Islamist group's plan to kill 6 Jews of Europe

[SonOfSlobone]

The sad thing is that historically, Moslems weren't that anti-Semitic, certainly not compared to Christians. The Ottoman Empire was much more religiously tolerant than Europe.

But the Nazis made a point of spreading their foul propaganda to the Middle East, where it found a receptive audience among Palestinian Muslims who were alarmed by the growth of Zionism. They swallowed whole the Protocol of the Elders of Zion and all the rest of the bogus crap.

 

[naked gent]

The sad thing is that historically, Moslems weren't that anti-Semitic, certainly not compared to Christians. The Ottoman Empire was much more religiously tolerant than Europe.

But the Nazis made a point of spreading their foul propaganda to the Middle East, where it found a receptive audience among Palestinian Muslims who were alarmed by the growth of Zionism. They swallowed whole the Protocol of the Elders of Zion and all the rest of the bogus crap.

You're absolutely right on your first point but not so much on the second.

Even without the Nazis influence in Jerusalem the arabs there would never have acquiesced to someone else setting up a state in what they view as their land, nor do I think you could find any other group on this planet who would welcome others taking control of their land.

Israel is by far the most economically developed and economically diversified country in the Middle East allowing their citizens a higher standard of living that any of their neighbors yet that doesn't matter to the arabs around them.

Its a funny thing about humans but most of us would rather be poor yet proud than be subjugated to the rule of others no matter the benefits of that rule.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

You're absolutely right on your first point but not so much on the second.

Even without the Nazis influence in Jerusalem the arabs there would never have acquiesced to someone else setting up a state in what they view as their land, nor do I think you could find any other group on this planet who would welcome others taking control of their land.

Israel is by far the most economically developed and economically diversified country in the Middle East allowing their citizens a higher standard of living that any of their neighbors yet that doesn't matter to the arabs around them.

Its a funny thing about humans but most of us would rather be poor yet proud than be subjugated to the rule of others no matter the benefits of that rule.

Yes, but it's perfectly possible to oppose a Jewish state in Palestine without being anti-Semitic. I'm sure there are many Moslems who are not anti-Semitic, but there are also an awful who are, or who make anti-Semitic statements, including the current president of Iran.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're absolutely right on your first point but not so much on the second.

Even without the Nazis influence in Jerusalem the arabs there would never have acquiesced to someone else setting up a state in what they view as their land, nor do I think you could find any other group on this planet who would welcome others taking control of their land.

Israel is by far the most economically developed and economically diversified country in the Middle East allowing their citizens a higher standard of living that any of their neighbors yet that doesn't matter to the arabs around them.

Its a funny thing about humans but most of us would rather be poor yet proud than be subjugated to the rule of others no matter the benefits of that rule.

In a sensible world, the British would have worked to set up something solid to take their place. IKO, they botched the job, letting Arabs arm themselves, but not the Jews, letting things just drift instead of sitting the two sides down and working out something workable.

Without the Nazi influence, I think that would have worked. With it, a desire to slaughter Jews was in place that had little to do with whose land was whose. Without the Nazi influence, if the British had been on the job, the Israeli underground militias would never have gone into business as terrorists.

 

[SoulSearcher]

SoulSearcher how do you explain this about the UN school incident? Is Hamas responsible in any way for this or is still all IDF fault?


This is the reason why a lot of Palestinian civilians are victims of these conflicts. Hamas uses their own people as HUMAN SHIELDS firing weapons with civilians next to them.


Somewhat graphic footage of Hamas murdering Palestinians for playing music at a local Gaza wedding. See for your selves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1M4eH9Kk7I&eurl=&feature=player_embedded
(Anyone remember Taliban killing fellow Muslims for playing music at weddings?)

This is the face of Hamas and the challenge for Israel to minimize civilian deaths.

Since independent media is not allowed in, I'm not so inclined to believe what somebody said somebody said about something they saw. Israel no longer believes this report, they even called a press conference to brief officials on how to deal with this crisis. Hamas doesn't need to use anybody as human shields, Gaza is one of the world's most densely populated areas in the world, Israel knows exactly what it entails to drops tonnes of bombs there.

The Red Cross was not allowed to go help civilians who were buried in rubble for days: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iB5B5lQ3CHzo02y4GPqOq9QSPgtQD95J5E3G0

Today, a UN truck with clear flag and insignia was shot at, the driver died. The UN, which was the only reason the Palestinians didn't starve to death despite the 2 year embargo and blockade, is ending their work in the Gaza because of the danger from IDF: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59250.html


Again, I know what Hamas is and what they do. I want to know more about what we are gonna do about the occupation and the illegal settlements, what we will end the apartheid so that we can rescue Judaism.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Without the Nazi influence, I think that would have worked. With it, a desire to slaughter Jews was in place that had little to do with whose land was whose. Without the Nazi influence, if the British had been on the job, the Israeli underground militias would never have gone into business as terrorists.[/quote]

Its nice to see you justifying terrorism for once.

 

[Kulindahr]

F22, thanks for those vids. I'd heard that Hamas rounded up civilians and made them stand there as human shields, but I never quite believed it.

There people are not "freedom fighters". They are not a legitimate government. They are a terrorist organization, barbarians on a level that would have made Attila the Hun disgusted. They have no place in modern civilization, and should be fought only in one fashion: eliminate with extreme prejudice.

 

[Kulindahr]

Without the Nazi influence, I think that would have worked. With it, a desire to slaughter Jews was in place that had little to do with whose land was whose. Without the Nazi influence, if the British had been on the job, the Israeli underground militias would never have gone into business as terrorists.[/quote]

Its nice to see you justifying terrorism for once.

"Justifying"?
I don't follow.

 

[SoulSearcher]

F22, thanks for those vids. I'd heard that Hamas rounded up civilians and made them stand there as human shields, but I never quite believed it.

There people are not "freedom fighters". They are not a legitimate government. They are a terrorist organization, barbarians on a level that would have made Attila the Hun disgusted. They have no place in modern civilization, and should be fought only in one fashion: eliminate with extreme prejudice.

Yeah, "eliminate with extreme prejudice" is quite civilised, dude, what generation are you from? What constitutes legitimacy? What makes one organisation a "terrorist" organisation? Does and should a state have monopoly over violence?

 

[unclaimedblessing]

The earlier post stating that Islamic fundamentalist motives are generated by Israel having their holy sites is quite flawed.
Israeli territory encompasses holy sites sacred to both Jews and Christians long before Mohammed was born.
The motivation is (as it's always been) to destroy Israel and annihilate the Israelis.
I never will understand how Israel is consistently blamed when it retaliates against attcks on its homeland.
Hamas has launched it's attacks from civilian sites and Israeli fires back where the attack came from. I live in Southern Arizona and if rockets were being lobbed at Mexico from a neighborhood school I'd like to think I'd have enough common sense to get my ass out of the neighborhood or out of town.
The losses on both sides are horrendous, but you do reap what you sow.

 

[SoulSearcher]

The losses on both sides are horrendous, but you do reap what you sow.

By that definition, Israel deserves what it gets because its been illegally occupying territories and subjugating millions of people?

 

[naked gent]

Yes, but it's perfectly possible to oppose a Jewish state in Palestine without being anti-Semitic. I'm sure there are many Moslems who are not anti-Semitic, but there are also an awful who are, or who make anti-Semitic statements, including the current president of Iran.

I don't think anti-semitism has anything to do with it, anit-zionism yes but others who were in the area before the jews including the muslim turks didn't fare much better than the israelis.

(and I'd add here that when the Romans conquered the area in some instances it was the jews who were the religious nuts who would rather die than submit)

Without the Nazi influence, I think that would have worked. With it, a desire to slaughter Jews was in place that had little to do with whose land was whose. Without the Nazi influence, if the British had been on the job, the Israeli underground militias would never have gone into business as terrorists.

Help me out here Kul and give me an example of an instance where outsiders come in and claim the land and get a positive reaction from those who were there before them.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

I would think anti-Israeli would be more appropriate than anti-Semitic.
If I'm correct, the Arabs are also a Semitic people who speak a Semitic language.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, "eliminate with extreme prejudice" is quite civilised, dude, what generation are you from? What constitutes legitimacy? What makes one organisation a "terrorist" organisation? Does and should a state have monopoly over violence?

Except in cases of the exercise of the right to insurrection against tyranny, the state should have an essential monopoly.
Israel has imposed no tyranny over these people; quite the contrary, they have bent over backwards to accommodate them. Gaza's water and power come from Israel -- but they don't cut it off. Many of Gaza's supplies come from Israel -- at no cost.

Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use random violence against civilians, including their own people.

Today's world has no place for barbarians, especially barbarians bent on genocide.

 

[Kulindahr]

Help me out here Kul and give me an example of an instance where outsiders come in and claim the land and get a positive reaction from those who were there before them.

Israel got started at first by Jews coming peacefully and buying land. They made prosper what had been worthless which is why it was sold to them.
Arabs, influenced by envy and Naziism, started attacking them.
The Jews, when the failed British withdrew, claimed what had been promised them. Anyone who lived there who wished to stay, could.

Whether the reaction was positive isn't terribly relevant, because the Jews came legitimately, acquired land legitimately, defended themselves legitimately, and trusted a promise from the international community.

Acquisition of property by mutual agreement is a right common to all -- the people didn't have to sell to the Jews, but they did. Self-defense is a right inherent to all -- the people there didn't have to attack.
The choices for the Jews were simple: defend themselves and try to defend a state of their own, or wait to be slaughtered. Anyone who expected different was a fool.

Guilt for the continuing plight of the refugees resides in the Arab capitals where the decisions have been made to do nothing for them, even though they are fellow Arabs (for the most part) and fellow Muslims (which failure, BTW, shows that Islam is a religion neither of peace nor of brotherhood). They keep the situation that way deliberately, so that the terrorists who continue the war of extermination as proxies for those who are too cowardly to do their own work.

Throughout history, lands have been transferred back and forth between states by force. The powerful have drawn lines for others, whether the others liked it or not. And there is part of the problem: all the borders in the Middle East are artificial, a situation bound to create turmoil. That Israel was able to establish borders and make it stick is merely part of that tradition. Yet all they want is peace in the homeland they came from, the only one they have ever had. They invited any residents who would stay to join them, and have provided prosperity for all who did.

Whether they came invited or not, they were originally accepted. But they were made quite unwelcome by people they had no intention of harming.

 

[Kulindahr]

When the Moors conquered the Iberian Peninsula, the people were basically happy to not be ruled by the Visigoths anymore.

Thank you, Zhu -- I'd forgotten that one.

It reminds me also that in Poland, after the Teutonic Knights had become corrupt, many Poles welcomed Russian "invaders".

I would think that the "invading" Jews who brought relief from poverty would have been welcomed as well.

 

[Kedouracious]

Israel got started at first by Jews coming peacefully and buying land. They made prosper what had been worthless which is why it was sold to them.
Arabs, influenced by envy and Naziism, started attacking them.
The Jews, when the failed British withdrew, claimed what had been promised them. Anyone who lived there who wished to stay, could.

Whether the reaction was positive isn't terribly relevant, because the Jews came legitimately, acquired land legitimately, defended themselves legitimately, and trusted a promise from the international community.

Acquisition of property by mutual agreement is a right common to all -- the people didn't have to sell to the Jews, but they did. Self-defense is a right inherent to all -- the people there didn't have to attack.
The choices for the Jews were simple: defend themselves and try to defend a state of their own, or wait to be slaughtered. Anyone who expected different was a fool.

Guilt for the continuing plight of the refugees resides in the Arab capitals where the decisions have been made to do nothing for them, even though they are fellow Arabs (for the most part) and fellow Muslims (which failure, BTW, shows that Islam is a religion neither of peace nor of brotherhood). They keep the situation that way deliberately, so that the terrorists who continue the war of extermination as proxies for those who are too cowardly to do their own work.

Throughout history, lands have been transferred back and forth between states by force. The powerful have drawn lines for others, whether the others liked it or not. And there is part of the problem: all the borders in the Middle East are artificial, a situation bound to create turmoil. That Israel was able to establish borders and make it stick is merely part of that tradition. Yet all they want is peace in the homeland they came from, the only one they have ever had. They invited any residents who would stay to join them, and have provided prosperity for all who did.

Whether they came invited or not, they were originally accepted. But they were made quite unwelcome by people they had no intention of harming.

You really seem to be smoking something illegal. Come to Israel, we'll teach you how our country was made. How often do I have to tell Americans, you don't have to be apologetics for us!!!!! Transfer was official policy of the Zionist ideology from day one, our own military's archives dispute everything you said above. Israel doesn't need your fabricated history to gain legitimacy, Israel is here to stay, with or without anybody's acceptance. Land acquired through purchase makes a very small percentage of what became Israel.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

I don't think anti-semitism has anything to do with it, anit-zionism yes but others who were in the area before the jews including the muslim turks didn't fare much better than the israelis.

Anti-semitism (not just anti-Zionism) is rife in the Muslim Middle East. Just for starters, how about all those people who believe that the Jews were responsible for 9/11? And Ahmedinejad's Holocaust-denying statements? Or the Saudi textbooks full of anti-semitic bilge?

 

[Kulindahr]

You really seem to be smoking something illegal. Come to Israel, we'll teach you how our country was made. How often do I have to tell Americans, you don't have to be apologetics for us!!!!! Transfer was official policy of the Zionist ideology from day one, our own military's archives dispute everything you said above. Israel doesn't need your fabricated history to gain legitimacy, Israel is here to stay, with or without anybody's acceptance. Land acquired through purchase makes a very small percentage of what became Israel.

For the sake of my back, I wish I were smoking something illegal.

Yes, trasnfer was the official policy from the start, which it ought to have been since the international community had promised it.

If everything I said conflicts with your own military's archives, I suggest you ask them to correct Wikipedia and other online sources.

I'm aware that only a small percentage of what became Israel was purchased. But that demonstrates that they came peacefully at the start. That many had to come surreptitiously was due to the intransigence of the British in allowing the same settlement they had initiated with the Balfour Declaration.

Israel is legitimate on several levels, by old standards and new. That the presence of the sate there is cause for disturbance is tragic -- but the hate is not the fault of the Israelis; it preceded Israel, and would not end did all the Jews withdraw.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

I would think anti-Israeli would be more appropriate than anti-Semitic.
If I'm correct, the Arabs are also a Semitic people who speak a Semitic language.

That's correct, but as a matter of usage the term "anti-semitic" only refers to Jews. You could say "anti-Jewish" if you prefer, but "anti-Israeli" is not the same thing.