Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?

Perceptions change, people change, religions change.

Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?

Perceptions change, people change, religions change.

True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.

Do we have gay female Imams yet?

Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.

You don't have to be an active, violent jihadist to be an extremist. Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.

Meh, I don't really give a gak as long as you aren't acting ill towards other because of your beliefs.

I personally don't trust any of them. And I believe all religion is bad but that's irrelevant here.

yellowfever wrote:
I personally don't trust any of them. And I believe all religion is bad but that's irrelevant here.

And you know what that makes you?

A: Prejudiced to the point where your opinion will just be disregarded by most rational people.

B: A troll.

or

C: Both.

You can think religion is bad without disliking religious people.

That's not what it was aimed at. More the "don't trust any of them".

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.

It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.

You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.

Like with a personal firearm carried for self defense?

Welcome to the fold

To be frank I think that would result in even more carnage as random bystanders open up on the perp, then on each other, then get shot by the police, since only the actual criminal(s) would know who was the right person to shoot.

It's called situational awareness, something that many people who often carry firearms regularly practice. But I wouldn't expect someone from a country where weapons are not allowed to be carried for self-defense would know much about that.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?

Perceptions change, people change, religions change.

True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.

Do we have gay female Imams yet?

Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.

You don't have to be an active, violent jihadist to be an extremist. Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.

Hrm, it's hard to paint these things as Islam-specific. You can find passages telling you to stone adulterers, kill apostates, basically treat women as property, etc in the Old Testament (often the exact same ones that exist in the Koran). They're in every Abrahamic religion, they're not an Islam-specific thing, you just have more Muslims paying attention to them and taking them literally than you do in other religions. You can see many of the same attitudes and actions (such as honor killings) among people of other religions, including many Arab Christians and Indian Hindus and Kurdish Yazidis.

We're seeing gargantuan pressures on social and cultural norms and customs that haven't had time to adapt and advance. and they're not specific to any one particular religion or group of people. Throughout the "world of Islam", from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Pacific Indonesians, attitudes and worldviews vary wildly, as they have over time as well. Cultures and people's need time to adapt, some more than others.

I wasn't aware giving my honest opinion automatically made me a troll. I'll try to remember that. And people can go ahead and ignore my opinion. I ignore many opinions on here also.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?

Perceptions change, people change, religions change.

True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.

Do we have gay female Imams yet?

Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.

You don't have to be an active, violent jihadist to be an extremist. Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.

Hrm, it's hard to paint these things as Islam-specific. You can find passages telling you to stone adulterers, kill apostates, basically treat women as property, etc in the Old Testament (often the exact same ones that exist in the Koran). They're in every Abrahamic religion, they're not an Islam-specific thing, you just have more Muslims paying attention to them and taking them literally than you do in other religions. You can see many of the same attitudes and actions (such as honor killings) among people of other religions, including many Arab Christians and Indian Hindus and Kurdish Yazidis.

We're seeing gargantuan pressures on social and cultural norms and customs that haven't had time to adapt and advance. and they're not specific to any one particular religion or group of people. Throughout the "world of Islam", from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Pacific Indonesians, attitudes and worldviews vary wildly, as they have over time as well. Cultures and people's need time to adapt, some more than others.

The problem with that, btw I agree with you a bit, is that Islam hasn't advanced and compared to its radical members, the moderates trying to make headway are falling rapidly behind. I beg you to read/listen to these

http://www.newsmax.com/Insiders/TawfikHamid/bio-59/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wktiZH_x4xA

These are individuals who were terrorists, who believed in radical Islam until finally seeing the light and are now actively fighting against radical Islam, Tawfik Hamid is especially interesting.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.

Has Christianity really modernized that much? We still have Christians who want to impose a theocracy that rivals any Islamic efforts, progress in some versions of Christianity in things like gay marriage is matched by a complete lack of progress in others (with some Christians even calling for executing gay people, not just preventing them from marrying), Christian homeschooling to avoid having to educate children is still a thing, treating women as property and baby factories is still a thing, etc. The main difference is that most of the majority-Christian countries have been in a better situation with wealth/power/etc and have a more stable situation, while a lot of majority-Muslim countries have been on the wrong end of imperialism and lacked those advantages.

Now, some version of Christianity have certainly modernized a bit, but it's kind of dishonest to portray Christianity as a monolithic block that is moving forward and adopting decent moral positions.

yellowfever wrote:
I wasn't aware giving my honest opinion automatically made me a troll. I'll try to remember that. And people can go ahead and ignore my opinion. I ignore many opinions on here also.

It only makes you a troll if you are saying it to get a rise out of people. I don't know you, so I have no idea. If you legitimately mean that ("I personally don't trust any of them."), then you are just prejudiced against Muslims instead. You wouldn't listen to an anti-Semite about Jews, you wouldn't listen to a racist/white supremacist about black people, and, in turn, you wouldn't listen to someone who is prejudiced against Muslims about Muslims/Islam.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.

Has Christianity really modernized that much? We still have Christians who want to impose a theocracy that rivals any Islamic efforts, progress in some versions of Christianity in things like gay marriage is matched by a complete lack of progress in others (with some Christians even calling for executing gay people, not just preventing them from marrying), Christian homeschooling to avoid having to educate children is still a thing, treating women as property and baby factories is still a thing, etc. The main difference is that most of the majority-Christian countries have been in a better situation with wealth/power/etc and have a more stable situation, while a lot of majority-Muslim countries have been on the wrong end of imperialism and lacked those advantages.

Now, some version of Christianity have certainly modernized a bit, but it's kind of dishonest to portray Christianity as a monolithic block that is moving forward and adopting decent moral positions.

Well except that you are comparing the 1/100th of a percent of Christianity to a significantly larger percentage of Islam. That and your almost 100% off with the Wealth comment. The middle East has pretty much had the run of the Oil market for the better part of 60 years and yet they still haven't come as far as other countries such as Ireland that just legalized Gay marriage.

I honestly don't know any person that treats woman as property or baby factories, Im sure they exist, west boros are nut jobs but thats what? a couple hundred people at most? On the flip side I know a huge number of Muslims who believe in bestiality, and molesting children as a way of life. I know im biased because I was in Afghanistan but what does that tell you about the state of the religion?

Back on topic. The point I was making about moving the Muslim Palestinians was that from the very start of the British Mandate they fought against the Idea of jews having any kind of state. It has nothing to do with their homeland and everything to do with denying another religion any kind of tolerance/freedom.

Israel traded back the entirety of the Sinai peninsula to get a peace treaty with Egypt. So the idea that the Israeli's are only after land is shot to hell right there.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Well except that you are comparing the 1/100th of a percent of Christianity to a significantly larger percentage of Islam.

Citation needed for this 1/100th of a percent claim.

The middle East has pretty much had the run of the Oil market for the better part of 60 years and yet they still haven't come as far as other countries such as Ireland that just legalized Gay marriage.

60 years is a very short time for this kind of thing, and even that oil wealth is incredibly unequal in its distribution.

I honestly don't know any person that treats woman as property or baby factories, Im sure they exist, west boros are nut jobs but thats what? a couple hundred people at most?

It's not just the Westboro trolls. And it is way more than a couple hundred people. I'm not going to claim that most Christians are that bad, but it's a non-trivial minority. And there's a much larger percentage that have similar values with things like obsessive emphasis on modesty and purity for girls, male leadership in the family, etc.

And let's not overlook the fact that this kind of stuff is considered a slightly odd but harmless subject of entertainment by society as a whole. The Duggars didn't lose their TV show until they got caught covering up sexual abuse by the favorite son, their appalling religious beliefs were just something to laugh about.

On the flip side I know a huge number of Muslims who believe in bestiality, and molesting children as a way of life. I know im biased because I was in Afghanistan but what does that tell you about the state of the religion?

You are aware that Islam exists outside of Afghanistan, right? Afghanistan has its problems, but those things you mention are problems with Afghanistan, not Islam as a whole.

The point I was making about moving the Muslim Palestinians was that from the very start of the British Mandate they fought against the Idea of jews having any kind of state. It has nothing to do with their homeland and everything to do with denying another religion any kind of tolerance/freedom.

And, I'll ask you again: why do the Jews (or any other religion) need their own state? Why should we support the idea of a state defined by membership in a religion?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.

Many Christian beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.

All I had to do to point out how bad of an argument that is was to exchange "Islamic" for "Christian".

The varnish of civilization isn't really as thick in Europe and the US as we'd like to think.

I understand the point that you want to make, but remember. Don't edit other user's posts to make a point, just use your own words

We've got about 2 million Muslims here in the UK who obviously didn't listen to their lessons because they aren't fighting infidels. In fact they are the ones currently in danger from hate attacks by the nominally Christian population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.

It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.

You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.

Like with a personal firearm carried for self defense?

Welcome to the fold

To be frank I think that would result in even more carnage as random bystanders open up on the perp, then on each other, then get shot by the police, since only the actual criminal(s) would know who was the right person to shoot.

It's called situational awareness, something that many people who often carry firearms regularly practice. But I wouldn't expect someone from a country where weapons are not allowed to be carried for self-defense would know much about that.

Logical fallacy means your argument is invalid.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?

Perceptions change, people change, religions change.

True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.

Do we have gay female Imams yet?

Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.

You don't have to be an active, violent jihadist to be an extremist. Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.

Hrm, it's hard to paint these things as Islam-specific. You can find passages telling you to stone adulterers, kill apostates, basically treat women as property, etc in the Old Testament (often the exact same ones that exist in the Koran). They're in every Abrahamic religion, they're not an Islam-specific thing, you just have more Muslims paying attention to them and taking them literally than you do in other religions. You can see many of the same attitudes and actions (such as honor killings) among people of other religions, including many Arab Christians and Indian Hindus and Kurdish Yazidis.

We're seeing gargantuan pressures on social and cultural norms and customs that haven't had time to adapt and advance. and they're not specific to any one particular religion or group of people. Throughout the "world of Islam", from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Pacific Indonesians, attitudes and worldviews vary wildly, as they have over time as well. Cultures and people's need time to adapt, some more than others.

The problem with that, btw I agree with you a bit, is that Islam hasn't advanced and compared to its radical members, the moderates trying to make headway are falling rapidly behind. I beg you to read/listen to these

Yes, many places where Islam is the dominant religion have in many ways regressed, that's true. However, there's some reasons to that as well. Partly it's a political control thing. The Iranian Ayotollah's and Saudi royal family and other rulers used/use religion as a tool of political control, same way ISIS does, if you're against them then they can turn around and say you're violating the law of god. In other ways it's an identity thing and a post-imperialism reaction. A lot of these places have only recently acquired "independent" identities, within living memory, and in many instances that comes from nothing more than lines drawn on a map by other powers thousands of miles away, whether it was Istanbul or Sykes-Picot or whatever.

Christian Rwanda suffered hundreds of thousands being butchered in just a few weeks, at a pace ISIS has only dreamt of, just a few years ago, and for many similar underlying reasons. In the fighting in Ukraine you saw a great resurgence of christian imagery and fervor, particularly on the rebels side, as an identity driver and political motivator, and accompanying repression of non-orthodox churches. (it also wasn't *that* long ago that European armies went to war with cries equivalent to "Allah Ackbar" on their lips, and things like "Gott Mit Uns"/"God Is With Us" on their belt buckles)

A lot of these places are basically in the process or organically reorganizing themselves now the the artificial lines they've been stuffed into are starting to break and there's no lid to keep everything under control anymore. You look at a nation like Iraq and it never really was a unified country, it was a creation of western powers held together by strongmen and consisting of varied & competing ethic groups, with Syria being very similar. These places are now undergoing to reorganization along lines that should have been taken into account after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, and religion is being used as a major driver of that.


Then you get something like Afghanistan which has never really been a coherent nation even under a strongman government, and is backward, bombed back nearly to the stone age, incredibly isolated, ignorant, and fractured on almost every conceivable level that there's just no way anyone can expect anything out of a place like that, and it's done to the US what it's done to just about every other empire that's stuck its nose in there, both pre and post islamization.

These are individuals who were terrorists, who believed in radical Islam until finally seeing the light and are now actively fighting against radical Islam, Tawfik Hamid is especially interesting.

Oh I don't doubt that there are some that think this way, but the issues are staggeringly complex, and it's a multi-generational process that's going to be required.

This is ultimately the result of Israeli mistreatment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which has been on going since 1948. The Palestinians have no real other way to engage in this situation politically at this point, and Israel has no want for them to. Israel's ultimate goals are to annex all of Palestine, presumably pushing out the native population or exterminating them. Also, to the user who claims the issue is Hamas, why was this a problem before Hamas was created (by Israel in order to destroy Fatah and the PLO)? Also, there are numerous accounts of torture and mistreatment of the local Palestinians, as well as executions by well armed settlers. Israel have been doing this for years, and have no intent of stopping. They thrive off the success of "Islamic Extremists" and have been dong so for far too long, with the ultimate intent to annex this country. They do not want a peace process. If they wanted peace, they would have had it by now.

I mean at this point you have Israel's placing stone throwers into crowds of occupied Palestinians just so that the IDF can open fire on them.

Sources
Beyond Chutzpah
Method and Madness

Palestinians just set fire to Joseph's tomb. I'd say the Dome is now fair game. This is not going to end well.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/16/449113871/palestinians-set-fire-to-josephs-tomb-in-the-west-bank

Palestinians Set Fire To Joseph's Tomb In The West Bank
October 16, 2015 6:45 AM ET
Eyder Peralta
Twitter

In yet another sign of escalating violence in the region, the Israeli military says that Palestinians set fire to Joseph's Tomb in the city of Nablus in the West Bank on Friday morning.

As CNN explains, Nablus is controlled by the Palestinian Authority and the tomb is venerated by Jews.

شبان يحرقون قبر يوسف في مدينة #نابلس ويرفعون العلم الفلسطيني فوقه
Posted by ‎نابلس البلدة القديمة‎ on Thursday, October 15, 2015

"Judaism considers the site to be the resting place of the Old Testament figure Joseph son of Jacob, a high Israelite patriarch who, according to religious accounts, was sold into slavery as a boy but then rose to become one of the most powerful figures in ancient Egypt, second only to the pharaoh," CNN reports.

NBC News reports that in the early hours of Friday, hundreds of Palestinians entered the compound and set it on fire.

The network adds:

"The overnight violence came amid calls for another "day of rage" in the region and looked set to further escalate tensions in which at least 39 people have been killed over the past two weeks.

"The Israel Defense Forces immediately pledged to hunt down those behind the attack on what is believed to contain the remains of the biblical patriarch, Joseph.

"IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said: 'The burning and desecration of Joseph's tomb ... is a blatant violation and contradiction of the basic value of freedom of worship. The IDF will take all measures to bring the perpetrators of this despicable act to justice, restore the site to its previous condition and ensure that the freedom of worship returns to Joseph's Tomb.'"

The Jerusalem Post reports that the crowds were dispersed and the fire was put out by local forces.

"The religious site suffered severe damage in the fire," the Post reports. "There were no reports of injuries."

Agence France Presse reports that Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas condemned the attack.

"Abbas called the arson attack on the flashpoint Joseph's Tomb in Nablus irresponsible and said a committee was being formed to investigate," AFP reports. "The overnight fire was started with molotov cocktails."

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Everyone here pontificating about ethnic cleansing ought to keep in mind that that is exactly what Hamas and all Israel's neighbours wish to do to the Jews.

Except they have no way of doing it, while Jews lived alongside Muslims in these regions together long before Israel existed. Israel on the other hand does have a way of doing it.

The classic "Israel is in danger" defence argument is so incredibly delusional. Israel have only really lost one war with their Arab neighbours, which was in Lebanon, a country they occupied and tried to create a puppet state in (part of the Greater Israel plan). Hezbollah forced them out, and now Israel has to deal with that embarrassment by trying to remove the Palestinians at a much quicker rate.

It's insane how black and white the situation really is.

 Imposter101 wrote:
This is ultimately the result of Israeli mistreatment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which has been on going since 1948. The Palestinians have no real other way to engage in this situation politically at this point, and Israel has no want for them to. Israel's ultimate goals are to annex all of Palestine, presumably pushing out the native population or exterminating them. Also, to the user who claims the issue is Hamas, why was this a problem before Hamas was created (by Israel in order to destroy Fatah and the PLO)? Also, there are numerous accounts of torture and mistreatment of the local Palestinians, as well as executions by well armed settlers. Israel have been doing this for years, and have no intent of stopping. They thrive off the success of "Islamic Extremists" and have been dong so for far too long, with the ultimate intent to annex this country. They do not want a peace process. If they wanted peace, they would have had it by now.

I mean at this point you have Israel's placing stone throwers into crowds of occupied Palestinians just so that the IDF can open fire on them.

Sources
Beyond Chutzpah
Method and Madness

Are you aware of the origins of Israel? The British Mandate and the resulting conflicts? You are basically claiming that the Israeli's are responsible for almost the whole conflict. Furthermore, please explain to me how the jews are "Ethnically cleansing" the Muslims out of Israel? There are accounts of executions, torture and mistreatment of Palestinians.......im sorry but I tend to take these stories with a grain of salt. The Palestinians have lied so often about such things that it borders on the insane and the Israeli's have lied about certain things as well, but overall it is the Palestinian side of the story that can never be truly believed.

According to the PLO/Hamas every single rocket fired into Gaza kills woman and children. Israeli apparently has civilian seeking munitions. On the flip side, every time the PLO/Hamas fires rockets into Israel they either never strike anything or they hit civilian targets, that tends to be more believable since the difference in technology is vast.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
This is ultimately the result of Israeli mistreatment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which has been on going since 1948. The Palestinians have no real other way to engage in this situation politically at this point, and Israel has no want for them to. Israel's ultimate goals are to annex all of Palestine, presumably pushing out the native population or exterminating them. Also, to the user who claims the issue is Hamas, why was this a problem before Hamas was created (by Israel in order to destroy Fatah and the PLO)? Also, there are numerous accounts of torture and mistreatment of the local Palestinians, as well as executions by well armed settlers. Israel have been doing this for years, and have no intent of stopping. They thrive off the success of "Islamic Extremists" and have been dong so for far too long, with the ultimate intent to annex this country. They do not want a peace process. If they wanted peace, they would have had it by now.

I mean at this point you have Israel's placing stone throwers into crowds of occupied Palestinians just so that the IDF can open fire on them.

Sources
Beyond Chutzpah
Method and Madness

Are you aware of the origins of Israel? The British Mandate and the resulting conflicts? You are basically claiming that the Israeli's are responsible for almost the whole conflict. Furthermore, please explain to me how the jews are "Ethnically cleansing" the Muslims out of Israel? There are accounts of executions, torture and mistreatment of Palestinians.......im sorry but I tend to take these stories with a grain of salt. The Palestinians have lied so often about such things that it borders on the insane and the Israeli's have lied about certain things as well, but overall it is the Palestinian side of the story that can never be truly believed.

According to the PLO/Hamas every single rocket fired into Gaza kills woman and children. Israeli apparently has civilian seeking munitions. On the flip side, every time the PLO/Hamas fires rockets into Israel they either never strike anything or they hit civilian targets, that tends to be more believable since the difference in technology is vast.

Yes, I am aware of the origins of Israel, and no, I am talking about the current conflict. Israel does not want to resolve the current conflict, the others have been resolved because the Arab nations lost or lost interest.

They are ethnically cleansing them by forcing them out of their homes and out of their country so that they can be replaced by Jewish settlers.

Would you like the accounts of Israeli soldiers then?












"Israel has civilian seeking munitions"

Yes, in the form of artillery fire. It's hard to not hit anything with it.

Except they have no way of doing it, while Jews lived alongside Muslims in these regions together long before Israel existed. Israel on the other hand does have a way of doing it.

The classic "Israel is in danger" defence argument is so incredibly delusional. Israel have only really lost one war with their Arab neighbours, which was in Lebanon, a country they occupied and tried to create a puppet state in (part of the Greater Israel plan). Hezbollah forced them out, and now Israel has to deal with that embarrassment by trying to remove the Palestinians at a much quicker rate.

It's insane how black and white the situation really is.

I am really trying to not throw personal insults into this thread but you are making it extremely hard.

6 Day war (1967) Israel vs Egypt Syria Jordan Iraq Lebanon Supported by: Algeria Kuwait Libya Morocco Pakistan PLO Saudi Arabia Suda Tunisia

Yom Kippur War (1973): Israel Vs Egypt Syria Combat support: Iraq Jordan Saudi Arabia Algeria Cuba Morocco Libya LibyaTunisia Kuwait North Korea

So 42 years ago Israel was invaded by two countries that prepared for 6 years a surprise attack, they were reinforced considerably by other arab nations, most notably Iraq, whose armored divisions kept Israel from taking over Damascus.

Within the lives of a large percentage of Israeli Citizens their country was attacked by every single neighbor they possess. Do you think that Israel forces its entire population to serve in the military for some kind of political maneuver or because at any given point it might need those reserves to defend itself from the open aggression of EVERY muslim country in the Middle East?

Several leaders of middle Eastern countries have outwardly proclaimed their desire to destroy Israel and remove all trace of Judaism from the Middle East. That is why I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt more often then not, they are the ones getting bullied on a daily basis and they are the ones who are usually making the concessions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you would like I could get interviews of US troops who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan who will say the same things. In any military your going to have accidents and have people unfit for the position they are in.

Compare how Israel attacks targets in Gaza to how the US strikes targets in Afghanistan.

Israel will literally CALL the house in question to warn of an impending strike, they will then use a loud speaker to tell the residents to flee, lastly they will fire a mortar into the front yard to hopefully SCARE them out of the area. Finally after all those measure they blow the house up.

IN contrast the US and every other nation on the earth in a war will just drop the bomb and ohh fething well if civilians got in the wya.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Except they have no way of doing it, while Jews lived alongside Muslims in these regions together long before Israel existed. Israel on the other hand does have a way of doing it.

The classic "Israel is in danger" defence argument is so incredibly delusional. Israel have only really lost one war with their Arab neighbours, which was in Lebanon, a country they occupied and tried to create a puppet state in (part of the Greater Israel plan). Hezbollah forced them out, and now Israel has to deal with that embarrassment by trying to remove the Palestinians at a much quicker rate.

It's insane how black and white the situation really is.

I am really trying to not throw personal insults into this thread but you are making it extremely hard.

6 Day war (1967) Israel vs Egypt Syria Jordan Iraq Lebanon Supported by: Algeria Kuwait Libya Morocco Pakistan PLO Saudi Arabia Suda Tunisia

Yom Kippur War (1973): Israel Vs Egypt Syria Combat support: Iraq Jordan Saudi Arabia Algeria Cuba Morocco Libya LibyaTunisia Kuwait North Korea

So 42 years ago Israel was invaded by two countries that prepared for 6 years a surprise attack, they were reinforced considerably by other arab nations, most notably Iraq, whose armored divisions kept Israel from taking over Damascus.

Within the lives of a large percentage of Israeli Citizens their country was attacked by every single neighbor they possess. Do you think that Israel forces its entire population to serve in the military for some kind of political maneuver or because at any given point it might need those reserves to defend itself from the open aggression of EVERY muslim country in the Middle East?

Several leaders of middle Eastern countries have outwardly proclaimed their desire to destroy Israel and remove all trace of Judaism from the Middle East. That is why I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt more often then not, they are the ones getting bullied on a daily basis and they are the ones who are usually making the concessions.

During the 6 Day War Israel attacked how many other nations and won?

During Yom Kipper, Israel was still successful.

So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.

The threats of Iran really aren't meaningful. Iran's been making petty threats for how long? Do you think they could do this?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Except they have no way of doing it, while Jews lived alongside Muslims in these regions together long before Israel existed. Israel on the other hand does have a way of doing it.

The classic "Israel is in danger" defence argument is so incredibly delusional. Israel have only really lost one war with their Arab neighbours, which was in Lebanon, a country they occupied and tried to create a puppet state in (part of the Greater Israel plan). Hezbollah forced them out, and now Israel has to deal with that embarrassment by trying to remove the Palestinians at a much quicker rate.

It's insane how black and white the situation really is.

I am really trying to not throw personal insults into this thread but you are making it extremely hard.

6 Day war (1967) Israel vs Egypt Syria Jordan Iraq Lebanon Supported by: Algeria Kuwait Libya Morocco Pakistan PLO Saudi Arabia Suda Tunisia

Yom Kippur War (1973): Israel Vs Egypt Syria Combat support: Iraq Jordan Saudi Arabia Algeria Cuba Morocco Libya LibyaTunisia Kuwait North Korea

So 42 years ago Israel was invaded by two countries that prepared for 6 years a surprise attack, they were reinforced considerably by other arab nations, most notably Iraq, whose armored divisions kept Israel from taking over Damascus.

Within the lives of a large percentage of Israeli Citizens their country was attacked by every single neighbor they possess. Do you think that Israel forces its entire population to serve in the military for some kind of political maneuver or because at any given point it might need those reserves to defend itself from the open aggression of EVERY muslim country in the Middle East?

Several leaders of middle Eastern countries have outwardly proclaimed their desire to destroy Israel and remove all trace of Judaism from the Middle East. That is why I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt more often then not, they are the ones getting bullied on a daily basis and they are the ones who are usually making the concessions.

During the 6 Day War Israel attacked how many other nations and won?

During Yom Kipper, Israel was still successful.

So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.

The threats of Iran really aren't meaningful. Iran's been making petty threats for how long? Do you think they could do this?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you would like I could get interviews of US troops who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan who will say the same things. In any military your going to have accidents and have people unfit for the position they are in.

Compare how Israel attacks targets in Gaza to how the US strikes targets in Afghanistan.

Israel will literally CALL the house in question to warn of an impending strike, they will then use a loud speaker to tell the residents to flee, lastly they will fire a mortar into the front yard to hopefully SCARE them out of the area. Finally after all those measure they blow the house up.

IN contrast the US and every other nation on the earth in a war will just drop the bomb and ohh fething well if civilians got in the wya.

During the 6 Day War Israel attacked how many other nations and won?

During Yom Kipper, Israel was still successful.

So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.

The threats of Iran really aren't meaningful. Iran's been making petty threats for how long? Do you think they could do this?

So because Israeli managed to scrape victories out of defeat they aren't threatened anymore and have never faced a real threat?

Go read Six Days of War and then go Read The Yom Kippur War, Israel was on the brink of defeat and only won by having amazing commanders who were able to marshal the reserves flooding in from Israeli Communities and put them where they were needed the most. Syrian Tanks could have actually reached Tel-Aviv if they hadn't stopped.

Your entire argument that Israel isn't threatened is Bull Gak.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

During the 6 Day War Israel attacked how many other nations and won?

During Yom Kipper, Israel was still successful.

So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.

The threats of Iran really aren't meaningful. Iran's been making petty threats for how long? Do you think they could do this?

So because Israeli managed to scrape victories out of defeat they aren't threatened anymore and have never faced a real threat?

Go read Six Days of War and then go Read The Yom Kippur War, Israel was on the brink of defeat and only won by having amazing commanders who were able to marshal the reserves flooding in from Israeli Communities and put them where they were needed the most. Syrian Tanks could have actually reached Tel-Aviv if they hadn't stopped.

Your entire argument that Israel isn't threatened is Bull Gak.

Yom Kipper maybe, even then you had Israel threatening the United States with the Samson Option. Six Days War saw the Israel invade their neighbours and defeat them in Six Days.

Now the Arabs are disunited and have little support. Israel has a 1st class military (well, in terms of equipment). The Arabs have nothing to gain from this.

They are not a threat to Israel, nor do they benefit from attacking it. They are not in danger. They want to believe they are in danger.

Yom Kipper maybe, even then you had Israel threatening the United States with the Samson Option. Six Days War saw the Israel invade their neighbours and defeat them in Six Days.

Now the Arabs are disunited and have little support. Israel has a 1st class military (well, in terms of equipment).

They are not a threat to Israel, nor do they benefit from attacking it. They are not in danger.

I believe the British and French shared your beliefs after WW1, and they were proven correct.....right until the next world war kicked off.

A wonderfully fallacious argument from analogy on your part though, but I'll embrace it just to prove how wrong it is.

Germany
> Single, unified state
> Planned for war against Poland the the USSR
> 1st tier army and military. Well equipped and well trained.
> Possesses a distinct goal

The Arabs
> Several states
> Have varying plans and contradictory
> Kind of planned for war against Israel, some involve it's destruction some involve the return of land to the rightful owners
> Mediocre to average armies. Inferior equipment to their opponent
> Nothing to really gain except a United States task force marching into their capital(s) from an invasion or attack on Israel