, that a few could be persuaded to allow such a thing. Even if only a few did it, the idea is to project a positive image as best as we can. Even if we only get into a few countries, the people of those countries could see Americans in a light that maybe isn't portrayed in the media all the time. People talk. That's how the Peace Corps has to work. It's just like how JFK intended to use the Peace COrps to fight communism. Every member to be an ambassador of America, freedom over oppression and capitalism over communism.


Then your understandings and mine are radically different. Jews have been in Israel since the partiarch Abraham.

Muslims claim Abraham has their patriarch just as much as Jews, and Christians do.

Israel's territorial integrity was lost to the conquest of empires, i.e.. Roman, Christian, and Muslim. We didn't steal anything, we have been here since antiquity and it is indeed our homeland. I always find it strange how you liberals love the UN except for the explicit UN Resolution that restored the territorial and cultural integrity of Israel. From my point of view, the Land of Israel was incrementally stolen by historical empires, Muslim conquest, and the caprice of western colonialism.

Forgive me. "Steal" is an incredibly inappropriate word, for one. Also, I did not mean to say that Jews did not live in Israel before the Zionist movement started, but in 1931 there were around 175,000 Jews and 860,000 Arabs in that particular area. Compare that statistic to today. In 1949, in the area that became Israel, there were around 800,000 Palestinians and only 170,000 were permitted to stay.

This information is from:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/israel_5.htm

If you feel this a flawed or fabricated source of information on the history of Israel, I would appreciate seeing one that a resident of said country finds to be credible/respect with, that is if it's not too much trouble

Let me in turn be perfectly frank. Out of a whole globe of available candidates, you only see fit to explicitly single out Israel for indictment and castigation. Mistreatment of people? Perhaps you should attend to your own messy house before throwing your incriminating stones. Do these examples ring any alarm bells? Native Indians. African Slavery. Mexico and Central America. Mormons. Resource exploitation. Gunboat diplomacy. McCarthyism. Japanese internment. Guantanimo. Abu Gharaib. CIA renditions. Iraq.

I don't pretend that America is perfect. The reason I have brought up Israel is because we are talking about Arabs and we are talking about possibilities as to why Americans have earned the hatred of Arabs, and how to rectify that situation.

That's only a miniscule tally of your mistreatments... not to mention a whole globe full of regimes that murder, rape, torture, and exterminate as we speak. And you dare to single out Israel? Have you no decency?

I don't mean to single out Israel. I feel that Israel is relevant to the discussion of Islamic terror. If you like, I could talk about the Russian mistreatment of the Chechens. I did not mean to offend anyone, sincerely. I believe there is a problem in Israel and if we could resolve it fairly for all parties it would be very beneificial for many people. I don't believe it can be resolved with treating every Palestinian like prisoners, nor do I believe that it can be done by having Israel "wiped off the map".

Israel is not their land... and Israel is not going anywhere. If Palestinians loathe being treated like prisoners, then they should cease acting like criminals.

If you treat every single Palestinian like a criminal or an animal, don't be surprised when that's how they act.

Israel has totally withdrawn from Gaza. Per Samaria and Judea (the West Bank), I personally envision and entertain no further Israeli withdrawal. The Palestinians gambled everything when they joined with the invasion armies, and they lost the 'push Israel into the sea' gambit. They sought nothing less than the cessation and extermination of Israel. When you lose a gambit of this horiffic magnitude... a correlating price is extracted.
That was long ago. Surely you do not mean for every genaration of these people to pay for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers?

I will say this as plainly as possible Gandhi>Bush. Israel will return the West Bank to Jordan when the United States returns Texas to Mexico.

Texas fought a war for it's independence. After being solo for a year or two(maybe more, Texas history was in the 8th grade), we were annexed. I find the analogy to be a bit off.

Per your ideology of a non-violent global rehabilitation ... this scenario can only work if EVERYONE agrees to work within the confines of this parameter.

I don't believe that. The British hardly agreed to nonviolence, and the KKK even less.

Even India, the homeland of Gandhi, realizes that a viable ideology utilized in a domestic arena does not translate internationally... as there are too many global actors who embrace an expansionist agenda and revel in violence and bloodshed. Perhaps your utopian dream will someday become a reality. But until that horizon dawns upon mankind, those of us who cherish our homeland will do what we must to keep the barbarians from the gates.

I understand your will for defense. I do not want to see your country in harm's way any more that I want to see it do harm. I do, however, believe that when it does harm to Arabs, Palestinians, what have you, it brings itself into harm's way.
 
robin said:
Tashah you have a home in America.
I am a citizen of both the US and Israel and reside in both countries.

robin said:
Question 1) Would you be happy to return it to native American Indians if they asked for or took back their land from you by force even, just as you Jews have asked for or forced at times the Palestinians to give up their land/homes to you Jews?
The Native Americans can always petition or attempt to reclaim their ancestral lands. That is their collective choice to make.

robin said:
Question 2) Or is it a case of one law for you & another for Native American Indians, in other words... a kind of relative rather than absolute sliding scale of right & wrong & ethics, dependant on whether it's the interests of you & your tribal group being served, rather than a different tribal group?
I have no problem with American Indians reclaimimg their lost lands. So far, they seem to be completely disinclined towards such a reclamation. I would suggest that you engage the NA community for more relevant information and enlightenment. Per 'tribal group', I have no idea what you are talking about.

robin said:
Question 3) Please explain the difference between Hitler occupying the Sudeten land with a massive influx of Germans on the grounds that there were already were some Germans there & you colonising Israel with a massive influx of Jews on the grounds that there were already some Jews there?
The difference is that the Sudetenland Germans emigrated and were not indigenous to the land. Two very different scenarios. If every Kurd in the world returned to Kurdistan, would that be an invasion robin... or a return home?

Your allusion to Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland and Israel as being equitable speaks volumes on your historical ignorance and your anti-Israel agenda. Likewise for the esteemed and highly respected 128shot.



 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Peace Corps was a great idea, however, I have the feeling that the terrorists would take Peace Corps volunteers hostage and chop off their heads.

I don't doubt that such an act would be attempted. I believe that if America truly refused to be the enemy of the Arab, and truly fought his injustices, and truly helped him when he was in need, the hatred of terrorists that would resort to such acts would be brought in to clarity for the Arab population of the world. That's how white America woke up to the injustices of black America. Clarity.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't doubt that such an act would be attempted. I believe that if America truly refused to be the enemy of the Arab, and truly fought his injustices, and truly helped him when he was in need, the hatred of terrorists that would resort to such acts would be brought in to clarity for the Arab population of the world. That's how white America woke up to the injustices of black America. Clarity.


You have to realize that this is not a war against Islam but rather one against Islamic fundamentalists, the problem is that these extremists are the ones who are in power.

What you're saying is all well and good and makes for a good line but unfortunately that's all it is; a good line, and doesn't equote to the realities of the world. It's like saying that you could have defeated Hitler and nazism by just helping them out; it doesn't make any sense.
 
Tashah said:
Your allusion to Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland and Israel as being equitable speaks volumes on your historical ignorance and your anti-Israel agenda. Likewise for the esteemed and highly respected 128shot.






my historical accurcy on the jews isn't a high one. I would be in your debt if you provided information to send me down the right historical road on this subject to prevent this from happening again.

Thank you.


I don't have an anti-israel agenda though...
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You have to realize that this is not a war against Islam but rather one against Islamic fundamentalists, the problem is that these extremists are the ones who are in power.

I don't think it's a problem of Islam either, but the fact remains that Arabs are angry with us and that anger is being justified through selective reading of the Quran. It is not called Islamic terror because it is a secular movement.

What you're saying is all well and good and makes for a good line but unfortunately that's all it is; a good line, and doesn't equote to the realities of the world. It's like saying that you could have defeated Hitler and nazism by just helping them out; it doesn't make any sense.

Nazism rose because of the extreme poverty and suffering of Germany caused by the Treaty of Versailles and magnified by the world wide depression. If Germany had not been punished with vengeance and was dealt with in terms of Justice after WWI, WWII would have never happened. And yes if the Germans were helped after WWI, Hitler and Nazism would have never been.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't think it's a problem of Islam either, but the fact remains that Arabs are angry with us and that anger is being justified through selective reading of the Quran. It is not called Islamic terror because it is a secular movement.



Nazism rose because of the extreme poverty and suffering of Germany caused by the Treaty of Versailles and magnified by the world wide depression. If Germany had not been punished with vengeance and was dealt with in terms of Justice after WWI, WWII would have never happened. And yes if the Germans were helped after WWI, Hitler and Nazism would have never been.


See this is where I differ from all liberals, because you turn around and blame the victim and not the attacker. It's the same way liberals consider crime, it's not the criminals fault that he's a bad person, societys to blame. It's not the corrupt institutions and backwards thinking of the Islamic fundamentalists spreading anti-U.S. b.s. through their state controlled al-Jazeera propoganda machine, it's the U.S.'s fault because we made them this way. This is so wrong because it takes away any responsiblilty from these people who are actually the ones to blame and puts in place the U.S. as a scapegoat.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't pretend that America is perfect. The reason I have brought up Israel is because we are talking about Arabs and we are talking about possibilities as to why Americans have earned the hatred of Arabs, and how to rectify that situation.
The Title of this thread is 'Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism'. So far, I have not read one word from you pertaining to Islamic terrorism. No words whatsoever on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, beheadings etc. Al Qa'ida did not attack Israel... yet by your own posts you suggest that Israel is the midwife of all Islamic terrorism. If you believe that, then you are naive beyond belief and irredeemable. If, as it seems, the sole intention of this thread is to bash Israel, then why bother with a robinesque title subterfuge and deceipt?

You preach non-violence. Israel totally withdrew from Gaza and has been rewarded with continued rocket attacks and bombings. Yet not a word from you on this violent response to Israel's non-violent and peaceful endeavor. Does non-violence only apply to Israelis? Should we cower and meekly accept this bloody return on our investment because it would better suit your personal quixotic philosophy? Palestinians have no acountability in your world? Are they not Islamic? Do they not engage in terrorism? Yet not one word is uttered in this direction. Not even an honorable mention.

You don't pretend that America is perfect. How generous of you. America has done more in three years to foster Islamic terrorism than Israel has managed to accomplish in fifty years. Yet all you offer is the exculpatory 'America is not perfect'. Well Israel is not perfect either. So now what? I've offered the same lame excuse as you. Will you accept this simplicity from me as easily as you obviously expected the converse?

If you wish to discuss global Islamic terrorism, then approach the subject as the broad-based entity that it is. Sadly, perhaps my expectations exceed your willingness to engage the topic via universal and non-partisan mechanics.



 
Tashah said:
The Title of this thread is 'Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism'. So far, I have not read one word from you pertaining to Islamic terrorism. No words whatsoever on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, beheadings etc. Al Qa'ida did not attack Israel... yet by your own posts you suggest that Israel is the midwife of all Islamic terrorism. If you believe that, then you are naive beyond belief and irredeemable. If, as it seems, the sole intention of this thread is to bash Israel, then why bother with a robinesque title subterfuge and deceipt?

You preach non-violence. Israel totally withdrew from Gaza and has been rewarded with continued rocket attacks and bombings. Yet not a word from you on this violent response to Israel's non-violent and peaceful endeavor. Does non-violence only apply to Israelis? Should we cower and meekly accept this bloody return on our investment because it would better suit your personal quixotic philosophy? Palestinians have no acountability in your world? Are they not Islamic? Do they not engage in terrorism? Yet not one word is uttered in this direction. Not even an honorable mention.

You don't pretend that America is perfect. How generous of you. America has done more in three years to foster Islamic terrorism than Israel has managed to accomplish in fifty years. Yet all you offer is the exculpatory 'America is not perfect'. Well Israel is not perfect either. So now what? I've offered the same lame excuse as you. Will you accept this simplicity from me as easily as you obviously expected the converse?

If you wish to discuss global Islamic terrorism, then approach the subject as the broad-based entity that it is. Sadly, perhaps my expectations exceed your willingness to engage the topic via universal and non-partisan mechanics.






breathe deeply and repeat as needed ;)
 
Tashah said:
The Title of this thread is 'Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism'. So far, I have not read one word from you pertaining to Islamic terrorism. No words whatsoever on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, beheadings etc. Al Qa'ida did not attack Israel... yet by your own posts you suggest that Israel is the midwife of all Islamic terrorism. If you believe that, then you are naive beyond belief and irredeemable. If, as it seems, the sole intention of this thread is to bash Israel, then why bother with a robinesque title subterfuge and deceipt?

You preach non-violence. Israel totally withdrew from Gaza and has been rewarded with continued rocket attacks and bombings. Yet not a word from you on this violent response to Israel's non-violent and peaceful endeavor. Does non-violence only apply to Israelis? Should we cower and meekly accept this bloody return on our investment because it would better suit your personal quixotic philosophy? Palestinians have no acountability in your world? Are they not Islamic? Do they not engage in terrorism? Yet not one word is uttered in this direction. Not even an honorable mention.

You don't pretend that America is perfect. How generous of you. America has done more in three years to foster Islamic terrorism than Israel has managed to accomplish in fifty years. Yet all you offer is the exculpatory 'America is not perfect'. Well Israel is not perfect either. So now what? I've offered the same lame excuse as you. Will you accept this simplicity from me as easily as you obviously expected the converse?

If you wish to discuss global Islamic terrorism, then approach the subject as the broad-based entity that it is. Sadly, perhaps my expectations exceed your willingness to engage the topic via universal and non-partisan mechanics.




You know, I am going to respond to your rhetoric and you are not going to like what I have to say, but **** IT. I know about the holocaust and how that helped to lead to the creation of Israel. But the problem with the creation of Israel is that it forced people who had lived on the land for centuries off their land. It would be like for Native Americans to show up at the front doors of American homes with tanks and machine guns and tell them they had to pack their bags and leave TODAY or ELSE. The Native Americans would argue, that they are perfectly justified in doing so, since the land was originally theirs to begin with. Same concept that happenned to the Palestinians and they are not going to like that any more than Americans forced out of their homes with tanks and machine guns by Native Americans and this sort of injustice is what will lead to revolts and terrorism against Israel.
 
Tashah said:
The Title of this thread is 'Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism'. So far, I have not read one word from you pertaining to Islamic terrorism. No words whatsoever on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, beheadings etc.

That is where terrorists have attacked. I do not believe that has much to do with why they attack or how to truly defeat them.

Al Qa'ida did not attack Israel... yet by your own posts you suggest that Israel is the midwife of all Islamic terrorism. If you believe that, then you are naive beyond belief and irredeemable.

That is not what I believe. If I have led you to think such a thing, I apologize, but I do not recall ever taking such a stance.

Al Qa'ida is one of many many terrorists group. To dismantle Al Qa'ida would be only a small victory, when our aim is Islamic terrorism as a whole.

If, as it seems, the sole intention of this thread is to bash Israel, then why bother with a robinesque title subterfuge and deceipt?

You know that is not the sole intention of this thread. In the opening post of this thread the only reference to Israel was, "Free Palestine". I don't think that's much of an inflammatory position, but is one I'm prepared to defend. Considering that every single terrorist organization seems to say something about America's unconditional support for Israel no matter what they do, I feel it is important to at least take a look at what might be considered offensive about our stance on the conflict in Israel.

You preach non-violence. Israel totally withdrew from Gaza and has been rewarded with continued rocket attacks and bombings. Yet not a word from you on this violent response to Israel's non-violent and peaceful endeavor.

Nonviolence is not something that characterizes a man or an entity by one singular action. It is long-term commitment. When someone strikes you and you refuse to strike back and are not turned away, your enemy is made a monster. When someone strikes you and you strike back, you create sides. When sides are created, people are divided between them. It causes confusion among the violence and propaganda. If you want to win, you need clarity. There is no act of violence that will bring such. Nonviolence will bring an end to this problem, but it will not be immediate. Violence will never bring an end to this problem, and there are no 'buts' about that.

Does non-violence only apply to Israelis? Should we cower and meekly accept this bloody return on our investment because it would better suit your personal quixotic philosophy? Palestinians have no acountability in your world? Are they not Islamic? Do they not engage in terrorism? Yet not one word is uttered in this direction. Not even an honorable mention.

To cower and meekly accept something is not nonviolent by my standards, or any others that I know that really understand nonviolence. One as intelligent as you who has a grasp on things like Astrophysics and Cosmology, something far beyond anything I have a grasp on, I would not expect to have the same complications as others with nonviolence. Nonviolence is not lying down, nor is it appeasement.

I do not believe it is right, how the Palestinians respond, but I promise you it is as hard for them to rally nonviolent movements against Israel as it is for me to rally nonviolence against terrorism. The Palestinian's hands are by no means clean in this regard, may I be the first to admit that, but to get caught in this endless occupation, fire missles, occupation, fire missles... What end can you possibly see at the end of that? I see no end at all.

You don't pretend that America is perfect. How generous of you. America has done more in three years to foster Islamic terrorism than Israel has managed to accomplish in fifty years.

I would completely agree with you here. 'America is not perfect', was meant in response to it's history in regards to the cases you mentioned. I do believe that the between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq that the US has guaranteed another attack that will have us all forget about the September of 2001.

Yet all you offer is the exculpatory 'America is not perfect'. Well Israel is not perfect either. So now what? I've offered the same lame excuse as you. Will you accept this simplicity from me as easily as you obviously expected the converse?

If I could see a chance to rectify the history of my country, I would, but I don't know how. Should we free all the African-Americans and treat them as equals? Should we treat Native Americans as equals? Should we censure Andrew Mccarthy? Yes, Yes, Yes.

Should we apologize for Lindy England and throw her ass in a military prison? Yes. Should we stop sending detainees to foriegn countries for God knows what to happen to them? Absolutely, but I don't know that the CIA will stop, only that they will be more discreet about it. Should we stop invading Islamic countries and alienating more Muslim youth? Yes, but I can't control the actions of those who my fellow citizens put in power. All I can do is speak against that power. I have voiced my opinion and I have defended it, just as I am doing now. I do so, in order for others to voice theirs in that we both may come to realize a better understanding.

If you wish to discuss global Islamic terrorism, then approach the subject as the broad-based entity that it is. Sadly, perhaps my expectations exceed your willingness to engage the topic via universal and non-partisan mechanics.

What partisanship have I shown? I want to change the US' stance toward Israel and Palestine for the best interest of both Israel and Palestine.

I feel this may be getting too heated. It is not my intention to offend you or any Israeli that may happen to read my words, but I fear that you will not allow a neutral conversation. If anyone has shown partisanship, I would say it has been you, indeed you have tried your hardest to paint me as anti-Israel. I assure you I hold no malice for Israel.
 
It would seem that by your logic and reasoning Tashah, that it would be perfectly OK, for the Native Americans, who sufferred genocide like the Jews, to show up at American houses with tanks and machine guns and tell them, that their house is no longer theirs and that they will have to pack their bags and leave or else face extermination, since, after all the Native Americans were their first before the current immigrant Americans.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
See this is where I differ from all liberals, because you turn around and blame the victim and not the attacker. It's the same way liberals consider crime, it's not the criminals fault that he's a bad person, societys to blame. It's not the corrupt institutions and backwards thinking of the Islamic fundamentalists spreading anti-U.S. b.s. through their state controlled al-Jazeera propoganda machine, it's the U.S.'s fault because we made them this way. This is so wrong because it takes away any responsiblilty from these people who are actually the ones to blame and puts in place the U.S. as a scapegoat.

Every man is responsible for the decisions that he makes, but every decision is made for a reason. I and perhaps other 'liberals' believe it is important to know the reasons why a bad decision was made.
 
TimmyBoy said:
You know, I am going to respond to your rhetoric and you are not going to like what I have to say, but **** IT. I know about the holocaust and how that helped to lead to the creation of Israel. But the problem with the creation of Israel is that it forced people who had lived on the land for centuries off their land. It would be like for Native Americans to show up at the front doors of American homes with tanks and machine guns and tell them they had to pack their bags and leave TODAY or ELSE. Same concept that happenned to the Palestinians and they are not going to like that, and this sort of injustice is what will lead to revolts and terrorism against Israel.

Well it was the Arab nations who created the refugee camps, and I don't think the Palestinians were forced to leave until after Israel declared independence and was subsequently attacked by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well it was the Arab nations who created the refugee camps, and I don't think the Palestinians were forced to leave until after Israel declared independence and was subsequently attacked by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

Declared independence? Who did they declare their independence from exaclty?
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
While that is nearly exactly what happened to the Palestinians, that is not a course I recommend. Stop calling Israel the Jewish homeland. Let it simply be a homeland. Let not citizenship rest on one ethic descent and/or religious affiliation. Stop treating the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza like prisoners who require a pass to move about a country. Stop mistreating them.

I don't call Israel the Jewish homeland, they do and apparently feel very strongly about it. Both sides have to give a little. Israel did and how was this compromise received? Rockets were launched from where they just pulled out of.

All in all, what's happening there is an excuse to fight a people that they hate. They take their religion very seriously and they take the book in a literal sense.

Gandhi>Bush said:
Wherever you bring injustice, inequality, and voilence, extremism and radicalism will come with it.

And sometimes, people just have hostile natures; rich people, poor people, smart people, dumb people. It's an affliction the non-violent have to shoulder. Look at Dennis Rader, the BTK. The man had no social excuses for his behaviour. He was compelled to do what he did and his knowledge of it being wrong was of no consequence. There are far too many people like him and they may seem to exist in a microcosm when compared to large groups of people who act in an anti-social manner, but it's not realistic to expect those who have to shoulder this affliction to blame themselves for every violent animal out there. Most notably when they are organized in groups.


Gandhi>Bush said:
They know of nothing else. If you believe that violence is the only way to change things, if you have seen nothing else create progress, if violence is all you have learned, then you will resort to violence. I believe that merely reaching out to create a positive change in a wholy new way in the Middle East would be good for creating peace there. All we have to do is show success in a new way. This conflict will be resolved only when we win the hearts of people and destroy their hatred rather than destroying their homes, their transgressors and members of their society.

This can work with many, but not with all, and I'm not suggesting that it be abandoned because of the above mentioned sociopaths, but they have to be dealt with.

Gandhi>Bush said:
We are alike in thinking that hatred such as this is an affliction. Do we agree that it can be cured?

We are alike in many ways when it comes to principles. I wholly am on board for non-violence, which is why I don't react that way. Unfortunately the hostile natured people I mentioned do exist, and the most that can be done is to contain them and their actions.


Gandhi>Bush said:
Where is comprimise viewed as weakness?

Most significantly, in the extremist ideology. I think it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who was quoted as saying it. I could be wrong in attributing it to him, but it was a quote from the time when the Shah was overthrown and mentioned as part of the ideology.

Gandhi>Bush said:
That is the cost of fueling hatred. When you fuel hatred it will cost more to destroy it. If they will shoot the helicopters that come to bring them aid, we should send more helicopters and send more aid. The reason the nonviolent Civil Rights movement was so successful was because of all of the Martyrs that died and were wounded in riots and Klan meetings. Members of that movement showed they were on the side of the good, and these men that would murder children are evil. And after you have clarified the situation beyond race and beyond religion, you will see not the sides of white and black but the sides of good and evil.

Again, it's laying blame at the feet of those attacked. It's not always that way and the underdog, or the perceived downtrodden have to take moral and adult responsibility for their actions.


Gandhi>Bush said:
There is a reason for all violence and there is a reason for every lack of peace. And there is a common thread within all men that desires peace that desires life over death, and that is where we must find unity.

There is a common thread within all rational men. This is true, but hostile people do exist, without the prodding of social deficiencies and abnormal treatment.

I'll refer once more to the microcosm and mention people like Ted Bundy, who had a great social standing, and not the product of poverty.
Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianci, (Hillside Stranglers), cruelly violent men with no excuse but the very identity of their natures.

While I wouldn't liken the actions or circumstances of Islamic extremists to serial killers, nor do I want this to go off in different directions, it's worth noting that hostile nature does exist and is not always the product of social discomfort.

Gandhi>Bush said:
What was the reaction of choice of America when it was hit on 9/11?

Or more honestly, what was America's reaction 7 years after war was declared on it and numerous acts of war carried out against it?
There's no comparison between America's reaction to that and the irrational people, who react with violence first and never attempted to join in on the peace process. The track record is slated in history and tells all there is to know.
 
VTA said:
I don't call Israel the Jewish homeland, they do and apparently feel very strongly about it. Both sides have to give a little. Israel did and how was this compromise received? Rockets were launched from where they just pulled out of.

And they should have persevered.

All in all, what's happening there is an excuse to fight a people that they hate. They take their religion very seriously and they take the book in a literal sense.

I believe that can change in Islam as it changed in Christianity.

And sometimes, people just have hostile natures; rich people, poor people, smart people, dumb people. It's an affliction the non-violent have to shoulder. Look at Dennis Rader, the BTK. The man had no social excuses for his behaviour. He was compelled to do what he did and his knowledge of it being wrong was of no consequence. There are far too many people like him and they may seem to exist in a microcosm when compared to large groups of people who act in an anti-social manner, but it's not realistic to expect those who have to shoulder this affliction to blame themselves for every violent animal out there. Most notably when they are organized in groups.


I don't know of a large group that has organized together to do these things. I know a little about BTK, but very little about Dennis Rader. I was really into psychology and serial killers long before his arrest, but I got away from it just before his arrest. I can assure you that their is something at some point in his life that really screwed him up, or he had a mental condition. All the same people don't go crazy, a person goes crazy. I do believe between groupthink and hatred, people can do crazy things, but the sanity remains as well as the humanity.

We are alike in many ways when it comes to principles. I wholly am on board for non-violence, which is why I don't react that way. Unfortunately the hostile natured people I mentioned do exist, and the most that can be done is to contain them and their actions.

This notion of a "hostile nature" is not one that I think immunizes someone to the effects of nonviolence.

Most significantly, in the extremist ideology. I think it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who was quoted as saying it. I could be wrong in attributing it to him, but it was a quote from the time when the Shah was overthrown and mentioned as part of the ideology.

If it's not too much trouble, could you try to locate a source so that I can read it?

Once again, I believe hatred can be broken by nonviolence.

Again, it's laying blame at the feet of those attacked. It's not always that way and the underdog, or the perceived downtrodden have to take moral and adult responsibility for their actions.

I agree, but that's not how it always plays out. It's best to care for the downtrodden so that when they rise they rise because they are not united by hate.

There is a common thread within all rational men. This is true, but hostile people do exist, without the prodding of social deficiencies and abnormal treatment.

Hostile people can be dealt with.

I don't know that that's true. From my the many case studies I did for my Forensic Psych class, I do not recall ever running into a case of a "natural born killer."

I'll refer once more to the microcosm and mention people like Ted Bundy, who had a great social standing, and not the product of poverty.
Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianci, (Hillside Stranglers), cruelly violent men with no excuse but the very identity of their natures.

Buono and Bianci had a... "strange" relationship that becomes quite interesting when you take a close look at it.

Have you ever heard the story or seen the video of Bianci's questioning? He tried to fake multiple personalities. It was a riot.

While I wouldn't liken the actions or circumstances of Islamic extremists to serial killers, nor do I want this to go off in different directions, it's worth noting that hostile nature does exist and is not always the product of social discomfort.

It most often is that product of of social discomfort.

Or more honestly, what was America's reaction 7 years after war was declared on it and numerous acts of war carried out against it?
There's no comparison between America's reaction to that and the irrational people, who react with violence first and never attempted to join in on the peace process. The track record is slated in history and tells all there is to know.

Americans did not have a sense of being attacked 7 years proir to 9/11, nor were they really aware of their state of war. As soon as they were they responded with violence. Just like our enemy. I do believe it is comparable. Muslims feel attacked, Americans feel attacked, and in the end... EVERYONE GETS ATTACKED.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
they declared their independence from British rule


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2088.html

They were given independence, it was hardly a declaration. And Palestinians were forced to leave when the UN, in it's infinite wisdom, decided to partition the area off into the Jews and Palestinians. The Palestinians didn't appreciate this because, IT WAS THERE HOME. It was after that they were "relocated".
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't know of a large group that has organized together to do these things. I know a little about BTK, but very little about Dennis Rader. I was really into psychology and serial killers long before his arrest, but I got away from it just before his arrest. I can assure you that their is something at some point in his life that really screwed him up, or he had a mental condition. All the same people don't go crazy, a person goes crazy. I do believe between groupthink and hatred, people can do crazy things, but the sanity remains as well as the humanity.

I'm not really comparing the acts, but the nature that's inherent in some people. A negative nature that's completely polar to 'normal', if I can use that word without seeming to constrain behaviour. Many people have tales of woe, from abusive home lives, etc, and it's the nature that they already possess that will determine how they behave.

It seems we have more in common, as I too took an avid interest in serial killers and how they were formed. From all acounts, there can always be a significant occurance that is suggested as to what pushed them, but I'll warrant plenty of people went through much worse than Jeffrey Dahmer and didn't wind up like him. (Sorry about the some-what off-subject tangent)

Gandhi>Bush said:
This notion of a "hostile nature" is not one that I think immunizes someone to the effects of nonviolence.

Maybe so, but there is also another force/inspiration at work to defeat this notion. While one preaches peace another preaches hate. Palestinian school children study books with Israel deleted off the map. The stricter forms of Islam (Wahabbism) take literally the passages dealing with Dhimmi (subjugated practioners of [considered] less religions).

Now, of course these things can be countered, but is it reasonable to think that the countries that practise this will allow an outsider to come in and contradict that? Look at what happens to Christians who're just trying to live, not convert in Muslim countries.


Gandhi>Bush said:
If it's not too much trouble, could you try to locate a source so that I can read it?

Definitely, and I'll get back to you.

Gandhi>Bush said:
Once again, I believe hatred can be broken by nonviolence.

I agree, but that's not how it always plays out. It's best to care for the downtrodden so that when they rise they rise because they are not united by hate.


Hostile people can be dealt with.

I think I've addressed this with the above statement about how hostile these people are toward other religions.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't know that that's true. From my the many case studies I did for my Forensic Psych class, I do not recall ever running into a case of a "natural born killer."

No, not a natural born killer, but a hostile nature that is nurtured; through violent fantasies, percieved slights, all that is the product of the individuals nature.

Gandhi>Bush said:
Buono and Bianci had a... "strange" relationship that becomes quite interesting when you take a close look at it.

Have you ever heard the story or seen the video of Bianci's questioning? He tried to fake multiple personalities. It was a riot.

Those two made me pretty sick. I've never seen the video, but I remember Bianci's antics and his final decision that since his rights had been violated, he won't participate in the preceedings.

Bianci was a pretty bad actor too.


Gandhi>Bush said:
Americans did not have a sense of being attacked 7 years proir to 9/11, nor were they really aware of their state of war. As soon as they were they responded with violence. Just like our enemy. I do believe it is comparable. Muslims feel attacked, Americans feel attacked, and in the end... EVERYONE GETS ATTACKED.

That's just not true. Some Americans may have been able to ignore it, but the family members and victims of the 1st WTC bombing, the Kobal towers bombing, the U.S. embassies in Africa, etc, etc, can't certainly say the same. And the people who (like myself), while not directly affected, were pretty offended by these acts and not at all happy with the sense that 'some Americans' had about it.

Our leaders were well aware of the state of war, they were busy with other nonsense. And that's both sides of the partisan parties.
 
VTA said:
I'm not really comparing the acts, but the nature that's inherent in some people. A negative nature that's completely polar to 'normal', if I can use that word without seeming to constrain behaviour. Many people have tales of woe, from abusive home lives, etc, and it's the nature that they already possess that will determine how they behave.

I don't believe in a nature that makes someone a killer or hateful. Hatred is not something that one is born with. Hatred is learned and taught, and it is something that can be changed.

Maybe so, but there is also another force/inspiration at work to defeat this notion. While one preaches peace another preaches hate. Palestinian school children study books with Israel deleted off the map. The stricter forms of Islam (Wahabbism) take literally the passages dealing with Dhimmi (subjugated practioners of [considered] less religions).

If you are raised to hate someone, then you will hate them. If you are raised to be someone's enemy, you will be their enemy. I believe that people can be broken of these things, but they can not be broken of their beliefs by breaking their bodies or the bodies of their comrades. Actions like that only reinforce the hatred within them.

Now, of course these things can be countered, but is it reasonable to think that the countries that practise this will allow an outsider to come in and contradict that? Look at what happens to Christians who're just trying to live, not convert in Muslim countries.

You don't have to fight it with outsiders. If you are refering to my Peace Corps proposal, this could only be applied with countries that: A) need it. B) can be persuaded to accept it. I believe that many countries could be persuaded if we could rally many many countries together in order to fight in such a way. The political and finacial might of however many countries we could get involved would be very persuasive.

Truth. That is how this battle must be fought because truth is the only way to fight lies. A country can only mask the truth for so long.

No, not a natural born killer, but a hostile nature that is nurtured; through violent fantasies, percieved slights, all that is the product of the individuals nature.

I don't believe that. I think a person's nature is generally the same as another's. It is environment that changes a person. Some people become violent, some people endure and get stronger, it all depends on how you were raised before that.

Those two made me pretty sick. I've never seen the video, but I remember Bianci's antics and his final decision that since his rights had been violated, he won't participate in the preceedings.

In the video Bianci is faking Multiple personalities. He's only got two. And the FBI agent says to the other agent how rare it is that there are only two personalities, and almost immediately a 3rd emerges. Great stuff. Had everyone laughing pretty hard.

That's just not true. Some Americans may have been able to ignore it, but the family members and victims of the 1st WTC bombing, the Kobal towers bombing, the U.S. embassies in Africa, etc, etc, can't certainly say the same. And the people who (like myself), while not directly affected, were pretty offended by these acts and not at all happy with the sense that 'some Americans' had about it.

Mainstream America was not aware of it. I understand many people knew that there was a threat, but I don't believe that was a large percentage of the population.

Our leaders were well aware of the state of war, they were busy with other nonsense. And that's both sides of the partisan parties.

That's politicians for you.
 
Tashah said:
The Native Americans can always petition or attempt to reclaim their ancestral lands. That is their collective choice to make.
But I didn't ask whether you think the Indians can always attempt to reclaim their lands. You are replying in a manner you accused me of some months back.
I asked... Would you be happy to return it to native American Indians if they asked for or took back their land from you by force even, just as you Jews have asked for or forced at times the Palestinians to give up their land/homes to you Jews?

Tashah said:
The difference is that the Sudetenland Germans emigrated and were not indigenous to the land. Two very different scenarios.
I'm not sure you're are quite correct there. They'd been there for centuries. So my analogy of Hitler annexing the Sudetenland on the pretext that Germans had been there for centuries & the Jews annexing Israel on the pretext there had been Jews there for centuries, holds good surely ?

.... "Before the Czechs, a Slav tribe, invaded the central regions of
Bohemia and Moravia, these lands had been inhabited by Celtic Germanic
tribes called The Boii, the Marcomanni and the Quadi. In the 12th and
13th centuries Bohemian dukes invited German farmers, miners,
craftsmen, merchants and artists to settle in these lands in order to
develop them, particularly the mountainous frontier regions.

For more than 700 years Germans and Czechs lived together
peacefully. It is true that from time to time there were tensions and
conflicts, e.g., the Hussite wars in the 15th century, but they were
fought for religious and social reasons, rather than on racial
grounds. It should be mentioned, however, that some regions within the
Sudetenland were inhabited exclusively by German-speaking folks who
had no contact whatsoever with Czechs, such as the southern part of
Moravia; they were indistinguishable in every respect from the
neighboring Austrians."
http://sudetengermans.freeyellow.com/HISTORY.html

Tashah said:
If every Kurd in the world returned to Kurdistan, would that be an invasion robin... or a return home?
That depends on whether Kurdistan consisted of other ethnic groups that had also been on that land simultaneously for centuries & who would be expelled by the Kurds to make space for Kurds from elsewhere, simply because they weren't of the Kurd tribal group. Again we return to the Sudetenland analogy.

Tashah said:
Your allusion to Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland and Israel as being equitable speaks volumes on your historical ignorance and your anti-Israel agenda. Likewise for the esteemed and highly respected 128shot.
I'm not sure I'm quite as ignorant as you claim & I'm not anti Israel, strange though it might seem. I'm trying to understand what the heck is going on there & whether the Palestinians did get a rough deal that the Israelis/you won't admit to.
Tashah said:
Per 'tribal group', I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh Come on. This nonsense is all about tribalism. The Jewish tribe v the Palestinian one. That chink in the primitive area of the human brain that makes people want to identify with a particular tribal group. As a scientist you must have some inkling of that.
Of course I myself am very British & adhere strictly to being part of the British tribal group & maintaining genetic & racial purity... that is until I see an attractive woman from another tribal group of course
crazyeyes.gif
 
Last edited:
the fact that islam is a religion of peice, that is true. the fact that jihad is a must on our enemies is a must, that is true. but jihad in islam has rules and regulations given by Prophet Muhamed (P.B.U.H). He said dont to kill women, children, and dont cut a single tree in the enemies land. this is saying is true and approved by all islamic sheikhs(religious men). what osama bin ladin did in your country is an act of terror and islam doesnt approve it.

we've known americans as the people who have science and technology the people who are blessed by the democracy. then how could u judge a whole nation by the act of a single organization. if islam was bad their woudnt be 1 billion and 4hundred million muslim in the world. Scientist all over the world would have not converted to the islamic faith, Cat Stevens would have not been a muslim.


about the palestinian issue. jews are the main cause of pain in the world and history justifies that. as a start they killed their own prophets and they now it.they tried to kill Masiah Jesus (P.B.U.H). the fact that god told them to go palestine is false and they also know it. if u read Prophet Moses's Story (P.B.U.H) u would find that they are forbidden to enter the palestinian land till the day of judgement. this is not only from the islamic point. it is also from jews point of view who live in europe.

Palestinian has the right to own their land permenantly and if jews want to live in arab world they are welcomed but they dunt have the right to own a country in our world because we are free people not slaves. if jews where to own a state in america the americans are going to
do the same thing the palestinians are doing because you are free people.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
They were given independence, it was hardly a declaration. And Palestinians were forced to leave when the UN, in it's infinite wisdom, decided to partition the area off into the Jews and Palestinians. The Palestinians didn't appreciate this because, IT WAS THERE HOME. It was after that they were "relocated".

god damn it don't make me take sides they're both wrong but don't blame the U.S. it was the Soviets who recognized Israel and they did it to start the war, I can't with good conscience say that the jews shouldn't be protected nor can I say that the Palestinians are totally to blame cuz neither would be true, also, don't force me into telling you why the Arabs are nazis because they are.

Look I'm Polish with atleast 1/8 Jew in me and you don't even want to know what happened to the Pols even those that were 100% aryan, this conversation is wrong and I'm sorry but I cannot sell out the jews in favor of Al-Husseini's (Arafats teacher and direct relative) vision of Palestine IE Husseini formed the muslim SS units in WW2.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
god damn it don't make me take sides they're both wrong but don't blame the U.S. it was the Soviets who recognized Israel and they did it to start the war, I can't with good conscience say that the jews shouldn't be protected nor can I say that the Palestinians are totally to blame cuz neither would be true, also, don't force me into telling you why the Arabs are nazis because they are.

I'm not asking you to take one particular side, I'm asking you to understand both for the better of both. I do not think it's USAs fault, nor Israel's or the Palestinian's fault, but as long as people do "take sides" this issue won't be resolved.
 
Back
Top Bottom