You don’t have to convince me what is the best. It’s the West and Christianity. I was just refuting his argument because people use it often.
How do you deal with Islam?
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
True, the main part of this conflict is a land conflict by political, ethnic groups. It is a long thread at this point, but I don't think I ever said religion was the core of the conflict. I have compared the IP conflict to the Native Americans and US and defined Israel's actions as a conquest. Religion is part of the ethnicities and area, which is tricky: Arabs are Muslim, Jews are a race and religion, the land the very much part of the 3 main religions, Zionism, etc.
Do you think both parties are capable of finally hammering out a settlement, or is the violence just going to continue forever?
Only for people trying to play a "who's more evil" game. What Israel did in 1948 is relevant because that Israel still exists, and the population they did it to (and who did things back to them) still exist. They are players in this little drama yet today. What Muhammad's followers did in the region is largely irrelevant because none of those people or polities are around any longer.
When does it stop mattering? You’re getting ridiculous.
I'm getting ridiculous? I'm not the one passing value judgments on entire religions. All I'm doing is pointing out where some people get history wrong.
Dude, like or hate what you say, you say it well. Mad props.
I was thinking of this compared to India. Muslims and Hindus lived side-by-side for nearly a thousand years with no real problems. Before that, there had been some. But the day the Brits drew maps putting all Hindi in one area and all Muslims in another, all Hades broke out. Nearly 2 million were killed trying to migrate to their new country. For some reason, they could live next door. But the very idea the neighbor was moving to India/Pakistan, killing them was the only logical choice.
Couldn't agree more and I think we both agree, that it's far too easy to use for that purpose.
Who's to blame, what's at the core? That's a long and complicated list that goes way beyond religion. Western lawyers, guns, and money. British mapmakers. Western oil. Western politics. Opec, Soviets. Terrorists. Isreali policy. Human beings suck.
Why do you refuse to accept what the Quran outlines & the teachings of Islam promote & glorify?
And unfortunately a NATO "ally".
If Russia wanted Turkey I wouldn't be willing to lift one finger to stop them at this point. Just expand Greece to cover the Bosphorus and call it a day.
I'm sure that would go over just fine with the 13 million Turks who live in Thrace.
The Turks in Thrace are colonizers. Settlers. I believe "**** em" is the prevailing sentiment of the day about those types of people, no? That is somewhat tongue in cheek.
My main point being we are buying a whole lot of undesirable crap from Turkey when our main interest is that shipping lane. If push comes to shove I am willing to write them off if there are other ways to keep the Bosphorus...and there are.
Only somewhat tongue in cheek? I hope it's entirely so, and just a bad joke.
Turkey is a bad friend. I'd love to get rid of them. But maybe we deal in realistic scenarios?
Somewhat of a joke and somewhat not. Listen, we have an agreement that we will run to the defense of the country where hanging those signs is not only considered a-okay, it is celebrated. That is literally Nazi shit. You would love to get rid of them? Well, why are they our "friends"? Because of their control of that strategic waterway. Should push come to shove and someone attack them, the ONLY thing I care about defending is that waterway. And should that hypothetically lead to the dissolution of Turkey and those 13 million people find themselves under the governance of a Greece or Bulgaria, why should I care about that any more than they care about the Kurds they currently occupy not having self determination?
And this is all a what if game at this point. So far Erdogan has just barely managed to toe the line where we still consider them allies but he has dipped his toe across that line on several occasions. As is the case in most of the Middle East, when the true Islamists get in control, things go to shit. Case in point, Turkey.
Nice post. Don’t really disagree with much. But you miss the most salient point. Islam is not just a religion. It’s also a system for civil order and a system. for political and judicial power. Islam is an intensely vertical organization resting on its dogma. (Like North Korea). That system breeds intolerance which in turn leads to violence, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Israel is not like that. Christianity was arguably that way centuries ago. But I’d suggest that was more about Rome and Roman Catholicism than Christianity.
So long as Islam keeps its strong vertical standards of society, and the accompanying intolerance, there can never be Middle East peace. 2 States can’t work in that close environment.
So you are saying that Jews can live peacefully, securely and equitably in Muslim-majority countries today?
It is religion. We shouldn't kid ourselves that the middle east dyanmics are fundamentally a religious dispute as it exists NOW. Several clients of mine who are engineers and lebanese. Older gentlemen that come over from Lebanon after the war in 1977. One is Christian, one is Muslim. Both tell the same story of growing up in school having Jews, Chrisitans and Muslims in the same classes and it never bothered any of them. What changed?
Islam changed because we had goofy dopes issuing fatwa after fatwa and raising the stakes of Islamic fundamenetalism; Palestine dispute is a part cause; meddling outsiders like the invasion in Afghanistan didn't help; The U.S. successful efforts to reinstall the Shaw of Iran into power brought to power the Ayatollahs, where it is now a complete theocracy, which we know from history has been nothing more than a lightening rod for attrocities. Sunni/Shia disputes don't help either.
If you read the Qur'an, and I have, your first take is "well this is just a pastiche of Judiasm and Christianty." And you'd be right. Jesus is mentioned 30 plus times, and Mary is mentioned some 70 plus times, including the acceptance of the virgin birth. The Qur'an repeatedly acknowledges the old testatment stories in general, but describes the message now as being one that is corrupted. The problem now begins with the interpretation of the passages, which can be shaped various ways--not unlike Christian new testament passages. What makes Islam fundamentally different is that it makes the claim that is the final revelation and the only true law. That also makes it dangerous. Making it more dangerous is that it was written 100 years after Mohammed, an illiterate merchant, was to have received his revelation. Christianity suffers from the same issue. Mark was written somewhere around 70 AD (roughly 40 years after Jesus died); Matthew was written somewhere around 80 AD; Luke somewhere around 90 AD and John likely around 100 AD. The closest in time are 7 of Paul's letters, written sometime around 50 AD, but Paul didn't know Jesus and never references what Jesus said while he was alive. Interpretation of the New Testament has always been problematic.
The background is important, because it shapes the dynamics of today's world EVERYWHERE. Christianity has 2.4 bil followers (appx); and Islam has somewhere around 2.1 or 2.2 bil. That accounts for just over half of the world's population, and as usual, the funadmenetalists have the loudest and most impactful voices.
This background plays a signficant role the middle east. It played a role in the capture of United States sailors by the Barbary pirates out of Tripoli in the 1780s (referring to any non-muslim as "infidels"). It played a role in the Crusades and on and on.
Then there is the poverbial map redrawing that the major powers also engage. Post WW1 was a disaster; Post WW2 was a disaster--just leading to further conflicts. No different here. Both sides (Palestinians and Jews) can be simultaneously right, and both can be simulataneously wrong. Hamas actions were chickenspit. I have no troubles about Israel defending itself and being proactive in its defense. I don't want to hear the words "genocide" uttered from 35 year old women who haven't read a lick of history and somehow end up in congress. I also don't want to hear the old white guys babble on about
For me, I'm tired of the killing. Tired of watching young kids killed. Tired of the death and destruction and endless cycle of Ragnarock in middle east. There was a chance under Clinton to cut a deal--until there wasn't. Both Palestine and Israel deserve their own state.
I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, sine this is a place of discourse, hopefully all thoughts are welcome
I feel the same way. The violence has solved nothing. Neither side is any closer to a total victory, and the leaders on both sides would rather kill civilians than work out the final details of peace. The closest Arab nations that originally went to war with Israel haven't fought them for almost 50 years.
I think any money given to either side, including the 4 billion the US gives Israel each year, needs to be conditioned on weekly settlement efforts. You didn't work it out this week? See you next week infinity until there is a settlement.
Saying one religion is better than another is kind of like saying one outhouse smells better than another or contains less crap. There is a reason the 1A exists: religion would ruin democracy if it could.
Let’s talk indigenous peoples then Jimbo. If that is your criteria for rightful ownership of land.
Let’s pull the thread back on the land today known as Israel/Gaza/ Judea & Samaria as far back as we can and figure out who the original occupiers and rightful heirs to the land are.
I’ll give you a hint. The land is called JUDEA and Sumira. The Jews were living there 2500 years before Muhammad started his shitty death cult.
It seems to me the only just solution would be the Palestinians offering some sort of compensation to the Israelis for their takeover and occupation of the land today known as the West Bank.
Last edited:
That would be a mischaracterization of my position. I have been pretty clear about conquest. Israel won a war and isn't going anywhere, similar to any other nation that has engaged in conquest, including the US. However, compensation is necessary for the indigenous group and final settlement. This is what the US did for the Native Americans and Israel needs to do for the Palestinians.
If you want to be anti-Islam and roll around in the muck of religious conflict, then I am sorry to see that. Time to evolve, my friend. You are part of the problem.
I agree. Palestinians in the West Bank need to compensate Israel for the land they now occupy.
Human history is long Jimbo. This history of conquest is long as well. You want to draw an arbitrary line at 1949 and I'm not sure why.
The Jews were there first. That is a matter of historical fact. By your logic, they are completely within their right to expel every single Palestinian colonizer from the region, or they should expect some sort of compensation from Gazans and Palestinians in the West Bank.
It's your shitty logic. You need to own how shitty it is.
Not according to the Jews themselves, it isn't. Even their own mythology says they stole the land from someone else.
The number killed is being provided by Hamas. Why would you believe it without question? The number is almost certainly much lower and it includes Hamas terrorists who Israel is targeting.
You don’t understand a simple concept. Deliberately targeting civilians is a crime. Hamas terrorists committed heinous unforgivable crime. If a military deliberately targets and kills civilians it’s a war crime. When a military is targeting Hamas terrorists who are choosing to be near innocent civilians (sometimes not so innocent) and some of the citizens are killed in the process it’s very unfortunate and tragic, but it’s not a war crime.
Every non-Hamas citizen killed during Israel’s retaliation is in actuality Hamas’ fault. Israel wouldn’t be attacking Hamas if it weren’t for Hamas’ terrorists attacks and kidnapping on the 7th.
Well Goat, when the Canaanites return, the Israelites will have to offer them just compensation or vacate the land. As is the rule when history is boiled down to colonizer/ colonized, conquerer/ conquered & oppressor/ oppressed.
If you think that mindset is extremely stupid. I would agree with you. But it also animates modern day progressivism, so I would ask you get your own house in order please.
Do you hear yourself? How do two wrongs make a right? It is ok for one side to kill civilians, but not ok for the other? Israel always ends up killing more Palestinians in the violence cycle. How about both sides just stop killing innocent people? The mental gymnastics people will go through to justify killing women and children: Jesus Christ. 10 commandments, anybody: thou shall not kil?
When you round people up into a pen, restrict their movements, and toss a grenade in the pen, you are going to kill people. As Donnie Baker says, you don't need Einstein to do that math.
Last edited:
If that's the logic, then the Jews can't really justify demanding anything from the Palestinians; they need to address the Romans.
And I agree, the entire exercise is stupid. I hoped my response to you made it clear how stupid I find it.
At least the Palestinians are complaining about the actual group of people who (allegedly) wronged them, instead of pointing to something that happened millennia ago.
This is intended to be and hopefully will be the end of the cycle. That's what you don't seem to be grasping. The diplomatic fallout once Hamas, is degraded to the point that they can no longer threaten Israel is not clear at the moment. What to do with the remaining Gazan's, is also unclear.
But one thing is for certain. Israel will have a large say in the security situation that comes out of this conflict, and it wont be one that allows them to threatened from Gaza ever agin. So I would stop the bitch, moaning and complaining. A lot of Gazans are about to die. And that is the price of war.
Maybe one day society will advance to the point where war is no longer necessary. But it's not today. You are not more civilized or empathetic because you choose to ignore reality.
How many times have you been banned today? The Crusades aren't over if you "believe" they aren't: go on over to Israel and do some killing in the name of, psycho. Once again: time to evolve, for you are the problem. What you are talking about is Genocide: Israel will be no different from the Nazis at that point.
I'll bet the violence "this time" ends the conflict. It's been going on for 80 years, but I'll bet the violence will end it this time.
By "group of people," I mean "the modern Jewish state." Or "Israel." Or however you like. The point is, the Palestinians are mad at their present "enemy." Trying to draw historical analogies to defend the Jews doesn't really work, because those "enemies" aren't really present.
Religious zealotry is like a Hydra. Chop one head off, and another grows. There will always be a “Hamas” because there will always be the desire to seek out infidels and apostates. There will always be a perceived wrong to right. The mujahideen of Afghanistan become Al Qaeda, which in turn spawned ISIS; the Muslim Brotherhood is now something else, and on and on. So, this not the end game—just simply a never ending loop until two societies figure it out. These events will spawn more mujahideen (and I’m not critical of Israel, but rather the simple concept that this is what always happens).
