# The Pope on Charlie Hebdo



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I agree with him. 





My view is this, by all means insult/verbally attack the people running religions and the wrongs of religions, and let representatvies of religions have a chance to respond. BUT don't make unprovoked fun of the beliefs of innocent people or make fun of their prophets - Jesus, Muhammed etc. That achieves nothing but division and hatred.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Yes. And there are legitimate ways of countering and addressing such wrongs. 

As for "limits" on free speech, I don't buy into his premise on this one. No one is yelling fire in a crowded theater. People's religious beliefs are insulted all the time. Deal with it and move on. Christians are mocked all the time and there's even a play that satirizes an entire religion but I don't see Mormons fire bombing theaters. 

If the legitimacy of one's religion depends on the application of violence in order to protects it's "honor" then I say there's something wrong with the religion. Roman emperors with all the worldly power they possessed couldn't squash Christianity. Jews were scattered about the earth and were persecuted for centuries culminating in an industrialized effort to wipe them out and they've survived. I think Muslims need to grow up and learn to deal with a world that does not always see things their way.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

> Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the , defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good.
> But he said there were limits.
> By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.
> "If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."


The Pope is wrong and should hone up on his parables.

Responding to verbal insults with assault lands you in jail or with civil litigation.

In this case, the Pope is an idiot.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Yes. And there are legitimate ways of countering and addressing such wrongs.
> 
> As for "limits" on free speech, I don't buy into his premise on this one. No one is yelling fire in a crowded theater. People's religious beliefs are insulted all the time. Deal with it and move on. Christians are mocked all the time and there's even a play that satirizes an entire religion but I don't see Mormons fire bombing theaters.
> 
> If the legitimacy of one's religion depends on the application of violence in order to protects it's "honor" then I say there's something wrong with the religion. Roman emperors with all the worldly power they possessed couldn't squash Christianity. Jews were scattered about the earth and were persecuted for centuries culminating in an industrialized effort to wipe them out and they've survived. I think Muslims need to grow up and learn to deal with a world that does not always see things their way.


Good points. However, the West's attitude, or certainly, the perceived attitude of the west towards Islam doesn't help. Neither does the West's history of military intervention in the Middle East.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don't buy this notion of the West's attitude toward Islam. The West is nothing but tolerant of other religions and in every western country where Muslims live, they are free to practice their religion freely and without restriction. Find a middle eastern country where that's the case. In fact, a Shia Muslim is freer to practice his/her religion in Israel than in Sunni Saudi Arabia. 

We don't see places of worship being fire bombed or systematically vandalized. We don't see wholesale harassment of Muslims in western countries. The mayor of Rotterdam is Muslim. Find a public official one of the theocratic middle eastern countries who is not a Muslim. Western universities regularly train and educate middle easterners. So I'm not understanding this notion of the west's attitude. I think it's more the Islamic attitude toward the west that's at issue. 

As for the historical perspective that's a red herring. These are countries that have chosen to organize themselves in such a way that they have been in a state of paralysis for nearly 100 years. They have limited intellectual capital, they've avoided modernity in favor of some medieval existence and when modernity comes knocking they respond with bombs. They've not been able to square the circle when it comes to religion and personal liberty. Women are systematically oppressed and have few if any rights. Education is frowned upon, there is no free press, no freedom to organize politically and no freedom of expression. 

Instead what they have done is to blame their sclerotic culture on the west and Israel. At least they've mastered the modern political art of nationalism! It's no wonder the middle east is such a hornet's nest of violence and terrorism.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

"In chanting "Je Suis Charlie," the marchers showed support for a magazine French Muslims rightly believe is racist and anti-Islamic.Yet, Marine Le Pen, leading in the polls for the French presidency, was blacklisted from marching for remarks about Muslim immigration that are benign compared to what Charlie Hebdo regularly publishes.
All weekend long, journalists called it an imperative for us all to defend the lewd and lurid blasphemies of the satirical magazine.
But as journalist Christopher Dickey points out, *Muslims in the banlieues wonder why insulting the Prophet is a protected freedom in France, while denying the Holocaust can get you a prison term."*

Pat Buchanan


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> "In chanting "Je Suis Charlie," the marchers showed support for a magazine French Muslims rightly believe is racist and anti-Islamic.Yet, Marine Le Pen, leading in the polls for the French presidency, was blacklisted from marching for remarks about Muslim immigration that are benign compared to what Charlie Hebdo regularly publishes.
> All weekend long, journalists called it an imperative for us all to defend the lewd and lurid blasphemies of the satirical magazine.
> But as journalist Christopher Dickey points out, *Muslims in the banlieues wonder why insulting the Prophet is a protected freedom in France, while denying the Holocaust can get you a prison term."*
> 
> Pat Buchanan


Did the esteemed Mr. Buchanan provide a link to the individual imprisoned for denying the holocaust??

Where the holocaust deniers gunned down at work??

What is his point exactly??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

That those comments come from Pat Buchanan is not surprising. He's an unabashed nativist and firmly in the camp that the genesis of Middle Eastern strife is Israel and our support for it. In an odd way, he shares in some of the same sentiments as Jimmy Carter. 

There is no 1st amendment in France, or really anywhere else so many European countries have odd speech laws that we look upon with odd an curiosity. France is not alone in this as a matter of fact. Many European countries have some form of Holocaust denial laws and the EU even passed such a law several years ago if I remember correctly, but left it to individual countries to enforce and set penalties (if any). 

Given Europe's rich, and so often tragic, history of anti Semitism I can see why these countries are so sensitive about the subject. I don't agree with those laws, but again, I'm not French and I have no say in how that society chooses to organize itself.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I agree with him.
> 
> My view is this, by all means insult/verbally attack the people running religions and the wrongs of religions, and let representatvies of rleigions have a chance to respond. BUT don't make unprovoked fun of the beliefs of innocent people or make fun of their prophets - Jesus, Muhammed etc. That achieves nothing but division and hatred.


To proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God mocks Islam.

To proclaim that Jesus bled died and rose from the dead mocks Islam.

To proclaim that Jesus is the Second person of the Trinity mocks Islam .

To advertise bacon mocks Islam.

To advocate democracy mocks Islam.

To be and live as an infidel, mocks Islam.

Realistically the only way one can refrain from mocking Islam is to convert.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Did the esteemed Mr. Buchanan provide a link to the individual imprisoned for denying the holocaust??


No, but here is an example anyway :-

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010537.stm

You can add countless others to the list.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

The only way to address this, I think, is to eliminate as best we can the wrong that constitutes the breeding ground. Which is to say, we can't do much about what goes on inside Saudi Arabia. But we can look at what we in the West are doing within our own countries and ask ourselves whether we are doing everything we can to address social conditions that cause people to become terrorists. There will always be a nutball or two in society. But I saw on the news tonight that more than 300 people have gone from Belgium to Syria to take up with ISIS. These folks in France apparently lived dismal lives, in poverty and shunned by the larger society.

Nothing excuses terrorism, of course, but people in the West don't become terrorists, I suspect, if they have hope and feel like they have a shot at a decent life. You reap what you sow, so to speak, and it does take a village. I don't see any way to try to solve this except to practice what both Jesus and Gandhi preached and start out with some empathy. Doesn't mean these folks aren't criminals. Doesn't mean they should not be hunted down and brought to justice. but all that means little if this stuff keeps happening. We need to figure out a way to stop this from happening, because we will otherwise just keep responding to it after the fact.

One place to start, I think, is to learn about Islam. I've done a bit and was truly surprised. There's violence in the Bible, sure, but nothing like the violence that Mohammad engaged in. On the other hand, he was also a man of peace. Go figure. Maybe he just lived in a rough neighborhood. The other thing that surprised me is that Muslims believe in Jesus. Not as being divine--they believe that he was just a human being. But still.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

The poor terrorist, just like Bin Laden. Give me break.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think Hillary Clinton hacked 32RR's account and wrote that. 

We don't need to understand Islam. What we need to do is find and kill terrorists and root them out wherever and whenever possible. 

The way to stop it from happening is to go Roman on them and stop being saps domestically. Infiltrate Muslim communities and mosques the same way the FBI infiltrated the mob. Start with that. 

Then start by leaning on Arab leaders to root out terrorists in their midst. Do this not by appealing to reason but by promising to cut off funds and military assistance. They'll listen then.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I think Hillary Clinton hacked 32RR's account and wrote that.
> 
> We don't need to understand Islam. What we need to do is find and kill terrorists and root them out wherever and whenever possible.
> 
> ...


If only that would work, I'd be all for it. But it can't work, and for obvious reasons. What's going on now isn't being directed from some lair deep in Pakistan. It's homegrown stuff. I'm not saying that we should coddle terrorists or anyone else. I am saying that we should examine ourselves to ensure that everyone is being treated fairly and has a legitimate shot at making something of themselves. That is a quintessentially democratic (small d) notion. Do you disagree?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I don't buy this notion of the West's attitude toward Islam. The West is nothing but tolerant of other religions and in every western country where Muslims live, they are free to practice their religion freely and without restriction. Find a middle eastern country where that's the case. In fact, a Shia Muslim is freer to practice his/her religion in Israel than in Sunni Saudi Arabia.
> 
> We don't see places of worship being fire bombed or systematically vandalized. We don't see wholesale harassment of Muslims in western countries. The mayor of Rotterdam is Muslim. Find a public official one of the theocratic middle eastern countries who is not a Muslim. Western universities regularly train and educate middle easterners. So I'm not understanding this notion of the west's attitude. I think it's more the Islamic attitude toward the west that's at issue.
> 
> ...


+1...All very good and accruate points.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Hitch said:


> To proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God mocks Islam.
> 
> To proclaim that Jesus bled died and rose from the dead mocks Islam.
> 
> ...


Actually, Judaism was there 5,000 years befroe Islam even existed, which is why of course Jesus was crucified

To proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God mocks Judaism

To proclaim that Jesus bled died and rose from the dead mocks Judaism.

To proclaim that Jesus is the Second person of the Trinity (as neither Judaism nor Islam has a Trinity this is irrelevant)

To advertise bacon mocks Judaism.

To be and live as a Gentile mocks Judaism.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> To proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God mocks Islam.
> 
> To proclaim that Jesus bled died and rose from the dead mocks Islam.
> 
> ...


We are all apostate kufr.

"This day we will forget you as you forgot the meeting of this day of yours. And your abode is the fire, and there is none to help you." - al-Jaathiyah 45:34


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I think Hillary Clinton hacked 32RR's account and wrote that.
> 
> We don't need to understand Islam. What we need to do is find and kill terrorists and root them out wherever and whenever possible.


If you don't know what causes terrorism you'll never be able to stop it. Military force has never succeeded, all it has ever done is breed more terrorism. If these terrorists welcome martyrdom, which they appear to, how can counter-terror be effective? It certainly hasn't worked so far!



SG_67 said:


> The way to stop it from happening is to go Roman on them and stop being saps domestically. Infiltrate Muslim communities and mosques the same way the FBI infiltrated the mob. Start with that.


I think that you'll find that the Western powers are already doing that.



SG_67 said:


> Then start by leaning on Arab leaders to root out terrorists in their midst. Do this not by appealing to reason but by promising to cut off funds and military assistance. They'll listen then.


Cut off funds from Saudi Arabia, for example? Or Qatar? If the West withdraws military assistance, I think you'll find that there are others prepared to offer it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Actually, Judaism was there 5,000 years befroe Islam even existed, which is why of course Jesus was crucified.


Actually, there are serious doubts as to whether Judaism in a recogniseable form existed much before 500BC, and even then it was an changeable and organic religion that only became firmly established, as it were, in the last couple of centuries of the pre-Christian era.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I don't buy this notion of the West's attitude toward Islam. The West is nothing but tolerant of other religions and in every western country where Muslims live, they are free to practice their religion freely and without restriction. Find a middle eastern country where that's the case. In fact, a Shia Muslim is freer to practice his/her religion in Israel than in Sunni Saudi Arabia.
> 
> We don't see places of worship being fire bombed or systematically vandalized. We don't see wholesale harassment of Muslims in western countries. The mayor of Rotterdam is Muslim. Find a public official one of the theocratic middle eastern countries who is not a Muslim. Western universities regularly train and educate middle easterners. So I'm not understanding this notion of the west's attitude. I think it's more the Islamic attitude toward the west that's at issue.


The West is seen as the supporter of Israel, which is seen by the Islamic world as an illegitimate state, and as a state which directly oppresses Muslims.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Cut off funds from Saudi Arabia, for example? Or Qatar? If the West withdraws military assistance, I think you'll find that there are others prepared to offer it.


That would sure piss off the war machine. can you imagine all the lost taxpayer $$$$ going into private military/defense/arms firms? What are a few thousand arab lives compared to another non-bid contract for Blackwater? We all know how well that turned out, don't we? 100's of Millions of dollars lost. Buy hey, at least Cheney's buddies can party it up in the best of hôtels...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> If you don't know what causes terrorism you'll never be able to stop it. Military force has never succeeded, all it has ever done is breed more terrorism. If these terrorists welcome martyrdom, which they appear to, how can counter-terror be effective? It certainly hasn't worked so far!
> 
> .


Well you see.. If the FBI finds some 20 year old loser without funds, a job, a car, living with his parents, etc. and convinces him to be terrorist, then there's a big "home grown" terrorist problem. Do you see how serious the issue is? The FBI must really have another $300 million in anti-terrorist funding (by tomorrow, by special committee)....They used to have a term for such (entrapment) but it's too useful to push agendas nowadays to be declared an illegal tactic.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The West is seen as the supporter of Israel, which is seen by the Islamic world as an illegitimate state, and as a state which directly oppresses Muslims.


The west are servants to Israel and do not rank high enough to be considered supporters. What was the last concession Israel made to the West? Anything? Anyone? Rather arrogant for a bunch of welfare récipients...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The Pope is wrong and should hone up on his parables.
> 
> Responding to verbal insults with assault lands you in jail or with civil litigation.
> 
> In this case, the Pope is an idiot.


I finally agree with WouldShoulda on something...... :beers:

I would however substitute a single word (somewhere in there)....to.... "every"....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Actually, there are serious doubts as to whether Judaism in a recogniseable form existed much before 500BC, and even then it was an changeable and organic religion that only became firmly established, as it were, in the last couple of centuries of the pre-Christian era.


That doesn't fit in well with their story. No matter the proof you offer, you are obviously biased and clearly an anti-semite****...:biggrin:

Disclaimer....This is clearly sarcasm and in no way, shape, or form would I ever believe such. This is an imagined scenario used for Entertainment purposes only, and does not relect the viewpoint of the author


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> The West is seen as the supporter of Israel, which is seen by the Islamic world as an illegitimate state, and as a state which directly oppresses Muslims.


Jews are seen as illegitimate. Any nation that exists that does not follow sharia law is seen as illegitimate.

Israel really has little to nothing to do with this. Arab states are morally bankrupt and most financially. They rely on assistance from the west for everything from healthcare to education to technology. Their populations have absolutely no upward mobility and they are organized in such a way as only the very connected enjoy the fruits of their output, those that have any output.

How much easier, then, to blame others, especially Jews and by extension the west for all their problems. If you were an Arab despot, would you rather have the ire of your population directed outward or inward toward you?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

What exactly is the definition of "a terroist" nowadays? Is it anyone holding opions opposite of the ruling government? i.e. the gun nuts that claim the 2nd adm. is there to overthrow the government in time of need? If a foreign governement came in and wiped out half of Chicago and staged a military "intervention (aka, invasion), would the family and friends taking up arms against "country x" be terrorists?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Jews are seen as illegitimate. Any nation that exists that does not follow sharia law is seen as illegitimate.


The opposite could be said as well if you wanted to be honest. Let's not pretend the arguement is one sided. Let's be clear of différences between the religion of judaism and the "state" of israel. The fact is most of the world supports judaism but most of the world has also decided that Israel is a pariah state. only the highly bought u.s. politicians seem to stand with the country versus the religion


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> The opposite could be said as well if you wanted to be honest. Let's not pretend the arguement is one sided. Let's be clear of différences between the religion of judaism and the "state" of israel. The fact is most of the world supports judaism but most of the world has also decided that Israel is a pariah state. only the highly bought u.s. politicians seem to stand with the country versus the religion


Most of the world? Perhaps most dictatorships and despotic states have but I think most of the world is a bit of a stretch.

Great! Let's dissolve Israel and see how welcome Jews would be in Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE.

Get rid of Israel and you'll still have Jews living in the Mid East being persecuted the same way as coptics in Egypt and other Christians in the Middle East. Get rid of the Jews and the Arabs will blame just the west for their failings. Get rid of the west and they'll start fighting amongst themselves as they had for centuries before.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Great! Let's dissolve Israel and see how welcome Jews would be in Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE.
> 
> Get rid of Israel and you'll still have Jews living in the Mid East being persecuted the same way as coptics in Egypt and other Christians in the Middle East. Get rid of the Jews and the Arabs will blame just the west for their failings. Get rid of the west and they'll start fighting amongst themselves as they had for centuries before.


Wow. Who said anything about all that versus you? I understand that you want to give the worst case scenario to prove your point but that translation of my question goes 
well beyond the absurd. Getting Israel in line with the rest of global thinking is hardly "dissolving israel".

That you jump once again to the religion (judaism) over the state (israel), is quite telling of your willingness to overblow your point (once again). There is a grand difference between "jews" and "israel" but you seem to confuse the 2 as the same. they are not.....

I also find it a bit odd that you think Israeli jews would want to go to turkey, egypt, the uae, s.a., etc.. Would they not p^refer to go perhaps to the u.s? Isn't that really the best country in the world?



SG_67 said:


> Most of the world? Perhaps most dictatorships and despotic states have but I think most of the world is a bit of a stretch..


When the whole of the u.n. votes and the only one supporting israel is pretty much the u.s. then one might get a sense as to "most of the world". You may not like the u.n. but the votes have been quite clear. You might agree that each country has a "representative"in the u.n. right? not just " dictatorships and despotic states"? come on now... be honest....

From "The Jewish Voice"

*No More US Vetoes at the UN*

*It's time.
*
*It's time, finally, after forty years for the United States to do the right thing for the people of Palestine. Will they?
*
During Wednesday's United Nations Security Council debate about Palestinian statehood, once again, the United States announced that it would stand in the way of a vote for Palestinian self-determination. 
This isn't the first time. Nor the second, or tenth or twentieth time. In fact, it's the forty-first time. 
Forty-one times during the last forty years, the United States has said no, one way or another, to the Palestinian struggle for human rights. 
Forty-one times, in votes at the UN Security Council, the United States has been the only country to use its veto to override the votes of every other member. 
Forty-one times, the US has been the one country to protect Israel no matter how many settlements it builds, orchards it destroys, or acres it takes. The one country to say no to democracy, fairness and justice for Palestinians and yes to more pain and destruction for both Palestinians and Israelis.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Judaism and the state of Israel cannot be separated. Israel is the home of the Jews and Israel is a Jewish state. When I speak of the dissolution of Israel I'm simply employing a reductio ad absurdum; get rid of Israel and the same issues will still be present. Israel offers a convenient focal point on which the problems of that region can be blamed. The Arabs will go to war with one another as they did before Israel. 

Again I ask you, if you were an Arab despot would you rather the ire of your population be turned toward you or toward the Jews? Which is more convenient?

Gaza was given over to the PA a number of years ago. It was turned over with baseline infrastructure in place to allow for some development but instead this was scrapped to make rockets and to dig tunnels into Israel. The PA is wholly corrupt and has been for a long time. Perhaps when Palestinians get their act together and organize themselves in such a way that shows them to be serious then perhaps they'll be taken seriously. I don't see the oil rich Arab countries coming to their help by the way. 

Israel has built a thriving, liberal society from the midst of an arid desert. It has developed technology and continues to innovate and create wealth through entrepreneurship and investment. What have the Arab states created? You cited the Jewish Voice. Do you think Arab states allow for dissenting opinion in their press, if they have press even?

Is the average Arab on the street allowed to petition his or her government for the redress of wrongs? Is the average Arab allowed to vote on issues that affect his society? Is the average Arab free to seek an education for himself and for his children which will give a measure of upward mobility? Is the average Arab secure in his person or possessions by law and not subject to religious laws? 

Is the average Arab woman free to walk the street as she wishes, drive, seek an education, marry who she wants, dress as she wants, express opinions how she wishes or seek a career that allows her to feel fulfilled? 

The Arab nations have problems far, far worse than Israel and should focus on cleaning up and entering into the 21st century before worrying about a tiny strip of land along the Levant that is home to a few million people who happen to worship differently than they do.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Jews are seen as illegitimate.


 You appear to be conflating Judaism with Israel.



SG_67 said:


> Any nation that exists that does not follow sharia law is seen as illegitimate.


I'm not aware of any recognised Islamic state that regards the US, for example, as not being a legitimate state.



SG_67 said:


> Israel really has little to nothing to do with this.


Netanyahu's government seems to want Israel to be a Jewish State, in that his government is moving towards only allowing full citizenship to Jews, thus making adherents of all other faiths, effectively second class citizens in the state in which they live. That kind of thing was tried before in a couple of countries, but wasn't well received. In any case, that Israel is viewed both as illegitimate and repressive by the Islamic makes Israel of major importance in Islamic terrorism, and that the West backs Israel is also of major importance.



SG_67 said:


> *Arab states are morally bankrupt* and most financially. They rely on assistance from the west for everything from healthcare to education to technology. Their populations have absolutely no upward mobility and they are organized in such a way as only the very connected enjoy the fruits of their output, those that have any output.


From a Western viewpoint. Most Muslims are quite happy in the culture in which they live. They're as resistant to cultural imperialism from the West as we are from them.



SG_67 said:


> How much easier, then, to blame others, especially Jews and by extension the west for all their problems. If you were an Arab despot, would you rather have the ire of your population directed outward or inward toward you?


Quite. But a military solution has repeatedly failed, so why continue on such a course?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Again I ask you, if you were an Arab despot would you rather the ire of your population be turned toward you or toward the Jews? Which is more convenient?
> 
> Gaza was given over to the PA a number of years ago. It was turned over with baseline infrastructure in place to allow for some development but instead this was scrapped to make rockets and to dig tunnels into Israel. The PA is wholly corrupt and has been for a long time. Perhaps when Palestinians get their act together and organize themselves in such a way that shows them to be serious then perhaps they'll be taken seriously. I don't see the oil rich Arab countries coming to their help by the way.
> 
> ...


The "he did it too" defence? Is this really valid outside of 2nd grade??? But ok. I'll take on your points one by one. I know you couldn't do the same without deflecting the points onto another topic but here goes.....



SG_67 said:


> Is the average Arab woman free to walk the street as she wishes, drive, seek an education, marry who she wants, dress as she wants, express opinions how she wishes or seek a career that allows her to feel fulfilled? .


Are you trying to claim that various jewish sects in israel don't have "dress codes" (for both men and women)? That "everyone" can dress the way they want? Express opinons how they wish? Really?

I can name several christian sects that have dress and behavioral standards too. Many southern baptists state that women should wear long dresses. are amish women allowed to wear what they want? Don't catholics make demands upon their followers as to birth control, abortion, pre-marital sex, etc?

Oh... I know many female arab doctors. one of whom has been my chlidren's pediatrician for the past 8 years. I can easily name a dozen top female arab researchers at the E.P.F.L (which is one of the top rated engineering schools globally).



SG_67 said:


> The Arab nations have problems far, far worse than Israel and should focus on cleaning up and entering into the 21st century before worrying about a tiny strip of land along the Levant that is home to a few million people who happen to worship differently than they do.





SG_67 said:


> Israel has built a thriving, liberal society from the midst of an arid desert. It has developed technology and continues to innovate and create wealth through entrepreneurship and investment.


Can the same not be said of the U.SA.? Should we not fix our domestic problems before sending out $trillions in annual foreign welfare checks? Israel is ahead of the U.S. in every single area of infrastructure other than military might. You said it yourself right? It was israel that "built a thriving, liberal society from the midst of an arid desert. It has developed technology and continues to innovate and create wealth through entrepreneurship and investment". Time for the welfare checks to stop and start investing it into our own poulation that claims christians, muslims, jews, hindus, etc as the same.



SG_67 said:


> Judaism and the state of Israel cannot be separated. Israel is the home of the Jews and Israel is a Jewish state. When I speak of the dissolution of Israel I'm simply employing a reductio ad absurdum; get rid of Israel and the same issues will still be present. Israel offers a convenient focal point on which the problems of that region can be blamed. The Arabs will go to war with one another as they did before Israel. .


Funny. Would this not make israel no longer capable of getting U.S. welfare checks (Under the 1st ad)? Surely the U.S. federal government has no right to promote one religion over the others...right?...Legally? Constitutionally?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> No, but here is an example anyway :-
> 
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010537.stm
> 
> You can add countless others to the list.





> In a landmark case, they have become the first Britons to be convicted of inciting racial hatred via a foreign website, having printed leaflets and controlled websites in the US featuring racist material.
> *'Obnoxious and abhorrent'*
> The court heard the investigation into the pair began when a complaint about an anti-Semitic comic book called Tales of the Holohoax was made to the police in 2004 after it was pushed through the door of a synagogue in Blackpool, Lancashire.


Not just so much as a casual holocaust denial now is it??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> If only that would work, I'd be all for it. But it can't work, and for obvious reasons. What's going on now isn't being directed from some lair deep in Pakistan.


Yemen....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

How on earth did this discussion get twisted into a debate about Israel? It isn't the first time. I don't understand the fixation. Aren't there other forums for that sort of thing?

As to wouldshoulda's point on Yemen, I'm not convinced. It is my understanding that the perpetrators might have gone there for training, but then they were on their own. Yeah, AQ et al might now be claiming responsibility (and the perps yelled AQ at the scene) but it seems a bit johnny-come-lately. If they really were responsible, you'd think they would have spoken up sooner, and also released the standard pre-suicide mission video.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> How on earth did this discussion get twisted into a debate about Israel? It isn't the first time. I don't understand the fixation. Aren't there other forums for that sort of thing?
> 
> .


Wow. A debate on politics and religion concerning of all things relgion and politics. How on earth did that ever happen? Really?

I guess as long as a certain middle eastern country isn't discussed then everything else is on the table? Really?

Do you have anything interesting to add to the debate or are you just trying to censor the conversation in order to avoid the debate??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> The "he did it too" defence? Is this really valid outside of 2nd grade??? But ok. I'll take on your points one by one. I know you couldn't do the same without deflecting the points onto another topic but here goes.....
> 
> Are you trying to claim that various jewish sects in israel don't have "dress codes" (for both men and women)? That "everyone" can dress the way they want? Express opinons how they wish? Really?
> 
> ...


2nd grader? Let's try to be civil about this ok? It is possible to have a discussion without resorting to veiled insults.

Dress codes in orthodox communities are "enforced" to the extent they can be by the community. They are not codified into law. The Amish don't lash one another in open and there aren't Amish courts that pass sentences of x number of lashes for transgression or blasphemy. If there are, they are hidden from the law and not part of it.

I don't ever recall religion police locking the doors to a girls Yeshiva school when it was on fire so that the girls wouldn't run out without their heads covered. You're confusing community standards and religious edicts for civil law. If I don't take communion on a given week the Chicago PD won't come to my door and arrest me and lash me. I won't go to jail for speaking out against the Pope.

As for your other comments I'll leave them alone. You have a tendency to, again, throw out red herrings that have absolutely no connection with the point being discussed.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> 2nd grader? Let's try to be civil about this ok? It is possible to have a discussion without resorting to veiled insults.
> 
> Dress codes in orthodox communities are "enforced" to the extent they can be by the community. They are not codified into law. The Amish don't lash one another in open and there aren't Amish courts that pass sentences of x number of lashes for transgression or blasphemy. If there are, they are hidden from the law and not part of it.
> 
> ...





SG_67 said:


> 2nd grader? Let's try to be civil about this ok? It is possible to have a discussion without resorting to veiled insults. .


Civil? I tell my 1st grader not to respond in such manners but you find it acceptable? ok. I thought I was being generous with 2nd graders. Answer the question as to your own faulty logic before transfering questions of other's faults to the quetioner.... There are no insults over actually proven psychological states. Do I need to provide you with educational journals in order to prove your response as being pre-juvenile through scientific reasoning? "Just answer the questions man"....



SG_67 said:


> Dress codes in orthodox communities are "enforced" to the extent they can be by the community. They are not codified into law. The Amish don't lash one another in open and there aren't Amish courts that pass sentences of x number of lashes for transgression or blasphemy. If there are, they are hidden from the law and not part of it..


As is often the case in all religious states- being a religious state makes it worse for those that do not follow said religious doctrine... does it not? Will all jews get to practice their version of the religion freely or is it more as to the ruling party's belief? I.E. many jews don't believe in serving in the military but israel now forces them to do so.

The U.S. government may not be against certain things but the state and local might be. Who wins? If someone was arrested for having an ounce of pot in Texas what would the outcome be versus the same in Colorado? Your arguements ignore the rule of local, regional, and state authorities. The U.S. as a whole would vote against capital punishment whereas Texas would vote in favour of it. The same could be said of the middle eastern countries you seem willing to insult in favour of defending a criminal state such as israel. Again... "Just answer the questions man"...



SG_67 said:


> As for your other comments I'll leave them alone. You have a tendency to, again, throw out red herrings that have absolutely no connection with the point being discussed.


What? is it Too hard to honestly justify spending welfare money on israel? A country that is much better off than the U.S.? A country whose citizens get more benefits than those of the U.S.? Come now... Is honesty just too hard for you? It's proven. The facts are there. I can give a dozen sources to any mod. that doubts me... Come now. Justify it. Why are we spending trillions on a country better off than us?



SG_67 said:


> I don't ever recall religion police locking the doors to a girls Yeshiva school when it was on fire so that the girls wouldn't run out without their heads covered. You're confusing community standards and religious edicts for civil law. If I don't take communion on a given week the Chicago PD won't come to my door and arrest me and lash me. I won't go to jail for speaking out against the Pope.


That dépends upon the manner in which you decide to speak out. Are you trying to tell me people in the u.s. haven't been arrested for writing "threats" against police on the internet? or american politicians perhaps? or the american "system"?In the u.s. it's more political versus religious but it still exists. To me political persecution is worse. I know not to spout of about islam in islamic countries. I know that I have to wear certain clothes in catholic monuments. But political persecution is whatever the current moron wants it to be.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> As to wouldshoulda's point on Yemen, I'm not convinced. It is my understanding that the perpetrators might have gone there for training, but then they were on their own. Yeah, AQ et al might now be claiming responsibility (and the perps yelled AQ at the scene) but it seems a bit johnny-come-lately. If they really were responsible, you'd think they would have spoken up sooner, and also released the standard pre-suicide mission video.


Where did those poor, misunderstood and oppressed youths get money and access to buy those guns??

They were in Paris, France, not Texas!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Civil? I tell my 1st grader not to respond in such manners but you find it acceptable? ok. I thought I was being generous with 2nd graders. Answer the question as to your own faulty logic before transfering questions of other's faults to the quetioner.... There are no insults over actually proven psychological states. Do I need to provide you with educational journals in order to prove your response as being pre-juvenile through scientific reasoning? "Just answer the questions man"....
> 
> As is often the case in all religious states- being a religious state makes it worse for those that do not follow said religious doctrine... does it not? Will all jews get to practice their version of the religion freely or is it more as to the ruling party's belief? I.E. many jews don't believe in serving in the military but israel now forces them to do so.
> 
> ...


J1M,
I realize that it's difficult sometimes to have a conversation without resorting to stating that your interlocutor is juvenile and/or pre juvenile and a generous offer of providing educational journals. It's ok. I get it with you. I really doesn't further your point though and quite honestly, confuses the issue.

Just so I can keep track: I mentioned about the state not enforcing religious doctrine here in the US and you've taken it to a level of the system of Federalism. What the two have to do with one another I have no idea. As for getting pinched for having pot, what's a grown man doing with an ounce of pot? Never mind.

So we've gone from Israel to capital punishment in the US and you smoking pot. Sorry, but I'm lost at this point and I think I'll check out, at least with my part in your Alice in Wonderland trip.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> J1M,
> I realize that it's difficult sometimes to have a conversation without resorting to stating that your interlocutor is juvenile and/or pre juvenile and a generous offer of providing educational journals. It's ok. I get it with you. I really doesn't further your point though and quite honestly, confuses the issue.
> 
> Just so I can keep track: I mentioned about the state not enforcing religious doctrine here in the US and you've taken it to a level of the system of Federalism. What the two have to do with one another I have no idea. As for getting pinched for having pot, what's a grown man doing with an ounce of pot? Never mind.
> ...


HA now a personal attack to avoid proving your point of view. I guess that's slightly more Advanced but still not very convincing when it comes to your point of view on israel (the topic at hand). I repeat... My children aren't allowed to use such arguement techniques. You are of course more than free to do so. I just think it shows your level of debate. Sadly such was exactly the response I expected from someone not capable of defending their point of view. goodnight sweet sg. sweet dreams. I do hope you'll one day be able to place facts into the conversation versus dismissing others out of hand (and you have a long history of doing so here on AAAC).

Please check out (permanently perhaps?) and come back when you're willing to repond logically to questions versus throwing fault on 3rd parties or the interlocutor. In all your posts you answered not a single question versus blaming others and then throwing the questioner into question. "JUST ANSER THE QUESTIONS MAN"...lol. Israel sucking funds out of the u,.s taxpayer has nothing to do with me. it has nothing to do with the uae either. They ae much better off than then the u.s.... why are they stealing trillions of our tax dollars? dollars that could go to make the u.s. system as good as that in israel. is israel not better off than the u.s. in all infrastructure matters? "ANSWER THE QUESTION MAN"...

If... As proven earlier...Most of the world is against israel committing international crimes, then why should the u.s. get involved? "ANSWER THE QUESTION MAN"....

None of this has anything to do with me or the way I put the questions. Or are you perhaps not capable of understanding the questions? Is that it?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not just so much as a casual holocaust denial now is it??


No it is a comic book.

Some people might laugh. But, unlike Charlie Hebdo, they will not have the opportunity.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Wow. A debate on politics and religion concerning of all things relgion and politics. How on earth did that ever happen? Really?
> 
> I guess as long as a certain middle eastern country isn't discussed then everything else is on the table? Really?
> 
> Do you have anything interesting to add to the debate or are you just trying to censor the conversation in order to avoid the debate??


It's not that at all. It's just that there are more things to talk about in the realm of religion and politics than Israel, but, for whatever reason, it always seems to end up a discussion about Israel. And then people say things in ways that they shouldn't say them, what began as a discussion becomes a debate, then devolves into insults until, ultimately, a moderator shuts it down due to lack of civility and common sense.

It becomes tiring.

Back to wouldashoulda, who raises a good point: Where did these folks get automatic weapons? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm not going to assume that AQ was the source.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


>


Perhaps you should see an ophthalmologist?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Back to wouldashoulda, who raises a good point: Where did these folks get automatic weapons? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm not going to assume that AQ was the source.


Do ya think AQ provided weapons to the mexican cartels as well? most likely source huh??


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps you should see an ophthalmologist?


 Perhaps ortho. I admit to needing a rhumatologue... Any suggestions?

Either way....Any chance you're going to try and answer the questions at hand or are you still busy crying about 3rd parties?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> perhaps ortho?
> 
> Any chance you're going to try and answer the questions at hand or are you still busy crying about 3rd parties?


Asked and answered. You just don't like the answer.

Also, perhaps if your thoughts weren't so disjointed and all over the place I could make sense of your questions.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ....To be and live as a Gentile mocks Judaism.
> 
> etc.


Judaism's mockers are largely ignored. Jewish agnostics don't get stoned or flogged. (Certainly not recently)

Christianity's mockers are an expected and acceptable part of the faith. In fact, to suffer them tests us and makes us stronger.

Islam's mockers wind up dead.

Once again, not all mocking is the same or equal!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Asked and answered. You just don't like the answer.
> 
> Also, perhaps if your thoughts weren't so disjointed and all over the place I could make sense of your questions.


Not at all. You concentrated on 3rd parties. Do I really need to quote your own posts? Can you quote the one that reponded to my questions? No? You still can't come up with an actual answer versus 3rd party insults? And 32rnr was tired of it. lol.

Again. A personal insult over answers. How typical. If you perhaps concentrated on answering honestly versus reponding with insults your posts might start to make sense. perhaps.

In honor of those not capable of reponding to the question at hand....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Do ya think AQ provided weapons to the mexican cartels as well? most likely source huh??


You know as much as I do about where they got their weapons, which is to say, nothing. For all anyone knows, they may have come from the CIA. Stranger things have happened. I'm referring here to the terrorists. As for Mexican cartels, it is my understanding that the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico to arm cartels has been fairly well established.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> You know as much as I do about where they got their weapons, which is to say, nothing. For all anyone knows, they may have come from the CIA. Stranger things have happened. I'm referring here to the terrorists. As for Mexican cartels, it is my understanding that the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico to arm cartels has been fairly well established.


What? The CIA? As in the Americans? I thought it was the Cubans or Russians or "AQ" or some other well established "bad guy". Certainly not the "good guy" americans. I'm sure the American's have never provided arms to those in the middle east now have they?

But of course the russians like to profit from arms sales as well. As does most every peaceful god fearing country.... Who can blame the almighty dollar?

To me all this smells like going from used car dealer to used car dealer to used car dealer. Everyone lies, everyone stands to profit...and they all stink to high heck....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Not at all. You concentrated on 3rd parties. Do I really need to quote your own posts? Can you quote the one that reponded to my questions? No? You still can't come up with an actual answer versus 3rd party insults? And 32rnr was tired of it. lol.
> 
> Again. A personal insult over answers. How typical. If you perhaps concentrated on answering honestly versus reponding with insults your posts might start to make sense. perhaps.
> 
> In honor of those not capable of reponding to the question at hand....


Please don't cry. It will be ok.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Please don't cry. It will be ok.


Still no answers??? Man oh man do you like to deflect attention. Anything? Nothing at all? It's ok. Just admit that you have no reponse to the actual questions over concentrating on extraneous issues...

Here is your "logical" series of responses.....

You're wrong because I say you are. I want to be right so I'll just say that you're wrong. I can't actually prove anything so I'll defer to third party issues. When that doesn't work, I'll attack the questioner. I'll continue to deny the question at hand.... I'll further attack the questioner. Thus, your point is....the question is never answered versus defered to insulting behavior.

I specifically asked you to refer to the post that responded to my questions... Are you not capable of finding your own posts? I have them all copied onto word if you'd like to point the specific one out to me...

Does the u.s. not demand that their drs see a superior every few months in order to avoid confused practitioners causing liability issues? just curious. we have such regulations here. but I suppose health systems are another topic altogether.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> To me all this smells like going from used car dealer to used car dealer to used car dealer. Everyone lies, everyone stands to profit...and they all stink to high heck....


Some stink more than others.

Not all stink is equal!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Still no answers??? Man oh man do you like to deflect attention. Anything? Nothing at all? It's ok. Just admit that you have no reponse to the actual questions over concentrating on extraneous issues...
> 
> Here is your "logical" series of responses.....
> 
> ...


Press!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Press!


Still nothing? lol. Never an answer vers a deflection? good job... keep it up. If you had actually answered the qustions (as claimed) you could probably copy/paste them for all to see... right? Too hard?? lol. We already have you caught spreading at least one untruth...Care to try for a few more?

:cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Some stink more than others.
> 
> Not all stink is equal!!


This is quite a "normal" wouldashoulda quote....So.....what is equal to you? Let's here it versus just seeing your little one liners... Any answers or are you sitting there with SG wondering how to respond? Is there anything equal or is it all what you personally believe to be best?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> :cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold::cold:


Are you cold?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Judaism's mockers are largely ignored. Jewish agnostics don't get stoned or flogged. (Certainly not recently)
> 
> Christianity's mockers are an expected and acceptable part of the faith. In fact, to suffer them tests us and makes us stronger.
> 
> ...





justonemore said:


> This is quite a "normal" wouldashoulda quote....So.....what is equal to you? Let's here it versus just seeing your little one liners... Any answers or are you sitting there with SG wondering how to respond? Is there anything equal or is it all what you personally believe to be best?


In case you missed it.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Actually, Judaism was there 5,000 years befroe Islam even existed, which is why of course Jesus was crucified
> 
> To proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God mocks Judaism
> 
> ...


Did you have a point?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I agree with him.
> 
> My view is this, by all means insult/verbally attack the people running religions and the wrongs of religions, and let representatvies of religions have a chance to respond. BUT don't make unprovoked fun of the beliefs of innocent people or make fun of their prophets - Jesus, Muhammed etc. That achieves nothing but division and hatred.


There must be remedy, for centuries the RCC has denounced Satan as evil in a deliberate attempt to persecute satanists . Satan worshipers have feelings too


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Judaism's mockers are largely ignored. Jewish agnostics don't get stoned or flogged. (Certainly not recently)
> 
> Christianity's mockers are an expected and acceptable part of the faith. In fact, to suffer them tests us and makes us stronger.
> 
> ...


The price for apostasy in Islam is death.

The reward for apostasy in Judaism and Christianity is a book deal.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> From a Western viewpoint. Most Muslims are quite happy in the culture in which they live. They're as resistant to cultural imperialism from the West as we are from them.


Ask that of the Saudi man sentenced to a 1000 lashes for disagreeing with a cleric.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch, I am so proud of you. Congratulations on finally admitting your true faith. :thumbs-up:



Hitch said:


> There must be remedy, for centuries the RCC has denounced Satan as evil in a deliberate attempt to persecute satanists . Satan worshipers have feelings too


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Hitch, I am so proud of you. Congratulations on finally admitting your true faith. :thumbs-up:


I had been wondering...


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

There's no excusing the atrocities carried out by the Muslim terrorists against the Charlie Hebdo staff.

With that being said, publishing hateful satiric screeds aimed at Islam has to be regarded in much the same way as pasting a "Please Shoot Me" sign on one's own back. The Darwin Awards live on.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> There's no excusing the atrocities carried out by the Muslim terrorists against the Charlie Hebdo staff.
> 
> With that being said, publishing hateful satiric screeds aimed at Islam has to be regarded in much the same way as pasting a "Please Shoot Me" sign on one's own back. The Darwin Awards live on.


I'm afraid you're wrong. That could then be said of any type of speech. Should newspapers here be fearful of publishing material critical of government for fear that the secret police will raid them and kill them? Should newspapers be fearful of mocking catholics, or it not outright mocking, at least being critical of the faith's doctrine for fear that the Swiss Guard will storm their headquarters and chop to bits the editors and journalists?

Yes, printing and publishing offensive material is provocative; it's meant to be. It doesn't mean that people should be afraid of doing so. The fault and all the blame lie squarely on the attackers and to a larger degree the religion itself. Charlie Hebdo is free publish anything they want and in a free society not fear anything beyond non-violent reprisal.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

It amuses me that free speech is being discussed on a heavily moderated discussion forum.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> I'm afraid you're wrong. That could then be said of any type of speech. Should newspapers here be fearful of publishing material critical of government for fear that the secret police will raid them and kill them? Should newspapers be fearful of mocking catholics, or it not outright mocking, at least being critical of the faith's doctrine for fear that the Swiss Guard will storm their headquarters and chop to bits the editors and journalists?
> 
> Yes, printing and publishing offensive material is provocative; it's meant to be. It doesn't mean that people should be afraid of doing so. The fault and all the blame lie squarely on the attackers and to a larger degree the religion itself. Charlie Hebdo is free publish anything they want and in a free society not fear anything beyond non-violent reprisal.


I don't recall assigning "blame" or "fault" to Charlie Hebdo; merely that if one insists on poking the bear with a sharp stick, one should not be surprised at the violent reaction of the bear.

Your arguments are absurd; newspapers in the US obviously should not fear violent reprisals from "the secret police" because we have no secret police in the US. Similarly, the Catholic Church no longer takes violent action against those with whom it disagrees. (But note: such violent acts, which could rightly be called terrorism, were routinely carried out by the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisition against all sorts of innocents.)

Charlie Hebdo is most certainly free to publish what it wants to. But its workers ought not to be surprised when, after mocking the faith of persons who have a history of violent nastiness, they find themselves confronted with a violent response. "Free speech" does not mean, and never has meant, speech without ramification.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Are there any other examples where the victim of a violent crime should have known that he/she "had it coming"?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Are there any other examples where the victim of a violent crime should have known that he/she "had it coming"?


Of course. Like walking through Cabrini-Green at night, unarmed.

Surely you are not so naive as these discussions suggest. As my wife says, a girl entering a drunken frat house dressed in a transparent top and tight latex pants doesn't deserve to be raped, but she shouldn't expect to be treated with respect. At some point, many victims need to accept that their own behaviors exacerbate risk.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ what if the girl is in the privacy of her home and dressed as such? Does she deserve to have someone break in and rape her?

Charlie Hebdo exists in France, not the Middle East. They live and operate in a liberal democracy with an expectation of free speech.

Perhaps Islamists should consider the society in which they exist and like the drunken frat boy in your analogy, understand that certain things are not permitted in a free society.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ what if the girl is in the privacy of her home and dressed as such? Does she deserve to have someone break in and rape her?
> 
> Charlie Hebdo exists in France, not the Middle East. They live and operate in a liberal democracy with an expectation of free speech.
> 
> Perhaps Islamists should consider the society in which they exist and like the drunken frat boy in your analogy, understand that certain things are not permitted in a free society.


Worth repeating.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ what if the girl is in the privacy of her home and dressed as such? Does she deserve to have someone break in and rape her?
> 
> Charlie Hebdo exists in France, not the Middle East. They live and operate in a liberal democracy with an expectation of free speech.
> 
> Perhaps Islamists should consider the society in which they exist and like the drunken frat boy in your analogy, understand that certain things are not permitted in a free society.


You're obsessing about what Islamists "should do." Given that they're unlikely to listen to either you or me, perhaps the rest of us should keep in mind what sorts of violence Islamists are willing to engage in, in today's world, and govern ourselves accordingly.

I don't suggest that we ignore the excesses and evil deeds of Muslims; rather, I suggest that if we're going to rattle their cages it should be for a better reason than to mock their faith through sarcastic, aggressive "humor." It's the religious equivalent of sports trash-talking, and not a particularly attractive way to behave IMO (again - not condoning the response in any way).


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Charlie Hebdo didn't set up shop in Riyadh or Mecca and publish it's cartoons. It wasn't going around distributing it in mosques or in Muslim communities. 

Did they try to provoke and prod, absolutely. Do they have a right to? Yup!

How about we turn your rationale around a bit and phrase your argument as such:

In a free society people shouldn't make fun of other people's religious beliefs, but they do and they have a right to. Those sensitive to this and choosing to live in such a free society should think about this and accept it.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Charlie Hebdo didn't set up shop in Riyadh or Mecca and publish it's cartoons. It wasn't going around distributing it in mosques or in Muslim communities.
> 
> Did they try to provoke and prod, absolutely. Do they have a right to? Yup!
> 
> ...


You continue to frame this thusly: "The Muslims should do such and such."

Well, we happen to agree on what the Muslims "should" do, but you continue to ignore what sensible non-Muslims should do in order to avoid conflict. It's a shame you insist on ignoring sensible constraints on behavior for the rest of us. Extreme Islamists clearly aren't going to do what we think they should do; is it sensible to continue to provoke them? You continue to ignore what's sensible in favor of trumpeting "rights."

I'd rather be alive and prudent than "right" and deceased. You're welcome to take a different approach if you prefer.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Allow me to try to point out where I believe you're in error:

You keep saying that the west, Charlie Hebdo included, needs to restrain itself because of the way Muslims behave. So what you're basically implying is that Muslims are incapable of instituting self control on their behavior when they feel slighted. Would Christians be justified or should Muslims show restraint when insulting Christians? Should Muslims watch what they say when they deny the divine nature of Christ?

You're employing a form of cultural bias in that you don't hold Muslims to the same standards. 

You say its sensible to restrain free speech when it comes to the example cited herein. Where does that stop? And what becomes of our rights of expression, the press and speech if every time we say or publish something we need to consider mass slaughter as a result.

I get what you're saying but what I'm saying is that it shouldn't matter here. We have freedoms that we hold dear and sacred and we shouldn't have to look over our shoulders each time we engage in that exercise.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Allow me to try to point out where I believe you're in error:
> 
> You keep saying that the west, Charlie Hebdo included, needs to restrain itself because of the way Muslims behave. So what you're basically implying is that Muslims are incapable of instituting self control on their behavior when they feel slighted. Would Christians be justified or should Muslims show restraint when insulting Christians? Should Muslims watch what they say when they deny the divine nature of Christ?
> 
> ...


Losers focus on what others should do, and become incensed when they don't. Winners accept that others won't always do what they should do, and govern themselves accordingly.

That's my view of the world, which I accept other people may not share. You claim that I don't hold Muslims to the same standards as I hold non-Muslims to; you're wrong about that, and in so saying you've ignored most of my commentary. You're free to do so, but don't expect me to let it go without comment.

I've never said the West "needs to restrain itself." I've said that Westerners who choose to make incendiary and insulting remarks about Islam have no right to be surprised when radical Muslims react with violence. They've demonstrated that that's what they do. No amount of moralizing by Western commentators is going to change that behavior. Do you seriously disagree?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^
At what point should we be surprised? You indicated earlier that what Charlie Hebdo did was the equivalent of putting a target on one's back saying Shoot Me! 

If what happened was an isolated incident, then I could see your point. But it wasn't, it's a pattern of violence that is not necessarily always provoked by satirical pictures. It's provoked by any criticism not only of the religion, but the political application of that religion. 

At what point and with what action should we then be surprised? Charlie Hebdo was deliberately provocative, absolutely! It's what they do. What about an apostate? What about the 200 girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? What about Coptic Christians whose churches in Egypt were fire bombed? What about Christians trapped by ISIS an told to convert or die? 

Were any of them being provocative? Should any of them not have been surprised?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Losers focus on what others should do, and become incensed when they don't. Winners accept that others won't always do what they should do, and govern themselves accordingly.
> 
> That's my view of the world, which I accept other people may not share. You claim that I don't hold Muslims to the same standards as I hold non-Muslims to; you're wrong about that, and in so saying you've ignored most of my commentary. You're free to do so, but don't expect me to let it go without comment.
> 
> I've never said the West "needs to restrain itself." I've said that Westerners who choose to make incendiary and insulting remarks about Islam have no right to be surprised when radical Muslims react with violence. They've demonstrated that that's what they do. No amount of moralizing by Western commentators is going to change that behavior. Do you seriously disagree?


Muslims have no right to expect to be allowed to violently intimidate the citizens of their adopted countries.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^
> At what point should we be surprised? You indicated earlier that what Charlie Hebdo did was the equivalent of putting a target on one's back saying Shoot Me!
> 
> If what happened was an isolated incident, then I could see your point. But it wasn't, it's a pattern of violence that is not necessarily always provoked by satirical pictures. It's provoked by any criticism not only of the religion, but the political application of that religion.
> ...


We're talking about Charlie Hebdo here. I haven't claimed the terrorists had any right to take the actions they did, but one can hardly compare the intentional publication of insulting satire with the innocent victimhood of young Nigerian girls or Christian hostages of ISIS. The analogy is nonsense.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> Muslims have no right to expect to be allowed to violently intimidate the citizens of their adopted countries.


You're absolutely right, of course. Nor do they have such a right anywhere else.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> We're talking about Charlie Hebdo here. I haven't claimed the terrorists had any right to take the actions they did, but one can hardly compare the intentional publication of insulting satire with the innocent victimhood of young Nigerian girls or Christian hostages of ISIS. The analogy is nonsense.


So the victimhood of those killed in the Charlie Hebdo massacre weren't innocent victims?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> You're absolutely right, of course. Nor do they have such a right anywhere else.


Actually Max they do enjoy the right to violence within many of their own countries,at least in the legal sense. But back to Charlie. The staff members of Charlie have the right to expect protection even intervention by law enforcement when necessary. Obviously this requires that some one with a clear head makes a judgement, (gasp!) and moves against the terrorist. the opposite of making excuses for them.

SGs analogy is fine. The victims have in common the mark of the infidel from the mosque,s point of view, and so receive treatment as sub humans. To the Islamist he Nigerian girls are every bit as provocative as the publishers of Charlie, without regard to any and all apologists.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> So the victimhood of those killed in the Charlie Hebdo massacre weren't innocent victims?


Not at all. Victims? That part I agree with. Innocent? I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that people who intentionally insult and depreciate the faith of others can reasonably call themselves "innocent."

This does *not* mean I think they "got what they deserved;" no one deserves to be murdered over words or pictures. But they showed exceptionally poor judgment along with overweening self-importance and smug superiority IMO.

There's a theme developing here that some folks want to equate criticism of Charlie Hebdo with support for Islam or even apology for terrorism. It's an absurdity, but it's evident in the arguments here. I'm harshly critical of Charlie Hebdo, but I'm much more harshly critical of radical Islam, and how the hell can anyone justify or defend terrorists?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> Actually Max they do enjoy the right to violence within many of their own countries,at least in the legal sense.


You're of course right again; it's a tragic state of affairs when governments condone this ****. My comment was intended to refer to rights endowed us by our Creator, as I understand them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Not at all. Victims? That part I agree with. Innocent? I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that people who intentionally insult and depreciate the faith of others can reasonably call themselves "innocent."
> 
> This does *not* mean I think they "got what they deserved;" no one deserves to be murdered over words or pictures. But they showed exceptionally poor judgment along with overweening self-importance and smug superiority IMO.
> 
> There's a theme developing here that some folks want to equate criticism of Charlie Hebdo with support for Islam or even apology for terrorism. It's an absurdity, but it's evident in the arguments here. I'm harshly critical of Charlie Hebdo, but I'm much more harshly critical of radical Islam, and how the hell can anyone justify or defend terrorists?


But if they're not innocent then they're not victims. If they are guilty then they received justice, no? The innocent are not in need of punishment, only the guilty.

You're the one who brought up the word innocent so care to define it? I suppose Christians killed by ISIS brought it upon themselves by being Christians? Or the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram are guilty of being girls in school?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> But if they're not innocent then they're not victims.


Sorry, I don't buy this equation. And I'm through with this discussion, since the majority of it has consisted of refuting arguments that you've improperly ascribed to me.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Peace & Love.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I sure glad Europe is so far ahead of us regarding diversity.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Hitch said:


> I sure glad Europe is so far ahead of us regarding diversity.


How so Hitch? Isn't the U.S. #1 in everything? I'm not sure how you meant for us to take your one line wonder (once again) but the U.S. actually sems to be somewhere in the middle "diversity" wise compared to European countries... As such, it seems that your comment just leaves everyone in the air.... Perhaps you've taken to commenting for fox news?

25% of the Belgian population are immigrants

14% of the French population are immigrants

14% of the Spanish population are immigrants

*12% of the U.S. population are immigrants*

11.9% of the U.K. population are immigrants.

11% of the Dutch population are immigrants

10% of the Austrian population are immigrants

9% of the German population are immigrants

5% of the Portuguese population are immigrants

I can't say for sure, but 2-3 less/extra immigrants per 100 residents doesn't seem to be a huge difference to me. Belgium was a bit of a suprise but not too shocking considering that it's a small country and the "political seat" of the E.U.

Now what you don't find too often in europe are the large segregated communities... Chicago (and pretty much every other major american city)has china town, greek town, little italy, eastern european areas, german areas, african areas, etc. Outside of London, I'm not certain that I've seen a european "china town". Little Italy? Not here (unless you count Ticino. lol). It may shock a few Americans but I have never seen, "little iran", or "Iraq town" in my European travels. Ethnic groups will always band together but I haven't seen this in europe as to the ame extent as has been witnessed in the u.s. I can probably list people from 20 different countries living in my area alone. And shockingly enough....The problems in the neighborhood come more from "christian" families over those of "muslims"... But that's just another statistical fact to ignore I suppose?...

So what are the odds....

A religious muslim jerk following his religion kills me and a few others (i.e. a bomb on public transport).... 0 in thousands of cimes here in switzerland so far
A religious christian jerk not following his religion targets me and my family to rob/stab/kill/etc.................99.99%...

Muslims commit almost no daily crimes here in switzerland let alone commit violent crimes such as rape, robbery, murder, etc.

1 or 2 extremist bombings are not going to change these numbers no matter how paranoid the fox news crowd wishes us to be...

I'm also a bit curious as to how many of the people that worry about bombs on public transport actually take public transport...I use my car once a week at most.... surely those that use a car daily can't be afraid of public transport bombings can they?

Out of curiousity alone...What religious communities have suffered the most amount of civilian deaths over the past 50 years?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Allow me to try to point out where I believe you're in error:
> 
> You keep saying that the west, Charlie Hebdo included, needs to restrain itself because of the way Muslims behave. So what you're basically implying is that Muslims are incapable of instituting self control on their behavior when they feel slighted. Would Christians be justified or should Muslims show restraint when insulting Christians? Should Muslims watch what they say when they deny the divine nature of Christ?
> 
> ...


100% in agreement.

Why should the (for want of a better term) "Christian world" have to watch what it says about Muslims for fear of a violent response? 
That isn't reciprocated. I don't recall any Christian militias in 2014 beheading Muslims in South American Jungles because they couldn't recite passages from the Bible in Greek or Latin! But that's what these animals did to Christians in Africa.

The biggest threat to the world right now and the cause of 90% of the conflicts is Islam! FACT! Not just militant factions but Islam as a whole!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Actually, about 98.5% of the US population are immigrants.  

The indigenous peoples, pure and mixed blood, only make up about 5 million (or about 1.5%) of the 320 million US population.....  

Just sayin'.....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> 100% in agreement.
> 
> Why should the (for want of a better term) "Christian world" have to watch what it says about Muslims for fear of a violent response?
> That isn't reciprocated. I don't recall any Christian militias in 2014 beheading Muslims in South American Jungles because they couldn't recite passages from the Bible in Greek or Latin! But that's what these animals did to Christians in Africa.
> ...


Ah. But you mention nothing of the daily crimes commited by christians. Can you name a single european community where muslims commit the majority of crimes compared to their christian brothers?

Violence, crime, & religion are beyond each factor alone aren't they?

Each time I mention a certain pariah state I am called names. Is it really too hard to imagin others doing so as well?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

How about we all take a step back and refer to crimes committed in the name of ones religion vs. crime in general.

When some thugs knock off the local liquor store in the name of Jesus then perhaps some equivocation could be made. Or perhaps when in the name of the Pope a smash and grab jewelry store heist is conducted a better point could be made. 

That someone is a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim or atheist doesn't matter in the commission of a crime. If a homosexual is pick pocketed on a crowded train that's not a hate crime.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> How about we all take a step back and refer to crimes committed in the name of ones religion vs. crime in general.
> 
> When some thugs knock off the local liquor store in the name of Jesus then perhaps some equivocation could be made. Or perhaps when in the name of the Pope a smash and grab jewelry store heist is conducted a better point could be made.
> 
> That someone is a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim or atheist doesn't matter in the commission of a crime. If a homosexual is pick pocketed on a crowded train that's not a hate crime.


But aren't all religions raised in the way to live daily life? Don't they all have some type of "moral" code?

An exremist muslim follwing their religion is certainly no worse than a christian ignoring theirs... are they?

"I do this because of "god", is not much different from "I do this because "god" will forgive me". Now is it?

Crine in general Under your definition seems to be a christian thing.... Extremist crime is a bit more common with muslims. but... To my understanding, you'd prefer your chances of being stabbed by a christian?

And oh...That one of your prefered countries kills thousands of civilians over combatants speaks volumnes to me as to what your definition of ethics might contain .To be quite frank, if most of any of these dreamland religions were true, you'd be going South.... and that's just a (majority)religious fact.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^^^
In the words of Dieter:
"Your story has become tiresome. Now is the time on sprockets when we dance."


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^^^
> In the words of Dieter:
> "Your story has become tiresome. Now is the time on sprockets when we dance."


Ah. Never a counter arguemnet versus a "go to" diversion.... CAn you add anything of value ever or is your job just to throw off logic? Have you ever bothered to actually respond in a serious manner even once? No? Why not? Lack of logical reasoning perhaps?

What is tiresome is your refusal to actually resond even once to any arguement presented against your biased point of view... Give it up... You are here to troll.... 2 minutes of logical research is certainly equal to 2 minutes of your personal insults....But of course you prefer insults to logic.... Can you entertain your AAAC peers with a few logical li9nks over a "press" post? No?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

There does seem to be a view that violent crimes committed by Muslims are bad (which they are), and that violent crimes committed by Christians somehow aren't (although they are), because they tend not to be committed in the name of God.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> There does seem to be a view that violent crimes committed by Muslims are bad (which they are), and that violent crimes committed by Christians somehow aren't (although they are), because they tend not to be committed in the name of God.


Indeed. They are commited because the christain god forgives all as long as the believer asks for forgiveness. Hence the whole catholic "absolution" issue. Death row folks ask for "wha"t from "who"


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Wherever and from whomever did you hear that violent crime committed by Christians is not bad? 

Intent of a crime and the purpose for which that crime is committed does play a part in mitigation. This is a standard that dates back in common law and has been a part of western jurisprudence for centuries. 

If a person just happens to be a Christian, or any other religion kills someone in the act of robbery, that's a capital crime and should be treated as such. The distinction is intent.

Was the murder committed in the act of a robbery in order to obtain the loot or was the murder committed in the name of an ideology and meant as an act against our way of life or in some capacity to alter or achieve a political end?

That's why we have hate crime legislation in this country. If an African American is killed in the process of being robbed by someone white, that's a capital crime, but if he is lynched for no other reason than the color of his skin, we as a society have deemed that a more serious and contemptible crime due to the intent and the larger social context which the crime is trying to influence.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

ignore the issue or not (SG)... the simple math states that I will be most likely be killed by a christian over a muslim... simple math...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> There does seem to be a view that violent crimes committed by Muslims are bad (which they are), and that violent crimes committed by Christians somehow aren't (although they are), because they tend not to be committed in the name of God.


If all violent crimes were equal, you'd have a point.

They aren't, so you don't.



justonemore said:


> ignore the issue or not (SG)... the simple math states that I will be most likely be killed by a christian over a muslim... simple math...


...and that goes for you, too!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If all violent crimes were equal, you'd have a point.
> 
> They aren't, so you don't.
> 
> ...and that goes for you, too!!


HA. If I or my family are killed, it will be due to someone confirming to ones religious standards ar someone not confirming to ones religious standards... The end game is all the same to me .....and without doubt....a certain failure concerning all religious communities....

The "golden rule" is often mentioned by all but rarely upheld by any.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> HA. If I or my family are killed, it will be due to someone confirming to ones religious standards ar someone not confirming to ones religious standards... The end game is all the same to me .....and without doubt....a certain failure concerning all religious communities....
> 
> The "golden rule" is often mentioned by all but rarely upheld by any.


When did you first start believing this gibberish??


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> When did you first start believing this gibberish??


As soon as I realised that the gibberish of religion has failed in both directions. From what I've seen of history, as long as "god" is involved ( in any direction) humanity seems not to be much of a concern.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

If I lived in the "wrong" building the christian americans and jewish israelis would kill me quicker than the muslims... just simple math (but i understand you think not all little children are equal in life...(perhaps to you arabs are not as equal to as much even as unborn fetuses?). Your "not everything is equal" tripe is disgusting from many vantage points. If the killing field was equal you'd be crying your poor dear heart out as to "victims".


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> (but i understand you think not all little children are equal in life...


Exhibit A;

Exhibit B:

I rest my case.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

:meme:

I'd trust the first one to kill me but (once again) numbers alone put the better odds on my death being caused by the latter (no matter how cute the picture). Numbers speak. Pictures are pictures.

Aren't scouts a bunch of religious extremists anyways? No lbgt allowed right?

Which to me means religious idiots on both sides willing to kill for "god & country" and bs "idealism".

Is the regular knife in the back not a greater concern compared to issues that bother us once a year?

Can you not promote fixing your own home before destroying those of others? Take the same $trillions, fix your own infrastructure & STFU as to others. Stop losing. Start winning. Start being "the best"... and then come preach... otherwise you are nothing but pictures and shallow words. 

Dear god. Let me kill in your name & therefore justify my actions"

Do we have a puking smiley?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Aren't scouts a bunch of religious extremists anyways? No lbgt allowed right?
> 
> Which to me means religious idiots on both sides willing to kill for "god & country" and bs "idealism".
> 
> Dear god. Let me kill in your name & therefore justify my actions"


Scouts are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up LGBTs?? :eek2:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Scouts are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up LGBTs?? :eek2:


Any proof as to the majority of arabic girls doing what you claim or just more words & doctored pictures?

Just curious bit I guess religiously trained scouts blowing up abortion clinics are cool huh? No religious bias there at all I suppose? Afterall. They're not muslim hey?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Just curious bit I guess religiously trained scouts blowing up abortion clinics are cool huh?


That could be a reasonable question if I were defending, making excuses for or dismissing religiously trained scouts blowing up abortion clinics.

Fortunately I am not, so it isn't.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Whereas the boy scouts organization in the US excludes openly gay individuals from leadership positions, I understand that the girl scouts organization here does not exclude the LGBT community from participation as members or adult leaders. However, as explicitly Christian organizations, I presume atheists would not be accepted in leadership roles, nor, I presume, would young atheists be welcome as members.

This discussion seems to me beside the point. People kill because of their religion. It doesn't seem to matter which religion it is. The numbers vary through time. 

Gurdon


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> This discussion seems to me beside the point. People kill because of their religion. It doesn't seem to matter which religion it is. The numbers vary through time.
> 
> Gurdon


Since this is a thread about the Popes remarks concerning recent Radical Islamist Terrorism in France, generalizations about religious violence throughout the millennia appear beside the point to me.

I could be wrong but I rarely am.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I believe you to be wrong this time. 

If killing people because their faith is different than yours were unique to Islam you would be right. Over the last couple of thousdan years, our team (the Christians) have killed many Muslims, Jews, Eastern Orthodox and other Christians because of docternal differences, and other people of other religions, based on the fact of religious difference. 

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> ignore the issue or not (SG)... the simple math states that I will be most likely be killed by a christian over a muslim... simple math...


A Christian would kill you over a Muslim? Over which Muslim would he want to kill you?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Since this is a thread about the Popes remarks concerning recent Radical Islamist Terrorism in France, generalizations about religious violence throughout the millennia appear beside the point to me.
> 
> I could be wrong but I rarely am.


I remember being wrong once. I'd thought that I'd made a mistake over something, but it turned out that I hadn't.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> If killing people because their faith is different than yours were unique to Islam you would be right. Over the last couple of thousdan years, our team (the Christians) have killed many Muslims, Jews, Eastern Orthodox and other Christians because of docternal differences, and other people of other religions, based on the fact of religious difference.
> 
> Gurdon


Fascinating, I'm sure, but simply not germane.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/opinion/thomas-friedman-say-it-like-it-is.html?_r=0



> I've never been a fan of global conferences to solve problems, but when I read that the Obama administration is organizing a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism for Feb. 18, in response to the Paris killings, I had a visceral reaction: Is there a box on my tax returns that I can check so my tax dollars won't go to pay for this?
> When you don't call things by their real name, you always get in trouble. And this administration, so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia, is refusing to make any link to radical Islam from the recent explosions of violence against civilians (most of them Muslims) by Boko Haram in Nigeria, by the Taliban in Pakistan, by Al Qaeda in Paris and by jihadists in Yemen and Iraq. We've entered the theater of the absurd.
> 
> Last week the conservative columnist in Politico Magazine that contained quotes from White House spokesman Josh Earnest that I could not believe. I was sure they were made up. But I checked the transcript: 100 percent correct. I can't say it better than Lowry did:
> "*The administration has lapsed into unselfconscious ridiculousness. *Asked why the administration won't say [after the Paris attacks] we are at war with radical Islam, Earnest on Tuesday explained the administration's first concern 'is accuracy. We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.'


I've written that one down!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Accuracy counts!

As when Hellfire missiles fired from drones kill Islamic terrorists. Mind you, I'm all in favor of killing terrorists but I agree with the absurdity; I wonder why someone won't ask the administration what all those people being droned have in common?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Accuracy counts!
> 
> As when Hellfire missiles fired from drones kill Islamic terrorists. Mind you, I'm all in favor of killing terrorists but I agree with the absurdity; I wonder why someone won't ask the administration what all those people being droned have in common?


"Simply fanatics just as there has always been fanatics!!"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yemen....


This Yemen....

IN DEVOTING 250 of the 6,800 words of his to the fight against "violent extremism," President Obama offered a boilerplate description of his policy. "Instead of sending large ground forces overseas," he said, "we're partnering with nations from South Asia to North Africa to deny safe haven to terrorists who threaten America." As he spoke, his strategy was crumbling in a nation he failed to mention: Yemen, home to the branch of al-Qaeda that claimed credit for the recent attacks in France and has repeatedly attempted to strike the U.S. homeland.
Since 2012, the United States has tried to build a "partnership" against al-Qaeda with President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, training selected Yemeni counterterrorism units and providing close to $1 billion in aid. Mr. Hadi, in turn, has allowed the CIA and Pentagon to use drone strikes to directly target militants deemed to be plotting against the United States. Though cited as a model by Mr. Obama last September, the program has been foundering: Al-Qaeda has mounted an insurgency that gained territory. Meanwhile, Mr. Hadi's government has come under assault from rebels known as the Houthis, who are members of a Shiite sect.

Backed by Iran, the Houthis took control of most of the capital, Sanaa, several months ago. This week, dissatisfied with Mr. Hadi's failure to deliver on their political demands, they besieged the presidential palace, abducted Mr. Hadi's chief of staff and made the president a prisoner in his home. On Wednesday Mr. Hadi was reported to have capitulated to the rebels' demand that a proposed constitutional reform be rewritten to give the Houthis, who represent less than a third of Yemen's population, more power. On Thursday, .


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Accuracy counts!
> 
> As when Hellfire missiles fired from drones kill Islamic terrorists. Mind you, I'm all in favor of killing terrorists but I agree with the absurdity; I wonder why someone won't ask the administration what all those people being droned have in common?


And the civilians killed alongside them? What do they have in common?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> This Yemen....
> 
> IN DEVOTING 250 of the 6,800 words of his to the fight against "violent extremism," President Obama offered a boilerplate description of his policy. "Instead of sending large ground forces overseas," he said, "we're partnering with nations from South Asia to North Africa to deny safe haven to terrorists who threaten America." As he spoke, his strategy was crumbling in a nation he failed to mention: Yemen, home to the branch of al-Qaeda that claimed credit for the recent attacks in France and has repeatedly attempted to strike the U.S. homeland.
> Since 2012, the United States has tried to build a "partnership" against al-Qaeda with President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, training selected Yemeni counterterrorism units and providing close to $1 billion in aid. Mr. Hadi, in turn, has allowed the CIA and Pentagon to use drone strikes to directly target militants deemed to be plotting against the United States. Though cited as a model by Mr. Obama last September, the program has been foundering: Al-Qaeda has mounted an insurgency that gained territory. Meanwhile, Mr. Hadi's government has come under assault from rebels known as the Houthis, who are members of a Shiite sect.
> ...


Is this about Islam, or tribal politics? If it is tribal politics you don't have to just look at Islam. Just look at Northern Ireland!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Is this about Islam, or tribal politics? If it is tribal politics you don't have to just look at Islam. Just look at Northern Ireland!


It's funny you should mention that as I do recall misguided Americans funding the IRA but I don't recall the IRA flying planes into out buildings or shooting up the offices of National Lampoon!!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Just a reminder that as emotions escalate a bit that rules still apply, even in the Interchange.

(This is not aimed at anyone specific and aimed at everyone simiultaneously.)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's funny you should mention that as I do recall misguided Americans funding the IRA but I don't recall the IRA flying planes into out buildings or shooting up the offices of National Lampoon!!


But they did blow up and kill and maim innocent civilians, including children, in England.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> And the civilians killed alongside them? What do they have in common?


It's not ideal and tragic but do you have a solution? Other than, of course, not doing anything at all.

I don't mean to sound cavalier about it, but is there an ideal way to do this?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> It's not ideal and tragic but do you have a solution? Other than, of course, not doing anything at all.
> 
> I don't mean to sound cavalier about it, but is there an ideal way to do this?


Assassination clearly hasn't worked. Why would it? If one is dealing with unreasoning irreconcilable fanatics and would be martyrs, why would one expect that a campaign of assassination would be effective? If you kill a fanatical leader of fanatics, who are all willing to die, they'll simply be replaced by another fanatic. As I've said before, if one keeps doing what one has always done, one will keep getting the same result. The response of the West, with which I include Israel, to Islamic terror attacks has consistently been to use force. It clearly hasn't worked. If it hasn't worked yet after years of trying, I doubt that it will work.

A solution, not "the" solution, but a solution would be to try and remove the main source of Islamic grievance, one that has been discussed many times before. If the government of Israel started to follow UN Resolutions and stopped treating Muslims as second class citizens in their own homeland, and stopped seizing land from Palestinians to build new settlements for immigrants, then Israel would remove the main source of pan-Islamic grievance. If Israel could show honestly that Palestinians were being treated with equality in Israel, that their lands, homes, and persons were safe there, as safe as those of Jewish citizens, then any Islamic intransigence could be seen as intransigent fanaticism. Their pretext for fanaticism would have been removed.
_*A*_ solution, not *the* solution or a complete solution, but it would help.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

As I mentioned with the BBC earlier... This is just as much Cr*p as the fox news piece. But....Here we are...

German men have a right to pee standing up? "German court rules that men can urinate while standing"....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30937492

And (I'l find it soon)... "Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes"....

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415

Both containing nothing but the best of BBC journalism I assume. lol...

And the main problem..... Both issues are quite valid and contain a bit of useful information... Now if we could only get rid of the tabloidesque headlines, we might be able to understand the issues a bit better over laughing them off.

Keep in mind that I would guess keeping your baby in a box in the U.S. would lead to the parents arrest and the children being put into the "wonderful" public system....Without poking fun at the fins, we could admit that a simple box (with proper blankets) could work for lower income families... A baby, in all reality, does not need a $300 crib, nor does it need a secondary room at $500 more per month. A baby in fact prefers to be right next to its mother 99% of the time and will put up with the rest of the family the other 1% ( little sexists are what they actually are. we should arrest and sue them...lol).

and least (or most) of alll.... We need to understand that most Finish babies are not put to sleep in boxes. The headline is beyond absurd... Yet... The article has been a BBC "feature" for months (if not years).

So....I look at BBC more often than Fox....10-1 at least. Probably closer to 100-1... Just to be honest. but... while fox is controlled a bit by their detractors, BBC is seen (internationally at leastt) as to being more honest somehow.

To me, and perhaps I'm jaded, but there is no honest "news source" in this day and age... Any article of interest seems to need at least an hour of honest research to verify. ...and to me...that's a pretty sad state of affairs...

Does anyone remember the old man in the *hitchhiker* series? The more I'm exposed to "international news", the more I'm convinced he was right...:eek2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Assassination clearly hasn't worked. Why would it? If one is dealing with unreasoning irreconcilable fanatics and would be martyrs, why would one expect that a campaign of assassination would be effective? If you kill a fanatical leader of fanatics, who are all willing to die, they'll simply be replaced by another fanatic. As I've said before, if one keeps doing what one has always done, one will keep getting the same result. The response of the West, with which I include Israel, to Islamic terror attacks has consistently been to use force. It clearly hasn't worked. If it hasn't worked yet after years of trying, I doubt that it will work.
> 
> A solution, not "the" solution, but a solution would be to try and remove the main source of Islamic grievance, one that has been discussed many times before. If the government of Israel started to follow UN Resolutions and stopped treating Muslims as second class citizens in their own homeland, and stopped seizing land from Palestinians to build new settlements for immigrants, then Israel would remove the main source of pan-Islamic grievance. If Israel could show honestly that Palestinians were being treated with equality in Israel, that their lands, homes, and persons were safe there, as safe as those of Jewish citizens, then any Islamic intransigence could be seen as intransigent fanaticism. Their pretext for fanaticism would have been removed.
> _*A*_ solution, not *the* solution or a complete solution, but it would help.


So your solution isn't giving up so much as giving in.

Is ISIS demanding a Palestinian State to give up Japanese hostages or $200 million??

No. Let them give in.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> It's not ideal and tragic but do you have a solution? Other than, of course, not doing anything at all.
> 
> I don't mean to sound cavalier about it, but is there an ideal way to do this?


It's time everyone get over this civilian casualty meme.

I am responsible for my governments action and who it supports internationally and as such am a target for terror.

The residents of terror sponsoring States or those allowing rockets to be hidden in their basements have made targets of themselves as well.

This commonality does not make the two of us morally equivalent.

Anyone who cannot discern the difference between the two of us, well, is an idiot and can not be reasoned with.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's time everyone get over this civilian casualty meme.
> 
> I am responsible for my governments action and who it supports internationally and as such am a target for terror.
> 
> ...


You appear to suggest, in this post, that a Palestinian child walking along a street in Gaza is somehow responsible for their own death if they are killed by fragments from a missile fired by a drone to kill a Hamas leader. Are you really saying this?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So your solution isn't giving up so much as giving in.
> 
> Is ISIS demanding a Palestinian State to give up Japanese hostages or $200 million??
> 
> No. Let them give in.


How has ISIS been a threat to us in the West? Just because we in the West don't like ISIS (quite reasonably) it doesn't mean that we in the West are being attacked by them. 
Or are you suggesting that all Muslims are the same and that all Muslims have some kind of collective responsibility?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Assassination clearly hasn't worked. Why would it? If one is dealing with unreasoning irreconcilable fanatics and would be martyrs, why would one expect that a campaign of assassination would be effective? If you kill a fanatical leader of fanatics, who are all willing to die, they'll simply be replaced by another fanatic. As I've said before, if one keeps doing what one has always done, one will keep getting the same result. The response of the West, with which I include Israel, to Islamic terror attacks has consistently been to use force. It clearly hasn't worked. If it hasn't worked yet after years of trying, I doubt that it will work.
> 
> A solution, not "the" solution, but a solution would be to try and remove the main source of Islamic grievance, one that has been discussed many times before. If the government of Israel started to follow UN Resolutions and stopped treating Muslims as second class citizens in their own homeland, and stopped seizing land from Palestinians to build new settlements for immigrants, then Israel would remove the main source of pan-Islamic grievance. If Israel could show honestly that Palestinians were being treated with equality in Israel, that their lands, homes, and persons were safe there, as safe as those of Jewish citizens, then any Islamic intransigence could be seen as intransigent fanaticism. Their pretext for fanaticism would have been removed.
> _*A*_ solution, not *the* solution or a complete solution, but it would help.


Not to beat a dead horse, but could you please explain to me how the presence of 8 million Jews on a tiny strip of land which by all accounts is largely barren has anything do to with some of the horrors that we see occurring around the world in the name of Islam?

Does the kidnapping of little girls and selling them into slavery have it's genesis in the fact that Jews have a homeland? Or does the beheading of journalists in the desert of Syria a reaction to a Jewish homeland?

Does the fact that Arab countries are governed by a dysfunctional combination of dictators on one side and backwards clerics on the other made any better if Israel were to disappear.

And what of the Palestinians themselves? How long will they tolerate militants and terrorists in their own midst. Allow them to store rockets in schools and churches and then complain when they get bombed. On the other end of town you've got a corrupt PA who basically take UN money and stuff it away in Swiss banks while their people wallow in misery.

I said this earlier, the Arab world collectively has far bigger problems and few of those problems involve a handful of people occupying a postage stamp sized dirt lot.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> You appear to suggest, in this post, that a Palestinian child walking along a street in Gaza is somehow responsible for their own death if they are killed by fragments from a missile fired by a drone to kill a Hamas leader. Are you really saying this?


I'm saying the dear things parents are responsible for it's death if they are killed by fragments from a missile fired by a drone to kill a Hamas leader.

Yes, I am really saying this.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> How has ISIS been a threat to us in the West? Just because we in the West don't like ISIS (quite reasonably) it doesn't mean that we in the West are being attacked by them.


I'm sorry, I just have to write you down as "no, ISIS is not demanding a Palestinian State to give up Japanese hostages. It is asking for $200 million and paying it or granting Statehood to Palestinians won't stop them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Or are you suggesting that all Muslims are the same and that all Muslims have some kind of collective responsibility?


No, I am saying that Palestinians that allow rockets to be hidden in their schools and basements are responsible for the rockets hidden in their schools and basements.

Syrians and Iraqis that failed to prevent ISIS from taking over significant territory are responsible and accountable for failing to prevent ISIS from taking over significant territory.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm saying the dear things parents are responsible for it's death if they are killed by fragments from a missile fired by a drone to kill a Hamas leader.
> 
> Yes, I am really saying this.


So the parents of children walking along a street in the city where they live, who are killed by missile fragments are to blame? Really?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

And if they happen to be Israeli parents chouan?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but could you please explain to me how the presence of 8 million Jews on a tiny strip of land which by all accounts is largely barren has anything do to with some of the horrors that we see occurring around the world in the name of Islam?


Straw man. I didn't say that. I suggested that the way that the government of Israel treats the Palestinian population is a problem, not the existence of Israel.



SG_67 said:


> Does the kidnapping of little girls and selling them into slavery have it's genesis in the fact that Jews have a homeland? Or does the beheading of journalists in the desert of Syria a reaction to a Jewish homeland?


Straw man. Again.



SG_67 said:


> Does the fact that Arab countries are governed by a dysfunctional combination of dictators on one side and backwards clerics on the other made any better if Israel were to disappear.


Straw man. Again.



SG_67 said:


> And what of the Palestinians themselves? How long will they tolerate militants and terrorists in their own midst. Allow them to store rockets in schools and churches and then complain when they get bombed. On the other end of town you've got a corrupt PA who basically take UN money and stuff it away in Swiss banks while their people wallow in misery.


You asked for a solution. I offered you a solution. These responses would suggest that you don't want a solution, but only justifications for your view of Islam.



SG_67 said:


> I said this earlier, the Arab world collectively has far bigger problems and few of those problems involve a handful of people occupying a postage stamp sized dirt lot.


Straw man. Again.

I would urge you to read my post again, only your post pretty much confirms that you don't want a solution, and that you aren't interested in solving the problem at all.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> And if they happen to be Israeli parents chouan?


Killed in Gaza by fragments from an Israeli missile? I doubt it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Straw man. I didn't say that. I suggested that the way that the government of Israel treats the Palestinian population is a problem, not the existence of Israel.
> 
> Straw man. Again.
> 
> ...


You're welcome to use the term straw man as much as you want but your point is still muddled.

You have an ingrained opinion as to the problem and the solution. Anything that does not conform to this rigid architecture is by definition a logical fallacy.

It's easy to blame Jews for the problems of the Middle East. Why not, Europeans did so for centuries so why stop now?

I don't think you really understand how ingrained anti Semitism is in the Middle East.

Though I'm American, I'm of middle eastern descent and even my own parents would make Jews the butt of many jokes and would refer to them as the source of problems. Mind you, my parents are Christians! And not altogether observant at that.

Anti Semitism is in the water there. They live and breath it. The same way as we here in America are weened on a certain mythology and certainly those in Europe, in the Middle East a large part of that mythology is that Jews are cowards, selfish, corrupt, greedy and will screw anyone to help themselves, including there own kind.

So the solution you ask? Change the mindset in the Middle East to not think that way. How? It won't happen overnight but will take generations and it starts with these societies opening up and allowing in modernity.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> You're welcome to use the term straw man as much as you want but your point is still muddled.


It isn't muddled at all, and I explained, well, I thought, back in post number 129. I did use the caveat that it was *a* solution, not *the* solution.



SG_67 said:


> You have an ingrained opinion as to the problem and the solution. Anything that does not conform to this rigid architecture is by definition a logical fallacy.


I have an opinion indeed, however, it is based on evidence, and is constantly under review. You asked for a solution, I replied with a solution, or at least a partial solution.



SG_67 said:


> It's easy to blame Jews for the problems of the Middle East. Why not, Europeans did so for centuries so why stop now?


But I'm not blaming "Jews". I suggested that if the Israeli government stopped ignoring UN Resolutions and stopped dispossessing Palestinians, as examples, then a significant factor in legitimising Palestinian opposition to Israel would be removed.



SG_67 said:


> I don't think you really understand how ingrained anti Semitism is in the Middle East.


I think that I really do understand.



SG_67 said:


> Though I'm American, I'm of middle eastern descent and even my own parents would make Jews the butt of many jokes and would refer to them as the source of problems. Mind you, my parents are Christians! And not altogether observant at that.
> 
> Anti Semitism is in the water there. They live and breath it. The same way as we here in America are weened on a certain mythology and certainly those in Europe, in the Middle East a large part of that mythology is that Jews are cowards, selfish, corrupt, greedy and will screw anyone to help themselves, including there own kind.
> 
> So the solution you ask? Change the mindset in the Middle East to not think that way. How? It won't happen overnight but will take generations and it starts with these societies opening up and allowing in modernity.


But you seem to think that the problem is entirely that of Islamic backwardness. "If only the Islamic world would modernise .......". But it won't, not in the immediate or even forseeable future. The problem lies with both sides, as do the solutions. The attempts at rapprochement between the Arab world and Israel led to the assassination of both leaders, Sadat and Rabin, at the hands of religious fanatics, Muslim *and* Jewish. Both sides need to act to solve the problem, not just one.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> So the parents of children walking along a street in the city where they live, who are killed by missile fragments are to blame? Really?


Parents who encourage or fail to expel terrorists and conceal their weapons are to blame for endangering their own lives and the lives of their children.

Really.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Hitch said:


> And if they happen to be Israeli parents chouan?


Israelis endanger their own lives and the lives of their children by being Jews.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> It isn't muddled at all, and I explained, well, I thought, back in post number 129. I did use the caveat that it was *a* solution, not *the* solution.
> 
> I have an opinion indeed, however, it is based on evidence, and is constantly under review. You asked for a solution, I replied with a solution, or at least a partial solution.
> 
> ...


The backwardness and shear hostility toward Jews, let alone a Jewish state, within the Arab world is the source of the problem.

The truth is that Palestinians are treated as dirt by most Arab countries. No one wants them, to the extent that they are welcome they are so as laborers, which in the Middle East does not exactly come with plum union benefits. They are marginalized and basically seen as lower class and not worthy of acceptance. If you remember correctly, Kuwait outright expelled Palestinians from their borders following Desert Storm due to their support of Saddam Hussein and his claim that he was fighting for the Palestinians.

The Palestinian issue is used as a convenient and almost ready made talking point. In reality most Arabs could care less about them and only bring them up when it suits their needs. Sort of like when politicians here in this country claim to want to pass legislation because "it's the right thing to do for our children".

If we snapped our fingers and created a Palestinian state with contiguous borders the hostility toward Israel would not stop. Arab children would still be fed a diet of anti Semitism both in schools as well as their state run media. There would still be terrorist organizations committing acts of terrorism again Israel and Jews in general. The Arab world would still be backward, medieval and run by dictators.

I'm always amazed that the west falls for this every time. Anytime there's some Arab intellectual speaking in an Oxbridge accent about how if Israel would just do this or that so many problems would be resolved, western media and politicians swoon and accept it without question.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The backwardness and shear hostility toward Jews, let alone a Jewish state, within the Arab world is the source of the problem.
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians are treated as dirt by most Arab countries. No one wants them, to the extent that they are welcome they are so as laborers, which in the Middle East does not exactly come with plum union benefits. They are marginalized and basically seen as lower class and not worthy of acceptance. If you remember correctly, Kuwait outright expelled Palestinians from their borders following Desert Storm due to their support of Saddam Hussein and his claim that he was fighting for the Palestinians.
> 
> ...


As I wrote earlier 
_"If Israel could show honestly that Palestinians were being treated with equality in Israel, that their lands, homes, and persons were safe there, as safe as those of Jewish citizens, then any Islamic intransigence could be seen as intransigent fanaticism. Their pretext for fanaticism would have been removed.
__*A* solution, not *the solution or a complete solution, but it would help."

*_It would be very hard for an Arab intellectual with an Oxbridge accent to justify Arab terrorism in such circumstances. If Palestinians in Israel were treated by the government of Israel as equals, with property rights equal to Jewish Israelis, and with effective protection from Israeli extremists, for example, where would be the justification offered by Arabs? If the pretext is removed then Arab terrorism couldn't be explained as retaliation, and couldn't be defended by anybody. But, if the pretext is allowed to continue there would be, and can be, no chance of peace.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ My argument is with your assumption, and it is an assumption albeit a tempting one, that it would remove _a_ or _one_ pretext for fanaticism. I think fanaticism is somewhat irrational anyway so to suggest that there is some logical pretext for it is a bit misguided.

Arab intellectuals certainly know how to play to the west. That's why you'll hear them argue against "violence committed by any state or actor", therefore equivocating all violence under the same banner. You'll hear them say, "We don't agree with the terrorist, but.....". This is all too common.

You'll never hear them condemning Islamic terrorism outright. They'll also use terms like "cycle of violence" which unfortunately the west and it's media have latched onto.

It's easier for people outside the region not to take sides. It's uncomfortable to takes sides at times but as moral beings we are forced to.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ My argument is with your assumption, and it is an assumption albeit a tempting one, that it would remove _a_ or _one_ pretext for fanaticism. I think fanaticism is somewhat irrational anyway so to suggest that there is some logical pretext for it is a bit misguided.


But it would certainly remove the pretext that is most commonly sited by those commentators in the West who seek to understand the cycle of violence. If the Islamic world had no reasonable or rational pretext, then their intransigent fanaticism would be completely unjustifiable, even by those who seek to justify it.



SG_67 said:


> Arab intellectuals certainly know how to play to the west. That's why you'll hear them argue against "violence committed by any state or actor", therefore equivocating all violence under the same banner. You'll hear them say, "We don't agree with the terrorist, but.....". This is all too common.


Except that violence, whether state sponsored, state organised, or by individual terrorists is equivalent. Whether missile strikes are carried out by the IDF or rockets are fired by Hamas makes no difference, both can be argued as terror, both can be argued as legitimate.



SG_67 said:


> You'll never hear them condemning Islamic terrorism outright.


Indeed, no more than you'll ever hear an Israeli spokesperson condemning Israeli terrorism outright.



SG_67 said:


> They'll also use terms like "cycle of violence" which unfortunately the west and it's media have latched onto.


Easily done, as there _*is*_ a cycle of violence, an ongoing cycle of violence which neither side is trying to stop.



SG_67 said:


> It's easier for people outside the region not to take sides. It's uncomfortable to takes sides at times but as moral beings we are forced to.


Indeed, but it is difficult to take sides when one can see that neither side has absolute right on their side.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Except that violence, whether state sponsored, state organised, or by individual terrorists is equivalent. Whether missile strikes are carried out by the IDF


See post #132


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> But it would certainly remove the pretext that is most commonly sited by those commentators in the West who seek to understand the cycle of violence. If the Islamic world had no reasonable or rational pretext, then their intransigent fanaticism would be completely unjustifiable, even by those who seek to justify it.
> 
> Except that violence, whether state sponsored, state organised, or by individual terrorists is equivalent. Whether missile strikes are carried out by the IDF
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how removing a talking point solves anything. They will go on and find some other issue which they can use to divert attention from their own failings.

Take the PA for example as they are on the frontline of this issue. They are wholly corrupt and with one hand take money from the west and hide it in Swiss bank accounts, and on the other blame Jews for the plight of their people.

You and I are obviously on polar opposites and I would only end up repeating myself if we continue. My only question to you is this:

If Israel were to revert to the pre 1967 borders, do you honestly believe that terrorism would end? You continue to mention that it is not THE source but A source. I content that it is neither. It is wholly made up by despots in order to stay in power. There is something about Jews that the Arabs just cannot stand and it's an antipathy that has it's roots in the dirt itself.

Do you honestly feel that enterprises such as Hamas and Hezbollah would disappear?

If you were a Shia Muslim, would you feel more comfortable observing your religion in Tel Aviv or in Riyadh?

If you were a woman, would you feel more comfortable shopping alone in Tel Aviv or in Mecca?

If you were visiting the Middle East and fell ill, would you rather go to an Arab hospital or one in Israel?

Why do you think such differences exist?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Take the PA for example as they are on the frontline of this issue. They are wholly corrupt and with one hand take money from the west and hide it in Swiss bank accounts, and on the other blame Jews for the plight of their people.


There are no such things as hidden/private "Swiss" bank accounts anymore. The U.S doesn't allow them. Welcome to 2015....Perhaps you should do your homework before making such claims?

And no one is blaiming "the jews" over the murderous state of Israel.. Like it or not, there is a big difference between a "state" and "a religion"... In the most countries a religion is just a religion...But...Israel comes in and claims they are "god's chosen people".... Such a claim is disgusting to all religions but for some reason....U.S. politicians think it to be true? Excuse me while I vomit...



SG_67 said:


> You and I are obviously on polar opposites and I would only end up repeating myself if we continue. * My only question to you is this:*
> 
> If Israel were to revert to the pre 1967 borders, do you honestly believe that terrorism would end? You continue to mention that it is not THE source but A source. I content that it is neither. It is wholly made up by despots in order to stay in power. There is something about Jews that the Arabs just cannot stand and it's an antipathy that has it's roots in the dirt itself.
> 
> ...


That seems to be 6 questions or so versus an "only question"


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm not sure how removing a talking point solves anything. They will go on and find some other issue which they can use to divert attention from their own failings.


Perhaps, but it would show the world that Israel is trying to find a solution. Their present policy is showing the rest of the world, except the US, it would appear, that the government of Israel isn't interested in a solution.



SG_67 said:


> Take the PA for example as they are on the frontline of this issue. They are wholly corrupt and with one hand take money from the west and hide it in Swiss bank accounts, and on the other blame Jews for the plight of their people.


Rather a sweeping generalisation isn't it. All of them are corrupt? All of them?



SG_67 said:


> You and I are obviously on polar opposites and I would only end up repeating myself if we continue. My only question to you is this:
> 
> If Israel were to revert to the pre 1967 borders, do you honestly believe that terrorism would end?


Straw man. Again. I haven't suggested that in any of my posts.



SG_67 said:


> You continue to mention that it is not THE source but A source. I content that it is neither. It is wholly made up by despots in order to stay in power. There is something about Jews that the Arabs just cannot stand and it's an antipathy that has it's roots in the dirt itself.


Are you suggesting that the UN Resolutions condemning Israel's illegal expropriation of land belonging to Palestinians are "made up"? Are you suggesting that the illegal, or at least extra-legal, expropriations of Palestinian owned land, at gun point, to build settlements for Jewish immigrants is "made up"? Also, I think that you'll find that the Jewish antipathy to Arabs is also "in the dirt itself". The Palestinians inhabit a land that some Jews believe belongs to them, absolutely, because they believe themselves to be God's chosen people, and that the land of Israel belongs to them because of the book of Exodus. Do you really believe that Jews should be entitled to expropriate the land of the inhabitants because the Bible says so?



SG_67 said:


> Do you honestly feel that enterprises such as Hamas and Hezbollah would disappear?


Straw man. Again. Where have I suggested that?



SG_67 said:


> If you were a Shia Muslim, would you feel more comfortable observing your religion in Tel Aviv or in Riyadh?
> 
> If you were a woman, would you feel more comfortable shopping alone in Tel Aviv or in Mecca?
> 
> ...


My opinion on such differences is irrelevant. How Muslims wish to live in their own country is up to them. The US has historically subscribed to a belief of "self-determination" of peoples. If Muslims wish to live the way they do, who am I to judge? That you seem to be judging shows more about your attitude, and antipathy, to Muslims than about anything else.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'd be all in favor of Muslims and Arabs wishing to live as they want in their own countries but they seems quite bent on exporting their version of Law and way of life to other countries. 

As for the PA's corruption? Yes. Where is the money going then?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> ...But...Israel comes in and claims they are "god's chosen people".... Such a claim is disgusting to all religions


So say the spokesperson of all religions!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Time??


:s cash for the U.S.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I find your sensibilities and your methods of discourse quite vulgar. To refer to anyone as a retard is quite shameful and I think you owe an apology to those with cognitive disabilities.


Suxh as you?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I find your sensibilities and your methods of discourse quite vulgar.


It was a nice three days, however.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I spent 3 hours with my muslum dentist today.v.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

justonemore said:


> I spent 3 hours with my muslum dentist today.v.[/QUOTE
> 
> he was much better over my previous idiot.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Primo Levi's opposition to Israeli policies explained*

An essay on Primo Levi by one of his translators<https://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/understanding-primo-levi.html>

It explains Levi's principled opposition to Israel's current positions. Whether or not you agree with him, it is hard to accuse Primo Levi of being an anti-semite or self-loathing Jew.

Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'd be all in favor of Muslims and Arabs wishing to live as they want in their own countries but they seems quite bent on exporting their version of Law and way of life to other countries.


Are they? All of them? That's quite a sweeping generalisation, again. You appear to be stereotyping in a way that would be unacceptable if you were referring to a race, or people of another religion.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Are they? All of them? That's quite a sweeping generalisation, again. You appear to be stereotyping in a way that would be unacceptable if you were referring to a race, or people of another religion.


Enough of them to allow one to draw certain generalizations about the culture, so yes. "60 Minutes" did a piece on this as it exists in London and many of the people who were interviewed had a difficult time reconciling western values with their own faith and one Pakistani shop owner could not come to grips with the notion of free speech in an open, liberal society (referencing Charlie Hebdo specifically).

Many Muslims living in the west seem to be having a hard time assimilating. No one is saying that have to leave their culture behind, but they are having a hard time adapting to notions of western life and we see as unique.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

That's enough. I reminded people not to let emotions overtake them. 

I've had to delete three posts, and issue two infractions. This will close. 

Please remember, that the rules for all the forums DO apply to the interchange.


----------

