Extremely strong argument

flogen

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/03/modernity_or_ba.html

A superb argument to be made, although even the most moderate of Muslims would agree that praising the West so much is a little bit ignorant.

At the same time, her beliefs in regards Religious tolerance are faultless IMO, and she does make a good point about the benefits of forcing respect through achievement rather than violence.

I'm sure her words will insult just as much as they inspire

county

very intresting and quite inspiring,a strong lady that talks a lot of sense

Shabadu

It was a lot more soundbite than substance imo. She's very naieve if she honestly believes the West is the great liberator and defender of basic human rights. America may the 'human rights' self styled proponent, but it consistently fails to live up to it's own hype.

Karl Hungus

Shabadu wrote:

She's very naieve if she honestly believes the West is the great liberator and defender of basic human rights.

I didn't see where she stated anything of the sort.

Shabadu

Karl Hungus wrote:

I didn't see where she stated anything of the sort.

When she described it as a conflict between 'human rights on one side, and the violation of those human rights on the other'.

Karl Hungus

Shabadu wrote:

When she described it as a conflict between 'human rights on one side, and the violation of those human rights on the other'.

But that's hardly saying that 'the west' is some great liberator, or defender of human rights. However, the west does indeed have more human rights than in most Muslim countries, and certainly America doesn't live up to it's own hype, but America isn't the only country in this supposed region that's called "The West" is it?

Shabadu

Karl Hungus wrote:

But that's hardly saying that 'the west' is some great liberator, or defender of human rights.

In my opinion, she was overly effusive about 'the west' in general, and yes, I got the impression she was pushing it as some sort of shining beacon of civilisation compared to the 'muslim cultures'

However, the west does indeed have more human rights than in most Muslim countries,

Oh really? While I agree that the west seems to give women & prisoners a lot more entitlements than muslim countries, it is my opinion that the poorest and least entiltled members of western society are generally referred to as 'scum' or 'white trash' by a large portion of the percieved 'middle classes', as opposed to some Muslim countries, where people seem to still have a much greater sense of community, brotherhood and family. I realise this is overruled by some classist muslim countries, and internal strife between different Muslim sects, as we can see in Iraq, Pakistan and Iran.

I also completely disagree with the capital punishment employed by some of these countries, but let us not forget all the 'western' countries that torture and employ capital punishment.

When it comes down to day-to-day survival of families, here in 'the west' 2 people pretty much have to work full time to support a family, a mortgatge and a home. Our basic human right of having and maintaining a family is being gradually eroded.

and certainly America doesn't live up to it's own hype, but America isn't the only country in this supposed region that's called "The West" is it?

Wow- I'd love for you to point out to me where I said that America= the West. I said it tried to be the proponent of free speech, which it does, consistently.

Hobbes

I found her aguments for the most part typical of an Athestist (which she more or less says she is). Some of it is true, some of it isn't (mainly the part where she is lumping troubles all solely on the Muslim faith). There is also the typical blinkered aspect of seeing Muslims as the extremist states, when it is pretty diverse.

Good to see that it was on AJ tv. Kind of dispels that media there is biased, although without a better translation she could of been on the ME version of the O'Reilly factor. :v:

Oh and I also got the impression she was reading it off a script.

Karl Hungus

Shabadu wrote:

In my opinion, she was overly effusive about 'the west' in general, and yes, I got the impression she was pushing it as some sort of shining beacon of civilisation compared to the 'muslim cultures'

Depends on your perspective really, doesn't it? I imagine she'd be killed for her views, if she ever entered a Muslim country, so I'd say that a country that lets her speak her views without reprisal would seem a lot more civilized than a country where she might indeed have vast repercussions for saying what she thinks. Depending on how strict a Muslim country would be, she mightn't even have the right to speak in the first place.

Shabadu wrote:

Oh really? While I agree that the west seems to give women & prisoners a lot more entitlements than muslim countries, it is my opinion that the poorest and least entiltled members of western society are generally referred to as 'scum' or 'white trash' by a large portion of the percieved 'middle classes', as opposed to some Muslim countries, where people seem to still have a much greater sense of community, brotherhood and family. I realise this is overruled by some classist muslim countries, and internal strife between different Muslim sects, as we can see in Iraq, Pakistan and Iran.

I also completely disagree with the capital punishment employed by some of these countries, but let us not forget all the 'western' countries that torture and employ capital punishment.

When it comes down to day-to-day survival of families, here in 'the west' 2 people pretty much have to work full time to support a family, a mortgatge and a home. Our basic human right of having and maintaining a family is being gradually eroded.

Arguably, I'd say that those are social and economic problems, and nothing to do with human rights, but that's a whole other arguement that I hope we don't get into to. So I'll just say for now that we've got some quite different perspectives and views on this.

Shabadu wrote:

Wow- I'd love for you to point out to me where I said that America= the West. I said it tried to be the proponent of free speech, which it does, consistently.

Indeed you did say that it tries to be the proponent, and fails, but that's hardly what I'm getting at. I never said or suggested at all that "America = the West" but just that it seemed to me that you hand-picked America as an example.

Seems like you're saying "Well, the west ain't all that great on the whole human rights things, because America boasts about it's freedoms, and doesn't live up to it." You're deliberately picking a bad example.

Anyway, I'd rather not get into a long drawn out discussion with you, because this is all about what you personally precieved from the video in question, and it's just that I didn't see the same thing, so this could go on and on and on. Just admit you're wrong and we'll leave it at that so.

Shabadu

zomg- this is because I'm a woman, isn't it? :V

I suppose my opinion on it is that all cultures have pretty crap aspects in general.

Karl Hungus

Shabadu wrote:

zomg- this is because I'm a woman, isn't it? :V

I suppose my opinion on it is that all cultures have pretty crap aspects in general.

Yeah, except for Japan.

Sand

Hmm, shes quite impressive when she gets into full flow isnt she? I think though she fell into a trap when she agreed with the interviewer that she associated the west with modern freedom and the muslim world with backwardness. She might actually think that, but a majority of muslims would turn off right about there. There is a clash between the modern and the backward, but it is Arab/Islamic society itself as much as anything - i.e. the seeming paradox of religious police in Indonesia raiding discos to arrest young Muslims out having a good time. How can society accomdate the right to so blatantly and forcefully enforce religious beliefs on others and the concept of individual human rights?

Mind you she fought brilliantly out of the interviewers "clash of civillisations" question ( I cant see myself thinking that fast on the spot), but like I said most muslims wouldnt be listening by that stage because shes already told them theyre backward.

She clearly has extremely strong views. Its sign of some hope that she was able to express them to (if not in) the Arab world, if only via video link. It makes you wonder how close Arab/Islamic society is to a tipping point in either direction ( i.e. how many people in Saudia Arabia believe women shouldnt have to wear the burka, but are afraid to speak out even though they might be the majority?)

Oh and I also got the impression she was reading it off a script.

True, I was impressed by how well she launched into her speech. Only stumbled once, though perhaps she simply was angry as hell and was simply not thinking about how to couch her views in bland non offensive terms. The jumping straight into the trap of assigning backwardness to Muslims is an indication she was engaging her mouth before her brain. I cant see her doing that if she was reading off a script.

She's very naieve if she honestly believes the West is the great liberator and defender of basic human rights.

Im reminded why I liked Orwells quote so much I used it as my sig. Because theres *some* flaws with Western societies, its no better than any other society. If you want to be *really* cynical, the West *is* the great liberator and defender of human rights. What that says for the rest of the world is depressing.

certainly America doesn't live up to it's own hype, but America isn't the only country in this supposed region that's called "The West" is it?

And its not the only country to hype itself up either. Hence the barely restrained smirk which every US reporter carried when covering the recent riots in France.

OT - That website is hilarious btw. Theres an add for Democratic Dates? I know American society is polarised but political inbreeding is taking it a bit far isnt it?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

OT - That website is hilarious btw. Theres an add for Democratic Dates? I know American society is polarised but political inbreeding is taking it a bit far isnt it?

You mean you have never seen the Republican one?

http://www.republicansingles.com/

Sand

You mean you have never seen the Republican one?

I hope their kids grow up to be hardline Democrats/Republicans as (in)appropriate. It will be the only way theyll be able to rebel.

On topic again, I was curious about this woman and did a little digging. The NYT carries a piece on her (sign up required, 20 seconds spent) and its explains where her anger comes from.

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

Dave!

Fair play to her, she put it well. Of course, she can't exactly visit the Middle East ever again now Well, until there's a Starbucks there! I doubt she'd want to, mind.

Hopefully not the last we'll hear from her, it's nice to hear a voice of reason.

fly_agaric

Shabadu wrote:

...it is my opinion that the poorest and least entiltled members of western society are generally referred to as 'scum' or 'white trash' by a large portion of the percieved 'middle classes', as opposed to some Muslim countries, where people seem to still have a much greater sense of community, brotherhood and family.

I'm sure such attitudes exist in every country to varying degrees. Even in Soviet Russia the people with govt. jobs, party bigwigs etc certainly regarded themselves as a cut above your average "comrade".

As for the brotherhood/family thing - this can be taken a bit too far for people's own good at times (nepotism and corruption). But we know all about that in Ireland.

The Clown Man

an add on that site wrote:

DEMOCRAT DATES!

ActForLove.org - the dating site for Democrats, liberals, and activists.

Because a hot bod is a lot hotter -- when it has a brain and a heart to match...

....


....


....


Frankly, I'm speechless after seeing that...

People are mad. Everywhere. Nuff said.

Karl Hungus

The Clown Man wrote:

People are mad. Everywhere. Nuff said.

Yeah, it's true. You know they've got a dating forum on stromfront? If I wasn't so turned on by the idea of sleeping with a woman dressed in a nazi uniform, I'd be shocked! :eek:

Wibbs

She's brave, I'll give her that and made some very good points. Fair play for AlJazeera putting her on, though I agree with others, that when she got into full flow the religious would probably have switched. You never know though. Stuff like this can have an effect. I agree with Hobbes re the script. I suspect though that she's rehearsed this speech in her head for a very long time. That may explain the scripted feel. The part about Jews not blowing up germans etc was well rehearsed. Mostly true IMHO.

Sand wrote:

If you want to be *really* cynical, the West *is* the great liberator and defender of human rights. What that says for the rest of the world is depressing.

Bang on the money.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yeah, it's true. You know they've got a dating forum on stromfront? If I wasn't so turned on by the idea of sleeping with a woman dressed in a nazi uniform, I'd be shocked!

Class as usual.

rsynnott

Shabadu wrote:

I also completely disagree with the capital punishment employed by some of these countries, but let us not forget all the 'western' countries that torture and employ capital punishment.

Only two developed-world countries execute, and only a few use torture or 'inhuman treatment' (banned in the EU and Israel, more common elsewhere; sleep deprivation and such).

When it comes down to day-to-day survival of families, here in 'the west' 2 people pretty much have to work full time to support a family, a mortgatge and a home. Our basic human right of having and maintaining a family is being gradually eroded.

Just to live, they don't. The issue is with consumerism, rather than anything else.

Wow- I'd love for you to point out to me where I said that America= the West. I said it tried to be the proponent of free speech, which it does, consistently.

Well, when it suits it.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yeah, except for Japan.

Death penalty, increasing slide back to nationalism, treatment of women in practice, treatment of gay people, treatment of immigrants... Hardly the perfect society, really.

Sand wrote:

OT - That website is hilarious btw. Theres an add for Democratic Dates? I know American society is polarised but political inbreeding is taking it a bit far isnt it?

Oh, it gets worse; there are websites for 'which nationalist' (Nazi/KKK) dating and such, too!

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yeah, it's true. You know they've got a dating forum on stromfront? If I wasn't so turned on by the idea of sleeping with a woman dressed in a nazi uniform, I'd be shocked! :eek:

Ah, dating for the braindead. See above.

And, of course, when it comes down to it, the west is the closest the world has to a 'Great liberator', when it feels like it.

Karl Hungus

rsynnott wrote:

Death penalty, increasing slide back to nationalism, treatment of women in practice, treatment of gay people, treatment of immigrants... Hardly the perfect society, really.

Well, when I was there just recently, I thought it was pretty god damn awesome. But seriously, I mentioned Japan merely as a joke.

AngryBadger

Some brilliantly candid points made there. I'd love to see that interview/debate in its entirity, anyone have any linkage perhaps?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hobbes wrote:

I found her aguments for the most part typical of an Athestist (which she more or less says she is). Some of it is true, some of it isn't (mainly the part where she is lumping troubles all solely on the Muslim faith).

What's typical of an Atheist? Pretty brash statement to make without backing it up with something

She's slightly off the mark, you're right there. But why bother with that when you know it's only a small subpoint of hers. What she's really pointing out is that Islam is wrong for thinking there's some sort of real human difference between Muslims & Non-Muslims & it's acceptable to act on this supposed difference.

Just so you know I share the same philosophy of Dr Sultan, it's ridiculous to assume killing non-believers is beneficial to your problems.

There is also the typical blinkered aspect of seeing Muslims as the extremist states,
when it is pretty diverse.

Any chance you could elaborate on the relevence of that point to the rest of your argument?

Oh and I also got the impression she was reading it off a script.

On behalf of every registered boards.ie member I wish to thank you for pointing that out.

Hobbes

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

What's typical of an Atheist?

It is rare that you will find an Atheist who doesn't blame religon for everything that has happened since the dawn of time. Of couse some of that is correct but tends to draw away from other factors of a situation. Not everything revolves around religon.

What she's really pointing out is that Islam is wrong for thinking there's some sort of real human difference between Muslims & Non-Muslims & it's acceptable to act on this supposed difference.

Come again? and how does that differ from any other religon?

Any chance you could elaborate on the relevence of that point to the rest of your argument?

Easy. a lot of people (appears you too) see Islam as "Iran" or "afganistan" or "taliban", etc. All you can see is the extremism. However the majority of Muslims are not extremists, nor do they display or actively encourge the stuff that the *west* take offense at.

There are around 15 or so muslims in the department I work (of about 60 or so people). Of that you would be hard pressed to point out half of that group in a line up, add to that only about 3-4 of them pray daily in work.

There are varying levels of Muslims in much the same way there are varying levels of Catholics in our society. One may claim to be more correct (eg. No condoms, no sex outside marriage, no abortion) doesn't mean that everyone who sees themselves as such shares the same traits.

On behalf of every registered boards.ie member I wish to thank you for pointing that out.

Not sure what you are on about.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hobbes wrote:

It is rare that you will find an Atheist who doesn't blame religon for everything that has happened since the dawn of time. Of couse some of that is correct but tends to draw away from other factors of a situation. Not everything revolves around religon.

Just because religion doesn't cause all the problems in the world, doesn't mean it hasn't caused a lot. And it doesn't have enough redeeming features for a net benefit.

Come again? and how does that differ from any other religon?

I never said religions that don't differ are any better, I've posted condemning Christians before. Other religions being wrong doesn't suggest I can't protest this one. And there's not too many other religions that currently actively support killing non believers in the name of thir ultimate god.

Easy. a lot of people (appears you too) see Islam as "Iran" or "afganistan" or "taliban", etc. All you can see is the extremism. However the majority of Muslims are not extremists, nor do they display or actively encourge the stuff that the *west* take offense at.

I feel I've been the same point throughout this post. Even if I did only see Islam as those countries & extremes(and if you read my posts on the "why is the west afraid of Islam?" you'll see I certainly do not) I have a right to criticise it(the extremists). IF I CRITICISE TERRORISTS IT DOESNT MEAN I'M CRITICISING ISLAM AS A WHOLE, STOP ASSUMING THATS WHAT I'M DOING., why are Muslims so paranoid about this?

There are around 15 or so muslims in the department I work (of about 60 or so people). Of that you would be hard pressed to point out half of that group in a line up, add to that only about 3-4 of them pray daily in work.

No reasonable human being would have a problem if all 15 did it. What's your point?

There are varying levels of Muslims in much the same way there are varying levels of Catholics in our society. One may claim to be more correct (eg. No condoms, no sex outside marriage, no abortion) doesn't mean that everyone who sees themselves as such shares the same traits

Again some elaboration on the relevence

Not sure what you are on about.

I was sarcastically pointing out that its completely obvious to everyone she's reading a script & she's not implying she's doing anything other.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

It is rare that you will find an Atheist who doesn't blame religon for everything that has happened since the dawn of time. Of couse some of that is correct but tends to draw away from other factors of a situation. Not everything revolves around religon.

Agreed. Too many atheists lay all of the worlds woes at the feet of religion, while failing to see any good that may have come from it. In that way some atheists are as zealous as theists.

Come again? and how does that differ from any other religon?

There are differences. No other religion, even in extremis, instructs believers to subdue, enslave or kill non believers. Hell, non enlightenment, etc. yes. taxing, killing and enslaving, nope. No other religion divides the world into the non believers and believers with such practical clarity(house of peace, house of war) and calls for the faithful to bring all to the house of peace with force of arms, even as a last resort. No other religion has such clear instruction as to how to deal with non believers in Islamic society and reduce them to lesser citizens of such a nation. It's far more political in intent than other faiths from the outset. While others may have evolved such strategems over time, the original message is less conflict based.

There are varying levels of Muslims in much the same way there are varying levels of Catholics in our society. One may claim to be more correct (eg. No condoms, no sex outside marriage, no abortion) doesn't mean that everyone who sees themselves as such shares the same traits.

Agreed again. Sadly the extremists in this case seem more vocal and the non extremists less so. That seems to be the norm in such things.

Hobbes

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Just because religion doesn't cause all the problems in the world, doesn't mean it hasn't caused a lot. And it doesn't have enough redeeming features for a net benefit.

Just because it has caused a lot doesn't mean that it has a part in everything that goes on. For example Iraq. Currently the troubles going on there have very little to do with religon yet the media is forever trying to portray it as such.

I have a right to criticise it(the extremists). IF I CRITICISE TERRORISTS IT DOESNT MEAN I'M CRITICISING ISLAM AS A WHOLE, STOP ASSUMING THATS WHAT I'M DOING., why are Muslims so paranoid about this?

Because very few people make that distinction or don't point it out and you get crap like "omg why are they allowed a mosque in Ireland! Don't they know they chop off peoples hands" and so on.

Most of the fear is born out of ignorance of the whole.

Incidently the interview she is insulting the muslim religon, your agreeing, ergo you give the impression you are criticising Islam and not the terrorists.

No reasonable human being would have a problem if all 15 did it. What's your point?

My point is that most people (and certainly those so phobic) couldn't point out a Muslim in a crowd and yet I have seen peoples opinions change when they find out someone is a muslim. Its like watching someones expression when they are told the person they are talking to works for the Revenue commisioners.

Again some elaboration on the relevence

Do I need to repeat myself? The point is already made. There are varying levels of Muslims or what people see themselves as muslims. Much the same way as other religons. Yet most people only see the extremists.

I was sarcastically pointing out that its completely obvious to everyone she's reading a script & she's not implying she's doing anything other.

I am sure boards.ie members all thank you for that sarcasm.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

No other religion, even in extremis, instructs believers to subdue, enslave or kill non believers.

I disagree. Quite a few religons do, it is just that civilisation in these areas has progressed beyond the parts of thier doctrine and we happily dance over those bits as if they don't exist.

The issue with some parts of the middle east are still in the middle ages when it comes to human rights.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hobbes wrote:

Just because it has caused a lot doesn't mean that it has a part in everything that goes on. For example Iraq. Currently the troubles going on there have very little to do with religon yet the media is forever trying to portray it as such.

Why are you telling me this? And where did I contest it? Pointing out irrelevent faults in your critics explains why you're so edgy & inconsistant in your answers when you so rarely answer the questions I want you to answer.

Because very few people make that distinction or don't point it out and you get crap like "omg why are they allowed a mosque in Ireland! Don't they know they chop off peoples hands" and so on.

So why take their ignorance out on me? Why you feel the need to confirm the truth when I've done absoloutly nothing to suggest the average Muslim is bad\wrong\evil?

Most of the fear is born out of ignorance of the whole.

Not quite, my fear is born out of Islamic views on pre-marital sex, alcohol, drugs, homosexuality, masturbation, free speech(the kind that isnt governed by the good of the faith)

Incidently the interview she is insulting the muslim religon, your agreeing, ergo you give the impression you are criticising Islam and not the terrorists.

I constantly criticize Islam, it's as misguided as Christianity. I just never associated the average Muslim with terror & your responses implied I did. Why would you get so defensive? How can you expect people to take a faith seriously if it's members are paranoid everyone's out to get them?

My point is that most people (and certainly those so phobic) couldn't point out a Muslim in a crowd and yet I have seen peoples opinions change when they find out someone is a muslim. Its like watching someones expression when they are told the person they are talking to works for the Revenue commisioners.

Ever work with predominantly Catholic\Celtic supporting fellow employees? my experience was in a sports shop. When they find out the new guy's a Protestant they make jokes with each other, initially look for reasons to dislike him, then realise he's just a normal guy & forget about it. The ones who have difficulty are the ones who act is if they're expecting to be treated differently, generally with good intentions too.

Strangley enough happens to gay employees too.

A Muslim worked in the stockroom who got the same treatment but after a few weeks he was one of the most popular people working there. It happens but it's no big deal & lets face it a Christian in Pakistan would be treated the same.

Do I need to repeat myself? The point is already made. There are varying levels of Muslims or what people see themselves as muslims. Much the same way as other religons. Yet most people only see the extremists

I wanted to know why you were bringing it up considering the argument we were actually having.

Please answer directly to the questions that start with 'Why' & 'How'

Hobbes

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Pointing out irrelevent faults in your critics

So you are "the media", you need to stop taking things personally.

when you so rarely answer the questions I want you to answer.

I've said it before, you must of missed it. Despite what you believe I don't live my life to read every post you write (goes for everyone else). If there is something you require an answer from me so quickly for you can use the PM function of boards.

So why take their ignorance out on me?

Again you need to learn to stop taking things personally.

Why would you get so defensive? How can you expect people to take a faith seriously if it's members are paranoid everyone's out to get them?

I am not a Muslim.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hobbes wrote:

So you are "the media", you need to stop taking things personally.

You made it personal when you said things about Athiests & implied I was stereotyping Muslims (As I recall was completely irrelevent to the point we were discussing)

I've said it before, you must of missed it. Despite what you believe I don't live my life to read every post you write (goes for everyone else). If there is something you require an answer from me so quickly for you can use the PM function of boards.

Just wanted confirmation on exactly what it is you're saying. If you want explanation of anything I've posted here I wouldnt see the point in discussing it anywhere else.

Again you need to learn to stop taking things personally.

See above.

Your the type of poster that annoys me on boards. Makes random critisisms about things you assume then when you're proven wrong you start trying to make a whole new point. Kind of defeats the purpose of a discussion board.

Catsmokinpot

she made some very valid points, but it looked like she was beating the whole of islam with the same stick, when infact they are quite different, also she was talking about isreal like they were some kind of saints that shlt dont stink :rolleyes: isreal is trying to exterminate the palestinians just the way hitler was trying to exterminate the jews

45 isrealis died last year 2005

255 palestinians died last year 2005

hmmm i think those numbers do the talking.... its a regime thats trying to get away with genecide

http://www.black-iris.com/?p=262

tj-music.com

Just saw the video. Great - she´s right no ifs and buts, she is right and I hope that my muslim friends see it the same way

Bottle_of_Smoke

Catsmokinpot wrote:

she made some very valid points, but it looked like she was beating the whole of islam with the same stick, when infact they are quite different

Very true, but I have a feeling the translation we're getting isn't perfect, she doesn't seem ignorant enough to talk about Islam way its coming across.

I honestly believe she's just talking about Islam in the countries where people get killed in riots over cartoons & women get stoned as a punishment for being raped. Someone with her education would have met plenty of friendly non extremist Muslims in college. Just doesn't add up

Sand

45 isrealis died last year 2005

255 palestinians died last year 2005

hmmm i think those numbers do the talking.... its a regime thats trying to get away with genecide

Youd better get on the phone and tell Hamas to pull their socks up. Only 45? Damn those Israelis for preventing more suicide bombings.

255 in a year in whats basically a low intensity war zone isnt genocide. Thats barely a bad day in Darfur. And thats even without any analysis of that 255. World of difference between 255 Palestinian terrorists and 255 Palestinian toddlers but feck it, throw em all in together, makes the numbers look better.

she made some very valid points, but it looked like she was beating the whole of islam with the same stick, when infact they are quite different,

People are a little hyper-sensitive over criticism of anything even slightly related Islam. If someone claims that Bush and Co are fundamentalists who hate gay people and are on a religious crusade in the Middle East, people dont tend to come rushing in to warn us that Bush and Christianity are quite different, and we shouldnt tar all Christians with the same brush. Id hope we can get to a similar sort of level with our treatment of Islamic fundamentalism.

The woman in question was born a devout muslim in Lebanon. Her anger against fundamentalism comes from religious whackos murdering her lecturer in front of her class in university. Hence her anger is a little deeper than the typical Irish atheist who tends to believe in God, but just personally dislikes him - see the new civillisation thread in this forum, the amount of stock "Id ban religion" posts is amusing. Id say seeing as she lived in a muslim country and was born to a muslim family shed have got an inkling that most muslims are grand, but that doesnt reduce her anger towards the fundamentalists who oppress others with their violence, using religion as an excuse.

Catsmokinpot

Sand wrote:

People are a little hyper-sensitive over criticism of anything even slightly related Islam. If someone claims that Bush and Co are fundamentalists who hate gay people and are on a religious crusade in the Middle East, people dont tend to come rushing in to warn us that Bush and Christianity are quite different, and we shouldnt tar all Christians with the same brush. Id hope we can get to a similar sort of level with our treatment of Islamic fundamentalism.

The woman in question was born a devout muslim in Lebanon. Her anger against fundamentalism comes from religious whackos murdering her lecturer in front of her class in university. Hence her anger is a little deeper than the typical Irish atheist who tends to believe in God, but just personally dislikes him - see the new civillisation thread in this forum, the amount of stock "Id ban religion" posts is amusing. Id say seeing as she lived in a muslim country and was born to a muslim family shed have got an inkling that most muslims are grand, but that doesnt reduce her anger towards the fundamentalists who oppress others with their violence, using religion as an excuse.

man/woman im not hyper-sensative to anything, i make my own decisions about a situation, my mother was an alcoholic i dont go blaming all people who drink alcohol for things that happened to me, bush and his whacko christian fundamentalist possey piss me off but i dont see that as a picture of the whole of the christian faith. so religious whackos are out there, doesnt mean they are all religious whackos. its like saying all blacks are thieves when we know thats clearly a load of bull, and as i said she was very good and she made some great points, i also feel sorry for what happened to her, but a little too anti-muslim and pro-westy for my liking

Dades

Sand wrote:

Hence her anger is a little deeper than the typical Irish atheist who tends to believe in God, but just personally dislikes him - see the new civillisation thread in this forum, the amount of stock "Id ban religion" posts is amusing.

Your amusement is my bemusement.

Catsmokinpot

Sand wrote:

Youd better get on the phone and tell Hamas to pull their socks up. Only 45? Damn those Israelis for preventing more suicide bombings.

255 in a year in whats basically a low intensity war zone isnt genocide. Thats barely a bad day in Darfur. And thats even without any analysis of that 255. World of difference between 255 Palestinian terrorists and 255 Palestinian toddlers but feck it, throw em all in together, makes the numbers look better.

ok do you know why hamas is fighting for palestinian freedom?
its because israel have created settlements on their land "plantations" if you will, something like what happened in ireland not so long ago, think there were a few people who disagreed with that.

and it isnt very fair to be honest seeing as america is giving israel all this hightech weaponry, and what do palestine have? rocks? some fertiliser bombs. do you blame the poor ****ers for going and blowing themselves up? im sure your sarcastic remarks show how much you feel about people getting killed for no reason, even when isrealis killed an american peace protestor by running over her with a bulldozer, and the man driving the dozer wasnt charged, oh but i suppose she was a terrorist too, what with her exploding banner and all.

oh and you think israel is such a wonderfull country? have a look at this news report from the english independant.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/jeru-fisk-lieshatred.html

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sand wrote:

The woman in question was born a devout muslim in Lebanon. Her anger against fundamentalism comes from religious whackos murdering her lecturer in front of her class in university. Hence her anger is a little deeper than the typical Irish atheist who tends to believe in God, but just personally dislikes him - see the new civillisation thread in this forum, the amount of stock "Id ban religion" posts is amusing

Very very patronising, & the idea that we just dislike God is so laughable.

Banning religion would be silly. And pretty ironic coming from people who criticise
religion, as they're usually against religion because its such draconian force (quite rightly too)

It wouldn't even occur to me to consider banning religion. However I would look into measures for making it 18+

Solely because it's unfair to make people think things are true at a very succeptable age.

Sand

so religious whackos are out there, doesnt mean they are all religious whackos. its like saying all blacks are thieves when we know thats clearly a load of bull, and as i said she was very good and she made some great points, i also feel sorry for what happened to her, but a little too anti-muslim and pro-westy for my liking

Interesting you see Islam and the West as being mutually exclusive...

She attacked fundamentalists, she was clearly angry and I think she slipped into a verbal trap (she accepted the fundamentalist/anti-western defintion of Islam as being in opposition to the west, but then - so did you). She was a Muslim, I think we can safely assume she can differentiate between average Muslims and fundamentalist whackos as easily as we differentiate between average Christians and fundamentalist whackos. Who knows though, maybe someone should send her a letter explaining that not all muslims are fundamentalist as an FYI. Its not well known after all.

and it isnt very fair to be honest seeing as america is giving israel all this hightech weaponry, and what do palestine have? rocks? some fertiliser bombs. do you blame the poor ****ers for going and blowing themselves up? im sure your sarcastic remarks show how much you feel about people getting killed for no reason, even when isrealis killed an american peace protestor by running over her with a bulldozer, and the man driving the dozer wasnt charged, oh but i suppose she was a terrorist too, what with her exploding banner and all.

A) Im well aware of the ins and outs of the Israel-Palestine bore-a-thon. Do you know why Israel is in the West Bank? Its because they were attacked 3 times by all their neighbours who pledged to drive them into the sea and the Israelis won every single time.

The only thing to be thankful for in that cluster **** of a place is that its the Israelis that have the military advantage, as they display *some* restraint. The last time a regime that preached hatred of Jews like Hamas does had access to tanks, bombers, poison gas and death camps tens of millions died.

C) Seeing as youre so understanding on why Palestinians blow up resteraunts full of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters then Im sure youll be equally as understanding of the Israeli response when they bomb some Hamas office or shoot some Palestinian militant as revenge? After all - how can you blame the poor Israelis? Werent they provoked?

Oh and Im fully in support of Palestinian statehood. I just wont cheerlead for suicide bombers blowing up resteraunts. I leave that to the "right on" arts student brigade, standing shoulder to shoulder with Hamas.

Very very patronising, & the idea that we just dislike God is so laughable.

Yeah, yeah. Im sure its a deep mystery of many subtle strands of which we can never claim full knowledge. You know what, I dont believe in God. I dont think its miraculous that life exists on a planet that is suitable for life to exist on. It might be a miracle if we were living on a wholly unsuitable world like Venus, but otherwise nothing worth inventing a God over. Do the people of Venus think some God built Venus for them? Nope - because theyre not around to worry about it so its a moot point.

I also dont believe in Santa. Its nice for kids, and the world would be a duller, less interesting place if kids didnt believe in Santa. Much as Santa is nice for kids, religion and its associated certainties in an uncertain world is nice for some people. If people need religion to establish certainties like "Thou shalt not kill" then Im all for it. Certainly, moral absolutism is less damaging in the long run than moral relativism.

What bores me about the Irish school of atheism for is that its actually a hatred of the Catholic Church and its Irish institutions. It accepts God exists, it just hates him and his Church. Every time I see a declaration of atheism followed up by a bitter attack on the Catholic Church, God, and a demonisation of religion in history I roll my eyes. Its the anti-establishment establishment view.

Thats even before you have the hilarious concept of some civillisation founder laying down the laws of a new society trying to ban religion - Moses and the Ten Commandments? Its not for nothing that its been said if God didnt exist wed have to invent him.

Catsmokinpot

Sand wrote:

Interesting you see Islam and the West as being mutually exclusive...

She attacked fundamentalists, she was clearly angry and I think she slipped into a verbal trap (she accepted the fundamentalist/anti-western defintion of Islam as being in opposition to the west, but then - so did you). She was a Muslim, I think we can safely assume she can differentiate between average Muslims and fundamentalist whackos as easily as we differentiate between average Christians and fundamentalist whackos. Who knows though, maybe someone should send her a letter explaining that not all muslims are fundamentalist as an FYI. Its not well known after all.

im not talking about what she knows im talking about what it sounded like, you ever heard of the verb to insinuate? you know it sounded like she was insinuating something, you know while saddam was in power the employment rate for men and women was nearly 50/50?

Sand wrote:

A) Im well aware of the ins and outs of the Israel-Palestine bore-a-thon. Do you know why Israel is in the West Bank? Its because they were attacked 3 times by all their neighbours who pledged to drive them into the sea and the Israelis won every single time.

The only thing to be thankful for in that cluster **** of a place is that its the Israelis that have the military advantage, as they display *some* restraint. The last time a regime that preached hatred of Jews like Hamas does had access to tanks, bombers, poison gas and death camps tens of millions died.

C) Seeing as youre so understanding on why Palestinians blow up resteraunts full of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters then Im sure youll be equally as understanding of the Israeli response when they bomb some Hamas office or shoot some Palestinian militant as revenge? After all - how can you blame the poor Israelis? Werent they provoked?

Oh and Im fully in support of Palestinian statehood. I just wont cheerlead for suicide bombers blowing up resteraunts. I leave that to the "right on" arts student brigade, standing shoulder to shoulder with Hamas.

A) israel is in the west bank because they started colonising it. even though the palestinians didnt agree with it, they asked them nicely to leave, they didnt, now we have a war. america fund israel, despite how horrible you think hamas is they are fighting for their freedom, despite how great you think israel is they are being a bunch of bullies...

B)ok so your comparing freedom fighters to hitler..... hehehehe you wouldnt have said that about the IRA 100 years ago, after being occupied for how many years? infact arent we celebrating the 1916 rising? by the IRA because they were trying to free themselves.....

C)your nieve to think that israel just attacks hamas headquarters, or "militants" israel are killing innocent people too, theyre just as bad

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7B0A2779-BDE4-4ACA-B455-E2E608A4D9BF.htm
they do this all the time, and because were sitting on the otherside of the fence we dont hear it, just as we dont hear most of what goes on in iraq.

Sand

im not talking about what she knows im talking about what it sounded like, you ever heard of the verb to insinuate? you know it sounded like she was insinuating something, you know while saddam was in power the employment rate for men and women was nearly 50/50?

I thought that she was pretty blatant in her message - that the Middle East needs to embrace "modern" values and reject the the fundamentalist message of retreat to some long ago utopia. Perhaps too blatant as she didnt spare her listeners feelings.

israel is in the west bank because they started colonising it. even though the palestinians didnt agree with it, they asked them nicely to leave,

3 wars is your version of asking nicely?

Either way the West Bank was siezed in 1967 from Jordan (Not Palestine interestingly enough) as a result of Israels victory in the 6 Day War when the Jordanians began shelling (with US artillery btw) Jeruselam on June 5th, bombing other Israeli towns with British supplied aircraft. Israel issued several warnings through the US and the UN to Jordan, Israel accepted a UN ceasefire proposal that Jordan rejected, finally Israel destroyed the Jordanian airforce, and then conquered East Jeruselam and the West Bank between the 6th and the 8th.

The Israelis are in the West Bank because they defeated the Jordanians/Palestinians in a war the Jordanians sought. End of story.

B)ok so your comparing freedom fighters to hitler..... hehehehe you wouldnt have said that about the IRA 100 years ago, after being occupied for how many years? infact arent we celebrating the 1916 rising? by the IRA because they were trying to free themselves.....

Freedom fighters is just a much devalued phrase. Hamas policy is to seek the extinction of Israel and the murder all Jews. If youre comftable with supporting that, fair enough. If you think thats a freedom fighter, Id hate to see your idea of a terrorist. No wait, let me guess, the US :rolleyes: ...As for 1916 etc, youre talking to the wrong person. I completely oppose the glorification of 1916 and its idealogy of violent militants being superiour to elected politicians.

I take it though you accept that if Hamas had military superiority over Israel wed be looking at Belsen Mark 2 being built over the ruins of Tel Aviv?

C)your nieve to think that israel just attacks hamas headquarters, or "militants" israel are killing innocent people too, theyre just as bad

Naive? Youre calling Hamas freedom fighters and singing the praises of suicide bombers who target resteraunts? The Israelis at least make an effort to target militants. Hence why Israeli casualties are of all genders, ages, and social backgrounds (any dead Israeli will do for a Palestinian), whilst Palestinian casualties are overwhelmingly young and male (implying targeting of the young angry men who form the militant membership).

Either way, my point stands. You might say Hamas is "just as good" as Israel, or Israel is "just as bad" as Hamas so Id take it youll be similarly supportive of the Israelis blowing up a Palestinian resteraunt in revenge? After all - they were provoked. You know, to be consistent, to demonstrate your position on the conflict is principled, not simply a result of media brainwashing?

they do this all the time, and because were sitting on the otherside of the fence we dont hear it, just as we dont hear most of what goes on in iraq.

Well, some people have enough trouble with the history of the conflict, let alone trying to keep up with current events...Either way, the narrative of the conflict in Irish reports is "Its terrible about those suicide bombings, but the Israelis deserve it". Which at least is slightly more moderate than your own views.

Catsmokinpot

Sand wrote:

3 wars is your version of asking nicely?

you not think that before the war started they did ask israel to stop doing what they were doing?

Sand wrote:

Freedom fighters is just a much devalued phrase. Hamas policy is to seek the extinction of Israel and the murder all Jews. If youre comftable with supporting that, fair enough. If you think thats a freedom fighter, Id hate to see your idea of a terrorist. No wait, let me guess, the US ...As for 1916 etc, youre talking to the wrong person. I completely oppose the glorification of 1916 and its idealogy of violent militants being superiour to elected politicians.

so your saying if someone comes into your house, and tries to take your belongings and then tries to kill your sister with a gun, and you had a chance to stop the criminal with a gun youd just let her die? then brother? mother? wife?

and what if they were in a tank, and you had nothing, how would you fight back? if you tried to fight them youd certainly die, but you have to do something, so what do you do, arafat and others tried to politically get them out of the westbank and gaza strip, and where did that get them? it got assassination attempts on the lot of em. youd just let them come in and do whatever the fcuk they like? so you have this idea to kill civillians make them see first hand whats happening to palestine, that might deter them. even civillians arent that innocent, they are part of the country thats invading yours.... so what do you do??

you may have this idealistic view of "oh yes people are nice and people listen to reason" but your living in a dream world, id love to say oh yes, if we all stop fighting then they will, when the horrible fact is they wont.

and you may have this view that these civillians are innocent, but they are entering into someone elses land, they are supporting this war, so both sides are just as bad as eachother, doesnt mean the palestinians are terrorists means they are trying to fight back the only way they can,

i love the way the word terrorism is thrown around so easily, war is fcuking terror no matter what side your on.

when america goes in and invades a country lines people up and shoots them dead, thats called freeing a country, when that weak defensless country tries to fight back in the only way theyre able to without being crushed, then thats called terrorism, its the same all over the world, were building a culture that encourages terrorism.

you may like others, think our species has evolved past the need for a good old war or two, but we're still territorial, we still have a pack mentality, and were still a violent species. look at the rise of the BNP in england bunch of whackjobs but still gaining more power in a supposed "modern" and "western" country....

i dont believe in the glorification of war, because there is nothing glorious about it, although i believe in comemorating war, commemorating those who died in a struggle for freedom...

oh yeah and if you think im some IRA head who thinks that war is the only way, im not im english and proud of it, i know war isnt the only way but when your faced with war, what do you do? do you just sit there and let your people be trodden on and their land taken? or do you fight?

Well, some people have enough trouble with the history of the conflict, let alone trying to keep up with current events...Either way, the narrative of the conflict in Irish reports is "Its terrible about those suicide bombings, but the Israelis deserve it". Which at least is slightly more moderate than your own views.

no you assumed you knew what my views were, WAR IS HORRIBLE i didnt say it wasnt, i didnt say what hamas was doing is brilliant, i said that you cant say poor israel because theyre just as bad.

and you might want to look at this

http://www.americanfreepress.net/Mideast/22Genocide%20Convention%20May%20Come%20.htm

have a look at the bulletin on suicide bombings on the sugarcubs.net infact have a look at all of the bulletins

http://thesugarcubes.net/

Sand

Got to say, Id admire your willingness to ignore where youre shown to be wrong and rush into some emotive diversion that usually starts "Oh yeah, well if you think Israels so great, then what-about-....."

you not think that before the war started they did ask israel to stop doing what they were doing?

No I think that they, along with all the other neighbouring Arab nations rejected the UN partition of the British mandate in the 1940s (Israel accepted despite 80% of the territory granted to them being desert) because they thought they could wipe out Israel. They were wrong. Badly wrong.

so your saying if someone comes into your house, and tries to take your belongings and then tries to kill your sister with a gun, and you had a chance to stop the criminal with a gun youd just let her die? then brother? mother? wife?

But thats not what is happening. Suicide bombers are not lurking in their home waiting for the IDF to call to torment them and then detonating killing themselves and their tormentors. They avoid the IDF, leave the West Bank, enter Israel, seek soft civillian targets and murder them indiscriminantly. Thats not self defence, thats terrorism. Plain and simple. If the Palestinians were engaging the IDF and fighting them, Id have absolutely no problem with them. When they decide to murder families out having a meal I will not support that. If you want to, thats your call.

You cant ( with any credibility at least) accept suicide bombings as fine, but be appalled by the Israeli policy of demolishing the homes of suicide bombers families. Both are punishing people other than those who harmed you.

you may have this idealistic view of "oh yes people are nice and people listen to reason" but your living in a dream world, id love to say oh yes, if we all stop fighting then they will, when the horrible fact is they wont.

Actually I support the construction of the Israelis security wall on the grounds that the conflict is nihilistic at this stage. There is no prospect of peaceful resolution so the best that can be hoped for is a stalemate.

Id imagine your plan would be to tell the Israelis to withdraw from the West Bank and magically the Palestinians wouldnt simply start bombarding Israel proper from the vacated positions? Like theyve done in Gaza? Because after all, you fervently believe the Palestinians are only engaged in self defence...

i love the way the word terrorism is thrown around so easily, war is fcuking terror no matter what side your on.

I agree, I hate the way its bandied about and used interchangeably with freedom fighting. Terrorism is a deliberate, premeditated policy of attacking civillians. Palestinian suicide bombings are very definitly terrorism.

oh yeah and if you think im some IRA head who thinks that war is the only way, im not im english and proud of it, i know war isnt the only way but when your faced with war, what do you do? do you just sit there and let your people be trodden on and their land taken? or do you fight?

So youre English. So what? Does that make your argument stupider or smarter? If some Provo goes over and murders your family as revenge for an unhappy childhood in Belfast, will you be saying "Well, lets face it, us Brits had it coming. And its easier to kill my defenceless family than it is to fight a British soldier so I cant argue with their decision to murder them. Id have murdered my family too in their shoes." Would you support Warrington? Was that 12 year old child a valid target for the Provos because they felt wronged in Northern Ireland? No wait, run away from that question. Ignore it, dont answer it. Go on and ask me "what - about...."

Just because someone believes in something so fervently that theyre willing to murder anyone and anybody for it doesnt mean theyre right.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Yeah, yeah. Im sure its a deep mystery of many subtle strands of which we can never claim full knowledge. You know what, I dont believe in God. I dont think its miraculous that life exists on a planet that is suitable for life to exist on. It might be a miracle if we were living on a wholly unsuitable world like Venus, but otherwise nothing worth inventing a God over. Do the people of Venus think some God built Venus for them? Nope - because theyre not around to worry about it so its a moot point.

____________________________________________
What bores me about the Irish school of atheism for is that its actually a hatred of the Catholic Church and its Irish institutions. It accepts God exists, it just hates him and his Church. Every time I see a declaration of atheism followed up by a bitter attack on the Catholic Church, God, and a demonisation of religion in history I roll my eyes. Its the anti-establishment establishment view.

Thats even before you have the hilarious concept of some civillisation founder laying down the laws of a new society trying to ban religion - Moses and the Ten Commandments? Its not for nothing that its been said if God didnt exist wed have to invent him.

Ok well I agree with what you're saying there. It just came across like you were tarring all athiests (including the type it turns out you are) with the same brush.

I know about the science of the universe and your Venus example was a very good way of explaining my views/

Catsmokinpot

Sand wrote:

Got to say, Id admire your willingness to ignore where youre shown to be wrong and rush into some emotive diversion that usually starts "Oh yeah, well if you think Israels so great, then what-about-....."

where was i wrong?
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Mideast/22Genocide%20Convention%20May%20Come%20.htm
the un tried to do israel for genocide where was i wrong? and its still going on
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook02142006.html
but i doubt your even reading any of the links im sending you

Sand wrote:

No I think that they, along with all the other neighbouring Arab nations rejected the UN partition of the British mandate in the 1940s (Israel accepted despite 80% of the territory granted to them being desert) because they thought they could wipe out Israel. They were wrong. Badly wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

firstly israel started colonising palestine, then they call for a "jewish state" in palestine after the UN and britain split jordan up, and thats why they rebelled, now whos trying to wipe who out here? they were provoked into a conflict even though they knew they were out gunned, they lost that war, i would call that a futile struggle to remain in your home in the face of a colonial power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-Day_War

then your ignoring the 6 day war when israel invaded and where the west bank was and gaza strip were taken, the war between israel, egypt and jordan where they anihiliated the egypt jordan defences they killed approx 21,000 people. and lost 698

but they called that a pre-emptive strike so thats ok.... id call it an invasion.

Sand wrote:

But thats not what is happening. Suicide bombers are not lurking in their home waiting for the IDF to call to torment them and then detonating killing themselves and their tormentors. They avoid the IDF, leave the West Bank, enter Israel, seek soft civillian targets and murder them indiscriminantly. Thats not self defence, thats terrorism. Plain and simple. If the Palestinians were engaging the IDF and fighting them, Id have absolutely no problem with them. When they decide to murder families out having a meal I will not support that. If you want to, thats your call.

http://thesugarcubes.net/?p=241
they carry out raids in palestine every day, taking people out of their homes and killing them men women and children not just men

and ofcourse they avoid the IDF, they would be slaughtered, theyve found this in the past when they have tried to fight back, they dont always though, theres also loads of attacks by hamas on military targets, the playing field is just two uneven, i remember seeing a picture of an israeli rifle, vs a palestinian rock. it showed all of the specs of the rifle, how fast the bullets travelled how many could be shot, then it showed a rock, readily available travels at 30 foot per second how many could be thrown in a minute, now ill admitt its not that simple, but in the last wars, israel has anihilated all of their defences,

Sand wrote:

You cant ( with any credibility at least) accept suicide bombings as fine, but be appalled by the Israeli policy of demolishing the homes of suicide bombers families. Both are punishing people other than those who harmed you.

no you cant, but you can look at the situation and say well they cant do anything else, as horrible as it may seem they are trying to sway public opinion by showing them first hand what the palestinian people are going through, and you think and you think palestine isnt going through any of it? how many wars have they been through? most of which were started by israel or provoked by israel.

Sand wrote:

Actually I support the construction of the Israelis security wall on the grounds that the conflict is nihilistic at this stage. There is no prospect of peaceful resolution so the best that can be hoped for is a stalemate.

i would have to agree with that

Sand wrote:

Id imagine your plan would be to tell the Israelis to withdraw from the West Bank and magically the Palestinians wouldnt simply start bombarding Israel proper from the vacated positions? Like theyve done in Gaza? Because after all, you fervently believe the Palestinians are only engaged in self defence...

well all they wanted in the first place was to stay in their homes when the israelis were taking them over, and calling for a "jewish state" ffs your so nieve. ofcourse after years of being trodden on by israel they want revenge (which is completely wrong) but getting out of the places theyve invaded is the right step.

Sand wrote:

I agree, I hate the way its bandied about and used interchangeably with freedom fighting. Terrorism is a deliberate, premeditated policy of attacking civillians. Palestinian suicide bombings are very definitly terrorism.

not all the time they do suicide bomb military targets all the time,

Sand wrote:

So youre English. So what? Does that make your argument stupider or smarter? If some Provo goes over and murders your family as revenge for an unhappy childhood in Belfast, will you be saying "Well, lets face it, us Brits had it coming. And its easier to kill my defenceless family than it is to fight a British soldier so I cant argue with their decision to murder them. Id have murdered my family too in their shoes." Would you support Warrington? Was that 12 year old child a valid target for the Provos because they felt wronged in Northern Ireland? No wait, run away from that question. Ignore it, dont answer it.

i was talking about comemmorating war, and people who died for their freedom, i was referring to the 1916 rising, in my last few posts although i didnt directly say it, im sorry, what i meant by that was (if you did catch that i was talking about the 1916 rising) that i wasnt some RA head who thinks war is the way to go.

i completely agree with you about the north by the way, atrocities were commited on both sides, but thats exactly what im saying about israel atrocities are being commited on both sides you cant say that israelis arent terrorists because they are going in and killing civillians and they have gone in and killed civillians.

Go on and ask me "what - about...."

everytime i say what about im trying to outline to you the bad things israel has done in the past, the things you keep ignoring, and then saying that palestine is full of terrorists, and troublemakers.