It seems to me that this whole fatwa against the cartoonists is just another classic ploy by the dictators and ruling clerics of the Muslim world to vent the anger of their subjects away from themselves.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
And it also happens to be a terribly insulting thing they've done. Freedom of the press is one thing, but at least show some respect for other people in the process.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
When they start showing respect for others, they can start complaining about being disrespected.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I will not qualify my criticism of the reactions of those in the Muslim community who promote violence with "well the cartoon were insulting".
I don't care what the insult is, violence isn't an appropriate reaction. Ever.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just saying.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The Muslim outrage over the insulting cartoons is a separate issue from terrroristic violence. People argue that "Muslims should do this..." or "Muslims should do that..." as if all Muslims were a unified lock-step group with homogeneous practices and beliefs.
Muslims have every right to be outraged at the insult leveled at them. And expressing that outrage is not the same as limiting freedom of the press. If my people were so insulted, or if your people were, you could be sure that many among us would feel compelled to object, and strenuously.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think this is not dissimilar to the growing pains the church had around the same time in its development.
I mean, you figure, Christianity had its beginnings around the turn of the millenium, and from around 1100-1300 AD they were going on crusades. Islam had its beginnings around 600 AD is sending their crusaders off in the form of terrorists by the 1900s.
So, rewind back to 1200 AD, and you've got the largely unwashed and uneducated crusaders (a small group, to be sure, with most of the more educated folk staying home and not getting involved in the bloodshed) killing heretics and any who don't worship as they do on the say so of the Pope and higher church officials, often destroying more culturally civilized and educated people in their quest to beat down those who believe differently than they do.
Today, we have largely unwashed and uneducated terrorists (a small group, to be sure, with most of the more educated folk staying home and not getting involved in the bloodshed) killing infidels and any who don't worship as they do on the say so of dictators and clerics, often destroying more culturally civilized and educated people in their quest to beat down those who believe differently than they do.
We just need the Muslim world to move out of this period and have a Renaissance or something.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hi Cow! Coffee?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
"Freedom of Expression is Western Terrorism" <- sign carried by one of the protesters.
So it's ok for them to chant "Death to America" so long as those of us in the west with an oppinion don't express it.
I'm sorry, these people need to grow up in a hurry. Murdering Jews and Americans is ok with the Europeans, but when they start marching against free speech they're going to lose some support.
Pix
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
No, it isn't ok for them to do that. But at the same time, it isn't ok for us to assume that the actions of the minority are representative of the whole group.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:And it also happens to be a terribly insulting thing they've done. Freedom of the press is one thing, but at least show some respect for other people in the process.
I went through one month of this debate without actually having seen the cartoons and I, like everyone else, criticised the publishers for being insulting while defending their right to be so. Then I took the trouble to follow a link and have an actual look at the cartoons, and I must say, it has been much ado about nothing. Only a few of the cartoons are even marginally offensive and I've seen worse on almost any subject imaginable. And if some Muslims expect everyone to adhere to their prohibition of depicting Muhammed (and other religious figures) then they are better off disabused of this notion at once.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The Muslim outrage over the insulting cartoons is a separate issue from terrroristic violence. People argue that "Muslims should do this..." or "Muslims should do that..." as if all Muslims were a unified lock-step group with homogeneous practices and beliefs.
Muslims have every right to be outraged at the insult leveled at them. And expressing that outrage is not the same as limiting freedom of the press. If my people were so insulted, or if your people were, you could be sure that many among us would feel compelled to object, and strenuously.
And remember that big blow-up over the cartoon with Anne Frank and Hitler in bed together?
And... wait, remind me. How many people died in Jewish protests after Egypt ran a documentary about Jews killing children to use their blood for ritual purposes?
Is that enough?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: "Freedom of Expression is Western Terrorism" <- sign carried by one of the protesters.
Given the blatantly selective use of the "freedom of speech" cry by Europe -- witness the recent jailing of a Holocaust denier in Austria, or the refusal of the original Danish paper to publish cartoons depicting Jesus some time ago -- I think the point of that particular sign is rather astute. Apparently, in Europe, it's only freedom of speech if you're attacking the least favoured minority immigrant population.
As to my actual opinion of the violence, the cartoons, and the knee-jerk reactions, I've made myself clear multiple times on this forum and others already. I don't really feel like going over it again.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, Lisa, I've said it before and I guess I'll just have to say it again (and this holds true for everyone, not just you). I'm right. I'm always right. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me is just demonstrating how wrong they are.
Now, you may disagree with this statement. But if you do, you'd be wrong. Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Given the blatantly selective use of the "freedom of speech" cry by Europe -- witness the recent jailing of a Holocaust denier in Austria, or the refusal of the original Danish paper to publish cartoons depicting Jesus some time ago
Your first example is spot on -- the illegality of Holocaust denial is indeed a betrayal of free speech. The second, however, indicates that you have a twisted understanding of what freedom is. A privately run newspaper choosing to refrain from publishing something on the basis of content IS a textbook example of freedom of speech.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:A privately run newspaper choosing to refrain from publishing something on the basis of content IS a textbook example of freedom of speech.
It is. It does, however, make them hypocrites for hiding behind freedom of speech in this instance, hence my comment about selectivity.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:It does, however, make them hypocrites for hiding behind freedom of speech in this instance, hence my comment about selectivity. [/QB]
Not at all. Freedom of speech does not imply a requirement to offend all groups equally, but simply an opportunity to offend all groups equally. That's not hypocrisy, it's simply inequity, which is not something the principle of free speech does (or should) address.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I see what you're saying, and I do agree in the general case. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, I don't think "freedom of speech" is a shield that an author or publisher should hide behind in order to defend content. Content should stand on its own merits.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: It is. It does, however, make them hypocrites for hiding behind freedom of speech in this instance, hence my comment about selectivity.
I agree with Senoj and Irregardless. I think part of speech being free is that people have the choice of whether or not to support a viewpoint.
However, going back to previous statements I've made about newspapers, I think the best journalistic ideal might be that newspapers should strive to be a public forum where all viewpoints are examined objectively.
So, even though I don't agree that not publishing every viewpoint is a violation of the principle of free speech, it is, I think, not in keeping with the ideal of an impartial newspaper.
On the other hand, I'm sure there were plenty of other places in Denmark who ran unflattering cartoons of Christian emblems every now and then. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Actually, there was a bit of a furor in Denmark over a big public wall painting of a naked Jesus with a visible erection of substantial size. It was eventually painted over. Added: I think the Danes have a peculiar sense of humour.
quote:So, even though I don't agree that not publishing every viewpoint is a violation of the principle of free speech, it is, I think, not in keeping with the ideal of an impartial newspaper.
This is more like what I should have said, yes. Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Flying Cow: Actually the Crusades were pure politics and economics. You can make the argument that the Islam vs. West feud is too, but Christian tradition doesn't promise 72 virgins for those who die fighting the infidels. The Papal promise of immediate heaven for martyrs and the doctrine of indulgences were both syncretisms of the muslim doctrine.
Also compare the lives of Jesus and Mohommed. Jesus was single and a pacifist. Mohammed married a 8-13 year old cousin and lived much of his life as a desert bandit. Jesus' disciples were martyred. Mohammed's lived as sultans in the desert.
Not quite as similiar as it appears.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ryan, the crusades were most definitely not pure politics and economics. Religious furvor drove massive slaughters of, among others, random Jewish communities along the way, just as a minor example.
Politics and economics were tightly entwined with the crusades, but they would not have happened without large numbers of people believing it was their Christian duty to kill the infidels and conquer Jerusalem.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
twinky,
a quick reminder that the newspaper did print arguments from Muslims and Danes, pro and con, about whether or not the cartoons shouldn't have been run, and about being a Muslim in Denmark. I would also like to point out that the newspaper, as far as I know, hasn't made it a practice to insult Muslims and that, as far as I can tell, they genuinely wanted to make a statement that the Muslims could not expect to dictate what was said in their newspapers and in Danish society any more than any other group could. For what it's worth, I agree with Tristan's previous post, but would make it more general to include all religions and their sacred symbols and texts.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's fair to characterize the Danish newspaper's motivation for printing the cartoons as a desire to insult Muslims.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Storm, I don't really want to rehash the whole thing in public. I largely agree with you, though not entirely, and I do agree with your 6:43 post. I haven't made that characterization on this thread, but I did so on the earlier one and later changed my mind largely as a result of your even-handed exploration of the issue.
If you have a burning desire to talk about it more with me in particular, feel free to shoot me an email.
Added: I know that first sentence sounds snippy, and I apologize. Think of it as being said in a fatigued voice, not an irritated one. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry, not trying to beat a dead horse. We've all said our piece on this one, I suppose. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No need to apologize, I don't think you did anything wrong. I'm just tired. At least partly because I just got home from donating blood, I think.
Er, sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled thread and all that. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: No, it isn't ok for them to do that. But at the same time, it isn't ok for us to assume that the actions of the minority are representative of the whole group.
"But at the same time" is a phrased used by people who are afraid of judging something without a caveat.
"Sure, rape is wrong, but at the same time, wearing provocative clothing is just showing poor judgement."
"Sure, blowing up abortion clinics is a terrible thing, but at the same time, you can understand why someone might freak out when nothing less seems to get through to abortionists."
"Sure, Germany was absolutely wrong to start WWII, but at the same time, the Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany, and made no room for any German aspirations whatsoever."
In 1990, a 21 year old Israeli named Ami Popper went to a bus stop and asked the Arabs waiting there for their ID cards. After making sure they were Arabs, he opened fire and killed seven of them.
What he did was abominable. I don't give half a damn why he did it. I can talk all I want about what the Arabs have done to us, but none of that is a justification. Not even marginally. I don't know if that was his reason, either, and I don't care. He sits in jail and will do so until he dies.
I think it's despicable how so many people feel a need to qualify their condemnation of the brutal and homicidal reactions to a bunch of friggin' cartoons.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Ryan, the crusades were most definitely not pure politics and economics. Religious furvor drove massive slaughters of, among others, random Jewish communities along the way, just as a minor example.
I think Ryan may have been talking about the leaders. And even so, I'm not so sure. But yeah, it makes it hard for me to watch Robin Hood movies when they make Bloody King Richard out to be such a saint after he was pillaging his way through Europe, killing Jews along the way for practice.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's fair to characterize the Danish newspaper's motivation for printing the cartoons as a desire to insult Muslims.
Since it's fairly clear that it was anything of the sort. Those cartoons were illustrations for an article on the way Muslims have frightened people into self-censorship. The Muslim reaction has made that point much more strongly than the article could ever have done.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Thanks Lisa. Yeah the peasants were duped. And as for the slaughter of Jews, definantly a result of European resentment over the financial place held in European society.
The point is though, it's not sound to hold the Crusades up as a failure of Christianity. It wasn't born out of Christian doctrine like Islamic Jihad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I suspect there were quite a few religious scholars of the time who would disagree vehemently. Furthermore, I can easily cast every historical and contemporary Islamic action in purely economic and political terms; that does not make them purely economic and political.
Your apologetics are badly flawed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Furthermore, it seems your point is misaimed. That something included extreme religious motivation (as the Crusades did) does not make it the "fault" of that religion. I'm not coming anywhere near to saying that. However, saying there was no religious component to the Crusades, only political and economic, is laughable in the extreme.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
While you may not be accusing Christianity, it doesn't mean no one is.
I think that in the Crusades, Christianity was used as a rhetorical device alone. In other words there is nothing in Christian doctrine that would demand a war to reconquor Jerusalem. It was a tool. Not to mention the genesis of the whole thing was Pope Urban's sermon which he delivered in order to unify "Christendom" and consolidate his own political power.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The Crusades were not one continuous event. Furthermore, there is strong evidence of religiously motivated hatred in the actions of many of the Crusaders, from the slaughter of jews to the incredible atrocities visited on those they thought were muslims (though many were christians).
Your appeal to the real economic and political concerns that were involved hardly obliviates the influence of Christianity. Tell Peter the Hermit that he did not lead his Crusade because of his Christianity.
Not to mention that your argument is transparently obvious in transference to Islam. After all, if I were to attempt to couch the Crusades in terms based in old testament slaughters you would protest that Christ's coming led to a new path, just as many followers of Islam today would tell you how Jihad, properly conceived, is not a call to war but to peaceful religious struggle.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, another good counterexample is the establishment of the kingdom of Jerusalem. It was clearly doomed in the long run, militarily speaking, and defended to enormous economic cost. Yet the inhabitants, former crusaders, held onto the land they considered holy with religious fervor.
No purely economic or political explanation is sufficient for the reality of its brief existence.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A Jewish response to the cartoon furor: an Israeli anti-Semitic cartoon contest. A bit more mannered than fatwas. http://www.boomka.org/ http://www.dimonacomix.com/ Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
Some questions about the protests that I have:
1) Where did these people in Muslim countries find so many Danish flags so quickly?
2) Why are people dying over this issue?
3) If mobs can be mobilized so quickly in so many places to protest these cartoons, to destroy, threaten and possibly die, what does this say if there were a serious breach of Islamic law by an outside country?
4) If such furor can be generated so quickly and widely, how close is the pot to boiling over?
5) Are these radicals really in the minority in the Muslin world? Recent elections in Palestine and Iran seem to say that a violent, virulent segment of the Islamic faith is alive, well and growing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow, Rich. I'd answer your questions, but there's an undercurrent in there I find a little ugly.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: Thanks Lisa. Yeah the peasants were duped. And as for the slaughter of Jews, definantly a result of European resentment over the financial place held in European society.
That's actually nonsensical.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
What undercurrent is that, Tom? Or is any suggestion that this sort of radicalism is the norm in the Islamic world "ugly" to you, however well based?
For my part, I find undercurrents to be ineffecient. The answer to Rich's question number 5 is that while the actual individuals who can be counted on to perpetrate acts of terror personally may be a minority in the Islamic world, support (passive and active) for such acts is far from a minority thing. And of those who do oppose such things, those who are willing to risk speaking out about it are a small minority.
It's only going to get worse. And apologists like Tom only contribute to it.
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
How can one find the situation anything but ugly?
People have died over cartoons. Cartoons. Protesters have beseiged a couple of embassies. A Pakistani group has put a price on the heads of the cartoonists and publishers, I believe the price was $25,000 of the group's money and another $1 million from an unnamed jeweler's group.
There is an undercurrent in all of this. An undercurrent that is sweeping up people and inciting them to violence over cartoons. Cartoons. These protests are much bigger and more violent than the ones we saw over Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. They are more violent and bigger than the protests over the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.
Imams and governments were able to get Muslims in how many countries out and onto the streets over this issue? And how quickly did they do it?I understand that a depiction of Mohammed violates the laws of Islam and that this was offensive on a very, very deep level to Muslims the world around. But there is a segment of the world's Muslim population that wants more than a letter of apology from the publishers.
It's the same segment that cheered and celebrated when the World Trade Center towers collapsed. It is the same group that cheered when bombs went off in nightclubs in Bali. It's the segment that helped put together the railway and subway bombings in Madrid and London.
It isn't that large crowd you see at the protests that is the undercurrent, that's the visible current. The ugly undercurrent are those who mobilize these people, who stir them, who recruit from them, who hand out the plastique-laden vests and AK-47s. Those who seek out martyrs-to-be. The people who are oh so willing to convince someone else's child to commit acts of terror, to give up their life, to fill more graves in the name of what someone says is Allah.
Those who would never want peace. Those who look for tinder as small as a newspaper cartoon to start fires with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wasn't referring to the ugly undercurrent in Arab society, Rich, which is obvious to the casual observer.
I was referring to the ugly undercurrent in your own tone, which generated leading questions designed to disguise opinions you already held as possible conclusions.
What exactly do you think this line of questioning will accomplish? What new information do you think you'll get out of the thread by asking questions to which you already believe you know the answers?
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
Tom, surely you understand the idea behind rhetorical questions? And I think you also hit the nail on the head there: possible conclusions. And honestly, I don't have answers to those questions, just a few ideas generated in the vacuum of one person's existance.
What do I think this will accomplish? It's basically just stepping into a dialog and offering some observations I've had recently. It's airing a few questions I've pondered. I hope to discuss, I hope to learn, I hope that someone will share wisdom gleaned from looking at the situation from a different direction.
I don't believe I have the answers, just some opinions. Opinions are all we really have until we have an answer, right?
<edit to remove snarkiness>
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I've had some of those same questions Rich. I understand where you are coming from.
I'll admit that I know few enough Muslims and little enough about the faith as a whole to have to watch myself that my own ignorance and prejudice don't over-color my developing opinions. However, it seems very apparent that Islam is besieged by some force that values violence over reason, and acts in its name with relative impunity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the problem: your observations largely boil down to something like, "Gee, while not all Muslims are insane, hate-filled killers, sure looks like most of 'em are. Isn't that a problem?"
The thing is, you personally won't be able to change the Muslim world. But you can control whether or not you continue to treat Muslims as human beings deserving of life and respect. And I'm afraid your present line of thought tends strongly in the other direction.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is a cancer at the heart of the Arab world that has hijacked a portion of the Islamic tradition to serve as its carrier. Unfortunately, I think many Americans lack a respect for the patient in this scenario, and have therefore come to the conclusion that it might be more convenient to amputate.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Weak metaphor, Tom. A cancer is a danger only to the patient. This "cancer" periodically reaches out and kills innocent bystanders. Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
Tom, for the life of me, I can't see where you've gotten this from. I've read and reread what I've written and I just don't see that in the wording. I also know that it's nowhere in the heart behind the writing.
What gives with this?
quote: But you can control whether or not you continue to treat Muslims as human beings deserving of life and respect. And I'm afraid your present line of thought tends strongly in the other direction.
I'm afraid you've either grossly mistaken what you've read or you're working to put words in my mouth that I wouldn't put there on my own. Either way, shouldn't we get back to the topic of the thread? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:And how quickly did they do it?
FYI: The cartoons were printed in September; the protests started in late January or early February.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A cancer is a danger only to the patient.
I was straining the metaphor a bit, because I actually consider the "patient" in this scenario to be humanity in general.
------
Rich, I apologize if I came out swinging. In the past, the same questions you asked here have served as smokescreens for semi-troglodytic "drive the Muslims out of Palestine and hammer them with an iron fist" sort of things, and I wanted to head that one off at the pass, if possible.
In particular, your references to "how close is the pot to boiling over" and "is this really a Muslim minority" reminded me of very similar comments made not too long ago that were used to justify some really astounding bigotry, and I'm sorry if I overreached in trying to prevent this from going there in the first place.
Basically, it IS a Muslim minority, but it's very close to boiling over -- and I believe that American foreign policy is determined, right now, to provoke that very reaction. I don't agree that protests against the cartoons (which were intentionally and knowingly offensive) were inherently unreasonable, but I DO agree that violent protests are unjustifiable in almost any event, and certainly in this one -- and, as you've pointed out, lacked perspective.
But the problem with perspective is that it requires a sound secular education, and that's precisely what's lacking here.
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
Wow, five months is more time than I had thought. That's plenty of time to move from a simmer to a boil. It's also plenty of time to arrange for big protests.
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
Tom, we really can't say for sure whether this is a minority in the Muslim world community. We can say, with some certainty that it is at least a plurality in some Muslim nations of the world, perhaps a majority in a couple.
Whether or not, it is a very vocal and visible segment of the Muslim world. At this time, at least, it is the MOST visible and vocal portion of the Muslim world. In the Middle East, only Prince Abdullah of Jordan seems to speak openly about peace and understanding. Other Muslim leaders in the region either rail against the West and Israel or are conspicuously silent.
It's been said again and again that many of the dictatorships in the region have long used Imams to keep the anger and unrest focused on evils outside of those nations to shunt the pressure off of themselves. They pursued an avenue of giving the troublemakers a new task, a new foe.
Could it be that with decades of building anger and resentment towards the outside world, blaming others for their own government's problems and never turning a critical eye on themselves that they've just been slowly filling the powderkeg that we are all sitting on now?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The thing is, Ryan, I think the terrorism and Islamic extremist groups are motivated just as much by politics and economics as they are by religion. The regions where these groups are born are among the most politically/economically important in the world, and the "western" need for oil and their constant meddling in the region cause a lot of bad feelings.
Add on top of this a group of leaders who are using religious division and differences to motivate and rally their extremists to go and slaughter their enemies. Add on top of that a group of militants who are fanatically devoted to their faith and willing to kill those who are "infidels/heretics".
There are more parallels than you expect.
Sure there were economic/political factors motivating the crusades - but the power the Papacy had over the people allowed the church to use faith as a motivator. It allowed the church (as a political entity, not a religion) to manipulate their own militants into attacking outside groups (of different faiths, naturally), rather than challenging each other or the church's authority.
This became an easy justification for slaughter - they're heretics, so kill them. Not just for the crusades into the Holy Land, but also for the Albigensian crusade and the Baltic crusades. Religion was the fulcrum and lever the (political entity of the) church used to launch slaughters, and it is the fulcrum and lever that the dictators/mullahs/extremists use to send suicide bombers against their enemies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rich,
So what would be your suggestion for making things better? That is my problem with the "they are just evil and there is no reason for it" argument. It may be right, but it leaves us no hope for anything to get better. If that is the case, the only "solution" is, as Tom said, amputation. How do we do that without becoming evil ourselves?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: Tom, we really can't say for sure whether this is a minority in the Muslim world community.
Yes, we can say this. If it was the majority of the Muslim world, then we would be in real trouble. It is only a small geographic area of the muslim world that is filled with extremists.
Just as a snapshot, here is the Muslim world. If all of those people were willing to be suicide bombers and terrorists, there wouldn't be anything left of the non-Muslim world. In terms of world demographics, if 1.3 billion people were willing to give their lives in the pursuit of destroying christianity, there wouldn't be much left of christianity.
quote: Whether or not, it is a very vocal and visible segment of the Muslim world.
This is a valid point.
quote:At this time, at least, it is the MOST visible and vocal portion of the Muslim world.
It is the most vocal, surely. It is the most visible, only because we ignore the more than a billion Muslims who aren't trying to kill us at any given moment.
quote: In the Middle East, only Prince Abdullah of Jordan seems to speak openly about peace and understanding. Other Muslim leaders in the region either rail against the West and Israel or are conspicuously silent.
Sure, but the Middle East is not the entirety of the "Muslim World" - in fact, it's a smallish segment, both in geography and population.
quote:Could it be that with decades of building anger and resentment towards the outside world, blaming others for their own government's problems and never turning a critical eye on themselves that they've just been slowly filling the powderkeg that we are all sitting on now?
Sure, but this is not unqiue to this region. They didn't invent scapegoating or whipping those with extreme points of view into hateful action.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:A cancer is a danger only to the patient.
I was straining the metaphor a bit, because I actually consider the "patient" in this scenario to be humanity in general.
------
Rich, I apologize if I came out swinging. In the past, the same questions you asked here have served as smokescreens for semi-troglodytic "drive the Muslims out of Palestine and hammer them with an iron fist" sort of things, and I wanted to head that one off at the pass, if possible.
Why?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In particular, your references to "how close is the pot to boiling over" and "is this really a Muslim minority" reminded me of very similar comments made not too long ago that were used to justify some really astounding bigotry, and I'm sorry if I overreached in trying to prevent this from going there in the first place.
Basically, it IS a Muslim minority, but it's very close to boiling over -- and I believe that American foreign policy is determined, right now, to provoke that very reaction.
So not only do you have nothing but apologetics for the Muslims, you even see them as victims in all this.
Un-friggin'-believable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rich,
So what would be your suggestion for making things better? That is my problem with the "they are just evil and there is no reason for it" argument. It may be right, but it leaves us no hope for anything to get better. If that is the case, the only "solution" is, as Tom said, amputation. How do we do that without becoming evil ourselves?
Kate, the first step would be to actually think of ways to do it. Starting with the question at the end of your post, which is actually a statment: "There is no way to do that without becoming evil ourselves" merely eliminates a possible solution.
Recognizing a problem is often the first step to solving it. Refusing to recognize it because the solution might be drastic merely ensures that it'll go unsolved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
sL, I am frequently disturbed by your continuing refusal to take genocide off the table.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: If all of those people were willing to be suicide bombers and terrorists, there wouldn't be anything left of the non-Muslim world. In terms of world demographics, if 1.3 billion people were willing to give their lives in the pursuit of destroying christianity, there wouldn't be much left of christianity.
Strawman. No one is saying that a majority of Muslims are out there being suicide bombers. But the majority culture in Islam today doesn't see it as something that needs to be ripped out by the roots. They support, some more actively, some more passively, the carnage and atrocities. Whether they do so because of fear or a sneaking hope that the death-cultists succeed doesn't really matter.
The majority of Germans were most certainly not of one mind with the SS and the death camps. But if German hadn't been stopped, that's who would have won. This is absolutely no different, except in that it isn't too late. Yet.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that anyone fails to recognize that there is a problem. But if we stop our analysis of the problem at "they are just evil", what are we left with? What "possible solution" are you advocating?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whether they do so because of fear or a sneaking hope that the death-cultists succeed doesn't really matter.
Even granting that these are the only two possibilities, why not?
BTW, please do me the favor of recognizing that you are, in these discussions, invoking Nazism to justify genocide.
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
The greatest change would have to come from within the Islamic faithful themselves. Those of a more moderate bent should work to publicly, privately and financially distance themselves from those who spread hate, repression and destruction.
I'd say that the US should provide financial support for moderate Imams, but when you look at it deeper, that's a bad idea. Outside forces meddling in the mosques are a good part of what caused the problem, be they governments, corporations or political movements. Our adding into the mix is more apt to push it even further off kilter.
What America should do, and Europe as well, is become a better neighbor. And that extends well outside of the Middle East. We should be sharing our bounty with Muslim countries in need, whether it be food, medicine, engineering or even just relief from debt. We should provide incentives, heavy financial ones, for establishing peaceful relations with their neighbors, including Israel.
We should start the trials at Guantanamo and return those who are not guilty to their homes with some recompense for their time. And for those guilty, hold them and their punishment to our national laws -- no more, no less.
But considering everything, I'm not sure that your enemy can change themselves in your own eye. It will take someone of stature in the Muslim world to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. We are all brothers and sisters in this world and we must all treat each other as such."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
All that makes sense, Rich.
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
Someone has to stand up and be the Martin Luther or the Ghandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr. Someone gentle of spirit, strong of word and loving of humanity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Kind of a tall order! In the meantime, I think your suggestions for what we can do are good ones.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The majority of Germans were most certainly not of one mind with the SS and the death camps. But if German hadn't been stopped, that's who would have won. This is absolutely no different, except in that it isn't too late. Yet.
Tom, how about dealing with what she's said instead of your belief of what's behind what she said. Why don't you tell us how the two situations are different, since clearly you think so.
I don't know how you can equate this quote to genocide. Was stopping Germany in WWII genocide?
(Unfortunately, here, I feel I have to clarify that I think sL may have a point, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the entirety of everything she posts here. I shouldn't have to clarify that, and probably wouldn't in other cases, but lately you seem to have a penchant for not taking people on their current words, but filtering everything they write through the worst (as you see it) of everything they've ever written. That sounds harsh, I know, but I trust that you know I generally respect you. Take it for what it's worth.)
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:While you may not be accusing Christianity, it doesn't mean no one is.
I think that in the Crusades, Christianity was used as a rhetorical device alone. In other words there is nothing in Christian doctrine that would demand a war to reconquor Jerusalem. It was a tool. Not to mention the genesis of the whole thing was Pope Urban's sermon which he delivered in order to unify "Christendom" and consolidate his own political power.
It wasn't just that... the Crusades began from a distress call from Constantinople. The Muslim empire was conquering in every direction and was trying to break into Europe. The whole "let's save the holy land" was just a recruitment poster to mobilize a counter attack to save the Eastern Roman Empire and keep the Muslim armies form invading Europe itself.
Eventually the Crusades took on a life of their own and became an excuse to plunder and for political gains back home.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't want to speak for Tom, but, as I see it, the problem with the "they are evil for no reason" stance is that it leaves us no hope for a solution other than "kill them first". I try not to come to that conclusion and I hope that Lisa has something else in mind by "solution [that] might be drastic" that I am overlooking.
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
I'm not sure anyone here has espoused an "they are all evil" stance. Step back, take a deep breath, this is a discussion, not WWE Smackdown... right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rich Lewis: The greatest change would have to come from within the Islamic faithful themselves. Those of a more moderate bent should work to publicly, privately and financially distance themselves from those who spread hate, repression and destruction.
I'd say that the US should provide financial support for moderate Imams, but when you look at it deeper, that's a bad idea. Outside forces meddling in the mosques are a good part of what caused the problem, be they governments, corporations or political movements. Our adding into the mix is more apt to push it even further off kilter.
What America should do, and Europe as well, is become a better neighbor. And that extends well outside of the Middle East. We should be sharing our bounty with Muslim countries in need, whether it be food, medicine, engineering or even just relief from debt. We should provide incentives, heavy financial ones, for establishing peaceful relations with their neighbors, including Israel.
We should start the trials at Guantanamo and return those who are not guilty to their homes with some recompense for their time. And for those guilty, hold them and their punishment to our national laws -- no more, no less.
But considering everything, I'm not sure that your enemy can change themselves in your own eye. It will take someone of stature in the Muslim world to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. We are all brothers and sisters in this world and we must all treat each other as such."
I don't know. I'm not so sure this is something that we, as in 'the west', can fix. We can be as nice to them as they want, but it isn't something we can fix, and I'm not sure we should fix what they want fixed anyways. Those in the middle east that have a problem with us aren't going to settle for second place, it's all or nothing for extremists. There are a lot of people over there that we can find a dialogue with, and can peacefully coexist with.
But the problem exists within the Muslim faith, and it can only be solved in that faith, and in their culture. Financial solutions from the west aren't going to solve a thing, and will probably just cause more resentment and anger, and make the problem worse.
Pushing, gently, the middle east to solve their own problems is the only way to make sure a long lasting solution will come about. Until then we just have to deal with the symptoms. The west doesn't have the cure.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
posted by StarLisa
quote:No one is saying that a majority of Muslims are out there being suicide bombers. But the majority culture in Islam today doesn't see it as something that needs to be ripped out by the roots.
So you are saying that majority of Islamic culture supports suicide bombers and terrorists, if only implicitly. Now who's using strawmen?
That's like saying the majority of Christian culture supports burning abortion clinics and killing gays, simply because you don't see John Doe christian getting on television every day denouncing it.
Extremists get the press. Passive disagreement or agreement does not. Any assumption on your part about what the majority of over a billion people think is based on what? The images you see on the media? What you read in the media? What you hear from the media?
Just how wide a window on the Muslim world are you basing your assumptions on? What's word on the street in Mauritania? What's the feelings towards the west in Istanbul? How many terrorists are holed up in Ghana?
I'm hearing a lot of alarmist words from people on the board talking about "the Muslim World" being some unified thing. Well, it's not. Neither is the Christian world. Extreme christians like Pat Robertson don't speak for everyone, just like extreme Muslims like Osama bin Laden don't speak for everyone.
Stop spouting hatred towards countless millions of innocent people.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
None of the Muslims that I know and work with think that extremists and terrorists are hunky-dory. In fact, they all are kind of dismayed to be perceived as associated with them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't know how you can equate this quote to genocide. Was stopping Germany in WWII genocide?
I am indeed drawing upon past conversations with starLisa here. If she no longer feels that the destruction of Muslim culture is necessary to secure the safety of her people, I'll gladly look at her words afresh. Otherwise, yeah, I'm going to filter what she says through my knowledge of her position.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: sL, I am frequently disturbed by your continuing refusal to take genocide off the table.
Probably not nearly as disturbed as I am by your incessent attempts to label as "genocide" things that aren't even in the same ballpark.
Making a violent and genocidal (yes, that's a proper use of the term) population go elsewhere is not genocide. Requiring people to take responsibility for their own death-cultists is not genocide.
Nor am I even talking about killing the ones who actually engage in violence and atrocities. I'd be happy to have them confined. As long as they can't hurt other people (and hear me well: as long as they can't hurt other people), I don't care if they're living the good life.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that anyone fails to recognize that there is a problem. But if we stop our analysis of the problem at "they are just evil", what are we left with? What "possible solution" are you advocating?
War. I'm advocating telling them to control their maniacs or be lumped in with them. I'm advocating a zero tolerance policy.
In Israel, for instance, I advocate this. If a terrorist attack is committed, no more bulldozing the house of the terrorist. Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
I advocate punishing them, and yes, punishing them as a group. Some people still believe there's such a thing as nations which act for national purposes, and the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East (at the very least) are among them. Let them accept the repercussions of the actions that reflect their national will, then.
If they demonstrate violently, I advocate shooting at the demonstrators. No more of this restraint that allows them to harm others without risking themselves. That's just stupid. No rubber bullets, no water cannons.
What gets described in the media as "throwing stones" is very often dropping cinderblocks on people from overpasses. Hurling boulders. It's not tossing pebbles, and it has killed people. If they want to do that, they should expect a warning shot to the head.
I did guard duty a few times in Israel. Do you know what the rules of engagement are? If you see a suspicious person, you are to say, "Stop." If they stop, that's great. If not, you are to say, "Stop. Or I shall shoot." If they stop, that's great. If not, you are to fire a single shot in the air. If they stop, that's great. If not, you are to fire a single shot at their legs.
Meanwhile, you're very dead already, and long before you get to the part about the legs.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Whether they do so because of fear or a sneaking hope that the death-cultists succeed doesn't really matter.
Even granting that these are the only two possibilities, why not?
BTW, please do me the favor of recognizing that you are, in these discussions, invoking Nazism to justify genocide.
Please do me the favor of stopping your vile accusations. I'm "invoking" Nazism because just as genocide was their aim, so too is it the aim of many of the death-cultists. Absolute victory is the aim of all of them.
Maybe you, with your dubious moral sense, see genocide as a legitimate goal. Perhaps that's why you keep attributing it to me. Or maybe you're simply dishonest. I can't figure out which. But quit it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: posted by StarLisa
quote:No one is saying that a majority of Muslims are out there being suicide bombers. But the majority culture in Islam today doesn't see it as something that needs to be ripped out by the roots.
So you are saying that
When someone starts with a phrase like that, it makes me not want to listen to anything else they have to say. Because it almost always introduces a reformulation of what I've said which distorts and misrepresents what I've said. But yes, in this case, I am saying that the majority of Islamic culture today either actively supports, or by inaction, tacitly supports, the genocidal wars that have been launched by Arab nations in the Middle East and the animalistic atrocities committed by terror groups in the Middle East and around the world.
When the official press of Muslim countries run cartoons that would make Julius Streicher blush, it is a clear statement of intent. When the state run media of Muslim countries broadcast documentaries about Jews murdering children for their blood, they are no different than the Nazis.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: majority of Islamic culture supports suicide bombers and terrorists, if only implicitly. Now who's using strawmen?
Do you have the faintest idea of what a strawman argument is? Because "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: That's like saying the majority of Christian culture supports burning abortion clinics and killing gays, simply because you don't see John Doe christian getting on television every day denouncing it.
Now that's ridiculous. If there were countries run under church law which applauded burning abortion clinics and killing gays, which paid the families of the perpetrators a bounty, which named streets and schools and villages after the perpetrators... then yes, I'd consider those countries to be terrorist nations as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
The day Israel makes this their policy will be remembered as the end of Israel. Because at some point early in the implementation of this vile idea, a village will refuse to leave. And, if you're serious about using force to implement this policy, Israel will have to kill them all.
And this will destroy Israel. Either it will spark it's destruction in nuclear fire or it will mean Israel has changed into what it hates most and destroyed itself that way.
Of course, if you don't advocate using force to implement this, then the policy just flat out won't work.
quote:Meanwhile, you're very dead already, and long before you get to the part about the legs.
So you never saw a suspicious person while you were a guard?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Truthfully, I suspect the best solution to help the Israeli people in the long run is to eventually get rid of Israel, at least as an Israeli religious state. If the only other alternatives truly are genocide against the Muslim people of the region and neverending terrorist warfare with those people, neither of those are acceptable in the long run.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boy, that would be great. Nothing like a strong statement to suicide bombers of, "It works!"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Xaposert, that's disgusting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In my opinion, the European reaction in favor of 'freedom of speech' has a lot to do with 'pick on the towel-heads'. A cursory look at the status of Arabic and Muslim immigrants throughout Europe reveals that they're largely disrespected, marginalized, and held in contempt.
You can see examples of this from discussions about entire nations banning the burkha anywhere but in the home (for the entire fifty or so people who actually wear it, and that's not an exaggerated number), to massive rioting in France.
You can further see examples of this in the way that bigotry towards Islamic and Arabic peoples is treated differently than bigotry towards other groups, most notably such as Jews and Christians. Newspapers which publish knowingly offensive cartoons about Islam hesitate to do so with offensive cartoons about Christianity. Banning a couple score of women from wearing a burkha in public is a tolerable issue for debate, the Holocaust is not.
Obviously, the fires of bigotry and nationalism although much cooled from sixty years ago, are still burning brightly throughout Europe. In my opinion, Europe likes to pretend that's a thing they've put behind them, but their willingness to ban any dissenting opinion on things such as Nazism and the Holocaust only goes to show the level of their denial.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
FlyingCow,
I've often had the same thought. If you examine their respective ages, Christianity and Islam bear many similarities as far as devolopment, politics, and philosophy are concerned.
quote:It is the most vocal, surely. It is the most visible, only because we ignore the more than a billion Muslims who aren't trying to kill us at any given moment.
They don't get the massive press their abhorrent brethren get, sure. But they're not ignored, either. Moderate Muslim and Arabic voices are heard. The trouble, though, is that so often right after they're done condemning things like violent 'protests' (riots) of offensive cartoons, or suicide bombers in Israel, frequently they segue right into a speech about how the cartoonists / Israelis / Americans are right bastards.
We don't condone what they're doing, we condemn it, but we can understand why they're so upset and violent.
From the outside looking in, that's a mixed message no matter how strongly the rhetoric opposing violence may be. That's a serious problem even when the condemnation is actually sincere and not just a half-hearted attempt to cover PR bases-which is often is, famously in the case of thankfully dead Y. Arafat.
quote:Sure, but the Middle East is not the entirety of the "Muslim World" - in fact, it's a smallish segment, both in geography and population.
That's true, but you know as well as I do that it's the heart and mind of the Muslim world, just like the majority of Catholics don't live in Italy.
quote:That's like saying the majority of Christian culture supports burning abortion clinics and killing gays, simply because you don't see John Doe christian getting on television every day denouncing it.
The difference is that when a Christian bombs an abortion clinic or lynchs a homosexual, very often it's other Christians running the manhunt that brings the scumbag to justice. There isn't a foreign nation out there composed of homosexuals or abortion rights activists that has to make airstrikes to kill the guy.
quote:I'm hearing a lot of alarmist words from people on the board talking about "the Muslim World" being some unified thing. Well, it's not. Neither is the Christian world. Extreme christians like Pat Robertson don't speak for everyone, just like extreme Muslims like Osama bin Laden don't speak for everyone.
You're right, it's a fine, hazy, crooked line that has to be drawn, and it's moving all the time. But speaking as a Christian, I do feel a bit responsibile for the kinds of things Pat Robertson spouts. As a Christian I do hold myself responsible for correcting, every time I encounter it, ignorance, bigotry, and hatred-because I share the name.
Anyway, it's a very tricky problem. There are indeed serious economic, political, and sociological issues tied in with all of this that will probably only be addressed if ever in terms of generations or centuries, unfortunately.
There are no hard and accurate statistics when it comes to how many Muslims, exactly, support or condemn terrorism or rioting in response to cartoons. There never will be, because there are just far too many factors that taint the results six ways from Sunday.
But there are often times when I feel that moderate Muslim outcries against terrorism and rioting about cartoons has a lot more in common with Jim Crow America and the 'moderates' who faintly condemned lynchings but didn't really do anything, either, than it does with a truly concerned, passionate moderate movement trying desperately to stop the things they speak out against.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kmbboots,
quote:So what would be your suggestion for making things better? That is my problem with the "they are just evil and there is no reason for it" argument. It may be right, but it leaves us no hope for anything to get better. If that is the case, the only "solution" is, as Tom said, amputation. How do we do that without becoming evil ourselves?
I don't understand this. Maybe if it were being said, "They're just pure evil for no reason," you'd be right: the only response to that would be annhilation. Or maybe it's the 'for no reason' part, in which case I agree with you. If they're truly evil for no reason, I guess that is just about the same as pure evil.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not saying that they are, I'm saying that when people say that they are, when they say that there isn't any point to understanding why, then we are left with Lisa's solution. Killing them, rounding them up, putting them in camps, etc.
Since I don't want to become that, I am determined to believe that there is a point to understanding what has brought us to this.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Boy, that would be great. Nothing like a strong statement to suicide bombers of, "It works!"
I think its been fairly clear for a long time to suicide bombers that their tactics work, as evidenced by the fact that they seem to be using those tactics more and more. Our policy of not rewarding terrorism has existed for a long time, yet terrorism is on the increase, and seems to be targeting bigger and bigger targets.
quote:Xaposert, that's disgusting.
No, genocide IS disgusting. Replacing Israel with a state that serves all of its people is not, and may simply be necessary in the long run. Or maybe not.
There is a very good reason why the U.S. set itself up to be independent from religion and legally forced to allow a large scope of minority differences. For the same reason, it is important that the new Iraqi government represents all ethnic groups and not just one of the three major sects. There is an inherent problem with states that officially back only one culture and religion, yet control lands in which a large percentage of the people belong to a fundamentally different culture, religion, and set of values. Those states tend to be unstable, increasingly so when the cultural values in question conflict directly.
For that reason, the notion of a Jewish Israel may be an idea that simply cannot work, any more than Iraq could ever become an officially Shiite state. There are too many non-Shiite Iraqis that will not be legally bound to a different culture and religion, and there are too many non-Jewish people in Israeli-territory to accept being ruled by a fundamentally different set of cultural values. And given this, there's really only four basic ways around it: (1) Kill everyone who won't accept the Israeli culture, (2) Fight a neverending struggle with everyone who won't accept the Israeli culture, (3) If the differences are drawn over geographic lines then attempt to divide into two states that each represent two different cultures, or (4) Become secular and do not inherently favor one people over another. (1) is outrageously immoral. (2) is what has been going on. (3) is the two-state plan and only work if geography allows it to. If not, that would leave (4), which would be the dissolution of Israel as we know it, since Israel has from its creation been dedicated to one culture and religion above others. Of course, that plan would depend on both sides agreeing to such a state, rather than demanding a state where their ways are supreme - which seems unlikely any time in the near future. But if (3) doesn't end up working, that means Israel is stuck with (2), continuing struggle. I see no solution to this problem until both sides are willing to put more on the table - including reconsidering the necessity of a Jewish Israel and/or a Muslim Palestine.
Note that the U.S. faced a similar problem with Native Americans, who were just too different for European Americans to deal with. (We apparently could accept cultural differences, but not so great a difference as accepting Native Americans would have required.) Their solution? Genocide to some degree. Force them into separate smaller and smaller separate states to another degree. And fight them constantly for hundreds of years, until finally they were so outnumbered that they had difficulty protesting any further. All in all, I think America now regrets most of this. Does Israel want to go the same route? They should keep in mind that if they take that path, it could take just as long (hundreds of years), and they may end up the ones outnumbered rather than the other way around.
[ February 24, 2006, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Kmbboots,
quote:So what would be your suggestion for making things better? That is my problem with the "they are just evil and there is no reason for it" argument. It may be right, but it leaves us no hope for anything to get better. If that is the case, the only "solution" is, as Tom said, amputation. How do we do that without becoming evil ourselves?
I don't understand this. Maybe if it were being said, "They're just pure evil for no reason," you'd be right: the only response to that would be annhilation. Or maybe it's the 'for no reason' part, in which case I agree with you. If they're truly evil for no reason, I guess that is just about the same as pure evil.
The thing is, not only do I not believe they are evil by nature, I don't believe that anyone is evil by nature. Furthermore, in the case of Arabs and/or Muslims, I know for a fact that it's not innate.
It's a choice. And they're making a bad one. And they need to be defeated. Not killed, as Tom keeps blathering, except, of course, actual combatants and active supporters, and even then, only if imprisonment isn't possible.
It's not evil to stamp out evil. That's like saying there's no difference between the government putting a murderer in prison and me kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for years. It's the same action, but it's not the same thing at all.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not saying that they are, I'm saying that when people say that they are, when they say that there isn't any point to understanding why, then we are left with Lisa's solution. Killing them, rounding them up, putting them in camps, etc.
Since I don't want to become that, I am determined to believe that there is a point to understanding what has brought us to this.
You know what, Kate? The ****[heck] with you. You're as bad as Tom. I expected better of you. I never suggested any such thing, and you ****[darn] well know it. I expect an apology. From you; not Tom. Dogs bark and bees sting, and I expect nothing from Tom.
[edited for PG-ness]
[ February 25, 2006, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Lisa, I really don't want Papa's mailbox to jammed full of whistles when he comes back from the hospital. How about editing the curse words out now, instead? This is the PG-13 forum. Thanks.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kate, I didn't see where starLisa actually suggested rounding "them" up and putting them in camps. I think that she said that they could go wherever they wanted, implying that no camps would be available to them...
The killing them bit I think can be inferred from the idea of Israeli soldiers going in to evacuate Palestinian villages. Death and violence would be the natural consequence of such an action.
On the whole, this whole diatribe
quote:War. I'm advocating telling them to control their maniacs or be lumped in with them. I'm advocating a zero tolerance policy.
In Israel, for instance, I advocate this. If a terrorist attack is committed, no more bulldozing the house of the terrorist. Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
is repugnant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lisa, I do apologize for upsetting you and I am sorry that you are hurt. I hope that you do know me well enough to know that I don't take that lightly and it is never my intention.
But how are you going to do this:
quote: War. I'm advocating telling them to control their maniacs or be lumped in with them. I'm advocating a zero tolerance policy.
In Israel, for instance, I advocate this. If a terrorist attack is committed, no more bulldozing the house of the terrorist. Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
I advocate punishing them, and yes, punishing them as a group.
without this?
quote: The day Israel makes this their policy will be remembered as the end of Israel. Because at some point early in the implementation of this vile idea, a village will refuse to leave. And, if you're serious about using force to implement this policy, Israel will have to kill them all.
And this will destroy Israel. Either it will spark it's destruction in nuclear fire or it will mean Israel has changed into what it hates most and destroyed itself that way.
Of course, if you don't advocate using force to implement this, then the policy just flat out won't work.
I know it isn't that you wish them ill. I should have been more clear about stating that and I'm sorry that I wasn't. I think you just want them to "be elsewhere". But they aren't going to just vanish. If they are forced out of villages, where are they going to go? And how will that do anything but work to create more terrorists? We would just be making sure they have even less to lose.
[ February 24, 2006, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Not only is Lisa's village eradication plan a horrible idea, it violates specific UN treaty obligations Israel has to not punish groups for an individual's actions.
It wouldn't work for a variety of reasons.
Lisa, how would you re-write the rules of engagement you quoted? "If you see a suspicious person, you are to empty your clip at them"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey, let's go gently here. Anger and frustration at the situation are justified - there is a lot of hurt here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Lisa, how would you re-write the rules of engagement you quoted? "If you see a suspicious person, you are to empty your clip at them"?
Straw.
Man.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
So is this:"Meanwhile, you're very dead already, and long before you get to the part about the legs."
Like every suspicious person she saw on guard duty killed her.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Could we at least start with the assumption that we are all trying our best to understand each other rather than to score points?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Alright, I do want to understand where Lisa is coming from, and I apologize for the tone in my last two posts.
I still don't see how emptying villages helps, and I would like to know how Lisa would rewrite the rules of engagement.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by FlyingCow: majority of Islamic culture supports suicide bombers and terrorists, if only implicitly. Now who's using strawmen? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have the faintest idea of what a strawman argument is? Because "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
You're right, Lisa, after looking it up, I stand corrected. I really had misunderstood the term.
See, I had believed a straw man argument to be an argument so hyperbolically absurd that any passing efforts at reason would knock it to the ground like a straw man.
I stand corrected. Your statement was not a straw man.
It was, however, hyperbolically absurd.
quote:But the majority culture in Islam today doesn't see it as something that needs to be ripped out by the roots. They support, some more actively, some more passively, the carnage and atrocities.
You really believe that 700 million people (a majority of the over 1.3 billion muslims in the world) actively or passively support the carnage and atrocities? That's greater than the population of North America... all supporting carnage and atrocity.
Right.
quote:War. I'm advocating telling them to control their maniacs or be lumped in with them. I'm advocating a zero tolerance policy.
In Israel, for instance, I advocate this. If a terrorist attack is committed, no more bulldozing the house of the terrorist. Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
Because might makes right, of course.
That will surely end the conflict. After the bloodshed of clearing the villages, there will be peace.
And after the creation of untold refugees who now hate those who killed their family members and evicted them from their homes, who now have no place to call home and a lot less to live for, there will be *fewer* suicide bombers.
And once all of this territory has been cleared out, and the villages abandoned (razed?), there will certainly be no need to constantly patrol these regions with military forces to prevent these people from returning. Jewish and western families could surely move in without fear.
Tres makes a good point about the US dealings with the Native Americans - that was handled in a similar manner. A band of native american warriors might attack a stage coach, the cavalry would wipe out a village.
StarLisa, it is obvious to me that your anger, hate and prejudice towards Muslims has cast your opinions in such a way that they are unbreakable, secure from any doubts that all out war is the only recourse.
I actually am sorry you believe this way. You're more part of the problem than any solution, and the options you present would only exacerbate the situation. It seems you are taking the Keyser Soze role, trying to "show these men of will what will really is".
You are beyond reason in your pursuit of some "final solution" that abides no compromise and offers no quarter. It sounds awfully similar to conversations I had with two young Palestinian men when I was living in Ireland.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahhh, the UN. That bastion of freedom, decency, and consistency...that only Israel should be beholden to.
Arabic terrorists, well they're going to do whatever the hell they want anyway, so why try holding them to some standard, right?
I think the point what what starLisa was saying-which you knew all along, I suspect-was that Israel massively restrains itself in order to avoid killing civilians, even when doing so puts Israel at serious risk of serious bodily harm or even death.
If Israel had adopted the same policy towards Palestinians as the government of Palestinians has adopted towards Israel, there would be no more Palestinians in Israel, period. They'd be very, very dead.
------
FlyingCow,
quote:You really believe that 700 million people (a majority of the over 1.3 billion muslims in the world) actively or passively support the carnage and atrocities? That's greater than the population of North America... all supporting carnage and atrocity.
Is this really so difficult to believe? For most of recorded human history, passive support of carnage and atrocity has been the rule rather than the exception.
As for your Tresopax's comparison to US treatment of Native Americans...well, that's an interesting stance to take. Because I think we know how that ended up. It worked. It was terrible, it was monstrous, but it was also very effective.
I have a real problem with equating Israeli zealotry with Palestinian zealotry. See, Israelis aren't the ones dancing in the streets throwing ticker-tape parades for targeted murders of unarmed women and children. When Israelis get fanatical about Palestinians, they don't go and double-tap a bunch of kids.
So your comparison doesn't hold much water, really, except to point out that there are diehards on both sides-which isn't exactly news.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You're right. It was silly of me to bring up the toothless UN.
I should have just said her village eradication plan was silly, unfair, and wrong. And wouldn't accomplish her goals.
No, I don't expect terrorists to abide by any civilized standards, by definition. I do hold governments to a higher standard than terrorists. Don't you? What's your point?
I would not characterize the IAF using bombs and missiles to kill an individual as "massively restrained." Just as the US government screwed up recently when it blew up that house in Pakistan in hopes of killing a terrorist, who wasn't even there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given their alternative options that guarantee the death of their target but with a similar guarantee of much larger civilian death, I'd call that some pretty good GD restraint.
By 'massively restrained', I mean that although Palestinians make a habit of targeting Israeli unarmed men, women, and children for deliberate murder, Israel has yet to respond in kind.
Now, are you really going to bring up Israeli killing in wartime of its military enemies as an example of how that's not restraint, or shall we dispense with the horse puckey?
We do not know all of the facts about the house bombing in Pakistan.
My point in the stupidity of bringing up the UN in reference to regional problems is that between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it's the Israelis who are always getting hammered by the UN, and not the Palestinians. Maybe if there wasn't such widepsread support for Palestinian suicide bombers within the Palestinian population, I'd feel differently, but I don't like double-standards.
And her village eradication plan is definitely not silly, possibly very unfair, and I believe wrong. But the kind of overwhelming force and willingness to accept long-term wartime conditions would work. Comparisons to US government of Native Americans have been made.
Guys, the thing you're not realizing is: that worked! Real-estate that once belonged to them, belongs to us. To blithely say, "It doesn't work," is pointless because people proposing such things will (rightly) roll their eyes and point out that of course it does!
There are other reasons to oppose such a plan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Here's the problem with that analogy though Rakeesh. It worked in a bubble.
Killing and dislodging native Americans who were drastically technologically inferior to you is one thing, especially when all their friends are of the same lack of technological advancement.
The native Americans didn't have a billion people surrounding them just waiting for a reason to blow America off the face of the earth. Israel does. And some of them have nukes.
The American government didn't have to answer to anyone, and really, neither does Israel. But if Israel took the stance that Lisa advocates, much of the world would cut off financial support to Israel, and I bet that would include the US, they'd have to. For the US to not do that, they'd have to actually condone the policy, which just isn't viable right now. And without world financial support, Israel is in a bit of a jam.
Her plan works just fine in a bubble, so long as Israelis can deal with the fact that they're the butchers of women and children, but given what they are facing, becoming the enemy might be the only way to beat the enemy, at least in their eyes.
But outside the bubble, it crumbles, rather dismally. The comparison to the US and the Native American nations doesn't hold water.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Consider also that such a tactic would not have worked in China, although European armies were certainly capable of shattering anything the Chinese could put up in pitched battle. The gap between the native Americans and the Europeans was much wider than that between Israel and the Arabs, not to mention the population disparity. I think the situation is much more analogous to China than to America : Win any given battle, yes; force major concessions, yes; occupy coastal strips, sure; exterminate large populations? I think not. The Japanese had a pretty good go at it in China, under quite similar advantages in technology and morale, and they couldn't make it stick either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil. That's like saying there's no difference between the government putting a murderer in prison and me kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for years. It's the same action, but it's not the same thing at all.
Um, not that I would want to completely derail the discussion, or anything of such a nature. Because that would be wrong, and all. But aren't oyu the libertarian who constantly says that when the government demands a certain level of taxes, it is exactly like armed robbery?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The gulf between the technology Israelis routinely employ and the technology neighboring Arabs employ is actually pretty large nowadays. Not nearly so large as in early America, of course.
But then, it was the tiny number of Native Americans compared to the massive numbers of white Europeans that made the difference, that and the willingness to do whatever it took, that made all the difference, really. For a very long time, the Native Americans were actually better suited to live in America than were the European interlopers.
Israel is already surrounded by many millions of people who want to destroy them, Lyrhawn. None of them have nukes-yet. Iran is going for one, but the Arab world is pretty aware of what Israel's response would be, were she ever nuked. She'd nuke right back. Possibly even if it wasn't clear it was an Arab nation that attacked her, as in the case of a terrorist attack.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And as for foreign aid, that's true, they would lose out on some foreign aid and things would be rough. You're wrong, I think, that Israel requires this aid for its very existence, however.
Israel answers to the USA all the time.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Not only is Lisa's village eradication plan a horrible idea, it violates specific UN treaty obligations Israel has to not punish groups for an individual's actions.
It wouldn't work for a variety of reasons.
Lisa, how would you re-write the rules of engagement you quoted? "If you see a suspicious person, you are to empty your clip at them"?
Simple. Recognize that we are at war with a nation called Palestine. A nation which lays claim to our entire country. A nation which currently occupies enormous tracts of land in Judea, Samaria, the Katif Strip, and the Galilee. A nation which is run by Hamas and Fatah, two militant terrorist organizations which are as guilty of war crimes as the Germans during WWII.
Stop regarding the terrorists as individual criminals and recognize that they are agents of an enemy power. Strike at the enemy power until it stops committing acts of violence and terror against us.
Change the terms of reference, in other words. Not the rules of engagement. Declare that every single one of them, citizen or not, born there or not, is an enemy alien, and that every one of them who commits an act of violence is an enemy combatant.
I wouldn't put them into some prison or camp where the Red Cross could visit them. Rather, I'd release them, even without a promise to avoid acts of war in the future. Escort them to some or other border and wave bye-bye.
Is there the possibility of casualties during such a process? Sure. But there's a huge difference between casualties incurred while trying to end a war and casualities deliberately inflicted. They're fine with inflicting death and destruction on innocent civilians. They're the last ones to complain if someone gets hurt in the process of ending this war.
To sum it up in once sentence, stop viewing this as anything but the war that it is, and win the war.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil. That's like saying there's no difference between the government putting a murderer in prison and me kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for years. It's the same action, but it's not the same thing at all.
Um, not that I would want to completely derail the discussion, or anything of such a nature. Because that would be wrong, and all. But aren't oyu the libertarian who constantly says that when the government demands a certain level of taxes, it is exactly like armed robbery?
Yep, that'd be me. And your point is? If you're that adept at reading what I've written and remembering it, then you'll also remember that I'm not an anarchist. That I do consider it proper and required for a government to perform the duties of police, army and courts. And I'm also okay with taxation to fund those activities, until such hypothetical time as another way is found to do so. Which could mean indefinitely.
The very reason for this is that while human beings, in theory, are entitled to retaliate when coercive force is intiatated against them, human beings won't always do so objectively. Someone has to decide what constitutes legitimate retaliatory force. The primary function of government is to be an objective mediator. Government has no powers that each of us do not already have ourselves. I have no right to take what's yours just because I think I know better than you how to use it, and neither does anyone else. And neither does any body created by anyone, regardless of whether a majority backs it or not. But I am entitled to require that you not shoot me, as is everyone else, and the government embodies that right, and can act to prevent you from doing so, or to punish you once you've done so.
Or were you just trying to score a rhetorical point?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Declare that every single one of them, citizen or not, born there or not, is an enemy alien, and that every one of them who commits an act of violence is an enemy combatant. I wouldn't put them into some prison or camp where the Red Cross could visit them. Rather, I'd release them, even without a promise to avoid acts of war in the future. Escort them to some or other border and wave bye-bye.
Is there the possibility of casualties during such a process? Sure.
*whistles innocently* Like I said.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Sure, because that's exactly what genocide means. But... that being the case, what would you call methodically murdering every member of a given population group? Since you've redefined "genocide" to mean something that has nothing to do with killing of any sort.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Stalin used almost exactly the same defense. Those who went willingly to Siberia didn't get shot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The gulf between the technology Israelis routinely employ and the technology neighboring Arabs employ is actually pretty large nowadays. Not nearly so large as in early America, of course.
Israel is already surrounded by many millions of people who want to destroy them, Lyrhawn. None of them have nukes-yet. Iran is going for one, but the Arab world is pretty aware of what Israel's response would be, were she ever nuked. She'd nuke right back. Possibly even if it wasn't clear it was an Arab nation that attacked her, as in the case of a terrorist attack.
Really at this point it doesn't matter. Both sides have guns, the Palestinians aren't on horseback using bows and arrows.
And I know they're already surrounded by millions that want them gone, that's exactly what I said in my post, so I'm glad we agree. And Pakistan has nukes. Pakistan is largely Muslim and has an anti-Israel population. You don't think they would get involved if Lisa's forced exodus plan were enforced?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And as for foreign aid, that's true, they would lose out on some foreign aid and things would be rough. You're wrong, I think, that Israel requires this aid for its very existence, however.
Israel answers to the USA all the time.
I don't agree there, they routinely ignore what the USA has to say. They answer only to themselves. And really, I'm not sure it shouldn't be that way.
And I never said they require it. I believe my exact words were "they'd be in a bit of a jam." Which I think you just agreed with. They're a lot better off today than they would have been a decade or two ago, but they'd still be in for some very hard times, especially if the US decides to withhold all military aid too.
Having reading issues today?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil.
No, but how you go about doing it might be. Displacing a massive number of people, robbing them of their possessions, and leaving them in the desert (or whereever) sounds pretty evil to me. Especially since you don't seem particularly interested in determining who's actually guilty of aiding enemy terrorists and who isn't.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:As for your Tresopax's comparison to US treatment of Native Americans...well, that's an interesting stance to take. Because I think we know how that ended up. It worked. It was terrible, it was monstrous, but it was also very effective.
quote:Guys, the thing you're not realizing is: that worked! Real-estate that once belonged to them, belongs to us. To blithely say, "It doesn't work," is pointless because people proposing such things will (rightly) roll their eyes and point out that of course it does!
Of course, I forgot. Might makes right. The ends justify the means. Whatever heinous acts and morally repugnant behavior you may engage in is acceptable as long as you accomplish your goal.
Silly me for not wanting to become worse than the opposition in order to find a favorable outcome to the situation.
quote:Is this really so difficult to believe? For most of recorded human history, passive support of carnage and atrocity has been the rule rather than the exception.
Right. Again, silly me, of course the majority of the world is interested in atrocity and carnage. It's a wonder we're all still here.
quote:But then, it was the tiny number of Native Americans compared to the massive numbers of white Europeans that made the difference, that and the willingness to do whatever it took, that made all the difference, really.
Actually, no.
When the settlers first landed, they were outnumbered by several orders of magnitude. If the Native Tribes didn't want them here, they could have killed every boatload as it landed.
The Tribes were not unified, however, and most must have believed that these white men could be traded with and reasoned with, and peaceful coexistence was possible.
Their mistake.
quote:I have a real problem with equating Israeli zealotry with Palestinian zealotry. See, Israelis aren't the ones dancing in the streets throwing ticker-tape parades for targeted murders of unarmed women and children. When Israelis get fanatical about Palestinians, they don't go and double-tap a bunch of kids.
So your comparison doesn't hold much water, really, except to point out that there are diehards on both sides-which isn't exactly news.
If you note, I didn't equate Israeli zealotry with Palestinian zealotry.
I equated the attitudes as expressed by StarLisa to attitudes expressed by two young Palestinian men I studied with in Ireland.
They both wanted some final solution that would abide no compromise. StarLisa wants the Muslims relocated, and they wanted the Israelis out of their homeland. Both StarLisa and these two men harbored clear, open prejudice and anger towards the other side.
The fact that there are hard-liners on both sides that won't listen to reason and are blinded by hatred and prejudice is a huge part of the problem.
Thus, StarLisa's attitude = part of the problem.
[ February 26, 2006, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Altogether, attitude is the problem. No amount of war or bloodshed will change that. And the only way war and bloodshed can affect the outcome that starLisa desires is if it changes enough attitudes.
Usually that occurs when one side of the conflict loses the will to fight. That's pretty unlikely in a population that generates suicide bombers easily. In this case hopelessness is their greatest ally. So no military conquest is possible.
Israel came into existence largely because the rest of the world sympathized with the Jews. If Israel is seen as having starLisa's attitude, it's just a matter of time before Israel loses any sympathy it had in the rest of the world. That would be the end of Israel.
Isn't it a good thing that other Jews disagree with starLisa?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I don't know, it always seemed to me that Israel came into existence because no one else (read USA, England, Russia) wanted to harbor the Jews in their own country - so they carved out a niche of occupied territory and stuck them there.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Stalin used almost exactly the same defense. Those who went willingly to Siberia didn't get shot.
Last reply, and then you no longer exist to me. The people sent to Siberia weren't part of a massive and concerted effort to murder Stalin and his fellow countrymen and throw them into the sea. And you're a fool for making such an odious comparison.
<plonk>, you nit.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil.
No, but how you go about doing it might be. Displacing a massive number of people, robbing them of their possessions, and leaving them in the desert (or whereever) sounds pretty evil to me. Especially since you don't seem particularly interested in determining who's actually guilty of aiding enemy terrorists and who isn't.
They're very much aware that their decentralization makes it next to impossible for anyone to fight them if they insist on trying to specify who is directly involved in the war and who isn't.
But even aside from that, that's war. You don't have to like it, but if you start it, expect to get your a** handed to you.
When I was a kid, I used to watch fights happen on the playground, and I used to hear talk about "fighting fair". I never understood such talk. Fighting is a bad thing. The only time it's ever legitimate is when it's forced on you by others. And when that happens, the idea is to end it as quickly and decisively as possible, so that the offender decides it's not worth his while to try again.
This is war. This isn't crime. It's a nation out to destroy us. It's a nation that was created for the express purpose of destroying us. And it's a nation that's happy electing modern-day Nazis to run their affairs.
It's a nation that could have had a state whenever it wanted. It's a nation that has land of its own (our land, granted, but our "leaders" were kind enough to vacate it for them), and still chooses not to declare statehood over it, because they want the advantages of being a state and the advantages of not being a state.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I don't know, it always seemed to me that Israel came into existence because no one else (read USA, England, Russia) wanted to harbor the Jews in their own country - so they carved out a niche of occupied territory and stuck them there.
That'd be possible, except that the territory in question was ours to begin with. The occupied territories are the huge areas of Judea, Samaria, Katif and the Galilee (and Jordan) that the Arabs are currently occupying. Pay attention, Cow. We're called Jews because our land is Judea. Hebron was the first capitol of our first king, and it's where our patriarchs and matriarchs are buried. The Arabs talk about Abraham being buried there, but Sarah is as well. Hagar is not. Isaac is, and Ishmael is not.
Our homeland. Not theirs. Their squatting doesn't confer ownership of our land when we never for a moment abandoned our claims on our homeland. Three times a day, Cow. For almost 2000 years now, we've been pouring our hearts out and praying to God that we'll be able to return to our home. I don't give a hoot if a bunch of barbarians from Arabia came in during that time and conquered it (and turned it into a wasteland, let me add). It's still ours, and it always will be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Our homeland. Not theirs. Their squatting doesn't confer ownership of our land when we never for a moment abandoned our claims on our homeland.
Wow. You're justifying the slaughter of thousands because you called "shotgun."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
starLisa has been careful not to justify the 'slaughter' of anyone except in warfare conditions, Tom. While I understand your frustration and the problems you have with her position-I share many of them, actually-this insistence that she's demanding genocide is wearing pretty thin.
She is advocating removing a population that routinely demands her population's annihilation and removal from the area, and insisting that they not simply be shot and buried where they stand, but rather be given the option to leave peacefully and without violence.
Seeing as how these thousands justify and in fact revel in the slaughter of innocents themselves, without giving that option, I can empathize with starLisa's frustration at your continued insistence that she's actually a genocidal barbarian.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And yet, Dagonee's point earlier has to be addressed. If they refuse to move, how do you move them without killing mass quantities of them?
And since Lisa is of the stance that there is a state of war between all Israelis and all Palestinians, with no divisions therein, there'd be no moral problem with killing them off if necessary if they refuse to be moved.
And I'm wondering, how they will move more than a million people who are already pissed, without pissing them off even more. Were I them, and I was being forced to leave. I'd head to Jordan, join with the almost million people there, carve out my own little country from Jordan or even better, just take Jordan over and launch a protracted guerilla war on Israel, and this time not just with RPG and roadside bombs, but wit the the full military power of a real nation.
But at least Israel will be whole again.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Seeing as how these thousands justify and in fact revel in the slaughter of innocents themselves, without giving that option...
I cannot help but wonder whether Palestinian Arabs would happily permit Israeli Jews to move out of Israel unharmed and unmolested. My gut feeling, frankly, is that they would.
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
My gut feeling is that the Israelis would be chased to the ships with a hail of gunfire. There are too many among the Palestinians, and those who have taken up the Palestinian cause, who no longer want removal, but that a blood price be paid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I cannot help but wonder whether Palestinian Arabs would happily permit Israeli Jews to move out of Israel unharmed and unmolested. My gut feeling, frankly, is that they would.
That's the kind of question that should be asked before they start deliberately targeting civilians for murder.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:That'd be possible, except that the territory in question was ours to begin with. The occupied territories are the huge areas of Judea, Samaria, Katif and the Galilee (and Jordan) that the Arabs are currently occupying. Pay attention, Cow. We're called Jews because our land is Judea. Hebron was the first capitol of our first king, and it's where our patriarchs and matriarchs are buried. The Arabs talk about Abraham being buried there, but Sarah is as well. Hagar is not. Isaac is, and Ishmael is not.
This is hysterical.
First of all, it wasn't yours "to begin with" anyway... it was conquered after the Jews came out of Egypt.
Second, it wasn't yours for a very long period. Just like New Jersey and New York are not now Native American lands, anymore. Just like the area around the Danube River is no longer Celt land. Just like the west coast of Turkey isn't Greek anymore. Just like a thousand other civilizations that migrated or were pushed off of their land, it wasn't yours anymore.
You're saying this is a geopolitical version of the "five minute rule" - that's my seat, so no one else can sit in it until I get back. So, if some foreign power was more powerful than the US and decided to give Tennessee back to the Cherokee, or Arizona back to the Apache, that'd be okay because the tribes were there first, right?
quote:Our homeland. Not theirs. Their squatting doesn't confer ownership of our land when we never for a moment abandoned our claims on our homeland. Three times a day, Cow. For almost 2000 years now, we've been pouring our hearts out and praying to God that we'll be able to return to our home. I don't give a hoot if a bunch of barbarians from Arabia came in during that time and conquered it (and turned it into a wasteland, let me add). It's still ours, and it always will be.
See, operative word there, "conquered it". The Jews were out of Judea for nearly 2000 years. Just how long does someone have to conquer and occupy a territory to claim it as theirs? How long do you have to be away before you can't lay a claim on it?
The statement that "It's still ours, and it always will be" is laughable. No land "always" belongs to anyone. If that were the case, almost any culture in the world that can't trace their lineage back to antiquity in a certain area could be evicted by dint of "we were here first, so get out."
If this is the root of your anger, you're deluded. The Jews were pushed out of Judea. That, quite literally, is ancient history.
In fact, if you want to be absurd about origins, Abraham of Ur was Mesopotamian... and Mesopotamia became Iraq, so should Iraq control Israel? The Jews lived in Egypt as slaves before they *conquered* and settled in Canaan... so, what claim do those people have on the lands Jeruselem was subsequently built on?
Strawmen, all, but no more absurd than claiming that it's Jewish land and always will be.
There were other people there before the Hebrew people conquered Canaan and built their cities, after fleeing Egypt. There were people there after the Hebrew people were conquered and pushed out. In fact, it's only a very small window of history when the land was wholly under Jewish rule. Something in the order of a thousand years or so.
So, let's review: The Jews weren't there first, they conquered the land from someone else. The Jews were subsequently conquered, and control of the land passed through several hands. The land has been *out* of their control far longer than it was *in* their control.
How exactly do you propose to lay claim to it? Other than by making absurd statements like "it's ours and always will be"? Or by saying that because you prayed 3 times a day, it just *has* to be yours?
There have been Arabs living in that region for more than twice as long as there have been Europeans on North America. At some point, ownership passes.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
And then, outside forces wedge the Jews back into this space and force out the people living on that land for dozens of generations.
So, now, after about sixty years and three generations or so, the Jews once again have claim on the land, because of foreign meddling, and there is untold conflict and strife.
It's your land as a gift from more powerful nations than those that occupied the region in 1948, not because of some right of heritage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: That's the kind of question that should be asked before they start deliberately targeting civilians for murder.
Oh, I agree. It's a bit too late to ask now. But do you believe that the Jews would have moved out of Israel had the Palestinians started out by asking nicely?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No. I'll bet they would've gotten a better response than the one they have, though.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:That'd be possible, except that the territory in question was ours to begin with. The occupied territories are the huge areas of Judea, Samaria, Katif and the Galilee (and Jordan) that the Arabs are currently occupying. Pay attention, Cow. We're called Jews because our land is Judea. Hebron was the first capitol of our first king, and it's where our patriarchs and matriarchs are buried. The Arabs talk about Abraham being buried there, but Sarah is as well. Hagar is not. Isaac is, and Ishmael is not.
This is hysterical.
First of all, it wasn't yours "to begin with" anyway... it was conquered after the Jews came out of Egypt.
Nope. It was deeded to us by the original owner, in perpetuum.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Second, it wasn't yours for a very long period.
In the first place, there's never been a time when Israel has been empty of Jews. Second of all, we were absent from our home by force, and we never gave up our claims.
In the second place, how long is long? If I go home today after work and someone is sitting in my house claiming that they've been there all day, and I wasn't anywhere around, does that person have a claim on my house? If I go on a two week vacation, and someone takes over my home, is it theirs?
How about if Avi Arad, who was captured by Arab Muslims back in the early '80s finally gets released. It's been over twenty years now. Has he forfeited his ownership of what's his?
If we'd stopped maintaining our claim to our home, like so many nations have done over the millenia, you might have a point (other than the original owner issue). But we never did. And we never will. The Arab invasion of our home didn't replace our ownership of Israel any more than the Roman expulsion did. And the Arabs/Muslims never laid claim to any nationality in our land until way after we started coming home. Some of them were born there. Fine. It doesn't make it theirs.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Just like New Jersey and New York are not now Native American lands, anymore. Just like the area around the Danube River is no longer Celt land. Just like the west coast of Turkey isn't Greek anymore. Just like a thousand other civilizations that migrated or were pushed off of their land, it wasn't yours anymore.
No. It's still ours. It will always be ours.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: You're saying this is a geopolitical version of the "five minute rule" - that's my seat, so no one else can sit in it until I get back. So, if some foreign power was more powerful than the US and decided to give Tennessee back to the Cherokee, or Arizona back to the Apache, that'd be okay because the tribes were there first, right?
Understand this: I don't care. You say things like that as though one injustice justifies another. In truth, you're only saying it as a rhetorical device.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Our homeland. Not theirs. Their squatting doesn't confer ownership of our land when we never for a moment abandoned our claims on our homeland. Three times a day, Cow. For almost 2000 years now, we've been pouring our hearts out and praying to God that we'll be able to return to our home. I don't give a hoot if a bunch of barbarians from Arabia came in during that time and conquered it (and turned it into a wasteland, let me add). It's still ours, and it always will be.
See, operative word there, "conquered it". The Jews were out of Judea for nearly 2000 years.
Not by our choice. And we were pretty damned vocal about it. We could have assimilated like every other nation that found itself in other lands, but we didn't. We paid a pretty heavy price for it, too. We have never stopped maintaining our ownership of our homeland and our statements that we would eventually return. For a very long time, it simply wasn't permitted. And we weren't strong enough to do anything about it. Well, now we're home. Bummer for the squatters.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Just how long does someone have to conquer and occupy a territory to claim it as theirs? How long do you have to be away before you can't lay a claim on it?
There is no time limit. Even international law recognizes that. So long as a claim is maintained, ownership is maintained. Granted, that law didn't exist at the time, but then, that's never been an issue with international law. Much of it was used after WWII to deal with crimes committed before the laws were written. Including issues of land-grabs.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: The statement that "It's still ours, and it always will be" is laughable.
Everything is laughable, Cow. It all depends on what you're willing to take seriously. You can laugh all you want, but it won't change anything. It just makes you look like a clown.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: No land "always" belongs to anyone. If that were the case, almost any culture in the world that can't trace their lineage back to antiquity in a certain area could be evicted by dint of "we were here first, so get out."
Nope. Again, we've maintained our claim. If you don't understand why that makes a difference, that's your problem.
Notice that I've had to answer this point 3-4 times already in a single post. That's because you're being repetitively redundant. Say something new.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: If this is the root of your anger, you're deluded. The Jews were pushed out of Judea. That, quite literally, is ancient history.
My a** it is.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: In fact, if you want to be absurd about origins, Abraham of Ur was Mesopotamian... and Mesopotamia became Iraq, so should Iraq control Israel? The Jews lived in Egypt as slaves before they *conquered* and settled in Canaan... so, what claim do those people have on the lands Jeruselem was subsequently built on?
Repetition. Boring.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: There have been Arabs living in that region for more than twice as long as there have been Europeans on North America. At some point, ownership passes.
Nope.
[ February 27, 2006, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At some point, starLisa, you're going to have to recognize (which doesn't mean acquiensence) that there are lots of people-myself included, for all that I support Israel-who don't give a damn that the Jews feel the land was, is, and will always be theirs because G-d gave it to them.
Maybe-just maybe-if you want to get something done, something that actually has a snowball's chance in hell of happening-you should try a different approach.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or by saying that because you prayed 3 times a day, it just *has* to be yours?
Isn't that pretty much what you're saying, Lisa?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that was a mistake because it's verbatim something that FlyingCow said. I believe she intended to quote it and respond but missed it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
When there is another more populous group that ALSO thinks the exact same thing - that they were there first and that the original owner of the land deed it to them - then you have a problem. In refusing to budge on this claim, you should recognize that both sides are ensuring that the conflict continues. It's not "death cults" that are responsible for the conflict - it is these beliefs which are necessarily in direct opposition, and directly imply war (meaning war will never be avoidable in the long run until somebody changes their beliefs).
Truthfully, I believe both are wrong. I see no reason to think God has given up His ownership of any of His land. Just because He allowed one people to make it their home does not mean He has deeded it over to them.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
This thread contains more than two minutes of hate. I demand my money back.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think that was a mistake because it's verbatim something that FlyingCow said. I believe she intended to quote it and respond but missed it.
Yup. Fixed now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lisa, do you live in Israel or America? Forgive my confusion, but you use "we" and "us" when referring to America, Jews and Israelis. Or, do you live in one place and have dual citizenship?
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
I heard that the cartoons were published back in September. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Many of the cartoons were published in September. I'm not sure why that's relevant, though.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Why was the blow up so much later? Did I just miss it in the news initially? I don't watch news on television, I read it on the internet. Did I miss the initial Bru-ha-ha or did it really just develop in the last few months...even months after the cartoons were published?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The original 12 cartoons published in Denmark were published last September, yes. There was a non-violent protest in Denmark shortly thereafter.
Late last year, a group of radical Danish imams assembled a dossier documenting what they described as instances of discrimination against Muslims in Denmark. They included the 12 cartoons, but added three that were much more offensive, saying that they had received them anonymously. One of these is widely suspected of being a forgery. They took this dossier on a tour of the Middle East, meeting with religious and political leaders. Shortly thereafter, the protests began in earnest.
You can find rough timelines with a bit of Googling. The relevant Wikipedia entries are a decent starting point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If I may I would like to shift the tracks on this train into a slightly different direction as so many of you a very inteligent and I enjoy reading your insightful comments.
I do find the arguement why are Muslims all bent out of shape about the cartoons and yet many arab newspapers post antisemetic cartoons all the time interesting. I even just now had some thoughts that I wanted to add to the discussion but I would like to go to a differnt topic.
The above article was written in 2002 so over 3 years ago but I think he makes some very valid points. My purpose is not to debate the validity of statistics, or how they should be read, but to suggest that there is to use Toms words "an ugly undercurrent" within Europe. Muslim immigration into Europe isnt anything new, but it doesnt exactly make the news that often either. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm
A newspaper is only going to publish material it thinks its readership wants to read. Having papers publish offensive things about a minority group is nothing new as I am sure all of you are aware. But look at what happened. The newspaper publishes comments that make Islam look like a violent, aggresive, religion bent on absorbing the world. Muslim fundamentalists rage in the streets demanding the heads of those who published the cartoons, seemingly vindicating what the newspaper is saying.
How do the people in Europe feel about all these Muslims moving into their country? I would argue that there is a very good chance that there is fear and some anger towards Muslim immigrants, it just happen to flare up in Denmark. Would anybody be suprised if in the coming weeks a bomb went off in Denmark and there was a violent response against Muslims in Denmark? I am not saying that will happen, I am simply saying in I guess too many words that I think the magnifying glass needs to be directed at European feeling towards Muslim immigrants.
There are alot of LDS people on these boards, what did none LDS people think of Mormons moving into counties as a block and talking about making changes to the laws so that they were more conducent to a Mormon environment?
Regardless of whether the article about Muslims taking up 40% of welfare funds is true or not, I think we have a text book case of high traffic immigration and the frequent anti foreign sentiment that often exists among the native population. I think this is the true problem that needs to be addressed. It is THIS that is causing blood to boil and tempers to rage, I dont think we should look at the actual shout of anger, but more what has caused it to build up to that point.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa, do you live in Israel or America? Forgive my confusion, but you use "we" and "us" when referring to America, Jews and Israelis. Or, do you live in one place and have dual citizenship?
I live in Chicago at the moment. My ex and two of my children live in Israel. We came to the US so that I could adopt my daughter that I live with now, and my partner doesn't want to move back. Not an excuse, really, but there it is.
And yes, I have dual citizenship, though that doesn't really matter. The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews; not to the State of Israel. That state is, on its best day, a caretaker.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There are alot of LDS people on these boards, what did none LDS people think of Mormons moving into counties as a block and talking about making changes to the laws so that they were more conducent to a Mormon environment?
This is part of the reason Mormons were so unpopular in Missouri.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
StarLisa, you're scary. Scary in the way that religious fanatics everywhere are scary.
And just saying "No" to facts a bunch of times doesn't make your claims any more true. Nor does ignoring history, logic, reason, or any point of view but your own make you any more right.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore, because I have finally come to the conclusion that your brand of militant zealotry is beyond rational discussion. I hope, for the world's sake, that your voice is in the most severe minority and that your words are given as much credence as any other brainwashed extremist.
Posted by Rich Lewis (Member # 9192) on :
And here we run into the situation: both sides are entrenched on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and giving in to the other side by either is viewed by some as capitulation.
When asked once whether he would be willing to make any concessions to the Israelis about a year before he died, Arafat said calmly, "If I made a pact with Israel in the morning, I would be having tea with Rabin by the afternoon." In short, if he were to give in, someone from his own people would kill him, as had happened to Rabin.
Israel has given more than an inch with the creation of the Palestinian Authority areas. They have pulled their own citizens out of settlements at gunpoint to return the land to the Palestinians. And yet the suicide bombings continue, and yet Hamas handily wins elections, and yet Iran's president decries that the Holocaust was a fiction.
Whether right or wrong in the creation of an Israeli state six decades, three generations ago, the Israelis often find themselves in a dark room surrounded by people with sharp knives. They won't give up the God-given land, they won't give up the nation granted by mankind.
But they have tried, at least, to make some ammends, to offer some olive branches and to offer measured responses to unmeasured attrocities. To take a side against the Israelis is something I couldn't in good conscience do. To blythely accuse them of fomenting genocidal acts sickens me.
And to still think of the Palestinians as just rock-throwing boys in the street is also a grave mistake. Let's face it: a disabled American man in a wheelchair wasn't pushed off the deck of the Achille Largo for any cause other than Palestinian independence. Lockerbie, Scotland was showered with the remains of a packed jetliner for the cause of Palestinian independence. 341 American soldiers were slain by a truck bomb in Beiruit as a sacrifice on the altar of Palestinian independence.
When we take a global look and try to put the black hat of villainy on someone, we need to take a harder look at who is murdering people outside of the conflict for nothing more than shock value and terror.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To blythely accuse them of fomenting genocidal acts sickens me.
I think it should be noted that no one in this thread has accused the Israelis of fomenting genocide in any manner, let alone blythely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa, do you live in Israel or America? Forgive my confusion, but you use "we" and "us" when referring to America, Jews and Israelis. Or, do you live in one place and have dual citizenship?
I live in Chicago at the moment. My ex and two of my children live in Israel. We came to the US so that I could adopt my daughter that I live with now, and my partner doesn't want to move back. Not an excuse, really, but there it is.
And yes, I have dual citizenship, though that doesn't really matter. The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews; not to the State of Israel. That state is, on its best day, a caretaker.
You don't have to be so defensive, I was asking an honestly curious question, not attacking you.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: StarLisa, you're scary. Scary in the way that religious fanatics everywhere are scary.
And you're offensive. Offensive in the way that bigots everywhere are offensive.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I'm not going to argue with you anymore,
"...but I will try and get the last word."
<yawn>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa, do you live in Israel or America? Forgive my confusion, but you use "we" and "us" when referring to America, Jews and Israelis. Or, do you live in one place and have dual citizenship?
I live in Chicago at the moment. My ex and two of my children live in Israel. We came to the US so that I could adopt my daughter that I live with now, and my partner doesn't want to move back. Not an excuse, really, but there it is.
And yes, I have dual citizenship, though that doesn't really matter. The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews; not to the State of Israel. That state is, on its best day, a caretaker.
You don't have to be so defensive, I was asking an honestly curious question, not attacking you.
My apologies. I didn't mean to come across as defensive. I actually do feel extremely guilty about being here rather than there. Maybe that came through.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: StarLisa, you're scary. Scary in the way that religious fanatics everywhere are scary.
And you're offensive. Offensive in the way that bigots everywhere are offensive.
Oh come on Lisa, you aren't seriously calling him an anti-semite are you? You can't call someone an bigot just because they disagree with you. You're going to sound as silly as the Detroit City Council sounded last week when they called the white suburbs racist and said we were treating Detroit like a plantation because Detroit is mismanaging itself. Playing the race/bigot/anti-semite card should only be used in rare cases, otherwise it affects all future claims when it's thrown about so wildly.
Either I misunderstood you, or I missed a lot of what FlyingCow was saying in his posts, because I just don't see it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I would appreciate it if we got back on track, not that personal attacks or the perception of such is unimportant but threads that start to drone on about "he said, she said" get old and need putting down.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: StarLisa, you're scary. Scary in the way that religious fanatics everywhere are scary.
And you're offensive. Offensive in the way that bigots everywhere are offensive.
Oh come on Lisa, you aren't seriously calling him an anti-semite are you?
Lyrhawn, this is why I refused for about a month to reply to anything you posted. You did this wrong. If you are unable to read the simple words that I wrote, and are confused, ask me if I said X. In this case, "Are you calling him an anti-semite?" See? Isn't that easy? As to what you actually did write, I'll ignore you and stick with answering people who don't try and pretend that I said something which I never said.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The cartoon violence thing has receded somewhat in recent days. Nothing big enough to make the news anyway. Not that the argument can't continue for days and days and days afterwards, but it's less immediate now that they aren't burning KFCs anymore.
Not that the burning of KFCs ever made any sense to begin with. I'm both eternally amused and disgusted that no matter who pisses the violent muslim faction, they always take a shot at America along with it. "Damn Denmark! AND KFC!" As if we had anything to do with, and is all the more ironic seeing as how the American media has been tripping over itself to rush to the defense of Muslims, and even more so the American government.
If they're going to burn our overseas businesses and attack our embassies for totally unrelated 'crimes' we might as well show the damned cartoons anyway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: StarLisa, you're scary. Scary in the way that religious fanatics everywhere are scary.
And you're offensive. Offensive in the way that bigots everywhere are offensive.
Oh come on Lisa, you aren't seriously calling him an anti-semite are you?
Lyrhawn, this is why I refused for about a month to reply to anything you posted.
Best month ever.
quote: You did this wrong. If you are unable to read the simple words that I wrote, and are confused, ask me if I said X. In this case, "Are you calling him an anti-semite?" See? Isn't that easy? As to what you actually did write, I'll ignore you and stick with answering people who don't try and pretend that I said something which I never said.
How am I supposed to tell the difference? You've been so fond of calling people anti-semites in the past and then taking what looks like glee in their heated defenses and your snarky replies. How is anyone to assume that when you call someone a bigot, after he's thrown down a gauntlet a Jew, that you are in fact referring to some other sort of bigotry?
Allow me to apologize however (not that I think it's deserved, but you have some delicate sensibilities for what you consider to be misworded paragraphs) for apparently misinterpreting you this time, and to ask what exactly you meant by calling FlyingCow a bigot?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lisa, you DID call him a "bigot," at least if we grant that he called you a "religious fanatic." (And I don't think the latter definition is one you find insulting or offensive, IIRC; you've claimed it yourself several times.) If he's not bigoted against Jews -- by definition, anti-Semitic -- in what way is he a bigot?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Wait: Lisa accused someone of being a bigot?
(Irony meter explodes!!!!)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Actually all Israelis are Semetic, but not all Semetic people are Israeli. Some Jews are Semitic, but not all Jews are semetic. Does your head hurt? It shouldnt Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:
quote:
quote:Posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil.
Originally posted by Juxtapose: No, but how you go about doing it might be. Displacing a massive number of people, robbing them of their possessions, and leaving them in the desert (or whereever) sounds pretty evil to me. Especially since you don't seem particularly interested in determining who's actually guilty of aiding enemy terrorists and who isn't.
Originally posted by starLisa: They're very much aware that their decentralization makes it next to impossible for anyone to fight them if they insist on trying to specify who is directly involved in the war and who isn't.
Again, these are the actions and strategies of the terrorists, and you propose punishing civilians for it. And I'm going to take it that, by your continued unwillingness to deny it, you do indeed have little or no interest in determining which civilians are actually guilty of aiding terrorism.
quote:But even aside from that, that's war. You don't have to like it, but if you start it, expect to get your a** handed to you.
Yes, that's war. And in war minimizing harm to enemy civilians is both laudable and pragmatic.
Indifference to those civilians is bordering on evil, and pretty stupid to boot. Why piss off thousands more people than you absolutely have to?
But then, you've proposed going beyond that. You've proposed holding Palestinian communities hostage against the terrorists. Which kind of sounds like something a terrorist might do. But hey, fight fire with fire, right?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Actually all Israelis are Semetic, but not all Semetic people are Israeli. Some Jews are Semitic, but not all Jews are semetic. Does your head hurt? It shouldnt
Anti-semitism does not mean being against Semites. It means Jew-hatred. That's what the word means. You can't reduce something to etymologies. "You're pulling my leg" has nothing to do with yanking on a lower extremity. Homophobia doesn't mean fear of similarity.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
But gay does mean happy. Bigotry is bigotry no matter what direction it is in. But I'm just flapping my fingers (not gums, because I'm not talking) and I guess I'm not LITERALLY flapping my fingers...but you get the point.
[ February 28, 2006, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: aretee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, you DO think he's an anti-Semite? That FlyingCow hates Jews because he disapproves of your proposed methods?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Eventually, someone other than Tom is going to ask me why I called him a bigot. It may take a while, because I imagine that most people here are intelligent enough to know what I meant. But I won't respond to Tom, and I won't respond to anyone obnoxious enough to actually assert that they know what I meant when they clearly don't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No starLisa I am in fact saying that you can be antisemetic without hating Jews. Yes it is typically used that way but that is not a good thing as look at the group of people that all fall under the label "semite"
Semite: A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
anyway I have no interest in arguing about antisemitism (if thats the right suffix) I was only interested in discussing the anti muslim sentiment that I think is prevalent today in Europe. As nobody else seems to care, I am done with this thread unless it gets interesting again.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: No starLisa I am in fact saying that you can be antisemetic without hating Jews.
No, Blade. You can't. That's an oxymoron. You see, that's what the word means. It doesn't mean that you don't like Semites. Words mean what they mean. Not what you deduce from their etymologies.
White people are not white. It's just a word that's used. They're actually a light pink, for the most part. Black people are generally brown. When a person is horny, it doesn't mean that they have antlers coming out of their head, and the fact that you're so incredibly lame doesn't mean that you walk funny.
Though you may; who knows?
Emerson said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I'd add that a foolish literalism is the hallmark of a fool and a pedant.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Semite: A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
Ethiopans?
Whatever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I won't respond to Tom...
Yeah, God forbid you deign to argue with someone who's capable of pointing out the flaws in your argument.
-----
BTW, Blade, give it a rest. Denying Lisa a special word that's commonly used to uniquely describe the act of hating her specific people doesn't actually increase conversational clarity.
That said, it's not yet clear that she was actually accusing FlyingCow of being anti-Semitic; he might simply be in her opinion some other sort of bigot.
(Edited to remove unnecessary snarkiness.)
[ February 28, 2006, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Syriacs). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."[2] In recent decades some groups have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, Anti-Arabism, in the context of accusations of Arab anti-Semitism; further, some, including the Islamic Association of Palestine, have argued that this implies that Arabs can not, by definition, be anti-Semitic, despite the acknowledged high level of Arab anti-Semitism. The argument for such extension comes out of the claim that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages, and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, anti-Semitism should be likewise inclusive. This usage is not generally accepted.
Of course, were the usage to become generally accepted, then Lisa's argument would no longer be correct. Words' meanings can change over time. But, as of now, Lisa is right.
Attempts to extend "anti-Semitism" to cover other people considered to be descendents of Shem are often made by people seeking cover for their own hatred of Jews.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Words mean what they mean. Not what you deduce from their etymologies.
But what determines what words mean? They often don't simply mean whatever they are used to mean, as shown by the fact that words can be used wrongly. There are several factors, but to some degree, their etymologies also influence what they mean. When something is anti-X, the word can typically be used to mean against whatever X is. Words can also mean different things in different instances to different people.
In this case, I don't think it makes a difference. Whether you are someone who hates ONLY Jews, or someone who hates all Semite peoples, you'd still be bigoted and wrong. Which label you apply is arbitrary when both concepts behind the labels are equally wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, I certainly hope someone pops on this thread soon to explain what Lisa meant, she has apparently been rendered unable to do so herself.
I guess it's easier to type a snarky post, than to actually explain what really isn't all that clear. But hey, whatever floats your boat Lisa.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
When I first read the comment, I thought she was referring to the statement about religious fanatics.
What were you referring to, sL?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Thanks, KarlEd. It's nice to know that some people here are capable of reading without that giant chip on their shoulder sneaking around and obscuring their eyesight. That's exactly what I was referring to.
When someone rules out a possibility because they've labeled it as "religious fanaticism", and therefore not worthy of consideration, that's bigotry, plain and simple. To bigots like FlyingCow, anyone who sees God and our relationship with God as anything real, rather than a quaint superstition, is the same. It doesn't matter whether God is telling you to help poor people or blow up journalists. It's all the same to people like FlyingCow.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:It's all the same to people like FlyingCow.
Based on previous interactions with FC, I sincerely doubt that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It doesn't matter whether God is telling you to help poor people or blow up journalists. It's all the same to people like FlyingCow.
I don't quite understand. Isn't it the same to YOU? Because as you've pointed out, that land is yours because you believe God said so. You are willing to kill for that land. You are also willing to die for that land, help poor people for that land, etc.
In other words, what you do for that land -- provided you do not violate the laws of your hypothetical God -- doesn't matter as much as the "fact" that God gave it to you.
As far as I can tell, the fact that some people kill for their superstitions and other people heal the poor on behalf of other superstitions is, from FlyingCow's point of view, the only important distinction between those two groups (as opposed to being, as you claim, irrelevant to him). To YOU, on the other hand, the distinction is that your superstition is "correct," not that your superstition is more ethical or merciful or constructive.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oooh, alright. Now I see what you're saying. I still think you're wrong, and I think you're missing what FlyingCow was saying, or you caught it and are ignoring it.
You're advocating the mass expulsion of a people who've been where they are for thousands of years, and if they resist, well, you haven't really covered what you want to do if they resist, but you don't seem to have any mercy in mind for them. And all because you see Israel as the land of the Jews given by God. He's comparing that to the level of fanatacism that those who kill in the name of Allah are branded with.
While, for the moment, I think that comparison is a little extreme, because I see a distinction between a thought crime and a physical crime (a distinction YOU don't make, by the way), and I think he's off base, that doesn't mean he's bigoted towards all people of religious faith. You don't have near enough information to make that kind of assertion.
Hey, does my defense of FlyingCow make me a bigot too?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:When someone rules out a possibility because they've labeled it as "religious fanaticism", and therefore not worthy of consideration, that's bigotry, plain and simple. To bigots like FlyingCow, anyone who sees God and our relationship with God as anything real, rather than a quaint superstition, is the same. It doesn't matter whether God is telling you to help poor people or blow up journalists. It's all the same to people like FlyingCow.
See, that can also be applied to you, starLisa. You don't get to call other people bigots just because they disagree with you. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong. But you are a bigot if this fits:
quote:One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Hate to tell you - again - but it fits.
Near as I can tell, the only thing Flying Cow is guilty of is disagreeing with you.
If that makes Flying Cow a bigot, that makes me one, too.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)