YES YES YES. What Zylark and others love to leave out is that impoverished conditions and strife, much like the Iraqi and Palestinian have gone through, ferments radicalization. And while, obviously, it is never even the majority of the population that undergoes this, it leads to bigots (like our friends Zylark and SirElliot) condemning entire populations. They mistake correlation for causation, simply because it is easier and aligns better with their preconceived notions. But thank you for the excellent post!
Again, not any different from any other religion. ALL religions are murderous and fascistic at their core, but we're talking about the common Muslim who obviously isn't going to abide by every single scriptural diktat, assuming they're allowed to live in an environment that isn't being bombed into the dark ages every 3 minutes.
I love that scene... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU]YouTube - monty python-witch scene[/ame]
Well yes sopostmodern, I am biased. I am biased in favour of democracy, freedom of though and expression, freedom of and from religion, equality of the sexes and such values our modern society is founded on. As for your portrayal of the Israeli-Arab conflict, it is somewhat, uhm, lacking. Lopsided one may say. In favour of the Arab-Palestinian side of it. But once again, my little thought experiment; If the palestinians laid down their weapons today, what would happen tomorrow? If the Israelis laid down their weapons today, what would happen tomorrow? Do answer if you please. As for the history of the conflict, you conveniently forget that following WW1, the Brits controlled what was then called the Palestinian mandate area. What is today Israel and Jordan. 95% percent of this area was given to the palestinians outright, in the form of Transjordan, a semi-autonomous protectorate, whilst what is today Israel, not including what was occupied after the 1967 war, was directly under brittish rule, where about 1/3 was given to the jews, and the remaining 2/3 to the arabs. In 1947 following WW2, as we know, Israel was founded. On the very same day the arabs attacked. In the aftermath, some 800,000 palestinian arabs fled what is today Israel. What is less known, is that an equal number, roughly 800,000 jews fled neighbouring arab states in the same period. Nobody speak of their plights or right of return. Fact is millions throughout the world fled from one country to another following WW2. What makes the palestinian situation still current, is that the neighbouring arab states refused to accept palestinian-arab refugees as new nationals, even Jordan who is the de-facto palestinian state. What more is, the Jordanians, in the period between 1947 and 1967, when they held Judea aka the West Bank and east-Jerusalem, razed all temples and synagogues and most churches in the area. It gets worse, they paved one of the roads to the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem with tombstones from the old Jewish cemetary, and denied jews access to their most cherished site, the veiling wall. Other jewish sacred sites in Jerusalem, were used as latrines... Through the history of Israel, no organized destruction of any religious site have been done. All mosques in Israel is still standing. Granted a few fanatical settlers have attaked mosques, but that is the exception, not the rule. Most of these have been convicted in Israeli courts. As for the occupied areas, one need to remember these got occupied as a result of arab aggression in the wake of the 1967 six day war. Judea from Jordan, Golan heights from Syria and Gaza from Egypt. The Israelis did not start that war, they were brutally attacked. Quite unprecedented in international history, Israel as the victor have willingly given up occupied areas. A great part of Judea was given a testing autonomy, and the entire Gaza given to palestinian self-rule. What ensued, was increased terror attacks against Israel, and in Gaza after an election, a majority of the palestinians elected Hamas to rule. There have since been no elections. The agenda of Hamas is one of genocide, not peace. The palestinians knew this perfectly well when they elected them. It is not as if Hamas have kept it a secret. Predictably, after Gaza was given autonomy, and Hamas got elected, rockets started flying into Israel from Gaza. ...and also infighting between Hamas and Fatah (political wing of PLO) ensued. As for the terror, it is also quite telling that all of it is carried out by muslim palestinians. Not druse palestininas, not christian palestinians. Which rather negates the argument that the palestinians use terror because they are ill treated. What we must not forget as well, is that roughly one fifth of Israels population actually is palestinian. They enjoy full civil rights, and are also represented in the Israeli parlament, the Knesset. Name me one muslim ruled country who have a sizeable jewish population, who enjoy full civil rights, and are represented in the law-making forum. One. These palestinians, and those living in Israeli administered occupied zones, have expressed no desire to live under palestinian administration. Israel give them rights and freedoms they can only dream about in the Fatah ruled Judean zones or Hamas ruled Gaza, much less support their gencidal plans to make all of Israel some islamic "paradise". Judenfrei naturally. Something to ponder perhaps, before willy-nilly branding Israel as the big bad wolf in this conflict. edit: Crap, almost forgot the Turkish-Israeli relationship that sopostmodern brought up. Whilst true that Turkey have been a supporter of Israel, one also need to remember that Turkey after the demize of the islamic Ottoman empire in 1922 went through a process of secularization under Mustafa Kemal, aka Ataturk. That secular democratic republic have held up pretty well until recently, which have granted Turkey many benefits and obligations vis-a-vis the western world. Not least of which is NATO membership and associate membership of the EU despite the conflict with Greece over the Cyprus issue. In later years though, under the rule of the islamist prime minister Erdogan and islamist wingnut president Gül, who seek to dismantle the secular constitution of Turkey, ties with Israel have predictably chilled. Turkey is realigning themselves with the muslim world, under delusions of resurrecting the Ottoman empire. Worst part is, nearly half the population (47%) supported this agenda at the last election.
What about the right supporting an image of small government while the social conservatives advocate Uncle Sam telling me how to have sex?
Never said I was a social conservative. I give a rats ass about who have sex with who and how. As long as it is consentual, I say bang on
Emotional, but that doesn't really hold up. These things arise from developed societies, not societies comprised of oppressed and impoverished individuals. Where are all of these traits present? Developed nations. Japan, the United States, Turkey, all share these traits and have different religions (well, majority that is). Also, funny that you mention freedom of and from religion. That doesn't really exist in Israel. Do you know about marriage in Israel? It is left to Orthodox Jews, and many people have to marry outside of Israel because it would be impossible to do so there. Hm, is that freedom of religion? I don't think so (please defend this, though). Your bit about democracy is funny too. So, I suppose, it is the fault of North Koreans that they live under the regime they do. We should also tell the Iraqi people that it was their own fault for living under an authoritarian regime. And those Iranians? Hahaha, well obviously they're doing SOMETHING wrong. ...My point is your argument doesn't make sense. You can't blame the Palestinian people for a lack of democracy. These are things beyond the average persons ability to affect. Saying Palestinians just don't support democracy is the same as saying Iraqis and North Koreans don't; history and politics simply don't reflect the will of the people (a la Bush winning via the electoral college). It's funny you say that, because never did I claim to describe the entire conflict. I even prefaced my post saying so. I just was pointing out the errors in your thinking, such as the fact that you are citing religion as a major factor, despite the fact that a) that goes against virtually every accepted understanding of the conflict and b) that it just doesn't make sense, and when I tried to explain that it didn't make sense by citing Turkey as proof that it isn't Jews vs. Muslims, you just ignored it. Second, it wasn't in favor of the Arab-Palestinian side. I was just trying to balance your distorted presentation of Gaza. You made it seem like it was given actual autonomy, like the people were allowed economic freedom, freedom of movement even. You deliberately left out the fact that today it is one of the most malnourished regions in the world, partly due to the fact that Israel consistently obstructs NGO efforts to ameliorate the crisis. THAT is biased. I was just pointing out how so. Furthermore, we're not talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there is a huge difference. I guess I am just biased for not whitewashing the truth. The first question is tough to answer. First of all, by Palestinians, I am assuming you mean Hamas. The honest truth is I don't know, it's a question nobody can answer because it is completely speculative, and if you assert otherwise you are simply being ignorant. I mean, it is dependent on a lot of other factors. Who is in power in Israeli politics, being one. But you said today. That said, peace talks would probably resume. However, I don't think the situation would be resolved. The problem with the conflict is that Palestinians simply have no adequate leadership. Fatah isn't trusted by the Palestinians, rightly so, for being corrupt, ineffective, and also the fact that it is accepted by Israel. Obviously Hamas would never be accepted as an entity in negotiations, which of course is a problem because Hamas is the faction that appeals to more Palestinians. Still, Fatah would *probably* be the negotiating entity representing the Palestinian people. Which sucks, because they failed so horribly in negotiations in the past (Oslo). If you think that it didn't fail, you have to realize that it made the Palestinians distrust Fatah, going straight into the arms of Hamas, and that Israeli broken promises which exacerbated economic problems all lead to rising discontent, culminating in Al-Aqsa Intifada. Ultimately, I think Israel would manage to fuck the Palestinians over again, probably with no true resolution, separating Palestinian ceded territories into cantons and denying them a contiguous state, with Jerusalem unresolved (for I doubt Bibi would actually agree to share the city). I think real issues, like water rights in the West Bank and possession of the aquifiers there, would be avoided, that Israel would still demand an Israeli military presence in the new territories, and ultimately just deny them true autonomy. It would be a farce and I don't think a true resolution would be reached. This, of course, is based on how Israel has acted in the past, as well as the fact that the Palestinians have no adequate leadership to put forth. As for the Israelis, Hamas would probably still continue striking and sending cheap rockets to Sderot and Ashkelon. Hamas, and Fatah, are organizations that care more for their own survival rather than the good of their people. I mean, Fatah would totally be up to compromise, because there is a huge fear amongst the Palestinians and dove camp that if a resolution isn't reached soon, the situation will never resolve and continue to worsen, but I doubt Hamas would be wise enough to stop. And of course the Israelis would then use the actions of Hamas to say to the world 'See, we can never trust them!', and the actions of a group would determine the fate of millions. Israel specializes in collective punishment. On Jewish holidays, the occupied territories are put under curfew so that the settler minority can parade through the streets without fear. When there are terrorist attacks, Israel has often put the territories under complete curfew, which freezes economic and daily life completely (people aren't allowed out of their homes, except for possibly an hour or so). And, like the first scenario, no resolution would occur. You're looking at the issue too simplistically. If you think everything would magically work out if the Palestinians 'gave up'...well then this isn't worth my time. Oooh, I see a big problem here. You believe in Pan-Arabism. Yeah....they don't. Do you know how Palestinian refugees are treated in other Arab countries? Worse than dogs. Because nobody other than people of your camp buy into the 'An Ay-raeb is an Ay-raeb' bit. The Hamshemites in Jordan do NOT view themselves as Palestinians, and Palestinians know that they are not Jordanians. Black September, anyone? I didn't forget, I just wasn't going into the whole story of the conflict. As I already stated, I prefaced my post saying just that. What you are leaving out HERE is that Jews hardly made a majority in the lands given to them, and in fact there were more Arabs in the Jewish ceded lands than Jews, ALONG WITH THE FACT that those Jews were mostly recent immigrants who were usually completely European (most Mizrachi Jews, actually the overwhelming majority, only came to Israel after the formation of Israel, which happened way after this partition plan was devised) and most of whom didn't have a presence since the first Aliyah in the late late late 19th Century (....From Eastern Europe). You're also leaving out that the Arabs in these lands that were suddenly ceded to these new arrivals have had historic ties to the land, far more than most of the olim. ...Ani yehudi, ani mizrachi, ani yodea she'yehudim me'olam arav akhshav garim be'yisrael. Yes, I am quite aware that Mizrachi Jews were expelled from the Arab World, I actually mentioned it before getting to this. What I don't get is where you are going with this? Anyone who knows shit about the situation is well aware of this, and it is easily explained. A) Israel needed all the immigrants it could get, and it still does. If I wanted to, I could move to Israel and the government would HOOK ME UP. They have a demographic crisis and they know it, and they were ESPECIALLY aware of it back then. They needed those refugees. B) These Arab countries didn't need nor want the Palestinian refugees. Egypt and Lebanon could hardly handle with such an influx, Jordan too. These are strained governments that don't care about human rights, and it was never in their interests to absorb the refugees. Why would they need to take them in? C) Keeping them refugees allowed the states to keep the Palestinians a little bit more out of their hair while at the same time using them as a political tool in the Arab-Israeli conflict. D) About Jordan, it never WANTED THEM. Why are you even bringing it up this way? You're being misleading again. Do you know shit about Black September? Jordan can't stand the Palestinians as much as the Israelis (not that Egypt and Lebanon don't, but the Jordanians extra). Palestinian groups from within Jordan threatened it's security by engaging Israel, and now Palestinians account for some eighty five percent of the Jordanian population (maybe not that exact number, but it was ridiculously high). It may be de facto, but not by choice. ...Ugh, you really need to take a course or something on this shit. A) Once more, Jordanians and Palestinians are two COMPLETELY separate entities. They view themselves as such, they treat each other as such. But I sense that your inherent bias is showing once again as you're just lumping all those ay-raebs together. B) You're right, Israel would never do such a thing. ...You know, just kill over a thousand civilians for a few select targets in Gaza. Oh, and Samila and S_____ in Lebanon. Oh, and the Qibya Massacre. BUT GOD FORBID THEY TOUCH A TOMBSTONE! ...No, of course destroying cultural sights is abhorrent, but god damn is this really the biggest issue when both sides are murdering each other left and right? I care a little bit more when an army kills villages of unarmed civilians than a fucking tombstone that commemorates somebody long since reabsorbed into the earth. The civilians today living in the occupied territories (and I'm leaving out the Golan Heights because the situation there really isn't comparable or relevant) did not start the war, they have simply been oppressed because of circumstances outside of their control. See, maybe it's just the liberal push over in me, but I really hate the idea of people dealing with collective punishment for political events that happened before they were born. It'd be one thing if we were talking about just autonomy, like El Pais Vasco remaining part of Spain, but we're not; we're talking about people being free of an oppressive iron fist rule that suffocates their economy, restricts access to education, drains their resources, and limits freedom of movement (and, when exercising collective punishment as Israel does quite often, this can mean effective house arrest for multiple days at a time). You may call an innocent Palestinian that never harmed anyone, and whom you never met, a barbarian for being Palestinian and a Muslim, but I think you're the barbarian when you espouse collective punishment on millions of people for actions outside their control. No. This is where you are deliberately lying and being misleading, and why nobody should take anything you say seriously. You say Gaza was entirely given to Palestinian self-rule. That sounds so pretty! BUT WAIT: -Still riddled with Israeli checkpoints. -Still subject to IDF raids (where, of course, civilians are always killed in the pursuit of Hamas agents, but for some reason this matters less than an Israeli killed by a Qassam rocket in Sderot). -Still completely enclosed with EXTREMELY limited opportunities to leave the area. No freedom of movement. -No coastal water rights. -No seaport, and their airport shelled. -Blockade, devastating the economy, which led to Gaza having some of the worst malnourishment rates in the world. Among much else. You have the nerve to call me one sided? No measures Israel took ameliorated the problems facing the Palestinians. When Israel constructed the wall around the West Bank, it cut off a substantial amount of agricultural land from the territory, making Palestinians lose crops and *even more* land. Palestinians still aren't given an adequate share of the water from the West Bank, and settlers use so much more relative to their population and even per capita that it is pure gluttony in comparison. Blockades and lack of freedom of movement killed their economies, destroying their standard of living. You aren't paying ANY attention to the realities of the situation of the ground, the factors STRONGEST in prolonging this conflict. It isn't simply a battle for autonomy, Palestinians live worse than second class citizens, and this desperation is what Hamas feeds off of. Israeli actions of collective punishment only exacerbate the issue. Yet you leave all this out, either because you don't know it (which I think may be the case, considering your comments on Jordan, which frankly nobody who knows shit about the Middle East would ever say, oh, and also the bit about this being a religious issue, which is of course bull shit, and I've explained why), or because you are just biased and have no ethics. Of course. The two largest Palestinian factions do nothing to serve their people, and unfortunately the Palestinians have suffered because of this. Hm, interesting. Well, unfortunately I don't know enough about the Christian Palestinians to be able to give a definitive answer. What I do know is that their population has been consistently dwindling, and that they don't account for more than ten percent of the Palestinians within Israel. Groups in that region are incredibly sectarian (people tend to align with ascriptive ties, such as religion, when put in such dire circumstances), and PLO leadership being predominantly Muslim, and Hamas being exclusively Islamic in nature and the largest militant faction, would explain why Christian Palestinian terrorist attacks are infrequent if nonexistent (along with the shear lack of numbers). The Druze aren't treated like other Palestinians and enjoy the rights of Israeli citizenship, and since you don't seem to know this, your credibility is further in question. Druze are even conscripted into the IDF like normal Israelis, because the Druze community has generally accepted and supported Israel (how about you read about the topic, eh?). A) It is more like twenty percent, not a third. So, one fifth, not a third, let's not mislead, mk? B) This includes Druze, who I've explained are quite different. C) Most Jews live in either Israel, or the United States. Look at where all the Jews of the world are. It's like saying name one majority Jewish country with a sizeable Buddhist population with representation. You can't because such a country doesn't exist. ....Huh? Yes, many Israeli Arabs want to remain Israeli, but the majority of the Palestinian people CLEARLY want their own state. This much is undeniable and to argue this is to pretty much deny the nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I already said how I condemn Hamas and Fatah and how the Palestinians are in a tough place without adequate leadership. Excuse me? Don't disrespect me by acting like I just developed my stance on the issue on a whim. I've read a lot about the issue and probably had to go through more security reports and NGO reports that you ever had in your life about this shift. I am not 'willy-nilly' branding Israel as the big bad wolf, and I have already expressed how I think Hamas and Fatah are doing an incredible amount of damage to their own people (and I support neither). If anyone is being willy-nilly, it is you, sticking your head in the ground whenever somebody confronts you with the fact that Israel has just as much blood on its hands. Fuck, you even showed how ignorant you are on the topic (it's a religious thing, Palestinians=Jordanians, showing ignorance about the situation of the Druze, completely ignoring the factors that fuel the conflict). I have thought very long and hard about the issue, and that is why I realize that there is no 'right side' in this issue, just two populations continually getting fucked over by the powers that be (and yes, caught up in it to, as you would be if you were attacked by terrorists, or if you were starved and murdered by the IDF). To me, it shows a lot more immaturity and a lot less thought to completely blame one side (labeling them 'barbarians') and extolling the other entity. If you are seriously telling me that I am at fault for taking into account multiple perspectives and accepting the truth in life that there isn't always a black and white, go ahead, I think any rationally minded person on reading your posts is probably laughing their asses off anyways.
Evet? Turk degilim? Turkiyeden bir az bilmiyor muyum? (I know this already.) How have they tried to dismantle the constitution? And how has Erdogan threatened Turkey's secular nature? Are you telling me that allowing hijabs to be worn is advancing an Islamist agenda? Because his wife wears a hijab? Do we scream bloody murder when politicians wear crosses? I am sorry, but I haven't seen a religious revolution in Turkey yet, and I would like for you to present me some evidence of how he has threatened Turkey's secular nature. Please tell me of a change he created that has done so. "A political party cannot have a religion, only individuals can." Delusions of the Ottoman Empire? Tell me how Turkey aims to reconquer Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Greece, Northern Africa, and all of its former territories. Where did you find out of this plan? Can you tell me some developments that show this may occur? Or are you talking out of your ass, manipulating an outreach to the Muslim World as being tantamount to a resurrection of the Ottoman Empire? Please, show me evidence of the Turkish Republics ambition to reacquire lost territory. And you know, what is funny to me is that Turkey has always explained its cooling relations with Israel due to Israel's actions, not due to religion. It is also funny how this hasn't affected Turkey's relations with the EU, or the United States. We are decisively not Muslim lands. Hm. Maybe you ARE just talking out of your ass. Remember kids: correlation is not causation. A muslim country cooling relations with a jewish country is not due to religious differences, especially when we consider the fact that Turkey is more secular than the United States.
I know, and I did catch the error before you posted this rebuttal. It was no attempt to mislead, just a small lapse of memory that I caught myself when reading through my previous post. So no need to read into my posts ill will. As for the rest of your post, I will get back to it, including the turkey bit. Today is our constitution day, and as such I got my plate full. But I got quite the few things to latch onto in your rebuttal, and it will be great fun exposing them But just to clarify one thing I seem to get accused of a lot whenver I discuss islam or Israel, I've never said all palestinians, or muslims for that matter, are islamists. In all peoples, you find that the greater majority want nothing more than live their life in peace. Unfortunatly, some people are by varying circumstances lead by idealogues whose concept of peace is uniformity. Islam represents one such ideology of uniformity, a very extreme one. One incidently, since posing as a religion, all muslims are brainwashed into, eventhough some take it more serious than others. The palestinian situation is akin to the germans under the nazi regime. Eventhough most germans were at the time decent people, the nazis never achieved a majority at the polls, we still had to defeat the entirety of germany in WW2. To forcibly wrestle the nazis from any kind of power of any kind, and for obvious and good reasons. And as long as islamists hold power over the palestinian people, we can't afford to differentiate between "good" and "bad" palestinians. Whatever it takes, the islamists must be removed from any authority over the palestinians, face utter defeat. It is the only way totalitarian ideologies die. In a best case scenario, this happens from internal implosion, like with communism. In a worst case scenario, it requires a brutal war, like with nazism.
I think the emphasis on boxing people into neat little categories is a great way to distract people from real problems. The world can crash down around people's ears while they worry their heads off about whether or not they're liberal or conservative. Have your beliefs. Act in accordance with them, and don't worry about the labels because they're not as important as what you believe. From the sound of your post nothing changed about your priorities or beliefs about the world. So why are you changing your label? What part of you has changed to necessitate the switch from liberal to conservative?
Ah, hmm... Nice catch. I guess it is a dissonans between the ideal and the actual. So whilst my ideals have not changed much, the contents of the labels have. In the true sense of the word, I am still liberal, pro freedoms. But in current parlance, liberal have gained an entirely new meaning, and an entirely new contents. It is not about individual freedoms any longer. In the same vein, conservative have also changed meaning and contents. What I mean by it, is more or less what social-democracy was in the 50s and 60s. Restrictive fiscal policy, cooperation between unions and industrialists, modest social benefits, differentiated and low taxes, emphasis on building infrastructure, gold standard currency, minimal immigration, no VAT, little beurocracy and direct access to the body politics. The contents of labels change. If I say I'm liberal (or leftist), people will think I support big government, high and increasing taxation, mass immigration, a career political class, political correctness, run-away social benefits, huge beurocracies and little if any access to the body-politics. But ofcourse, it is easy to stereotype based on labels. Not all liberals are, uhm, stereotypical liberals, just as not all conservatives meet the stereotype either. What I have found is simply, that the more conservative profiles in national as international politics, seem to be more inline with my ideals, than those who one would presume should be, the self procalimed liberals... I know, a bit contradictory, and oddly enough amusingly ironic
Please, don't try to cover your obvious bigotry. The above quote was a response to somebody who didn't say they supported Hamas, but tried to explain where Palestinians more inclined towards Hamas were coming from. Interestingly enough, his post was actually logical and the one that most professors and experts would approve of. He explained the causes for radicalization that are very real and shown over the world to promote militancy (and he explained this through Israel's human rights abuses, but this can be further explained through it's suffocation of the Palestinian economy, which leads to a low standard of living and squalor, which incites rage, and in a hopeless situation, militancy). You blamed it on the Quran and Mohammed. Now, I'm Jewish. There is a part of the Jewish scripture, I believe it is Exodus, where Moses declares war on the Midianites for intermarrying with Jews or something along those lines. He kills all the married women, men, and boys, and divides the virgin girls among the kohenim and soldiers (obviously rape, as I don't think those girls were too willing). Hm. Did this lead me to go about raping girls and killing people who married into my ethnic group (or, better put, did my grandfather slay my dad, the goy?)? Nah, it didn't, because most people are normal people. In fact, most people disregard these bits. So, if I didn't learn how to rape from Judaism, what did I get? Well, I like the bit about Tikkun Ha'Olam, bettering the world, and I love how Judaism has the first Arbor Day of sorts. Can this apply to Muslims? Yes! I think fasting to gain empathy for the poor and preaching zakat, charity, which has an analogue in Judaism, is a beautiful thing. If I, as a Jew, can ignore the crazy and insane bits, isn't it possible for most Muslims to do the same? And, OH MY GOSH, LOOK! The Muslim World is still thriving! Why haven't they all blow themselves up? Because they aren't this insidious spawn you make them out to be. You dehumanize them, when what they are is, just like you and I, human beings, people with real emotions and empathy too. 'The Palestinians aren't fighting for freedom'. You make me fucking sick. You spew hatred and then try to act like you are normal, but you keep getting caught up in this categories. They're just fucking people who want to live normal lives. What nerve do you have to say that their plights aren't legitimate. Have you been to Gaza or the West Bank? Do you know how most of them starve? How they can't work? How they're deprived of the opportunities you, (you're Norwegian, yes?), have total access to? Palestinian students have to fight to be able to go to university, and from your comfortable life you deplore them all as barbarians who lie about wanting better lives that the state of Israel denies them. Quick, cover, your bigotry is showing. 'Now I'm not saying allllll Muslims are evil, most are good common people. I'm just saying that they all believe in something they were brainwashed into and that they all want barbarism and a theocracy.' See, this is the funny part. You say that we are the ones siding with totalitarian barbarians, yet you are the one saying 'we can't afford to distinguish between the good and the bad', throwing ethics out the window. You seem to lack the ability to see humanity. It's...well it's sad...but it's also a little scary. Mostly really sad. And whatever it takes? Who sounds barbaric again? And the sad thing is that you are still wrong. Even about the war bit. You are just so fucking wrong. You don't solve problems of this sort through more war and more oppression. Conditions have to improve before the conflict can be resolved. The reason this conflict has gone on for so long is, principally Israeli refusal for equitable negotiations (you will lie your ass off about this with incorrect facts and faulty trivia like you did before, no doubt, but never did Israeli offer fair and proportional water rights, a contiguous state to pre 67 borders, dismantling the checkpoints even within Palestinian to-be-ceded territory, or even family reunification into the to-be-ceded lands), but after that Israeli collective punishment that just deteriorates conditions and ferments despair, exasperation, radicalization, and militancy. THINK about it. Where is the militancy in the United States? In the Basque country? Even Northern Ireland now? Because conditions are livable. Palestinians are at the end of their rope: they have to see their loved ones die from untreated ailments, casualties by the IDF, houses blown up and families evicted, horrific levels of malnourishment, no access to education, and living daily with a system that reminds them that they aren't welcome in their own nation (and if you say Israel if for the Jews, then what nation do these people belong to? They are from that land, that land owes it to them to treat them like humans and not criminals simply for their luck of being born Palestinian). How you can't comprehend how this exacerbates and deepens the issues is beyond me, but to most people this should be quite clear. The sickest bit is just that, even though you acknowledge (though often contradict) that the majority of Palestinians are innocent people, you still believe they should hold the burden of what few of them do. But you won't even acknowledge how horrific it is. I am NOT the one who supports barbaric violence; it is you. I am not trying to be dramatic, but I don't support Hamas, nor do I support Israel's actions. You do support Israel, without any condemnation, and you support it because the many should pay for the sins of few. To me, and most people, that is barbaric. I definitely didn't learn this from religion, but one of the most important things we have to realize in life is that you can't lose sight of the humanity. You can't deny that we are all individuals, because you can't accept that truth and still argue that they must then all pay, at any cost, for the actions of a minority, especially when this situation can be resolved if the approach was shifted from punishment to reconciliation and mutual cooperation to better both entities existences. That's why joint economic initiatives can be so vital to the peace process, because they promote understanding and at the same time helps reduce the factors that promote desperation and animosity.
Go for it dude, so far you: A) exaggerated the amount of Israeli Arabs (1/5th -> 1/3rd) B) thought that Druze were treated like Palestinians, when they are quite assimilated into Israeli society, citizenship-wise. C) displayed a belief in Arab unity, which has no weight in the street and is a complete reversal of Jordanian-Palestinian relations. D) painted this to be a religious conflict, when every expert and scholar on the topic matter expresses otherwise. I guess you think that you are just the only right one in the world on this, go figure. E) expressed a belief that Israel has freedom of religion, which it most certainly does not have (I think Lebanon may even be more secular, while Turkey is DEFINITELY more secular, more secular than the US even) F) ohhhh, expressed an opinion that Muslims cannot be secular, which Turkey completely contradicts, and you haven't stated anything that Erdogan has done that has hurt Turkey's secular nature. (something he actually DID, and ACCOMPLISHED, please, because until then it is still more secular than the US and Israel) G) Tried to do something when it came to the Jewish refugees and Palestinian refugees, without acknowledging that both responses (the absorption of the Jews and the rejection of Palestinians by Arab states) were quite logical and necessary, as Israel needed and the other states didn't and couldn't take the burden, while at the same time were provided with an excellent political tool to shove in your face. I could go down and through, but I'm gonna stop. My point is, your bias is disgustingly apparent, as is your gaps in knowledge about the topic. So please, don't act like we're on equal footing, I've shown enough. Don't expect another response, you just wish wash between condemning demographics and acknowledging individuals (haha, funny, you're a conservative and yet you are focusing on the Palestinians as one huge 'barbaric' entity, instead of individuals (can't distinguish between good and bad, you're supporting the genocidal fascists, haha). HEY, AREN'T I THE EVIL COLLECTIVIST LIBERAL HERE?! By the way, can I invite you to have a cup of mint tea and some hookah with my evil Muslim Lebanese friend and I some time?
No, that makes sense. You have to do whatever works best for you, and if conservative politicians are representing what you believe better than liberals then it makes sense that that's where you would gravitate. But the very fluidity and fungibility of labels is part of what makes me suspicious of them. As people all of us are constantly changing and evolving in our beliefs and understanding of the world. And as labels terms like conservative and liberal -- as you have noted -- themselves change over time. So how long is anybody really a liberal when both the self-described liberal is herself constantly in change, and the label itself is constantly in change? It's like trying to hit a moving target with an arrow that changes course mid-flight. Whatever we may believe we are all still people and if we're to go anywhere as a species we -- all of us, liberal, conservative, Muslim, Jew, atheist, Christian, what-the-fuck-ever -- need to rediscover our common ground instead of looking for the things that divide us.
Just a few footnotes: Israel/Palestine: Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat | Women Living Under Muslim Laws BBC News | ISRAEL TODAY | Secularism vs Orthodox Judaism Not Jewish enough to marry a Cohen - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Not only do individual's ideologies change over time, but political parties and platforms change as well - rightly so. Those in power will do everything they can do to stay in power. Take a look at the history [read: quick wiki version] of U.S. Political parties. Parties have a deep history of constantly changing their names, sometimes even stealing the names of their opponents! I used to consider myself a conservative but now I'd rather not be associated with either major party. Seems like so much of American Politics has just been two immature parents shouting at each other while their children watch and wonder if something is going to be for dinner. To pour salt on the wound, this shouting match seems to have been going on for longer than I've been alive and does not seem to be letting up anytime soon. We have an interesting thread going, however if Smokinp thought I was uptight, maybe he should give one of those chill pills to sopostmodorn.... sounds like that dude has broken a couple blood vessels.... Take a puff SPM, just because this thread is dealing with middle-eastern politics, doesn't mean it has to be so... explosive (Zing!)
I've never read the Koran, but if it's anything like or worse than the barbaric literature that is the Bible, Gawd help us. I was staying in a hotel one Sabbath, and the cleaning lady came to clean my room, and I seriously wanted to stone her the death for working on the Sabbath.
Willisvillis-but, did you use the elevator to get to your room? Infidel! Shabbat elevator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And by the way, Israel has plenty of terrorists too: they're called settlers, and they have killed Palestinians, destroyed their crops, and are general dicks.