Page 4 of 4 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

24 Jan 2010, 8:56 pm

JeremyU wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
JeremyU wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
Sure, Israel has the right to exist. I just don't like them claiming to be the typical "Western" country that has high standards for human rights. Also, they are an expansionist state. Many in Israel may deny it. But there is strong evidence to back up the claim. For instance, the government is building a railway line connecting Jerusalem to the occupied West Bank. If that is not enough evidence to suggest that Israel is hungry for more land (the West Bank in this case) then I don't know what else is enough evidence. Israel withdrew from Gaza but now they decided to make it an open-air prison where people are forced to use smuggling tunnels to get basic neccesities (no, the tunnels are not just for smuggling weapons as the Israeli government may tell you).

So yes, Israel has the right to exist but this right comes with responsibility.



Having worked in Israel and knowing it pretty well Historically, i can tell you that your analysis of Israel being an Expansionist state conflicts with reality..The time period when Israel held its most land was from 1967-76 after the Six Day War when it annexed the Sinai and the West Bank..And from 1982-2000 it held land up to the Litani River in South Lebanon. All those lands have been handed back...the Sinai in exchange for peace treaty. The West Bank is disputed territory...Negotiations are based on U.N resolution 242 and 338..with differing interpretations of exchanges of territory wording in the language. And you forget who the govt. of Gaza is..you act like it was made that way out of a deliberate policy...Gaza is run by Hamas...they aren't a peacenick lets share hands and sing kumbaya group...they are Islamic inspired Fanatical group....and Mubarak has set up the same border policy with Gaza as Israel has done...so if that doesn't tell you something, i don't know what does....

It doesn't matter who the goverment in Gaza is. Cutting off supplies to a population is unethical and fits the definition of terrorism as Israel is pressuring Hamas to bend to its will by threatening the well-being of the population in Gaza. It may not fit Israel's definition of terrorism (random crazy guy attacking in a crowded place, rocket landing in dense urban area, etc) but it is terrorism. You cannot excuse an action based on the condition a country is in. If you can do that then Hamas too would be justified by firing rockets at Israel because of the way its people are being treated and the lack of sovereignty Israel gives them by controling the ports, borders, and airspace. You wouldn't want to suggest that Hamas is taking appropriate action would you? So why would you suggest that Israel is taking appropriate action? I feel bad for the victims of rocket attacks but I also feel bad for the victims in Gaza who are affected by Israel's actions.




Lets go back to 2005...What happened after Hamas won its legislative elections? it murdered its chief rival Fatah group out of Gaza, basically ending the PA having any jurisdiction in Gaza...creating 2 different palestinian arab enclaves..Hamas has been smuggling in Iranian and Hezbollah weaponry for the past half decade, in the process..to say it doesn't matter what kind of gov't is in charge there is ridicoulous..of course it does...Hamas has an open policy of hostility to any compromise or any sit down discussion...They are the ones being punished by the actions they supposedly voted for, ( the people)..remember the Arab world credited Hamas victory there as democracy in action? well the people voted in a govt that believes in firing missiles at soverign states rather than sitting down at the negotiation table.....They act according to a concept called a Hudna...a temporary lull in violence to build up strength...and Israel does control the Air space, and ports. of Gaza because it doesn't want an Iranian vessel coming in with sophisticated weaponry...it is still a war between hamas and Israel....i do too feel bad for the rate of reproduction in a tiny confined place like Gaza...but their is plenty of space in the Sinai for resettlement there, but that wouldn't fit Egyptian political or societal behavior. You seem a bit young and naive to the circumstances and what Hamas represents and who supplies them and the ideology they live by......spend some time in the Middle East and you'll have a better perspective.

Terrorism is terrorism. It doesn't even matter what you just wrote.

If some jew snuck into Gaza and blew himself up in a crowded place, it is terrorism.

If the USA cuts off basics supplies to Iran because it is an "enemy government" it is terrorism.

If NATO forces in Afganistan didn't give a crap about civilian lives and they killed all Taliban fighters wherever they found them, it is terrorism.

How about this, picture yourself living in Gaza and there is a lack of food and Israel destroyed your house in a recent war on the basis of "getting a better view of the battlefield" and now you are forced to sleep in a tent.

Imagine you are a Palestinian farmer and you suddenly lose your job because Israeli police told you that "this land is part of the planned settlement expansion.

Now you know why Palestinian terrorism is so widespread.

But of course, to not contradict myself, Palestinian terrorism is , too, inappropriate because the condition does not justify the action.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Jan 2010, 4:35 am

jc6chan wrote:

If some jew snuck into Gaza and blew himself up in a crowded place, it is terrorism.



Only a schmuck would sneak into Gaza and blow himself up. It is easier to fire rockets and drop bombs on Gaza. Besides which one can do it more than once.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Jan 2010, 4:44 am

ruveyn wrote:
jc6chan wrote:

If some jew snuck into Gaza and blew himself up in a crowded place, it is terrorism.



Only a schmuck would sneak into Gaza and blow himself up. It is easier to fire rockets and drop bombs on Gaza. Besides which one can do it more than once.

ruveyn


Which is why the us arms manufacturers should even handedly supply the Gazans with the proper armaments (as it does with Israel) to save the Arab schmucks and deter the Israeli terrorists.



jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

25 Jan 2010, 10:55 am

ruveyn wrote:
jc6chan wrote:

If some jew snuck into Gaza and blew himself up in a crowded place, it is terrorism.



Only a schmuck would sneak into Gaza and blow himself up. It is easier to fire rockets and drop bombs on Gaza. Besides which one can do it more than once.

ruveyn

Good point. There is no need to send suicide bombers from Israel because the powerful Israeli military has already done the job of killing many.



Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

25 Jan 2010, 11:12 am

JeremyU wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
Sure, Israel has the right to exist. I just don't like them claiming to be the typical "Western" country that has high standards for human rights. Also, they are an expansionist state. Many in Israel may deny it. But there is strong evidence to back up the claim. For instance, the government is building a railway line connecting Jerusalem to the occupied West Bank. If that is not enough evidence to suggest that Israel is hungry for more land (the West Bank in this case) then I don't know what else is enough evidence. Israel withdrew from Gaza but now they decided to make it an open-air prison where people are forced to use smuggling tunnels to get basic neccesities (no, the tunnels are not just for smuggling weapons as the Israeli government may tell you).

So yes, Israel has the right to exist but this right comes with responsibility.



Having worked in Israel and knowing it pretty well Historically, i can tell you that your analysis of Israel being an Expansionist state conflicts with reality..The time period when Israel held its most land was from 1967-76 after the Six Day War when it annexed the Sinai and the West Bank..And from 1982-2000 it held land up to the Litani River in South Lebanon. All those lands have been handed back...the Sinai in exchange for peace treaty. The West Bank is disputed territory...Negotiations are based on U.N resolution 242 and 338..with differing interpretations of exchanges of territory wording in the language. And you forget who the govt. of Gaza is..you act like it was made that way out of a deliberate policy...Gaza is run by Hamas...they aren't a peacenick lets share hands and sing kumbaya group...they are Islamic inspired Fanatical group....and Mubarak has set up the same border policy with Gaza as Israel has done...so if that doesn't tell you something, i don't know what does....


Hamas may not be any more peachy than your next government, but they were democratically elected and almost immediately after Fatah and Israel started plotting a coup. The blockade and last years massacre were about punishing the Palestinian people for voting for Hamas, not to punish Hamas itself. The West Bank is not disputed territory, its occupied territory. There is a yearly UN vote, with everybody except the US, Israel, and few pacific island nations voting for a two state solution with the West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinians. A 2004 World Court ruling ruled the wall was utterly illegal. Just because Israel left the Sinai, and Gaza (though it controls it utterly from without), doesn't mean its still not hellbent on expansion at its own risk. Giving back the Sinai was about making the Egyptian government complicit. It occupies the undisputed territories of the Golan Heights and the West Bank.



JeremyU
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 4

25 Jan 2010, 12:00 pm

Shadwell wrote:
JeremyU wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
Sure, Israel has the right to exist. I just don't like them claiming to be the typical "Western" country that has high standards for human rights. Also, they are an expansionist state. Many in Israel may deny it. But there is strong evidence to back up the claim. For instance, the government is building a railway line connecting Jerusalem to the occupied West Bank. If that is not enough evidence to suggest that Israel is hungry for more land (the West Bank in this case) then I don't know what else is enough evidence. Israel withdrew from Gaza but now they decided to make it an open-air prison where people are forced to use smuggling tunnels to get basic neccesities (no, the tunnels are not just for smuggling weapons as the Israeli government may tell you).

So yes, Israel has the right to exist but this right comes with responsibility.



Having worked in Israel and knowing it pretty well Historically, i can tell you that your analysis of Israel being an Expansionist state conflicts with reality..The time period when Israel held its most land was from 1967-76 after the Six Day War when it annexed the Sinai and the West Bank..And from 1982-2000 it held land up to the Litani River in South Lebanon. All those lands have been handed back...the Sinai in exchange for peace treaty. The West Bank is disputed territory...Negotiations are based on U.N resolution 242 and 338..with differing interpretations of exchanges of territory wording in the language. And you forget who the govt. of Gaza is..you act like it was made that way out of a deliberate policy...Gaza is run by Hamas...they aren't a peacenick lets share hands and sing kumbaya group...they are Islamic inspired Fanatical group....and Mubarak has set up the same border policy with Gaza as Israel has done...so if that doesn't tell you something, i don't know what does....





Hamas may not be any more peachy than your next government, but they were democratically elected and almost immediately after Fatah and Israel started plotting a coup. The blockade and last years massacre were about punishing the Palestinian people for voting for Hamas, not to punish Hamas itself. The West Bank is not disputed territory, its occupied territory. There is a yearly UN vote, with everybody except the US, Israel, and few pacific island nations voting for a two state solution with the West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinians. A 2004 World Court ruling ruled the wall was utterly illegal. Just because Israel left the Sinai, and Gaza (though it controls it utterly from without), doesn't mean its still not hellbent on expansion at its own risk. Giving back the Sinai was about making the Egyptian government complicit. It occupies the undisputed territories of the Golan Heights and the West Bank.



Fatah was not planning a coup...Fatah lost the elections, and than Hamas operatives went into hospitals and cut the hands off of Fatah party members...Hamas is not a rational govt. that believes in negotiations and sitting down for discussions...they are and have always been a militaristic organization whose values are inimical to what the UN claims to represent..and as for the UN being the end all be all of resolutions, I have seen with my own eyes the UN helping Hezbollah build roads in South Lebanon..they are not impartial and the General Assembly is built on the idea of one state one vote rule...their are built in restrictions with that concept by the very fact that the Islamic and Arab bloc and third world vote based on their own politics..not on what is right or wrong....the UN is not impartial and its been known for a long time as being that way...and If Israel was expanding it could have easily just retook Gaza and expelled its inhabitants during the Winter of 2008 bombing..Israel doesn't want Gaza..it removed the Katif bloc at Sharons own political risk. And the reason Sadat made the treaty with Begin was because it realized that costly wars between Egypt/Israel were not in Sadats best interest with a rising Muslim Brotherhood ( which cost Sadat his life)...Israel gave up strategic depth in exchange for normalization of relations...as for the Golan heights...this is disputed territory, and Israel would be foolish to give it ALL away when it has strategic value overlooking the valleys below...it can't go back to a Pre-67 borders in the north where Syrian armor would have the high ground over the Kinneret and the Hula valley....the Alawite regime of Syria is not a partner for peace..even Bashir Assad by his own admission said he wanted to sabotage the 2000 peace talks at Camp David because he wasn't involved in the discussions....he wanted a piece of the action, even at the expense of the so called Palestinian Cause...this is more complicated than you make it out to be...and yes..they are disputed territories, according to UN resolution 242 and 338 they are supposed to be negotiated on.



Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

25 Jan 2010, 6:45 pm

JeremyU wrote:
Shadwell wrote:
JeremyU wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
Sure, Israel has the right to exist. I just don't like them claiming to be the typical "Western" country that has high standards for human rights. Also, they are an expansionist state. Many in Israel may deny it. But there is strong evidence to back up the claim. For instance, the government is building a railway line connecting Jerusalem to the occupied West Bank. If that is not enough evidence to suggest that Israel is hungry for more land (the West Bank in this case) then I don't know what else is enough evidence. Israel withdrew from Gaza but now they decided to make it an open-air prison where people are forced to use smuggling tunnels to get basic neccesities (no, the tunnels are not just for smuggling weapons as the Israeli government may tell you).

So yes, Israel has the right to exist but this right comes with responsibility.



Having worked in Israel and knowing it pretty well Historically, i can tell you that your analysis of Israel being an Expansionist state conflicts with reality..The time period when Israel held its most land was from 1967-76 after the Six Day War when it annexed the Sinai and the West Bank..And from 1982-2000 it held land up to the Litani River in South Lebanon. All those lands have been handed back...the Sinai in exchange for peace treaty. The West Bank is disputed territory...Negotiations are based on U.N resolution 242 and 338..with differing interpretations of exchanges of territory wording in the language. And you forget who the govt. of Gaza is..you act like it was made that way out of a deliberate policy...Gaza is run by Hamas...they aren't a peacenick lets share hands and sing kumbaya group...they are Islamic inspired Fanatical group....and Mubarak has set up the same border policy with Gaza as Israel has done...so if that doesn't tell you something, i don't know what does....





Hamas may not be any more peachy than your next government, but they were democratically elected and almost immediately after Fatah and Israel started plotting a coup. The blockade and last years massacre were about punishing the Palestinian people for voting for Hamas, not to punish Hamas itself. The West Bank is not disputed territory, its occupied territory. There is a yearly UN vote, with everybody except the US, Israel, and few pacific island nations voting for a two state solution with the West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinians. A 2004 World Court ruling ruled the wall was utterly illegal. Just because Israel left the Sinai, and Gaza (though it controls it utterly from without), doesn't mean its still not hellbent on expansion at its own risk. Giving back the Sinai was about making the Egyptian government complicit. It occupies the undisputed territories of the Golan Heights and the West Bank.



Fatah was not planning a coup...Fatah lost the elections, and than Hamas operatives went into hospitals and cut the hands off of Fatah party members...Hamas is not a rational govt. that believes in negotiations and sitting down for discussions...they are and have always been a militaristic organization whose values are inimical to what the UN claims to represent..and as for the UN being the end all be all of resolutions, I have seen with my own eyes the UN helping Hezbollah build roads in South Lebanon..they are not impartial and the General Assembly is built on the idea of one state one vote rule...their are built in restrictions with that concept by the very fact that the Islamic and Arab bloc and third world vote based on their own politics..not on what is right or wrong....the UN is not impartial and its been known for a long time as being that way...and If Israel was expanding it could have easily just retook Gaza and expelled its inhabitants during the Winter of 2008 bombing..Israel doesn't want Gaza..it removed the Katif bloc at Sharons own political risk. And the reason Sadat made the treaty with Begin was because it realized that costly wars between Egypt/Israel were not in Sadats best interest with a rising Muslim Brotherhood ( which cost Sadat his life)...Israel gave up strategic depth in exchange for normalization of relations...as for the Golan heights...this is disputed territory, and Israel would be foolish to give it ALL away when it has strategic value overlooking the valleys below...it can't go back to a Pre-67 borders in the north where Syrian armor would have the high ground over the Kinneret and the Hula valley....the Alawite regime of Syria is not a partner for peace..even Bashir Assad by his own admission said he wanted to sabotage the 2000 peace talks at Camp David because he wasn't involved in the discussions....he wanted a piece of the action, even at the expense of the so called Palestinian Cause...this is more complicated than you make it out to be...and yes..they are disputed territories, according to UN resolution 242 and 338 they are supposed to be negotiated on.


You make believe that Israel is a pillar of rational democracy and justice in the midst of countless savages bent on its destruction, instead of a self congratulatory racist state, stealer of land, water, and lives, supporter of right wing dictatorships, that is weighed down by paranoia and hate, but by1984 standards your right. I’m not saying all Israeli’s are like this, there are many who are critical of their government and the debate in Israel over these issues is broader than the debate allowed in public media in the states. Your outlook is as naïve as a starlet in 1970’s porn, (not my joke, wish it was).

I don’t love Hamas or Fatah, I am a fan of the Palestinian people, and I know both Hamas and Fatah commit nasty repression towards each other, not like Israel hasn’t done its fair share. Hamas observed the ceasefire whereas Israel broke it with the blockade and broke it again by an attack around the 2008 elections, and then used disproportionate force against innocent civilians, massacring them.

The cultures you hate are as old as Judaism and if Shlomo Sands is correct then it’s the Palestinians who are the original Jews while current Jews are later converts. If Israel doesn’t want Gaza, then why can’t it stop controlling its borders and lift the embargo, and we all know it can’t keep its grubby hands of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. You talk of peace, peace is funny thing with Israel and my own country, it seems to always amount to war and occupation. International law, the UN and the world court deem Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights occupied territory, Israel is pushing expansion over safety. Screw impartiality, you can’t be neutral on a moving train.



Last edited by Shadwell on 25 Jan 2010, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

25 Jan 2010, 6:51 pm

And before Zionism, Judaim and Islam coexisted better than Judaism and Christianity.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

26 Jan 2010, 9:25 am

Outside the terror box topic

It is too easy to get pawned, and the Palestinians have been dupes for too long.

For now Palestine should throw out Hamas, Fatah and any settlers setting up tents. Ask for help with infrastructure, Rebuild what is there.. Look for solutions within their historical roots. What worked before all the politically corrupt politicians got involved?
You cannot build peace and prosperity via homicide bombers, terror and the like. Get rid of it. Ask for economic aid to rebuild a better place. And then get ready for.nationhood without war or terror.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Khan_Sama
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 882
Location: New Human Empire

26 Jan 2010, 1:01 pm

Shadwell wrote:
And before Zionism, Judaim and Islam coexisted better than Judaism and Christianity.


That is very much incorrect. While Islamic monarchies did indeed tolerate Jews (as commanded by the Qur'an), the populace did not. Many governments (such as in Yemen and Persia) prohibited Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians from wearing the same clothes as Muslims, and from riding donkeys or horses when Muslims were in foot. Also, Muslims had the right to attack these minorities, and they weren't allowed to defend themselves. They were, however, allowed to appeal to a merciful Muslim passerby for help. This persecution was more common in Shi'a communities than the more tolerant Sunni areas, by observation, although some minor pogroms did occur (such as when a prominent individual was assassinated and rumors pointed towards the Jews) in Sunni areas as well.

Islam itself does not encourage persecution of minorities (apart from taxation), but the clergy and the populace always managed to create their own loopholes. After all, Jews have always been popular scapegoats.

My mother's side of the family are highly anti-semitic Wahaabi Muslims. Their hatred towards Jews is very disgusting.

I can't blame them though - their neighbours in Kuwait were Palestinian refugees. However, this very same Kuwait kicked out all Palestinian refugees in 1991, and they have no hatred towards Kuwaitis. Hmm....



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

26 Jan 2010, 9:50 pm

Meh, Wahabism...

Do they still teach that? I reckon that Saudi Arabia might reconsider since it fuels the Taliban's ranks and might twist their minds into wanting to overthrow the Saudis, which they (technicly) would want to avoid. I also reckon hearing that Saudi Arabia now contributes to reeducating youths that were taken in by the Talibans while they still can. The more hardened individuals are sent to jail (ofc).



Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

26 Jan 2010, 10:41 pm

Khan_Sama wrote:
Shadwell wrote:
And before Zionism, Judaim and Islam coexisted better than Judaism and Christianity.


That is very much incorrect. While Islamic monarchies did indeed tolerate Jews (as commanded by the Qur'an), the populace did not. Many governments (such as in Yemen and Persia) prohibited Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians from wearing the same clothes as Muslims, and from riding donkeys or horses when Muslims were in foot. Also, Muslims had the right to attack these minorities, and they weren't allowed to defend themselves. They were, however, allowed to appeal to a merciful Muslim passerby for help. This persecution was more common in Shi'a communities than the more tolerant Sunni areas, by observation, although some minor pogroms did occur (such as when a prominent individual was assassinated and rumors pointed towards the Jews) in Sunni areas as well.

Islam itself does not encourage persecution of minorities (apart from taxation), but the clergy and the populace always managed to create their own loopholes. After all, Jews have always been popular scapegoats.

My mother's side of the family are highly anti-semitic Wahaabi Muslims. Their hatred towards Jews is very disgusting.

I can't blame them though - their neighbours in Kuwait were Palestinian refugees. However, this very same Kuwait kicked out all Palestinian refugees in 1991, and they have no hatred towards Kuwaitis. Hmm....


My sources were Jimmy Carter (Peace Not Palestine) and Edward Said. Antisemitism isn't limited to Jews, but also includes Arabs and whoever else fits within the Semitic languages I believe.



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

26 Jan 2010, 11:01 pm

*hides zionist back in closet*

>.>


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


Khan_Sama
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 882
Location: New Human Empire

27 Jan 2010, 12:59 am

phil777 wrote:
Meh, Wahabism...

Do they still teach that? I reckon that Saudi Arabia might reconsider since it fuels the Taliban's ranks and might twist their minds into wanting to overthrow the Saudis, which they (technicly) would want to avoid. I also reckon hearing that Saudi Arabia now contributes to reeducating youths that were taken in by the Talibans while they still can. The more hardened individuals are sent to jail (ofc).


My great great grandfather (mother's side of the family) was originally a Shi'a from the south of Iraq. He became a wahaabi and travelled to India to spread the teachings of Abdul Wahaab. He settled down in the city of Mangalore, and all the Muslims of that city are wahaabis. Wahaabism is not limited to Saudi Arabia, it exists in virtually every Islamic nation, regardless of how small the community may be. Wahaabis don't consider themselves as sectarians, rather, reformists. While Saudi Arabia may no longer support the ultra-hardline views of Wahaabism, they still are Wahaabis and officially implement that agenda. Westerners usually associate wahaabism with terrorism, but wahaabism is essentially a much broader topic than that, one which I cannot explain in a few lines.

Quote:
My sources were Jimmy Carter (Peace Not Palestine) and Edward Said. Antisemitism isn't limited to Jews, but also includes Arabs and whoever else fits within the Semitic languages I believe.


Generally, society at large associates antisemitism with Jews, and Islamophobia with Muslims.

But yes, the view that Jews were not persecuted in Islamic lands is a blatant distortation of fact. They were tolarated, with limited rights. In a modern sense, that implies persecution.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

27 Jan 2010, 2:59 am

Meh, i know that it's a rather hard and austere approach of islam (wahabism) but it doesn't include jihad as one of its pillars, unlike the talibans's. And yeah, it was rather spread out because Saudi Arabia at one time financed the studies of youths in exchange for teaching them the "doctrine"and spreading the word. It might exist in other islamic countries but its applications are most visible as one draws closer to Saudi Arabia. =/ I also knew there were muslims around India (Pakistan and Bangladesh, mostly) but i didn't know there were still some actually inside the country per se. :o



senquin
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 18 Mar 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 52

20 Mar 2016, 8:15 pm

I'm one of those people. I believe that all of Israel is Jewish and that this idea of a "Palestinian" people is an excuse to try to destroy Israel. I believe that G-d gave Israel to the Jewish people and this attempt to undermine the Jewish connection to Israel is merely a pathetic attempt to undermine G-d's will and sovereignty in this world.