Political Crossfire Forums

[Saracen]

pharaoh wrote: tsk tsk tsk...now everybody will think that you are pro terrorists...damn you Saracen, you should buy yourself a sniper rifle and shoot some god damn terrorists!
I mean you play Doom and Quake...you have the gift

:lol: Might as well get my gun out.

(looks around)

No terrorists. Jeez, this is crazy.

Ok, now again back to seriousness. Another reason that Muslims are seemingly not standing up to the terrorists is that they are outsiders, meaning that they are in now way part of our communities. What's funny, though, is that the Islamophobic crows expects normal Muslims living in Egypt and Saudi Arabia to "stand up" to those who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are too chaotic at the moment. Moreover, Muslims are suffering, too, and yet there have rarely been any voices of condemnation from the other side. Why should we submit to their whims? For one thing, I will condemn terrorism, but to say that it's a part of Islam is not what I'm bargaining for. Also, people must realize why they came about. I'm not excusing them, though. Then there are those in the West who not only condone terrorism on part of Israel and America, but use bullsh!T semantics to get around the legal proceedings. In short, if you want me to condemn terrorism, stop supporting it. (Not you, pharaoh, I know where you stand).

[Enoch]

pharaoh wrote: Quote: However, today's Christians are not having to deal with extremists in their organization burning builidngs and bombing trains. For all their faults, at least Christian extremists are only vocally violent, not physically so.


Maybe because Europeans created something called SECULARISM because they had enough of Christianity? C'mon...Most Europeans and Americans are atheists nowadays or are only Christians by name. Dont tell me "Christians nowadays are good" cause I dont see "real" Christians around anymore.
Did I ever say "Christians are good?" No, I didn't. I said that today's Christians do not have physically violent extremists acting on religious ideals.

pharaoh wrote: Quote: Don't try to deflect the criticism of Islam on to Christianity with the tired, and transparent, "but they once did it too" argument.


Why not? So you can have your religious wars and crusaders and we cant fall victime to such things too?
ANYWAYZ we will never be like that...Most Europeans, if not all, were racists (at least towards Africans) in last hundreds of years and we never been racists.
We will never be pro killing civilians if they are not "the chosen ones" like the Jews did or like the Crusaders did in Palestine.
So far there never been religious wars similar to those that happened in Europe.

We (muslims) are indeed living in some kind of dark age but it will never get even close to the actions carried by Americans and Europeans in the past.
We are still talking about few thousands (maximum) that are giving Islam such a bad name in the west.
First, don't assume I am a Christian. I am not. I am Wiccan.

Second, even if I were, the racist attitudes of the past are not, at all, applicable to the discussion of what today's Muslims are doing to silence the violent minority within their own ranks.

And, if you must know, I hold the same standard to Christians for silencing their vocal minority if they truly wish to have people stop labeling them as intolerent and bigotted, as many do thanks to the likes of Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps.

It all comes down to the same idea: If you want people to stop painting your group, whatever group that is, by the actions of the minority within your group, then step up and stop that minority.

It is up to Muslims to silence their minority, Christians to silence theirs, and Wiccans to silence ours.

pharaoh wrote: Quote: But, that aside, the fact that there are 1.5 billion Muslims is moot. The numbers don't matter, it is the actions that do.


So the same can be applied for the KKK example? So are we even?
True, the numers in the KKK don't matter....their actions do.

pharaoh wrote: Quote: Okay, pharaoh, what are you, personally, doing about the fact that the whole of the Islamic world is being tarnished by the actions of the terrorists? Are you trying to stop them? Are you doing anything other than complaining on an internet forum?

"trying to stop them"?! :lol:
Yeah every day I take my shot gun and walk down the streets of Cairo searching for some terrorists....unfortunately I didnt find any until now....forgive me :cry:
Forgive me, my comment and question was improperly worded. I didn't realize, until now, that it made it sound as though I was advocating you picking up a gun and hunting down the terrorists.

I just want to know, pharaoh, are you doing ANYTHING beyond simply b*tching online about the fact that Muslims aren't well liked in the western world? Giving to charities to help victims? Or even just writing a letter to your legislator asking them to campaign for international support? Anything whatsoever?

[Enoch]

Saracen wrote: pharaoh wrote: tsk tsk tsk...now everybody will think that you are pro terrorists...damn you Saracen, you should buy yourself a sniper rifle and shoot some god damn terrorists!
I mean you play Doom and Quake...you have the gift

:lol: Might as well get my gun out.

(looks around)

No terrorists. Jeez, this is crazy.

Ok, now again back to seriousness. Another reason that Muslims are seemingly not standing up to the terrorists is that they are outsiders, meaning that they are in now way part of our communities. What's funny, though, is that the Islamophobic crows expects normal Muslims living in Egypt and Saudi Arabia to "stand up" to those who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are too chaotic at the moment. Moreover, Muslims are suffering, too, and yet there have rarely been any voices of condemnation from the other side. Why should we submit to their whims? For one thing, I will condemn terrorism, but to say that it's a part of Islam is not what I'm bargaining for. Also, people must realize why they came about. I'm not excusing them, though. Then there are those in the West who not only condone terrorism on part of Israel and America, but use bullsh!T semantics to get around the legal proceedings. In short, if you want me to condemn terrorism, stop supporting it. (Not you, pharaoh, I know where you stand).
If you mean me, what am I doing to support it? Examples, please.

[pharaoh]

Quote: Did I ever say "Christians are good?" No, I didn't. I said that today's Christians do not have physically violent extremists acting on religious ideals.


Fine, and I said that is so because most, if not all, Christians live in secular states and that most Christians are Atheists or Christians by name only.

Quote: First, don't assume I am a Christian. I am not. I am Wiccan.


Isnt it based on British witchcraft? If that is the case then does someone teach you magic?

Quote: Second, even if I were, the racist attitudes of the past are not, at all, applicable to the discussion of what today's Muslims are doing to silence the violent minority within their own ranks.


No I think there is a connection. Dont accuse the muslims of such and such when others have committed alot more horrible things in a long period of time. Before 9/11 we never heard accusations that Islam supports terrorism and such, even though Islamic terrorists were bombing and killing their fellow muslims for dozens of years...go figure.



Quote: And, if you must know, I hold the same standard to Christians for silencing their vocal minority if they truly wish to have people stop labeling them as intolerent and bigotted, as many do thanks to the likes of Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps.


Thats nice.

Quote: It all comes down to the same idea: If you want people to stop painting your group, whatever group that is, by the actions of the minority within your group, then step up and stop that minority.


Stop them by killing them and putting them in jail and criticize them in the media? Well we do such things all over the middle east especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Algeria.

Quote: It is up to Muslims to silence their minority, Christians to silence theirs, and Wiccans to silence ours.


Fine.

Quote: True, the numers in the KKK don't matter....their actions do.


I disagree. I think numbers do matter.

Quote: Forgive me, my comment and question was improperly worded. I didn't realize, until now, that it made it sound as though I was advocating you picking up a gun and hunting down the terrorists.


phew...thank god...
No problemo.

Quote: I just want to know, pharaoh, are you doing ANYTHING beyond simply b*tching online about the fact that Muslims aren't well liked in the western world?

Do I sound like "b*tching online" to you?

Quote: Giving to charities to help victims? Or even just writing a letter to your legislator asking them to campaign for international support? Anything whatsoever?

I do give some money to poor people from time to time, cant afford to give money to charity just yet. As for writing a letter to my legislator, well in case you forgot im living in a country run by a dictator. In this kind of a contry the Legislation dont have much powers. So it is practically useless to do such things that may work in a democratic country.
At least I am here to "b*tch slap" people like you who have a very narrow view on certain things.

[Enoch]

pharaoh wrote: Quote: Did I ever say "Christians are good?" No, I didn't. I said that today's Christians do not have physically violent extremists acting on religious ideals.

Fine, and I said that is so because most, if not all, Christians live in secular states and that most Christians are Atheists or Christians by name only.
Well, that is a debate for another time.

pharaoh wrote: Quote: First, don't assume I am a Christian. I am not. I am Wiccan.
Isnt it based on British witchcraft? If that is the case then does someone teach you magic?
Wicca is based on ancient Celtic practices and traditions, yes. And while I don't have a magickal "teacher" per se, I do have several more experienced, advanced, witches to whom I turn for guidance.

pharaoh wrote: Quote: Second, even if I were, the racist attitudes of the past are not, at all, applicable to the discussion of what today's Muslims are doing to silence the violent minority within their own ranks.
No I think there is a connection. Dont accuse the muslims of such and such when others have committed alot more horrible things in a long period of time. Before 9/11 we never heard accusations that Islam supports terrorism and such, even though Islamic terrorists were bombing and killing their fellow muslims for dozens of years...go figure.
We are talking about current generations, not the previous incarnations of religious bodies and followers of those religions. The horrendous things done in the name of Christianity by previous generations do not excuse current generations of Muslims (or, rather, the Muslim extremists) from their actions.

pharaoh wrote: Quote: I just want to know, pharaoh, are you doing ANYTHING beyond simply b*tching online about the fact that Muslims aren't well liked in the western world?
Do I sound like "b*tching online" to you?
Well, comments like calling me ignorant or saying you are here to "b*tch slap" people like me doesn't exactly help me to think you aren't here b*tching.

pharaoh wrote: Quote: Giving to charities to help victims? Or even just writing a letter to your legislator asking them to campaign for international support? Anything whatsoever?
I do give some money to poor people from time to time, cant afford to give money to charity just yet. As for writing a letter to my legislator, well in case you forgot im living in a country run by a dictator. In this kind of a contry the Legislation dont have much powers. So it is practically useless to do such things that may work in a democratic country.
At least I am here to "b*tch slap" people like you who have a very narrow view on certain things.
I was unaware of where you lived. So, therefore, my suggestion of contacting legislators becomes moot for you.

[Saracen]

UrielsFyre wrote: We are talking about current generations, not the previous incarnations of religious bodies and followers of those religions. The horrendous things done in the name of Christianity by previous generations do not excuse current generations of Muslims (or, rather, the Muslim extremists) from their actions.

Well, what about those Christian extremists heading the White House? You know what Dumbya said last time about God and Al Qaeda, do you?

UrielsFyre wrote: If you mean me, what am I doing to support it? Examples, please.

Not you, UF. I know you're a good person. However, I am referring to cap'n queasy, who supports Israel 200% and even supports terrorism and expulsion of the Palestinians from their lands. Figure that one out.

[nrhy]

Quote: s misinterpreted as their beliefs may have been, they were still operating on a religious ideal. I know that killing is against Islamic beliefs. However, if I were a Muslim that thought killing was OK, and killed in the name of Islam, I would still be operating based on religious beliefs. It matters not that they were not following Islamic teachings as intended.

very well

Quote: Please, keep the personal attacks out of this. Thank you.
i am merely retaliating to your attacks

Quote: Again, I ask. What were the ACTIONS of the groups denouncing the burnings? Did they simply speak out, or did they take ACTION to stop the extremists or at least right the wrong? If those same groups that you mention, such as the Muslim clerics and politicians, actually did something to help support the Danish people or fix the damage caused by their wayward brothers, it is a different game. But, at this time, it appears that the clerics and politicians are doing nothing more.

:D hahaha, are you expecting us to join bush in his war against terrorism? We are doing something about it, for example in saudi, lebanon, dubai, kuwait, police have been seaking out the terrorists in their own countries and tried preaching the true defenitions of islam...intervention isn´t really our type of thing, and since the U.s is doing such a good job at it..we might as well watch.

Quote: lright, that sounds like a good plan. However, how does that help stop the bombings and burnings done by the wayward Muslims? CAIR, for all it's good intentions, was preaching to the wrong group. They needed to be setting up meetings with the leaders of these extremist groups, IF that is even possible, to get them to calm down.

In fact, it appears that the "mutual cooperation" angle was simply a ploy to tell the Norwegian and Danish ambassadors that their countries' newspapers shouldn't be running the cartoons.

yes indeed, but perhaps you should read the threads on the cartoons, because this will lead to other discussions..and i am not in the mood of posting all of it.

[quote]Yes, the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were enacted, and carried out, for and by Christians. However, today's Christians are not having to deal with extremists in their organization burning builidngs and bombing trains. For all their faults, at least Christian extremists are only vocally violent, not physically so.[quote/]

you have to understand, there was no such thing as C4 explosives and trains in those days...instead they literally wiped out the latin and muslim/jewish population with machetes and guns (with the latins) and swords and arrows (with the jews and muslims).

Christianity is a religion set up in year 0 whereas islam´s beliefs were established in 700...It makes perfect sense that islam would have its extremist times after than those of the christians, and that time is now...

[quote]Yeah every day I take my shot gun and walk down the streets of Cairo searching for some terrorists....unfortunately I didnt find any until now....forgive me[quote/]
:lol: :lol: does that mean i have to aswell??? i am a pacifist you see... :roll: :lol:

[quote]Damn, that reminds me! I should have been stationed at the roof of my house. Unfortunately, I did not see a radical sheik to pelt with eggs either. [quote/]

:lol: that is actually fun to do :-D

[Enoch]

Saracen wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: We are talking about current generations, not the previous incarnations of religious bodies and followers of those religions. The horrendous things done in the name of Christianity by previous generations do not excuse current generations of Muslims (or, rather, the Muslim extremists) from their actions.

Well, what about those Christian extremists heading the White House? You know what Dumbya said last time about God and Al Qaeda, do you?

UrielsFyre wrote: If you mean me, what am I doing to support it? Examples, please.

Not you, UF. I know you're a good person. However, I am referring to cap'n queasy, who supports Israel 200% and even supports terrorism and expulsion of the Palestinians from their lands. Figure that one out.

I'm not a fan of the religious right either and I am doing the only thing I can to slow them down, and that is vote against them.

(And thank you. :-) )

[Enoch]

nrhy wrote: Quote: Please, keep the personal attacks out of this. Thank you.
i am merely retaliating to your attacks
I have not attacked you, nor anyone else on this board, once since the day I joined. I will attack ideas, concepts, and philosophies in a debate....but, I do not attack the people presenting them.

So, again, I ask you to please keep the personal attacks out of this.

[Saracen]

UrielsFyre wrote: I'm not a fan of the religious right either and I am doing the only thing I can to slow them down, and that is vote against them.

(And thank you. :-) )

No problem. :)

[cap'n queasy]

UrielsFyre wrote: ieatfood wrote: Look, lets face it, if 9/11 didn't happen, this poll would not exist

It's the terrorists, stupid!

9/11, The British subways, Spanish trains, Danish embassies....yeah, it just the terrorists.

If it weren't that Muslims were the ones doing the aforementioned, the poll wouldn't exist.

Oh, but wait, it IS Muslims who are bombing shi*t.

That is a fact that they continually try to spin.

Quote: Saracen wrote:
However, I am referring to cap'n queasy, who supports Israel 200% and even supports terrorism and expulsion of the Palestinians from their lands. Figure that one out.

I do support Israel. However I do not support terrorism or expulsion of Palestinians from their lands.

Israel does not utilize terrorist tactics, they defend against it in one of the world's Muslim terrorism hotspots and do an excellent job in extremely difficult circumstances IMHO.

And Palestinians who chose to leave at the formation of Israel have only themselves to blame for their choice. Many stayed and still live there. The others have been forced by their own people to live in refugee camps for fifty plus years.

Too bad so many threw their lot in with a bunch of idiots who thought their best bet was a massive five country invasion of Israel. When that was a failure they resorted to a lengthy terrorism campaign in an effort to scare the Israelis off.

Israel is their homeland, they finally got it back after way more hardship than anyone else on the planet has faced and they are not going anywhere, they are not scared of you after what they have been through. Palestinians should stop sympathizing with these terrorist group's methods and get with the program so they create a better life for their families and their people.

It's a useless, and foolish struggle and all it does is waste lives, time, and resources on both sides.

All it will take for peace in the region is Palestinian acceptence of peace.
The is the only thing stopping it is their own foolishness.

[Saracen]

cap'n queasy wrote: That is a fact that they continually try to spin.

You do know though that the Israelis and the Americans are also bombing sh!t, just like they were in the past 50 years?

cap'n queasy wrote: I do support Israel. However I do not support terrorism or expulsion of Palestinians from their lands.

I highly doubt that for some reason.

cap'n queasy wrote: Israel does not utilize terrorist tactics, they defend against it in one of the world's Muslim terrorism hotspots and do an excellent job in extremely difficult circumstances IMHO.

Sure, sure... attacking innocents, bombing homes, demolishing them, and taking away land is not terrorism. No, it's defense. :roll:

cap'n queasy wrote: And Palestinians who chose to leave at the formation of Israel have only themselves to blame for their choice. Many stayed and still live there. The others have been forced by their own people to live in refugee camps for fifty plus years.

I think you got it wrong: Israel has been pushing them to live in such horrid conditions. It kept the Arabs busy while the Palestinians were forced to live under such horrid conditions. Also, the Palestinians have been receiving the short end of the stick... thanks to Israel.

cap'n queasy wrote: Too bad so many threw their lot in with a bunch of idiots who thought their best bet was a massive five country invasion of Israel. When that was a failure they resorted to a lengthy terrorism campaign in an effort to scare the Israelis off.

Israel was a prime aggressor. Before 1948, they were attacking Palestinians and driving them from their homes. In the six day war, they used so-called "pre-emptive" strikes. The Lebanese Civil War was the bloodiest of them all, and it made Israel a terrorist state by definition.

capn queasy wrote: Israel is their homeland, they finally got it back after way more hardship than anyone else on the planet has faced and they are not going anywhere, they are not scared of you after what they have been through. Palestinians should stop sympathizing with these terrorist group's methods and get with the program so they create a better life for their families and their people.

Yes, it's easy to talk nonsense, huh? Well, the Palestinians have as much if not more rights to this land than the Israelis do. The Palestinians lived there for a long time, and the Israelis stepped on them and created a living hell out of their miserable situation. If you realize that the Palestinians have been suffering and have been displaced, then we'll be making progress.

capn queasy wrote: All it will take for peace in the region is Palestinian acceptence of peace.
The is the only thing stopping it is their own foolishness.

That sounds a lot like Israel:

Uri Avnery wrote: How to Torpedo the Saudis

Thirty five years of occupation and settlement have eroded Israel's abilty to reason, leaving instead a mixture of arrogance and folly

By Uri Avnery

If, in May 1967, an Arab prince had proposed that the whole Arab world would recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it, in return for Israel's recognition of the Green Line border, we would have believed that the days of the Messiah had arrived. Masses of people would have run into the street, singing and dancing, as they did on November 29, 1947, when the United Nations called for the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine.

But then disaster struck: we conquered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Labor and Likud governments filled them up with settlements, and today this offer sounds to many like a malicious anti-Semitic plot. The leaders of Israel tell us: Don't worry. Just as we survived Pharaoh, so we shall survive Emir Abdallah.*

This is an allusion to a famous Israeli song.

So what will happen?

In Israel, every international initiative designed to put an end to the conflict passes through three stages: (a) denial, (b) misrepresentation, (c) liquidation. That's how the Sharon-Peres government will deal with this one, too. It can draw on 53 years of experience, during which both Labor and Likud governments have succeeded in scuttling every peace plan put forward.

(We must nor suspect, God forbid, that the successive Israeli governments were opposed to peace. Not at all. Every one of them wanted peace. They all longed for peace. "Provided peace gives us the whole country, at least up to the Jordan river, and lets us cover all of it with Jewish settlements." Until now, all peace plans have fallen short of that.)

PHASE A is designed to belittle the offer. "There is nothing new there," the Political Sources would assert. "It is offered solely for tactical purposes. It is a political gimmick". If the offer comes from an Arab: "He says it to the international community, but not to his own people". I short, "It's not serious."

One proven method is to concentrate on one word and argue that it shows the dishonesty of the whole offer. For example, before the October 1973 war, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt made a far-reaching peace offer. Golda Meir rejected it out of hand. Her Arabists (there are always intellectual w***s around to do the dirty job) discovered that Sadat spoke of "salaam" but not of "sulh, which "proves" that he does not mean real peace. More than 2000 Israel soldiers and tens of thousand Egyptians paid with their lives for this word. After that, a salaam treaty was signed.

Such methods are already being applied now to the Saudi offer. First it was said that Crown Prince Abdullah had spoken about his initiative only with an American journalist, but not addressed his own people. When it transpired that it was widely published in all Saudi papers, both at home and in London, another argument was put forward: the prince has made his offer only because Saudis had become unpopular in the United States after the Twin Towers outrage. (As if this matters.) In short, Abdullah has not become a real Zionist. This point was widely discussed in the Israeli media. Commentators commentated , scholars showed their scholarly prowess. But not one (not one!) of them discussed the actual content of the offer.

PHASE B is designed to outsmart the offer. We do not reject the offer. Of course not! We a longing for peace! So we welcome the "positive trend" of the offer and kick the ball out of the field. The best method is to ask for a meeting with the Arab leader who proposed the offer, "to clarify the issues". That sounds logical. Americans think that, if two people have a quarrel, they should meet and discuss the matter, in order to end it. What can be more reasonable than that?

But a conflict between nations does not resemble a quarrel between two people. Every Arab peace offer rests on a two-part premise: You give back the occupied territories, and you get recognition and "normalization". Normalization includes, of course, meetings of the leaders. When the Israeli government demands a meeting with Arab leaders "to clarify details", it actually tries to get the reward (normalization) without delivering the goods (withdrawal from the occupied territories). A beautiful trick, indeed. If the Arab leaders refuse to meet, well, it only shows that their peace offer is a sham, doesn't it?Many peace offers have fallen into this trap. Ben-Gurion offered to meet with Muhammad Naguib, the Egyptian ruler after the 1952 revolution. Several Prime Ministers asked to meet Hafez al-Assad. Only Sadat outsmarted the smart ones and turned the tables on them. He came to Jerusalem on his own initiative.

When the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 242, the Israeli government did not accept it. Only much later, when there was no way out, it accepted it "according to the Israeli interpretation". This concentrated on the article "the" that is missing in the English version (which demands withdrawal from "occupied territories" instead of from "the occupied territories"), contrary to the French version, in which the article duly appears. (The Soviets were caught napping, because there is no article in the Russian language.) The preferred method is to kill the spirit of the offer slowly, to talk about it endlessly, to interpret it this way and that way, to drag negotiations on and on, to put forward condition which the other side cannot accept, until the initiative yields in silence. That's what happened to the Conciliation Committee in Lausanne, that is what happened to most of the European and American peace plans.

PHASE C: If phases A and B have not worked, the liquidation stage arrives. Nowadays it is called "targeted prevention" or, simply, "ascertained killing" by the army. Against the original UN mediator, the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, "targeted prevention" was applied literally: he was shot and killed. The killers were "dissidents", but Ben-Gurion did not shed any tears.

Usually, Israeli governments use two deadly torpedoes in their arsenal: the US Congress and the American media. William Rogers, President Nixon's secretary of state, for example, proposed a peace plan that included the withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 border, with "insubstantial changes". Israel released its torpedoes and sunk Rogers together with his plan. His job was taken over by the Jewish megalomaniac, Henry Kissinger, and that was the end of peace plans. Can the Saudi initiative be scuttled in the same way? If the Saudis stay their course, it will not be easy to intercept it. This time the target is not a small frigate, not even a destroyer, but a mighty aircraft carrier. A great effort will be needed to torpedo it.

But Shimon Peres and his foreign office are experts at this kind of job; they have been at it for decades. Ariel Sharon will push them. The pitiful Labor party, under the leadership of a small-time copy of Sharon, will join the chorus. Faced with the terrible threat of having to end the occupation, the Israeli media will rally behind the government. Nobody revolts, nobody cries out. In Israel, real public discourse has died long ago. The national instinct of survival has become blunted. Thirty five years of occupation and settlement have eroded the nation's abilty to reason, leaving instead a mixture of arrogance and folly. A great, perhaps unique opportunity may be missed. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands may pay for it with their lives. They will not dance in the streets any more

It's obvious that the Israelis did not refer to the Palestinians for the peace deals. If the Israelis want peace, their government should stop all hostilities, and start to negotiate for a change. That's why the Palestinians have rejected these "generous" peace offers back in the days of Arafat and the PA. Let's take a look at another "generous" offer.

Source wrote: The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.

To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.

Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.

Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?

According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.

It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.

Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,

The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,

Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day.

Unemployment has tripled, and above all

Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.

It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.

Israel's immaturity is what creates disagreements. Now where we? Oh yeah... Muslims...

[nrhy]

Quote: I have not attacked you, nor anyone else on this board, once since the day I joined. I will attack ideas, concepts, and philosophies in a debate....but, I do not attack the people presenting them.

So, again, I ask you to please keep the personal attacks out of this.

it was directed to capn, sorry about that uriels

[pharaoh]

UrielsFyre,

Quote: Well, comments like calling me ignorant or saying you are here to "b*tch slap" people like me doesn't exactly help me to think you aren't here b*tching.


Maybe I said im here to "b*tch slap" people like you cause you said im here "b*tching online". :?

Cap'n queasy,

Tell me Cap'n why did you ignore ENTIRELY my post? It seems that you just cant handle the truth my friend. You like being brainwashed, you dont want to wake up and smell the coffee...suit yourself

[nrhy]

Uri Avnery wrote: How to Torpedo the Saudis

Thirty five years of occupation and settlement have eroded Israel's abilty to reason, leaving instead a mixture of arrogance and folly

By Uri Avnery

If, in May 1967, an Arab prince had proposed that the whole Arab world would recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it, in return for Israel's recognition of the Green Line border, we would have believed that the days of the Messiah had arrived. Masses of people would have run into the street, singing and dancing, as they did on November 29, 1947, when the United Nations called for the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine.

But then disaster struck: we conquered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Labor and Likud governments filled them up with settlements, and today this offer sounds to many like a malicious anti-Semitic plot. The leaders of Israel tell us: Don't worry. Just as we survived Pharaoh, so we shall survive Emir Abdallah.*

This is an allusion to a famous Israeli song.

So what will happen?

In Israel, every international initiative designed to put an end to the conflict passes through three stages: (a) denial, (b) misrepresentation, (c) liquidation. That's how the Sharon-Peres government will deal with this one, too. It can draw on 53 years of experience, during which both Labor and Likud governments have succeeded in scuttling every peace plan put forward.

(We must nor suspect, God forbid, that the successive Israeli governments were opposed to peace. Not at all. Every one of them wanted peace. They all longed for peace. "Provided peace gives us the whole country, at least up to the Jordan river, and lets us cover all of it with Jewish settlements." Until now, all peace plans have fallen short of that.)

PHASE A is designed to belittle the offer. "There is nothing new there," the Political Sources would assert. "It is offered solely for tactical purposes. It is a political gimmick". If the offer comes from an Arab: "He says it to the international community, but not to his own people". I short, "It's not serious."

One proven method is to concentrate on one word and argue that it shows the dishonesty of the whole offer. For example, before the October 1973 war, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt made a far-reaching peace offer. Golda Meir rejected it out of hand. Her Arabists (there are always intellectual w***s around to do the dirty job) discovered that Sadat spoke of "salaam" but not of "sulh, which "proves" that he does not mean real peace. More than 2000 Israel soldiers and tens of thousand Egyptians paid with their lives for this word. After that, a salaam treaty was signed.

Such methods are already being applied now to the Saudi offer. First it was said that Crown Prince Abdullah had spoken about his initiative only with an American journalist, but not addressed his own people. When it transpired that it was widely published in all Saudi papers, both at home and in London, another argument was put forward: the prince has made his offer only because Saudis had become unpopular in the United States after the Twin Towers outrage. (As if this matters.) In short, Abdullah has not become a real Zionist. This point was widely discussed in the Israeli media. Commentators commentated , scholars showed their scholarly prowess. But not one (not one!) of them discussed the actual content of the offer.

PHASE B is designed to outsmart the offer. We do not reject the offer. Of course not! We a longing for peace! So we welcome the "positive trend" of the offer and kick the ball out of the field. The best method is to ask for a meeting with the Arab leader who proposed the offer, "to clarify the issues". That sounds logical. Americans think that, if two people have a quarrel, they should meet and discuss the matter, in order to end it. What can be more reasonable than that?

But a conflict between nations does not resemble a quarrel between two people. Every Arab peace offer rests on a two-part premise: You give back the occupied territories, and you get recognition and "normalization". Normalization includes, of course, meetings of the leaders. When the Israeli government demands a meeting with Arab leaders "to clarify details", it actually tries to get the reward (normalization) without delivering the goods (withdrawal from the occupied territories). A beautiful trick, indeed. If the Arab leaders refuse to meet, well, it only shows that their peace offer is a sham, doesn't it?Many peace offers have fallen into this trap. Ben-Gurion offered to meet with Muhammad Naguib, the Egyptian ruler after the 1952 revolution. Several Prime Ministers asked to meet Hafez al-Assad. Only Sadat outsmarted the smart ones and turned the tables on them. He came to Jerusalem on his own initiative.

When the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 242, the Israeli government did not accept it. Only much later, when there was no way out, it accepted it "according to the Israeli interpretation". This concentrated on the article "the" that is missing in the English version (which demands withdrawal from "occupied territories" instead of from "the occupied territories"), contrary to the French version, in which the article duly appears. (The Soviets were caught napping, because there is no article in the Russian language.) The preferred method is to kill the spirit of the offer slowly, to talk about it endlessly, to interpret it this way and that way, to drag negotiations on and on, to put forward condition which the other side cannot accept, until the initiative yields in silence. That's what happened to the Conciliation Committee in Lausanne, that is what happened to most of the European and American peace plans.

PHASE C: If phases A and B have not worked, the liquidation stage arrives. Nowadays it is called "targeted prevention" or, simply, "ascertained killing" by the army. Against the original UN mediator, the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, "targeted prevention" was applied literally: he was shot and killed. The killers were "dissidents", but Ben-Gurion did not shed any tears.

Usually, Israeli governments use two deadly torpedoes in their arsenal: the US Congress and the American media. William Rogers, President Nixon's secretary of state, for example, proposed a peace plan that included the withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 border, with "insubstantial changes". Israel released its torpedoes and sunk Rogers together with his plan. His job was taken over by the Jewish megalomaniac, Henry Kissinger, and that was the end of peace plans. Can the Saudi initiative be scuttled in the same way? If the Saudis stay their course, it will not be easy to intercept it. This time the target is not a small frigate, not even a destroyer, but a mighty aircraft carrier. A great effort will be needed to torpedo it.

But Shimon Peres and his foreign office are experts at this kind of job; they have been at it for decades. Ariel Sharon will push them. The pitiful Labor party, under the leadership of a small-time copy of Sharon, will join the chorus. Faced with the terrible threat of having to end the occupation, the Israeli media will rally behind the government. Nobody revolts, nobody cries out. In Israel, real public discourse has died long ago. The national instinct of survival has become blunted. Thirty five years of occupation and settlement have eroded the nation's abilty to reason, leaving instead a mixture of arrogance and folly. A great, perhaps unique opportunity may be missed. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands may pay for it with their lives. They will not dance in the streets any more


Source wrote: The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.

To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.

Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.

Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?

According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.

It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.

Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,

The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,

Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day.

Unemployment has tripled, and above all

Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.

It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.


excellent articles

[Enoch]

nrhy wrote: Quote: I have not attacked you, nor anyone else on this board, once since the day I joined. I will attack ideas, concepts, and philosophies in a debate....but, I do not attack the people presenting them.

So, again, I ask you to please keep the personal attacks out of this.

it was directed to capn, sorry about that uriels
No problem. Thank you for the clarification.

[Saracen]

pharaoh wrote: Tell me Cap'n why did you ignore ENTIRELY my post? It seems that you just cant handle the truth my friend. You like being brainwashed, you dont want to wake up and smell the coffee...suit yourself

pharaoh, don't bother. queasy is happy believing that he knows everything about Islam. In short, he's asserting ignorance.

[pharaoh]

Saracen wrote: pharaoh wrote: Tell me Cap'n why did you ignore ENTIRELY my post? It seems that you just cant handle the truth my friend. You like being brainwashed, you dont want to wake up and smell the coffee...suit yourself

pharaoh, don't bother. queasy is happy believing that he knows everything about Islam. In short, he's asserting ignorance.

pity.

[Saracen]

pharaoh wrote: Saracen wrote: pharaoh wrote: Tell me Cap'n why did you ignore ENTIRELY my post? It seems that you just cant handle the truth my friend. You like being brainwashed, you dont want to wake up and smell the coffee...suit yourself

pharaoh, don't bother. queasy is happy believing that he knows everything about Islam. In short, he's asserting ignorance.

pity.

Indeed. I wish he could return to his old tolerant ways, but who am I kidding?

[ravind]

agreed