Bydio

I’m a fan of photography, but not of Islamic Palestine, and at CarlosMiller.com I wrote a little something I thought would make sense… I think….

Carlos,

Looking at both sides of the issues is admirable and necessary so as to come to an enlightened conclusion. There is, however, a time when you say something is right and something is wrong.

At the level of individuals, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who is all bad or all good, and most likely you’ll conclude that the vast majority of people are good. Here we are dealing with governments, which are “general” in nature, and since both Israel and Gaza have elected their governments, we can say that these governments are representative of their people.

The difference between these governments is extraordinary, and if one holds Western values dear, then the only acceptable government between the two is Israel. Israel has gone to ridiculous lengths — even at the expense of their own safety — to create a peaceful governmental resolution to the conflict between Israel and Gaza, and have been rebuffed at every turn. Gaza has a government based on the tenets of Islam, and calls for the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews in particular. There simply is no equality between the ideals of the two governments.

We also know that any aid sent into Gaza to help the people will benefit Hamas first and the people second. This has been documented extensively. Hamas is in control of Gaza, and they set the rules. Therefore, when Gaza acts hostile towards Israel, and Israel prohibits aid shipments, they know they’re hurting Hamas and sparing their own people more pain, suffering and death. Israel must look out for its own citizens first and foremost, always, before allowing another people who are generally hostile towards Israel and Jews in particular to benefit from Israeli largess.

Many people will speak in generalities, and point to one or another incident to help prove their point, but examination of the big picture has shown me that there is still only one side to support in this conflict, and Israel is that side.

Be well.

More:

Scott,

I can hold no stock in an organization that promotes such hateful conventions like Durban and Durban II, and who had the lack of foresight to create an agency that promotes perpetual victimhood via refugee status through the UNRWA.

Further, the UN is subject to the rules and bullying of Hamas just as is any resident of Gaza. Collusion with Islamic militant groups is documented, and fought by Israeli inspections as best as possible; still materials for rockets and bombs get through under the guise of food shipments.

The terror is instigated by Hamas and other Islamic militants and Israel has only ever responded to such threats. There is terror on both sides, but only one side wishes to constantly create more terror in its enemy’s civilian population.

Also, you should realize that most of the shortages in Gaza are red herrings. There is ample food documented in daily pictures from Gaza, and fuel is plentiful according to figures. Electricity for Gaza is mostly generated inside Israel, and there have been few interruptions in service (once from a Gaza mortar volley hitting a cable).

You can read more about electricity supply from this site: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/11/palestine-press-agency-hamas.html

If any babies do starve, it would be the fault of Hamas because of their anti-Israel policies forcing this conflict, but I have yet to hear of a single person starving to death in Gaza. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/09/lauren-booth-idiot-extraordinaire.html

If you have any links to information about actual starvation in Gaza, I’d like to read them.

Be well.

UPDATE 20081214 01:09: My second comment (as seen above, without image) is still awaiting moderation. Wonder if anyone else can see it. (UPDATE: Yes, it was approved.)

UPDATES:

20081216, Comment 65

Donkeyrock // Dec 16, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Scott,

Just as the United States would not give up its southwest because it was taken in war to placate the descendants of the losers, Israel should not have to give up part of its land it gained in war just to appease those who lost.

Israel is more secure with its current borders than it was with previous borders, and giving up even more land than it already has to placate irrational Muslims is a recipe for disaster.

20081219: Comment 73

Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 12:54 am

Scott,

“The borders would only shrink a small bit for the Israeli’s, and what they would gain would be far more valuable.”

The same can be said for the Palestinian representatives rejecting the offer of 97% of the land Israel won in past wars in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. If I recall correctly, that was Arafat and Oslo. Unfortunately, it’s abundantly clear that the majority of Arab Muslims in Gaza, Judea and Samaria prefer to follow the tenets of Islam and kill Jews instead of work with them. The fundamentalists are in power in all of the Arab countries (even Iraq, which gets much of its law from Islam, Sharia law), and the Israelis won’t get any concessions from people who believe Allah has ordained Islamic supremacy.

To sum up, there’s no reason to believe Hamas or Fatah (PLO) will honor any agreements made with Israel, no matter how many concessions Israel makes. Past words and actions from these ruling parties clearly map out future actions that can be expected, and the populace they rule will gladly follow their lead, as evidenced by their publicly expressed joy when bad things happen to Israel and other Western countries.

20081219: Comment 74

Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:06 am

Scott,

Reading about what the Qur’an says is very enlightening to understanding the mindset of Muslims. I read JihadWatch.org, and have been impressed with Robert Spencer’s throughness and honesty. Reading his series “Blogging The Qur’an” is informative and exhausting. Many people seem to dislike him, but I have yet to read something by him that stinks of dishonesty or bias.

With that in mind, “The religion of Islam is actually close to that of Christianity and Judaism, it has just been perverted in much worse ways than the other 2″ is clearly not true.

The Qur’an and Hadith clearly state what Islam thinks of Jews and Christians, and anyone who isn’t Muslim (Infidels). The Muslim holy book clearly speaks of a fundamental hatred of Jews, with specific instructions to kill them when possible, and Christians are not much better off. This is why I used the word “fundamental” when referring to Muslims who are otherwise called “radical.” They are following Islam in a fundamental form, in a literal way, and would therefore be considered more pious than other Muslims.

Even Abbas, Fatah’s leader, has made public statements about killing Jews and destroying Israel, and allows rocket attacks on Israeli civilian populations, so I don’t see how Fatah would be any better a peace partner. Fatah doesn’t want peace, they’re just less violent than Hamas.

Certainly the media is censored in the Middle East, but that doesn’t forgive huge crowds celebrating the deaths of civilians by passing out candy and singing in the streets.

Jerusalem has been the most accessible by every religion when under Israeli rule, especially compared to past masters of the city. And with the powerful Islamic block in the UN, the OIC, and strong anti-Israel feelings of some non-Islamic states, it would only be a matter of time before Jerusalem would be taken away from Israel and Jews.

If we just go by religion, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Torah hundreds of times, in the Bible many times, and zero times in the Qur’an. To Muslims, Jerusalem is a conquered land that can’t be let go, and the only tenuous religious connection they have is Mohammed’s visit to heaven via “the farthest mosque in Islam” which was interpreted to mean Jerusalem.

I invite you to check out http://www.jihadwatch.org/ and judge for yourself the validity of what I’ve said about Islam, or check out YouTube and search for Robert Spencer if you want some video to watch. One thing I should mention is that Spencer refutes every naysayer with facts and logic, so you might have to take some time to hear what he says, listen to those who deny what he says, and then see what he says to refute them.

20081219: Comment 75

Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:33 am

Carlos,

[...]

I prefer a civil discussion, and this is a very hard subject to keep civil, but it’s a much more enjoyable experience when it is kept so.

As to “when and how does it ever end?”… I don’t think it can without one side being physically conquered (Islam or Western society), or a fundamental change in Islam itself. This is purely an ideological matter. All religions claim this land in the name of their religions, but the Jews and Muslims are the main players at the moment.

Israel is a country that adheres to our cherished Western values of freedom, liberty, and individual rights far more closely than any Arab or Muslim country. To me, helping Israel is a smart bet for the U.S. and other Western countries who hold dear these ideals and prefer governments everywhere keep the individual rights of its citizens a main priority.

Odd thing about those last two comments is that they were in response to comments that show up after my answers. I dunno why, I’m guessing it’s a difference between my computer time and the other commenters computer times.

And, the obligatory photodonking:

Update 20081219: Comment 83

Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

[...]Scott,

I believe violence is called for in all religious books, but only one religion has modern day enemies that their religious book calls for to be killed, and that’s Islam. After all, how many Jewish suicide bombers do you see blowing up Babylonians today? On the other hand, Muslims killing “Infidels” is a daily occurrence across the globe.

Arafat preplanned, executed, and presided over the Second Intifada, which sounds a lot like terrorism to me. He also stole billions of taxes and aid dollars from his own people to line his pockets and keep himself in power. Arafat was not a good man by any means for either side of this conflict. It’s quite possible, and even likely, that Arafat used taqqiya (Islam-condoned deception) to get back into power so he could cash-in and fight his enemy at the same time, while basking in the adulation of those who believed in his cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml

Since Jerusalem is open to all religions right now, turning control of that city over to the UN is rather pointless and would lead to stronger Muslim control of the city. As I said before, UN control would most likely lead to Muslim countries restricting Jewish and Christian access to Jerusalem, which would be a step backwards from where we are now.

Update 20081222: Comment 88

Donkeyrock // Dec 22, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Scott,

There’s plenty of information about Arafat and the second intifada, so you can find it if you like, but he’s just one of many players in this Middle Eastern venue.

The part about religions, as you said, I’m unclear about. What part are you disputing? Were there crusades? Yes. But why were there crusades, and how did they come about? Well, the crusades were in response to Muslims attacking Christians and taking vast swaths of formerly Christian-dominated land. Remember that Muslim crusaders invaded Europe through Spain in the west and got as far as Vienna in the east. There is no mandate in the Bible for war against other religions, so the crusades were purely a response to aggression and were a political creation. Muslims, on the other hand, need only turn to their holy book to find cause for war against anyone who isn’t Muslim, and such justification has been used to wage war against infidels for about 1,400 years. Even a young America — and the founding fathers themselves — had to pay the Jizya (along with many other countries), and eventually fought and defeated Muslim aggression in the form of the Barbary Pirates.

The point of suicide bombers actually proves that Muslim counties want peace was very odd to me. Besides the words these countries use, their actions, too, are evidence of their willingness to put Islam above peace. They know that any overt action by the whole country will result in stunning defeat (the Western countries are set up militarily to attack countries, not movements or small groups), so instead Muslim governments use proselytizing, charities set up to fund Jihad, hate-preaching in 80% of the mosques in Western countries, and cries of faux human rights violations and Islamophobia when people point out that Muslims are killing civilians every single day.

Why do suicide bombers use relatively low-tech ways of killing non-Muslims? Because they can get these devices past security, and they believe they are going to paradise if they die by killing infidels for Allah.

Jerusalem, the UN and the OIC. The UN has a pitiful track record of keeping the peace, and there is no reason to think giving Jerusalem to the UN would create better results than what we now have, and ample evidence that things would be worse. The OIC is the largest block of countries voting in the UN, and they vote according to Islam whenever they can. I can’t recall a single country on this planet that is purely Christian or Jewish, or that have banded together in the UN under a religious flag. Western counties that many call Christian are not hyper-Christian and would find it anathema to their secular principles to create a block in the UN that was called the Organization of Christian Nations. Even Israel, the lone Jewish state, is very secular, and would be soundly mocked for trying to create a Jewish voting block in the UN. However, most (if not all) Islamic states are hyper-Islamic, and rule by the principles of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is not just a holy book, it is a book of laws and principles that tells its followers how to live and fight and rule to please Allah. Therefore, with only one religion in the UN having a formidable block of countries voting together, UN mandates in favor of Islamic principles would soon make Jerusalem a more Muslim-friendly city at the expense of Christian and Jewish freedoms. We are seeing the Muslim strength of unity in the UN through the human rights council decisions and the blatantly hateful Durban conferences.

I will check out Three Cups of Tea and give it a read. From the reviews I assume it’s about dealing with individuals and small groups, and how likable people are no matter what their background. This is almost always true, but as they say, one bad apple spoils the bunch, and a couple hundred million bad apples certainly sour the cider.

Update 20081223: Comment 90

Donkeyrock // Dec 23, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Scott,

I did say the Christian crusades were political, not Biblically motivated. In that way, the religion was perverted, but Islam is not being perverted by violence, it is an integral part of its teachings.

I think it’s hard to deny that about 1/3 of the nations in the UN acting as a block for one religion is a formidable force.

The piracy was carried out by Muslims under Islamic principles, forcing captured ships and crews to submit to them and making the parent governments pay for the release of the men and material (when not taken for bounty and slavery), so calling it Jizya seems to be appropriate (pay and you will not be harmed).

For the 80% of mosques, go to this link:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009316.php

I think the UN is necessary only to bring nations to the table to talk. In that regard it is an excellent institution. However, giving the UN any kind of power over other nations is absurd.

More about the 80% of Mosques being radicallized can be found here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007159.php

But in fact there was nothing offhand or obscure about what Kabbani said, and he didn’t say it in 1998. Kabbani said it in a State Department Open Forum on January 7, 1999: “The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques,” he declared, “that has been sent upon these mosques around the United States – like churches they were established by different organizations and that is ok – but the problem with our communities is the extremist ideology. Because they are very active they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques that have been established in the US. And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US. So it means that the methodology or ideology of extremist has been spread to 80% of the Muslim population, but not all of them agree with it.”

Update 20081226: Comment 93; Comment 94

Scott,

I don’t see the point of your quotation from Kabbani, though you seemed to want to set it up as a rebuttal of something. I have to say you lost me.

Bias, according to dictionary.com is:
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
Jihadwatch.org factually links violent Jihad and Islam, and refutes political pleasantries like “Islam equals Peace” with the very books of Islam (let alone the very Muslims committing violent Jihad and claiming it is Allah’s will). Telling the truth is not proof of a bias that is wrongly prejudiced; otherwise, all truth would be considered bias, and wrongly prejudicial. If one side of the story is true, then it’s truth, not bias.

The quote you quote from me was a quote from you. Confusing as that sounds, the conclusion is even more confusing. It sounds like you’re refuting your own quote. I would like to see where killing unbelievers was used as an absolution of sin before Mohammed. It may exist, but I’m not familiar with it.

I did understand what you said about the Barbary pirates, and my point was that they used Islamic principles such as the Jizya to validate their attacks. You say that since they attacked Muslims as well, then they weren’t using Islam to justify their attacks. Even if the pirates attacked other Muslims, that doesn’t mean they didn’t use Islam as justification for their attacks. Further, it seems they had backing from other Muslim countries, as the book “Flying the Black Flag” says:
“[...] but in addition piratical raids on Christians furthered the cause of Islam, gave prestige to these rulers in the larger Muslim world, and were never condemned by Muslims, as attacks by the pirates on fellow Muslims would have been.”
http://books.google.com/

The Vatican is not a member state of the UN, only a permanent observer. And giving up a disputed city to the UN? Preposterous. If Mexico claimed Los Angeles, would it be okay to put L.A. under UN control? Of course not. The same goes for Jerusalem.

I am not forgetting the different sects of Islam within those 57 members of the OIC, but then it is pointless to bring up such a red herring when the OIC acts as one in the UN. There is no religious analogy to rephrase this, but something similar would be a coalition of countries acting for one purpose, say the 1991 Iraq war; there may be individual disputes within the coalition, but the coalition acts as one.

The Associated Press is incredibly biased, especially in the Middle East, as they use “stringers” to report news. So locals who have no reason to be unbiased report news and photos to the AP, and the AP prints it under a guise of unbiased news because they have no way to verify the reports. Just Google ‘Associated Press Bias’ (without quotes) to see people and organizations accusing the AP of bias. The BBC is little better. This article from the Times Online gives a small glimpse of the BBCs pro-Arab/anti-Israel bias:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article715471.ece

Update 20081226: Comment 100

Scott,

[...]

Heh, those 3AM posts are a killer. I think I can honestly say that most Muslims aren’t fundamentalist, and probably pose very little risk to others. However, this is due in large part to not following the tenets of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, for the disaffected, all they have to do is turn to the Qur’an and read what’s written to give them a sense of vengeful purpose. This crosses all classes of Muslims — the middle class seems to be more active in Jihad than the lower class — and creates a reserve of willing participants who want to fight “The Man.” The fact that few religious leaders in Islam refute the violent Jihad, or monetary and material support for the Jihad, simply adds to the disaffected person’s sense of righteousness.

For bias, just taking one side, then sure, JihadWatch.org is firmly on one side of the debate. I think they’ve proven they’re on the truthful side of the debate, and they come up with reasons for why so many Muslim terrorist acts occur. The other side of the debate is usually lies or misperceptions, and the fact that so many high profile Muslim organizations have to lie (or don’t know the Qur’an) is telling in and of itself. However, I strongly contend that JihadWatch.org is not prejudicial; all judgments about the subject are made on fact.

As for any news source that’s unbiased, I know of none.

For the BBC, saying that they do well despite their time constraints and bias doesn’t make them a better news source. They try hard, but they still have a blatant bias that even other journalists mock.

The OIC will act as a block, but of course the individual countries will vote their own self interests. I suppose the OICs strongest influence is in committees that will bring issues to the floor. The Human Rights Commission is their biggest forum at the moment.

The Barabary Pirates were removed as a force around the mid 1800s, not really a time of Holy War. Also, if the Jizya was a sham, why did they get respect from other Muslim countries? If they attacked other Muslim nations’ shipping, they wouldn’t get the respect they garnered.

Even the recent piracy off Africa (Somalia mostly) is Islamic, and they try not to take Muslim ships. When they took over that oil tanker, they let it go pretty quickly.

Update 20081227: Comment 102

Scott,

[...]

The five pillars don’t really tell how a Muslim should live. The nitty gritty is in the Qur’an. You could similarly dismiss the Christian crusades by saying Christians are really nice because of the 10 commandments.

You dismiss the “destroy the infidels” bits of the Qur’an like they’re meaningless, but every single day we see Muslims living and acting on those “out of context” bits. Can you dismiss the Ku Klux Klan as a bunch of nice Christians, and say everyone is taking the “kill the mud people” bits out of context? All the Imams and revered scholars of Islam say the later passages in the Qur’an supersede the earlier passages when there is a conflict of message, and the later passages are the ones that talk about killing all the infidels.

I am speaking of Jihad in general. There is no Caliph to direct a grand Jihad, but Jihad is waged by individual Muslims, and is urged by Imams worldwide.

I did already agree that JihadWatch.org was biased toward one side of the debate, but also warned against the term being used as saying JihadWatch.org is prejudiced. As far as I can tell, JihadWatch is in favor of Western values and against Islamic supremacism.

Barbary Pirates: “They didn’t really need to anger their own country’s [sic] by attacking their own shipping because the Europeans just had so much of it.” Yes, they didn’t need to attack the shipping of other Muslim countries, but they would also try not to attack other Muslims because they were allies. They were praised for attacking infidels and not attacking Muslims. They would get no praise if they were indiscriminate. Also, the 30 Years War doesn’t seem to be about Muslims at all. The active Holy Land crusades ended in 1270 and all were expelled by 1291.

Yes, the Sirius Star. You’re right, it’s still being held by pirates. I thought they had negotiated their way off of it a week after they took it, but I either misread or didn’t follow up. As an aside, it’s hypocritical to dismiss my links to Wikipedia about the Second Intifada as unreliable and then use Wikipedia as a source for your own information about Somali pirates.

“That makes it seem that at least some Muslims are rather against piracy.” In actuality, that Wikipedia statement shows that those Muslims are against Muslim vessels being hijacked. I see no mention of the other non-Muslim vessels that they’re going to liberate.

Update 20081228: Comment 104

Scott,

The bad apples are the ones we have to deal with, and unfortunately for us, there are a lot more than a few. With about 2.5 million Muslims in the U.S., 13% think suicide bombing is justified; that’s 325,000 Muslims in the United States alone.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

Holy books having contradictions: agreed.

Mud people = non-White.

Barbary pirates: Islam is both political and religious. It is a rigid, whole-life system.

30 Years War: since we’re talking about Muslim vs. Jew/Christian in the context of Israel and Gaza/Judea/Samaria, mentioning a Christian holy war (at the beginning) between Christian sects in the context of the Muslim Barbary Pirates being active during the “holy wars” is pretty pointless.

Wikipedia: fair enough, though I don’t know a single source that wouldn’t be disputed.

Sirius Star: And I was making the point that those Muslims aren’t against taking a ship, they’re against a Muslim ship being taken. “The faction’s planned attack on the hijackers is seen in retaliation for them seizing a “Muslim” vessel.[23]”

And a passage for you:
Qur’an 60:9 “Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.”

Don’t agree with Allah? Can’t be friends. Looked upon as an occupier of Muslim land? Can’t be friends. Seems rather appropriate for this discussion.

Comment 106:

Scott,

Glad you like the study, I found it at JihadWatch. As for the percentage, it is 13%, with 8% saying suicide bombings are justified always or sometimes, and 5% saying it’s rarely justified (page 60). Also remember that this is a public study, and lying abut true feelings would be politic, especially with such a touchy subject, yet 13% still said there is justification.

“There have been more than 100 pirate attacks this year off Somalia and in one of the world’s busiest sea lanes — the Gulf of Aden.” (ABC News) This is not an isolated incident, and Somalia is 80% controlled by Islamic groups, so it’s highly likely that all the pirates are Muslim. They may not have started because of Islamic principles, but they will use those principles when convenient.

“Many of the passages in the Qur’an that have been taken to mean violence, are either against specific targets in their early history, (The Torah does this also), or mostly mean in defence of Islam itself.” I think this is a real problem we’re facing today, reinterpreting what the book actually says. Context is important, but these phrases of hate and destruction are still in the book, still valid to Muslims, and are still used as justification for terrorist attacks and all-out war. We can discount these phrases, and hope that more moderate Muslims will turn the tide for us, but as it stands we’re dealing with millions of Muslims who take this stuff seriously, many more millions who go along with it because they either believe it, too, or don’t want to rock the boat, and a virtually non-existant Muslim voice against the violent passages.

Far too many of the moderates we look to for reason against madness are also in the tank with groups who endorse and execute the Jihad ideology. CAIR, for instance, is supposed to be on the side of Western values, but as an unindicted co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation charity scam that funneled money to Hamas — along with many other instances of double-speak and wishy-washy wording — we find that the people we turn to for help are also apologists for, and actively supporting, the Jihad against us.

The most damning evidence is the first-person accounts from people who used to be Muslim and who escaped Islamic rule to tell us their stories of actual life under such rule. Check out YouTube for Brigitte Gabriel, who tells her story of living in Lebanon when Islam took over. We find that the problem isn’t between Arabs, nor between the Lebanese people, but simply Islam against everyone else. They win by being brutal, and they continue to be a force that we haven’t properly dealt with.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=brigitte+gabriel

[note: Brigitte Gabriel is actually Christian, while I was referring to Muslim converts like Walid Shoebat and Wafa Sultan as Muslims who escaped Islamic rule.]

Comment 109:

Scott,

“Islam isn’t a violent relig[i]on at heart[...]” Unfortunately for us, it is. One has to actually be a “bad” Muslim to be non-violent; you have to ignore parts of the Qur’an to live non-violently. The best example of a Muslim is Mohammed, as all the scholars say, and Mohammed was a violent man. Therefore, being a good Muslim means being violent. It’s all really that simple and factual. Those who are acting violently are not perverting Islam, they are practicing it.

What the world needs is an Islamic Reformation, something like what Christianity had, to truly disassociate Islam from its violent roots… though Christianity doesn’t have violent roots — it had to be perverted to endorse blind violence — and even with the Crusades, they were a defensive religious war against Islam’s encroachment on Christian lands. However, those who do push for removing Jihad from Islam (only one sect in Asia of which I’ve heard) are assaulted, bullied and killed by average Muslims.

CAIR is an organization that has been operating for quite a while and is used as a Muslim viewpoint source on all television networks. This is not a rinky-dink operation, they are a national organization with a great deal of influence. They are also now operating illegally since the Holy Land Foundation verdict.

Black September: Lebanon seems to have been ruined after that.

If you looked at Gaza in a vacuum, you could view it like that. However, Hamas has been shelling Israel for years with very little response. If such shelling was going on in any other Western country, there would be a swift and overpowering response to end such blatant hostility. The fact that Israel has had to put up with such red-eyed hatred and unprovoked violence because of UN pressure is a travesty.

Be well.

Update 20081229: Comment 111

Scott,

The religious equivalence simply doesn’t work when comparing Islam to Judaism and Christianity. Violence in Judaism and Christianity does not have a never-ending imperative against current religions, while Islam does. You equate apples to oranges when you equate Islam to Judaism and Christianity.

Read about Mohammed. He waged war against all other religions, it wasn’t usually defensive except when he was starting the religion and bullying people to convert to Islam or pay for protection, and he killed Christians and Jews when they wouldn’t convert to Islam or pay him the protection money (Jizya). The Qur’an doesn’t mention Christians and Jews because he fought pagan armies. Mohammed was a marauder, and his religion is based on the principles of a marauder.

Seriously, who was in charge of Jerusalem before Muslims came along? Do you think the rulers of Jerusalem just said, “Oh, look, Muslims, let’s let them run Jerusalem because they won’t persecute us much”? No, Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies around 638, and they didn’t stop until they conquered all of north Africa, much of the Middle East, and part of Europe, where they were were finally beaten and could expand by the sword no longer. This, of course, is an overly simple distillation of what actually happened, but accurate nonetheless.

The naval blockade has prevented Hamas from gratuitously rearming, though not totally, and has saved countless Israelis from needlessly being killed though escalated rocket attacks or terror operations within Israel. As for the massive air strikes, precision weaponry and high-tech reconnaissance reduces civilian casualties, but some will obviously occur, especially because Hamas purposely builds rocket installations, launchers, and weapons factories within the civilian population.

Hamas plays dirty pool, they cry foul when they’re struck and civilians are killed, and all the while Israel is the bad guy even while allowing thousands of tons of aid into Gaza, repairing the sewerage and electric system during this offensive, and Hamas blocks its citizens from leaving through the Egyptian Rafah gate. A gate, I might add, that Egypt usually keeps sealed tight because they don’t want Hamas or Gaza Arabs entering Egypt. The tunnels you may’ve heard about are built by Hamas to get around Egyptian patrols and import amazing amounts of goods and weapons. Tunnels leading toward Israel are usually blown up, but not always, leading to kidnappings of Israeli soldiers and citizens, as well as civilian terror operations.

Party on.

Comment 113:

Scott,

It seems Christianity started off weak and grew stronger over time, while Islam started off strong with war and lost strength over time. The more recent turn around is not really a change in strength between the two religions, it’s more of Christianity being less fundamental while Islam is strong on petro-dollars and expanding once again. A couple world wars in the bastion of Christianity, Europe, also helped put a boot in its ass.

A step up for access to Jerusalem? I suppose, but replacing one master with another is always a step sideways.

Very few in Gaza are sympathetic to Israel, so there’s little reason to be nice to the populace. Israel gave warning to those in targeted houses before they started the recent bombing, and I’d call that highly moral of them. They are trying their best to destroy material more than civilians, but there’s no way to win against Hamas and save every civilian. It’s impractical, and they won’t get any brownie points from anyone for doing it, so it’s better for them to strike from the air. It IS war, after all. It’s never pretty, it’s always vicious when fought properly, and it has to be in order to win. And I do hope Israel wins instead of does a half measure and tries to negotiate yet again with a Hamas government that explicitly states in its charter that it will not recognize Israel and will not stop fighting until all of “Palestine” is free of Jews. Such genocidal animosity should be met with fierce opposition, and eliminated if possible.

Israel has allowed aid in most of the time, and 30 trucks of humanitarian aid went through yesterday.
http://74.125.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=ar%7Cen&u=http://www.maannews.net/ar/index.php%3Fopr%3DShowDetails%26ID%3D142387&tbb=1&usg=ALkJrhgtEZG3PL5cZ-TvF9FWxcFnDmLVPA

Trying to follow Middle East religio-politics is a full time job. Definitely put your time and energy into getting the scholarship… you’ll be happier in the end.  :>

Update 20081230: Comment 116

Scott,

Christianity.

Israel calls targets before bombing:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24855309-663,00.html
They’ve done this often, and while it seems strategically stupid, I guess they’d be vilified even more if they didn’t do it and civilians died when they attacked these military targets embedded in civilian population centers.

[Update: So you've seen it, and some Gazans didn't listen and got killed. Stupid is as stupid does.]

I suppose a win would be disarming Hamas and other enemies within Gaza, scaring them enough to make them stop their Jihad. You can’t kill an ideology, but you can make practicing that ideology very expensive, in men and material, to the provocateurs.

Remember, aid has been going through the gates, even when attacked with rockets, most of the time. Israel is really the only reason Gaza runs. If Israel actually cut them off (which they should, because they are enemies), then Gaza would plunge into chaos.

This conversation isn’t really about winning, it’s about knowing the facts and picking a side based on what you value. I defend Israel because they act with Western values, values with which I agree. Hamas, Fatah, and Islam in its fundamental form acts directly against Western values, and when people defend these organizations, I am mystified at why. Islamic fundamentalists, if they had their way, would kill with murderous glee anyone who didn’t kowtow to Shari’a law, and defending such barbarity is anathema to my values.

Comment 118:

Scott,

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. With two world wars centered in Europe, tens of millions of Christians died, diminishing the strength of Christianity. There are other factors, but the wars certainly took a bite out of Christianity’s influence in Europe.

I understand you’re worried about civilian casualties, but wars are not clean. Israel has every right to defend itself from attack, and to destroy any threat to their sovereignty. They don’t have to call anyone before they bomb. They don’t have to use precision weapons. They don’t have to care one ounce about civilian casualties, but they do, and that morality is the antithesis of their enemies. They go above and beyond what would be expected, and they are still vilified. It’s quite astounding.

If Israel stopped helping its sworn enemy, it would not even be close to genocide, in definition or in fact.

Define the problem before you lay blame. What is “This”? For what are all these nations to blame? Define that, and then we can talk about who’s to blame.

So by saying Islam isn’t against Western values, you’re saying that the many portions of the Qur’an that call for killing Jews, Christians, and anyone who doesn’t submit to Islam are compatible with Western values? The Qur’anic wife beating and myriad female-diminishing tenets? Death for adulterers? Hanging for being gay? Chopping off hands and feet for theft? This is real Islam, and without a reformation — without getting rid of the 7th century thinking that is practiced even today — there is no compatibility.

You speak of moderate and liberal Muslims, but they are few and far between. We aren’t fighting against these so-called moderates, we’re fighting against millions of Muslims who either take up arms against the West, or support such fighters with money, material and/or silence when atrocities in the name of Allah are perpetrated. Islam, by definition, is not compatible with secular government. There’s an obvious reason why there are 57 members of the OIC and not one member of an Organization of the Christian Conference, and that’s because Islam and government are one and the same. Christianity allows for separation of Church and State (render unto Caesar…). Judaism, being the model for both Christianity and Islam, is a tougher call, but the actions of Israel — and Jews in general — clearly show that Judaism is more in line with separation of religion and State.

Also, there is no Muslim race. Islam is not a race, it is nominally a religion. No need to confuse the issue with misrepresentation.

Comment 120:

Scott,

Yes, Israel does go above and beyond.
“Under the Geneva Conventions, as well as customary international law, if a military objective, such as a missile launcher or weapons stockpile, is placed in the heart of a civilian area, it does not cease being a lawful military objective. The primary responsibility for civilian causalities arising from the ’shielding’ lies with the party that deliberately placed civilians at risk.”
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=6917
Israel could stop calling and leafletting and using the radio to warn their targets and still be well within the Geneva Convention of conducting a gentleman’s war.

As for so many countries being against Israel’s response to years of missile attacks from Gaza on Israel’s civilian population, all they see is a big bully hurting poor little Gaza. There was not a peep out of these people while Israel was shelled with missiles and mortars for years, while terror was instilled in the population, property destroyed and lives lost. I would not expect these leaders to allow such an offensive against their country for one day, let alone for years, yet they have the audacity to condemn an internationally lawful response to naked aggression. Being strong and effective makes Israel the bad guy in their eyes, but Israel is clearly in the right.

The US cut off supplies to Cuba, was that genocide? No, Cuba is an enemy, and we have no moral or legal obligation to support our enemy. Israel has no moral or legal obligation to support Gaza, but they do, and that makes Israel highly moral, and probably stupid for being so naive as to think helping Gazans would win Gazan gratitude.

Whether Muslim actions are a matter of religious maturity is debatable, and something with which I disagree, but I don’t think we should have to wait for Islam to mature so the world can live more peacefully.

Hamas, in 2005, was voted into power with 57% of the seats in parliament. That’s most people in Gaza.

Violence in Islam is worldwide. Europe, US, Asia, etc. For information about all Islamic attacks, go to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

If there was no pressure from the clergy, most Muslims might live peacefully. Might. However, every single day, the clerics and imams incite to hatred the Muslim populations in countries around the world, and they use the Qur’an and Hadith to do this. This is one reason why I think a reformation of Islam is the only way out, and primarily a renunciation of Jihad. Take away the violence and we can at least talk about peace.

Be well.

Update 20081231: Comment 123

Scott,

True, you didn’t say anything about Israel having to inform people because of an international agreement, but you did say they don’t go above and beyond what they need to do (and I showed you what they need to do), and that if they didn’t inform civilians when they attacked that there might be an international incident and most nations would sanction Israel. Since no other country on this planet does what Israel does to spare civilian populations, this is an incredibly high standard you’re setting for this one country. I’m curious why you think Israel should be put to such a high standard while Gaza can fire missiles and mortars directly at civilian populations, maliciously and without warning, and expect no sanctions whatsoever?

The US prevented Cubans from entering the US (legally). Israel does the same with Gazans. Castro prevented Cubans from leaving Cuba. Hamas does the same with Gazans.

Gaza is more than capable of supplying food to its citizens. Israel occupies the same type of land, they prosper. When Israel was in Gaza, there was plenty of food. Where did it all go? Greenhouses left after Israel left Gaza were turned into tunnel entrances and missile bases, so that’s a hint. The leadership of Gaza has destroyed Gaza, not Israel.

Gazans are not starving, and there is yet to be a reported death from starvation. That is a lie. Humanitarian aid is offered and sent through Israel, why is it not offered by and sent through Egypt? Egypt has a border with Gaza, why aren’t they helping Gazans? Why does Egypt keep Rafah closed? Israel should not be accepting any humanitarian shipments for Gaza, it should go through Egypt, a supposed ally of Gaza and former occupier of Gaza. If someone tried to kill you, would you willingly help them live — send them money and food, maintain their house — all while they keep attempting to kill you? This is what Israel is doing, hoping Gazans see that Israel isn’t bad, but it just doesn’t work. Israel supplies electricity to Gaza. Israel helps fix Gaza’s sewerage problem. This is all Hamas’s job, but they don’t do their job. Hamas and Gazans always get a pass for acting like violent children, while Israel is castigated for acting like a highly responsible adult. Israel is hardly doing the “absolute minimum” to help Gazans, and I’m very surprised you’ve come to that conclusion.

The clerics and imams run the madrassas.

Last link: seriously, no, I won’t find another site. It’s a reputable site and the tagline is accurate. Prove me wrong. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I’m kinda stupefied by your last comment. At what point would you consider Islam to be non-peaceful? What percentage of Muslims have to carry out violent attacks on civilian populations before they’re considered a risk in your book? What percentage of Muslims who vote into power groups that promote hatred of other religions and barbaric codes of conduct (Shari’a Law) would be enough for you to say, “Maybe those people are bad because they voted in a group I know is bad because they stand for bad things”? What’s your yardstick?

Comment 125:

Scott,

What’s your point of stating the fact that Israel sometimes retaliated to Hamas aggression?

“Egypt who has attempted to stay clear of the entire mess”
Egypt has actively blocked Gazans from entering Egypt, occasionally shooting at those who attempt to cross.

“Egypt is helping Gazan’s but are generally making sure that they don’t support Hamas. They are providing some medical assistance and some food.”
Yes, just recently they offered up a few ambulances and a paltry amount of food. Hamas rejected it all.

“You also might not realize that Gaza is one of the most tightly packed piece of land, (in humans), in the world. In that little bit of desert, there are an estimated 1.4 million people.”
—
Tel Aviv
7,445 people/sq km
(385,000 people, 51.8 sq km)
—
Gaza Strip per CIA projection
4,270 people/sq km
(1,537,269 population July 2008, 360 sq km)
—

http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/631851/gaza-is-not-too-crowded.thtml

“Do you think that the trickle that Israel lets through is really enough?”
It’s more than any country should allow to a sworn enemy, especially one who’s bent on destroying you.

“un[dot]org/unrwa/”
UNRWA are inveterate liars who have no credibility.

“thousands ran there for food”
* The percentages of expenditures is following :
- 39% on Food and medicine.
- 19% on Oil products and Tobacco.
- 14% on Concrete and construction materials.
- 7.5% on electronics , home appliances and means of transportation.
- 7.5% on  Clothes and shoes.
- 7% on transportation and communication.
- 6% on other stuff

This is according to the Future Research Centre in Palestine.
http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/2008/01/language-of-numbers-gazans-in-rafah.html

“I still don’t, and will probably never agree with your thoughts that almost all Gazans are violent. Most just want the madness to cease. Recent polls show that a majority of Israeli’s and Palestinians want to try to negotiate, but both of their governments are just too stubborn to stop this fight.”
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html?_r=2
“Published: March 19, 2008
RAMALLAH, West Bank — A new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the attack this month on a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem that killed eight young men, most of them teenagers, an indication of the alarming level of Israeli-Palestinian tension in recent weeks. [DR: 91% in Gaza approve of this killing of civilian students; does this tell you anything? http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p27ejoint.html]
The survey also shows unprecedented support for the shooting of rockets on Israeli towns from the Gaza Strip and for the end of the peace negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli leaders.”

Donkeyrock: only people I know well get to find out. You’ll have to buy me a beer.  :>

Comment 127:

Scott,

Ah, the moral equivalence argument. This argument ignores the fact that Islamic Arabs initiated the aggression and equates Islamic targeting of civilians to legitimate military targets.

Egypt: actively stirring the pot.

Simple fact, Tel Aviv has a higher population density than Gaza. Gaza has more land, so they can grow their own food, no problem.

You mention the children why? Probably because they are supposed to be blameless, though they are active in Jihad because their parents teach them to hate Israel and Jews. As with setting missile emplacements in civilian populations means that when they are attacked the civilian deaths are blamed on those who put military targets in civilian areas, so too are Gazan parents to blame for what happens to their children. Did these concerned parents rise up against Hamas and try to make peace? No. Did they teach their children that Israel is helping them? No. They sow hate and they reap death.

UNRWA: Google “UNRWA lies” (without quotes).

Thousands more ran for ipods. Must not be very hungry.

Eight months old is pretty recent. Show me another, more recent poll, preferably before they were pounded and started to see the error of their ways.

In three years come buy me a beer and I’ll tell you. I think you’ll enjoy the story. :> (Maybe sooner if we can get rid of the ridiculous law that you have to be 21 to legally drink alcohol.)

Update 20090101: Comment 130

Scott,

“The Arabs might have initiated the violence but nearly all of the ones who did are dead. You can’t blame a group of people for what their ancestors did.”
You’re ignoring the mindset in the Muslim Arabs that perpetuates this war. It wasn’t their ancestors who shot rockets indiscriminately at civilian targets today, nor yesterday, nor last year. It wasn’t their ancestors who walked into pizza shops and wedding receptions and exploded themselves, attempting to kill as many Jews as possible in the name of Allah while buying a free pass to paradise.

Children are harmed by their poor actions and the poor actions of their parents. That’s just the way life is.

“Then wouldn’t that count the same for Israeli parents that let their children write messages on bombs and rockets about to be deployed, wouldn’t that be the same sort of thing?”
That’s some tasty moral equivalence, right there. A lifetime of hateful learning — encouraged by parents and justified by the Qur’an — is equal to a soldier — who wasn’t taught religious hatred in the Torah and wasn’t encouraged to hate by his parents — writing a message on a bomb? Powerful.

My charmingly witty ipod comment was over-simplistic and snarky. Hamas used the border crash to bring in the Grad rockets they’re using now to reach more Israeli civilians. Many more Gazans bought non-necessities than food, so the breach wasn’t all about food or a humanitarian crisis.

The moral equivalence argument is hogwash. Since when is it wrong to kill more of your enemy? This is how you win a war. Just because those rockets don’t kill a lot of Israelis doesn’t mean they’re any less wrong, any less deadly, any less terrifying, and any less an act of war. One rocket fired at Israel is an act of war, and when Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, the very first rocket that came over the border should’ve been met with overwhelming force.

If Bermuda started lobbing rockets at North Carolina, would you expect your government to stop the threat at any cost, or would you sit back and take it, for days… weeks… months… years…? If I was an Israeli citizen I’d be pissed at my government for putting my family in mortal danger on a daily basis — for years — to appease those trying to kill me.

Comment 136:

Scott,

Western values, as defined by me, are individual human rights along with secular government separated from religion. The best example is the US Constitution for government and rights, since it puts the government on par with the citizen, not above him. This constitution is derived from European learning through the last 1000 years (or so) and built on a republic that Rome  exemplified until the Caesars twisted it.

Stopping The Threat: In Israel’s quest to reach a peace, land has been given to the enemies who’ve attacked her, appeasement through humanitarian efforts has been ongoing for decades, and she’s shown amazing amounts of restraint in the face of Islamic hatred. Should they care how the Islamic Arabs feel about being attacked after attacking Israel for six decades? No, never. Israel should protect its citizens and eliminate any threat to its safety and existence. And ask yourself, if there was no threat from Gaza, do you think Israel would be attacking Gaza right now? If Gaza never built up its military stockpile, never launched rockets constantly into Israel and never threatened Israel with annihilation, would there be a war at all? This is a very important question for you to answer.

Population similarity is what makes a proper analogy about governmental reaction to aggression? I highly disagree.

Update 20090102: Comment 138

Scott,

I doubt Barack Hussein Caesar will be any different.

The Arabs who attacked Israel deserve the land? Nope. They forfeited their land in 1948 when they opted for war against Israel and lost, and they deserve nothing for their loss. These “camps” you mention are actually cities, with buildings, grocery stores and even cell phone and DVD stores. Pretty sweet “camps”, ey?

“But most of the hatred that has built up over the years in Gaza is as a result of retaliation bombings.”
You’re saying that if Israel hadn’t reacted to being attacked, things would be okay? Israel would still be attacked, how is that okay? Further, the hatred didn’t start with “retaliation”, the hatred is still there, emanating from the Qur’an.

“But it still wouldn’t be the right thing to do.”
I invite you to live under the constant threat and barrage of mortar and missile fire and see if you change your mind.

Seems your Eastern influence is purely spiritual. I wouldn’t want to live under a caste system of government, though.

Update 20090108: Comment 143

Scott,

Barack Hussein Caesar: How soon they forget the Roman columns as a backdrop for B.H. Caesar’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field (Mile High Stadium). I find your affront at my comment inappropriate.

“Well of course land had to be given to them.” –Scott 1/1/09
“I didn’t say they deserved the land [...] I don’t think anybody really deserves it” –Scott 1/7/09
So why (“of course”) did land have to be given to them? Jordan is 80% of the British Palestinian Mandate (all of which was originally meant for Jews), so they already have land. The only reason Muslims are fighting for this land is because Jews are on this land, and they consider it an insult to their religion.

“violence emanates from the Qur’an just as much as it does from the Bible and the Torah”
No, it doesn’t. The Qur’an is much more violent, and encourages adherents to kill or enslave anyone who isn’t a proper Muslim. You’re simply wrong when you say that the three religious texts are equal in this way.

“an innocent Palestinian, who has never done anything to provoke Israel”
Mere rhetoric. They are all responsible for the actions of their government.

“live under the threat of invasion and bombings”
There is no threat from Israel without Islamic provocation and violence. Your argument is moral equivalence.

That Caste system was replaced with a Parliamentary system. Good ol’ Western values.

“There is never a time for war and hate. Ever.”
Of course there is. People don’t always agree, and if there’s no compromise to satisfy both parties, then war is the only answer. Being pacifistic and singing Kumbaya solves nothing, and such a mindset is only available to privileged people who don’t have immediate enemies. The world is still an ultra-violent place to live, lots of people have intractable ideologies, and there’s no peace until there’s no enemy.

Comment 148

Scott,

I was likening Obama to Caesar, and it seems Obama was likening himself to Caesar with his acceptance speech follies. B.H. Caesar meant Barack Hussein Caesar.

The Arabs had/have land, it’s called Jordan. They wanted all of the mandate set aside for the Jews, so they fought, they lost, and they should get nothing for their intemperance and greed.

Percentage-wise, the Qur’an is twice as violent as the bible.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html
This debate about the holy books being equal in violence, however, is a straw man argument. The violence of the Qur’an is not just numerous (an aside) but is also practiced in today’s world. The violence in the Bible does not translate to its followers in today’s world. This goes to my point that the holy texts of Islam incite violence, and the words are being used against infidels on a daily basis around the world. This is not so for Christians or Jews of today; it’s rare when preachers or Rabbis cite their holy texts as reason to kill or subdue anyone else, and off-hand I can’t think of anyone in particular who does do that. For Muslims, however, incitement to kill or subdue “others” in the name of Allah is a constant, weekly affair. We have thousands of videos to prove this, countless texts showing this, yet too many people still don’t believe their own eyes.

“I am responsible for the actions of the Bush administration”
Yes. We all are responsible for our government, moreso in democracies than under any other form of government. We act as a nation through our leaders. If our elected officials do good, we reap the rewards, and if our elected officials do bad, we pay the price.

“about 40% of the people in Gaza who did NOT vote for Hamas”
There were good Germans in Nazi Germany and there were good Italians in Fascist Italy. Both parties were elected and grew in popularity. When they attacked other countries, I highly doubt that those being attacked thought, “We should be careful about defending ourselves because not everyone voted for these people who are attacking us.” The fact is, it simply doesn’t matter who did or didn’t vote for Hamas. Hamas has led Gaza to attack Israel, and Israel is defending itself by attacking Gaza. Every single death in Gaza is because of Hamas, the people who voted them into office, and the Muslim ideology that breeds such unbounded hatred. Everyone in Gaza should be thankful that Israel doesn’t raze the whole territory like the Nazis did to London and the U.S. and England did to Dresden.

“Actually the Parliament originated in India.”
Sources, please.

“Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela.”
These people did not live in a vacuum, there was violence and death all around them, even inspired by their principled stands. The success of pacifism wholly depends on whom towards you’re pacifistic. Jewish pacifism in the face of Nazi aggression resulted in millions of dead Jews. More recently, Buddhist pacifism in the face of Burma’s military junta resulted in thousands of deaths. Pacifism is useless against anyone willing to pull the trigger.

Update 20090110: Comment 150

Scott,

Caesar, Roman columns, you don’t get the connection?

“had just as much right to the land as the Jews do”
Well, no. First, the British could do whatever they wanted with their newly acquired land. Second, the Arabs lost the land they were granted in war; they have no rights to it.

“it doesn’t work very well for your argument.”
My argument was never that there were more violent verses in the Qur’an than in the Bible, so I don’t see how you came to that conclusion.

“for most it is not a violent book, it is a book of peace and harmony”
A well doesn’t have to be mostly contaminated for it to be poisonous. The five percent of the Qur’an that is pure poison basically poisons the rest of the book. Can the poison be removed? Sure. Will the poison be removed? I doubt it. As long as that poison is in the Qur’anic well, Islam itself is poisonous.

“Hamas has not led Gaza to attack Israel. It didn’t need to. It just attacked Israel itself.”
It wasn’t America that attacked Iraq, it was Democrats and Republicans.

“Your a very pessimistic person”
Just realistic; often confused with pessimism.

Parliament: Interesting, good info, but saying there were pseudo-parliaments elsewhere before there was actual parliament doesn’t mean that parliament was started elsewhere; nor does it mean those pseudo-parliaments influenced the creation of actual parliament as we know it and use it today… though they may’ve, I just don’t know. Regardless, the parliament we know today is a Western value.

We can stop talking at any time, Scott. No obligations.

Comment 154:

Scott,

“The poisoned well/Qur’an analogy was briliant.”
Stop. You’re gonna make me blush like a little girl at a Justin Timberlake concert. lol

“But the poison of Islam is not the violent verses in the Qur’an but groups such as Hamas and the Taliban.”
The violent verses of the Qur’an are why these groups exist at all. They quote it, they preach it, they practice it. I found it hard to believe at first, too. Really. I grew up thinking Islam was just another religion, and the actions of those in the Middle East were just crackpots akin to the KKK here in America. Unfortunately, it’s much worse than the KKK. While the Klan is based in ignorance that leads to hate, Islamic hate comes from the word of Allah, God. Those who truly believe, and those who are just disaffected, can turn to the Qur’an and find solace in, and justification for, their hatred from the word of God. Such a belief is hard to shake, and with Imams inciting their disciples every week, violence and contempt for the kuffar (non-Muslims) are naturally going to occur. There’s a reason there are few, if any, Jews in Muslim countries; they are targets of religiously-based hatred and are attacked constantly.

There are 1.5 million Muslims living in Israel.
There are 0 Jews living in Gaza.
There are about 100 Jews living in Egypt.
There are 0 recorded Jews living in Jordan.
There are about 1,500 Jews living in Lebanon (60 registered, rest is estimate).
There are about 30 Jews living in Syria.

These governments don’t hate Jews because the Jews did something to them; they hate the Jews because the Qur’an tells them to hate the Jews. They’ve believed it for 1,400 years, and they believe it as deeply as a Christian believes that Jesus is Christ. The facts of what the Qur’an says are indisputable, and the real-world application of those facts are undeniable. The problem is identified, it’s the solution that eludes us.

“Hamas is not only a political party, but also it’s own military”
Hamas was majority elected in Gaza and is the de facto government of Gaza. Hamas leads the people who, by a large majority, elected them to office. Hamas is not operating in a vacuum, they had a lot of support from the citizenry of Gaza until Israel started pounding them, and now the Gazans are reaping what they have sown.

“Have you heard the latest casualty count in Gaza? 1/4 of the dead are civilians. This must stop!”
These counts are coming from Hamas sources and UNRWA, neither of which are reliable and have both been proven profuse liars in the past. Further, Hamas isn’t wearing uniforms, so no one can easily tell who is a dead civilian and who is a dead fighter. Israel has gone above and beyond to limit civilian casualties, and while they will occur (Hamas uses human shields, willing and forced), they are all — every single one — the fault of Hamas. Israel should not stop until the genocidal threat to its citizens is destroyed, now and forever.

“intent paves the future”
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

“the parliament system was started somewhere else”
My point was that the Indian gatherings and today’s parliament are so loosely related that they’re hardly comparable, so parliament being a Western value is still correct.

“move to Britain after college”
At least you can legally have a beer at 18 over there (maybe younger; I was served at an English pub when I was 15, but they only served me short beer).

Closing arguments… hmm… I don’t even know if we could concisely close arguments at this point. We joust some more, then.

Update 20090111: Comment 161

Scott,

“if Islam had not violent verses in it, then there wouldn’t be violence?”
Because Islam exists, those groups exist. Maybe in an alternate universe where Islam doesn’t exist there would be other people fighting for different reasons, but in this reality, Islam is the culprit.

“Actually the KKK/Bad Islamic people comparison works very well.”
As I stated, no it doesn’t.

“Greed and selfishness is the root of it.”
While certainly possible, their justification is Islam, regardless of whether they fight for 72 acres or 72 virgins in paradise.

“Israel isn’t allowing any foreign reporters into the country.”
Remember the stringers. That’s where the news from Gaza originally comes from, and that’s why there are thousands upon thousands of propaganda reports coming out of Gaza and hitting the international news services today.

“I prefer to believe the U.N. because they don’t actively have a stake in the war.”
UNRWA has an active stake in Gaza. Without the so-called “refugees”, that agency doesn’t exist, and many people lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

“Or how about the Red Cross. They are calling the place a humanitarian disaster.”
As every war is. I’ve shown previously that Israel has been sending massive amounts of aid into Gaza.

Islam needs to be subdued, and the first step is military superiority. Next is education, but only after they are subdued and can’t use violence, because they won’t learn if they can still fight. From there, Islam will either reform or die. However, the physical submission must happen first.

“Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”
“Yes but I don’t get your context to it.”
You wrote of pacifism, I rebutted its use, you say we must shape our own future, I say look to the past to see how your future will turn out on that path.

“the End of Days must be approaching. ”
Now you’re talking like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  :>

Comment 162: