Now you have a feel of how Moslems feel when their symbols are ctitisised. Your response is truly amazing. This is exactly the response in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan. Except that you are angry over one symbol the others over another.

You need to get a clue! "Americans" are not angry over a symbol! They are angry over the "act" that took the lives of 3000 Americans. Refering to the cartoon now...how many muslims lost their lives over it?

Gene -

Go get some help. Soon.

Bahu -

I'm rather surprised that Baker is being so kind. I would have expected your nonchalance about the murder of innocents, in fact your dismissal of those murders as less serious than that cartoon, to have torked him off, too. And no, I don't have the feeling Moslems have when their symbols are criticized - our symbols weren't criticized, Bahu, our citizens were murdered. That you can't see the difference speaks volumes.

Daiwa

 

Edited by moderator:

This is an interesting discussion, Col Gene. Take your off-topic Bush bashing elsewhere or I will make you disappear.

Gene -

Go bury your nose in a quatrain & leave us alone. Please.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa NO WHERE DID I dismiss the terrorism that is taking place. The issue is that we are not looking how extensive and how deep the hatred of the west is among the Moslems thought the world. We make believe by trying to set up a democracy in Iraq all will be fine as that spreads thought the area. THAT IS PURE BS. There is NO justification for ANY of the violence that resulted from the cartoons. There is no justification for any of the violence coming from these radicals. However, there is far more support for their actions than Bush and this administration admits. The situation world wide is NOT making us safer. What I said is we better get prepared for the possibility that this carnage will become even more wide spread. One GREAT way to do that is to CUT the size of our military (Guard and Reserve) the way the Bush 2007 budget proposes! Bush is getting ready to send his 2007 budget proposal to Congress. While Bush is pushing to make his tax cuts for his wealthy supporter's permanent, look at some of the proposed CUTS he has included in his 2007 Budget: Cuts from Education Cuts from the Dept of Energy Cuts from the National Institute of Health Cuts from Centers for Disease Control Cuts for Medicare Reimbursement Cuts for food aid to CHILDREN under 6 and the ELDERLY Cuts for the NATIONAL GUARD and ARMY RESERVE Given his statements about the need for education, the potential problems with health and a possible pandemic, the plight of the poor he identified in his New Orleans Speech and the situation with our military being under sized, these budget cuts are as wrong as they could be. Rather then increase the Federal revenues to help balance the budget, Bush is proposing cuts in ESSENTIAL elements of the government. The cuts in the National Guard and Reserve have raised a firestorm with the nations Governors as well as the Congress. 75 Senators sent a letter to Bush Thursday saying HELL NO. I doubt that most of these ridicules cuts will be approved, especially in an election year. The real question is HOW COULD WE HAVE ELECTED A PRESIDENT THAT IS SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH WHAT IS NEEDED IN AMERICA?

Col, will you PLEASE, get a god-damned clue? The topic at hand is muslim violence, NOT "bash-Bush"!

I've seen many references to "Respect" in this thread from Bahu mainly revolving around the Wests need to respect the feelings and beliefs of the muslim world. All I have to add to this discussion is simply:

Respect is earned not demanded!!

You want the world to respect you, show some respect for the beliefs and opinions of the rest of the world. Oh, and brning down buildings, threatening innocent people and shouting "death to " at the top of your lungs is not a convincing show of respect.

Daiwa

I know where you have your head burried

Gene -

Cite me the quatrain, otherwise you know nothing.

Cheers,
Daiwa

#84 is a copy of the Quatrain about the war

Kevin, good point.

Excellent point, actually.

Now you have a feel of how Moslems feel when their symbols are ctitisised

--bahu

As you put it "OUR FREEDOMS" cannot be changed. True enough, but what about respect for the values symbols and religion of nearly a third of humankind

---Bahu

What about Christians in Africa, murdered by Muslims? Are we supposed to just say "Oh, well?"
What about cartoons printed in Arab papers that feature Jesus Christ unfavorably? "Oh, well?" I'm offended by those things, but you don't see me beheading innocent people, do you?

As to this comment:

One is a religious symbol and revered all over the world. The other is a political and economic symbol. In any case they are not to be equated.

---Bahu

That revered figure, or at least the following of his teachings, is responsible for more hatred and unnecessary death
and destruction than almost any other figure in all of history. How can you defend that?

Screw them all, and the camels they rode in on. Where's the Button, George?

Screw them all, and the camels they rode in on. Where's the Button, George

This last comment just shows how ill informed many are about the present controversey. Jesus is recognised as a Propher along with Abraham and Moses. No Moslem will dishonor Jesus (whether he was Christ) is open to dispute. There are some offensive cartoons about Israel, I agree, but they are not manifestations of anti semiticism because Arabs are also Semites. We may just as well say that the 2000 years of anti semitism in the West which culminated in the Holocaust has just tranformed itself into Moslem baiting and this too is anti semetic.

There are some offensive cartoons about Israel, I agree, but they are not manifestations of anti semiticism because Arabs are also Semites. We may just as well say that the 2000 years of anti semitism in the West which culminated in the Holocaust has just tranformed itself into Moslem baiting and this too is anti semetic.

True, Arabs are Semites as far as I'm aware, but in the west anti-semitic tends to mean anti-Jew rather than being a race-based position. The two often go hand-in-hand but I think you can't disagree that Jews get a bad rap in many Arabic countries.

The two often go hand-in-hand but I think you can't disagree that Jews get a bad rap in many Arabic countries.

The reasons as we have always maintained have to do with the Palestenian and West Bank problems. It has nothing to do with a fundamental hatred for Jews such as the one that informed anti semitism in Europe.

"The reasons as we have always maintained have to do with the Palestenian and West Bank problems. It has nothing to do with a fundamental hatred for Jews such as the one that informed anti semitism in Europe."

Pardon? Then why would I be considered a Dhimmi to many Muslims were I to live alongside them in their nation? I think you'll find that there was a great deal of anti-Semitism before Israel came into existence in the 1940's.

According to Ibn Kathir (b. Syria, 1301):

"Ibn Kathir wrote that dhimmis must feel “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of the dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated."

Even if you attribute the hatred for Jews and the alignment with the Nazis by people like the Grand Mufti to fear of Jewish efforts to form Israel, I think you can't possibly claim that the status of the Jew as less than that of a Muslim is due to the formation of modern Israel. It has been around since the Koran itself was written:

"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them..." (V: The Tables: 55)"

Bahu, I appreciate your defense, and it is admirable, but you can't stifle the truth with the better nature of Islam. I have no doubt there have always been tolerant, peaceful Muslims who lived with kindness for people of other faiths. I also have no doubt, though, that the hatred for the Jew that is now present in Islam can be traced back to Islam's earliest beginnings, and long before the 1940's.

Christians and Jews were also not the only ones mistreated by Islam. Treated as badly were people of the Hindu faith, which didn't get any consideration as "people of the book".

There are some offensive cartoons about Israel, I agree, but they are not manifestations of anti semiticism because Arabs are also Semites.

The fact that you don't know what "anti-Semitism" means doesn't change the fact that many Arabs and Muslims ARE anti-Semites. Look up the word, if you are in doubt.

"Cartoons" about the evil jokes ARE anti-Semitic. And Arabs are not less guilty of anti-Semitism than a European or American would be in that case just because of their nationality. Get that in your head.

Showing a Jew as a sort of evil armed pig is anti-Semitism. And it is offensive.

It's even more offensive because it comes at the end of a long campaign to get rid of all the Jews in the middle east. The difference between Germany and the Arab countries is that Germany unfortunately succeeded. The Arabs were too late. The Jews were fore-warned and fought back.

They still do.

So don't tell us what to do. Change your own ways.

I hope there will be more cartoons of your icon.

Bahu,

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=100673&s=1

Good luck, man.

I think you'll find that there was a great deal of anti-Semitism before Israel came into existence in the 1940's.

I think he would also find that Jews generally lived as second-class citizens or sometimes slaves in Muslim countries. Most Arab countries had and have laws against Jews that parallel the laws of Germany in the 1930s and the laws of South Africa against blacks.

Of course these laws are perfectly all right because the Qur'an says so.

Incidentally, the Qur'an also says that G-d gave Palestine to the Jews and that they will return from all nations before judgement day.

I think he would also find that Jews generally lived as second-class citizens or sometimes slaves in Muslim countries. Most Arab countries had and have laws against Jews that parallel the laws of Germany in the 1930s and the laws of South Africa against blacks.

Really? Which ones? Can you cite these laws? It's not that I disbelieve you per se, just I never realised the persecution was actually enshrined in any legal codes, or that there were Germany-style deathcamps for Jews in any Muslim countries. I wasn't even aware there were Muslim countries with anything even vaguely approaching a sizable Jewish population.

We may just as well say that the 2000 years of anti semitism in the West which culminated in the Holocaust has just tranformed itself into Moslem baiting and this too is anti semetic.

---Bahu

Wait a minute now, Bahu----People not liking Jews has a lot to do with cultural and religious bias and blatant racism.

People not liking Muslims has a lot to do with unnecessary killing and destruction, hatred and intolerance on the part of the Muslims, who in turn demand, often with violence, to be accepted and tolerated.

How many people have the Jews taken hostage and beheaded? How many people have the Jews killed with their suicide bombers and carbombs? How many people have the Jews slaughtered with attacks on buses, restaurants and markets? How many people have the Jews killed in the process of rampaging in rage through the streets?
The Muslims have brought it on themselves. Whatever happens to them in the future, they brought on themselves, too.

Really? Which ones? Can you cite these laws?

I could look them up again, if you like. Or you can read what the Qur'an says about the treatment of Dhimmis yourself. It's law in many Arab countries.

It's not that I disbelieve you per se, just I never realised the persecution was actually enshrined in any legal codes,

Few people know that. That's why so many people support the "Palestinian cause". They don't realise what the alternative to controlling Israel is for the Jews.

or that there were Germany-style deathcamps for Jews in any Muslim countries.

Now you are just being ridiculous. You know full well that there weren't any death camps in Germany in the 1930s (as opposed to the 1940s). I tell you what I think. I think you don't believe me and thus thought you could simply put it down as a loony theory about Arab death camps. But it's not funny at all.

I wasn't even aware there were Muslim countries with anything even vaguely approaching a sizable Jewish population.

There aren't. Most of them got rid of their Jews in the last hundred years. Some hunted them down, some expelled them more or less politely, some tried to get rid of the poor Jews and keep the rich, some simply killed them. All the countries kept the property of their Jews. There are millions of Jewish refugees in Israel, but all of them were integrated into Israeli society quickly (within ten years). Had Israel treated them like the Arabs treated Arab refugees, they would also live in refugee camps now.

Morocco and Bahrain still have Jewish minorities. The Bahraini community is very small (35 in total, I think). Both countries protected them against the nationalists and extremists. But they are the exceptions.

The rest of the Arab world is now judenfrei (to use the German term), and the world never cared about these refugees. Most people never even knew.

The Hebrew spoken in Israel is the Sephardi (middle eastern) dialect. It's not the European dialect.

There are probably more synagogues in Egypt than Jews.

It's a myth that Jews lived alongside Arabs in brotherhood before the whole Israel thing got started. In reality the Koran speaks directly about how CHristians and Jews should be treated, and makes it clear that they should be disassociated and have no better status than second hand citizens. ANyone interested can read my previous post above. As ibn Kathir called them "miserable, disgraced and humiliated".

Such Liberal revisionism is just an extension of the Romantic era's "noble savage" where they applied all their most grand ideals to anyone non-European in order to degrade their own culture. Native Americans were basically just little Christians with grand Liberal ideals. Then, as now, it doesn't stick, and most people wouldn't think of trying to live in nations that force them to pay a tax in order to not be forcibly converted and live as the "miserable, disgraced and humiliated" because of their religious beliefs.

I'm not saying that all Muslims feel that way, or that even most of them do. I do take serious issue with the mythical idea that Muslims had no problem with Jews before the 1940's. In reality disdain for Jews and other religions was cemented from the very beginning.

It's a myth that Jews lived alongside Arabs in brotherhood before the whole Israel thing got started.

The typical revisionism I see is the story that Jews and Muslims lived in peace and that there was some cut-off point at about 1900 when sephardic Jews simply stopped existing. Hence the claim that Israel is a European and American colony and that the Jews should go "back" to Europe, that many Arab extremists support.

The "Palestinian cause" is all about sending the Jews "back" to Europe, that is why the PLO have a map of "Palestine" that includes Israel. And liberals happily support the "Palestinian cause". They usually don't even know about sephardic Jews and their history. They don't care.

There was this discussion here where somebody asked, among other things, which position each of us takes on the Israel/Palestine issue. Do we support Israel or Palestine. All the liberals said "Palestine".

They might have a very romantic image of what the PLO and the other Arab organisations stand for, or they might have a very dramatic image of what the Jews keep doing to the poor defenceless Arabs, or both, but they certainly support the PLO and not Israel.


Israel's position:

1. Two-state solution accepted in 1948

2. Two-state solution accepted between 1949 and 1968.

3. Two-state solution proposed in 2000.

4. Arabs can live in the Arab state.


Arab Palestinian position:

1. Two-state solution rejected in 1948.

2. Two-state solution rejected in 1968.

3. Two-state solution rejected, by Arafat, in 2000.

4. Jews should be thrown into the sea.

(If you don't believe me, check the Web site of the PA and read what Hamas have to say about the matter.)


But liberals support the Arab side. I really wonder why, as they do claim that they are not anti-Semitic.

German school books (and I assume others), don't speak of sephardic Jews in relation to Israel. And all the immigration arrows come from Europe and America. Liberals believe school books. That is good. But liberals don't think. That is bad.

If liberals would think about it, they would notice that Jews and Muslims could not both have lived in peace together AND been without a lot of contact. It's impossible. There was either a huge Jewish community in the Arab world that the Muslims lived in peace with, or there wasn't. It cannot be both.

The truth is, of course, that there is a large Jewish community in the Arab world and that the Arabs have not lived in peace with them for a long time. The Arabs treated their Jewish minority pretty much like all their minorities. And that is why Israel is so important. It protects at least two of the middle eastern minorities from the Arabs (Jews and Druze). If only the Kurds had had such a country as well!

do take serious issue with the mythical idea that Muslims had no problem with Jews before the 1940's.

The day the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 was the day anti-Semitism ended. At least it sometimes seems as if liberals see it that way. All the attacks on Jews since that day have been because of Israel's behaviour, not because of anti-Semitism.

That's why it's called "resistance" instead of terrorism when Jews are attacked.


Quoting Wikipedia about the Arab League:

1942 - The United Kingdom promotes the idea of the Arab League in an attempt to win over Arabs as allies in war against Germany.

1945 - Arab league member states declare a boycott of Jewish businesses in Palestine, this is continued after the establishment of Israel as the Arab League boycott.


Very funny, isn't it?

But hey, liberals, support these people. They don't want a two-state solution and they don't want the Jews. If that is the sort of thing you want to support, go ahead.

why you think , really think about, the united states never fought white country , know the history, of america , and yes i was born in america.

why you think , really think about, the united states never fought white country , know the history, of america , and yes i was born in america.

It is a pity that so many people born in America employ such bad English. But I think I read correctly when I understand that you wanted to say that America never fought a "white" country (by which I assume you mean a country inhabited by mostly whites), while implying that Arabs are not white (although they really are).

If that is what you meant, let me congratulate you. You managed to be the first person in this thread who wrote something that most likely everybody else will disagree with.

Perhaps your knowledge of American history isn't quite as sufficient as you here thought it would be.

The truth is that America has fought the majority of her wars against "white" countries.

The revolution was against the British. Then Americans fought the French, some north-African provinces of the Ottoman Empire (which I guess you could qualify as non-white), the the British again.

Then they fought themselves for a while.

Before and after that the fought the Indians (American such, which I think might qualify as non-white again), then the Spanish. Then came World War I (Germany) and World War II (Germany, France, Japan). Then follows the Cold War (Russians) with several smaller wars against non-white Koreans and Vietnamese (in alliance with each time the other half of Koreans and Vietnamese).

Then came a few wars against South American countries or individual people (Hispanics are not white, I guess). Then against Iraq, against Iraq, against Iraq (again, Arabs are white).

The most violent wars America fought were against whites.

Race traitors!

What you need are English and History classes. Where you were born doesn't make a difference. I do not respect you and your opinion less or more because of where you were born or who your parents are.