Following todays announcement in palestine


HAMAS has seized full control of the Gaza Strip following days of ferocious gunbattles, hours after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sacked the government and declared a state of emergency.

Britain expressed regret at the dissolution of the cabinet, saying "once again extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority who seek a peaceful two-state solution".

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21910028-952,00.html


Anyone know what is happening over there ?

The palestinians are too stupid to hold on to their land.
They will never win for as long as they keep fighting eachother. UNITY is the key.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 1:56pm:

The palestinians are too stupid to hold on to their land. They will never win for as long as they keep fighting eachother. UNITY is the key.

easier said than done, trying to unite hamas & fatah is like trying to unite a white nationalist with a communist.

it will never happen.

by the way, which one has the support of the people? i seem to recall that hamas won an election a few months ago, but the result wasn't officially recognised by the international community. i wonder why?

here is the original fiull artivle , in 2 parts


HAMAS has seized full control of the Gaza Strip following days of ferocious gunbattles, hours after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sacked the government and declared a state of emergency.

Masked Hamas fighters have overrun all security strongholds of Abbas's rival Fatah faction across the territory, where at least 113 people have been killed in less than a week in an explosion of bloodshed.
"All of the headquarters of the security services in the Gaza Strip are under control of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, including the presidency," said Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas's armed wing.

The takeover of Gaza effectively split the Palestinians into two, with Hamas - considered a terror outfit by the EU, Israel and the United States - in charge of the Gaza Strip and Fatah retaining control over the West Bank.

Abbas announced earlier today the dismissal of the three-month-old government and declared a state of emergency in Gaza and the occupied West Bank over what he called a "military coup".

In a decree read by his presidential secretary-general, Abbas said he made the move "because of the criminal war in the Gaza Strip, the taking over of the security services of the Palestinian Authority, the military coup and the armed rebellion by outlaws".

But Hamas immediately dismissed the declaration as "practically worthless" and later announced it was in control of all Fatah-linked security bases in Gaza, including Abbas's sprawling seafront presidential compound.

Abbas's announcement ended three months of fractious power-sharing between his secular Fatah party and the rival Islamist Hamas, locked for months in a deadly feud that has seen more than 260 people killed since December.

Abbas also appointed an emergency cabinet and will call for new elections "as soon the situation allows", presidency secretary-general Tayeb Abdelrahim said.

Under the Palestinian basic law, the emergency government does not require approval from the parliament which has been dominated by Hamas since January 2006, when it routed long-dominant Fatah in polls.

The sacked prime minister Ismail Haniyeh said Hamas would not declare a "state" in Gaza and called Abbas's move to fire the cabinet hasty.

"The Gaza Strip is an indivisible part of the homeland and its residents are an integral part of the Palestinian people. No to a state in the Gaza Strip only because the state is a whole that cannot be divided," Haniyeh said in an address televised live.

The international community voiced increasing alarm about the situation in Gaza, where highly disciplined Hamas fighters overran their Fatah opponents from all of their major bases in just days.

The clashes damaged power lines, plunging into darkness chunks of the impoverished territory where many of the estimated 1.4 million residents have been cowering inside for days.

"What is happening in Gaza is the second liberation of the Gaza Strip from the band of (Israeli) collaborators after the first liberation from the bands of settlers" in 2005, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said.

In one of the fiercest clashes that left 14 dead and 70 wounded, Hamas gunmen stormed the preventive security force compound in Gaza City and hoisted the Islamist movement's green flag on the roof after an hours-long battle.

Fatah fighters loyal to Abbas, some stripped to their underwear, were dragged out of the building with their hands in the air as black-clad masked Hamas gunmen stood watch.

Islamist fighters prayed on the sidewalk while on the rooftop others fired rounds into the air to celebrate their latest victory in what one Hamas leader described as "a battle between Islam and heresy".

Hamas's armed wing claimed to have executed a leader of the Fatah-linked Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, amid unconfirmed reports of other killings of Fatah loyalists.

A bomb ripped also through the studio of the official Voice of Palestine radio close to Fatah, forcing it off the air, in an attack blamed on Hamas.

Abbas, who has warned of civil war if the Gaza "madness" continued, cancelled a planned visit to France because of the violence.

The international community warned that the no-holds-barred power struggle endangered prospects of a future Palestinian state and peace with Israel.

US President George W Bush was "profoundly concerned" and called for a halt to the clashes, while US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Abbas to voice Washington's "full support".

Britain expressed regret at the dissolution of the cabinet, saying "once again extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority who seek a peaceful two-state solution".

For a second day in a row, the struggle spilled over into the West Bank, with offices of Hamas-affiliated officials torched and several dozen of the group's leaders and politicians arrested.

Human Rights Watch has accused both sides of committing war crimes during the fighting, which has turned hospitals into battlegrounds, seen ambulances prevented from reaching wounded and peace demonstrators shot dead.

and part 2


Human Rights Watch has accused both sides of committing war crimes during the fighting, which has turned hospitals into battlegrounds, seen ambulances prevented from reaching wounded and peace demonstrators shot dead.

The violence has forced the main UN Palestinian refugee agency to suspend all but essential activities and the European Union to halt its relief projects in the territory where the majority of people receive aid.

The Arab League called for an immediate halt to the violence ahead of an emergency meeting on the crisis tomorrow.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon held preliminary talks on the idea of sending an international force to Gaza, but Hamas rejected the move, saying it would treat foreign troops as occupation forces.

Israel - which pulled its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005 - has watched with increasing alarm, but said it would not intervene.

Tensions have been boiling ever since Hamas routed long-dominant Fatah in the January 2006 poll, often fanned by disagreement over who should control the security services in one of the most densely populated areas of the planet.


Seems the president (addas)  is a fatah, the party elecrted is hamas
hamas are recognised as being terrorists.

Quote:

easier said than done, trying to unite hamas & fatah is like trying to unite a white nationalist with a communist. it will never happen.

Good point.

gavin, why not ?
they both say they believe the same, they have the same to gain or lose.

I think the govts of the world refused the hamas govt as they are terrorists and so prob not a true result.
Vote against them and get shot.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 2:50pm:

gavin, why not ? they both say they believe the same, they have the same to gain or lose.

no they don't believe the same - Fatah is a secular-based movement who want to set-up a secular Palestinan state, whereas Hamas is a religious movement that wants to set-up an Islamic Palestinan state.

basically, Hamas want a state under sharia law - Fatah does not.


Quote:

I think the govts of the world refused the hamas govt as they are terrorists

well based on the article u posted, both Fatah and Hamas have both committed war crimes, so i doubt hamas are the only ones that are terrorists.

i think if Hamas were elected by the people and that's what the people want then they should be recognised by the international community - and that's regardless of whether we disagree with their policies.

i mean isn't that what democracy is all about, being elected by the people.  

Good luck Fatah. i support it.

thanks gavin, I was unaware of that. i thought fatah were muslims too, so could not understand it at all.


terrorists cross all borders, war crimes are contained. I never understood a "war crime " either .
Really, it is war, and some things are naughty ??????????

yes, democracy is about being elected by the people in a free and fair election.
I doubt terrorists would be keen on a free and fair election. Given their current actions, they will do anything for absolute power.  islamis control has not advanced one country ever.
extremists will keep going , no matter what. they desire death by the sword.
As an external govt, I would not recognise them either.  They will not stop.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 3:03pm:

thanks gavin, I was unaware of that. i thought fatah were muslims too, so could not understand it at all.

they are muslims, just not religious ones.


Quote:

terrorists cross all borders, war crimes are contained. I never understood a "war crime " either . Really, it is war, and some things are naughty?

i would define terrorists as someone who is using illegal/immoral means to obtain their political/religious/ideoligical goals - e.g. targeting civilians.

i would consider war crimes to be illegal ways to fight a war, so technically that would make both fatah and hamas terrorists.


Quote:

yes, democracy is about being elected by the people in a free and fair election. I doubt terrorists would be keen on a free and fair election.

as above, they're both guilty of terrorism, and it doesn't matter if we disagree with the elected parties policies - if they are elected by the people then they should be in power & officially recognised.

here's an example, say One Nation got elected in Australia and the UK disagreed with the parties policies. do u think it's right for the UK not to recognise the One Nation party even if they were democratically elected?

one nation would pose no threat to UK.

any islamic state by it's belief and goals threatens every nonislamic country.  
SO, any free country is purely defending itself by not recognising an islamic place.

their suicide bombers will travel worldwide for jihad.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 3:54pm:

one nation would pose no threat to UK. any islamic state by it's belief and goals threatens every nonislamic country.   SO, any free country is purely defending itself by not recognising an islamic place. their suicide bombers will travel worldwide for jihad.

that's besides the point, if Hamas was elected by the Palestinan people then it's their right to be ruled by the government they elected.

who are we to say that it's not a legitimate government.

hamas will never negotiate with Israel, thus the international community cannot accept them as a government, as that means there will never be any chance of peace.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 5:22pm:

hamas will never negotiate with Israel, thus the international community cannot accept them as a government, as that means there will never be any chance of peace.

okay, so that means we should just ignore what the Palestinans want.

hamas won the election, and if the Palestinans want them in power then that's it.
countries should really stop meddling in other countries affairs.

Hamas was not elected because of it's 'foreign policy.' It was elected because Fatah was corrupt and they were the only serious opposition party. It is possible to acknowledge them as the elected leaders (they still had to form a coalition government) while refusing to deal with them because of their foreign policy and wile withdrawing aid.

So what is hamas "foreign policy "

gavin, suppose a party was elected that wanted to murder you and your family.
You will say "That is fine, it was a democratic election ."

In all likelihoood, there is no coherent serious oppositon to hamas because hamas are extremist terrorists.  You dont vote against people like that. may as well just kill yourself.
After a decade of that, noone is sensible.


http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Muslih.pdf
is us foreign policy for hamas. very long.

I think the major difference between Fatah and Hamas is the way they relate to Israel.

Fatah recognises Israel as a independent state, whereas Hamas does not.

Although I could be wrong... I briefly heard it on SBS world news.

so what will hamas do to israel ? Oh, what they have always said, and is in the koran

hamas will only see the world how they want to, not how it is ?
Wonder what their next country to not-be-recognised is ?

nuke it I reckon, do iran too

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 8:55pm:

so what will hamas do to israel ? Oh, what they have always said, and is in the koran hamas will only see the world how they want to, not how it is ? Wonder what their next country to not-be-recognised is ? nuke it I reckon, do iran too

Personally Sprint, I think the rage shown by Muslims in this instance is justifiable.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 3:54pm:

one nation would pose no threat to UK. any islamic state by it's belief and goals threatens every nonislamic country.   SO, any free country is purely defending itself by not recognising an islamic place. their suicide bombers will travel worldwide for jihad.

Pakistan is a friend of the USA and cooperates with their desires. Indonesia and Australia are friendly. Many Islamic nations are nto fundamentalist and ven in more fundamentalist ones like Iran not all the muslims are fundamentalist.  It is nto true that every Islamic nation is a threat. I don't even knwo that it si true that ANY Islamic nation is a threat. It is true that some extremist fundamentalist islamic people become terrorists, but it is also true that terrorist attacks are carried out not only by that group.

And the US action agaisnt Iraq can hardly be seen as friendly can it?

I read in the weekend Australian that Hamas has taken the Gaza strip and Fatah controls the west bank. The west bank is more religious, more conservative and has fewer refugees from the 1948 war with Israel (one quarter the population). Two thirds of the residents of the gaza strip are refugees.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21914087-601,00.html

Some analysts believe that Israel may now be able to negotiate with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is also head of Fatah, about the fate of the West Bank. It has refrained from serious negotiations as long as the Palestinian Authority was a two-headed creature in which Fatah proclaimed a desire for peace with Israel while Hamas openly proclaimed as its goal the destruction of the Jewish state.

Over the past six decades, residents of Gaza and the West Bank have been separated from each other by at least 30km of Israeli territory and they have developed differently. Two-thirds of Gaza's 1.5 million residents are refugees who arrived during the 1948 Israel-Arab war. In the West Bank only about one-quarter of the more than two million Palestinians are refugees.

The Gaza Strip is more conservative and more religious, the West Bank more open to outside influences. Over the years, cultural differences developed, even differences in cuisine and dialect. Gaza was far poorer than the West Bank.

While Fatah is the dominant force in the West Bank, Hamas and other Islamic groups have strong networks there and experts do not rule out an attempt by them to take over the West Bank as well. This would be difficult in as much as Israeli security forces, which were not present in Gaza, are deployed in the West Bank.

Israel over the years has arrested thousands of militants on the West Bank, and one of the first moves by Palestinian security forces on the West Bank following Gaza's fall on Thursday was to round up hundreds of Hamas officials and supporters.

good old palestinians, i think they just like fighting.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 8:19pm:

So what is hamas "foreign policy " gavin, suppose a party was elected that wanted to murder you and your family. You will say "That is fine, it was a democratic election ."

i would take precautions to defend myself and my family, but i wouldn't intervene in another's nations elections. it's their election, they have a right to decide who they want in power.

like i said before, countries shouldn't intervene in other countries domestic affairs - that causes alot of problems.

what if the countries domestic affairs directly affect your own domestic affairs?

that is hamas in power has stated they want to wipe israel off the earth, they openly support teh fireing of rockets at civilians into Israel. They are responsible for breaking every single cease fire between israel and any palestinian governement.

If New Zealands government was firing rockets into sydney would we have a right to intervene?

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2007 at 3:59pm:

what if the countries domestic affairs directly affect your own domestic affairs?

as i said before, u take precautions to defend yourself. but u have no right to dictate to the Palestinans who they can or cannot have in power.

countries shouldn't get involved in other countries domestic affairs, it's messy and in some cases is actually bad in the long term. here's a good example - back in the 1950's, Iran had a pro-democractic Prime Minister who was a capitalist and only took actions that were in his countries best interest. nothing wrong with that right??

but his actions were not in the best interests of the US, who decided to help overthrow him and put in his place the Shah regime, who were pro-American but also oppressive dictators. such oppression led to the Islamic revolution and ultimately resulted in the Ayatollah taking over.

now imagine if the US didn't intervene in Iran's affairs - Iran would have had a democractic government.

Gavin wrote on Jun 16^th, 2007 at 4:07pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 16th, 2007 at 3:59pm: what if the countries domestic affairs directly affect your own domestic affairs? as i said before, u take precautions to defend yourself. but u have no right to dictate to the Palestinans who they can or cannot have in power. countries shouldn't get involved in other countries domestic affairs, it's messy and in some cases is actually bad in the long term. here's a good example - back in the 1950's, Iran had a pro-democractic Prime Minister who was a capitalist and only took actions that were in his countries best interest. nothing wrong with that right?? but his actions were not in the best interests of the US, who decided to help overthrow him and put in his place the Shah regime, who were pro-American but also oppressive dictators. such oppression led to the Islamic revolution and ultimately resulted in the Ayatollah taking over. now imagine if the US didn't intervene in Iran's affairs - Iran would have had a democractic government.

i can see where you are coming from but some would say Israel is taking precautions by doing what they do.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2007 at 4:23pm:

i can see where you are coming from but some would say Israel is taking precautions by doing what they do.

nice, so Israeli's precautions is to dictate to the Palestinans that Fatah must be elected - i.e. rigging the elections.

what i meant by precautions was building up their militiary & security to stop any attacks being launched against them - in the case that Hamas does decide to attack.

Israel never tried to dictate who can be elected.

Israel expected Fatah to be elected that is why they supported the elections, but they were wrong and hamas was elected.

I dont see why israel would rig the elections to elect hamas...

Anyway hamas agreed to set up a unity givernment with fatah to stop infighting, this recently collapsed.

Israel had nothing to do with it.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2007 at 4:41pm:

Israel expected Fatah to be elected that is why they supported the elections, but they were wrong and hamas was elected. I dont see why israel would rig the elections to elect hamas... Anyway hamas agreed to set up a unity givernment with fatah to stop infighting, this recently collapsed. Israel had nothing to do with it.

sorry, i probably worded that badly, i didn't mean that Israel rigged the current elections, i meant that Israel supporting the elections on the basis Fatah would win makes u wonder why have an election in the first place??

i mean if u want Fatah to stay in power, just say so, rather than saying do elections - but we would ignore the result if Hamas wins.

Israel did not ignore the results.

they severed ties when hamas got elected, they would not make deals with a nation whose governemnt wishes to invade their own.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Hamas-bans-masks-for-gunmen/2007/06/17/1182018908228.html

In their first order since seizing control of the Gaza Strip, Hamas Islamists banned gunmen from wearing masks - unless they are shooting at Israel.

"Wearing masks should only be near the borders and in fighting the Zionist enemy, not in the streets and near people's homes," Abu Hilal said.

gavin - the impression I have is hamas will murder every jew.

they are extremists. They WON'T listen. Their "belief" is based on excessiveness.
eg, "nonscientists" may have thought  "scientists" would be 'satisfied' at the complete human genone mapped out.
But no, they are scientists, they HAVE to always go further. Is what scientists are, is their definition.

Likewise, extremists are never satisfied.  Their goal is to make the whole world submissive under islam, as is stated in the koran. They crave to be dead, so warring is akin to tham, as stated in the koran.
They behead and lop off hands and feet of "infidels", as stated in the koran.

extremists should be nuked.  They desire death anyway. They won't stop. They won't reason.
They ARE extremists.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 4:34pm:

gavin - the impression I have is hamas will murder every jew. they are extremists. They WON'T listen. Their "belief" is based on excessiveness. eg, "nonscientists" may have thought  "scientists" would be 'satisfied' at the complete human genone mapped out. But no, they are scientists, they HAVE to always go further. Is what scientists are, is their definition. Likewise, extremists are never satisfied.  Their goal is to make the whole world submissive under islam, as is stated in the koran. They crave to be dead, so warring is akin to tham, as stated in the koran. They behead and lop off hands and feet of "infidels", as stated in the koran. extremists should be nuked.  They desire death anyway. They won't stop. They won't reason. They ARE extremists.

sprintcyclist, like i said, if Israel is so concerned about Hamas invading them - than they have a right to take precautions, for example building up their military and security. but if the Palestinans want Hamas in power, then that's their decision - they should be given the right to vote for who they want in power.  

and by the way, nuclear weapons are capable of wiping out entire cities and will therefore result in civilian deaths. so are u advocating the killing of all Palestinans civilians as well? if so, then ur view is not much better than Hamas.

Sorry for the tangent, but why would non-scientists expect scientists to be 'happy' with mapping the human genome? What's the point of having information if you don't use it? It was obviously just the beginning of something.

gavin - palenstein have "elected" those who want to exterminate jews.
As a jew, what is your response ?
jews can quite happily live with/beside anyone.
Extremists cannot.


freediver - mapping the whole genome was an awesome step forward. For scientists, it was the opening of the biggest door.
having information to benefit the human race is somewhat different to "making islam the dominant religion over all."

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 4:55pm:

gavin - palenstein have "elected" those who want to exterminate jews. As a jew, what is your response ? jews can quite happily live with/beside anyone. Extremists cannot.

if i was jewish, i would be concerned with Hamas getting elected - so i would advocate that we build up our defenses so that we're ready if or when Hamas invades.

also, if i am a true advocate of democracy, then i would also acknowledge that the Palestinans have a right to vote for who they want in power even if they want Hamas, just like a Jewish person has a right to vote for the right-wing/anti-Palestinan party.  

but to advocate nuking the Palestinans civilians in not acceptable, since if u take that stance - then ur not any better than Hamas.

gavin - those that know scientists and what drives them realise the mapped human genome is a magnificant beginning.
Those that know extremists and the koran know being elected is a magnificant beginning.

Jews can live easily with anyone. They are not out to massacre anyone.
Unlike muslims who cannot live with anyone else at all.

Funny you only post to defend muslims ?

well, it seems i'm the only one posting on this topic about democracy and how democracy is about giving people the right to vote for who they want in power.

if we want to put democracy in the Middle East, then it has to be real democracy and not just democracy as long as the Islamists aren't voted in. doing that isn't really democracy since ur dictating who can or cannot get into power - and are ignoring what the actual people want.

the Palestinans voted for Hamas, who won the election - now we don't agree on their policies, but so what, it's not my country. if i see them as a threat, then the most i can do is make provisions in case of a war, e.g. beefing up security.

So whats your goal for world domination gavin ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 5:39pm:

So whats your goal for world domination gavin ??

world domination???

i thought we were supposed to spread democracy throughout the world - well i guess i was wrong, we only want democracy when parties we like are elected. that's not real democracy.

well, it seems i'm the only one posting on this topic about democracy and how democracy is about giving people the right to vote for who they want in power

That's because no-one is disagreeing with you.

So your goal for world domination is democracy and free speech ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 5:49pm:

So your goal for world domination is democracy and free speech ?

why are u referring to world domination??

if ur referring the US and it allies, then yeah our goal is to spread democracy, but it's not to dominate the world.

your goal is democracy ? Excellent, so is mine.

we must be united in being against islam then.
And against the teachings of mohammad.


Good to meet you at last.
have good night

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 6:15pm:

your goal is democracy ? Excellent, so is mine. we must be united in being against islam then. And against the teachings of mohammad. Good to meet you at last. have good night

yeah, we would bring democracy to the muslim countries as well.
so if an Islamic party in a muslim populated country gets elected by the people, then that's democracy.

There is no freedom of speech in an islamic country.
there is no democracy in muslim.

you know that.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 6:31pm:

There is no freedom of speech in an islamic country. there is no democracy in muslim. you know that.

if the people in an Islamic country vote in a democratic election, then the elected party should be able to govern - since they were selected by the people.

whether we agree or disagree about Islamic parties policies, that is irrelevant.
people get who they voted for.

that's democracy. u know that.

Indonesia is a democratic Islamic country.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 6:42pm:

Indonesia is a democratic Islamic country.

It is. But for how much longer?

As was in communist russia, there was the "choice" of one communist party, or another communist party.

In any islamic country there is no free election, there is no freedom of speech.
In saudi is is a crime to have a Bible. Freedom of speech

indonesia is not an islamic state. In indonesia muslims are taking over by beheadoing village leaders.

the koran is written by a paedophoillic warlord.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 6:57pm:

In any islamic country there is no free election, there is no freedom of speech. In saudi is is a crime to have a Bible. Freedom of speech

yeah, if ur referring to muslim countries now, but our job isn't finished yet - we haven't got them to a stage where they have democratic elections.

bottom line, if democracy is established in the Middle East, then it has to be real democracy, i.e. parties that are voted by the people must be given the right to govern - and that's regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the elected parties policies.

Lebanon is semi democratic.

they were more so but then syria invaded.

Here is muslim for you gavin


http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Jail-for-r@pist-who-attacked-Muslim/2007/06/15/1181414536623.html

A man who r@ped a Muslim woman because she showed an interest in Christianity has been jailed for at least five years by a Sydney court.

As Abdul Reda Al-Shawany was sentenced on Friday, the Downing Centre District Court heard a harrowing statement from the victim, revealing that her shame and fear had been compounded by her cultural background.

The woman, who cannot be named, arrived in Australia as a refugee from Iraq.

But she said that even when she was jailed by dictator Saddam Hussein, she never feared for her life the way she did after the r@pe.

"It is better if I'm dead," she told the court.

In September 2002, Al-Shawany lured the woman to a unit at Warwick Farm, claiming to have news about her family in Iraq.

She was hit on the head and had her hijab tied around her face before Al-Shawany r@ped her twice in what Judge Brian Knox described as a degrading, humiliating and brutal attack.

Afterwards Al-Shawany told her: "Let your Christ benefit you now."

It took the jury less than half an hour to convict him of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent.

His victim - who has since converted to Christianity - wept at the back of the court as a friend read out her victim impact statement.

She said she was afraid she would be killed, either in retribution by Al-Shawany's family or in an "honour killing".

"In Iraq, if some woman has got a problem like this, her husband can kill her, or her brother or her uncle can kill her, without question," the victim wrote.

"They can kill me here too in Australia. "


What do all the muslim defenders say about this ?

The only way to successfully introduce democracy to islamic nations is to DESTROY ISLAM.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:03pm:

Here is muslim for you gavin

sprintcyclist, that's besides the point - democracy is about having the people decide who governs the country. do u agree with that?

so if an Islamic party is elected by the people, then that party should be given the right to govern.
that's democracy.

Gavin, we get the point. There is no need to keep explaining what democracy is.

I disagree entirely gavin.
That is entirely the point.
If people who run the country have instilled that as their belief, there is no free election.

There is no democracy under exremism. That is the point of extemism. That IS extremism.
That is what mohammad said. That is the koran.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:12pm:

Gavin, we get the point. There is no need to keep explaining what democracy is.

well, it doesn't seem that sprintcyclist understands it, he seems to think that democracy in the Middle East is okay provided the Islamic parties aren't elected.

No, he's arguing that the democracy itself is flawed, not just the outcome

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:14pm:

I disagree entirely gavin. That is entirely the point. If people who run the country have instilled that as their belief, there is no free election. There is no democracy under exremism. That is the point of extemism. That IS extremism. That is what mohammad said. That is the koran.

there is no democracy in the Middle East right now, which is what we're currently working on.

but the point remains, if a democractic election is run in the Middle East and the Islamic party wins, then they have a right to govern since they were elected by the people. whether we, as Australian's, disagree with the Islamic parties policies is irrelevant.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:18pm:

No, he's arguing that the democracy itself is flawed, not just the outcome

okay, so sprintcyclist thinks democracy is flawed. i wonder what he suggests instead - communism??

No, he doesn't think democracy is flawed. He thinks specific democracies are flawed due to lack of individual freedom. That is, they aren't really democratic.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:23pm:

No, he doesn't think democracy is flawed. He thinks specific democracies are flawed due to lack of individual freedom. That is, they aren't really democratic.

sure, if ur referring to the Middle East now, then yes they aren't really democratic.
what i'm referring to, is if we succeed in introducing real democracy into the Middle East - then we have to accept the election result regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the elected parties policies.

so if the Islamic party is elected by the people, then they have a right to govern - to deny that to them is not democracy at all.

Gavin wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:27pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2007 at 7:23pm: No, he doesn't think democracy is flawed. He thinks specific democracies are flawed due to lack of individual freedom. That is, they aren't really democratic. sure, if ur referring to the Middle East now, then yes they aren't really democratic. what i'm referring to, is if we succeed in introducing real democracy into the Middle East - then we have to accept the election result regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the elected parties policies. so if the Islamic party is elected by the people, then they have a right to govern - to deny that to them is not democracy at all.

Agreed.

Democracy is democracy. Whether they decide to vote in a dictatorship or not. That's the failure of democracy. The masses are sometimes (usually) idiots.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:31pm:

Agreed. Democracy is democracy. Whether they decide to vote in a dictatorship or not. That's the failure of democracy. The masses are sometimes (usually) idiots.

Finally, someone else gets it.

i find it quite amazing that people who want democracy instilled around the world are only happy with it when the parties they like are elected. but that's the point about democracy, it's the actual people in the country that will decide who governs, not us - it has nothing to do with us.

my concept is : there is no real free election under a islamic rule

also, if a regime is "elected" whose "foreign policY" is to murder another race/belief, their existance cannot be accepted.


ie, if they declare they can't live peacably with others, they can't live peacably with anyone.


And whose "fault" is that ?

what i'm referring to, is if we succeed in introducing real democracy into the Middle East - then we have to accept the election result regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the elected parties policies

OK. Can we move on now?. You have been making this point for some time now and no-one has been directly disagreeing with it. We can accept that Hamas is what the palestinians actually wanted. That is not the same as accepting Hamas or it's policies. Just because the majority of Palestinians vote for driving the Israelis into the sea does not mean we have to accept them driving Israelis into the sea.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:40pm:

my concept is : there is no real free election under a islamic rule

i'm referring to a democratic election, where the Islamic party is running against other parties.
in that case, the country is having democratic elections and if the Islamic party wins - then that's what the people want.  


Quote:

also, if a regime is "elected" whose "foreign policY" is to murder another race/belief, their existance cannot be accepted.

again, it's not ur country for u to dictate who is acceptable or not. if the people elected such a party, then that's what they want.

if u see them as a threat, then u can build up ur defenses. but that's about it.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:40pm:

what i'm referring to, is if we succeed in introducing real democracy into the Middle East - then we have to accept the election result regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the elected parties policies OK. Can we move on now?. You have been making this point for some time now and no-one has been directly disagreeing with it. We can accept that Hamas is what the palestinians actually wanted. That is not the same as accepting Hamas or it's policies. Just because the majority of Palestinians vote for driving the Israelis into the sea does not mean we have to accept them driving Israelis into the sea.

what are u on about? sprintcyclist has been disagreeing with me all along - it seems that he can't accept democracy where an Islamic party is elected, even if that's what the people want.

i think democracy is crap

just everything else is worse

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:53pm:

i think democracy is crap just everything else is worse

So what is your solution?

what are u on about? sprintcyclist has been disagreeing with me all along

True, but not on the point you seem to think he is disagreeing on. That is why this debate has been so repetitive.

gavin - to repeat myself.
islam is extremism. Extremism is undemocratic byu its definitition.
Anyone voting otherwise (if they can) under muslim control will get a short shift, at best.

read the koran, tell me what it tells you.


yes, it IS about sheep stations !

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 8:01pm:

gavin - to repeat myself. islam is extremism. Extremism is undemocratic byu its definitition.

that's the thing sprintcyclist, the Islamic party wouldn't be the only party running in a democratic election.

take the recent elections in Palestinan, it was Fatah (a secular party) vs Hamas (an Islamic party). there is no evidence to suggest that the election was rigged and that indicates that the election was won fair & square by Hamas - i.e. the Palestinan people want Hamas to govern.

so the Islamic party (Hamas) won the democratic election. their policies and whether we disagree with them is irrelevant to the election process.  

Got it??

You are right Gavin, and what it does prove is that muslims are violent crazies if they elected hamas.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 8:09pm:

You are right Gavin, and what it does prove is that muslims are violent crazies if they elected hamas.

not necessarily, Fatah has developed a reputation for being corrupt, so the people elected for the only other option - which was Hamas.

Ah so just like here. two parties. Thats why howard was elected in 1996? Labour corrupt! ;D

Ausnat wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:54pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17th, 2007 at 7:53pm: i think democracy is crap just everything else is worse So what is your solution?

I know it sounds stupid... but I think voting should be handi-capped.

Sure... the working class idiot should get one vote... but when an academic or someone with a certain education gets a vote.... their vote should count for ten people...

Namely... me.  :P

Wasn't it you saying the universities were full of communists?

I thought they were full of socialists  :D

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 8:38pm:

I thought they were full of socialists  :D

would you like to expand :D

oceanz wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 8:43pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 17th, 2007 at 8:38pm: I thought they were full of socialists  :D would you like to expand :D

I thought the difference between communism and socialism would be easy for you to google...apparently not  ::)

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 8:48pm:

oceanz wrote on Jun 17th, 2007 at 8:43pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 17th, 2007 at 8:38pm: I thought they were full of socialists  :D would you like to expand :D I thought the difference between communism and socialism would be easy for you to google...apparently not  ::)

No-- I wanted you too explain it to me :D

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 8:31pm:

Wasn't it you saying the universities were full of communists?

I never said students at unis were commies... just the teachers and the heads of school. I think communism has died among the student body. For example... the socialist alternative is losing elections and members... but are still championed by the tutors and lecturers of the school.

Another good example is this... once in a lecture... the lecturer asked all marxists to raise their hands...

One student raised their hand.  :P

The teacher looked annoyed and said... "about two to three decades ago almost all of you would have raised your hands."


So yeah... communism is dying on the campuses among the students... me thinks.

It's still a really bad idea. Those teachers and heads of school are the ones you want to give extra votes too. One thing you would definitely end up with is a massive increase in university funding.

Votes should be weighted in their worth

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179755025

Is democracy over-rated?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1171523780

Other threads:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/thread-list/topic.html#er

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 8:20pm:

Ausnat wrote on Jun 17th, 2007 at 7:54pm: Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17th, 2007 at 7:53pm: i think democracy is crap just everything else is worse So what is your solution? I know it sounds stupid... but I think voting should be handi-capped. Sure... the working class idiot should get one vote... but when an academic or someone with a certain education gets a vote.... their vote should count for ten people... Namely... me.  :P

they tried this in a way in northern Ireland previously.

business owners votes were worth more than non business owners. and if you did own a business your wife could also vote whilst those women not married to businessmen could not vote.

most businessmen in northern ireland were protestant, thus the government voted in was protestant even though the majority of the population was catholic.

as you can see giving some votes more worth than others is agaisnt democracy itself.

gavin

"The so-called quartet of international mediators for Middle East peace - the US, EU, UN and Russia - have offered their "full support" to Abbas.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat, in an interview with CNN, said he was saddened by the Hamas ransacking of the Palestinian president's Gaza City residence and trampling of portraits of the late leader Yasser Arafat."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-swears-in-new-cabinet/2007/06/18/1182018966292.html?page=2

Their policy is, they will murder us.  Get it ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 12:19pm:

gavin "The so-called quartet of international mediators for Middle East peace - the US, EU, UN and Russia - have offered their "full support" to Abbas. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat, in an interview with CNN, said he was saddened by the Hamas ransacking of the Palestinian president's Gaza City residence and trampling of portraits of the late leader Yasser Arafat." http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-swears-in-new-cabinet/2007/06/18/1182018966292.html?page=2 Their policy is, they will murder us.  Get it ?

the US, EU, UN and Russia aren't the Palestinan people, so their backing of Abbas is irrelevant. The Palestinans voted for Hamas - their policies and how they relate to Israel is irrelevant.

the Palestinans voted for Hamas, so Hamas has a right to govern since they were elected by the people.
Fatah had their chance in the election, they lost.  

get it??

So, the US, EU, UN and Russia are totally against murderous terrorists.
But by gavins sayso, it is ok ?   No, that part I don't get

What part about "murder" don't you get ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 1:46pm:

So, the US, EU, UN and Russia are totally against murderous terrorists. But by gavins sayso, it is ok ?   No, that part I don't get What part about "murder" don't you get ?

what part of democracy do u not understand.

i will break this down for you:

democracy = the people of a country are allowed to elect their government, the elected parties policies are irrelevant, other countries opinions are irrelevant.  

lets give u an example, assume One Nation got elected in the Australian election - and let's say for the sake of argument, Indonesia disagrees with One Nation's policies and sees them as a threat. does that mean Indonesia has a right to tell the Australian public who to vote for??

no, it doesn't concern them, same thing in this situation - the Palestinans elected Hamas who won the election fair & square. the election doesn't concern the US, EU, Russia, etc.

what's the point of instilling democracy in the Middle East if we're going to reject it when a party we don't like get's elected? why don't we just put in a puppet government and ignore what the people actually want.

repeated question third time

What part about murder don't you understand ? Or won't answer ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 2:34pm:

repeated question third time What part about murder don't you understand ? Or won't answer ?

i already answered, whether Hamas are murders and whether their policies are murderous is irrelevant. put it this way, is it okay to overturn an election result because u don't agree with the elected parties policies?

no, of course not - they got elected by the Palestinans and therefore they have a right to govern.
why is that such a hard concept for you to understand?

democracy is being elected by the people.
u can't just pick democracy when parties u like are elected and reject it when a party u don't like get's elected.

According to you gavin, the following behaviour is fine as long as taliban were elected ??


By Sardar Ahmad in Kabul
June 17, 2007 10:53pm

IN the deadliest attack in Afghanistan since the Taliban regime was toppled six years ago, a suicide bomber has killed 35 people and wounded dozens in Kabul.

Most of the dead were instructors going to work at the city's police academy. Bystanders and five foreigners were also killed, according to police.

President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack and said the country would continue to work towards reconstruction despite attacks from the "enemies of Afghanistan".

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the blast, which reduced a police bus to a skeleton of black metal. Body parts and human flesh were flung across a wide area.

"We have got 35 people martyred and 52 wounded," Kabul province police chief Esmatullah Dauladzai told news agency AFP.

"Those killed include mostly officers and civilians."

Among the wounded were two Japanese, a Korean and two Pakistani nationals, he said. The injuries could not be immediately confirmed by the relevant embassies.

"It is the work of terrorists, al-Qaeda and murderers of the people," said the city's criminal investigation department chief Alishah Paktiawal.

Mr Dauladzai said investigations indicated the bombing was carried out by an individual wearing black clothes who was aboard the police bus.

Claiming responsibility, the Taliban said the attacker had infiltrated the police on the orders of one of the group's most senior commanders, Jalaluddin Haqqani.

"Under his direct orders, today he strapped explosives on his body and exploded himself inside the police bus," spokesman Saluhuddin Ayobi said.

There had been rumours that Haqqani, who was a minister in the 1996-2001 Taliban government, had died, but Ayobi said he was "alive and leading the jihad (holy war) against the US forces and the puppet Kabul Government".

The sirens of ambulances wailed across the city as the wounded were ferried to hospitals. 24 people were hospitalised, health ministry director general Salam Jalali said.

The blast took place in a crowded part of the city centre. Two nearby minibuses were damaged and witnesses said bystanders may also have been hit."


Of course the murderous dominant policy is relevanbt. Their policy is if they live, freedom won't.
In my views, if the elected party will murder me, I will oppose them immediately.
Why is that such a hard comcept for you to grasp ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 2:57pm:

According to you gavin, the following behaviour is fine as long as taliban were elected ??

well, the Taliban weren't democratically elected, but if they were then people get what they elected for.
put it this way, i was against the introduction of the GST, but since the Liberals got elected, i'm stuck with it. u don't see me saying we need to overthrow the Liberals because i don't like them and their GST.

and if the Taliban were democratically elected by Afghanistan's population, what right do u have to tell them that they are wrong and the Taliban aren't a legitimate government? it's not ur country, so u shouldn't butt in.

Quote:

Another good example is this... once in a lecture... the lecturer asked all marxists to raise their hands... One student raised their hand.  :P

Was he beaten senseless?

gavin - there is a significant difference between a GST and having your throat cut.

if any govt has a policy to murder those in other countries and oppress freedom then yes, it IS our responsibility to protect ourselves and others.

Why do you support islam so ardently ?
Is it just to be antagonistic, or are you a muslim ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:

gavin - there is a significant difference between a GST and having your throat cut.

the point i was making was that ur stuck with the policies of the government that gets elected in a democratic election. i was using the GST as an example.


Quote:

if any govt has a policy to murder those in other countries and oppress freedom then yes, it IS our responsibility to protect ourselves and others.

yes, protect ourselves by building up our defences, but we shouldn't go around saying that the government doesn't have a right to exist and it should be overthrown.

doing that is denying the Palestinans right to be governed by the goverment they elected.  


Quote:

Why do you support islam so ardently ? Is it just to be antagonistic, or are you a muslim ?

i'm not defending islam, i'm defending democracy - democracy is about being governed by the party that is elected by the people.

i wouldn't like other countries to tell me who to vote for as it's not their country and it doesn't concern them. similiarily i think other countries should butt out when it comes to the Palestinan elections, the Palestinan people voted for Hamas in a democratic election, so Hamas should be allowed to rule.

it's amazing that ur so pro-democracy, but at the same time u want to deny the Palestinans the right to be governed by the party they elected in a democratic election. that is hypocritical.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 3:13pm:

Quote: Another good example is this... once in a lecture... the lecturer asked all marxists to raise their hands... One student raised their hand.  :P Was he beaten senseless?

The teacher or student?  ;D

Nah... the student was a girl.

Quote:

The teacher or student?  ;D Nah... the student was a girl.

Damn >:(

I'm usually your ally in most aguments sprint, but the reality of the situation is that if 'true' democracy is applied in most Muslim nations... an extremist party will win the election.

I agree with Gavin in this case.


He's not saying Islam is good or bad or anything like that. He's just saying that in democracy, any party can enrol for election.... even if they are a bunch of fanatical worms... and if they get elected... tough. That's the reality of democracy... and that's what you get when you let muslims do the thinking... everything turns to sh1t. The midas touch.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 6:36pm:

Quote: The teacher or student?  ;D Nah... the student was a girl. Damn >:(

I know.. tragic.  :P


Uni students are too gay to attack anyone anyway. Too politically incorrect.

Quote:

I know.. tragic.  :P Uni students are too gay to attack anyone anyway. Too politically incorrect.

True. some tradies or skinheads would have done nicely 8-) (female ones)

Or bring over Russian Nationalists ;D They are very ''active''

here is your daily report on "democracy" in islam, gavin and donald.

Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace

6/17/07 ( Kabul, Afghanistan ) - Three dozen Afghans are blown to Allah by Islamic bombers in an attack on a transportation hub.
6/17/07 ( Baidoa, Somalia ) - A child is killed when Islamists toss a grenade into a bank.
6/17/07 ( Herat, Afghanistan ) - The Taliban attack a remote police post, killing two officers.
6/16/07 ( Narathiwat, Thailand ) - An 82-year-old man is shot to death by Muslim terrorists.
6/16/07 ( Narathiwat, Thailand ) - Muslims shoot a middle-aged civilian four times in the chest.

As long as it is a "democratic" party though, all is well.

Under islam, there is NO option BUT to be a muslim.  All others get driven off or murdered
SUpporting any muslim party should show a growing list of the instances given above.

hi sprint, i just have one question - are u pro-democracy or anti-democracy?  

Here is a closer ananlogy to the truth than the shallow ones gavin has given.

Suppose gavin lives in NSW, I am in QLD. We vote in a party whose "policy" is to run off or  murder the NSW people from NSW. This is  credible. We have been doing this for generations.
In gavins idea, NSW should accept the party, as it was elected.
In my idea, of course NSW should not recognise them. In addition neither should Victoria.
The party in QLD will not stop at NSW, they are extremists.


Skeptic - I have two questions for you.
Do you like to have your head on your shoulders ?
Are you your brothers keeper or not ?

sprint, so i take it by u not answering my question that ur anti-democracy.

skeptic I am prodemocracy. I am also pro MY freedom and keeping my head on my shoulders.
Care to answer my questions ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 10:34am:

skeptic I am prodemocracy. I am also pro MY freedom and keeping my head on my shoulders. Care to answer my questions ?

sprint, u can't pick and choose when it comes to democracy - what i mean by that is u can't be pro-democracy when a government u agree with is elected, but at the same time be anti-democracy when a government u don't agree with is elected.

u have to accept whoever the people choose.

what ur essentially suggesting is that democracy should only include political parties that agree with ur own views and should exclude parties that don't agree with you. that doesn't really sound like democracy at all.

skeptic - care to answer any of my questions ?
What if that govt is going to murder me ???

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 11:01am:

skeptic - care to answer any of my questions ? What if that govt is going to murder me ???

then u can defend yourself, but it's still a legitimate government nonetheless since it was democratically elected by it's people.

skeptic -  you are STILL not answering any of my questions.

At all.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 11:31am:

skeptic -  you are STILL not answering any of my questions. At all.

ur questions are irrelevant to the topic were talking about.

it's a waste of time trying to explain this to you, this topic has gone on for 8 pages now and u still don't get it.

whether you like a government or not, who cares, they were still picked by their own people and are therefore a legitimate government.  

If their "policy" is control by force, murder and coersion then I am against them.
So will be every logical freedom loving person.

If they have a past history of this and they support terrorists and fire rockets at "neighbours" .
Then their "policies" are probably going to be carried through
Whether terrorists are voted in or not, the free world is against them.

Again you have refused my questions.  This is after 8 pages.  
Scared of saying something non PC or of ever seeing my point of view??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 12:55pm:

If their "policy" is control by force, murder and coersion then I am against them. So will be every logical freedom loving person.

i'm not saying that u have to like them, i'm saying u can't deny their right to govern since they were democratically elected by their own people.


Quote:

If they have a past history of this and they support terrorists and fire rockets at "neighbours" . Then their "policies" are probably going to be carried through Whether terrorists are voted in or not, the free world is against them.

the free world is against them, so to show them how to be free u want to take away their right to elect their own government. do u see the irony here?


Quote:

Again you have refused my questions.  This is after 8 pages.   Scared of saying something non PC or of ever seeing my point of view??

ur questions have nothing to do with whether Hamas are a legitimate government or not.
and i only came onto this topic on the last page.

do u realise that ur the only person on this topic that is refusing to accept that democracy is giving people the right to vote for their own government?

Here is a closer ananlogy to the truth than the shallow ones gavin has given.

Suppose gavin lives in NSW, I am in QLD. We vote in a party whose "policy" is to run off or  murder the NSW people from NSW. This is  credible. We have been doing this for generations.
In gavins idea, NSW should accept the party, as it was elected.  
In my idea, of course NSW should not recognise them. In addition neither should Victoria.  
The party in QLD will not stop at NSW, they are extremists.


Skeptic - I have two questions for you.  
Do you like to have your head on your shoulders ?
Are you your brothers keeper or not ?

feel free to answer the above questions skeptic

do u realise that ur the only person on this topic that is refusing to accept that democracy is giving people the right to vote for their own government?

skeptic wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 11:02am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19th, 2007 at 11:01am: skeptic - care to answer any of my questions ? What if that govt is going to murder me ??? then u can defend yourself, but it's still a legitimate government nonetheless since it was democratically elected by it's people.

Ha!  Not in this country mate.....  Remember,Gun laws?

yes skeptic, I do realise that.  I also realise that that is a fallacy you hint at.
I also realise you have not answered my questions. Neither had gavin.


Suppose gavin lives in NSW, I am in QLD. We vote in a party whose "policy" is to run off or  murder the NSW people from NSW. This is  credible. We have been doing this for generations.  
In gavins idea, NSW should accept the party, as it was elected.  
In my idea, of course NSW should not recognise them. In addition neither should Victoria.  
The party in QLD will not stop at NSW, they are extremists.  
 
 
Skeptic - I have two questions for you.  
Do you like to have your head on your shoulders ?  
Are you your brothers keeper or not ?  

feel free to answer the above questions skeptic

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 6:38pm:

I'm usually your ally in most aguments sprint, but the reality of the situation is that if 'true' democracy is applied in most Muslim nations... an extremist party will win the election. I agree with Gavin in this case. He's not saying Islam is good or bad or anything like that. He's just saying that in democracy, any party can enrol for election.... even if they are a bunch of fanatical worms... and if they get elected... tough. That's the reality of democracy... and that's what you get when you let muslims do the thinking... everything turns to sh1t. The midas touch.

Exactly, if u don't realise that then ur not really pro-democracy, ur just pro-democracy when it suits ur own agenda. I don't think it's anyone's place to tell another country who they can or cannot vote for.

But, isn't the Midas touch in Ancient Greek mythology when everthing turned to gold?  ;D

skeptic, don't bother, sprintcyclist isn't going to understand - his one of those hypocritical bunch that love democracy but absolutely hate it when it goes against them.

he doesnt like democracy, he likes moderate government.

So none of you are game to honestly answer my questions ?

Bbbwwwaarrrrrkkkkkk,  bbbbwwwwwaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkkkk

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 6:53pm:

So none of you are game to honestly answer my questions ? Bbbwwwaarrrrrkkkkkk,  bbbbwwwwwaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkkkk

sprintcyclist, ur questions have nothing to do with the topic, it's about as relevant as me asking "do unicorn's exist?".

did the Palestinans vote for Hamas (an Islamic party), rather than go Fatah (a secular party)? Yes.
are you Palestinan? i'm guessing no, so it doesn't concern you.

Last time i will mention this, the Palestinans voted for Hamas in a democratic election, so Hamas was chosen by their own people to govern. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant, if ur truely pro-democracy then u would let the Palestinans decide who they want in power (rather than u telling them who they should vote for).  

gavin - bbbwwwarrrkkk bbwwwwwwwwaaaaarrrrrkkkkkkkk bbbbbbwwwwwwaaaaarrrrkkkkk

That's the noise a chicken makes.


yes skeptic, I do realise that.  I also realise that that is a fallacy you hint at.  
I also realise you have not answered my questions. Neither had gavin.  


Suppose gavin lives in NSW, I am in QLD. We vote in a party whose "policy" is to run off or  murder the NSW people from NSW. This is  credible. We have been doing this for generations.  
In gavins idea, NSW should accept the party, as it was elected.    
In my idea, of course NSW should not recognise them. In addition neither should Victoria.    
The party in QLD will not stop at NSW, they are extremists.  
 
 
Skeptic - I have two questions for you.    
Do you like to have your head on your shoulders ?  
Are you your brothers keeper or not ?  
 
feel free to answer the above questions skeptic  



here are the people you support  

Fatah's backers fear life in Gaza

Ed O'Loughlin Herald Correspondent in Gaza
June 20, 2007

THE "sleeve" has long been an unlovely fact of life at the Erez crossing, a kilometre-long cement corridor designed to keep terrorists clear of the Israeli-Gaza border gate.

Known as "the tunnel" among aid workers, United Nations staff and foreign journalists, it was also a concrete manifestation of day to day co-operation between the Israeli Army and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority.

Nobody could approach the Israeli border complex without first being cleared by the Palestinian police at the other end, who co-ordinated movements with their Israeli counterparts.

But that was all last week. Yesterday the only Palestinian Authority security men still visible at Erez were a couple of hundred unarmed Fatah fugitives desperate to flee into Israel. They had camped for four days at the border gate. Behind them, Bedouin looters were dismantling the tunnel, stripping roofing and digging up pipes and wiring.

"If we went back to Gaza, Hamas would execute us," said a 30-year-old man who gave his name as Abu Faras. "We don't have the same ideology as them and they are shooting everybody who has different beliefs."

Abu Faras lay on the floor of the tunnel among a group of injured men, his leg crudely bandaged to staunch bleeding from a gunshot wound.

Along with a dozen others, he was injured on Monday night when gunmen from a breakaway Fatah faction called the Popular Resistance Committees, now allied with Hamas, entered the tunnel and sprayed bullets along it. At least one person was killed.

The faction claimed it was attacking the Israeli soldiers who were posted at the end of the sleeve to stop the fugitive Fatah men from breaking through to Israel. The Fatah men said they were the targets, and that Hamas was responsible.

The day before troops had fired tear gas and concussion grenades to hold back a stampede: yesterday, buses were being assembled on the Israeli side of the border, reportedly waiting for a possible order to ferry the fugitives through Israeli territory to Fatah-controlled areas of the West Bank.

Further away from the gate were clustered the civilians - women with children, the sick and the old - hoping for a chance to leave once the Fatah men were taken care of.

Israel had already allowed scores of Fatah leaders to flee last week while fighting was still under way. The top commanders, including the Fatah security boss Mohammed Dahlan, left the strip weeks ago.

Mariam Yahi, a 63 year-old cancer patient, was on her way to Tel Aviv for chemotherapy last week when the border was closed. "Two days ago I was OK, but now my situation is getting worse," she said.

"I'm feeling sicker, especially since the Israelis fired tear gas when they [the Fatah fugitives] tried to rush across the border."

The first sign of Gaza's new master, the Islamic fundamentalist Hamas movement, came a kilometre from the border, where a masked but unarmed commander was supervising a checkpoint with one armed subordinate.

"This is as close as we can go," said the commander, who called himself Abu Hassan. "If we went any closer that tank there would shoot at us" - and he pointed to an Israeli tank a few hundred meters inside Gaza territory, its barrel trained on the checkpoint.

He said the fugitives had nothing to fear from Hamas now. "They are no more than kids and jobless men who just want to get out. Everybody knows that Hamas has already freed even the most wanted men it captured."


But as long as murders are elected, it is ok ????????????


bwark bwark bwark bwark

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2007 at 1:27pm:

here are the people you support

wrong, who said anything about supporting Hamas??

i said that if they were democratically elected by the people then they should be allowed to govern. my opinion and your opinion doesn't matter since we're not Palestinan and it doesn't concern us.

to have somone other than the elected party rule is very un-democratic - if u are against Hamas (who were elected by their people) but also pro-democracy, then u have one twisted definition of democracy.  

and in ur QLD/NSW example, are you saying that NSW is allowed to dictate to Queenslanders who they should vote for?? if i was a Queenslander, i would tell NSW to butt out since it has nothing to do with them.

and please sprintcyclist, u could have a discussion with a bit of maturity.
are u 10 years old?

gavin, so to this :

Suppose gavin lives in NSW, I am in QLD. We vote in a party whose "policy" is to run off or  murder the NSW people from NSW. This is  credible. We have been doing this for generations.    
In gavins idea, NSW should accept the party, as it was elected.    
In my idea, of course NSW should not recognise them. In addition neither should Victoria.    
The party in QLD will not stop at NSW, they are extremists.    
   
   
you would say  NSW will say " sure, run us off our land or murder us, that is fair, after all you were elected. "
Surely, you jest.


let alone these other questions
Skeptic - I have two questions for you.    
Do you like to have your head on your shoulders ?    
Are you your brothers keeper or not ?    

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2007 at 3:13pm:

gavin, so to this : Suppose gavin lives in NSW, I am in QLD. We vote in a party whose "policy" is to run off or  murder the NSW people from NSW. This is  credible. We have been doing this for generations.     In gavins idea, NSW should accept the party, as it was elected.     In my idea, of course NSW should not recognise them. In addition neither should Victoria.     The party in QLD will not stop at NSW, they are extremists.             you would say  NSW will say " sure, run us off our land or murder us, that is fair, after all you were elected. " Surely, you jest.

no, i would say that if ur people voted u in, then it's ur right to rule over ur own people.

but if u want to come over, take over my land and murder me, then it's my right to defend myself.

put it this way, i was against the introduction of the GST, but since the Liberals got elected, i'm stuck with it. u don't see me saying we need to overthrow the Liberals because i don't like them and their GST.

If you did, it wouldn't be undemocratic.

here is your daily report on "democracy" in islam, gavin and donald

That had nothing to do with democracy sprint.

Gavin, being pro democracy does not have to mean you think it is a great form of government or that you have to simply put up with any outcome. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Those governments you criticised for not accepting Hamas were also democratically elected.

and in ur QLD/NSW example, are you saying that NSW is allowed to dictate to Queenslanders who they should vote for?? if i was a Queenslander, i would tell NSW to butt out since it has nothing to do with them.  

Is that before or after you killed them (democratically of course)?

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Palestinian-PM-gives-incitement-warning/2007/06/29/1182624114729.html

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad delivered a stern warning to hundreds of Islamic preachers, including Hamas supporters, saying his government will not tolerate incitement in mosques and plans to collect the weapons of militants.

Fayyad's meeting with some 800 Muslim clergy marked the latest attempt to stem the influence of Hamas in the West Bank, following the Islamists' violent takeover of Gaza earlier this month.

Security forces have arrested dozens of Hamas activists in the West Bank, and President Mahmoud Abbas is trying to dry up funding to Hamas with a review of all private organisations.

The Palestinians said their crackdown on Hamas was complicated by Israel's hunt for gunmen from Abbas' Fatah movement in the West Bank city of Nablus on Thursday.

Hamas Mickey Mouse vs GI Joe – are they the same thing, i.e. propaganda tools used by the Palestinians and the United States respectively to promote/glorify war for their own goals?

If so, then why was there such outrage towards the Hamas Mickey Mouse, but nothing is mentioned about GI Joe which has been a children favourite for a few decades?

I think the US used cartoon characters like Donald Duck to promote it's wars in the past. The difference is that at the time the leaders of the US were fully committed to war (WWII I think). The entire society was fully committed to war, including children. The situation in palestine is completely different. They are not fully committed to war, they are negotiating a ceasefire -  a ceasefire which will be undermined in 10 years time by the children who watch this stuff on TV. There is no conventional war. I rocket per day or one bomb per day does not count as war. It would be like the US indoctrinating it's children to hate Mexicans because they sneak across the border. The US did not cause the war by indoctrinating children. GI Joe will not cause any wars. The indoctrination of Palestinain children will cause future wars.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 4:37pm:

They are not fully committed to war, they are negotiating a ceasefire -  a ceasefire which will be undermined in 10 years time by the children who watch this stuff on TV.

seriously, the Palestians won't budge until they have a state in the West Bank & Gaza with East Jerusalem as it's capital (since the Dome of the Rock is there). the Israeli's won't budge on their stance of not giving away East Jerusalem since it has the Wailing Wall.

so if a ceasefire is to occur, it definately won't last 10 years and the tension/violence between both sides would continue. the Palestians and Israeli's know this, which is why each side is fully committed to war, the ceasefire only gives them the opportunity to build their military capacity.    


Quote:

There is no conventional war. I rocket per day or one bomb per day does not count as war

there's more than that happening at the moment. it's not a full scale war, but it's not a minor conflict either.

So you think the propaganda is minor compared to the real problems over there? I think it is causing it. The palestinaians won't budge until they gain back territory they lost in a previous war because of the propaganda.  If the leaders started airing messages encouraging people to go about their daily business and try to make the best of the situation then the tension wouldn't be there and the people would budge. They would sacrifice the more extreme demands for the reasonable ones, such as their own state.

Back to GI Joe, which ethnic group is GI Joe telling children to kill?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 5:05pm:

So you think the propaganda is minor compared to the real problems over there? I think it is causing it. The palestinaians won't budge until they gain back territory they lost in a previous war because of the propaganda.

the Palestians lost their land and they want it back since they see themselves are being it's rightful owners. that's the reason they won't budge in peace talks, because they see themselves are the land's rightful owners, not because of the propoganda.


Quote:

If the leaders started airing messages encouraging people to go about their daily business and try to make the best of the situation then the tension wouldn't be there and the people would budge. They would sacrifice the more extreme demands for the reasonable ones, such as their own state.

make the best of the situation, u kidding right? the Palestinans are living in poverty, have limited freedom of movement in the land, limited freedom to trade with Israel & other Arab nations in the name of security and not to mention bad acts committed by Israeli military personnel.

in terms of sacrificing extreme demands, the difficulty arises in what to do with East Jerusalem, since that part holds religious significance to both sides and therefore cannot be split.


Quote:

Back to GI Joe, which ethnic group is GI Joe telling children to kill?

do u realise that GI Joe was a WW2 action figure?

i used that as an example to show that every country involved in a war uses cartoons and/or toys to sell their goals to the youth.

the Palestians lost their land and they want it back since they see themselves are being it's rightful owners. that's the reason they won't budge in peace talks, because they see themselves are the land's rightful owners, not because of the propoganda

They see themselves as the rightful owners because of the propaganda. Plenty of other groups have lost wars in the past. They dealt with it, which is why most people live in peace today. The aborigines aren't blowing up busses to get their land back. Even the Irish have stopped blowing each other up.

make the best of the situation, u kidding right? the Palestinans are living in poverty, have limited freedom of movement in the land, limited freedom to trade with Israel & other Arab nations in the name of security and not to mention bad acts committed by Israeli military personnel.

Because they are still fighting a futile war they lost a long time ago. If they made the best of the situation, the situation would improve dramatically overnight.

in terms of sacrificing extreme demands, the difficulty arises in what to do with East Jerusalem, since that part holds religious significance to both sides and therefore cannot be split

Leave it with whoever holds it at the moment.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 5:31pm:

They see themselves as the rightful owners because of the propaganda.

mate, they had a country at one point (even if it was for a short while) - that land was forcibly taken away from them in a war. of course they are going to see themselves as it's rightful owners, even without the propaganda they would still hold that same view.


Quote:

Because they are still fighting a futile war they lost a long time ago. If they made the best of the situation, the situation would improve dramatically overnight.

They can't make the best of the situation as they are having extreme restrictions being placed upon them by Israel.


Quote:

Leave it with whoever holds it at the moment.

how does that solve the problem? East Jerusalem hold religious significance to both sides and it can't split since the holy sites are within a close proximity to eachother.

They can't make the best of the situation as they are having extreme restrictions being placed upon them by Israel.

Because they keep blowing up busses. If they stopped blowing up busses and talking about destroying Israel, I'm sure the Israelis would chill out a bit too.

how does that solve the problem? East Jerusalem hold religious significance to both sides and it can't split since the holy sites are within a close proximity to eachother.

It solves the problem by stopping the fighting. Once genuine peace was restored they would soon be able to travel to the holy sites. It wouldn't matter who owned it. You don't see Christians blowing up Israeli busses even though it is their holy land too. Instead, they just go for a visit and buy some trinkets. Buying trinkets is a far more spiritual experience than blowing yourself up on a bus full of innocent people. The most significant Muslim holy site is not in Israel. The problem is not that Israel has a specific holy site, the problem is that Muslims have been indoctrinated into not tolerating any non-muslim ownership or any of the holy sites, or any of the middle east. Even israel gave that spot back, the Palestinians would just move on to the next significant piece of dirt.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 5:50pm:

Because they keep blowing up busses. If they stopped blowing up busses and talking about destroying Israel, I'm sure the Israelis would chill out a bit too.

i doubt it, such restrictions were in place from the very beginning when Israel first took over.


Quote:

It solves the problem by stopping the fighting. Once genuine peace was restored they would soon be able to travel to the holy sites. It wouldn't matter who owned it. You don't see Christians blowing up Israeli busses even though it is their holy land too. Instead, they just go for a visit and buy some trinkets. Buying trinkets is a far more spiritual experience than blowing yourself up on a bus full of innocent people.The most significant Muslim holy site is not in Israel. The problem is not that Israel has a specific holy site, the problem is that Muslims have been indoctrinated into not tolerating any non-muslim ownership or any of the holy sites, or any of the middle east. Even israel gave that spot back, the Palestinians would just move on to the next significant piece of dirt.

the dilemma here is that the Jews and Muslims want to own their holy land as it was ordained by God and they are it's rightful owners. furthermore, having their holy land owned by members of another faith means that their holy sites may not be maintained and maybe even mistreated.

if the Palestinans and Israeli's stopped fighting, they still wouldn't trust eachother to maintain their holy lands up to an adequate standard, especially when some members of both sides wish to destroy the holy lands - for example, the Wailing Wall is the only remaining part of King Solimans' temple which right-wing Jewish groups wish to rebuilt, however rebuilding the temple means destroying the Dome of the Rock (which is the muslim holy site). therefore, the Palestians would be skeptical to just let the Israeli's have it.

the dilemma here is that the Jews and Muslims want to own their holy land as it was ordained by God and they are it's rightful owners. furthermore, having their holy land owned by members of another faith means that their holy sites may not be maintained and maybe even mistreated

Only the Muslims make an issue of this. The Jews just ended up their through the post WWII fallout.

if the Palestinans and Israeli's stopped fighting, they still wouldn't trust eachother to maintain their holy lands up to an adequate standard, especially when some members of both sides wish to destroy the holy lands

The palestinians aren't worried about maintenance. They want to kill the Jews.

therefore, the Palestians would be skeptical to just let the Israeli's have it.

The Israelis have it, whether the Palestinians are skeptical of this or not. The quickest way to hand power to right wing Jews is to blow up busses. This is what propaganda does to people. It stops them from approaching a problem rationally.

Quote:

Only the Muslims make an issue of this. The Jews just ended up their through the post WWII fallout.

A bit of history for you, the Jews were in Israel several thousand years ago, however they were conquered by the Romans who expelled the majority of them from the land. They then spend a large period of time amongst Europe and were subjected to second-class citizen status in Europe - which resulted in pograms in Russia where hundred of thousands of Jews were slaughtered and 6 million killed in the Holocaust by the Nazis.

Naturally, following from the horror of the holocaust, the entire world felt sympathetic to the Jews and therefore decided to give them a state. obviously taking a chunk from Germany as compensation for the holocaust was out of the question since anti-Jewish sentiment was still high, so it was decided that they be given their holy land which is now modern day Israel.

Unfortunately, the United Nations neglected to realise that the suffering of the Jews was not the fault of the Palestinans. However, the Palestinans were made to give up a portion of their land, essentially punishing the Palestinans for the crimes of the Nazis.  

Furthermore, the Jews that had remained in Israel also developed a movement in the early 1900's aimed at establishing a Jewish state in the holy land. Their method was to launch strikes against British & Palestinan targets (Palestine was a British colony at the time). These strikes were aimed at both military and civilian targets and were essentially terrorist attacks. On establishment of the state of Israel, members of these terrorist organisations took up positions in the Israeli parliament.

Interesting, how terrorist attacks were used by the Jews to help them establish the state of Israel.  


Quote:

The palestinians aren't worried about maintenance. They want to kill the Jews.

oh please, so the palestinans are a bunch of murderous, cold-blooded killing machines who have no human hearts whatsoever??

if they had their land, they would probably live in peace.  


Quote:

The Israelis have it, whether the Palestinians are skeptical of this or not. The quickest way to hand power to right wing Jews is to blow up busses. This is what propaganda does to people. It stops them from approaching a problem rationally.

sorry skeptical is the wrong word to use, i should have said worried. and can u blame the Palestians for being worried? u have some Jews threatening to destroy ur holy site that u don't currently control. of course ur going to be outraged and would do what ever it takes to gain control of that holy site.

i also understand that the Israeli's would also be worried if the situation was reversed and they didn't control their own holy site. hence, the dilemma in splitting East Jerusalem.

Gavin wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 4:23pm:

Hamas Mickey Mouse vs GI Joe – are they the same thing, i.e. propaganda tools used by the Palestinians and the United States respectively to promote/glorify war for their own goals? If so, then why was there such outrage towards the Hamas Mickey Mouse, but nothing is mentioned about GI Joe which has been a children favourite for a few decades?

Haha. I laughed out loud when I saw that TV show being reported on SBS.   ;D Funny as all hell.


It's a good point, Gav, but GI Joe is a bad example. Probably the movies 'Independence Day' or 'Airforce One' are the ultimate examples of American propaganda. Probably not for kids, though.


There are a few differences that come to mind when examning these two shows:

1) GI Joes enemy was 'Cobra' to my understanding... not Palestine, or the Russians, or Germany. They were robots and ninjas... I think.

2) That mickey mouse show basically says to kids: "Oppose George Bush... oppose America... oppose this and that. They make direct references to real life. Whereas, GI Joe is based in fantasy land.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 6:49pm:

Haha. I laughed out loud when I saw that TV show being reported on SBS.   ;D Funny as all hell. It's a good point, Gav, but GI Joe is a bad example. Probably the movies 'Independence Day' or 'Airforce One' are the ultimate examples of American propaganda. Probably not for kids, though.

okay, that's a better example but the point still remains, all countries participate in some form of propaganda when they are fighting a war - be in via cartoons, movies, newspapers, radio, etc.

this propaganda usually says "we are great, our enemies must be destroyed" or something alot those lines. the US did it during WWII, Hitler did it, and so are the Palestinans now.

i don't understand why we're outraged by the Mickey Mouse show, it's to be expected. We do similiar stuff in our propaganda and we have no problems with that.  

oh please, so the palestinans are a bunch of murderous, cold-blooded killing machines who have no human hearts whatsoever??

It's amazing what you can do with this sort of propaganda hey?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 6:56pm:

It's amazing what you can do with this sort of propaganda hey?

mate, again if the Palestinans got their land back and peace was able to be established, then i'm pretty sure they wouldn't be hell-bend on killing Jews.

Quote:

oh please, so the palestinans are a bunch of murderous, cold-blooded killing machines who have no human hearts whatsoever??

Correct.  8-)




Quote:

this propaganda usually says "we are great, our enemies must be destroyed" or something alot those lines. the US did it during WWII, Hitler did it, and so are the Palestinans now. i don't understand why we're outraged by the Mickey Mouse show, it's to be expected. We do similiar stuff in our propaganda and we have no problems with that.

It's definitely to be expected, but couldn't the Palestinians have figured out a more 'subtle' form of propaganda?   ;D

"We'll get you Bush! Our people will rise up."     -What a lovely mouse.  8-) He should be on play-school.


Since when are the Palestinians at war though? :-?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 7:03pm:

Quote: oh please, so the palestinans are a bunch of murderous, cold-blooded killing machines who have no human hearts whatsoever?? Correct.  8-) Great way to label an entire population with one brush  ::) ::) [quote] It's definitely to be expected, but couldn't the Palestinians have figured out a more 'subtle' form of propaganda?   ;D "We'll get you Bush! Our people will rise up."     -What a lovely mouse.  8-) He should be on play-school.

true, but then again not all forms of propaganda are subtle, i remembered watching a bugs bunny cartoon where he was fighting hitler. it portrayed hitler as a bumbling, incompetent fool.

not really subtle either.  



Quote:

Since when are the Palestinians at war though? :-?

how about since they ceased becoming a state after the conflict in 1948.
it's not a conventional war in the sense that they don't have an army, but it's still a war.

u might call it a resistance movement.

They probably think they are still at war, but the rest of the world just doesn't count it as war because they are so overwhelmed by Israeli force.

Gavin, demanding back land that you lost in a previous war it not a reasonable way to achieve peace. It never has been. It just continues the cycle of violence. The only effective way of achieving peace there ahs ever been is to accept the boudnaries as they currently are.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 7:12pm:

They probably think they are still at war, but the rest of the world just doesn't count it as war because they are so overwhelmed by Israeli force. Gavin, demanding back land that you lost in a previous war it not a reasonable way to achieve peace. It never has been. It just continues the cycle of violence. The only effective way of achieving peace there ahs ever been is to accept the boudnaries as they currently are.

Accepting the boundaries as they currently are means the Palestinans should just accept that they will never have a state.

That's not reasonable either.

No it doesn't.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 7:15pm:

No it doesn't.

Care to explain?

the Palestinans don't currently have a country and therefore don't have a border.

So when u say accept the boundaries as they are, then that means the Palestinans should just accept the fact they are never going to have a state.

They should get the west bank and gaza strip.

Quote:

Great way to brush an entire population with one brush

Thankyou. You should try it some time.  ;) It's quite fun.




Quote:

true, but then again not all forms of propaganda are subtle, i remembered watching a bugs bunny cartoon where he was fighting hitler. it portrayed hitler as a bumbling, incompetent fool.   not really subtle either.

You obviously haven't seen Donald Duck WWII cartoons either. Watch 'Der Fuehrers Face'... it has to be my favourite WWII cartoon.



Quote:

how about since they ceased becoming a state after the conflict in 1948. it's not a conventional war in the sense that they don't have an army, but it's still a war.   u might call it a resistance movement.

It's not even a war, Gavin. It's just a bunch of stupid, uneducated people fighting among each other. You may define it as a 'different kind of war'... but I don't consider it a war at all. It's not an 'official' war in any sense.


Fair enough. I think it's totally justifiable that the Palestians are a little peed off. Jews moved in in 48 and changed the official language to Hebrew, the official religion to 'Judaism' and the name of the country to Israel.

If the Muslims do the same to Australia, I'll be pretty peed off too.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 7:25pm:

They should get the west bank and gaza strip.

They're not going to stop until they get everything, Freediver.

I coudn't help but laugh with penders post in the multiculturalism board...

Pender
Quote:

we [edit](Australia)[/edit] would lose because their [edit](Israel's)[/edit] standing army is the best traind in the world. within 48 hours they can have an army of a few hundred thousand ready and their aiforce is well equipped and exceptionally trained. it rated often in the top 4 or 5 military forces in the world. we have a very small stranding army and very few reserves, though we are quite well equipped and trained we still pale in comparison to the israelis. Israel have have been in 4 full scale conflicts in the last 60 years, been hoplessly outnumbered on every occaision yet been victorious.

Gee whiz.... it doesn't take a 'superior soldier' to outgun an under equipped Arab army with the latest in American technology, not to mention the detterence of nuclear weapons.




Quote:

yes the israelis buy their aircraft from advanced US technology, but may i ad so do we, and we have a better deal.

Yeah... but Australia haven't received over 140 BILLION in DIRECT MILITARY and ECONOMIC assistance from America since the end of World War II.  ::)


Quote:

Since the October war in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarting that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipent of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War II, to the tune of well over $140 billion (In 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea and Spain.

Source: Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen 'The Israel Lobby',  London Review of Books v28 n6 March 2006 pp 3-12

If anyone thinks Israel is just a 'victim' like America, Israel and Pender want you to think, you're out of your mind! Being best buddies from the world superpower and leeching off it like there's no tomorrow is quite an advantage against those nasty Arabs.

Oh we'd lose a war would we, Pender? With or without America getting involved?  :P

Whether or not they are a victim has nothing to do with whether they have superior weapons or powerful friends. That just makes them a smart and powerful victim.

Also, remember the Russians got driven out of the middle east, as did the Europeans I think. The Americans are probably going to have to make another humiliating retreat. They are very persistent, which is not great if you plan on sticking around.

besides the arabs were equipped by the USSR...

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 1^st, 2007 at 10:54am:

besides the arabs were equipped by the USSR...

With stones from the ural mountains ;D

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 1^st, 2007 at 10:54am:

besides the arabs were equipped by the USSR...

Says who?

says them you fool.

all their aircraft and tanks were soviet during 1967.

i am to lazy to show you statistics though.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2007 at 6:25pm:

says them you fool. all their aircraft and tanks were soviet during 1967. i am to lazy to show you statistics though.

Hmm... someones a little touchy.


Okay... as far as I'm aware, the Soviets did indeed give weapons to Middle Eastern nations, but I'm not entirely sure which ones specifically... I was hoping you could fill us in. Further, it was nowhere near as much support as America gave Israel. The article outlines above that America's support for Israel is by far the world's largest economic and military assistance in history. Dwarfing that of other nations. Further, are you absolutely SURE that Egypt was provided with weapons by Russia?  :-? I never heard anything like that.


The fact that the Soviet Union was giving 'some' weapons to Arab nations doesn't disguise the fact that America is Israel's best friend puppet  ;). And it wasn't paw widdle obscure defenseless Israel facing an overwhelming enemy in that of a collection of nationalist Middle Eastern countries like you're claiming... the Arabs actually misjudged Israel's power at the time and didn't realise the strength of the US and Israel combined.

the soviets armed the arabs to a greater extent than the US armed Israel.

the israeli airforce had 200 aircraft the arabs had 4 times that, they also out numbered the israelies 2 to 1 in troop numbers. remeber the 1967 six day war was fought with Syria, Egypt and Jordan, with weapons also provided by Lebanon, Saudi arabia and Iraq.

the reason Israel has always been succesful is due the their far superior training and far better tactics. In 1967 they managed to destroy almost the entire arab airforce on the first day of the war before the arabs knew what was happening. The arabs had more weapons and better aircraft, they just didnt know how to use them.

The Israelis have always and continue to be outnumbered and out gunned, they are just better fighters.

Israels neighbours :

Lebanon - population 3 million. member of Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Syria - popn 22 mill, "The overwhelming majority of the Syrian population is Sunni Muslim", member of Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Jordan - popn 4 mill, 80% muslim, member of Organization of the Islamic Conference

Egypt - popn 65 mill, 90% muslim, member of Organization of the Islamic Conference

Saudi arabia is closeby. popn 22 mill. 100% muslims.
sudan is also closeby, popn 33 mill, 70% muslims.

info from    http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/arabinfo.htm

No wonder Israel is good at fighting !
Of the total population, 5,415,000 are Jews (76 percent), 16.1% were Muslims, 2.1% Christian, 1.6% Druze

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2007 at 6:31pm:

the soviets armed the arabs to a greater extent than the US armed Israel. the israeli airforce had 200 aircraft the arabs had 4 times that, they also out numbered the israelies 2 to 1 in troop numbers. remeber the 1967 six day war was fought with Syria, Egypt and Jordan, with weapons also provided by Lebanon, Saudi arabia and Iraq. the reason Israel has always been succesful is due the their far superior training and far better tactics. In 1967 they managed to destroy almost the entire arab airforce on the first day of the war before the arabs knew what was happening. The arabs had more weapons and better aircraft, they just didnt know how to use them. The Israelis have always and continue to be outnumbered and out gunned, they are just better fighters.

I'm sorry Pender but if you don't give me statistics... I'm going to have to label you a liar.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 4^th, 2007 at 4:35am:

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 3rd, 2007 at 6:31pm: the soviets armed the arabs to a greater extent than the US armed Israel. the israeli airforce had 200 aircraft the arabs had 4 times that, they also out numbered the israelies 2 to 1 in troop numbers. remeber the 1967 six day war was fought with Syria, Egypt and Jordan, with weapons also provided by Lebanon, Saudi arabia and Iraq. the reason Israel has always been succesful is due the their far superior training and far better tactics. In 1967 they managed to destroy almost the entire arab airforce on the first day of the war before the arabs knew what was happening. The arabs had more weapons and better aircraft, they just didnt know how to use them. The Israelis have always and continue to be outnumbered and out gunned, they are just better fighters. I'm sorry Pender but if you don't give me statistics... I'm going to have to label you a liar.

fine i now have to go get out my books, grr.

i dont lie.

i will reply when i have them.

Israel: 264,000 troops, 197 aircraft. I think aruond 1000-1500 tanks

arabs 465 000, 2 880 tanks and 810 aircraft. this being the most accurate web based source.
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?clr=1&sl=EN&id=5&docid=18924

i couldnt find israeli tank numbers on the net.

a book entitled "six days" by BBC journalist jeremy Bowen who is famously pro palestinian described the situation like this. (i chose this instead of a cource by and arab or Israeli).

"Israel and egypt had around the same number of tanks (etc)... but if Jordan and Syria were added the Arabs had a two to one advantage"

"In the air Israel and Egypt had the same number of fighters, but Egypt had four times as many bombers"

Bowen explains that Israel's force was mobile, well trained and well organized, he also explains that Israelis chain of command was very efficiant. The arabs on the other hand had were eratic and poorly run, hence why they lost.

So the arabs outnumbered and outgunned Israel, but inteligence and organisation won the day in this case. The outnumbered victum bites back aye.

i would also like to ad that Israels Fighters were predominently mirage IIIc's, produced in 1956 and  bought from FRANCE. while the arabs were equipped by the USSR with Mig 21's a more advanced aircraft.

Thanks Pender. Sorry I doubted you.

I guess part of the reason Arabs lost was due to the division caused among their own ranks... and the failure of Arab Nationalism... which partly led to the rise of Islamism. The division between the Shiites and Sunnis was also a big factor.

NOW...

The Israelis had French aircraft. The Arabs had Russian aircraft. This is what your sources indicate. Further, my sources never indicated American arms donated to Israel pre-six day war... just money and lots of it.

Hasn't it been argued that western aircraft were highly superior to Russian aircraft at this time?  :-? I know the Russians had a better space program... but western countries had far superior aircraft... this was proven with the breaking of the sound barrier by Chuck Yeagar... etc etc...

I'm pretty sure this is the case.

And given that aircraft are considerd the most important weapon in war... don't you think this played a big factor?

Further, you didn't indicate how much ammunation each side had... how much medical staff they had.... how much resources they had... how much food supplies they had... etc etc.

US $$$ could have bought them things that the Arab army lacked and played a major part in victory.


I mean.... look at the recent Iraq conflict... America had far less of everything that the Iraqi army had... less men... less tanks... etc etc...  but America still killed em.' Why? Becasue 'quantity' doesn't mean 'quality.'

Just because the Arabs APPEARED to be superior doesn't mean they were. I think Jews have the uncanny ability to look like the victims when they are actually quite strong.

I REFUSE to believe Israel kicked Arab @ss THAT much becasue they had a better strategy. Btw... what's the name of that Israeli general who wore that eye patch at the time? I forget.

Blackbeard?

I doubt that 'superior western aircraft' applied to the French ones.

mirage III's were produced in 1956, and were heavily outdated in the six day war.
Mig 21's  were better planes, look on wiki ;)

France was not going o sell Israel their best aircraft.

alot of the funding for Israel pre 1967 (I am not sure post that date) was from private donations from the US, that is rich jews were guilted into donating money to Israel. The Israelis are quite open about this fact.

The reason i always refer to 1967 is that i know that period in detail, and have a lot of literatuure on it.

You are correct that pan arab nationalism did fail miserably, mostly because the arabs believed that Israel would buckle under their "superior" forces, arab media especially radio contiuesly stated that Israel was about to be destroyed by an invincible pan arab army. When Israeli forces turned out to be more than a match, the arabs retreated over and over again.

The hapless israeli victum idea was promoted by arabs more than anyone else.

NOW

these are the reasons why Israel won the war.

-Superior Training
-Superior Tactics
-Superior will to win
-Good relations between officers and troops.

The arabs had

- superior arms
- superior man power

but without the assets israel posessed these were useless.

The Arabs, like so many nationalists, are always falling victim to their own propaganda.

fortunatly australian nationalists dont fall into this habbit. our propaganda is based on fact :D.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 5:34pm:

mirage III's were produced in 1956, and were heavily outdated in the six day war. Mig 21's  were better planes, look on wiki ;) France was not going o sell Israel their best aircraft. alot of the funding for Israel pre 1967 (I am not sure post that date) was from private donations from the US, that is rich jews were guilted into donating money to Israel. The Israelis are quite open about this fact. The reason i always refer to 1967 is that i know that period in detail, and have a lot of literatuure on it. You are correct that pan arab nationalism did fail miserably, mostly because the arabs believed that Israel would buckle under their "superior" forces, arab media especially radio contiuesly stated that Israel was about to be destroyed by an invincible pan arab army. When Israeli forces turned out to be more than a match, the arabs retreated over and over again. The hapless israeli victum idea was promoted by arabs more than anyone else. NOW these are the reasons why Israel won the war. -Superior Training -Superior Tactics -Superior will to win -Good relations between officers and troops. The arabs had - superior arms - superior man power but without the assets israel posessed these were useless.

Hmm... I guess I need to do more research next time. It'd be interesting to know whether they still had bad aircraft during the Yom Kippur War, Suez War and the Lebanon Wars.

I'll admit I'm under-researched on actual equipment... but I'm still not convinced Israel won it on 'will' alone. But for the moment I have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

But don't worry... I'LL BE BACK!  8-)



Quote:

The Arabs, like so many nationalists, are always falling victim to their own propaganda.

How so?

will and tactics my friend.

pre emptive strike etc.

I am not sure of yom Kipper either.

Suez was before in 1956 i think, at that stage the Israeli airforce was abysmal, the elied on the french and English for air cover in that campaign.

the lebanon wars were not wars. small scale battles perhaps.

arabs fell to their propaganda, i just explained that.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 6:09pm:

will and tactics my friend. pre emptive strike etc. I am not sure of yom Kipper either. Suez was before in 1956 i think, at that stage the Israeli airforce was abysmal, the elied on the french and English for air cover in that campaign. the lebanon wars were not wars. small scale battles perhaps.

Tactics... probably. 'Will?' I don't think so. The Arabs are a fanatical bunch.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 6:12pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 5th, 2007 at 6:09pm: will and tactics my friend. pre emptive strike etc. I am not sure of yom Kipper either. Suez was before in 1956 i think, at that stage the Israeli airforce was abysmal, the elied on the french and English for air cover in that campaign. the lebanon wars were not wars. small scale battles perhaps. Tactics... probably. 'Will?' I don't think so. The Arabs are a fanatical bunch.

you obviously have never been to israel.

My favourite character of any TV show, Farfour mouse, has been killed on Palestianian TV by an Israeli agent... ;D ;D ;D


Quote:

Mickey Mouse 'Twin' Killed On Hamas TV Saturday, June 30, 2007 GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip, June 29 -- A Mickey Mouse look-alike who preached Islamic domination on a Hamas-affiliated children's television program was beaten to death in the show's final episode Friday. In the final skit, the character Farfour was killed by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, the mouse called the Israeli a "terrorist."       "Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, the teen presenter. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added. "Tomorrow's Pioneers," a weekly show featuring a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice, had attracted worldwide attention because the character urged Palestinian children to fight Israel. It was broadcast on Hamas-affiliated Al Aqsa TV. Station officials said Friday that Farfour was slain and the show taken off the air to make room for new programs. Station manager Mohammed Bilal said he did not know what would be shown instead. Israeli officials have denounced the program as incendiary and outrageous. The program was also opposed by the state-run Palestinian Broadcasting Corp., which is controlled by Fatah, Hamas's rival. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902105.html

You were too young to do die Farfour!!!  :'(

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/05/09/mickeymouse_wideweb__470x304,0.jpg

RIP mate.  ;D lol

Man... the funny part is... this show is 100% serious.

Crikey!  bugger! ahwell, there's always Terror tubbies ;D

---

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 9:25pm:

Crikey!  bugger! ahwell, there's always Terror tubbies ;D

God .... I wouldn't be surprised if they did copy the teletubbies soon to replace farfour.  ::)


Have you seen the actual footage of that farfour show? Funny as hell.... in a disturbing kinda way.  :P

Quote:

Have you seen the actual footage of that farfour show? Funny as hell.... in a disturbing kinda way.  :P

If you could tell me where id have a look.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=farfour+mouse&search=

Go nuts.  ;)

Ya know what, we need something similar-  Humphrey B Bear or mr squiggles to belt out NATIONALISM TO OUR YOUTH.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 10:01pm:

Ya know what, we need something similar-  Humphrey B Bear or mr squiggles to belt out NATIONALISM TO OUR YOUTH.

Hahaha. Yeah. Humphrey should tell them to deport Muslims.  :)

Quote:

Hahaha. Yeah. Humphrey should tell them to deport Muslims.  :)

Exactly- he can tell of the lands which were once ours (Bankstown,cabramatta,footscray etc) and fight to get them back ;D

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 10:07pm:

Quote: Hahaha. Yeah. Humphrey should tell them to deport Muslims.  :) Exactly- he can tell of the lands which were once ours (Bankstown,cabramatta,footscray etc) and fight to get them back ;D

I think the Humphrey suit is still in use... maybe we can recycle the fat cat suit?  :)

I could see "The 4 Avenging Wiggles" doing a tour.   :)

Quote:

I think the Humphrey suit is still in use... maybe we can recycle the fat cat suit?  :)

I thought HBB was no-longer around? what about Agro then?

Ive met the man who was fatcat- he's a yank.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 10:12pm:

I could see "The 4 Avenging Wiggles" doing a tour.   :)

Driving in my big red car.... bomb.  :o

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 10:15pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8th, 2007 at 10:12pm: I could see "The 4 Avenging Wiggles" doing a tour.   :) Driving in my big red car.... bomb.  :o

HA HA HA THATS FUNNY ;D ;D ;D

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 10:13pm:

Quote: I think the Humphrey suit is still in use... maybe we can recycle the fat cat suit?  :) Ive met the man who was fatcat- he's a yank.

Must've been the best day of your life.  :P



Quote:

I thought HBB was no-longer around? what about Agro then?

HBB still pops around for Carols by Candlelight. Agro doesn't get used anymore.  :P Fat guy retired me thinks.



Wake up Mohammed!

Quote:

Must've been the best day of your life.  :P

Pfft, was at a special occasion/conference. (hush hush) it was soooo boring.


Quote:

HBB still pops around for Carols by Candlelight.

Ok.


Quote:

Agro doesn't get used anymore.  :P Fat guy retired me thinks.

Wally lewis.


Quote:

Wake up Mohammed!

HUH? :-?

Wake up Jeff = Wake up Mohammed  :P

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 10:31pm:

Wake up Jeff = Wake up Mohammed  :P

I  still dont understand what you are on about. :-?

Never mind.  :P

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 11:41pm:

Never mind.  :P

C'mon.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 11:46pm:

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 8th, 2007 at 11:41pm: Never mind.  :P C'mon.

'Wake up Jeff' is a 'Wiggles' song (Childrens band). I replaced the words 'Jeff' with 'Mohammed' to give it a delightful Islamic ring to it.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 9^th, 2007 at 12:13am:

wrote on Jul 8th, 2007 at 11:46pm: ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 8th, 2007 at 11:41pm: Never mind.  :P C'mon. 'Wake up Jeff' is a 'Wiggles' song (Childrens band). I replaced the words 'Jeff' with 'Mohammed' to give it a delightful Islamic ring to it.

Ah ok- im not familiar on the wiggles. when they came out i was a late teenager!

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 8^th, 2007 at 9:19pm:

My favourite character of any TV show, Farfour mouse, has been killed on Palestianian TV by an Israeli agent... ;D ;D ;D

I have to admit, the way they killed off the Mickey Mouse was very, very clever.

The reason being that there was a huge uproar in the international media about the cartoon, so Hamas got rid of the cartoon due to the international pressure. But on the other hand, by having the Mickey Mouse being killed off by an Israeli agent, they are effectively passing on their message to the kids.

From their perspective, it's basically killing two birds with one stone, getting the international community off their backs and passing on their message to the Palestinan kids at the same time.

Very clever stuff.

Hamas Mickey Mouse vs GI Joe

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179210221

Hamas Mickey Mouse vs GI Joe – are they the same thing, i.e. propaganda tools used by the Palestinians and the United States respectively to promote/glorify war for their own goals?

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2007 at 11:06am:

Hamas Mickey Mouse vs GI Joe http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179210221 Hamas Mickey Mouse vs GI Joe – are they the same thing, i.e. propaganda tools used by the Palestinians and the United States respectively to promote/glorify war for their own goals?

I cringed reading that old thread because you and Gavin raised such ridiculous points.

This Palestinian mouse DOES NOT compare with stupid GI Joe, nor any other American childrens program (None that I can think of anyway). I mean, geez, have you even WATCHED GI Joe before, Freediver?  

Freediver has a point DT.  Not that I've ever watched any violence if I could help it - but I know my kids used to watch plenty of it in so called innocent cartoons.

Take for example the Barbie Doll - how many American women look like one - obviously this is a way to get to children so they grow up with a preconceived idea of what they want to look like or how to behave when they are adults.

From what I remember many cartoons contained dark swarthy terrorists - before the word even became that popular.  Most adults didn't think twice about it - but who knows what brainwashing lurked in the back of our children's brains.

hamas martyr mouse is encouraging kids to be suicide bombers.
That is suported in The bible by ishmaels "associates", they used to sacrifice their own kids - same as muslims today.  
In the koran where they are instructed to not mourn for their "martyrs".  Do not shown any human emotions.

GI joe started this way :
The 40s
In 1943, a pigeon named G.I. Joe rescued over a thousand people in Italy by delivering a crucial message.
In 1945, a hit movie, The Story of G.I. Joe, about war correspondent Ernie Pyle in World War II, was released. Burgess Meredith starred.

It is not brainwashing, it is the facts . all terrorists are muslims. what did hilali say ?

all terrorists are muslims

I thought we'd been through this already?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 10:28am:

In the koran where they are instructed to not mourn for their "martyrs".  Do not shown any human emotions.

well, if the person dies a martyr, then they would be granted a place in heaven wouldn't they? If so, then why would u mourn them if they are in a better place.

i don't think it's about not showing human emotions.  


Quote:

GI joe started this way : The 40s In 1943, a pigeon named G.I. Joe rescued over a thousand people in Italy by delivering a crucial message. In 1945, a hit movie, The Story of G.I. Joe, about war correspondent Ernie Pyle in World War II, was released. Burgess Meredith starred.

I'm pretty sure GI Joe was based on an American World War II solider, and who was fighting against the Nazis. so that would mean it would promote pro-American and anti-Nazi propaganda.

i think that previous thread raised some very good points, all countries use cartoons to promote their own agenda and cartoons typically target kids.

by the way, was i reading it correctly, didn't Donald Trump agree with Gavin on the issue, saying that propaganda was to be expected?


Quote:

It is not brainwashing, it is the facts . all terrorists are muslims. what did hilali say ?

so i take it Timothy McVeigh is muslim? what about Eric Ruldolph?
they weren't muslim and were responsible for terrorist attacks in recent years.

That's what they are told skeptic. they are also told their dead will suffer of they are mourned.
it is about not being human, not talking the truth.



I stand corrected re terrorists. I did mean religious terrorists.
Even given that, sure only 99.99 % are muslims.
To put it in perspective, in the weekend on one day htere was 100 killed in iraq by muslim terrorists.

If you want to keep things in perspective, you should not ignore history.

mantra/skeptic  - here are some more "dark swarthy terrorists. " Oh, muslims too !!!
Same as the recent doctors and undonbtly the next ones.



Fourth man found guilty of London bomb plot
Posted 6 hours 1 minute ago
Updated 4 hours 50 minutes ago


Muktar Said Ibrahim (L) and Ramzi Mohammed surrender to the police after a siege in west London, July 29, 2005. (Reuters: Metropolitan Police handout)
A British court found four men guilty over a failed Islamist plot to set off bombs in London on July 21, 2005, two weeks after suicide bombings which killed 52 commuters in the capital.

Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29, Yassin Omar, 26, Ramzi Mohammed, 25, and Hussain Osman, 28, were found guilty of conspiracy to murder after a six-month trial.

The plot to explode home-made devices made of hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour in rucksacks was executed exactly 14 days after the July 7 attacks which killed a total of 56 people, including four British Islamist bombers.

The verdicts came on the seventh day of deliberations and amid intense media interest in Britain, which is on high alert following three failed car bombings in London and Glasgow, Scotland, last month.

Eight suspects are being held in connection with those incidents.

Jurors at high-security Woolwich Crown Court, south-east London, have not yet reached verdicts on two other alleged July 21 plotters - Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 34, and Adel Yahya, 24.

They will continue their deliberations and sentencing will take place after the remaining two verdicts are reached.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200707/r158896_578672.jpg


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/10/1974163.htm

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 11:04am:

If you want to keep things in perspective, you should not ignore history.

that's true, if u look throughout history, all religions have had followers that have committed terrorist attacks in it's name.

skeptic - only one advocates terrorism and violence.
only one "issues" fatwas, ie hits.
Only one murders those that leave
only one will not tolerate any other belief.


Thats is the true perspective

Just about every religion has done that at some point in history.

As far as I know, any of those actions is against any other belief system.
those things may have been done at some point in history, if so, they were not following their belief.

unlike muslims, where if they should wage a jihad, otherwise they are not following their belief.
is why it has always been done by muslims

skeptic and freediver :

The letter was written by Ramzi Mohammed, who tried to carry out a suicide bomb attack on an underground train near Oval station in south London. Here is the letter:

"First of all I beg Allah to accept this action from me and he to Allah to whom belongs the power and majesty makes it a sincere one and that he admits me to the highest station in paradise for verily he grants martyrdom to whom ever he wills.

Secondly my family don't cry for but instead rejoice in happiness and love what I have done for the sake of Allah for he loves those who fight in his sake.
I pray to Allah the mighty that he keeps your heart sealed to this religion. My family practice your religion and hold tight to the rope of Allah and don't let go. Pray your five daily prayers so that you may be saved from hell and by the permission of Allah I may intercede for you, if he Allah allows to whom belongs the power and the majesty.

My children be good Muslims and obey your mother. Pray your prayers and read Quran. Adam look after your little brother Malik and we shall meet again in paradise god willing. May Allah keep your mothers heart sealed to this religion. Praise be upon you. Gods blessing and mercy.''

Ramzi Mohammed.  "

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22047925-5012763,00.html



Look, he TELLS his family not to cry him and encourages them to do the same.
That is the people you are supporting. What other belief has this as a basis ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 1:21pm:

That is the people you are supporting.

sprintcyclist, who said anything about supporting terrorists?

all we're saying is that
a) Hamas has every right to use cartoons for propaganda purposes, just like we have that very same right.

and

b) not all terrorist attacks throughout history were committed by muslims, so u shouldn't blame all terrorism on that religion.

Sprint, we are not supporting people like that. You wouldn't like it if we said you were a pedophile because you consider yourself a Christian and many priest have been pedophiles. So stop trying to tar all muslims with the same brush. You cannot expect to help solve a complex problem like this by ignoring the obvious psychological and political influences on the people involved. If you treat a group of people like terrorists for long enough, pretty soon they will be.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 11:42am:

As far as I know, any of those actions is against any other belief system. those things may have been done at some point in history, if so, they were not following their belief.

Not following their belief based on ur interpretation of the relevant holy scripture.

however, terrorists of all religions have been able to use their own interpretation of holy scriptures to justify their terrorist acts.


Quote:

unlike muslims, where if they should wage a jihad, otherwise they are not following their belief. is why it has always been done by muslims

and i'm pretty sure if u ask a muslim about terrorism, they would say that their religion is a peaceful one that does not condone terrorist attacks. and that the verses from the koran that we show as evidence are being mis-interpreted.

point is, with u being a practising christian, ur hardly objective when u say that christian terrorism is not in accordance with the belief. just in the same way, a muslim guy won't be objective either when talking about muslim terrorism.

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 1:35pm:

If you treat a group of people like terrorists for long enough, pretty soon they will be.

exactly, it's what u call a self-fulfilling prophecy.

you both support the use of media that encourages terrorism.
ergo, you both support terrorism

Find the  %age of religious terrorist acts NOT committed by muslims. I dare you.
It'ld be way under 2%.

What if ALL of the paedopliles came from a church and it was advocted by the Bible ?
What would you think then ?

ALL the terrorists come from the koran, and it is encouraged and demanded by that.
Of course muslims say that,  what does their actions and the statements from the koran tell you ?
Look up taqiya.
my interperetation of the koran is as hilalis. He knows it pretty well, I would think. Would you ?

Name the christian terrorism and the quotes that support it.

That is not a self fulfilling prophecy at all.  Why make excuses for murderers ??
Why support them ?

No I don't sprint. Quit trying to put words into my mouth.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 2:57pm:

you both support the use of media that encourages terrorism. ergo, you both support terrorism

saying that Hamas has a right to use media doesn't mean that i agree with their message.
they have a right to use media for propaganda purposes, just like we do.  


Quote:

Find the  %age of religious terrorist acts NOT committed by muslims. I dare you. It'ld be way under 2%.

that's only if u look at the last few years, but if u look throughout history then that % of non-muslim terrorist attacks is much, much, much higher.


Quote:

ALL the terrorists come from the koran, and it is encouraged and demanded by that.

based on ur interpretation of the koran.


Quote:

Of course muslims say that

based on their interpretation of the koran.


Quote:

what does their actions and the statements from the koran tell you ?

well, if ur referring to actions, not all muslims are violent, i reckon the violent ones are a minority of the worldwide muslim population. so going on the actions of the non-violent majority, then i can conclude islam is not a violent religion.  

and with the statement from the koran, as above, it all depends on ur own interpretation.


Quote:

That is not a self fulfilling prophecy at all.  Why make excuses for murderers ?? Why support them ?

do u even know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is? well, it's when u take a false concept, which evokes a new behavior that makes the original false concept come 'true'.

i think it's fair to say that not all muslims are terrorists/murderers, but to say they all are will probably result in more terrorists being created.

think of it this way, say u have a non-violent/peaceful muslim who is just trying to live a normal life. but u constantly label him a terrorist/murderer anyway and never truely accept him as being normal. this would make the guy angry and he would eventually give up his normal life and become a terrorist anyway.

Given sprint's tendency to misinterpret what I and skeptic say, I can hardly rely on his interpretation of a book he hasn't even read.

skeptic wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 1:40pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2007 at 1:35pm: If you treat a group of people like terrorists for long enough, pretty soon they will be. exactly, it's what u call a self-fulfilling prophecy.

here's an article in today's paper about this. i have to agree with this guy, he raises good points, the Daily Telegraph should put him on full-time rather than the likes of shonky journalists like Piers Akerman:


Quote:

Don't drive Muslims into dark Dr Mirko Bagaric July 10, 2007 12:00am http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,22043892-5001031,00.html IN the wake of a Queensland doctor's arrest in connection with Britain's foiled car bomb terrorist attack, Queensland Senate candidate James Baker has called for "radical" Muslims to be incarcerated if there is a terrorist attack. He couldn't be more wrong. The best way to tackle the terrorist threat is to embrace the Muslim community and work with it to weed out the small portion of aberrant individuals who present a risk to community safety. The arguments used in support of terrorist profiling are two-pronged. The first relies on basic statistical analysis. While the overwhelming majority of Muslim males in Australia pose no threat to community safety, Muslim males, so the argument runs, are over-represented in proportion to their population size as potential perpetrators of terrorist acts. All of the more than 20 people arrested on terror-related offences in Australia have been Muslim males (or Muslim converts). This is despite the fact that Muslims constitute a small minority, about 1.5 per cent, of the Australian community. The second limb of the argument in favour of terrorist profiling is that it does not constitute discrimination. Discrimination does not occur simply by treating people, even large groups, differently. It is perfectly legitimate to do this. That is why it is OK to lock up criminals, but not the whole population and why it is OK for bosses to pay salaries only to their employees, not the community at large. Discrimination occurs where people are treated differently without there being a justification for the relevant difference. This is supposedly not the case in relation to terrorism profiling. The relevant difference is thought to lie in the disproportionate number of terrorist acts committed by Muslim males. Supporters of wide-ranging terrorist profiling contend that the fact there is a relevant distinction between Muslims and other people so far as the commission of terrorist activities is concerned logically means that profiling Muslim males is not a matter of race; it is a matter of crime prevention. Their race or religion is only incidental to this process. However, there is a fundamental point lost in this approach, which focuses solely on norms of discrimination and mathematics. Public policy, to be effective and intellectually sound, must factor in more than clinical theoretical analysis. History shows it is foolhardy to ignore the emotive impact that decisions of social or strategic policy can have on the psyche of a society or a group within a society. Feelings of suppression and second-class status would crystalise into the consciousness of the Muslim community if authorities adopted a wide-ranging policy of terrorism profiling. Moreover, to stigmatise and alienate groups within the community is not only morally repugnant but would increase the risk of a terrorist attack on Australian soil. A sure-fire way to increase the chances that a person will commit a criminal offence is to limit their opportunities for social and economic well-being. Worldwide empirical research shows that people from marginalised and disadvantaged backgrounds commit a disproportionately high number of criminal offences. That's why the incarceration rate of indigenous people in Australia is 13 times that of the rest of the community. Terrorism in the end is just another crime – albeit a very serious offence. The fact that some of the people involved in the latest bombing in the UK are well educated is an aberration rather than a trend. Yet terrorism law enforcement officials can't be seen to be spending as many resources on cells of grumpy blonde Gold Coast retirees as they do trying to infiltrate communities that have previously spawned terrorists. The answer to the delicate security dilemma is to firstly recognise the healthy contribution that hundreds of thousands of Muslims have made to forging our rich, diverse and harmonious nation. Secondly, it needs to be underlined that the members of the community that present a terrorist threat represent a very small number of aberrant fanatical people whose ideologies are beliefs have no foundation in the teachings of Islam and no similarity with the sentiments of the rest of the Muslim community. Thirdly, the fact that Muslims want to live in a safe and prosperous society just as much as the rest of the community cannot be understated. The Muslim community is part of the counter-terrorism solution, not an element of the risk. Australia's capacity to continue to curtail the terrorist threat will succeed or fail principally on the extent to which police and the rest of the community can deepen and widen the bonds with the Muslim community. Dr Mirko Bagaric is a well known lawyer and author.

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 3:27pm:

Given sprint's tendency to misinterpret what I and skeptic say, I can hardly rely on his interpretation of a book he hasn't even read.

Good point
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm almost tempted to read the book myself and compare how violent it is with other religious books. But I'm sure this has been done before by people far more qualified than me. If someone really wanted to show that Islam was inherently violent, they would find a more rigourous comparison that has already been done rather than expecting people to put any stock in them flicking through it.

hilali studied it for decades. want to accept his interperetation ? how about hamass?
Why don't the "moderate" muslims just visit the "extremists" and show them where they "have it wrong." "

how have the muslim countries fared in terms of progress/peace ?  Judge something by the fruit it produces.


Dr mirko believes what the french and english used to.  Now they think otherwise.  
Beliefs are ike mechanics in that there are good ones and bad ones.


freediver - please have a read of it yourself. Sure, i am biased.
I am not too keen on being beheaded.
best way to form you r own opinion is to check it out yourself.
That is what I did, I was not going to rely on what others said.  
I thought all the "rumours" must be wrong. It is so unbeleviable.  Till I read it.

Judge something by the fruit it produces.

Again, your judgement would be totally dependent on when you happened to be born.

mantra wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 8:53am:

Freediver has a point DT.  Not that I've ever watched any violence if I could help it - but I know my kids used to watch plenty of it in so called innocent cartoons. Take for example the Barbie Doll - how many American women look like one - obviously this is a way to get to children so they grow up with a preconceived idea of what they want to look like or how to behave when they are adults. From what I remember many cartoons contained dark swarthy terrorists - before the word even became that popular.  Most adults didn't think twice about it - but who knows what brainwashing lurked in the back of our children's brains.

I know Freediver has a point mantra, but let's face it... Barney the dinosaur... who target pre-schoolers as farfour the mouse does... does not contain political content to this extreme. Sesame street anyone?

I'm a pro at the media... this is nothing new to me. If girls play with barbies... fair enough... they wanna be thin.... etc.

The thing is... America haven't used blatant propaganda on pre-schoolers in TV for political purposes for a long time. Which is why sprint and skeptic or so keen on pointing out things which were created in the 1940's.

Sure... I can think of MANY adult examples of propaganda... for example the portrayal of Islam in a movie such as 'True Lies.' But as far as pre-schoolers... that's going a little far... as far as TV goes anyway.


Freediver and Skeptic are full of sh1t... aka... bigotry.


Whatever... I have no problem with Hamas using this mouse. Freedom to do what they want. My argument goes that America doesn't use this method anymore.

How did the nation of Israel arise? What should have been done instead? What should be done in the future to resolve the regional conflict?

Israeli PM seeks to expand Jerusalem

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Israeli-PM-seeks-to-expand-Jerusalem/2007/05/14/1178995029986.html

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he will seek to expand the borders of Jerusalem and he hopes for eventual world acceptance of Israeli rule in the disputed city.

At a ceremony marking the anniversary of Israel's capture and annexation in 1967 of the city's eastern sector which Palestinians seek as a capital for a future state, Olmert said: "The past 40 years are only the beginning. I believe, hope and pray that we will continue to work together to strengthen Jerusalem, to expand its borders, to cultivate its foundations, to build its neighbourhoods."

---

Palestinians 'forced' to leave Hebron

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Palestinians-forced-to-leave-Hebron/2007/05/14/1178995053886.html

More than 40 per cent of Palestinians living in the centre of the West Bank city of Hebron, under Israeli control, have been forced to leave their homes.

And more than 75 per cent of their shops have shut down, according to a survey released on Monday by two Israeli human rights groups.

B'Tselem and The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said the exit of Palestinians from the centre of Hebron resulted from Israel's policy of separation between Jews and Arabs and hardships imposed on the local Palestinian population.

bump

How did the nation of Israel arise? What should have been done instead? What should be done in the future to resolve the regional conflict?

Discussion in the Tony Blair thread:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1180610614/6#6

from another thread

"in 1948 there were 1 million jews living in Palestine.

in 1948 there were approx 1 million palestinians in Palestine.

Palestine had never been ruled by the palestinians.

The british ruled it, and before them the turks, before them crusaders, and before them sarecens, before that the byzantines, then the persians then the Romans and before them shock horror the Jews. So the land belongs to a poeple who have never been soverign over it?  

When the British left they left the country in the hands of both the land's inhabitants. It was the muslim palestinians who did not want to share the land as i showed above.

Tell me how the jews invaded a the palestinian land when no such thing existed?

tell me how the jews invaded Israel when they were already there?

even before the holocaust Palestine was populated by both Israelis and Arabs. The mass migration into israel by European Jews did not really begin untill Israel won the war in 1948. "

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22104565-23109,00.html

ISRAEL has begun releasing dozens of Palestinian prisoners as part of a US-backed deal to bolster Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas following the takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas Islamists.

Some of the 250 or so prisoners, mostly members of Mr Abbas's secular Fatah faction, boarded buses outside Kitsiyot prison in southern Israel.

From there they will be driven to the West Bank city of Ramallah to be greeted by Mr Abbas and reunited with families.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2007 at 6:49pm:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22104565-23109,00.html ISRAEL has begun releasing dozens of Palestinian prisoners as part of a US-backed deal to bolster Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas following the takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas Islamists. Some of the 250 or so prisoners, mostly members of Mr Abbas's secular Fatah faction, boarded buses outside Kitsiyot prison in southern Israel. From there they will be driven to the West Bank city of Ramallah to be greeted by Mr Abbas and reunited with families.

I don't really trust the Israeli Government... so... I wouldn't be taking this article too seriously.

they always release prisoners when they say they will, they have so many not a huge problem for them to release 250

More problems caused by Nationalism:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22203564-23109,00.html

HUNDREDS of Israeli border guards moved in at dawn today to clear Jewish settlers out of two houses they were occupying in the West Bank flashpoint town of Hebron.

The border guards and other police surrounded the buildings where two families of squatters had barricaded themselves in, with the support of dozens of young ultra-nationalist Jews.

Israel's army said yesterday it sentenced several soldiers to one month's imprisonment for refusing to take part in the forced removal of the settlers.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23955630-601,00.html

A SYDNEY charity has admitted channelling aid into the Palestinian territories through an Islamic organisation banned by Australia and the US for its alleged links to terrorism.

Muslim Aid Australia has used Interpal - an organisation proscribed by former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer and declared a "specially designated global terrorist" organisation by US President George W. Bush in 2003 - to distribute medical aid in Gaza.

Interpal is a British-based humanitarian group also known as the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund. It has been cleared of terror links by the British Charity Commission but failed three years ago to have itsproscribed listing revoked in Australia, when lawyers for the group unsuccessfully petitioned Mr Downer.

When informed of MAA's relationship with Interpal, the Department of Foreign Affairs indicated it might refer the case for investigation. The Australian Federal Police last night refused to confirm or deny whether inquiries were already under way.

It is a criminal offence under the Charter of the United Nations Act for Australian individuals or organisations to deal with groups identified by DFAT's Consolidated List, which names banned groups and people. Breaching the act can result in a maximum 10-year prison sentence and fines of more than $275,000 for individuals and more than $1.1million for organisations, DFAT says.

Interpal was accused by the US Treasury Department in 2003 of using its global humanitarian missions as a "cover" for generating money on behalf of the Palestinian terror group Hamas. It has previously denied links to Hamas. A spokesperson for Interpal failed to return calls from The Australian or respond to a list of emailed questions.

Quote:

How did the nation of Israel arise?

When the British seized the Sanjak of al-Quds from the Ottoman Caliphate, they began transporting large quantities of Zionist settlers into the land. Up until that time, the land had been over 98% Arab and less than 2% Jewish for well over 1000 years and prior to that it was 0% Jewish for about 700 years, as the Christians forbade the entry of Jews into the land altogether.

The British and other European powers saw the creation of a foreign entity in the heart of the Middle East as a very strategic distraction for the new Middle East they were busy drawing up. If they placed a foreign entity in the middle of all the new states that would undoubtedly be created, they'd waste their time fighting it, instead of worrying about the colonial powers that were carving them to pieces.


Quote:

What should have been done instead?

Well Australia today has got about 1.5% Muslims, who'd suggest we should turn the majority of Australia into an Islamic state and give the rest to the people who are the 98.5% majority? I mean there's no alternative right? We have to give it to the Muslims!! cos they're almost 2% and all!


Quote:

What should be done in the future to resolve the regional conflict?

The foreign entity should be evacuated back to Lithuania and Poland and USA and UK from whence it came and the 98% allowed to resume their normal lives. After 60 years of hell, they deserve it.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 1:55am:

Quote: What should be done in the future to resolve the regional conflict? The foreign entity should be evacuated back to Lithuania and Poland and USA and UK from whence it came and the 98% allowed to resume their normal lives. After 60 years of hell, they deserve it.

After 60 years it's not quite that simple. Most Israelis were born there.
What about those Arabs who have assimilated into Israeli culture? What do you think should happen to them? They represent a sizeable portion. Some of them, particularly second generation only read Hebrew. They also speak Hebrew, but are mainly Muslims.

The vast majority of the 7.5 million people living in Israel have no contact with the countries you are suggesting relocating them to. In addition, it is very unlikely that they would be accepted if they chose to relocate there.

So who gets to stay and who should leave?

Quote:

After 60 years it's not quite that simple. Most Israelis were born there.

Actually I think you'll still find the majority are not born there.


Quote:

What about those Arabs who have assimilated into Israeli culture? What do you think should happen to them? They represent a sizeable portion.

I wouldn't use the word assimilated. They live in their own land, they're under occupation as well, they're just on the other side of the fence.


Quote:

Some of them, particularly second generation only read Hebrew. They also speak Hebrew, but are mainly Muslims.

Where on earth did you get this from? They do read/speak Hebrew, but as a second language, they are primarily Arabic-speakers. Also just for the record, they speak Hebrew better than the Jews, because they actually have Semitic tongues, unlike the Jews who use Eastern European accents to attempt to approximate the often difficult Semitic sounds.


Quote:

The vast majority of the 7.5 million people living in Israel have no contact with the countries you are suggesting relocating them to

Not our business, they shouldn't have come to begin with.


Quote:

it is very unlikely that they would be accepted if they chose to relocate there

Yes they would, the Christian nations love the Jews now. Why can't they goto America? America seems to love spending all their money and security on protecting the Jews, let them do it in their own backyard. they can give them Texas, and Bush can be the first to hand his ranch over for them to live in.


Quote:

So who gets to stay and who should leave?

Anyone who agrees to live under Islamic rule and publically denounce Zionism as an evil Nazi-like ideology can stay, anyone else must go.

Simple :)

Btw, here's a taste of how the Muslim kids growing up inside the occupation wall are feeling/thinking. As you can see they speak Hebrew, but Arabic also.

http://www.youtube.com/v/zIo6lyP9tTE

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 10:50pm:

Anyone who agrees to live under Islamic rule and publically denounce Zionism as an evil Nazi-like ideology can stay, anyone else must go. Simple :)

Ok. So it's got to be Islamic rule? I think you'll find that there are a great many moderates in Israel who actually oppose Zionism. (The so-called secular Jews) If you (hypothetically) allowed them to stay, Islam would be a minority religion.

Would you seek to impose Islamic control against the wishes of the majority?

You have a very monochrome view of Israel. I've read about what happened to non-Muslims in Bethlehem under the 'benevolent supervision' of Hammas, Fatah and the various splinter groups. Have you?

The majority of people in Bethlehem were Christians up until relatively recent times. Now it's down to 15%.

A great many injustices have been done on both sides in that part of the world.

Quote:

Ok. So it's got to be Islamic rule? I think you'll find that there are a great many moderates in Israel who actually oppose Zionism. (The so-called secular Jews)

Umm, many Zionists are actually secularists. Zionism is not really a religious ideology, and in fact there are ultra-orthodox Jewish movements like Neturei Karta for instance that are strictly anti-Zionist.


Quote:

If you (hypothetically) allowed them to stay, Islam would be a minority religion.

I can't for the life of me work out how you came to that conclusion... I guess you thought we'd leave the wall up?  ;D


Quote:

he majority of people in Bethlehem were Christians up until relatively recent times. Now it's down to 15%.

Actually if you look at the overall picture, with statistics from 1900 up until the modern day, you'll find Christian populations diminished in line with the increase in Jewish population.


Quote:

A great many injustices have been done on both sides in that part of the world.

I'm sorry, but I don't remember any Palestinians flying over to Poland or UK or USA and committing atrocities against Jews. The Jews forcefully immigrated into Palestine and committed the atrocities, after about 20-30 years of silent suffering, the Palestinians finally began to really fight back, and now you claim it's even on both sides? Go take a history lesson.

I didn't claim that it's even on both sides. It's enough to say that many atrocities have been committed. including the killing of innocent people by rocket attacks and suicide bombers.

It doesn't really interest me what religion people follow. I am against all suffering.  I'm not interested in some kind of hypothetical set of scales where you put the bodies of innocent Palestinians on one side and Israelis on the other.

It sickens me when people think that justice will only come from retribution and that one act of obscene carnage can only be absolved by another.

It's no better in the OT - An Eye for an Eye , a Tooth for a Tooth.

This is exactly the kind of obscene mentality that leads to war.

Of course Abrahamic religions don't have a monopoly on it.

Not quite.

Unfortunately muso, there are none so blind, as the quote says.

Sprint, in his anti-muslim campaign says, scratch a muslim, find an Islamist, while that may be a gross over simplification, the fact is that people are generally supportive of one side or the other, and often seek to justify the actions of their side, irrespective of the logical, and ethical arguments offered.
Abu is a pretty clear example of this, he seems to consider himself moderate, I believe he says is aussie born, but his loyalties are to an armed struggle for the imposition of theocratic Islamic regimes throughout the world.

In the west we generally consider the extreme evangelical/pentecostal christian types as nutters, well they are a relatively small percentage of the overall christian population, with muslims, that degree of nuttiness is displayed by a far greater percentage, as displayed by our two moderate muslim posters here.

They have pronounced support for Iran, and that Israel has no right to exist.

Even moderate muslims seem very lacking in tolerance.

Mozzaok - just to give you an extra laugh - I am one of the pentecostal nutters !!!

Though that'ld cheer you up  

muso,


Quote:

I didn't claim that it's even on both sides. It's enough to say that many atrocities have been committed. including the killing of innocent people by rocket attacks and suicide bombers

Again, the Palestinians didn't goto Poland or Lithuania and start bombing or rocketing Jews, they came to our land, and are militarily occupying it.

Do you not think people have a right to defend their homes and their land against an invading aggressor? If China were to invade Australia, would you feel Aussies have a right to resist physically? If they brought in millions of civilians to be the front line of establishing that invasion, would you condemn those who fought against them?

mozza,


Quote:

Abu is a pretty clear example of this, he seems to consider himself moderate

If by moderate you refer to the Rand report's definition and classification of Muslims, then I'm definitely no moderate.


Quote:

I believe he says is aussie born, but his loyalties are to an armed struggle for the imposition of theocratic Islamic regimes throughout the world.

I'm an Australian citizen, my loyalties are to Australia. Never have I indicated otherwise.


Quote:

They have pronounced support for Iran

You've lost all credibility here mate. Unless you'd like to fumble back through my posts and find a reference for that, consider yourself discredited.

The vast majority of the 7.5 million people living in Israel have no contact with the countries you are suggesting relocating them to

Not our business, they shouldn't have come to begin with.

Uh, yes it is Abu, otherwise you are a hypocrit and are doing exactly what the western powers did in establishing Israel.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 12:10pm:

Mozzaok - just to give you an extra laugh - I am one of the pentecostal nutters !!! Though that'ld cheer you up

;D You did give a laugh with that one sprint, that is funny.
I still reckon you are a bloke with a good heart, who is looking for answers.
Would it be rude to suggest you keep looking?

Have you checked out Taoist philosophies?

Big old buddha had some great words of wisdom too, though I do wonder how much a 35 stone asian can teach about self discipline?
Must've been glandular ;D

Some reckon the best bits of christianity, were borrowed from buddhist teachings, then again the best bits of all religions usually have damn fine messages.(it's the other 95% I struggle with)

mozzaok wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 11:24am:

Unfortunately muso, there are none so blind, as the quote says. Sprint, in his anti-muslim campaign says, scratch a muslim, find an Islamist, while that may be a gross over simplification, the fact is that people are generally supportive of one side or the other, and often seek to justify the actions of their side, irrespective of the logical, and ethical arguments offered. Abu is a pretty clear example of this, he seems to consider himself moderate, I believe he says is aussie born, but his loyalties are to an armed struggle for the imposition of theocratic Islamic regimes throughout the world. In the west we generally consider the extreme evangelical/pentecostal christian types as nutters, well they are a relatively small percentage of the overall christian population, with muslims, that degree of nuttiness is displayed by a far greater percentage, as displayed by our two moderate muslim posters here. They have pronounced support for Iran, and that Israel has no right to exist. Even moderate muslims seem very lacking in tolerance.

I hear you, but as far as war goes, I still think it's just a human attribute, albeit a very sad one.

One-sided religion-inspired views of the cosmos still grate on my sensibility, but I honestly think that war has more to do with testosterone than religion, and that war is analogous to rape in that respect. If there was no religion, people would find other excuses to be violent against each other.

Unfortunately when it comes to war humanity still seems unable to keep their collective zippers fastened.

We have a lot of growing to do as a species.

Anybody know Robert Burns' poetry?

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!"

I feel bad for Palestine mainly because the British PM at the time of creation said he wants to make another Ulster in the middle east.

mozza,


Quote:

Have you checked out Taoist philosophies? Big old buddha had some great words of wisdom too

I've always laughed at how secularists and atheists in Western countries often promote Taoism, Buddhism, Paganism, Falun Dafa etc. as "more acceptable" religious expressions. If you were sitting back with your co-secularists in Beijing, I don't think you'd be taking the same line.

Because those religions are a tiny minority here, their "ancient wisdoms" can be appreciated without any threat, whilst Christianity and Islam and other major world religions, which have equally as valuable or even more valuable principles are considered unacceptable.

I also notice you completely ignored the issue of Iran in that last post, too busy off searching for a post containing my alleged support for Iran?

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 1:45pm:

I've always laughed at how secularists and atheists in Western countries often promote Taoism, Buddhism, Paganism, Falun Dafa etc. as "more acceptable" religious expressions. If you were sitting back with your co-secularists in Beijing, I don't think you'd be taking the same line.

I laugh how Muslims can criticise lack of human rights in China and be totally blind to what's going on in Iran, Saudi and most other countries that are mainly Muslim.

mozzaok - I can't think of one thing you have said that is rude.
I, like many athiests, think God is way bigger than any single church, or even belief.


Yes, one of my brothers had a taoist .... encounter a few years ago.
I really liked what he sent me - they had great laughter exercises.
He and I laugh a lot over the phone.



Muso - could be a lot in what you say there. That wars have more to do with testestosteone.
Even with no religions, I reckon some would still find a reason to pillage and loot others.

Abu, would you like to start a new thread about the dangers of those 'eastern' religions?

muso,


Quote:

I laugh how Muslims can criticise lack of human rights in China and be totally blind to what's going on in Iran, Saudi and most other countries that are mainly Muslim

Are you for real? Considering we're mostly the victims of it, we're more likely to be the ones criticising it. Western governments prop up and support those regimes and fund them to commit those atrocities against their Muslim populations, now there's a story!

If you wanna go down that road, I'm quite happy to oblige. Mubarak, Karimov, Hussein etc. all Western allies and all well known perpetrators of massive acts of brutality and murder against their Muslim populations.

freediver,


Quote:

Abu, would you like to start a new thread about the dangers of those 'eastern' religions?

Unlike you, I have a cordial respect for other religions, and would prefer not to waste my time attacking and defaming them.

Then why did you claim that we only appreciate the value of those religions because we are unfamiliar with them? Is that not a criticism? Or do you just draw the line at backing up your claims?

I am not attacking Islam. I am asking questions about it. If I have said anything wrong about it, feel free to point out the error.

The criticism is of the West's "cute" fascination with them, and the propagation of the idea that they're enlightened mystical philosophies, as opposed to the blinded dogma and rhetoric of Islam and Christianity.

Would you like to start a new thread pointing out this hypocrisy, and explaining why they aren't enlightened mystical philosophies?

Slightly off-topic.


mozzaok wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 12:50pm:

Big old buddha had some great words of wisdom too, though I do wonder how much a 35 stone asian can teach about self discipline? Must've been glandular ;D

If by Buddha you meant Siddhartha Gautama, then he was not fat.

The theory held by most Buddhist scholars of the Fat Buddha is a Zen monk in China around 850 AD. who died in 916 AD. His name was ChiChe "Knowing This". No one knew where he came from, he carried a big fat bag and was famous for his fat belly. When asked how to obtain nirvana he would lay down the bag and not said a word. When asked about what happened after reaching nirvana. he would pick up the bag and walk away, still not a word. If you'll look at an authentic Fat buddha, you'll see he has a sack on his back.

pedantic mode/ off

;)

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 2:48pm:

The criticism is of the West's "cute" fascination with them, and the propagation of the idea that they're enlightened mystical philosophies, as opposed to the blinded dogma and rhetoric of Islam and Christianity.

The good thing about Buddhism is not the mysticism. It's the fact that it recognises that we can use the knowledge of our surrounding world to improve our lot in life. That's much more compatible with scientific principles than just putting your faith in the supreme sky daddy.

I'm not a Buddhist, but I can see some enlightened thinking in Buddhism. I can also see many good things in Islam, Christianity and other religions. These religions generally incorporate the collective wisdom of many past ages. They work, and have done for generations.

Unfortunately the wisdom of past sages is often corrupted by the fools of today.

"Unfortunately the wisdom of past sages is often corrupted by the fools of today." posted by muso.

Great line muso, very succinctly put, and so sadly true.
We have at our disposal, the greatest accumulation of knowledge and wisdom, but still see so many wishing to ignore that fact, preferring to believe that a single ancient text is more reliable, because they ignorantly accept that it was magically created.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 10:50pm:

Quote: After 60 years it's not quite that simple. Most Israelis were born there. Actually I think you'll still find the majority are not born there.

I held off on answering that point before I did some research to confirm my point. *

Israeli born Jews are called Sabras. Currently Sabras make up 68% of the Jewish population. That's about 3.7 million people who were born there that you want to deport.

In addition you can add certain groups, such as the Druze. Most Druze  consider their Israeli identity stronger than their Arab identity. Most  are not Muslim.  That would account for about another 150,000 people.

Then you would welcome those who opposed Zionism.  I don't have figures for those people, but they are a significant group:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

The combined Israeli and Palestinian populations stands at 9.8-10.8 million, depending on who you believe, so eliminating the ones you want to deport (and I've no idea how you propose to do that), you'd still have approximately 45% of the population as Muslim. I would presume that the majority of Palestinians in Jordan would prefer to stay in their country of birth, which was approximately 90% of the land area of the old British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1946.

*Source: http://www.cbs.gov.il

Whichever way you look at it, you're not going to be able to relocate vast numbers of Israelis without a major bloodbath on both sides.

I don't have any viable solutions to the problem personally, but it seems obvious to me that whatever solution you come up with needs to respect the cultures and religions of all groups concerned.

When you're born in a country, you have certain unalienable rights regardless of what has happened before your birth. A person has no control over what his grandparents did in 1948, so it's totally unjust to try to take it out on them just because they don't share your religion.

A two state solution is the only viable solution.

muso,

I don't mean to be rude, but your knowledge of the situation just seems to be picked up as you go along. That's not really a viable way to hold a debate.


Quote:

In addition you can add certain groups, such as the Druze. Most Druze  consider their Israeli identity stronger than their Arab identity. Most  are not Muslim.  That would account for about another 150,000 people

This is the perfect example of how you really don't seem to have a clue about the basic underlying situation here. I don't know who you seem to think the Druze are, but they're quite simply an apostated group of Muslims. They are Arabs, who were once Muslims, but whose beliefs deviated from the orthodoxy to the point that pretty much all Muslims declared them apostates.


Quote:

The combined Israeli and Palestinian populations stands at 9.8-10.8 million

You're forgetting the millions still languishing in the refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria. Those in Egypt, the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, in Iraq the Maghreb and in so many other places. Just because the Zionists deported them, doesn't mean they're all of a sudden detached from the land, they're waiting on the borders for re-entry.

Not to mention the fact that Islam would not just be ruling within the borders of Palestine. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, it's all one land for us, and that's how it was prior to the invasion, and that's the way it will return. there's never been any border between al-Quds, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, Cairo for us, it's all one land, and will return that way.


Quote:

Whichever way you look at it, you're not going to be able to relocate vast numbers of Israelis without a major bloodbath on both sides

Most will probably flee to the USA, as that's the country that seems to love protecting the rights of Jews worldwide. And if they don't wanna take them, perhaps we can smuggle them in, like the British smuggled them into our land in the 1920's. Maybe they can take an entire US state and turn it into their promised land (maybe Nevada, the Mormons claim that to be a new Zion I think), let them kick the Yanks out of their homes and herd them into refugee camps, since they're so intent on funding and backing the Zionist project.

Quote:

A two state solution is the only viable solution.

How generous of you to offer more than half of someone's country to a foreign entity, you have just as much foresight as the originators of the problem, the British. Perhaps you should vacate your home and invite a Jewish family to come live in it, then a Palestinian family from the refugee camps in Syria/Lebanon can move back into their home, and you could take the Palestinian family's tent in the refugee camp? Since you're so full of suggestions about who should accomodate who.

Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, it's all one land for us, and that's how it was prior to the invasion, and that's the way it will return. there's never been any border between al-Quds, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, Cairo for us, it's all one land, and will return that way.

What are you waiting for?

Most will probably flee to the USA, as that's the country that seems to love protecting the rights of Jews worldwide.

That's hardly a rational argument Abu. They haven't shown any sings of wanting to flee. Muso is right. There would be another bloodbath.

How generous of you to offer more than half of someone's country to a foreign entity, you have just as much foresight as the originators of the problem, the British. Perhaps you should vacate your home and invite a Jewish family to come live in it, then a Palestinian family from the refugee camps in Syria/Lebanon can move back into their home, and you could take the Palestinian family's tent in the refugee camp? Since you're so full of suggestions about who should accomodate who.

I'm just being realistic Abu. A two state solution is the only viable option.

You're not being realistic, you're suggesting a solution that suits your needs (ie. the needs of the West).

As the Crusaders were expelled, so too will the Zionists.

The Crusaders lasted 99 years, I personally can't see the Zionists lasting that long.

And as Salah ud-Deen (May God be pleased with him) did, we will allow those who wish to live in peace amongst us to stay (ie. those who renounce Zionism) and those who do not will be given safe passage out. Contrary to what the West did to us, when we agreed to evacuate Andalus.

[quote author=abu_rashid link=1181878710/255#262  And if they don't wanna take them, perhaps we can smuggle them in, like the British smuggled them into our land in the 1920's.
[/quote]


What is your land Abu?
I had a strong feeling you said you were australian, was that one of those muslim white lies?
It's not a lie if it is only deceiving an infidel?

I must say your veracity is about as reliable as your tolerance for non muslim religions.
I suppose you still claim you don't support terrorists either?

You are doing more for opponents of Islam with every word you speak, because you come across as pro violence, anti-semitic, and pro the imposition of theocratic Islamist regimes, all the things which westerners do not wish to see in their countries.

Try and raise your credibility above that of a deluded reactionary.

thanks abu - you spoke like a true moderate muslim who is questioned.

I hope everone sees your response.

Quote:

What is your land Abu?

As a Muslim, my land is all the Muslim lands.


Quote:

I had a strong feeling you said you were australian, was that one of those muslim white lies?

It is not a lie. Just because I am a Muslim, and I believe the Muslim lands to be my lands doesn't mean I can't also be Australian.

I'm sure most Jewish Australians also consider both Israel and Australia to be their lands.. Do you have a problem with them on that?

I suspect not.


Quote:

I suppose you still claim you don't support terrorists either?

Nowhere in any post of mine have I expressed any support for acts of terrorism, this charge is about as valid as your one that I supposedly support the state of Iran. I'm still waiting for the evidence of that one...

Your ability to construct a half decent argument is barely masked by these pathetic accusations, which you have no chance of backing up, and like with the last one, I doubt you'll even bother trying.

Do yourself a favour and sit back down on the sidelines.


Quote:

You are doing more for opponents of Islam with every word you speak

You're an opponent of Islam, and my words have certainly not done much to help your credibility :)


Quote:

because you come across as pro violence

Baseless.


Quote:

anti-semitic

Baseless.


Quote:

and pro the imposition of theocratic Islamist regimes

Getting warmer, but nowhere have I mentioned anything about imposition.

I'm not even going to bother asking you to back any of this up, as I know you don't have the backbone to.


Quote:

Try and raise your credibility above that of a deluded reactionary.

Coming from Mr. Credibility himself, nice. :)

mozzaok wrote on Jul 12^th, 2008 at 10:37pm:

What is your land Abu? I had a strong feeling you said you were australian, was that one of those muslim white lies?

Ok, so how is Palestine Jewish land for those European 'Jews' who were neither born there or lived there and then invaded and now occupy Palestine?

They had 'a right of return' did they not?

We have more right to that land, I believe a two state solution is a good idea. But that VERY REASONABLE offer which guarantees them peace and a two state solution has been on the table and the Israeli's haven't accepted it. If they want to wait for another 60 years they can forget it, the Palestinians (both Christian and Muslim) have been living under their oppression for more thana 60 years now and enough is enough.

God willing we'll unite the Muslims and take the land back by force as Salahudeen Ayoube did when he retook Al Quds from the Frankish hordes. Then if the Jews wish to stay under an Islamic state they can live under it under our protection, just as the Jews had done for more than 1000 years, we'd give them that option just like the Christians were given the same option when we retook Al Quds from them. If they don't want to live in the Islamic state in peace amongst the Muslims and Christians they can go back to Europe where they came from.  

If the West feels so sorry for them then give them land in the US or Europe to have their 'Jewish' State, the Palestinians have been through far too much rubbish.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qMg_C6MduD4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qMg_C6MduD4

Min Irhabe (Who's the Terrorist)

LYRICS ENGLISH:
Who's the terrorist?
I'm the terrorist?!
How am I the terrorist when you've taken my land?
Who's the terrorist?
You're the terrorist!
You've taken everything I own while I'm living in my homeland

You're killing us like you've killed our ancestors
You want me to go to the law?
What for?
You're the Witness, the Lawyer, and the Judge!
If you are my Judge
I'll be sentenced to death
You want us to be the minority?
To end up the majority in the cemetery?
In your dreams!
You're a Democracy?
Actually it's more like the Nazis
Your countless raping of the Arab's soul
Finally impregnated it
Gave birth to your child
His name: Suicide Bomber
And then you call him the terrorist?
You attack me but still you cry out
When i remind you it was you who attacked me
You silence me and shout:
"Don't they have parents to keep them at home?"
"But you let small children throw stones!"
WHAT?!
You must have forgotten you buried our parents under the rubble of our homes
And now while my agony is so immense
You call me the terrorist?

Who's the terrorist?
I'm the terrorist?
How I am the terrorist
When you've taken my land?!
Who's the terrorist?
You're the terrorist!
You've taken everything I own
while I'm living in my homeland

Why terrorist?! Because my blood is not calm
It's boiling!
Because I hold my head for my homeland
You've killed my loved ones
Now I'm all alone
My parents driven out
But I will remain to shout out
I'm not against peace
Peace is against me
It's going to destroy me
You don't listen to uor voices
You silence us and degrade us
And who are you?!
And when did you became ruler?
Look how many you've killed
and how many orphans you've created
Our mothers are crying
Our fathers are in anguish
Our land is disappearing
And I'll tell you who you are!
You grew up sported
We grew up in poverty
Who grew up with freedom?
And who grew up in continument?
We fight for Our freedom
But you've made that a crime
And you, the terrorist call me the terrorist!

Who's the terrorist?
I'm the terrorist?
How I am the terrorist
When you've taken my land?!
Who's the terrorist?
You're the terrorist!
You've taken everything I own
while I'm living in my homeland

So when will I stop being a terrorist?!
When you hit me and I turn the other check
How do you expect me to thank
the one who harmed me?!
I tell you what!
You tell me how you want me to be!
Down on my knees with my hands tied up
My eyes to the ground
Surrounding by bodies
Houses destroyed
Families driven out
Our children orphaned
Our freedom chained up
You oppress
You kill
We bury
We'll remain patient
We'll suppress our pain
Most importantly you feel secure
Just relax and leave us all the pain
You see our blood is like that of dogs
NOT EVEN
When dogs die they receive sympathy
So our blood is not as valuable as a dogs
No - My blood is valuable
And I will continue defending myself Even if you call me a terrorist