[Golden Legacy]

Before I get started here, I want to make something quite clear (and very clear).


In NO WAY do I claim to be an Anti-Semitist. It is true that I believe the Palestinians have a greater cause than the Israelis, and that they deserve the land, but that is limited SOLELY TO THE LAND ITSELF. I have asked this of people before, and many claim that I am against Jews, which is NOT TRUE. Again, it has to do with the STATE OF ISRAEL, whose land I believe, again, rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. I am sick and tired of people calling me Anti-Semitist, and being outraged over it, so I am getting this over with now.



Now, believe it or not, I posted that for a reason. Do you see what I have to go through here? I have to go OUT OF MY WAY to make sure I don't come EVEN close to making it sound as though I hate Jews. Why? Because on the slightest hint of Anti-Semitism, it appears that EVERYONE suddenly assumes the worst out of you, and completely denounce the person unjustly.

Why is this the case? Why is it that when a minor comment against Jews is made, even not intentionall (i.e. Mel Gibson), there is a HUGE story coming from it?

Whereas, prejudice against other faiths never reaches headlines, or perhaps they are encouraged (look at reporters on certain news networks, and notice how they will immediately oppose anyone who says anything against Jews/Israel, even if it's minor, whereas they SAY nothing [or agree with] a comment made against Muslims/Islam).

[Toasty]

I'm not trying to sound offensive or anything, and if I have before, forgive me for it. But one reason why I think this happens (last paragraph) is because the Palestinians are constantly attacking the Israelis. The Israilis only attack other countries if they plan to attack Israel, or if they already have. Palestine, though, attacks for no other reason than to wipe the Jews out, and/or get their land. They could probably get some more land if they just talk to the U.N. more, but instead, they attack. This means that it's much more likely that they just want to kill the Jews. Yes, Israel has bomed Palestine and whatnot, but Palestine threatened to/did first. Instead of attacking for no reason, the Israelis attacked in defense, and that was clear to everyone else. People don't hate Israel for attacking a country, because they always have a good reason to. Always. Now if I sound too offensive, please excuse me. I'm just strongly for Israel just as you are strongly for Palestine. Please notice how I didn't say you were against Israel. I do not believe you are anti-semitist.

[Golden Legacy]

I noticed that, yes, and thanks for taking care not to accuse me of that.

Without getting into the overall argument again between Israelis and Palestinians (we have a whole topic for it), I will bring up how strongly the Palestinians believe in their cause. Dying for a cause is not something to be against, especially when the oppressor in question is killing your people and not leaving any other option.

I think the problem lies more than the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, however. It's an overall mentality about how people are to the Jews.

[Platinum Sun]

I agree. Anti-antisemitism is rampant. If you say anything against the Jews you're stepping onto a firing range. Civil rights marshalls (normally I would metaphorically refer to them as "civil rights Nazis," but will not do so in this case due to the aforementioned.) are getting a bit overzealous and are making it so that anyone their standards of equality protect are bulletproof and can get away with murder. What I'm trying ot say is:
I feel your pain GL.

[gsninja]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 5 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

Why is this the case? Why is it that when a minor comment against Jews is made, even not intentionall (i.e. Mel Gibson), there is a HUGE story coming from it?

Whereas, prejudice against other faiths never reaches headlines, or perhaps they are encouraged (look at reporters on certain news networks, and notice how they will immediately oppose anyone who says anything against Jews/Israel, even if it's minor, whereas they SAY nothing [or agree with] a comment made against Muslims/Islam).

I totally agree with you on this. Anti-Semititsm is way too exaggerated. I got annoyed at how big a deal the media and a lot of people made at Mel Gibson's unintentional comments against Jews. He was DRUNK. He most likely didn't know what he was doing. In my opinion, he shouldn't even have apologized, as he didn't do it on purpose.

Overall, I do think you're right about this whole thing, GL. -_-

[Bexie]

I'm guessing anti-semitism is met with such ferocity these days due to the horror of the Holocaust.

[TheEnglishman]

Bexie, on Sep 6 2006, 03:39 PM, said:

I'm guessing anti-semitism is met with such ferocity these days due to the horror of the Holocaust.

I guess that's true but it's being taken too far as GL said. I think it was unfair to critise Mel Gibson when he was drunk for saying stuff like that. Now if he was stone cold sober I could understand why he was being treated this way but come on. There is a lack of common sense at times. It's like the amount of precautions that get made in Britain in case a minority of people are offended. At times they just go over the top.

[Aquamarine]

I never heard of the Mel Gibson incident. May I just say: What the sober man thinks, the drunk man says. That's a saying in my country. -_-

[Golden Legacy]

Bexie, on Sep 6 2006, 10:39 AM, said:

I'm guessing anti-semitism is met with such ferocity these days due to the horror of the Holocaust.

And that's another thing. Whoever said the Holocaust was the only example of massive killings?

Under Stalin's reign, twenty million people died. At least that many died during China's time of leadership, with events like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which all failed. Hundreds of thousands died in the Yugoslavia region, when Serbs killed and raped Bosnians.

And whatever happened to Darfur, eh? That was relatively recent, but it's all swept aside as if it's not "worthy" (for lack of a better word) of being considered a terrible crisis like the Holocaust.

And need I remind you, that along with the Jews, nearly as many people from OTHER races were killed during the Holocaust? Hitler was against EVERYONE who wasn't German, that meant Jews, Muslims, certain Christian sects, etc.

[gsninja]

I understand what you're saying. I also think that it's probably the Holocaust that makes Anti-Semitism so...hardcore. :angry:

Still, It would be nice if people would not focus on the tragedy of the Jews so much that they overlook the tragedies of the Muslims, Chinese, and others.

Aqua, I love that saying. :angry:

[Aquamarine]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 7 2006, 11:49 PM, said:

Hundreds of thousands died in the Yugoslavia region, when Serbs killed and raped Bosnians.

OH MY FREAKING GOD!!! I always thought you were very open-minded GL, and that you were in-the-know much more than any other member on GSSF. I still mostly think that, but this is just... Hillarious! You Americans are so brain-washed.

[Piers Watermaster]

Quote

Still, It would be nice if people would not focus on the tragedy of the Jews so much that they overlook the tragedies of the Muslims, Chinese, and others.

I completely agree with that, man. You got it right.

[Golden Legacy]

Aquamarine, on Sep 8 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

OH MY FREAKING GOD!!! I always thought you were very open-minded GL, and that you were in-the-know much more than any other member on GSSF. I still mostly think that, but this is just... Hillarious! You Americans are so brain-washed.

I don't pretend to be flawless in terms of how knowledgable I am, but I do try.
Link

EDIT: Considering the source, I understand that it may be biased. I am certain I had seen another source somewhere, I will post it when I find it.

On that note, the point I'm trying to make is, out of ALL the terrible genocides and events in history, it appears the Western Media is only interested in those that portray Jews in a more sensitive, victimized light. Needless to say, it's frustrating, biased, unjust, and simply wrong.

[Aquamarine]

Ok, sorry for the sudden reaction, but let me just tell you that I lived during this war. It was a war, there was no raping whatsoever, both the Serbs and Bosnians were killing each other. This was not the first and last time that the US government, and more importantly the media, lied and made us look like the bad guys. My mum is British, and she came with my dad to live in Serbia before this war started. She was appaled to see how the CNN, BBC and all the other big TV channels and newspapers lied in the rest of the countries of the world.
Sorry for going a little off topic now...

[Golden Legacy]

^ It's not off-topic at all. In fact, it's relevant. Why does the American media portray others as being the bad guys? This is the case with nearly every ethnic group out there, except the Jews/Israelis.

[Toasty]

Probably because we're friends with Israel, and everyone else either hates us, or hates us and has bomed us. ;)

[Piers Watermaster]

I'm not exactly happy with our media either.

Quote

Probably because we're friends with Israel, and everyone else either hates us, or hates us and has bomed us.

Finally, a breakthrough.

[Toasty]

Most of our media is bad, but just like one of my more quoted sayings, "no matter how evil or bad something is, there's always at least a little bit of good". And if you look closely, and put aside biased theories and other things that would cloud your judgment, it's perfectly true. Society, for an example. Some people only see bad people with guns that do drugs, but if you look, there's still good people ion there.

On another note, everyone else portrays us as bad people even after we've helped them. Overseas hurricane victims? We hleped. We sent supplies and helped fix the damage done. It didn't happen to us, nobody attacked us, but we helped. And STILL people portray us as bad people. And we've helped more times than that, too. Personally, I feel like the Brirtish only hate us because we broke off from their country, basically, defying them. But that's just my opinion.

[Piers Watermaster]

My opinion, too. And you're right, our media does have some good in it, if you look close enough.

[Dasius]

One thing that realy blows about this anti-semetic thing is it's imposible to be critical of a Jew in any way, 'oh I don't like your hair today' 'OMG thats anti-semetic!!!' you know? and another thing, you can be in other ways, you could be anti-christian and no-one makes to big a fuss, and these days you could be anti-muslim and be applauded for it It is crazy the way Political correctness gets blown out of proportion and bent to current affairs all the time...
and by the way the average brit does'nt hate you cause you split of from us I peresonaly don't and never really gave a damn about our old empire, but hey believe what you wanna believe

[Piers Watermaster]

I didn't think you hated us anyway. :D

Also, us Christians care about being anti-Christian.

[TheEnglishman]

Mr.T, on Sep 12 2006, 02:15 AM, said:

Personally, I feel like the Brirtish only hate us because we broke off from their country, basically, defying them. But that's just my opinion.

We were just letting you stand on your own feet really. :D
I don't think that's it though. It's never really mentioned here. I guess it comes from not really knowing much about people, that causes hatred between groups. It's the same with religions. People are unsure about how a religion operates but rather than try and find out, they choose to abuse instead.

[Dasius]

I did'nt mean that nobody cares if someone is anti-christian, I ment that it does'nt get the same massive responce as an anti-semetic attitude would

[Toasty]

Yes, I see that happening too. For instance, some people in our society are trying to get "God" taken out of everything in our society, frrom the Pledge of Aliegence, to the "In God, We Trust" on our currency. They're trying to take away the very thing our entire country was based off of, and just so they don't have to say one little word. It's not like anyone is trying to force it uppon them. If they hate it so much, go find some third world country that believes in witch craft for all I care. I'm entirely pro Christian, so this can be very aggrivating to me. But you also don't see this happening to any other religion found here.

And I don't mean that I think ALL British hate us, but the British government seems too, and some Brits hate our government as well. I mainly apply my opinion to the British Government, not the people, but yes, I think you have a point ther Me111.

[Piers Watermaster]

I don't see what's wrong with In God we Trust. Most of the American religions worship the same god anyway, if a little differently, and those who don't make up a very small (<1%) minority. Please the majority.

Also, Britain (the country) is awesome, especially Stonehenge.

[Golden Legacy]

Dasius, on Sep 13 2006, 03:10 AM, said:

One thing that realy blows about this anti-semetic thing is it's imposible to be critical of a Jew in any way, 'oh I don't like your hair today' 'OMG thats anti-semetic!!!' you know? and another thing, you can be in other ways, you could be anti-christian and no-one makes to big a fuss, and these days you could be anti-muslim and be applauded for it It is crazy the way Political correctness gets blown out of proportion and bent to current affairs all the time...
and by the way the average brit does'nt hate you cause you split of from us I peresonaly don't and never really gave a damn about our old empire, but hey believe what you wanna believe

Exactly what I mean. Nicely put, Dasius. That's exactly what's happening.

[Dasius]

Why thank you GL
Today the news storys are all about how the pope said something anti-muslin... Now I may just be being stupid here... but is'nt it the popes JOB to condem anything that is'nt Christian? is'nt it sort of his job to be anti-muslim??? so why is everyone making such a large fuss about it when if he did'nt he would be failing his own religion?
But maybe thats why there are all these feuds all the time, if one group is'nt insulting the other than they are failing their own group.
Damn I hate religious politics...

[Golden Legacy]

Actually, I can understand why people would be upset if the Pope himself made a racist comment. Even if he obviously is Christian, he should be promoting peace and goodwill in general, not actually condemning other faiths.

On that note, could you perhaps post a link to that story? I really don't think the Pope himself would say something like that, or perhaps it was misintepreted.

[TheEnglishman]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16092006/140/pope...-islam-row.html
Basically he quoted someone who was against Muslims. It looks like he was misunderstood. Either way he's clearly upset and apologetic about the whole incident.

[Toasty]

You know, the muslims didn't only protest, they chucked fire bombs at churches and did other things to endager lives. So why should the Pope apologise? You don't see many other religions that would do that. But instead of just saying that they were offended, and asking for an apology, they go and burn things to the ground.

[Golden Legacy]

Mr.T, on Sep 16 2006, 05:51 PM, said:

You know, the muslims didn't only protest, they chucked fire bombs at churches and did other things to endager lives. So why should the Pope apologise? You don't see many other religions that would do that. But instead of just saying that they were offended, and asking for an apology, they go and burn things to the ground.

First of all, those are only extremists. Say it with me now. Extremists, that do not represent the entire Muslim population.

Mr. T, you're showing EXACTLY what the media has done. You've heard through the media of a few cases of radicals doing things of that nature, and that's the ONLY thing you hear.

But did you hear about the scholars who calmly and intellectually challenged what was said? Did you hear about the Muslim people who asked for an apology, and stated that they respect all religions?

[Dasius]

you just don't hear about them do you why? because it doesn't make good media... 'today scholars debated a comment said by the pope, we now go to our reporters live in a library...'

[TheEnglishman]

That's the problem with media. If there's a peaceful protest and a violent protest, you know which one they'll pick.

[Golden Legacy]

NABLUS, West Bank (AFP) - The head of the Hamas-led government, Ismail Haniya, denounced a spate of attacks on Christian churches in the Palestinian territories after assailants targeted two
West Bank churches following Pope Benedict XVI's comments on Islam.

"This is totally rejected," Haniya told reporters in Gaza City Sunday.

"Any Palestinian citizen should stop attacking Christian churches in the Palestinian territories. The Christian brothers are a part of the Palestinian people, and I heard the highest Christian authority in Palestine denouncing the statements against Islam and against Muslims."

Yahoo News

[pHantOm]

Why is it that muslim extremist are the ones killing people?

And dont tell me cause thats what the media covers.

I dont see christian extremist killing people or attacking. Show me articles of christian extremists killing or attacking.

[Golden Legacy]

You're telling me there has never been Christian extremists? You're telling me that Bosnian Muslims were not slaughtered and raped by Christian Serbs? You're telling me that there never was the blowing up of the Oklahoma building that took 140+ lives by a Christian? You're telling me that there has never been a Chrstian fundamentalist, despite the Rwanda genocides?

And for the record, yes, all the media shows are the Muslim extremists.

[Dasius]

There are extrmists in all religious groups... it's just rare for them all to act at the same time... and I hope that THAT never happens

[TheEnglishman]

Dasius, on Sep 17 2006, 08:16 PM, said:

There are extrmists in all religious groups... it's just rare for them all to act at the same time... and I hope that THAT never happens

That would be pretty dangerous. You are right though. Every religion has extremists, it's just that some get more coverage than others.

[Toasty]

But not only that, some religious groups have more extremeists in them, on top of getting more coverage.

[pHantOm]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 17 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

You're telling me there has never been Christian extremists? You're telling me that Bosnian Muslims were not slaughtered and raped by Christian Serbs? You're telling me that there never was the blowing up of the Oklahoma building that took 140+ lives by a Christian? You're telling me that there has never been a Chrstian fundamentalist, despite the Rwanda genocides?

And for the record, yes, all the media shows are the Muslim extremists.

Those arent consistant attacks that demostrate a frequent behavoir of a certain religion.

[Piers Watermaster]

Hitler was Christian, and if he wasn't an extremist, then no one is an extremist.

[Toasty]

^ I'd like to see proof of that.

[Piers Watermaster]

Proof that Hitler was christian? Read a history book.

[Toasty]

Over the years of school I've gone through, and the hours I've spent leafing throught the WWII part of the history book, I have yet to see that in any real history book. If you have any other proof, show it. Because even if Hitler said he was christian, it doesn't nesiscarily mean he is. Anyone can read the bible a few times, go to church, and call themselves christian, but unless they truly believe in God, and have prayed the prayer, they can claim all they want, but they won't end up in heaven.

[Golden Legacy]

^ And likewise, ANYONE can claim to be fighting for God, to be fighting an enemy, and can decide to go and attack in any form (including suicide bombings), and that still does not accurately portray ANYTHING about that religion.

[pHantOm]

GL

Do you believe suicide bombings are right?

[Split Infinity]

He wasn't implying that suicide bombings are right, he just meant that if a person wanted to, they would be able to. Forget the history books, read a grammar book.

[pHantOm]

Split Infinity, on Sep 22 2006, 08:03 AM, said:

He wasn't implying that suicide bombings are right, he just meant that if a person wanted to, they would be able to. Forget the history books, read a grammar book.

Ive read more grammar books than you have you smart ass. I was asking a seperate question from the previous debate between Mr.T and GL.

Out of curiousity I was wondering.

[Split Infinity]

:blink: What are you expecting him to say!? How can it be alright for somebody to take their own life, let alone bring other people down with them?

[Golden Legacy]

pHantOm, on Sep 21 2006, 10:39 PM, said:

GL

Do you believe suicide bombings are right?

Amusing how you twist things, Phantom. That's a flaw in debating and argumentive rhetoric, in which you completely modify the opponent's material, and start attacking it, though it is completely IRRELEVANT.

Golden Legacy, on Sep 21 2006, 08:04 PM, said:

^ And likewise, ANYONE can claim to be fighting for God, to be fighting an enemy, and can decide to go and attack in any form (including suicide bombings), and that still does not accurately portray ANYTHING about that religion.

Before you say anything, READ THAT LAST LINE. Perhaps Split was right in that you didn't pay attention to the main subject of my sentence. The point I was trying to make is that despite what extremists may say, despite there being terrorists and whatnot, that they DO NOT demonstrate the TRUE meaning of that religion, or the TRUE doctrines of that faith.

With me so far? Good. Now how you may interpret or twist that argument, I do not know.

I should also point out that I AM against suicide bombings, but unlike people in general, who remain ignorant, I believe that there is a REASON for all this occurings (and no Phantom, it has nothing to do with the religion itself.)

No, I believe that the West is not willing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, we've actually done certain things wrong. This isn't just the United States, mind you; the whole world is opposed in a lot of ways to our policies and even our culture at times. But we'd never admit to that, would we? No, we're always the victims. No, we always say that WE'RE innocent.

And I believe there is far, far more to the truth than that.

[pHantOm]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 22 2006, 09:18 PM, said:

Amusing how you twist things, Phantom. That's a flaw in debating and argumentive rhetoric, in which you completely modify the opponent's material, and start attacking it, though it is completely IRRELEVANT.
Before you say anything, READ THAT LAST LINE. Perhaps Split was right in that you didn't pay attention to the main subject of my sentence. The point I was trying to make is that despite what extremists may say, despite there being terrorists and whatnot, that they DO NOT demonstrate the TRUE meaning of that religion, or the TRUE doctrines of that faith.

With me so far? Good. Now how you may interpret or twist that argument, I do not know.

I should also point out that I AM against suicide bombings, but unlike people in general, who remain ignorant, I believe that there is a REASON for all this occurings (and no Phantom, it has nothing to do with the religion itself.)

No, I believe that the West is not willing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, we've actually done certain things wrong. This isn't just the United States, mind you; the whole world is opposed in a lot of ways to our policies and even our culture at times. But we'd never admit to that, would we? No, we're always the victims. No, we always say that WE'RE innocent.

And I believe there is far, far more to the truth than that.

It was a yes or no question GL, you made it far more complicated than it had to be. I never said anything about suicide bombings being a part of the religion. Please show me where ive said something like that. Thats what I thought, The last thing I said was about the catholics, that was my first post towards suicide bombing, so you sir stop twisting arguements.

[Split Infinity]

You're the one twisting his posts, if subtly.

[Toasty]

Split, neither of them are twisting anything. They're just pointing out the obvious, or making things complicated.

[pHantOm]

Split Infinity, on Sep 22 2006, 10:43 PM, said:

You're the one twisting his posts, if subtly.

Where have I EVER mentioned that Islam has anything to do with the suicide bombings, please show me. Because from this quote from GL

Quote

I should also point out that I AM against suicide bombings, but unlike people in general, who remain ignorant, I believe that there is a REASON for all this occurings (and no Phantom, it has nothing to do with the religion itself.)

It would seem that I have said that the religion has something to do with suicide bombings. But for some reason I cant seem to find where ive said that. Maybe because I havent.

[Golden Legacy]

pHantOm, on Sep 17 2006, 12:12 PM, said:

Why is it that muslim extremist are the ones killing people?

And dont tell me cause thats what the media covers.

I dont see christian extremist killing people or attacking. Show me articles of christian extremists killing or attacking.

And in response to me giving reference to a few Christian fundamentalists...

pHantOm, on Sep 17 2006, 11:03 PM, said:

Those arent consistant attacks that demostrate a frequent behavoir of a certain religion.

However subtle you made it out to be, you clearly have associated terrorist/extremist attacks with the faith itself.

Remember those quotes? Yeah, I thought so.

[pHantOm]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 23 2006, 10:53 AM, said:

And in response to me giving reference to a few Christian fundamentalists...
However subtle you made it out to be, you clearly have associated terrorist/extremist attacks with the faith itself.

Remember those quotes? Yeah, I thought so.

We are talking about something totally different.

Muslim extremists are the ones killing people right now, please dont make me start pulling up numbers of deaths do to terrorists, because I can tell you atleast 3000 off the top of my head and I know thats correct.

The Oklahoma City bombing was caused by a Christian yes, but so were other attacks on our country from our own civilians. But not very many if any major things were done within the past decade. Muslims have killed for God knows how long, and I agree with the pope said. WHY?

Lets see, in retaliation to what the pope said, what do they do? Not go and talk it out.

RAPE AND MURDER NUNS AND ATTACK CHURCHES!?!?

The US, does not attack the "churches" of the Muslim people even during war time. Simply because it is a holy place and no ones blood should be shed on its floor. Although I am far from any religion, im agnostic.

The pope says muslims preach through the sword, what do they do? They kill people. Thanks for proving his point. And those werent extremists that I saw burning things and making a big hissy fit on the streets.

[Golden Legacy]

We are talking about something totally different.

Are you kidding me? How are they NOT related?

Muslim extremists are the ones killing people right now, please dont make me start pulling up numbers of deaths do to terrorists, because I can tell you atleast 3000 off the top of my head and I know thats correct.

Fair enough. Three thousand deaths due to terrorists. If you base it on numbers alone, then you should realize that three thousand is fairly little. Remember all those events I mentioned in an earlier post, i.e. Bosnian massacres, Rwanda genocide, Oklahoma bombing? All those total over three hundred thousand.

The Oklahoma City bombing was caused by a Christian yes, but so were other attacks on our country from our own civilians. But not very many if any major things were done within the past decade. Muslims have killed for God knows how long...

See, here is what I'm talking about. You're going to have to be more specific instead of giving these opinion-based arguments.

Are you talking about modern times, or are you talking about in history? When Islam was established, it grew and spread to other nations and people, true. But so did Christianity, Buddhism, and the like. Growth and expansion is a natural part of a religion's growth.

In modern times, again, it goes back to the same argument. Those Muslims that are "killing for God" are extremists.[/quote]

and I agree with the pope said. WHY?

Lets see, in retaliation to what the pope said, what do they do? Not go and talk it out.

RAPE AND MURDER NUNS AND ATTACK CHURCHES!?!?

Listen carefully. There are over a billion Muslims worldwide. So when a few commit these acts, suddenly everyone is responsible?

And for the record, they do go and "TALK IT OUT". Didn't I provide the earlier link about the Palestinian Hamas leader DENOUNCING what happened, and the reaction to what the Pope said?

The US, does not attack the "churches" of the Muslim people even during war time. Simply because it is a holy place and no ones blood should be shed on its floor. Although I am far from any religion, im agnostic.

Here you show ignorance. These "churches" are called Mosques. And you clearly don't remember the aftermath of 9/11, when United States began to attack and destroy Mosques and Muslims all over, including citizens who were just as negatively affected by the attack as you and I.

The pope says muslims preach through the sword, what do they do? They kill people. Thanks for proving his point. And those werent extremists that I saw burning things and making a big hissy fit on the streets.

They kill people. Christians kill people. Jews kill people. Every culture and race has its fair share of attacks, only now next in the "sequence" are the terrorists, as they have taken precedance in recent times.

And those were extremists. You can't seem to get that through your head, do you? Thanks for showing how neglicant you are. Again, you seem to be abiding by what the media shows. They showed the angry reactions and acts committed, but did they show that Hamas militant denouncing all this? Did they show Islamic scholars encouraging their people to be open and willing to negotiate?



No. And that goes back to the original purpose of this topic. Jews are in control of much of the media, and have twisted it considerably, so that all the average person sees is a heavily one-sided representation of the actions, and those people are fooled into thinking that that's the truth.

And you are one of them.

[TheEnglishman]

^Ouch. Glad I wasn't on the receiving end of that. :(
As GL said though every religion has it's extremists. Hell everything has it's extremists. But people can't judge the entire group on a set of extremists, unless the extremists are more than the peaceful side of the group.

[pHantOm]

Golden Legacy, on Sep 23 2006, 12:43 PM, said:

We are talking about something totally different.

Are you kidding me? How are they NOT related?

Muslim extremists are the ones killing people right now, please dont make me start pulling up numbers of deaths do to terrorists, because I can tell you atleast 3000 off the top of my head and I know thats correct.

Fair enough. Three thousand deaths due to terrorists. If you base it on numbers alone, then you should realize that three thousand is fairly little. Remember all those events I mentioned in an earlier post, i.e. Bosnian massacres, Rwanda genocide, Oklahoma bombing? All those total over three hundred thousand.

The Oklahoma City bombing was caused by a Christian yes, but so were other attacks on our country from our own civilians. But not very many if any major things were done within the past decade. Muslims have killed for God knows how long...

See, here is what I'm talking about. You're going to have to be more specific instead of giving these opinion-based arguments.

Are you talking about modern times, or are you talking about in history? When Islam was established, it grew and spread to other nations and people, true. But so did Christianity, Buddhism, and the like. Growth and expansion is a natural part of a religion's growth.

In modern times, again, it goes back to the same argument. Those Muslims that are "killing for God" are extremists.

and I agree with the pope said. WHY?

Lets see, in retaliation to what the pope said, what do they do? Not go and talk it out.

RAPE AND MURDER NUNS AND ATTACK CHURCHES!?!?

Listen carefully. There are over a billion Muslims worldwide. So when a few commit these acts, suddenly everyone is responsible?

And for the record, they do go and "TALK IT OUT". Didn't I provide the earlier link about the Palestinian Hamas leader DENOUNCING what happened, and the reaction to what the Pope said?

The US, does not attack the "churches" of the Muslim people even during war time. Simply because it is a holy place and no ones blood should be shed on its floor. Although I am far from any religion, im agnostic.

Here you show ignorance. These "churches" are called Mosques. And you clearly don't remember the aftermath of 9/11, when United States began to attack and destroy Mosques and Muslims all over, including citizens who were just as negatively affected by the attack as you and I.

The pope says muslims preach through the sword, what do they do? They kill people. Thanks for proving his point. And those werent extremists that I saw burning things and making a big hissy fit on the streets.

They kill people. Christians kill people. Jews kill people. Every culture and race has its fair share of attacks, only now next in the "sequence" are the terrorists, as they have taken precedance in recent times.

And those were extremists. You can't seem to get that through your head, do you? Thanks for showing how neglicant you are. Again, you seem to be abiding by what the media shows. They showed the angry reactions and acts committed, but did they show that Hamas militant denouncing all this? Did they show Islamic scholars encouraging their people to be open and willing to negotiate?
No. And that goes back to the original purpose of this topic. Jews are in control of much of the media, and have twisted it considerably, so that all the average person sees is a heavily one-sided representation of the actions, and those people are fooled into thinking that that's the truth.

And you are one of them.

What religion are you?

"Are you kidding me? How are they NOT related?"

Never did I connect suicide bombers, with Muslims. I was talking about Muslim extremists in the war. Never did I bring up suicdie bombings what so ever I only asked if you believed they were right. The US is at war with Iraq and Afganistan, so I think its safe to say that they are killing us. Muslims are killing US soldiers, extremist or not.

"Fair enough. Three thousand deaths due to terrorists. If you base it on numbers alone, then you should realize that three thousand is fairly little. Remember all those events I mentioned in an earlier post, i.e. Bosnian massacres, Rwanda genocide, Oklahoma bombing? All those total over three hundred thousand."

Im talking about the US government, whereas your comparing MIDDLE EASTERN CHRISTIANS. The US government is free of any specific religion, im sure we have muslim soldiers on that field.

3000 people dead, for what? How dare you be-little the deaths of hard working innocent people. If you want to rehash every freaking mass murder ever committed then your on your own. Im concerned with modern times aka 9/11 and on. We let Osama go while Clinton was in office, thats how little we were concerned.

"Listen carefully. There are over a billion Muslims worldwide. So when a few commit these acts, suddenly everyone is responsible?"

You can say the same for Catholic priests that molested little boys. Only a small percentage of the priests commited the act, but the entire Catholic church was punished and lost alot of respect. When you hear more and more molestations going on, you start to doubt the conduct of the entire church, do you not?


"Here you show ignorance. These "churches" are called Mosques. And you clearly don't remember the aftermath of 9/11, when United States began to attack and destroy Mosques and Muslims all over, including citizens who were just as negatively affected by the attack as you and I."

Hence why I put churches in quotes, I didnt know how to spell mosques so I just put churches and I was too lazy to look it up. And you clearly dont remember, when they were building bunkers IN the mosques, taking advantage of the US not wanting to attack them. I should have been more clear in my first statement, the US was UNWILLING to attack the mosques.

"They kill people. Christians kill people. Jews kill people. Every culture and race has its fair share of attacks, only now next in the "sequence" are the terrorists, as they have taken precedance in recent times.

And those were extremists. You can't seem to get that through your head, do you? Thanks for showing how neglicant you are. Again, you seem to be abiding by what the media shows. They showed the angry reactions and acts committed, but did they show that Hamas militant denouncing all this? Did they show Islamic scholars encouraging their people to be open and willing to negotiate?"

We are talking about recent times, I dont give a **** about why Hitler was killing people, were not talking about that, thats whats I have World History for. This topic originated about the popes comment, that has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING before even 9/11.

Let me ask you

Were Nuns raped?
Were Nuns murdered?
Were Churches attacked?

What did the Nuns do to those muslim extremists? I garuntee you they didnt harm them or say anything to them. They were maliciously attacked for a stupid reason by extremists.

If we captured the extremists, would it be far to rape thier wives and then shoot them in the head? Then burn down thier villages? I dont find that very effective for proving a point.

You know little about the enviroment of Iraq, where the civilians will turn on soldiers in a second just to try and kill a soldier before they get killed. You need to learn about the real world, where there are alot more enemies than you think on that battlefield. Not just extremists. Sadams ENTIRE MILITARY was attacking us, and they are the official government of Iraq at the time.

"And those were extremists. You can't seem to get that through your head, do you? Thanks for showing how neglicant you are. Again, you seem to be abiding by what the media shows. They showed the angry reactions and acts committed, but did they show that Hamas militant denouncing all this? Did they show Islamic scholars encouraging their people to be open and willing to negotiate?"

And again, I do not read the New York Times etc. for that reason. I read about real life stories of what is going on over there. I ask my uncles who just got back after 2 years of deployment. They tell me how kind the people are in Iraq, but they tell me how quickly that woman that handed you that fruit starts throwing rocks at him as hes walking away.

Im not sure where your head is at GL, but its defintly not where the soldiers are at.

For the record, I am Athiest because if anybody read any of my posts in the Religion thread, I believe that Religion causes more harm than good, and hurts more people in time than it helps. AKA the Crusades etc.

[Dasius]

Oh dear this is becoming quite nasty, and at the risk of putting myself in the firing line the topic did'nt originate over the popes statment the topic was up before that happened. I brought it up later.

Can you feel the hate in this room

[Toasty]

Just because this topic was created before that, doesn't mean it can't b brought up. That's basically saying that a topic made in 2004 shouldn't have any news or recent events past that era. In these kind of debates, pretty much anything goes. It's not like it's going on the media or anyhing.

[pHantOm]

Dasius, on Sep 24 2006, 05:35 AM, said:

Can you feel the hate in this room

Yes, lots of it.

[Ravenblade]

Palestine has more of a case here than Israel has, but then the modern state of Israel was created by Western Superpowers so its understandable that most people you (GL) would come across would rush to defend it as they will have been told their (The US) government's slant on it.

Israel is very useful to the US as it is stronger than any other Middle Eastern country, and, if its ever needed to, could probably wipe out every other nation in that region simply because it has so much US weaponry behind it.

With this said though, i think such views about people being anti-semitic might be refined to the US somewhat. In the UK, its Islam that enjoys the untouchable status thanks to political correctness. I often find myself wondering why Christianity can be attacked so easily over here and yet none of the people who do it would ever DREAM of dishing out similar treatment to Islam. This is simply out of fear and terror though. The situation in the US, i suspect, would be more politically focused.

[gsninja]

Dasius, on Sep 24 2006, 04:35 AM, said:

Can you feel the hate in this room

=P

Anywho, Raven, just because the US was supplying Israel with weaponry doesn't really mean that the US is in any way partly responsible, even if refined to the point. Plus, what does Anti-Semitism have to do with giving a country weapons? What the US is doing isn't anti-semitic...D=

[Golden Legacy]

But can't you see that its spurring anti-US sentiment throughout? I assure you that, regardless of the reasons, the main concern, and the main reason for the sheer frustration and anger of Middle Eastern nations against the United States, comes from its support of Israel.

Ravenblade, on Sep 30 2006, 05:00 PM, said:

Palestine has more of a case here than Israel has, but then the modern state of Israel was created by Western Superpowers so its understandable that most people you (GL) would come across would rush to defend it as they will have been told their (The US) government's slant on it.

Israel is very useful to the US as it is stronger than any other Middle Eastern country, and, if its ever needed to, could probably wipe out every other nation in that region simply because it has so much US weaponry behind it.

With this said though, i think such views about people being anti-semitic might be refined to the US somewhat. In the UK, its Islam that enjoys the untouchable status thanks to political correctness. I often find myself wondering why Christianity can be attacked so easily over here and yet none of the people who do it would ever DREAM of dishing out similar treatment to Islam. This is simply out of fear and terror though. The situation in the US, i suspect, would be more politically focused.

I'm curious on that point you made (and fairly glad that I've finally found someone else who agrees with me on the manner at these forums). In what ways do you justify that Palestine has more of a case than Israel does? I agree, but I'm interested to see what your reasons are.


And Phantom, believe it or not, the Anti-Semitism issue fits very well here. Why do you think the United States media is so sensitive to any comments made against Jews in general, and willing to defend them at the expense of other? It's the US relationship with Israel which, again, is very much responsible for the hatred the Middle East has towards the United States.

And quite honestly, I can't blame them.

[Ravenblade]

@GN: My point wasnt that giving Israel weapons makes the US anti-semitic. My point was that it means the US government would probably crack down on anti-semitism like what GL is talking about *because* they have suck strong ties with Israel.

@GL: Sorry, i didnt explain fully - The crisis in Israel was created by the West. There was no crisis until we started creating countries over there, one of which, i believe was Israel. So its been going since about 1947. And the border was drawn right through the country of Palestine. I mean, im not saying this is Israels fault, its the West's fault if anything, but i understand why Palestine is annoyed about it. Imagine if someone drew a line through the US and declared it another country. You'd all be at war too.

On top of this, Palestine has to put up with the fact that the west backs Israel far more than it backs them. As a final note, a large amount of power in the US is held by Jewish people - so obviously, you're gonna get dived on if you speak out about Israel.

[pHantOm]

The middle east is a hell hole, just admit it.

[Toasty]

Look, the Israelis didn't even have a country to call their own, because Palestine took it. Now Palestine is basically saying "We stole it fair and square! Give it back!"

[Golden Legacy]

Mr.T, on Oct 1 2006, 08:20 PM, said:

Look, the Israelis didn't even have a country to call their own, because Palestine took it. Now Palestine is basically saying "We stole it fair and square! Give it back!"

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Didn't you read Raven's post? There was a country called Palestine. The Palestinians were living on the land, growing, raising families there. Then Israel is established on their land, and out of nowhere. How is that NOT STEALING? The state of Israel was formed and took over their land!

Ravenblade, on Oct 1 2006, 07:46 AM, said:

@GN: My point wasnt that giving Israel weapons makes the US anti-semitic. My point was that it means the US government would probably crack down on anti-semitism like what GL is talking about *because* they have suck strong ties with Israel.

@GL: Sorry, i didnt explain fully - The crisis in Israel was created by the West. There was no crisis until we started creating countries over there, one of which, i believe was Israel. So its been going since about 1947. And the border was drawn right through the country of Palestine. I mean, im not saying this is Israels fault, its the West's fault if anything, but i understand why Palestine is annoyed about it. Imagine if someone drew a line through the US and declared it another country. You'd all be at war too.

On top of this, Palestine has to put up with the fact that the west backs Israel far more than it backs them. As a final note, a large amount of power in the US is held by Jewish people - so obviously, you're gonna get dived on if you speak out about Israel.

Read that carefully. There WAS NO CONFLICT in the Middle East UNTIL Israel was established, and UNTIL the Jews stole the Palestinians' land.

[Toasty]

I'm not saying Palestine wasn't already there, but Israel was there before them, until their country got taken over.

[pHantOm]

I say again

The middle east is a hell hole. F*cking middle easterns cry about every little thing.

And as a note, I deal with all types of ethnicites at my job. Let me say, middle easterns are the laziest, besides maybe the african americans. At my job atleast, and our job charts show it on our speed and quality of work.

[Eugine]

GL, you know. You made me change my whole perspective on the conflict in the Middle East. Now, I don't believe the Palestinians are right, I'm just not biased to Israel anymore.
Continue with those posts and I may actually believe you, since you're talking with great sense.

[Golden Legacy]

^ I'm glad you feel that way, Eugine.

Mr.T, on Oct 1 2006, 08:55 PM, said:

I'm not saying Palestine wasn't already there, but Israel was there before them, until their country got taken over.

Now, in what sense was "Israel there"?

Before Palestine was established/recognized formally by the West (after World War I), there existed the Ottoman Empire, which existed for four centuries.

The Ottoman Empire itself grew out of the spread of Islam in the mid sixth century.


Anything before that delves into religion and ancient history, which I'm not going to go into myself, but instead I'm going to give you this link for you to follow and read.

Just some quotes:

Quote

Before the Hebrews first migrated there around 1800 B.C., the land of Canaan was occupied by Canaanites.

“Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes.” Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, “Their Promised Land.”


The present-day Palestinians’ ancestral heritage

“But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin.”

And, most importantly:

Quote

The Jewish kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine

“The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David’s conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule.” Illene Beatty, “Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan.”

Clearly, even if you make the claim that Jews existed in the land (of which I remind you, AFTER the Canaanites existed there), it was not permanent, and eventually the Arab/Muslim world converted the region, and extended centuries, through the Ottoman Empire, and eventually to the Palestine that was established in the region after WWI.


Not one of my better posts on the subject, I'll admit, but I'm tired now and need to rest.

[gsninja]

pHantOm, on Oct 1 2006, 09:02 PM, said:

I say again

The middle east is a hell hole. F*cking middle easterns cry about every little thing.

I agree. Most of the Middle-Eastern countries should get up off their asses and do something about the things they keep complaining about.

Also...Palestine most definitely was there before Israel was. Palestine then was mostly Arabic with a smaller but decent size Jewish population. What the Jews wanted to do was to have a piece of territory so that they could worship freely without persecution, etc. The Palestinians were totally against it, and didn't want that piece of territory taken from their land. However, the UN approved of this, so the Jews legally drew their land over Palestinain land. The Palestinian army tried to take Israel back, but since Israel's army was so much stronger, they repelled their invasion and gained more land.

So...there.

[Ravenblade]

And that is a justification for what Israel is doing....how? There's a large number of Muslims in the UK, should we carve off a little bit of our land and give it to them? Why doesnt the US give some more land to Mexico?

Israel is untouchable cos the US can use it as a buffer against the Middle East. Thats why they have all your weaponry. Israel represents US interests in the Middle East. Those interests being oil.

If the UN felt that Jewish people deserved some country of their own, why didnt they carve off a little bit of the US and give that to them? Oh right, cos that wouldnt be politically motivated..

[Golden Legacy]

^ Precisely.

Just think of it this way; whatever the argument you make for the need for a Jewish state, why should the Palestinians have to suffer?

[Ravenblade]

Having just been reading about this, i have found some interesting facts out.

This whole crisis is...kinda complicated, but is a lot more Israels fault than i originally thought.

Basically, Britain owned Palestine (in essence) and the Jewish people wanted it as a kind payment for all the hardships they had undergone in world war 2. Britain didnt want this to happen as we were heavily allied with the Palestinians and were working towards giving them their full independance.

So we basically told the Jewish nationalists that we couldnt help. They then started terrorist strikes against Palestinians and British troops. That basically resulted in Britain striking back and essentially handing the matter over to the UN.

The UN (being heavily influenced by the US who favoured Israel) decided to give Palestine to the muslims and some of their land, that being Israel, to the Jews.

The Palestinians rejected this. The Israelis accepted this on a public level but wanted to wipe out Palestine altogether. About a month after the Un had dealt with this, the Israelis simply invaded Palestine and started massacring people. (Deir Yasin Massacre). They were then invaded by 5 Arab states who were attempting to aid Palestine, but repelled all of them due to superior weaponry (from the US).

The UN sent a delegate to mediate the whole affair and Israeli nationalists murdered him.

They then turned their attention to surrounding Arab regions like Egypt, although by this point in time the Israelis had the backing of the British, French and US as a result of the cold war.

So there we go. o.o It wasnt really the western powers fault afterall. Israel was just very violent and...well i dont think there's any defending that. But then i dont know - i read this in a book as im writing an essay on it for ne of my modules. Its really interesting reading Middle Eastern History, i recommend it.

[Toasty]

Hmm, I dissagree with many points there, but there is truth to what you said. Are you sure the Palestinians didn't do anything to provoke the Israelis into attacking?

[Ravenblade]

Well, the Palestinians were opposed to their land being stolen the whole way through but honestly, the Jews were looking for any land to call their own, and i dont think it mattered to them where it was found. The western governments felt like they owed them because of the holocaust. Interestingly, the source i was reading said that if the holocaust hadnt happened, there's no way the US would have been moved into supporting the creation of an Israeli state.

Ultimately i suppose the Jewish people were tired of being underprotected in other countries and the Palestinians were just unfortunate to be chosen as victims. Its actually quite remarkable that they managed to invade another country and take it over without actually being a country themselves. But still, it doesnt mean they were right to do so..

[pHantOm]

A large portion of the Jews in Europe were in Germany...and we know exactly what happened with that. Honestly this wasnt even a US issue from the beginning. But since England didnt feel like dealing with it (The super power of Europe) someone had to give it a shot...

And putting them next to a country that already doesnt like Jewish people wasnt a good idea...we should have cut off a little bit of Germany or something.

The middle east is a perfect example of why

1)Religion should stay out of politics
2)Religion is stupid

[Eugine]

I don't think religion was the flaw here, I think it was us humans >.<

And, Ravenblade, I don't really believe that's the only thing to that story, I'll look into it myself.

[Toasty]

I don't think it was religion that was the problem.
Israel is considered holy by the Jews. I think that might be the reason it was picked. It would only seem right to give them one of the most significant things in their religion, but it isn't right that it had to be taken from another country. But then again, no matter where they chose to put the Jews, they'd be takeing away part of someone's country.

[Ravenblade]

Yeah you're right - although really i think they should have taken some of Germany since it was being split up all different ways after World War 2 anyway. The whole affair is unfortunate and Palestine was unlucky. The creation of Israel seems to be one of the reasons the Middle East is so chaotic now.

[Golden Legacy]

I am merely going to be highlighting some of the most important points in the past few points, as they would reflect (essentially) the content of my posts.

Ravenblade, on Oct 24 2006, 05:40 PM, said:

Having just been reading about this, i have found some interesting facts out.

This whole crisis is...kinda complicated, but is a lot more Israels fault than i originally thought.

Basically, Britain owned Palestine (in essence) and the Jewish people wanted it as a kind payment for all the hardships they had undergone in world war 2. Britain didnt want this to happen as we were heavily allied with the Palestinians and were working towards giving them their full independance.

So we basically told the Jewish nationalists that we couldnt help. They then started terrorist strikes against Palestinians and British troops. That basically resulted in Britain striking back and essentially handing the matter over to the UN.

The UN (being heavily influenced by the US who favoured Israel) decided to give Palestine to the muslims and some of their land, that being Israel, to the Jews.

The Palestinians rejected this. The Israelis accepted this on a public level but wanted to wipe out Palestine altogether. About a month after the Un had dealt with this, the Israelis simply invaded Palestine and started massacring people. (Deir Yasin Massacre). They were then invaded by 5 Arab states who were attempting to aid Palestine, but repelled all of them due to superior weaponry (from the US).

The UN sent a delegate to mediate the whole affair and Israeli nationalists murdered him.

They then turned their attention to surrounding Arab regions like Egypt, although by this point in time the Israelis had the backing of the British, French and US as a result of the cold war.

So there we go. o.o It wasnt really the western powers fault afterall. Israel was just very violent and...well i dont think there's any defending that. But then i dont know - i read this in a book as im writing an essay on it for ne of my modules. Its really interesting reading Middle Eastern History, i recommend it.

Ravenblade, on Oct 25 2006, 03:22 AM, said:

Well, the Palestinians were opposed to their land being stolen the whole way through but honestly, the Jews were looking for any land to call their own, and i dont think it mattered to them where it was found. The western governments felt like they owed them because of the holocaust. Interestingly, the source i was reading said that if the holocaust hadnt happened, there's no way the US would have been moved into supporting the creation of an Israeli state.

Ultimately i suppose the Jewish people were tired of being underprotected in other countries and the Palestinians were just unfortunate to be chosen as victims. Its actually quite remarkable that they managed to invade another country and take it over without actually being a country themselves. But still, it doesnt mean they were right to do so..

Mr.T, on Oct 26 2006, 12:36 AM, said:

I don't think it was religion that was the problem.
Israel is considered holy by the Jews. I think that might be the reason it was picked. It would only seem right to give them one of the most significant things in their religion, but it isn't right that it had to be taken from another country. But then again, no matter where they chose to put the Jews, they'd be takeing away part of someone's country.

Comment: According to Zionism, one of Herzel's (spelling?) basic idea was that either the Holy Land, or Argentina, was to be chosen for the Jewish land/

Ravenblade, on Oct 26 2006, 04:55 AM, said:

Yeah you're right - although really i think they should have taken some of Germany since it was being split up all different ways after World War 2 anyway. The whole affair is unfortunate and Palestine was unlucky. The creation of Israel seems to be one of the reasons the Middle East is so chaotic now.

I've changed the name of this topic to the Palestine/Israel topic (even though there is already another one, that one is more or less dead).

I am also going to point out that Israel has 65 UN resolutions passed against it, condemning the acts it has done. By comparison, the Palestinians have 1.

[Hotshot101]

The palistiens and the jewish conflict is all about the Predictions of the end times. Jewish may lose their land again to somebody because of disobdience and scattered or in the next 10-30 years the end times come. Its just that simple.