Another informative and helpful post from what's-his-name there.
Printable View
Another informative and helpful post from what's-his-name there.
You focus on minutae and misread the posts that I've written. I don't see the struggle in Israel/Palestine as a religious one, I see it primarily as an anti-colonial struggle. One with settlers, classic racial disparities, and severe human rights violations. And just like other anti-colonial struggles, when a modicum of justice is never achieved for oppressed peoples, the result is religious fanaticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niccolo
As for the term imbecilic, that was used in reference to the racist terminology that was used to describe Palestinian people, and even more so for those who would lump 4 million men women and children all together as terrorists.
If you wish to endlessly show us all how much history and philosophy you've read, thats fine, but perhaps you should just address the brunt of my arguments rather than trying to set up straw arguments. I'm an atheist, I've suffered tremendously at the hands of religious zealots, and I certainly have no wish to defend any religious system. But I think that reducing the conflict in the occupied territories to a religious struggle is deceitful and immoral.
No one has yet to address any of the things I wrote, perhaps because they are not really in dispute, rather it would be easier for people to endlessly talk about the horrors of suicide bombers and the evils of Islam (both of which are certainly many).
Okay then, that's fair enough, why don't we just set aside the "imbecile" thing as your response to the "raghead" kind of thing that was going on elsewhere in the thread.Quote:
You focus on minutae and misread the posts that I've written. I don't see the struggle in Israel/Palestine as a religious one, I see it primarily as an anti-colonial struggle. One with settlers, classic racial disparities, and severe human rights violations. And just like other anti-colonial struggles, when a modicum of justice is never achieved for oppressed peoples, the result is religious fanaticism.
As for the term imbecilic, that was used in reference to the racist terminology that was used to describe Palestinian people, and even more so for those who would lump 4 million men women and children all together as terrorists.
If you wish to endlessly show us all how much history and philosophy you've read, thats fine, but perhaps you should just address the brunt of my arguments rather than trying to set up straw arguments. I'm an atheist, I've suffered tremendously at the hands of religious zealots, and I certainly have no wish to defend any religious system. But I think that reducing the conflict in the occupied territories to a religious struggle is deceitful and immoral.
No one has yet to address any of the things I wrote, perhaps because they are not really in dispute, rather it would be easier for people to endlessly talk about the horrors of suicide bombers and the evils of Islam (both of which are certainly many). - mandy
For my own part, I deliberately mentioned some of the books I've been reading on this topic to address the comments you made, so far as I was concerned, and also, to see if you had read any of those books, because you do, as I already said, appear to be quite well read, and I just wondered if you might have actually read any of them. You never know - Roger Crowley's one in particular is quite recent, and has had some good reviews. As a matter of fact I saw it on the shelf in my local bookshop yesterday (and thought of you, awww ..)
I'll just respond quickly here to the rest of your post, because I've got to be heading out the door in a minute: I'm thinking again of Mill's argument for freedom of speech: as you say, you and I appear to be coming at this current situation from different angles, and that's fine. As I've said before, that's partly why I enjoy taking part in threads like this: other people bring what they know to the table, and you (hopefully) learn something that you didn't know about before. And (back to Mill) if different people put forward different views, then a larger, usually more complex picture can begin to emerge, and who knows, maybe the truth is out there in that larger, complex picture ... somewhere.
Edit: Got back home again & thought I'd add something to this post. I notice you mentioned earlier that there were loads of Christians who wanted to turn their countries into theocratic states, but I would have to say that isn't an issue so far as European countries are concerned. America I'm not so sure about! (Could one not turn your original argument around, and say that it is folly to scream about the "wackos" in the US who would like to turn your country into a theocracy, while ignoring the very real dangers posed by Islam in the world today?)
I'm not clear about your position on Islam: you agree that if one looks back through history, one will find plenty bad things to be said about Islam, as bad as anything that could be said about Christianity, and you argue that "going off the deep end with religion" leads to people carrying out acts of "religious fanaticism." Or as we tend to say, terrorism. Well, ok then.
Wouldn't it be correct to say "going off the deep end" of Islam? And to talk of "Islamic fanaticism"? After all, the people you are talking about don't become (for example) Buddhists, and like many of the Tibetan monks who have been jailed by the Chinese, try to find compassion for others, no matter what their behaviour is like.
We've all seen plenty examples in recent years of people going off the deep end of Islam. We all know what that can lead to. Again I'll say that there might have been one big terrorist attack in America seven years ago, but there have been many more around the world since, and one can only imagine what it would be like having to deal with terrorist attacks every day.
On one hand then, you seem to be arguing that Islam can be as cruel and evil as any other religion has ever been, and that Israelis have had to deal with people "going off the deep end" of Islam, which leads to "fanatical" Muslims committing terrorist attacks upon Israeli citizens.
On the other you seem terribly reluctant to acknowledge that Islam has anything to do with the whole situation.
Isn't it possible that it just might be a factor here? And how can one say for sure until one looks at what Islam actually teaches? And at what it's followers have said, and done, in the past?
That's an interesting video, yosi.Quote:
Originally Posted by yosi
Mandy, you spoke about how one's opportunities are reduced in Hamas controlled territory, and that this leads to people going off the deep end with Islam. I wonder to what extent Hamas limits the opportunites of the people it "represents"?
I wouldn't just take that video as authoritative, I don't know who made it or anything, although the events seem to be real enough, Israelis certainly wouldn't be shouting out the Takbir as they round up their own citizens. It raises a good question though - if as you say povery and lack of opportunity are necessary conditions for one's going on to become a suicide bomber, then to what extent is Hamas responsible for creating those conditions?
What do you think?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a5e_1231434273
If Russia was shooting rockets into Alaska I bet it wouldn't be more than a few hours before we were at war, but if Israel defends itself the antisemites come out of the woodwork.
I don't have time to reply to this entire thread, nor am I going to attempt to do so, but I iwll respond to the last post I've read...
Give me a fucking break, zukkobaby. The world is decrying Israeli actions for a number of reasons, chief amongst them being:
1. Israel's heavy-handed retaliation - The Israelis have come out and said that enough is enough and that they are tired of being shot at and bombed by militant factions within Palestine and even Lebanon for the last umpteen years. Israel has responded to rockets with a veritable cornucopia of weaponry in an attempt to "punish" Palestinians for a) supporting Hamas b) continuing to lob rockets into Israel despite the significantly more deadly retaliatory strikes and c) a ground invasion to root out the enemy on an effective level.
2. Israel has not only stopped aid organizations from reaching the imperiled civilians in this conflict, they have cut off supplies and power to a number of clinics and hospitals. Additionally, after they DID set up three-hour ceasefire agreements in order to facilitate care of the injured, they then struck numerous buildings with foreign aid workers inside of them as well as a UN aid convoy.
3. Israel has flat out ignored the UN's most recent call for a cease-fire and some kinda of agreement, truce. They are hard-lining their stance with (what seems reasonable to me) a general view that so long as the enemy keeps attacking, they will do the same. Furthermore, Hamas, while being part of Palestinian governance, is recognized as a terrorist organization by a number of countries and has not only called for the destruction of the Zionist state, but is also would only seem to gain from any concessions that Israel would have to make which is unfortunate...negotiating with terrorists never ends up well.
4. OVERKILL! The Israelis subscribe to the belief that if you wrong them, they will visit that hurt back upon you that you will remember the last time they fucked you up and made you their bitch. A few rockets over the last few months with some suicide bombings (which all violated a cease-fire agreement) has brought them to the brink of flattening everything Palestinian and they WILL pay back the damages visited upon them tenfold.
It's not like Israel is playing with kid gloves, so they're not wholly innocent here. They also aren't wholly guilty as they have shown tremendous restraint up until now and it seems that they've had enough. THAT is why the world is pissed, not because they are retaliating, but HOW they are retaliating
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niccolo
here's a recent perspective: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01092009...ain_149286.htm
Interesting article, fred. The author made a good point there. I saw an Israeli politician on Sky News last night saying that Hamas is not a nationalist organisation, it is a jihadist organisation. I also read an article by Andrew Bostom, a doctor who started to research Islam and its history after 9/11. (Here's his website.) He quotes a Hamas MP called Yunis al-Astal as saying, "Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs [i.e., Jews, Koran 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166, and other foundational Muslim texts] in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam - this capital of theirs [Rome] will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe. I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our Jihad... " (Source.)Quote:
People who call Israel's actions "disproportionate" upset me - they just don't have a clue. What would be a proportionate response? For us to shoot unmanned missiles targeted at civilians every day? (NY Post article)
If what that Israeli politician and Dr. Bostom say is true, then some important questions arise, which ought to be considered: What kind of enemy is Israel facing? What do they want? What are they capable of? Who supports them? Have we in the West ever faced a similar enemy, and if we did, then what measures did we employ in order to defeat them?
It's worth mentioning again that so far, although plenty people attacked kittyKaiti personally for claiming that Muhammad was a warlord, a paedophile, and had committed terrorist acts - not one person has attempted to disprove those assertions. And we all know why - they can't.
Again I'll say that so far as Muslims are concerned, Muhammad is "the ideal man" and they are bound to imitate him if they wish to live what they consider to be a moral life.
Again I'll say that although the earlier parts of the Koran contain some verses apparently promoting tolerance, once Muhammad went to Medina he showed that he had a real bloodthirsty streak, and showed no mercy at all to those who crossed him.
And again, I'll say that the principle of abrogation means that the later verses of the Koran override the earlier verses, meaning that Muslims are bound to follow those verses of the Koran which tell Muhammad's followers to do all kinds of nasty things to nonbelievers. As Muhammad himself did after the Hijra.
I noticed in one of her posts Mandy said that the religion which people were "going off the deep end" of just "happened to be Islam" as if it didn't really matter much if one became a Buddhist or a Muslim, but of course it does matter - it matters a great deal. Just read the holy texts of each of those two religions, and that's painfully clear for anyone to see.
And if Hamas is not just a nationalist organisation but a jihadist organisation, then obviously, that matters too.
It matters a great deal.
:arrow:
Sorry to say it.. But I am so into the hell of tired of those Abda labbas...
They have been fighting there since?????? Anyone whos remember ???