Photography is Not a Crime

227 responses so far ↓

• 1 Ethan Shapiro // Dec 8, 2008 at 12:01 PM

  With all due respect, once Palestinian mothers stop teaching their children to kill Jews by blowing themselves up then I’ll have some pity for these protests.

  Carlos, here’s something just as striking that you should read, “Palestinian Children Yearning Martyrdom, Encouraged by Parents” http://www.pmw.org.il/indoctrinating%20children%20to%20violence.htm#First

• 2 Scott // Dec 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM

  OK, then with all due respect, Ethan, you are an idiot. I can’t really see how can classify all of the Palestinian people like that. It’s like saying that all Americans are all in the KKK. I happen to have quite a few friends over there, both Palestinian and Israeli, and most of them, on both sides, feel a lot of regret as to what has been going on.
  That hardly seems like the mark of a terrorist.

• 3 Ethan Shapiro // Dec 8, 2008 at 3:55 PM

  Scott,

  Why am I an idiot? Because I dare to question why Israel is enforcing a blockade against a government that replied to an Israeli withdrawal in 2005 with war as opposed to creating functioning institutions? Because I dare call out Palestinians in Gaza who raise their kids with deep hatred for Jews and Christians?

  The simple fact is, Hamas and the government in Gaza (and to some extent Fatah in the West Bank) have institutionalized the hatred of Jews and Christians. If you need proof, here you go:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

  But I’m the idiot for calling bullsh*t on a protest with people holding signs that read, “Israel Stop Your Genocide In Gaza” and “1.5M People Are Under Siege By Israel”…right.

• 4 Ethan Shapiro // Dec 8, 2008 at 4:00 PM

  BTW, I just watched the video for the first time and that lone Israel supporter is hilarious!

• 5 Scott // Dec 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM

  No, your an idiot for thinking that all Palestinians support the actions of such radical groups a Hamas. They don’t, it’s just that the ones that do get much more media attention. The majority on both sides desire peace, but the minority control both governments.
  Oh and I just saw that video too, WTF is with that guy yelling fuck Palestine at the protesters. There were some kids there that couldn’t have been more than 10. Shameful behavior.

• 6 Carlos Miller // Dec 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM

  I agree with Scott that it is not good to generalize because the truth is, the majority of the people on both sides want peace, they just want to live and let live.

  This is the way it was in Ireland during the height of “the Troubles” between the Catholics and the Protestants, and this is the way it is in Colombia during a four-decade civil war.

  Ethan,

  I’ve seen photos where Israeli kids are drawing designs and slogans on missiles before they get sent into Palestinian populations, so aren’t they being bred to hate Muslims?

  Both sides are guilty of killing civilians, so is any side really “right”?

• 7 the lone white boy // Dec 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM

  Rock on!, lone jew!

• 8 Enhager // Dec 8, 2008 at 6:40 PM

  I’m glad you had your video camera, too. A sad, but hilarious, commentary on two sides who don’t listen to the shouts of pain and grief they are causing one another.

• 9 john // Dec 8, 2008 at 8:42 PM

  fuck these palestinians they are brought up to hate. if i was there i woud be standing right next to carlos. why should israel send anything to them, when ever we tried to open the doors of gaza to the society they always try or do a suicide act that causes innocent people in israel to be killed.they dont deserve shit from anyone. thank god i was not there because just from the palestinian saying he will kick his ass there would of been a problem because i would of faught

• 10 sean // Dec 8, 2008 at 8:46 PM

  scott your naive as hell, i agree not all are bad terrorists but come on, first little kids should not even be there, you see how palestinians always try to do some shit to involve little kids so it makes people feel bad.you do not put little kids who do not know anything about this situation in a protest rally that is filled with hate from both sides. why is it that you see little arab kids with guns and a straped bomb to them, but when you look at jewish kids they dont even have anything close. these people are raised to hate everyone.

• 11 Mambi Watch // Dec 8, 2008 at 9:00 PM

  Clearly, there is one person who is using offensive and provocative language: F**k Palestine. The other side is not.

  The offensive phrase is without a clear message and is acting solely on impulse. Later he attempts to justify his comments as free speech, but that soon changes to condemning Palestinian “terrorism.”

  This misses the premise of the protest: to condemn an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip , which has also been condemned by the President of the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary General and human rights organizations like Amnesty International.

  http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/gaza-reduced-bare-survival-20081205

• 12 Scott // Dec 8, 2008 at 9:21 PM

  Well, John, look at everything you just said. Seems to me like there is a lot of evidence that you have been brought up to hate Palestinians.

  Sean, I know little kids shouldn’t be there, kids should never be involved in something they don’t understand, and don’t know the consequences for, but there is a long history of children in protests, M.L.K. Jr., Ghandi, ect. It’s not just Palestinians. Not that I agree with it. And you do know that the Israeli’s require all of their citizens to serve a mandatory 2 years in the armed forces? What does that say about their peaceful society?

  Mambi Watch, I entirely agree.

• 13 Carlos Miller // Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 AM

  Mambi Watch,

  Offensive language is also considered protected speech.

• 14 Mambi Watch // Dec 9, 2008 at 12:55 AM

  Carlos, I’m not disputing that fact. I was trying to point out how this lone person was not sending a coherent message, in contrast to the other party’s planned protest.

  The context shows that the message was a provocation given that it was not a direct response to the message of the protest: condemning the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip.

  And, therefore, the lone person’s justifications were worthless.

• 15 enhager // Dec 9, 2008 at 5:02 PM

  Good headline – btw

• 16 Cigar Mike // Dec 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM

  Mambi Watch

  figures you’d also be an anti-Semite and anti-Israel.

  Like Bob Dylan says, your type just loves to blame Israel as the “neighborhood bully.” So typical of your ilk.

• 17 Scott // Dec 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM

  So according to you Israel never did anything wrong? If thats what you think then you are sadly mistaken.

• 18 Robert // Dec 12, 2008 at 3:57 AM

  One side has a committed policy of extermination. One side desires peace. One side deliberately sends homicide bombers into cafes and blows up whoever happens to be there. One side defends itself against attacks and deliberately avoids injuring or killing those who are innocent bystanders. One side is led by followers of a religion that preach conversion or death/slavery. One side is tolerant of the religious or non religious practices of others. One side has a democratically elected government that represents Jews and Arabs. The other is run by whatever thug can grab the most guns and make the most virulent attacks on Israel. Tell me that there isn’t a difference between Israel and her enemies. These protestors are nothing more than useful idiots in the campaign to attack the one tolerant and open country in that cess pool called the Middle East.

• 19 TimothyJ // Dec 12, 2008 at 3:59 AM

  So does anybody remember the vote that put Hamas in charge? That wasn’t just by a few zealots, it was by a lot of people. Hatred is hatred, and these people (at least the majority) hate Jews.

• 20 Robert // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:01 AM

  No it shouldn ‘t be “Fuck Palestine”. It should be fuck every Islamonazi that is committed to the destruction of Israel and her people. It should be “Fuck every cowardly piece of human trash that sends their children out with explosives strapped to their body to kill the children of Israelis and whoever else happens to be standing nearby”. There, clarification on the “Fuck” issue.

• 21 Hoth // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:19 AM

  I second Robert.

• 22 thebronze // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:34 AM

  O agree w/ Robert. And the Lone Jew.

  F*ck Palestine!

  (Even though there’s no such country as Palestine.)

• 23 Silent Watcher // Dec 12, 2008 at 6:35 AM

  Ethan Shapiro has it right. All anyone needs to do is watch MEMRI or read JihadWatch.org. Almost every survey of the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza indicate that they are in favor of killing Jews; they are also killing and driving Christians out of these areas. Why in Sam Hill should Israelis subsidize their own slaughter? Let the Arabs see about developing themselves and their society instead of focusing on death and destruction. Golda Meir was right: things will change with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate Jews.

• 24 AW1 Tim // Dec 12, 2008 at 9:15 AM

  Israel or Palestine, eh? Well let’s see here. I don’t remember any accounts of Jewish homicide bombers blowing up Palestinian school buses, or local pizza parlors, or Jewish extremists killing Palestinians athletes at the Olympics or hijacking airliners.

  It’s interesting that the Torah doesn’t speak of exterminating muslims wherever you might find them. The Khoran, however, has this little nugget about the last days where “Every rock and tree will cry out ‘Oh Muslim, here is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him”

  Also of interest is that no Arab country will allow Palestinians to apply for citizenship. That’s right. Not. One. Arab. Country. They use the Palestinians as political pawns against Israel, but you won’t read that in your local paper.

  No, I agree with the old fellow. ‘Eff Palestine. The Palestinians overwhelmingly elected Hamas as their government. They danced in the street by the tens of thousands on 9/11, and celebrate the death of every Jew.

  Eff Palestine.

• 25 fearless // Dec 12, 2008 at 10:12 AM

  If more Jews and Americans that realize the danger from the Arab word had the gonads this young man has we would be better off. They come here to take advantage of our freedoms and plot to kill “The Jews and Americans!’

• 26 cher-ISRAEL // Dec 12, 2008 at 11:12 AM

  Hey…”you live in a bubble” liberals ! This stuff happening all over the Western World.It not about “Palestine” or “Gaza”..It about world domination by the Muslims.
  Carlos Miller understands that he is living on the front line of that war..and he got the BALLS to say what he believes in…
  WAY TO GO CARLOS…YEAH !!

• 27 John // Dec 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM

  To the Palestinians who claim to want peace but then sit back and do nothing to stop their brothers from strapping on explosives and indescriminately killing innocents:

  Enough already. We’re wise to your game.

  Repeatedly punch the kid next to you and when he gets tired of getting punched and punches back, cry like the victim and use it as justification to punch him some more. Pahleeeze.

  Tell you what. I’ll start believing the “not all Palestinians are terrorists” crowd when Palestinian society starts taking action to shun and dishonor these who commit random mass murders. The dirty little truth is that when you talk to Palestinians about a suicide terrorist event, they eventually will say “I don’t agree with what he did… but he had a point”.No buts. That kind of tacit acceptance means that the only difference between you and the jackball dressed in towels and pipe bombs is that he had the balls to commit his life to what you both believe in and you didn’t.

• 28 Rachel Corrie // Dec 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM

  Hi. Does this outfit make me look flat?

• 29 Kenneth // Dec 12, 2008 at 12:07 PM

  Why don’t these protesters complain about , or even mention, that Egypt has closed its border with Gaza? Why is Egypt blockading their fellow Arabs anyway?

• 30 Stacy // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:15 PM

  As AW1 Tim pointed out, THEY ELECTED HAMAS. And you know, when none of your neighbors want you in their yard, that should be a reality check.

• 31 Bubba // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:22 PM

  Fuck:
  Palistine, Israel, middle east, islam, jews, christians and catholics.
  Take your bloody middle eastern religions and go back to the deserts that you crawled out of.

• 32 RWG // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:25 PM

  Carlos Miller. Israel does not send missiles into Gaza or the West Bank. Missiles are not very accurate and would kill civilians. Moreover, Israeli children are learning to survive. What you saw were Palestinian children (aka Starter Martyrs) being taught to hate. The pictures are on the web. Check your facts.

• 33 Buck // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:43 PM

  The protesters are generalizing. The Gaza Strip has two borders. Why can’t they get food and supplies from their Egyptian Brothers?

• 34 Buck // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:57 PM

  Scott:

  Israel defended herself.

  The sight of Jews defending themselves has always been thought of as disgusting to many.

  Gaza was occupied by Egypt and no one said a word. Then, in order to fight a war, Israel occupied Gaza. The whole world suddenly screamed OCCUPATION. Now Gaza is not occupied by anyone, except Hamas. Now the world screams “Israel, Take care of their every need”.

  Gaza wants independence, they have it. Let them get food and supplies from Egypt. OR MAKE PEACE WITH ISRAEL. Now that is the choice.

• 35 John // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM

  Because their “Egyptian brothers” are as exasperated with them as we are.

• 36 Scott // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM

  Wow, for a bunch of people who talk about the hate of Palestinians, you all seem to hate them a lot. When was the last time you ever did a little research about the entire conflict, instead of just thinking Israel is good? I suggest doing that, then saying something, instead of just spouting off the same tired lines of, “All of them are suicide bombers”, or, “They all support Hamas”. Go read a book.

• 37 Carlos Miller // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM

  RWG,

  These are the pictures I was referring to. They were sending the missiles into Lebanon so you’re right that it wasn’t the West Bank or Gaza.

  http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=13453

• 38 Alinor // Dec 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM

  As Kenneth points out: the Egyptians are as much the “Palestinians” jailers as are the Israelis. Only the Egyptians are worse because the Gazans are fellow Egyptians. Prior to the Six-Day War (which was at least the third time the surrounding Arab countries tried to invade Israel and commit genocide), Gaza was part of Egypt. The ugly truth is: No matter how hard Israel tries to give Gaza back to Egypt, Mubarak won’t accept it. The Egyptians do not want their Egyptian brethern to rejoin them. It’s the same in the West Bank. Prior to the Six-Day War, the West Bank was part of Jordan. The Jordanians do not want to be reunited with their fellow Jordanians . Nobody wants the “Palestinians” for anything other than anti-Jewish PR.

• 39 John // Dec 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM

  Scott,

  If we hate Palestinians as you say, we seem to do it in a very logical, peaceful way don’t we? Where do you suggest we get our “education”? The same places that indoctrinate people to become suicide bombers? No thanks.

  Go read a book other than the Koran.

• 40 Sayan Neviot // Dec 12, 2008 at 2:22 PM

  I agree with the woman holding the sign that reads: “End The Open Door Prison In Gaza”.

  That door needs to be closed and locked, once and for all.

• 41 mghirsch // Dec 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM

  Carlos Miller:

  When I see a website like the one you listed, and notice a major mistake right away, the whole website becomes suspect. Those are NOT missles, they are artillary shells, which are very accurate.

  Now, why do you suppose that the Israeli students are writing on them? Do you think it could possibly be in RESPONSE to Hezballah’s attacks on innocent civilians. No, I believe that you have anti-semitism so ingrained into your soul you have no idea of cause and effect.

• 42 Carlos Miller // Dec 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM

  mghirssh,

  Now you are accusing me of antisemitism?

  You don’t know me from hell so save your accusations and learn to debate without making it personal. Otherwise, you just come across as an ignorant fool.

  As neither a Jew or a Muslim, all I’m trying to do is see both sides of this issue, which obviously many people are unable to do.

  Missiles, artillery shells or whatever you want to call them, they are obviously meant to kill.

  And perhaps they were in response to a Hezballah attack, but do children really need to partake in this military action?

  And are you able to answer that question without calling me antisemitic?

• 43 Scott // Dec 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM

  Hey Carlos, It seems that you opened up a hornets nest with your story.
  Now John, Your arguments are not logical. You all seem to think that all Palestinians voted for Hamas, and that they did it so that they could kill people easier. But before I start giving you a history lesson, let me just say that I am in fact a Christian, and I do not support suicide bombing as John seems to suggest.
  Now listen up, Hamas, is a terrorist organization, yes, but that is NOT the reason they won some of their people over. They also participated in quite a few humanitarian goals, such as building hospitals and giving out food and water to refugee’s when nobody else would. Not that this makes the attacks alright. One more thing about Hamas. In the recent election, only 57% of the parliament that was elected was Hamas. That should say something too you. It says to me that at least 43% of the people said no to Hamas and terrorism. And if Hamas are terrorists as bad as people say, isn’t there any chance at all they could have intimidated the people to get the votes?

• 44 michelle // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM

  Deb. I know, they should just be happy to let qassams rain on them on a daily basis and they should teach their kids to … just accept it.

  Not.

• 45 michelle // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:09 PM

  These parents should be ashamed.

  linky

  But they aren’t. They are quite proud of themselves.

• 46 michelle // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:13 PM

  Mothers Express Joy at son’s
  Death for Allah

  Mothers of the year?

• 47 michelle // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:20 PM

  Fuck Palestine.

• 48 John // Dec 12, 2008 at 5:45 PM

  Scott,

  The Hamas charter, their constitution, states that “there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad”. That is what they are proud to be known for – jihad. Not passing out bread. Give me a break.

  How is it that Israel was able to take a barren piece of desert and make it bloom and yet the Palestinians, in the same geography, are completely devoid of any industry and economy? Palestinians are completely dependant upon handouts from others because building an economy takes the intelligence, hard work, and trust of its citizens. All the Palestinians have is their self-destructive fury to keep them warm at night.

• 49 John // Dec 12, 2008 at 6:07 PM

  … and oh yeah, I almost forgot…

  Israel started with nothing.

  Jews have been hunted down and persecuted for thousands of years and they are still here Steve – still prosperous. No other group in the history of civilization can claim the kind of systematic attempts at extermination as the Jews can but you know what Steve? They are still here – still prosperous. Kind of makes you think they must have a source of strength they draw from that doesn’t involve a snarl and gritted teeth.

  Can I get a “what, what” in yiddish y’all? Hell yeah…

• 50 Scott // Dec 12, 2008 at 7:11 PM

  No one here is trying to belittle what the Jewish people have gone through.
  And John do you actually live in The Gaza Strip or The West Bank? How would you know what people over there actually think?
  Yes I know that Hamas does believe in the destruction of Israel, and I know that they are not good people, I’m just saying that not all Palestinians are their followers. I noticed you were not able to respond to that part of what I said. It’s kind of like punishing a whole classroom when only one kid makes trouble.

• 51 Carlos Miller // Dec 12, 2008 at 8:51 PM

  John,

  I have a great amount of respect for the Jewish people. They not only have overcome a history of repression and hate to emerge as some of the most successful people on earth, they are also some of the most philanthropic people on earth.

  Just take a look around Miami Beach and anyone can see how much they’ve given back to the community.

  But as Scott says, this debate is not about belittling the Jewish people and their history.

  For me, at least, it’s about trying to find some understanding beneath the hate and anger on both sides of the Israeli/Palestine issue.

  You live in Miami so I’m sure you are aware of the Cuban issue down here. The way some Cuban exiles hate Castro so much, that they sometimes let it get in the way of actually helping the people who are under his regime.

  The way some Cuban exiles embark on a McCarthyism campaign against anybody who might vote democrat or might be in favor of lifting the embargo.

  I recently posted a video where I was accused of being [em]“con fidel”[/em] because I voted for Obama.

  The only reason the subject even came up is because as soon as I started filming, the lady immediately asked me if I was liberal.

  What difference does it make? I wasn’t telling them they couldn’t protest nor was I arguing with them about the movie they were protesting.

  How is that different from when I get accused of being antisemitic because I am trying to see both sides of the Israeli/Palestine issue?

  Not everything is so black and white.

  A couple of years ago, I couldn’t stand talking to republicans because all I could think about is how they voted for Bush.

  But since starting this blog, republicans have turned out to be some of my strongest supporters, despite knowing where I stand politically.

  So that actually opened my eyes.

  I am still a solid democrat but I’ve learned how to see republicans through more than how they voted.

  And all Scott and I are trying to say is that not all Palestinians are terrorists.

  That’s a huge generalization.

  And the Jews, of all people, should refrain for making generalizations because everything that has been done to them in the past has been based on generalizations.

• 52 Scott // Dec 12, 2008 at 9:01 PM

  Wow Carlos, that was so much better than how I put it.

• 53 Carlos Miller // Dec 12, 2008 at 9:04 PM

  I also want to add that this is not just a Jewish/Muslim issue because at least two of the people protesting on the Palestine side were Jewish.

  In hindsight, I wish I would have interviewed them on camera.

• 54 Carlos Miller // Dec 12, 2008 at 9:07 PM

  Thanks, Scott. As you said, I’ve opened a hornet’s nest.

  And that wasn’t even my intention. All I was trying to do was make a statement on the First Amendment.

• 55 Donkeyrock // Dec 13, 2008 at 12:24 AM

  Carlos,

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

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

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

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

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

  Be well.

• 56 John // Dec 13, 2008 at 1:33 AM

  Scott,

  “And John do you actually live in The Gaza Strip or The West Bank? How would you know what people over there actually think?”

  Well, I’m not a mind reader. I have only those people’s words and actions with which to make judgments.

  If you meant, “what the hell do you know about things there, you’ve never been to Gaza”, well, that’s a logical fallacy Scott.

  Much in the same way that I don’t have to be a lawyer to have an opinion on laws, I do not have to live in Gaza to have an opinion on what’s going on there.

  That would be an attempt on your part to discredit my opinion, not on the strength of your argument, but by some arbitrary bar of experience that you think I must jump over before my opinion has validity. Baloney.

  The beauty of the internet is that all you receive is information and opinion – I can get both easier here in Miami Beach than I can in the Middle East because there is no entity trying to block what I can and cannot see. It’s actually easier to have an informed opinion here than it is there because of the freer exchange of ideas.

• 57 John // Dec 13, 2008 at 2:03 AM

  Carlos,

  Speaking as a Republican and as people on opposite political sides at least we can at least agree on one thing – Bush is an incompetent bafoon.

  I agree, theoretically, that not all Palestinians are terrorists but I’m not naive – I know where their sympathies lie. If they are not willing to stand up and try to stop Hamas’ murderous thuggery they are accomplices.

  It is an incorrect intellectual shortcut to take your personal experiences with Cubans and substitute Palestinians thinking that the comparison will hold. They are not the same.

  Palestinians are FAR more unified in opinion than Cubans are. The crazy, irrational anti-Castro Cubans are mostly older and slowly dying off – a majority of Cubans actually voted for Obama.

  Always an interesting site brother….

• 58 Scott // Dec 13, 2008 at 2:38 AM

  John, Now that I look back at it, it does seem to be a little bit of an attempt to discredit you. Sorry about that, I get a little caught up in politics sometimes.
  DonkeyRock, if all Israel wants to do is protect their own people, then why are they even refusing U.N. humanitarian units entrance from Gaza? The U.N. who has acknoleged Hamas as a terrorist organization as well. The U.N. would be able to make sure that the supplies would go to where they are needed, namely the HALF of the population of the Gaza Strip that are children.
  So am I to understand that babies should be allowed to starve to death, just to get back at some stupid terrorists?
  Seems to me that is terrorism in itself.

  (wow I’m probably gonna get some backlash on that)

• 59 Donkeyrock // Dec 13, 2008 at 10:09 AM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Be well.

• 60 don // Dec 13, 2008 at 5:58 PM

  Wow….very interesting discussion. Very refreshing to see people taking a stand against world-wide jihadofascism.

  btw, if anyone is tired of the endless anti-Semitic ,anti-Israel pallywood terrorstinian propaganda please feel free to visit our forum.

  http://prosemiteundercover.phpbbnow.com/index.php

  look foward to hearing your voice.

• 61 David G. // Dec 14, 2008 at 10:27 PM

  It’s time for what was Palestine and Israel to become one country for all people. Not just Jews or Palestinians.

  A democracy of the people is needed not a democracy of Jews.

  There is no other country in the modern industrial world that has ethnic and religious based power structure. South Africa was the last. Immigrants of all faiths and backgrounds are expected to assimilate and solve their problems politically just as we do in the USA.

• 62 John // Dec 15, 2008 at 3:06 AM

  David G.,

  If you think Palestinians and Israelis can live in the same country without any borders or security checkpoints between them, I want a bag of whatever it is that you’re smoking. You obviously have better connections than I do.

  The antipathies here are of literally biblical proportions. Families are happily giving up their 14 year-old sons to become suicide bombers- killing people they do not know. The Jews inevitably retaliate and that retaliation is then used as justification for more attacks.

  A downward spiral.

  Tell you what, let’s work on getting a two state solution both governments can live with and if we’re lucky enough to get that, THEN we’ll talk about unification – two or three generations down the line.

• 63 Scott // Dec 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM

  I can agree on most of that. There is a proposal that has been agreed on by all of the country’s in the Arab League, as well as Palestine.
  Wikipedia says it best;
  “Considered a progressive proposal that would end the Arab-Israeli conflict, unlike the Road map for peace it spelled out “final-solution” borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the Occupied Territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize “an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital” in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a “just solution” for the Palestinian refugees.”
  Seems to me, it would just make Israel what it was before the war, which wouldn’t change it that much, but Israel staunchly refuses to budge from it’s position.

• 64 Donkeyrock // Dec 16, 2008 at 6:16 PM

  Scott,

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

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

• 65 Scott // Dec 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM

  The borders would only shrink a small bit for the Israeli’s, and what they would gain would be far more valuable. The leaders of nearly the entire middle eastern world would normalize relations with them, which would go a LONG way towards stabilizing the entire area, which in turn would help stabilize the entire planet. I think it’s worth it, and everybody, the Arabs, the U.N., the U.S, and even both factions of the Palestinians, (Hamas and Fatah). All Israel has to do is give up just a little bit of their land and the whole world would prosper with more safety.

• 66 Daniel M. Perez // Dec 17, 2008 at 3:28 PM

  Interesting. When they first hold a protest against Hammas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, etc to stop using civilian centers in the West Bank and Gaza as staging grounds for terrorist attacks, when they hold a protest against their bloodthirsty kinsmen who murder innocents, when they hold a protest calling their own people to take control of their government and make sure they have a non-corrupt/non-terrorist group leading them, then maybe I’ll take protests like this one seriously. Maybe.

  It is an absolute shame that so many people have died in this conflict, yes, but I fully support Israel’s right to defend herself against terrorists by whatever means are necessary. If the people in Gaza want the blockade to end, they can help root out the bad element within their population. If they choose to continue protecting them, so be it.

  And what about holding this protest on a day other than Shabbat? Perhaps that way they can get some answers from the Israeli Consulate, as opposed to protesting to an (ideally) empty office.

  As for this Lone Jew, yeah, rock on.

• 67 John // Dec 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM

  Scott,

  “The borders would only shrink a small bit for the Israeli’s, and what they would gain would be far more valuable. The leaders of nearly the entire middle eastern world would normalize relations with them”

  I have little faith these middle eastern leaders would normalize relations with Israel even if they were given the land they wanted. They would find some other reason to be aggrieved, some other reason to not make peace, some other reason to demand more land.

  The conditions for peace will be ever changing because those who despise Jews need a conflict, some sort of justification for their obsessive waste of mental energy and for the barbarity in their actions taking their beliefs to their logical conclusion. This is why I’m confident I will be explaining why there is no peace in the middle east to my grandkids (if we are all lucky enough to live that long).

• 68 Scott // Dec 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM

  Most people in the middle east want an end to the entire conflict, it’s just that a few extremists want it to continue so that they can keep their power. Most of the leaders in the middle east are moderates, and want normalized relations, because certainly not all of them want total Jewish extermination or anything like that. Most want to live and let live.
  Leader of Iran excluded.

• 69 John // Dec 18, 2008 at 4:42 AM

  “Most of the leaders in the middle east are moderates, and want normalized relations”

  Most of the citizens in the middle east would move to overthrow/execute leaders who did so.

• 70 Scott // Dec 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM

  Well most haven’t done anything when they made the offer, so I don’t really see any evidence that it would happen. Of course you might get a few crazy radicals like there always are, but on the most part, a large percentage agrees with peace, including the ruling elder’s of the Muslim faith, and very few dissent from that.

• 71 Rust Belt Leftist // Dec 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM

  Did someone send out a call on megaphone because someone in the U.S. might even dare to have a discussion of Israel’s occupation of Palestine:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool

  Israel is not allowed under international law to hold onto land gained through warfare, Israel’s legal border under international law is the 1949 green line, because of it’s refusal to obey international law Israel has been sanctioned dozens of times by the arbiter of that law the U.N.:

  http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

  For a good backgrounder on what daily life is like for Palestinians under occupation, former President Jimmy Carter’s Carter Center offers this revealing glimpse:

  http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/human_rights/defenders/countries/Israel_palestinian_territories.html

  Know too that Israelis snipers shoot little children at long range:

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/20/israel

  And shoot well marked reporters cars with tanks:

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/13/reuters.pressandpublishing/print

  If you think you are getting the full story about Israel’s well documented human rights abuses from the U.S. MSM you are kidding yourself:

  http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/israeloccupied-palestinian-territories

  I am one lefty American activist who is sick of the relentless Zionist propaganda and sick of 3 billion dollars in American tax payer money being sent to israel so they can engage in gross human rights abuses. Wouldn’t those American tax payer dollars be spent helping 1 million Americans keep their jobs and houses in rust belt America?

  And to the Rachel Corrie pancake joke poster, fuck you and your cruel vile desecration of of a dead human rights activists body.

• 72 Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 12:54 AM

  Scott,

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

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

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

• 73 Scott // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:39 AM

  I am afraid I don’t understand the part where you said, quote, “Unfortunately, it’s abundantly clear that the majority of Arab Muslims in Gaza, Judea and Samaria prefer to follow the tenets of Islam and kill Jews instead of work with them”. The religion of Islam is actually close to that of Christianity and Judaism, it has just been perverted in much worse ways than the other 2.
  And as for Hamas or Fatah not honoring any agreements, I must say that I think at least Fatah would follow most of the agreement, being that lots of them have been involved in the peace movement.
  And with the population celebrating when bad thing happen to the US and Israel, as most of the middle eastern country’s censor the media, you probably only see what they want you to see.

  You know what, this entire battle mostly settles down to 1 issue at the heart of things. Jerusalem. The holy center of 3 major faiths of the world.
  I think that the city should just be given to the U.N. Things might settle down a bit then.

• 74 Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 2:21 AM

  Carlos, or whomever administers this blog,

  On a side note, installing this plugin would help people keep up with comments made in articles. I’ve just happened back to this post a few times, but knowing when someone else posted a comment would be nice.

  http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/

• 75 Scott // Dec 19, 2008 at 2:38 AM

  That I can fully agree to. Or something like that at least.

• 76 Carlos Miller // Dec 19, 2008 at 2:59 AM

  OK guys, I just installed that plugin. It’s at the top of the left sidebar. Ideally, I would like to place it just above the comments widget and below the donation widget, but that apparently can’t be done without spending hours trying to figure it out.

  Hopefully, this plugin works out the way it should.

  This is a very interesting and intense debate you guys are having, and I appreciate that most of you are able to discuss this civilly.

  I’ve long dropped out of this discussion because I realize I don’t have the expertise on the Middle East to get into a full-fledged debate, especially when passions are running so high.

  I am an idealistic person and would like to see peace in the Middle East, and I know it will never happen when feelings between the Israelis and the Palestinians run so deep, and have for so long.

  It’s something I’ve never understood because the Jewish people have a closer DNA to Muslims than to other people around the world.

  But history has shown us that blood lines have never prevented wars.

  I know this hatred against Israel started with the Muslims the moment Israel became a country, so I can understand why those who support Israel are extremely defensive on this subject.

  But like everything in life, there are always two sides to a story, and everybody thinks their side is the only side.

  Some of the comments on this thread have surprised me because I’ve known Jewish people to be some of the most tolerant people in this country when it comes to other religions or cultures.

  But I know how some will respond to that statement; that Palestinians have never shown tolerance.

  So my question is, when and how does it ever end?

• 77 Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:06 AM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 78 Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:33 AM

  Carlos,

  Thanks for installing the plugin. I put mine right below the comment box on my blog, and I’m sure you could, too. If you need help, I can try to help you with it. I make a living at making web sites. Email me if you need to.

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

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

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

• 79 John // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:57 AM

  Rusty Leftist,

  “Israel is not allowed under international law to hold onto land gained through warfare”

  How exactly does this ‘international court’ have jurisdiction Rusty? Because they want it? Because the majority of nations in the world (most of which hate Israel) decided so? Says who?

  Why doesn’t Mexico go to this bullshit international court of yours and file a grievance for losing territory in the Mexican-American War (the territory that later became California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado)? Same principle, right? Let’s find some squirrelly little douchebag in Belgium to determine our nations affairs and declare that it be ceded back to Mexico – by international law.

  I’m going to speak to you like a big boy now Rusty. We’re going to talk about grown up, dirty truths – realities that (w/ respect to Jack Nicholson) you don’t talk about at cocktail parties.

  We already have a way of settling these irreconcilable disputes Rusty – it’s called war.

  The reason why these countries now want to go to these ‘international courts’ is because they want what they weren’t able to get on the battlefield.

  They attacked a vastly outnumbered Israel with coordinated attacks but still ended up having their ass handed to them.

• 80 Scott // Dec 19, 2008 at 2:22 AM

  Ummm it might be just me, (my internet has been acting up lately), but do the last few comments seem out of sync for anyone else? Might just be me.
  Anyways, you say that the Qur’an speaks about annihilating all Jews. But this passage from the Torah, (and so obviously the Old Testament of the Bible), says that to destroy future generations of your enemy you should bash the heads of their children against the rocks.
  How much different does this actually sound?
  Psalms
  Chapter 137
  8
  Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us!
  9
  3 Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.
  About Fatah, I believe them to at least mostly be made up of peace wanting moderates, see here, (found on Wikipedia),
  Renunciation of terrorism and recognition of Israel

  Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel in 1993 and exchanged mutual renunciations of terrorism with Israel and a mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, and was allowed to return to the Palestinian territories from exile in Tunisia.

  Does renunciation of terrorism sound like supporting terrorism?
  I wish Yassar Arafat was still alive. He apparently had some sense.
  I am afraid that you are right about one thing Donkeyrock, things are in far too deeply. Even physical invasion would only spark centuries of guerrilla warfare. A change in some Islam practices would help though.
  Oh and I know that the Israeli’s have taken good care of Jerusulam. I know they have allowed acess to all, no matter of religion.
  I’m just saying that U.N. control of the city might be looked upon better by lots of Arabs, especially since there are quite a few Arab country’s in the U.N. The fact that Jerusulam is the history of so many religions means that it shouldn’t belong to one country. It should belong to the world.

• 81 Carlos Miller // Dec 19, 2008 at 2:27 AM

  Scott,

  I ended up changing the time setting on this blog because it was two hours off, and it ended up affecting the current comments because the last two comments on this thread were written before I changed the setting, so everything is going ahead of it.

  I’ll try to fix that but now I’m writing a post for Friday.

• 82 Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM

  Carlos,

  I didn’t get an email when Scott replied, so hopefully the time changing on the server was what affected this and we’ll get notifications from now on.

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

• 83 Carlos Miller // Dec 19, 2008 at 4:25 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  I can’t really tell if the plugin is working or not from my end. I’ve had issues with plugins in the past where they don’t work, including one where people could subscribe to my blog and get emails every time I updated, but that never worked.

  I should also tell you that if you post more than two links in a comment, it will be held for moderation, as a couple of your comments have been.

  This is to avoid spammers who leave a multitude of porn links.

  I always approve your comments as soon as I see its you but if I’m not at my computer, it may take a while.

• 84 Donkeyrock // Dec 19, 2008 at 4:38 PM

  Carlos,

  You’ve got my info, email me and I can ask you some questions about your install and hopefully see what’s going on with it. I wouldn’t want to air your WordPress details in comments.

  I didn’t get a notification for your post, so something’s amiss.

• 85 Scott // Dec 20, 2008 at 1:26 AM

  Donkeyrock,
  I cannot put any faith in the Wikipedia link as it’s neutrality has been disputed, however after seeing the CBS news article, I must say that I did not know that Arafat was part of the corruption. It has seemed though that he would be willing to make peace. Of course this is all in the past, as the man is dead. Apparently he is not as good as I thought though. Sorry about that.
  The part about the religions is faulty though. I remember a series of wars from Christian Europe that called for the eradication of the “infidels”, (who were to them the Muslims), and the retaking of the Holy Land for Christianity. The Crusades.
  I know that it is nothing modern, but I’m just making the point that even though Muslims were not even in the Bible, (what with the Bible coming out before Islam), and yet the leaders of the Christian world at that time thought they saw heavenly influence in the bible to start the Crusades.
  I do think you brought up a good point about the Israeli’s not using suicide bombers and Muslims using them. This actually proves my point that many of the leaders of the Middle East want peace, because all of the country’s in the Middle East have army’s. They all have sophisticated military technology. Why then do the terrorists have to resort to using primitive bombs?
  Lastly, yes I’m not saying that Israel doesn’t allow access to religious sites for all, but with the exception of the maybe 10 years of Jordanian rule, the Muslims also allowed access. And the Jordanian annexation of the Jerusalem was only recognized by Palestine, not even the other powers in the middle east.
  P.S. I don’t see how the Muslim country’s have control of the U.N. considering that only roughly 55 of the 192 member states has Islam as the main religion.
  P.P.S. (last one I swear).
  I urge you to read a book that has changed my total understanding of the situation in the middle east. It is called 3 Cups of Tea. It is most enlightening and actually points to a major cause and a possible solution to terrorism.

• 86 Carlos Miller // Dec 20, 2008 at 1:35 AM

  Donkeyrock,

  I’ll get back to you on that when I have more time to deal with that damn plugin, maybe this weekend.

  I honestly hate dealing with these type of things because they always end up so frustrating.

• 87 Donkeyrock // Dec 22, 2008 at 12:34 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 88 Scott // Dec 22, 2008 at 11:31 PM

  My point about the Crusades was to talk about the fact that any religion can be perverted enough to wage a religious war. Christianity or Islam alike.
  Now as for the Muslim invasion of Europe, I can only speculate you are talking about the Moorish invasion through southern France and stopped there. If that is the one you are talking about, the problem lies in the fact that the war ended in the early 700′s. The Crusades didn’t start for about another 300 years. Thus said, the Crusades began with a pope who wanted to actually do something before he died.
  Anyway, about the UN and the OIC, the non-totally religious country’s wouldn’t have to create a block in the U.N. to defeat obvious bids for power.
  About the Jizya. No citizens not under Islamic control had to pay the Jizya, so I don’t see where you get that the founding fathers had to pay it unless they lived in an Islamic country.
  How do you come up with the fact that 80% of Western Mosques use hate-preaching? I can’t find where you got that statistic, but I sincerely doubt it’s origin was without bias.
  I maintain that the U.N. is the closest thing this planet has to achieving peace. I can but hope.

• 89 Donkeyrock // Dec 23, 2008 at 12:49 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

• 90 Scott // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:36 PM

  That site, http://www.jihadwatch.org, seems to have a fair bit of bias itself. Was that where the article originated, and if so, where and how could they possibly get such statistics?
  The Crusades were political, yes, but for almost all of the people joining them, it was a way to achieve absolution of all of their sins and a permanent way to heaven. That sounds rather like, “suicide bomb this place and you get a spot in heaven” doesn’t it.
  Now I get where you get the Jizya on America thing, in piracy. But the part you are missing is that, as pirates, they attacked ALL ships and took the money regardless of religion. Muslim alike.
  And as for the Muslim block, most of these country’s put secular matters before religion, still voting the Islamic way, but sometimes not if they can get secular gain out of it. It’s the same with all country’s actually.
  For the U.N. having power, it needs to have some sort of power for it to fulfill one of their greatest and primary causes. Peacekeeping.
  I wish you a Merry Christmas. Or happy Hanukkah. Best wishes.

• 91 Donkeyrock // Dec 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM

  Scott,

  You should read the article before judging its content. As it said, it was originally mentioned by Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani when he testified before a State Department Open Forum in 1999, and has been backed up by further studies.

  As for JihadWatch.org itself, I’ve found it to be one of the best unbiased sources about Islam. If you find a lie on that site, please let me know.

  “It was a way to achieve absolution of all of their sins and a permanent way to heaven.” We didn’t see this kind of thing anytime before Islam started to wage war, and it just so happens that it’s in the Qur’an, but not in the Bible. That should make you think about how that kind of thinking came about.

  The Barbary Pirates may have attacked other Muslims, but just as we see today, other Muslims can be defined as infidels with some nice wordplay. This doesn’t mean they aren’t following Qur’anic principles when they attack other Muslims, just that they’ve justified their attacks with a stricter interpretation of the Qur’an.

  No other countries in the UN vote in favor of Biblical principles and try to be secular when it suits them. As you said, the Islamic countries vote for Islamic principles and try to be secular when it suits them. This type of religious absolutism is dangerous.

  The UN has never been successful with a peacekeeping mission. Any pseudo-success they’ve had was always bolstered by the US military.

  Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and a general Happy Holidays to all.

  Be well.

• 92 Scott // Dec 26, 2008 at 4:07 AM

  I did in fact read the article before I said anything, it just wasn’t stated in the clearest way. In any case, as we are talking about the greatly respected Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani who you wanted to use as a source, I suppose I shall too. He said , (in response to the question, How do you define extremism?), He replied, “Extremism is an unwillingness to accept any viewpoint but one’s own. It is un-Islamic. In Arabic, ghulu means ideas that deviate from the center. The Prophet Muhammad specifically stated, “Do not go to the extreme in your religion.” Extreme ideas are not violent in themselves but they do on occasion lead to violent acts.”
  You can find the very interesting Q&A here, http://www.meforum.org/article/61
  And as for the fact of Jihadwatch.org being biased, you don’t have to lie to be biased. But the facts stand that even the first link at the top of the page goes to a conservative press site, and the fact that in quite a few of the articles I looked through, all of them only showed one side of the story.
  Your next part about “It was a way to achieve absolution of all of their sins and a permanent way to heaven.”, isn’t right. I’m not sure weather you are talking about holy wars in general, or that specific part of it, but both are wrong. Leaders of all faiths used the absolution of sin thing to fight for years before Muhammad was even born. It’s not like it was a new idea.
  You still don’t see my point about the Barbary Pirates either. They attacked EVERYBODY. Even their own sect of Islam. That’s why they were pirates, and not privateers or something.
  Your also wrong about the no Christian states in the U.N. I think the Vatican would count, but I admit, only one. The U.N. might not have been that successful with peacekeeping, but it’s better than have either side of warring factions control a disputed city.
  You are also forgetting, also, that while 57 of the country’s may be Muslim, not all are the same religion. Sunni’s and Shiite’s have been fighting each other longer than almost anyone. It’s not like they agree on everything.
  One last word on bias. To get a clearer view of the world, I would suggest unbiased news. It’s almost impossible to keep a article totally unbiased, but I’ve noticed that the Associated Press and BBC do a relatively good job.
  Hope everybody had a merry Christmas, so now I’m going to go play with some of my presents.

• 93 Donkeyrock // Dec 26, 2008 at 6:33 AM

  The email comment notification is working! So nice.

  Scott,

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

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

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

  I did understand what you said about the Barbary pirates, and my point was that they used Islamic principles such as the Jizya to validate their attacks. You say that since they attacked Muslims as well, then they weren’t using Islam to justify their attacks. Even if the pirates attacked other Muslims, that doesn’t mean they didn’t use Islam as justification for their attacks. Further, it seems they had backing from other Muslim countries, as the book “Flying the Black Flag” says:
  “[...] but in addition piratical raids on Christians furthered the cause of Islam, gave prestige to these rulers in the larger Muslim world, and were never condemned by Muslims, as attacks by the pirates on fellow Muslims would have been.”
  http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=barbary+pirates+attack+fellow+muslims&sig=NoY3NdYTmrZcSr035yQ_DLO1nWE&ct=result&id=3PiI9ZBagIIC&ots=kiu1vuv9hO&output=html

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

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

  The Associated Press is incredibly biased, especially in the Middle East, as they use “stringers” to report news. So locals who have no reason to be unbiased report news and photos to the AP, and the AP prints it under a guise of unbiased news because they have no way to verify the reports. Just Google ‘Associated Press Bias’ (without quotes) to see people and organizations accusing the AP of bias. The BBC is little better. this article from the Times Online gives a small glimpse of the BBCs pro-Arab/anti-Israel bias:
  [link in next post so it doesn't go to moderation first]

  My Christmas was quiet and restful, so I enjoyed it. Hope you enjoyed your presents.

• 94 Donkeyrock // Dec 26, 2008 at 6:34 AM

  Link to TimesOnline article:
  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article715471.ece

• 95 Carlos Miller // Dec 26, 2008 at 3:04 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  I don’t know what you did but I’m glad the comments subscription function is now working.

  Thanks for taking care of that!

• 96 Scott // Dec 26, 2008 at 3:13 PM

  Wow, your right, my previous rebuttal was rather confusing. Somehow I usually end up writing them at 3 in the morning for some reason. Anyway, yes about the quotation from Kabbani, my point was that Islam is not inherently evil or extreme or most of the things that most of the world see’s them as.
  Oh the quote that I took from you was a sleep-deprived attempt to rebut your rebuttal of that statement.
  About bias, every news organization is biased. Most are more than others. The writers of Jihadwatch obviously show their bias. The site ignores nearly all of the good aspects of Islam and focuses on the bad. That is bias. If you have any respectable news sources that you believe to be unbiased, I will check them out.
  But with the article from timesonline, the last line of the article states, “It’s amazing that the coverage is as decent as it is, and that most of us in the business concede privately that, for all its flaws, the BBC still does a better job that any other news organization on Earth.” That is rather against your point isn’t it?
  About absolutism of sin, it may not have been used extensively before Islam came about, (some ideas of it in pagan worship in the middle east predating Islam.)
  I know the Vatican is an observer state, but that only limit’s it from voting in the General Assembly, the still have power in the conferences.
  I’m not an expert on U.N. procedural law, but just because the countries of the OIC have a block, that means they always vote together? That does not seem to be right. The OIC is just a political alliance.
  From your example on the Barbary pirates, the next page states, “Muslim pirates, with encouragement and support of Muslim powers, attacked Christians, and Christian pirates with the encouragement and support of Christian powers attacked Muslims.” The Muslims might have used the Jizya, but that is just a sham. Remember that this is in the middle of the age of holy wars. The Muslims and Christians would have used any excuse to fight each other.
  I had a lovely Christmas with my family, thank you. Got a new video camera too.

• 97 Donkeyrock // Dec 26, 2008 at 3:15 PM

  Carlos,

  Happy to oblige. I took out the code in the sidebar and put it in the comment form, and TA DA!

  [It did take me 1/2 an hour to figure out that simply commenting out the sidebar code snippet was actually interfering with its display in the comment form, but it got done.]

  So good to know when another comment is posted… will hopefully encourage more lengthy participation in the comments, like me and Scott and our 2-3 week (so far) escapade.

• 98 Scott // Dec 26, 2008 at 3:20 PM

  Yes, thank you Donkeyrock, this will make remembering to check much easier. I think our little debate scared everybody else away. I really do enjoy debating with you, keeps my mind active while I’m on Christmas break from school.

• 99 Carlos Miller // Dec 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM

  Scott,

  For some reason, I tend to do most of my posting after midnight as well. Which means when I wake up the next morning, I find myself correcting grammatical mistakes.

  DR,

  Yep, this post will soon reach 100 comments, something I’ve only accomplished once on this blog with the post I wrote after my trial.

  http://carlosmiller.com/2008/06/18/its-finally-over-or-is-it/

• 100 Donkeyrock // Dec 26, 2008 at 5:51 PM

  Scott,

  Enjoy that video camera (go get into trouble with it), and I, too, enjoy the debate with you. Much more enjoyable when people can keep the insults out. Not that I’ve been a choir boy in the past, but I do try to learn from previous missteps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 101 Scott // Dec 27, 2008 at 1:17 AM

  Actually with my shiny new camera, I’m going to be making my first movie, a mockumentary, something about “A Day in the Life of the Canadian Border Guard”. That’s a joke waiting to happen.
  Anyway, none of the five pillars of Islam, the basis of the faith, (for anyone who doesn’t know, it’s the Islamic version of the 10 Commandments), one is for saying that Allah is the only God, one for alms giving, one for praying 5 times a day, one for pilgramage, and the last one for fasting. It seems to me the absolute basis of Islam promotes peace and good works. Some of the parts of the book after that do have passages that seem to say destroy the infidels and such, but there are also other parts that talk against this. Most of the little sentences that seem to promote violence are taken out of context anyways.
  Question: Which Jihad are you talking about anyway? There have been a good half-dozen called by various Islamic fundamentalists over the past 20 years. Are you referring to all of them?
  You say that the 2 sides of the debate, the side which JihadWatch shows is the truth, and that the Islamic side is lying, but something can be the truth but also biased. For example, In the Six Day War Israel was at war with many Middle Eastern countrys. Thats true, with as close to un-bias as possible. It can also be said that, In the Six Day War, most Islamic countries attempted to destroy Israel, which led to war between them. Also true, but biased somewhat against the Muslims.
  (the previous 2 statements were just examples, so please nobody try to debate me on them)
  About the BBC, I was just trying to show you that your source saying the BBC was biased also hailed it as “doing a better job than any news organization on earth”, in the same article.
  The Barbary Pirates might have been extinguished then, but their golden age was much earlier, roughly 1500′s-1600′s which still saw several holy wars, (most noteably the 30 Years War). They got respect from the Muslim countries because the pirates were damaging their political enemies and bringing plunder back to their land. They didn’t really need to anger their own country’s by attacking their own shipping because the Europeans just had so much of it.
  I had heard about the piracy off of West Africa recently. Is the oil ship you are talking about the, MV Sirius Star? Becuase if it is, then the crew and ship are both still being held hostage. In fact Wikipedia says this, “Reuters news reported that a small faction of Somali Islamic rebels plan to attack MV Sirius Star to liberate it from the hijackers. The faction’s planned attack on the hijackers is seen in retaliation for them seizing a “Muslim” vessel.[23] Locals in Harardhere have said the threats of attack from Islamic militants have forced the pirates to leave the port and stay offshore at a distance of approximately 100 km (62 mi). A spokesman for the Islamic rebel group, Abdirahim Isse Adow, stated “We are against this act and we shall hunt the ship wherever it sails, and free it.”[22]” That makes it seem that at least some Muslims are rather against piracy.

• 102 Donkeyrock // Dec 27, 2008 at 3:20 AM

  Scott,

  “A Day in the Life of the Canadian Border Guard”? That’s a 10 second film. :>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 103 Scott // Dec 27, 2008 at 10:48 AM

  I’m not trying to say that all Muslims understands or even care about the context in which many of the passages were written. Mostly for the passages that seem to promote killing of the infidel, you just need to look at the surrounding passages, and have an understanding of the time that it was written. Of course there will always be some bad apples who don’t care, and just want an excuse to go around killing people, but they are outnumbered by the moderates.
  I personally think that the Qur’an, (like most holy books for that matter), has lots of contradictions.
  Kill the mud people? I’m a bit confused there.
  OK Jihad in general, because there is no Caliph to lead one, but there have been many called for different purposes, i.e. Israelis out of Palestine, U.S. out of Iraq. When a Jihad is called it is usually specific in it’s goals.
  For the Barbary Pirates, they probably would have attacked Muslim ships if they needed too, but as there was such an abundance of European ships, it was probably just easier to attack them and have a place to go back to. For the powers it was mostly political, not religious.
  With the 30 Years War, I was just making the point that it was still in the age of holy wars, didn’t have to be Christian vs. Muslim to be a holy war.
  Well the only reason I couldn’t take the Wikipedia article about the Second Intifada, because at the top of the article, (this was back when you posted the link), it’s neutrality was disputed, and even now there are several problems with the article. I didn’t dismiss it because it was on Wikipedia.
  As for the Muslim rebels that are trying to liberate a ship, I don’t actually know of any other ships that are hostage right now, there may be but I don’t know about them. I was just trying to make the point that the Muslims weren’t supporting the piracy.
  Have a nice day and let me leave you with the following verses from the Qur’an:
  Qur’an 60:7-8:
  “It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
  God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just.”

• 104 Donkeyrock // Dec 28, 2008 at 7:38 AM

  Scott,

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

  Holy books having contradictions: agreed.

  Mud people = non-White.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 105 Scott // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:20 PM

  That is an extraordinarily interesting study, thanks for finding it. I know that there are a lot of bad Muslims, the point I’m trying to make is that Islam does not have to be a violent religion. Your percentage was wrong though, it said 8%, but close enough.
  30 Years War: OK fine I submit, but the age of the Barbary Pirates was still in that time period.
  Wikipedia: With topics this controversial, everything is usually disputed.
  Sirius Star: Keep in mind that this is just a small band of Muslims looking to take it back over. I’m sure there are plenty of Muslims who disapprove of piracy in general. It’s been a long time since the Barbary Pirates.
  It seems to me the passage of the Qur’an just proves my point more clearly. Many of the passages in the Qur’an that have been taken to mean violence, are either against specific targets in their early history, (The Torah does this also), or mostly mean in defence of Islam itself.
  It’s truly a shame that so many people out there think that all of this is worth killing each other over for centuries.

• 106 Donkeyrock // Dec 28, 2008 at 7:31 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

• 107 Donkeyrock // Dec 28, 2008 at 7:36 PM

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

• 108 Scott // Dec 28, 2008 at 8:38 PM

  Oh OK i see how you get the 13% now. People don’t need to lie about their true feelings on a scientific survey though, they are usually anonymous .
  Yes pirate attacks have picked up alot lately, I don’t know why. I doubt that even if the pirates are all Muslim, that that is why they are attacking the ships. They are doing it because much of the situation in Somalia is desperate, and that grows desperate people.
  “I think this is a real problem we’re facing today, reinterpreting what the book actually says. ” I totally agree. Islam isn’t a violent religon at heart, but when you get some people that think it is in positions of teaching, then the problem grows serious. In a weird sort of way, many of the violent people are brainwashed.
  Had to look up CAIR, (had never heard of it), and after looking over it, it looks kind of cheesy. Almost looks like they are trying to rip off the IRS. No organization has that many bookkeeping problems. And the Holy Land Foundation, that’s just terrible. I feel bad for the people who donated money, expecting it to go to help people in real need.
  I saw the video’s but am still not entirely sure of the situation she was talking about, is this Black September or after Black September?
  I feel bad for her, but can’t you compare that to the blockade at the Gaza Strip, where soldiers stop people and turn them back into the area to face starvation, (and looking at more recent news), massive air strikes?
  As for Walid Shoebat, I saw his website, (nothing useful), then I saw on his Wikipedia page, he has been accused of lying about his past, and of even being a Christian in disguise all along. I seriously doubt that last one, but it does call into question the authenticity of what he says.
  Wafa Sultan is different however. Her argument actually seems a lot like yours.
  As always, Have a good day,
  Scott.

• 109 Donkeyrock // Dec 28, 2008 at 10:26 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

  Be well.

• 110 Scott // Dec 28, 2008 at 11:42 PM

  Well if you, “have to ignore parts of the Qur’an to live non-violently”, then you have to do the same with the the Old Testament, and therefore both Christianity and Judaism. Do you remember the part where Moses delivered the Jews out of Egypt, and God told them to fight a war to win land? Exactly the same thing. Personally I ignore most of the morally objectionable things that I find and focus on the good.
  Mohammed might have been a violent man, I don’t know, but he did lead a war in the early days of Islam against the pagan armies out of Mecca. Of course it was in a attempt to defend a fledgling group of people, (Muslims), but it was still war. A religion born in war, and much of the Qur’an was written during it. Much is probably meant specifically for that war.
  Islamic Reformation would be nice. A cleaning of house, I think the phrase goes.
  Seriously though, the Crusades were not defensive for the Christians. Actually before the Crusades, the Muslims that ruled Jerusalem allowed worship of all religions, with very little persecution.
  Black September: Seems your right about that.
  Yes I know about the rocket attacks, but it also seems that the blockade has done nothing to stop them.
  I don’t care about Israel killing violent Hamas, the Israeli’s have a perfect right to protect their country, but I’m sure they can do it in a much better manner than massive scale air strikes. I’m only concerned about the innocents, children and people who had no part in the violence.

• 111 Donkeyrock // Dec 29, 2008 at 12:31 AM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

  Party on.

• 112 Scott // Dec 29, 2008 at 1:48 AM

  You know this all seems rather backwards. Not your ideas, but the fact that Islam was founded in war, then got a little more peaceful, then the Crusades messed the whole thing up, then relitivily peaceful again until the 1900′s. Christianity is the opposite. Pretty violent until the 1900′s.
  Actually the people who controlled Jerusalem before the Muslim invasion, (the Romans for about 800 years, then the Persians for the last few), were terrible to the Jews who lived there. Constantine actually forbid Jews from entering the city, which was followed for hundreds of years. When the Muslims captured it, they allowed the Jews back in. A step up wouldn’t you say?
  If the Israeli’s knew where the targets were, why didn’t they just send in strike teams to take them out? Yes bombing is easier, but much less loss to the innocents.
  Hamas does play dirty, it’s true.
  When did they start allowing aid in? I missed that.
  Had never heard of the tunnels, though.
  It’s probably easy to believe, but before I started this whole debate, I only had a very basic understanding of the whole conflict and the issues. Lots more research than I expected. If only I worked this hard on my papers at school, I’d get a full scholarship!!;)

• 113 Donkeyrock // Dec 29, 2008 at 3:02 AM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

• 114 Scott // Dec 30, 2008 at 12:17 AM

  Wait the World Wars put a boot in who’s ass? Christian or Muslim?
  I woudln’t be sympathetic to anybody who drops bombs on me either. The problem is that if anybody stands up to Hamas, they are humiliated and usually killed. It’s not really anti-Israeli sentiment, it’s fear of Hamas that keeps the people from doing anything.
  Where did you find the thing about the citizens in target houses being warned before bombed? I can’t find it, although it seems like something the U.S. said they did before they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not that I’m comparing the 2 bombing.
  So if Israel were to win, what would happen? They can’t win unless they somehow manage to destroy all of Hamas, members and supplies. That does not seem likely. Unlikely too that Hamas would win, what with Israel having one of the most highly trained armies in the world. To me it looks like a dead-lock. The same one that has been devastating the region for ages.
  Hmmm ok I see the aid thing now. Well at least one good thing has happened then.

  Maybe I should stay out of religion and political conversations. It seems that nobody can really win.

• 115 Scott // Dec 30, 2008 at 12:19 AM

  Oh wait, I see the warning thing now. But apparently most of the Gazans were caught unawares.

• 116 Donkeyrock // Dec 30, 2008 at 1:08 AM

  Scott,

  Christianity.

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

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

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

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

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

• 117 Scott // Dec 30, 2008 at 11:50 AM

  Donkeyrock,

  The great Islamic Ottoman Empire was on the Germans side in WW1 and they got defeated. Actually it’s how the British ended up with control of most of the middle east, and them in turn handing it off to the league of nations started this big mess.
  They might have called the people living close by, but what about people just walking to work or something?
  If Israel did cut them off totally, (which they should not do), then there would be mass starvation in the Gaza Strip. It would be genocide.
  I am not actually totally for anybody. This is all partialy everybody’s fault, from Britain and the Leauge of Nations to Palitsine, the new Jordan, most of the middle east and Israel.
  Nobody is blameless here.
  I’m not going to stand up for Hamas because they are obviously bad people, using civilians as shields for attacks.
  Fatah has much less power than they did, which when they did have it, many were corrupt, i.e. Arafat.
  I will not agree however that Islam is fundamentally against Western Values. The fundamentalists, yes, but that is only a small part of the Muslim race. I don’t defend the fundamentalists, I choose to defend the peaceful mass of the moderate or even, (not many of them), the liberal Muslim.

  I think that unfortunately this conflict will go on for another 50, or even 100 years before somebody important realizes that it is never going to end.

• 118 Donkeyrock // Dec 30, 2008 at 5:30 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 119 Scott // Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM

  (about Muslim race, sorry, sorry my mistake, I even learned that in 7th grade history too. ouch. I mean the total Muslim population when I said race.)

  Ok yeah I see what you mean about the world wars, yes I misunderstood sorry about that too.

  They do not actually go above and beyond what is expected, because if they had done the air strikes without notifying anybody and killed many more civilians than they did, it would be an international incident almost. Nearly every country would sanction Israel.
  In fact after this last attack the Bush admisnistration was the ONLY government to say it was just Hamas’s fault. Most of Europe laid the blame at Hamas and Israel.
  If Israel cut off humanitarian supplies to the area, people, innocent people, would starve to death. I don’t think you quite realize that the average person in Gaza is quite malnourished on a normal diet. It would not take much to starve them.

  “So by saying Islam isn’t against Western values, you’re saying that the many portions of the Qur’an that call for killing Jews, Christians, and anyone who doesn’t submit to Islam are compatible with Western values?”.
  There are many portions of the Old Testement that call out for killing God’s enimies, and the majority of the laws in the Old Testement carry the punishment of death. The only difference is that some of the laws in the Qur’an are still used. The Islam religion has had about 650 less years than Christianity to mature, and thousands less that Judaism.
  You know I find it strange how you say that most Palistinians support Hamas and yet there are, (roughly speaking), 10.5 million Palistinians. Hamas only has a membership, (last time I checked, and this is comming from Hamas itself so is probably inflated), of 20,000. That does not seem like the majority to me.
  Everybody hears a lot about the violence of Islam, especially from the middle east. But only 20% of Muslim are in the middle east.
  Many of the rest are in the Indian Subcontinent,(30%) or Indonesia(about 15%). Even America itself has a relativity large number,(about 8 million). You say that Islam is violent, so where is this high level of violence coming from the majority. India has a secular government and a large portion of it’s people are Muslim. As I remember it, India itself was just hit by a terror attack.
  I know that there are lots of bad Muslims, but the large majority are peaceful.
  Separation of church and state. Wish they had that. It would make it easier for the majority of silent moderates to make a fair government.
  Good day.

• 120 Donkeyrock // Dec 30, 2008 at 9:23 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

  Violence in Islam is worldwide. Europe, US, Asia, etc. For information about all Islamic attacks, go to [link in next post]

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

  Be well.

• 121 Donkeyrock // Dec 30, 2008 at 9:23 PM

  Omitted link from previous post: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

• 122 Scott // Dec 30, 2008 at 11:25 PM

  I was not saying that Israel has to inform the public by any international agreement or anything.
  As for the most of the countries of the world, in fact most of them throughout the years have been publicly against the rocket attacks into Israel.
  I am also not really sure why Israel waited this long to strike. I know that both sides were supposed to have a cease-fire, which both claim the other one ignored in some way.
  The Cuba-Gaza argument does not work. 1:Cuba was an island, allied to the Soviet Union, and got supplies from many countries. The U.S. did not stop people from leaving and to my knowledge the only time they stopped anyone from entering was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
  2:Even if the U.S. had somehow stopped anything from entering, Cuba is a lush island, capable of growing it’s own food, (unlike the desert-like Gaza, which even if it was all farmland, still has far too many people to support.) Israel is not supporting the enemy by letting humanitarian aid in, which is from other countries even. They are simply doing the absolute minimum to keep total starvation from happening.
  I’m also not entirely sure that Islam maturity is to blame for the attacks, but I do know that Islamic scholars have had much less time to figure out what things mean. Violent people will do violent things no matter how old a religion is.
  I think that the majority of the problem is not the clerics, but the extremist-run schools that are the primary education throughout the middle east. The children are being indoctrinated with fundamentalist ideals from early age.
  Last link: seriously find another site. That one is the most prejudiced site that I have actually ever seen.
  At the top it says, Islam: religion of peace, (and a lot of dead bodies).
  I know that there has been other violence in other countries, but how few there have been, looks to me to mean most Muslims lead peaceful lives.

• 123 Donkeyrock // Dec 31, 2008 at 1:31 AM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

  The clerics and imams run the madrassas.

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

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

• 124 Scott // Dec 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM

  True Hamas has been firing mortar and rockets into Israel for years. But you miss the fact that Israel has been retaliating for years. It’s not like they took the pounding peacefully and only now decided to fight back.
  But all of Gaza’s border lies with either Israel, the Mediterranean, (controlled by Israel), or Egypt who has attempted to stay clear of the entire mess. Egypt is helping Gazan’s but are generally making sure that they don’t support Hamas. They are providing some medical assistance and some food.
  You also might not realize that Gaza is one of the most tightly packed piece of land, (in humans), in the world. In that little bit of desert, there are an estimated 1.4 million people. Do you have any idea of how hard it is to feed 1.4 million people? Do you think that the trickle that Israel lets through is really enough? This is from a U.N. humanitarian website, “UN AID:ISRAEL ALLOWED trucks carrying relief supplies into Gaza yesterday but the UN has warned that the trickle of aid is not enough to address chronic humanitarian needs as the Israeli bombardment of the territory enters its fourth day.” http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/articles/2008/irishtimes_30dec08.html

  Of course when Hamas destroyed several portions of the wall between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, and thousands ran there for food, the Egyptian government kindly let them only made sure that they didn’t bring weapons back with them.
  I still don’t, and will probably never agree with your thoughts that almost all Gazans are violent. Most just want the madness to cease. Recent polls show that a majority of Israeli’s and Palestinians want to try to negotiate, but both of their governments are just too stubborn to stop this fight.
  Yes clerics do run the madrassas. Which is the main source of the problem, (see 3 cups of tea, I have already donated to the cause of building free moderate schools, which has been approved by the leaders of Islam).
  I’m not saying that radical Islam is not a threat, I’m just saying that it seems that a very large portion is not radical.
  Many of the countries that have voted an extremist in either had nobody else running or usually had a different reason for voting for them.
  “Maybe those people are bad because they voted in a group I know is bad because they stand for bad things”? What’s your yardstick?”
  I don’t really know what this means.

  The site. I’m not going to argue with you, because I obviously can’t convince you, but I won’t respond to anything referencing that site either.

  One question that has been burning in my mind ever since we started. It is completely off topic and I’m just curious. How did you come up with the name Donkeyrock?

• 125 Donkeyrock // Dec 31, 2008 at 3:48 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 126 Scott // Dec 31, 2008 at 5:33 PM

  My point to saying that Israel retaliates to Hamas agression was to point out the fact that Israel does not just sit there and get hit. Hamas and Israel have been activly fighting each other for years. Bombings, rocket attacks, kidnap on both sides.

  Egypt: exactly; staying clear of the mess.

  Well while Tel Aviv has open land around it in which to grow food, most of the Gaza strip is a couple of big cities. Tel Aviv I’m sure you noticed is 1/5 the size of the Gaza strip in population.

  “It’s more than any country should allow to a sworn enemy, especially one who’s bent on destroying you.” So the children are all bent on the Israeli’s destruction too?

  As for UNRWA, I had never really heard of them before, but if you have evidence that they are, inveterate liars who have no credibility”, I wouldn’t mind seeing it.

  thousands did run for food. I’m not seeing the problem.

  I said recent polls. That one is nearly a year old. Lots of things have changed. The bombing has shown a lot of people what the future could be like if everything keeps escalating.

  I would buy you a beer, but I’m only 18. hehe.

• 127 Donkeyrock // Dec 31, 2008 at 6:22 PM

  Scott,

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

  Egypt: actively stirring the pot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 128 Fist of Israel // Jan 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM

  God bless this lone Jew. I would like to join him and other Israelis to counter the Palestinian “victims” who are full of shit.

  I wish that these Palestinians could be deported back to Gaza so Israel can wipe them out more easily. It makes me sick how they spew propaganda that everybody eats up.

  Fuck Palestine, may Israel “liberate” you to “paradise” to screw your 72 virgin donkeys.

• 129 Scott // Jan 1, 2009 at 12:09 PM

  Donkeyrock,
  The Arabs might have initiated the violence but nearly all of the ones who did are dead. You can’t blame a group of people for what their ancestors did.
  I can’t believe you are actually blaming the children for their own deaths. The entire fact of them being children means they cannot totally separate right from wrong. In the US that’s why we have different sentences for children who commit crimes than adults.
  Parents sowing hate hmmm? Then wouldn’t that count the same for Israeli parents that let their children write messages on bombs and rockets about to be deployed, wouldn’t that be the same sort of thing?
  As for your percentages on what people ran to Egypt for, they aren’t totally accurate. All of the numbers added up to 100%, and I can hardly believe that people just ran there for 1 thing.

  what I saw when I Googled “UNRWA lies” was lots of people on both sides, some saying they are worthless terrorists, some saying that they are just Humanitarian. I really don’t know, so I’m going to back off of them for a bit.

  I cannot believe I lost that poll. It was a good one too. Oh well.

  I’ll leave you with a few words of an article from my local newspaper, “The Charlotte Observer”, (Charlotte, N.C.), entitles, “Israel vows ‘all-out war”. “Until Monday, Palistinian rocket fire had killed 8 Israeli’s in the past 2 years.”

  now the Israeli bombings killed at least 60 civilians. Does this tell you anything?

• 130 Donkeyrock // Jan 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 131 Scott // Jan 1, 2009 at 5:28 PM

  I’m not ignoring the people who are perpetuating the violence, but you had said, “This argument ignores the fact that Islamic Arabs initiated the aggression”, so that’s how I responded. In a few years nobody will be alive who started the war, and it will just keep going on. If nobody had perpetuated the war, it would be over. It’s Hamas attacks Israel, Israel retaliates, Hamas attacks Israel to retaliate against that… I’m sure you see where this is going.”

  “That’s some tasty moral equivalence, right there. A lifetime of hateful learning — encouraged by parents and justified by the Qur’an — is equal to a soldier — who wasn’t taught religious hatred in the Torah and wasn’t encouraged to hate by his parents — writing a message on a bomb? Powerful.”
  I found this confusing. Can you clarify a bit?

  “charmingly witty” lol

  I’m sure that most of the Gaza people bought food as well as anything else they might have gotten.

  I’m not saying that the rockets were good or anything, I’m just saying that appropriate force can be used and when you kill about 10 times the civilians in 3 days than they did to you in 2 years, something is wrong with the retaliation methods.

  If Bermuda started lobbing rockets at N.C. I would expect the U.S. to invade. If Bermuda looked at the U.S. the wrong way we would probably invade.
  The analogy doesn’t really add up.
  The Israeli’s have not sat back and taken it. They have retaliated to every major strike against them.

  I also am having a hard time understanding the term “moral equivalence”. Sorry.

• 132 Donkeyrock // Jan 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM

  Scott,

  Perpetuation: someone has to end it and win, and if it’s a choice between Islamic Arabs and Israelis, I’m voting for the Israelis; they were wronged, and they’re more in line with Western values.

  Clarification: a lifetime of religion-based hate does not equal a vengeful message scrawled on a bomb.

  Appropriate force: this isn’t a game of tit for tat, this is about Israel destroying Hamas’s ability to harm any of its citizens. However many people die, whatever amount of force is needed to stop the threat is appropriate force. I would expect nothing less from my government when protecting me, and I would expect nothing less from Israel when protecting its citizens.

  Retaliation: the analogy seems appropriate, so I don’t know why you don’t think it adds up. The Israelis may’ve retaliated before, but they haven’t neutralized the threat to their citizens. You wouldn’t stand for living under a constant threat of missile or mortar fire, and neither should the Israelis.

  Moral Equivalence: morally equating one thing with another. For example, if someone hits you and you hit that person back, should you be punished in the same way, or would it be morally wrong to punish you the same because you didn’t start it. A moral equivalence argument would treat both actions morally the same, since both people hit each other. So if someone tried to mug you, and you defended yourself by smacking the perp upside the head, you’d both go to jail for assault.

• 133 Viccy Simon // Jan 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM

  Hey, Carlos, this link was forwarded to me by the Coconut Grove Juggling Exchange. Amazing photos. More amazing that you’re a lone voice practicing real journalism. Accolades are well deserved. Glad someone is out there looking for the real stories. You’re doing everyone a huge service. Keep it up! (And remind me again, why do they call it the “justice” system?)

• 134 Carlos Miller // Jan 1, 2009 at 8:25 PM

  Hey Viccy,

  Good to hear from you again. Thanks for stopping by. How is the writing life?

• 135 Scott // Jan 1, 2009 at 10:13 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  Ok I get Moral Equivalence now. You explained it very clearly. You have no idea how complicated the wikipedia page on it was.

  What are Western Values as defined by you?

  The fact that children seem to have enough hate inside them to have any part in any of this, I find it repulsive. I was just saying that it was not just some Muslim fundamentalist.

  Appropriate force: “However many people die, whatever amount of force is needed to stop the threat is appropriate force.” The problem is that this isn’t going to stop the threat. It’s just going to make it worse. Do you think anybody in Palestine is going to see Israel as a good country after they blockade it, bomb it, and it looks like they are now going to invade it. Again.

  No the analogy was not appropriate, Palestine and Israel have much closer amounts of people than the U.S. and Bermuda.

  “You wouldn’t stand for living under a constant threat of missile or mortar fire, and neither should the Israelis.” and neither should the Palestinians.

• 136 Donkeyrock // Jan 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

• 137 Scott // Jan 1, 2009 at 11:46 PM

  Hmmm, Government on par with citizens. It’s a nice goal, but the current administration doesn’t see it that way. Patriot Act squashed the Constitution. But that’s not the point of this debate. I was just wondering your specific thoughts on Western values, as you have mentioned the phrase several times.

  Well of course land had to be given to them. They were, (and still are kind-of) refugee’s. Many of them are still living in the camps.

  The answer to “stopping the threat”: Yes I think things would be more peaceful. But most of the hatred that has built up over the years in Gaza is as a result of retaliation bombings.
  Hamas started out small and weak, and if they had been dealt with properly in the beginning, they wouldn’t be a threat.

  about the analogy: the situations are different. It wasn’t just population similarity. The point is though that if the U.S. thought they were threatened, the would bomb Bermuda back into the sea. But it still wouldn’t be the right thing to do.

  As for Western Values, I prefer a mixture of Western and good Eastern values. Radical Islam might have come out of the East, but so did Buddhism and Confucianism. I like to mix them together for a nice way of life. Just saying.

  Oh I probably won’t respond for a couple of days, I’m going on a church retreat, not going to take my computer. Didn’t want you to think I had abandoned my side of this little debate.

  Happy New Years!!

• 138 Donkeyrock // Jan 2, 2009 at 12:50 AM

  Scott,

  I doubt Barack Hussein Caesar will be any different.

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

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

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

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

  Enjoy your retreat. I think I’ll manage for a couple days without the debate. :>

• 139 John // Jan 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM

  ***************************************
  From Friday, Jan. 2 – Reuters…

  “We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity,” said Hamas leader Fathi Hammad

  Spokesman Ismail Rudwan said that “following this crime, all options are now open including martyrdom operations to deter the aggression and to strike Zionist interests everywhere.”
  **************************************

  Listen closely to them… by “Zionist”, they mean the United States and Great Britian. Same old nonsense. Palestinians pick a fight with a much stronger opponent and then cry, cry, cry when that opponent, predictably, hits back.

  Wars are fought because some problems cannot be solved by diplomacy. You cannot use diplomacy with a barbaric people who only understand force. They confuse your attempts at civility for weakness.

  War is about solving those problems that cannot be solved any other way. You kill the enemy and obliterate their way of life until they lose their will to fight and capitulate to your demands. Israel’s only demands are that it has a right to exist and live in peace without being shelled by rockets.

  We will not be able to negotiate our way out of this. We NEED a war to teach this generation of young, uneducated, islamic barbarians the truly horrific cost of large scale war – just as their parents learned 30 years prior. Then maybe we will have peace for another generation… hopefully longer.

  Ecclesiastes 3:8 There is “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.”

  May it come and may it be over with quickly…

• 140 Donkeyrock // Jan 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM

  John,

  Well said.

• 141 zac // Jan 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM

  i was born in sderot, and when i was little 4-5 years old, i remember every other day running to bunkers cuz of casam rockets fired at us, then i moved to america at age 6. I am now 23 years old living new york.

  short story, fuck palestine.

• 142 Scott // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM

  (back from my trip).

  First to Donkeyrock’s comment,
  Calling Obama, “Barack Hussein Caesar” I find is quite rude to a man who hasn’t even taken office to deserve anything yet.

  I didn’t say they deserved the land, of course after the way mankind has acted toward each other about that little piece of land over the past 2000 years, I don’t think anybody really deserves it.

  “You’re saying that if Israel hadn’t reacted to being attacked, things would be okay?”
  That’s not what I said. I meant that if Israel had taken care of Hamas and the other terrorists rightly in the first place, when they were small, there wouldn’t be any attacks.

  As I have mentioned before violence emanates from the Qur’an just as much as it does from the Bible and the Torah, some just look at it the wrong way. It’s just an historical fluke that the wrong people got into power and kept it.

  “I invite you to live under the constant threat and barrage of mortar and missile fire and see if you change your mind.”
  And I invite you to be an innocent Palestinian, who has never done anything to provoke Israel, to live under the threat of invasion and bombings, and call them OK.

  The caste system is mostly Hindu and outlawed in most places now.

  Now for John,

  I have no idea what you mean about the Zionists being the U.S. and Great Britain, Zionism was the movement to restore a Jewish homeland. It resulted in Israel. (weird bit of trivia, but the Zionists were originally offered Kenya. They refused).

  Wars are fought not because diplomacy wouldn’t work, but because people didn’t try hard enough at it, (I’m probably biased, but I am a pretty big pacifist).

  “A barbaric people”? Who do you mean? Palestinians? Hamas? Muslims?

  If the children of the people in the first big war weren’t taught that war is bad, why do you think this new war will help?

  There is never a time for war and hate. Ever.

• 143 Donkeyrock // Jan 8, 2009 at 1:48 AM

  Scott,

  Welcome back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 144 John // Jan 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM

  Scott,

  “A barbaric people”? Who do you mean?

  I mean he Palestinians who use children as human shields for weapons caches and then when those sites are bombed, parade the bodies like a gruesome stage prop.

  “Wars are fought not because diplomacy wouldn’t work, but because people didn’t try hard enough at it”

  I wonder if you think Neville Chamberlain tried hard enough with Hitler. Probably not. Should have given him Germany part of England.

  “There is never a time for war and hate. Ever.”

  That’s an odd statement coming from a supporter of a people who have made hate and killing their Raison d’être.

• 145 Scott // Jan 8, 2009 at 11:28 AM

  Oh my, it seems I am once again outnumbered.

  OK Donkeyrock,
  I thought you were comparing President-Elect Obama to Julius Caesar. I’m not sure who B.H. Caesar is. Sorry for my mistake.

  Land had to be given to them, because they had to live somewhere, and that was back in the time when their refugee camps really were camps.

  The Qur’an is not that much more violent. For every quote from it that you could come up with that is violent, I could offer one from the Torah or the Bible.

  “Mere rhetoric. They are all responsible for the actions of their government.”
  So you mean that I am responsible for the actions of the Bush administration, even though I haven’t even been able to vote until last March? That makes no sense.

  Once again, I am NOT talking about defending the people who want to attack Israel for no apparent reason. I’m just trying to bring the point that there were about 40% of the people in Gaza who did NOT vote for Hamas. Mostly good people.

  Actually the Parliament originated in India.

  “Being pacifistic and singing Kumbaya solves nothing, and such a mindset is only available to privileged people who don’t have immediate enemies.”
  Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela.
  These people had no enemies? Their approaches have all worked too haven’t they?

  John,

  Yes those people are barbaric. So you are talking about Hamas. I agree they are barbaric.

  I never said appeasement was the way out. That is not the only diplomatic thing to do.

  “That’s an odd statement coming from a supporter of a people who have made hate and killing their Raison d’être.”
  Many of the Palestinians prefer peace. I am on their side.

• 146 John // Jan 8, 2009 at 1:16 PM

  Scott,

  Peace is hopeless because the Palestinians like you who want peace, want peace so much that they are unwilling to verbally or physically challenge Hamas on their barbarity.

  Hamas will not stop on their own accord – someone must stop them and the only one who will do that is Israel.

• 147 Scott // Jan 8, 2009 at 2:48 PM

  John,
  I’m not a Palestinian. I’m an American.
  And maybe the Palestinians who do want peace are scared of Hamas. Who wouldn’t be, their government controlled by crazy anti-Semite terrorists.

• 148 Donkeyrock // Jan 8, 2009 at 2:55 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 149 Scott // Jan 9, 2009 at 8:07 PM

  I don’t really get the thing about Caesar, so never mind.

  The Arabs who were living on the land when it was mandated by the British and the League of Nations, had just as much right to the land as the Jews do.

  I looked at the statistics website. This is what it said, “A good argument could be made that either book is the most violent and cruel book ever written”. Considering what the information actually was there, it doesn’t work very well for your argument.

  The point that the Qur’an is being used for violence today is valid. But for most it is not a violent book, it is a book of peace and harmony.

  Hamas has not led Gaza to attack Israel. It didn’t need to. It just attacked Israel itself.

  “Pacifism is useless against anyone willing to pull the trigger.”
  Your a very pessimistic person, do you know that? sigh
  If pacifism was used enough it would indeed work.

  Parliament. Ancient India.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament

  Maybe it’s time to start closing arguments soon, as we seem to be repeating our arguments some.

• 150 Donkeyrock // Jan 10, 2009 at 12:29 AM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 151 Carlos Miller // Jan 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM

  I’ve been meaning to mention this to you, Scott.

  I was really surprised when you said you were 18. I thought you would be in your mid-20s at least.

  And here you are debating with men twice your age. Or older.

  So what is it you’re going to do once you get older and are out of college?

• 152 Carlos Miller // Jan 10, 2009 at 1:40 AM

  Wait. You guys can’t stop talking now. We’re almost at 200 comments and that would be a first.

  Even reaching 150 comments is also a record, but that might be broken soon the way things are going around here lately.

  So you guys have to reach 200!

• 153 Scott // Jan 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM

  Carlos,

  Well Donkeyrock seems to be much more on top of this argument than I am, as mine requires a LOT of research just to keep up.
  Don’t make fun of this, but when I get out of college I would love more than anything to edit video for the History Channel.
  Or work in a museum. My job at one now is just work-study, but I love it.
  200 huh? well lets see about that shall we?

  Donkeyrock,
  Well yes I know Caesar and roman columns but I didn’t get the connection of that to Obama.

  I thought that, “were more violent verses in the Qur’an than in the Bible”, was your argument, sorry.

  The poisoned well/Qur’an analogy was briliant.
  But the poison of Islam is not the violent verses in the Qur’an but groups such as Hamas and the Taliban.

  “It wasn’t America that attacked Iraq, it was Democrats and Republicans.”
  It’s not the same. In Gaza Hamas is not only a political party, but also it’s own military. Unless I start seeing the Speaker of the House leading Congressmen with machine-guns, my argument does work well.

  Have you heard the latest casualty count in Gaza? 1/4 of the dead are civilians. This must stop!

  I knew, somehow I just knew you were going to call yourself realistic instead of pessimistic.
  Ever heard the phrase, ‘intent paves the future’

  I was meaning that the parliament system was started somewhere else, (a fact that actually really surprised me, I thought it was Britain too), But yes modern parliamentary government is British in origin. I should really get more acquainted with it too, as I want to move to Britain after college.

  Well I know we can stop anytime, but if we did stop, I didn’t just want to see it stop in the middle of arguments. ie closing arguments. But I guess I’m good for a while if you are.

  Good Day to you both.

• 154 Donkeyrock // Jan 10, 2009 at 3:55 PM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 155 Donkeyrock // Jan 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM

  Carlos,

  “So you guys have to reach 200!”

  You made a bet with someone, didn’t you. :>

• 156 Carlos Miller // Jan 10, 2009 at 4:07 PM

  No bet, but I was just sitting here on the sidelines wondering if would make it to 200.

  Because just before the New Year, I only had one post that ever made it over 100.

• 157 Scott // Jan 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM

  So you think that if Islam had not violent verses in it, then there wouldn’t be violence? That doesn’t add up, they would want the land regardless. Humans are selfish like that.

  Actually the KKK/Bad Islamic people comparison works very well. In action and in principle. Did you know that at one time 75% of New Orleans was a member of the KKK? It seems to be similar to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in many ways.
  The Qur’an is just and excuse. Greed and selfishness is the root of it.

  I still believe that Hamas used intimidation to win the election. They seem like the type.

  The actual civilian casualty count is hard to tell only because Israel isn’t allowing any foreign reporters into the country. There are really only 3 entities of power in the area, Hamas, Israeli Army, and the U.N. I prefer to believe the U.N. because they don’t actively have a stake in the war.
  Or how about the Red Cross. They are calling the place a humanitarian disaster.

  “Israel should not stop until the genocidal threat to its citizens is destroyed, now and forever.”
  But if you think that the Qur’an itself is the cause of the violence, does that mean that, according to you, Islam needs to be destroyed?

  “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”
  Yes but I don’t get your context to it.

  Yes I agreed with that, modern Parliament is Western. My God, we just agreed on something, the End of Days must be approaching.

  Well if I move to Britain after college, I would be old enough to drink here by that time.

  Yes we can joust some more if you like.

  I don’t know if you noticed Donkeyrock, but Carlos mentioned us in his New Year’s post. Said such nice things too.
  Thanks Carlos.

• 158 Smith // Jan 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM

  So I won’t pretend to be an expert on this subject, but if my memory serves me correctly, I believe there was a ceasefire from June-Nov 4/5. I’m no Hamas supporter, but I think it pays to remember that they are a political wing. They administer the government, the police, they did build hospitals and do many good things for the palenstinian people. My question is this. If the current administration of Isreal was truly motivated by peace for both sides, that when Hamas, which can also be called a terrorist organization by some, of all people was willing to give peace a try, and not fire rockets for 6 months, why couldn’t Isreal lift the blockade of food and aid. If you go back and look at news articles you’ll see that many humanitarian organizations were foreshadwoing major humanitarian crisis, which Isreal at first denied was occuring, but later official accepted (so for all off you saying that there is food in pictures get over it, your wrong), but continued the blockade. After six months of children straving, living in squalid conditions, and possible incursion into the Gaza by Isreal(the terms of the cease fire was no rockets from Gaza, no incursion by Isreal in gaza, its debated who broke the cease fire obviously both sides have there stories, but both agree it ended around nov. 4/5 2008.) Isreal didn’t have to let food into Gaza, that wasn’t the terms of the ceasefire, but I think Isreal being the only actually country involved in this mess, should have taken Hamas on the good faith they showed, and let in food to Gaza, and don’t see how that would have hurt anything. I think the ruling party in some sense, wanted some Hamas agression as a justifiable means for totally obliterating Hamas, not just stopping rockets. although the official pr stance is “to end rockets fired from gaza”, which would be stopped by a cease fire they refuse to sign, many gov. officials have stated, unwittenly so, that there intention is to completely remove Hamas control of Gaza. Sounds a lot like another country I know. Anyways, I would really like somehow to address why Isreal thought it would be a good idea to blockade food. And by btw, they did let in oil to the Gaza, so it wasn’t a total blockade, which makes it seem even more twisted in a way, specifically blocking food and humanitarian items.

• 159 Carlos Miller // Jan 10, 2009 at 5:56 PM

  Just when you thought it was over

• 160 Scott // Jan 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM

  YAY someone on my side, or close to it. Welcome Smith, welcome.

• 161 Donkeyrock // Jan 11, 2009 at 2:42 AM

  Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I actually just saw Carlos’ post about us yesterday. I signed up for the news feed.

• 162 Donkeyrock // Jan 11, 2009 at 3:13 AM

  Smith,

  Here’s a primer for you, Gaza By The Numbers. This should answer many questions and clear up some misconceptions. Please use the footnotes provided at the end of the article for reference, and cross-reference through Google to judge the veracity of what is written.

  http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=689705&ct=6478505

  There are many more articles on the site to learn from, and I encourage you to do some reading.

  Be well.

• 163 Scott // Jan 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM

  I don’t think you quite realize how much the KKK used the Bible to justify their actions. They said prayers at their meetings and wanted to get anybody different out of their country in the name of God. That sounds pretty similar.

  “While certainly possible, their justification is Islam, regardless of whether they fight for 72 acres or 72 virgins in paradise.”
  As has been shown in history “justification” is almost never the real reason for attacks of any sort. Hitler’s justification was “living space”. ect.

  Yes, but if Israel was actually letting any foreign journalists in, we might have a much clearer picture of what is going on. The fact that they aren’t letting any in is suspicious.

  But UNRWA isn’t the only UN agency in Gaza, neither is it the only one making reports. It was a U.N. school that was bombed the other day, as people took shelter in it.

  Israel has not been sending massive aid. They have been letting a bit of aid from other people go in. That hardly counts as them giving it.

  Why must physical submission happen first?
  Education IS the first step, because if the children are educated properly without extremist values, the extremists die out in this generation(3 Cups of Tea, very helpful book). War just breeds more of them.
  War will only prolong the conflict.

• 164 Smith // Jan 11, 2009 at 5:26 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  that is an interesting site.
  Please note, that the graph is embellished by the inclusion of nov. and dec. considering the ceasefire ended the 4th day of the month of Nov.
  I see that some rockets were fired, but only 5 were fired total in Sept+Oct, and 50 in the prior to months. Being realistic, Hamas cannot stop every rocket instantly, there willl always be rogue elements but to go from 200, to 25, to 3, to 2, shows commitment to the ceasefire. and not letting in food during these months, say sept and october was intended to do what?

• 165 Smith // Jan 11, 2009 at 5:29 PM

  sorry 260 to 25, to 3, to 2.

• 166 Donkeyrock // Jan 11, 2009 at 6:34 PM

  Scott,

  “the KKK used the Bible to justify their actions”
  Too true, though where it says in the Bible to kill blacks escapes me. Further, 99% of preachers don’t condone killing anyone, even when biblically commanded, while a large majority of Imams do condone and incite Muslims to kill in the name of Allah.

  So if you’re saying that Islamic justification for genocidal actions isn’t the actual reason for Muslim violence, then there must be other reasons for so much violence from all these various races of people in all these different geographical areas around the globe that claim to be doing what they do in the name of Allah. Pray, enlighten me.

  “Yes, but if Israel was actually letting any foreign journalists in, we might have a much clearer picture of what is going on. The fact that they aren’t letting any in is suspicious.”
  Suspicious of what?

  “It was a U.N. school that was bombed the other day, as people took shelter in it.”
  It is Hamas who uses human shields to try to stop Israel from striking military targets. It was a U.N. school that held munitions for Hamas. It was a U.N. school from which Hamas fired mortars and rockets. Seems to me the U.N. has committed war crimes by allowing such things to happen on its property over the years, by abetting Hamas and not taking appropriate steps to stop Hamas from using its facilities to wage war on a member state.

  “Israel has not been sending massive aid. They have been letting a bit of aid from other people go in. That hardly counts as them giving it.”
  Ah, revisionism. That “bit” of aid Israel transports into Gaza, free of charge and at extreme danger to Israeli workers, has agencies stopping food shipments to Gaza because the warehouses are full. Right now, at this moment, Gaza cannot accept any more food because its warehouses are too full to accept any more. And yes, that counts as Israel “giving” it. So why do you, personally, think Israel is “not giving” humanitarian aid to Gaza? Is it something you read or saw? View this link to see the fact and fiction in Gaza: http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=689705&ct=6479307

  “Why must physical submission happen first?”
  Because if education comes first, it can be ignored, as it has been. When dominance comes first, education is more easily assimilated. Since their original way of Jihad doesn’t work, they have to find another way to live, and that other way is offered by the dominant. Peaceful Islam can survive, but it should be known that Jihad will be met with brutal and unyielding force to eliminate the threat.

• 167 Donkeyrock // Jan 11, 2009 at 7:00 PM

  Smith,

  “the ceasefire ended the 4th day of the month of Nov.”
  No, the 6-month ceasefire ended on December 19th (June 19th to December 19th).

  “Being realistic, Hamas cannot stop every rocket instantly”
  Being realistic, one rocket fired at a sovereign nation is an act of war; 543 rockets fired during a ceasefire is just egregious.

  “not letting in food during these months”
  Gaza had food, no one starved, and Israel stopped shipments when they were attacked by rockets (as per the ceasefire agreement).

• 168 Scott // Jan 11, 2009 at 8:27 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  I already told you what I consider is the real cause of the violence. Greed, not by the mass of people, who have been indoctrinated through extremist schooling, but a select few who rule the country’s and the violent political groups such as Hamas.

  Gaza cannot accept food? Their stores are full? I looked at the footnotes to that site. Strangely enough most of the information came directly from the Israeli foreign office. Strange don’t you think that nobody else knows about these, “full stockpiles”?

  “Suspicious of what?”
  Exactly. I want to know what they are trying to hide. Israels own Supreme Court has ruled that they should be let through, and yet the army is denying them.

  “It was a U.N. school that held munitions for Hamas”
  Who says? The Israeli’s? I can’t trust it just by their word alone. The U.N. said that it was 99.9% certain there were no weapons in the school. They do have inspections and those sorts of things.

  “When dominance comes first, education is more easily assimilated”
  That’s a fiction. If I was a conquered people, I would hold resentment towards the people who attacked me. I wouldn’t listen to their education.
  Education has to come first.

  I’ll leave you with a letter from a Christian Bishop of Jerusalem.
  http://www.j-diocese.org/newsdetail.php?id=3389

• 169 Donkeyrock // Jan 12, 2009 at 6:12 AM

  Scott,

  “the real cause of the violence. Greed”
  So all 12,500 Islamic attacks, around the globe, since 9/11/2001 have been based on greed? Mumbai, greed? Madrid, greed? London, greed? 9/11, greed? I think you’re looking for excuses, unable to understand the Jihad mindset.

  “We come across a local family in one of the buildings. Grandparents, a few young parents, some children and a few toddlers. Sitting on a rug, their legs are covered in blankets and two soldiers are standing guard nearby. “What about them?” I ask. “They’re free to go if they want to, but they don’t want to,” said Eilon Perry, Givati’s operations officer. “They informed us they would be staying in the house and we have no choice but to accept that.”
  The family suddenly notices the cameras, and immediately, the expression on their faces changes. “We have no food,” they say in Arabic, as one of the youngsters suggests we interview him in English about their plight. Givati troops are extremely concerned about being portrayed as abusing innocent civilians. Perry points to a stack of canned goods, water bottles and other provisions. “We provided some of that and they cook and eat quite well,” he said. The Palestinians seem to understand him and one of them smiles. It’s a war – they had to try.”
  http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653238,00.html

  The Israeli supreme court did say reporters should be allowed into Gaza, but if those reporters wanted to get into Gaza, they could have gone to Egypt.

  “The Israeli’s? I can’t trust it just by their word alone.”
  But you trust the word of Hamas implicitly. What makes them more trustworthy that the Israelis?

  “That’s a fiction.”
  That’s the truth. A conquered people are more likely to assimilate than a people who are actively hostile.

  A bishop aggrieved at violence and worried about casualties in a war zone. Noted.

• 170 Scott // Jan 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM

  Donkeyrock,
  OK fine, maybe many of the violence’s are brought on by overdone fanaticism. But I still contend that the root of it all is greed.

  To your quote about the Gazan family, it seems that even if the story is totally true, then that family was in a part of Gaza controlled by the Israeli’s. Therefore food is easier to come by.
  I have a report to rival that one. From an actual foreign aid worker, who would know what the food situation is. Not an Israeli journalist.

  http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/12/gaza.aid.diary/index.html#cnnSTCText

  Somehow I don’t think the reporters could have gone to Egypt either, as none of the tens of thousands of them have. I don’t know why, but if it could have worked, don’t you think they would have done it?

  “But you trust the word of Hamas implicitly. What makes them more trustworthy that the Israelis?”
  I do not trust the word of Hamas. When have I ever used a quote from any Hamas individual? Never. I use the best and closest to non-biased sources I can, usually the U.N.
  Have you seen any news report from Israel recently that says anything bad about the war? That suggests something to me.

  The education route has not been tried in full yet. In the past, most people thought that war was easier. This is the time to make the world a safer place, and education, not war, is the way.

  (Started my second semester today, having so much fun, but I won’t reply as often)

  -Scott

• 171 John // Jan 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM

  Hamas has sunk to a new low by paying their people AT A HOSPITAL.

  Unbelieveable. I honestly think that they would use a daycare and all the children therein as a shield as well.

  Despicable.

  http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424936164&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

• 172 Donkeyrock // Jan 12, 2009 at 1:09 PM

  Scott,

  “But I still contend that the root of it all is greed.”
  Sorry, it just doesn’t add up.

  “even if the story is totally true”
  Why wouldn’t it be totally true? Because it’s an Israeli reporter? Rather prejudiced.

  “that family was in a part of Gaza controlled by the Israeli’s. Therefore food is easier to come by.”
  You disregard the part about them asking for food, claiming they were in desperate need and willing to talk in english about their lack of food to the reporter when the cameras came on, even though they had plenty.

  Cassandra Nelson is a freelance photojournalist and writer, as well as the Senior Global Media and Communications Officer for Mercy Corps, and she is quite biased. Her CNN article showed bias against Israel, she may be an expatriate of Gaza since that was mentioned in her article, and the Mercy Corp site has a blog about the poor people of Gaza while saying nothing about Israel’s suffering through almost a decade of rocket attacks.

  Ever wonder why, with Gaza sharing a border with Egypt, no one goes to Egypt to get into Gaza? After all, Egypt is a Muslim country, kindred to Gaza, and Egypt used to occupy Gaza. So if these reporters can’t get in through Israel, Gaza’s sworn enemy, why aren’t they going through Egypt? Everyone complains about Israel not doing all this stuff for Gaza, but Israel doesn’t control Gaza, and Gaza is committed to genocide in Israel. If reporters want to get into Gaza, let them go through Egypt.

  “usually the U.N.”
  Maybe you don’t realize this, but most of the U.N. staff in Gaza are locals. When the U.N. reports from Gaza, it’s a Gaza local reporting. If it’s not a local, it’s usually an anti-Israel staffer.
  “I don’t find this too hard to hard to believe–I have had classmates and colleagues who have gone to work for the UN in Gaza, and all of them have been hard-core anti-Israel activists. That’s why they choose that assignment over those in the region and elsewhere that are far more compelling on humanitarian grounds.” http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com/2009/01/10-january-2009-has-un-become-active.html

  “Have you seen any news report from Israel recently that says anything bad about the war? That suggests something to me.”
  It suggests to me that you haven’t been reading the news. “As Eric Weiner, former Jerusalem bureau chief for National Public Radio, told a Palestinian media symposium, every working day began with scanning local papers for stories. He relied especially on what he termed the “very respectable [Israeli] newspaper” Ha’aretz. Like NPR, countless other media cite Ha’aretz writers regularly, while a global audience reads the paper’s English Internet edition online. [...] the content of the Ha’aretz articles posted suggests that Ha’aretz writers are in the vanguard of those making the Palestinian case against Israel.”

  Enjoy school.

• 173 Scott // Jan 12, 2009 at 7:44 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  “Why wouldn’t it be totally true? Because it’s an Israeli reporter? Rather prejudiced.”
  I’m not prejudiced towards him, just aware of his possible bias toward the story. Don’t you think that an Israeli reporter might make pro-Israeli articles?
  Of course I simply can’t trust the army. There is a long history of army’s using propaganda to further their goals. Assumptions in the article were made, that the soldiers actually did what they said, and that the Gazans ,”Seemed to understand”.

  I don’t see where Cassandra Nelson called herself a Gazan expatriate. I find her somewhat less biased than news blogs that get all their information from the Israeli foreign office, or Israeli reporters.

  You know, I haven’t even heard of any Egyptian reporters going into Gaza. Why isn’t aid being allowed in? The Egyptian Border is sealed. For everybody. Except the tunnels, which the Egyptians are quite annoyed at. ie. Egypt is staying out of it, good luck to them.

  “Maybe you don’t realize this, but most of the U.N. staff in Gaza are locals. ”
  No I didn’t actually know that. I don’t suppose you could show where you got that, not that I don’t believe you, I’m just curious.
  But ALL of them? Really? As an international organization, they should have many countries people in there.

  Ha’aretz. Now that sounds like a good news source. Both sides. Finally, someone has them.

  School this semester is going to be really hard, but I am proud to say that one of my classes is called “Individual Rights and the Constitution”. I intend to bring up photography and this site.

  Enjoy Webmastering. I think that’s what you do.

• 174 Donkeyrock // Jan 13, 2009 at 5:15 AM

  Scott,

  You find a photojournalist who heads PR for an aid agency less biased than an Israeli reporter. You do realize that aid groups only get money if there are people to aid, and the more sensational the woe of the people, the more money they get, right?

  “I don’t see where Cassandra Nelson called herself a Gazan expatriate”
  I said she might be an expatriate, and in the piece she said, “The Israeli authorities have refused to allow almost all expatriate aid workers to enter Gaza since November 2008, so we work in Israel”.

  “Egypt is staying out of it, good luck to them.”
  So if Israel stayed out of it, sealed its gates to Gaza, you’d wish Israel good luck. That’s part of what I’ve been saying all along; Israel shouldn’t be helping in any way a territory that has a population sworn to murder every Jew in the region (aka Palestine) and around the world.

  “But ALL of them? Really?”
  I didn’t say all, I said most, but saying all wouldn’t be far off. “UNRWA is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations General Assembly and its mandate is renewed every three years. It is the largest agency of the United Nations, employing over 25,000 staff [it's 27,000 now, according to UNRWAs web page], 99% of which are locally-recruited Palestinians.[19]”
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNRWA

  “Ha’aretz. Now that sounds like a good news source.”
  Only if you think Israel is always wrong.

• 175 Scott // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:07 AM

  “You find a photojournalist who heads PR for an aid agency less biased than an Israeli reporter”
  It’s not that I don’t believe the reporter. It’s that I don’t fully believe the article, which seems a bit set up by the army.

  “I said she might be an expatriate”
  OK I see it now.

  My outrageously witty comment of “Egypt is staying out of it, good luck to them” was an apparently poor attempt at sarcasm. I highly doubt that Egypt will be able to keep out of the conflict if it escalates any higher.

  But UNRWA is not the only UN agency in Gaza. It is one of many. And remember, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. There could be a few bad people working in the system making things go wrong. It only takes one to hide uniforms in a truck. It only takes a few to hide weapons, (if they in fact did), in schools.
  You are almost treating the U.N. as an subbranch of Hamas.

  Ha’aretz. I saw several articles in it praising the Israeli army. It’s opinion, and free speech. Some good Western Values, to use your phrase.

  And no, I don’t think Israel is always wrong.

• 176 Donkeyrock // Jan 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM

  Scott,

  “I highly doubt that Egypt will be able to keep out of the conflict if it escalates any higher.”
  Besides the fact that Egypt is deep into negotiations with both sides, setting up the ridiculous 6-month ceasefire that recently ended, do you think that it would be more appropriate for Egypt to handle all the aid and reporters that go into Gaza? I do.

  “You are almost treating the U.N. as an subbranch of Hamas.”
  Let’s see, about 10,000 workers in Gaza under UNRWA, 99% are locals, at least 60% of the locals would be for Hamas according to the election results, and probably higher after the takeover. So at the very least there are 6,000 UNRWA staffers in Gaza sympathetic to Hamas, and some of those would be actively working for Hamas. All those other agencies have locals working for them, too, so we can expect there to be a similar makeup of the staffs.

  Ha’aretz has some good Western Marxist values, at best.
  “The editor in chief of Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper, David Landau, confirmed yesterday that he has pleaded with Secretary of State Rice to “rape” Israel and its neighbors into resolving their problems.”
  “Ha’aretz Editor, Danny Rubinstein called Israel an “apartheid state” when speaking before a UN conference in Brussels, on a World Zionist Organization sponsored speaking tour.”
  “Akiva Eldar political editor of Ha’artz who endorsed and expanded upon Mearsheimer and Prof. Stephen Walt’s thesis that American Foreign Policy is controlled by the Jews.”
  These statements are so wretched, so patently wrong, that the only reason these people stay in business is because they have an audience that likes to hear bad things about Israel. The lies are like sweet nectar to those who already believe.

  “And no, I don’t think Israel is always wrong.”
  Just mostly.

• 177 Scott // Jan 13, 2009 at 6:07 PM

  “Besides the fact that Egypt is deep into negotiations with both sides, setting up the ridiculous 6-month ceasefire that recently ended”

  The fact that Egypt at least attempted to smooth things over between Gaza and Israel last year shows that they didn’t want this war to happen, and now that it has, is trying desperately to stay out of the limelight.
  Israel if anybody should let reporters in. But they should be allowed to go out into the population, not place guarded by Israeli Army guards.

  “So at the very least there are 6,000 UNRWA staffers in Gaza sympathetic to Hamas”

  I see your math, but I doubt that people would join an international peacekeeping organization in those percentages. Mostly I think peaceful people would join.

  Ha’aretz. OK you got me, I admit I didn’t look too in depth at it, because the way you showed it too me, it almost sounded like you supported it as a news organization. But with what you just told me, it is rather obviously leaning. Yes those statements are wrong, I don’t really want it to seem like I supported them.

  “Just mostly”
  I do not. I find that Hamas is to blame for much of the problem, but you seemed to be doing a pretty good job of attacking them, so I didn’t really feel the need to.
  I support the more than 40% of Gaza that is not pro-Hamas, probably more of them now that they see where Hamas has led them.

• 178 Hector // Jan 13, 2009 at 6:14 PM

  Imagine this:

  The UN has decided that the US will be divided in 2 parts, one part for the Americans and the other part for Nazis.

  The Nazis agree because they don’t have elsewhere to go. But the Americans are not happy with this decision (I’m F*cking shocked!) because families are now divided and people have to leave their home by force, so the Americans start protesting, several groups take it too far and start killing Nazis.

  A new war is born.

  Nazis hold their ground with a defensive stand, however as time passes by that defensive stand turns into attack mode, they start taking more land from Americans.

  I am not saying that the Jews are Nazis, or that America is the same as Palestine, i used this examples to make you understand how much they hate each other.

  This is how the war started, I don’t think either one is at fault, because they acted out in a way that anyone else would.

  The UN is at fault for dividing a country thinking: “No body gives a F*CK about this shitty country anyways”.

  Right now the Palestine people are divided in a horrible way, they are not allowed to cross any borders, not even to see their families, mean while Israelis come and go as they please.

  It seems to me that the Israelis are taking notes from Hitler and want to make concentration camps for Palestinian.

  The only solution right now is that the UN has to clean its own mess and divide this territory exactly in 2 this region, put up a huge wall and call it even. Because this war is going no where except for the crap hole.

  And if you’re thinking that “Jews own that land because it says in the Bible” then you’re a F*cking moron.

• 179 Scott // Jan 13, 2009 at 6:24 PM

  I don’t agree with the conection with the Israeli’s and Hitler. They have not gone nearly that far.

  And the country wasn’t split in 2. Don’t forget the West Bank. It was split in 3.

  I don’t think the UN quite anticipated what was going to happen.

  Oh, by the way, donkeyrock, this is where I got the information about the Israeli media’s bias.

  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihB3ICCsDBBrVdklc0zaYpcx8H3wD95ME2KO0

• 180 Donkeyrock // Jan 13, 2009 at 7:22 PM

  Scott,

  You still haven’t answered my question about Egypt taking care of Gaza instead of Israel. Do you think Egypt should take responsibility for Gaza or not? Whether it’s yes or no, I’d like to know why.

  UNRWA is not a peacekeeping organization in the least. It’s an aid agency catering only to “Palestinians” — aka Muslim Arabs who lost the war — and their descendants, indefinitely.

  “I support the more than 40% of Gaza that is not pro-Hamas”
  Assuming that voting for Fatah means you’re innocent (which it doesn’t, they hate Israel, too), I think everyone supports innocents, and no one in their right mind wants them harmed, but there is simply no good way to separate the innocents from the guilty in this situation. Not everyone in Gaza shot rockets at Israeli civilians, not everyone in Gaza went into Israel and blew up pizza shops, weddings and busses; but some did, and a lot of those actions were celebrated by a lot of people. Until governments can read minds (and I wouldn’t want governments that could do that), the innocent will pay dearly, along with the guilty, when it comes to war. I see this war as more than justified on Israel’s part, and the fact that Israel has done more than any other country on this planet to minimize civilian casualties speaks volumes to their moral fiber.

• 181 Donkeyrock // Jan 13, 2009 at 7:31 PM

  Hector,

  Please go back and read the comments to this post. I think you’ll find some nuances with which you’re unfamiliar in regards to this issue. Check the links Scott and I have offered, follow up with that research, and you may come away with a deeper understanding of what’s going on in Israel, Gaza, Judea and Samaria (aka the West bank).

  Bon chance.

• 182 K2 // Jan 13, 2009 at 9:33 PM

  One country calls for cease fires and breaks them, and the other holds to the agreement. One country harbors an organization that by its own charter will fight until all Jews are dead, the other fights for its randomly killed non-military rocket killed civilians. Sounds like a difficult decision. Forget all of your ‘lost in traslation’ specifics about whose publicist said boo when, Hamas is a proud terrorist organization and Palestine cannot and will not engage them militarily, while the organization fires off non-targeted rockets into Israel. Its a strange World we live in where Palestine is offered so much sympathy, and once a punblicized war ends the populice forgets that they’re still firing rockets into a country that they have a cease fire agreement with.

• 183 Scott // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:02 PM

  Donkeyrock,
  Wait, so are you asking if Egypt should annex Gaza?
  I’m not sure what you mean by, “Do you think Egypt should take responsibility for Gaza or not”.

  I never said that UNRWA was a peacekeeping organization. I said that the U.N. was a peacekeeping organization, which is their primary goal, along with humanitarian aid. There are still plenty of Palestinians who need food and such.
  And again I bring up that UNRWA is not the only U.N. agency in Gaza.

  “Assuming that voting for Fatah means you’re innocent (which it doesn’t, they hate Israel, too”
  I didn’t say that. If I had the choice on this, I would have voted for Fatah. Lesser of 2 evils.

  “and a lot of those actions were celebrated by a lot of people”
  And were also mourned by many of the Palestinians.

  “and the fact that Israel has done more than any other country on this planet to minimize civilian casualties speaks volumes to their moral fiber.”

  Yes, I see them telling familys to get away from their homes if they are going to be bombed. I also see them bombing schools and houses where people are trying to escape the bombing.

  I think the fact that very few Israeli military have died speaks that the true alligence of most of the Gazans is peace. I haven’t heard any reports of large Gazan rioting against the Israelis. Gaza is full of very frightened people.

  K2,

  As I see it, both countries broke the cease-fire. Not just Hamas, and not just Israel. The number of rockets fired also went down quite a bit for the cease-fire, which speaks to that the cease-fire at least partially worked and that Hamas doesn’t seem to have full control of its own military.

• 184 shmooel // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:09 PM

  Someone tell the “Palestinians” to stop firing their f*cking rockets onto Israelis, and then we’ll talk about food & water. Morons.

• 185 Joe // Jan 14, 2009 at 10:41 AM

  These were compiled by a Christian university professor:

  BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY…(It takes just 1.5 minutes to read!!!!) It makes sense and it’s not slanted. Jew and non-Jew – it doesn’t matter.

  1. Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
  2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
  3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.
  4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.
  5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
  6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
  7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
  8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
  9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
  10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
  11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000.The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
  12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people’s lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.
  13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
  14. The PLO’s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.
  15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.
  16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
  17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
  18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.
  19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
  20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians20enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

• 186 Donkeyrock // Jan 14, 2009 at 12:34 PM

  Scott,

  You’re being rather obtuse. I mean role reversal between Egypt and Israel. Let Egypt do for Gaza what Israel does now, and Israel closes its gates to Gaza. This way Israel can’t be blamed for what goes on in Gaza, and if the people of Gaza attack Israel, Egypt will either have to quell the violence in Gaza or take responsibility for its misbehavior.

  UNRWA is part of the UN, therefore, UNRWA — by your definition — is a peacekeeping organization… which it isn’t. And again, it doesn’t matter that UNRWA isn’t the only UN agency in Gaza, all agencies are staffed by locals.

  Fatah fires rockets at Israel, too, just a lot less of them.

  Very, very few mourned the rocket attacks and Jihad missions against Israel in the Muslim Arab world.

  “I also see them bombing schools and houses where people are trying to escape the bombing.”
  Really? Hamas either sets up explosives in these targets or moves people to specific targets hoping to get civilian casualties. Sometimes the people go willingly, all in the name of Allah. Many of these so-called civilian casualties are actually Hamas fighters; most of them don’t wear uniforms.

  “I think the fact that very few Israeli military have died speaks that the true alligence of most of the Gazans is peace. I haven’t heard any reports of large Gazan rioting against the Israelis.”
  Dude. That is really out there. First, Gazans aren’t going to riot when they’re being invaded. They’re outclassed and they know it. Most will stay low until it’s safe. Second, equating low numbers of Israeli soldier deaths to Gazans being peaceful is so wacky I don’t know where to go with that. It’s a breathtakingly naive statement.

  “As I see it, both countries broke the cease-fire.”
  Only one party can break the ceasefire; once it’s broken by one party, it’s simply broken. That one party was Gaza. Further, Israel reserved the right to defend itself from attack during the ceasefire, which it did. Hamas couldn’t import more weaponry during the ceasefire, which it did. Israel could stop aid shipments if it was attacked, which it was and therefore did.

• 187 Scott // Jan 14, 2009 at 6:06 PM

  Joe,

  I’m not sure where your professor got some of those figures, but some of them are obviously wrong.
  For example
  “3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.”
  Seems that someone is forgetting the Romans, Christians and Mongols. Not to mention the Arabs.

  “7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.”

  The Muslims believe that he did. He got taken there in a dream. So in their eyes he did.

  under #14, (Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.)
  I think it was Jordan who gave the West Bank to the Palestinians.

  Just a few examples that I saw off the bat.

  Donkeyrock,

  By what Israel does for Gaza, you mean electricity and water right? If so, Egypt still wouldn’t have any authority or responsibility for Gaza.

  No UNRWA is not a peacekeeping organization. It is technically an aid organization.

  “Fatah fires rockets at Israel, too, just a lot less of them.”
  Lesser of 2 evils.

  “Very, very few mourned the rocket attacks and Jihad missions against Israel in the Muslim Arab world.”
  Ah, but where do most of the images showing praise at terror attacks come from? Places like Al Jazerra and those stringers you keep mentioning. The ruling powers, ie. Hamas, didn’t let any images get out of mourning, or if they did, they called it mourning of something else.

  “Really? Hamas either sets up explosives in these targets or moves people to specific targets hoping to get civilian casualties. ”
  So you think that Hamas is using explosives to blow up their supporters instead of the Israeli’s. Ummmm OK.

  “First, Gazans aren’t going to riot when they’re being invaded. They’re outclassed and they know it”
  So what about the extraordinarily few people joining Hamas to attempt to expel the Israeli army?
  No Gazans shooting Israeli’s as they enter their homes? You know that if an army was invading America, (especially the south) Their would be armed resistance from individuals. History is full of guerrilla warfare of this sort. Yet there is little.

  The temporary cease-fire was supposed to allow for extended peace talks. (This is terrible but I’m going to quote Star Wars here), The negotiations were short.
  Some more volitile factions within Hamas
  continued attacking. I don’t see where in the agreement it says that Israel can blockade Gaza.

  I don’t know why you think that a cease-fire can only be broken by one side. For example a cease fire that says, ” Both sides must stop importing weapons” and both countries keep doing it, both have broken it.

• 188 Joe // Jan 14, 2009 at 7:02 PM

  @Scott: It was not “my” professor. Benjamin Netanyahu quoted this information in an interview, and I left out the preamble that stated that as it was not relevant to this blog post. I have had several Jewish scholars look at this already and none questioned the veracity of the facts and figures, and neither will I. (And visiting Jerusalem “in a dream” is still not visiting Jerusalem, regardless of what anyone says).

• 189 Donkeyrock // Jan 14, 2009 at 7:45 PM

  Scott,

  “By what Israel does for Gaza, you mean electricity and water right? If so, Egypt still wouldn’t have any authority or responsibility for Gaza.”
  I mean everything. Electricity, water, humanitarian aid, jobs, etc. Everything through Egypt, nothing through Israel. I hope this is clear. I ask again, if EVERYTHING went through Egypt, and NOTHING went through Israel, would you find that acceptable? Do you think this would be a good solution to stop Gazans from attacking Israelis on the basis of land issues (remember, Israel wasn’t occupying Gaza since 2005 until they had to go in in December 2008), and since Egypt will be handling all of Gaza’s needs, if any weapons come in to Gaza, Egypt will have to take responsibility for allowing those weapons into Gaza. Do you think this solution WOULD stop Gazans from attacking Israel?

  “Lesser of 2 evils.”
  … is still evil.

  “Hamas, didn’t let any images get out of mourning”
  Well that’s convenient. What about all those foreign reporters that report the unvarnished truth to the Western media (note my sarcasm)? Where were they with all the pictures and stories of mourning Gazans over the terrible crimes of rockets fired on Israeli civilians and Jihad suicide blasts and AK-47 gunfire in schools and weddings? And don’t give me any of that “Israel wouldn’t allow them in” because that ban on letting reporters into Gaza through Israel was only for a few months in 2008. Which again prompts the question, why does Israel have to allow anyone into Gaza through its borders? Shouldn’t Egypt allow the reporters into Gaza?

  “So you think that Hamas is using explosives to blow up their supporters instead of the Israeli’s. Ummmm OK.”
  Yes, it’s documented. M’kay?
  http://www.spectator.co.uk/email/melaniephillips/3223606/in-the-face-of-this-madness-some-facts.thtml
  “Kemp told me that ‘Hamas deploys suicide attackers including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives. Its leaders knew as a matter of certainty this would lead to civilian casualties if there was a ground battle.”
  Video: http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-35396-israelnews-hamas-rigs-gaza-school-explosives

  “So what about the extraordinarily few people joining Hamas to attempt to expel the Israeli army? No Gazans shooting Israeli’s as they enter their homes?”
  Because few people join the fighting doesn’t mean that those who don’t join the fighting want peace. It’s simply a wrong equation to make, untrue in every sense. There are myriad other ways to fight an enemy on home turf, most of which do not involve active engagement. As for Gazans not shooting Israelis on home entry, I don’t know what you’re reading, but Israeli soldiers are taking casualties and they are fighting street by street. They’re effective, well-armed and well trained, so they will take fewer casualties. The fact that they have to be there at all because of the idiotic Muslim aggression is the real tragedy here.

  “I don’t see where in the agreement it says that Israel can blockade Gaza.”
  “The truce is designed to halt Israeli incursions into the Gaza Strip, and to stop missiles being fired from Gaza into southern Israel.
  If it holds, Israel will ease its blockade on Gaza and there may be further talks on a prisoner exchange.”
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7462554.stm
  Obviously the ceasefire didn’t hold, since Gaza fired on Israel only 5 days after the ceasefire began. Further, the crossings themselves were targets for attacks by Gazans, making it impossible for Israel to safely transfer aid shipments to Gaza.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/world/middleeast/23mideast.html?ref=world

  “I don’t know why you think that a cease-fire can only be broken by one side.”
  As I said, when one side breaks the ceasefire, the ceasefire no longer exists. It only takes one party to break a ceasefire, and after that, no matter what either party does, the ceasefire has already been broken. To use your example, if one side imports weapons against the ceasefire, and then the other side does the same, who broke the ceasefire? The first party who imported weapons broke the ceasefire, therefore the ceasefire no longer exists. Certainly one side can try to abide by the terms of the ceasefire even while the other side ignores the terms, but in effect that ceasefire is broken.

  “I think it was Jordan who gave the West Bank to the Palestinians.”
  Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank (of Jordan), was lost by Jordan to Israel in 1967. These Jordanians suddenly became what are now claimed as “Palestinians”. Palestinians didn’t exist until 1967. It’s a fiction. The people on that land were Syrians, then Jordanians, then mystically became “Palestinian” when Jordan lost.

• 190 Donkeyrock // Jan 14, 2009 at 7:55 PM

  Joe,

  On #3, Scott is technically right. The Jews didn’t have dominion over the land all this time. They have lived on that land all this time, but they haven’t had dominion over it for most of that time.

  On #7, you are right, Mohammed did not physically go to Jerusalem, nor did Mohammed go to Jerusalem in his dream, he went to “the farthest mosque”, which some have interpreted to mean Jerusalem. This is something I told Scott before but he seems to have forgotten (comment 73).

  On #14, I just corrected Scott in my last post.

• 191 Scott // Jan 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM

  Joe,
  A basic history class will show that some of that professors conclusions are wrong. That throws doubt on the rest of it.

  Donkeyrock,

  I think that if all of Gaza’s needs were met by Egypt it would at least signifigantly reduce attacks. Gaza getting annexed by Egypt would be even better.
  What should be done now is that Israel should allow non-combatants to flee to the West Bank, until major conflict is over.

  ““Lesser of 2 evils.”
  … is still evil.”
  OK think about it this way. If the U.S. Presidential election was coming up and the 2 people on the ballot were Hitler and that corrupt Governor from Illinois, who would YOU vote for?
  I think you can figure out who the 2 people refer to.
  Oh yes and if people didn’t vote, it just made a bigger chance for Hitler to win, as their followers are more determined to win no matter what.
  (and a side not, do you really think that a terrorist organization wouldn’t stoop to voter fraud?)

  “Yes, it’s documented. M’kay?”
  Wow, I’m shocked, that map came from the IDF’s blog and you think it’s reliable.
  The video that I saw showed, (I’m not sure either a bomb or a detonator), under that bench at the beginning, and only a fuse in the school. They even said the bombs were wired to a zoo. So no bombs in the school, and, (as fuses can’t really hurt you), no danger in the school unless it be the danger of collapse from all the bombs that had apparently hit it. Lots of big holes in the wall testify to that.

  “I don’t know what you’re reading, but Israeli soldiers are taking casualties and they are fighting street by street. ”
  I don’t know what your reading, but most of the Israeli deaths so far have been due to friendly fire.

  I read the report and I saw in there that attacks had begun to step up only as “Israel was only letting the barest of necessities through”
  I also saw that the soldiers fired on a group of armed me, in their own territory. So no I don’t think it was just Hamas.

  As for Jordan I was running off of this, (from Wikipedia about Jordan),
  In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

  And also this,
  “First, the Israeli government had no intention of capturing the West Bank”
  They didn’t even want it anyway, so not much matter if they gave it away is it?

  “Scott is technically right”
  We agree on something. I think I’m going to cry.

  OK yes I did forget about comment 73. Long time ago.
  I know that Mohammad never physically went to Jerusalem, I was just trying to point out a Muslim point of view, not necessarily my own.

  Let me leave you with this.
  http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/?iref=hpmostpop

  Israel is coming close to declaring war on the U.N., as well as breaking international law in the process.

• 192 Joe // Jan 15, 2009 at 4:12 PM

  @Scott: Since I have no idea who you are or what makes you a self-proclaimed authority on Israel, I will not waste any time responding to your comments.

• 193 Scott // Jan 15, 2009 at 6:19 PM

  Joe,
  I never said I was an authority on Israel, as I have stated in previous comments, but some of the errors in that professors list are obvious.
  However, if you don’t wish to respond, I’m certainly not going to make you.

• 194 Donkeyrock // Jan 16, 2009 at 10:06 AM

  Scott,

  Gaza and Egypt: Then when Gaza attacks Israel, Egypt will be attacked by Israel. Cool, Israel controlling the Suez Canal would probably be awesome. They made the desert bloom, and I bet they’d make the Suez much better, too. Thumbs up.

  Voting for evil: Let’s not forget third-party and write-in candidates.

  “that map came from the IDF’s blog and you think it’s reliable.”
  I’m shocked you think it’s unreliable.

  “the bombs were wired to a zoo. So no bombs in the school”
  Both were wired.

  “no danger in the school”
  I suppose if they left the bombs up you’d be appalled that Israel would allow the bombs to remain up in a school, and therefore they should be sanctioned by the UN for such a crime against humanity. *sigh*

  “most of the Israeli deaths so far have been due to friendly fire.”
  As of 1/14/09, ten Israeli soldiers killed in action, four by friendly fire. I still don’t know what you’re reading.

  “attacks had begun to step up only as “Israel was only letting the barest of necessities through”"
  Step up, meaning Israel was already under attack, and the ferocity of Hamas’ attacks increased while Israel sent aid to Gaza under fire. This is not a sound argument in favor of Gaza.

  “In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”"
  Again, Palestinians were created in 1967. They’re Syrians, or Jordanians (Judea and Samaria) and Egyptians (Gaza) — each was annexed by said countries — depending on when you start counting in the 20th century. They are a lying people claiming a country and nationality where none exists so they can rid the region of Jews, all in the name of Allah.

  “They didn’t even want it anyway, so not much matter if they gave it away is it?”
  Israel won it in war. It’s theirs to decide.

  “Israel is coming close to declaring war on the U.N., as well as breaking international law in the process.”
  Hilarious. The UN has been an accomplice to war crimes against Israel for decades and now that Israel responds and hits targets close to a UN building and maybe part of a UN building, Israel is all of a sudden waging war against the UN and committing war crimes. I appreciate the laugh.
  “The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past, has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll, and provides textbooks to children that contain hate speech and other incendiary information.”
  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479940,00.html

• 195 Scott // Jan 17, 2009 at 12:51 AM

  “Gaza and Egypt: Then when Gaza attacks Israel, Egypt will be attacked by Israel. Cool, Israel controlling the Suez Canal would probably be awesome. They made the desert bloom, and I bet they’d make the Suez much better, too. Thumbs up.”
  So your solution only causes a larger war. Nice job.

  “I’m shocked you think it’s unreliable.”
  Yes I find an invading army’s blog to be probably full of propaganda and bias. I would expect it of any army.

  “Both were wired.”
  I even watched the video again. I saw them follow a fuse. I didn’t see any bombs. The weapons they talked about they wouldn’t let the video camera guy record.

  “I suppose if they left the bombs up you’d be appalled that Israel would allow the bombs to remain up in a school, and therefore they should be sanctioned by the UN for such a crime against humanity”
  Considering they had control of the detonator, if there had actually had been bombs in the building, which I see little evidence of, they wouldn’t have blown themselves up.

  “As of 1/14/09, ten Israeli soldiers killed in action, four by friendly fire. I still don’t know what you’re reading.”
  Oh. Last time I had checked was a couple days before that. Casualties were 7 with 4 friendly fire then.

  “Step up, meaning Israel was already under attack, and the ferocity of Hamas’ attacks increased while Israel sent aid to Gaza under fire”
  For the record, allowing food in that you didn’t have to pay for doesn’t count as “sending in aid”

  “They are a lying people claiming a country and nationality where none exists so they can rid the region of Jews, all in the name of Allah.”
  Wow. I can’t believe you just called an entire race, “lying people” and promoter’s of genocide. How horrible insensitive of you.

  Oh, Fox News. That’s a joke that made my day. The intro to that story was even exaggerating.
  “A spokesman for UNRWA adamantly said that the agency is now free of terrorist connections. “We’re composed of social workers and teachers,” the official explained. “We take every step possible to have only civilians inside UNRWA facilities.”
  Thats what it also says. I doubt it is totally accurate, but still, it doesn’t prove anything about today.

  Now I have a question for you. What I’m curious about is where the Israeli army actually gets all of their information, like there are weapons in this school or this building has rockets in it, or whatever. Cause I have no idea.

  Ahhh Fox News. I watch it sometimes just to see how conservative they can get.

  Good Day.

• 196 Donkeyrock // Jan 17, 2009 at 10:06 AM

  Scott,

  “So your solution only causes a larger war. Nice job.”
  Yo mean the solution with which you agree. Of course you’re the one who said that hostilities would be reduced, not ended, and if they aren’t ended, then obviously such hostilities will lead to war. With Egypt in control of Gaza, that war would be between Israel and Egypt. I assume you didn’t think it through and maybe thought just a few rockets falling on Israeli towns must be okay with everyone. Nice job.

  “The weapons they talked about they wouldn’t let the video camera guy record.”
  That would be like the Israeli army posting a “how to wire a building with bombs” video on the net. Unwise.

  “they wouldn’t have blown themselves up.”
  A bomb isn’t dead when it’s disconnected from the detonator.

  “For the record, allowing food in that you didn’t have to pay for doesn’t count as “sending in aid”"
  For the record, you’re wrong. You think all this work is free? You think Israel doesn’t contribute to Gazan aid? Israel handles the money for Hamas, Fatah and the PA. Israel gives aid to Gaza in materials. Israelis send aid to Gaza as individuals. That you don’t know this is worrying.

  “an entire race, “lying people” and promoter’s of genocide. How horrible insensitive of you.”
  A territory, not a race. Get it right. And yes, they are promoters of genocide, they want to kill the Jews. Maybe you missed that in the Hamas charter, or you forgot 91% of them loving the fact that 8 students were murdered in a Jewish school (along with myriad other incidents). You may wonder why some people get upset when you defend Palestinians; you defend hate and murder, institutionalized genocide and Arab supremacism when you defend them. Do terribe things happen to these Arabs? Yes, all the time. Do they bring it on themselves? Yes, every single time.

  “Oh, Fox News. That’s a joke that made my day.”
  And you proffer CNN as different and/or better than Fox News? That’s laughable as well.

  “A spokesman for UNRWA adamantly said”
  Lies. The agency is a cancer that promotes Muslim Arab supremacism because it is run by Muslim Arabs. When you realize that, you’ll more clearly see what’s going on in the region.

  “What I’m curious about is where the Israeli army actually gets all of their information, like there are weapons in this school or this building has rockets in it, or whatever. Cause I have no idea.”
  Reconnaissance, intelligence gathering (follow the paper trail) and spies.

  “Ahhh Fox News. I watch it sometimes just to see how conservative they can get.”
  I wouldn’t watch it on a bet. Nor would I watch CNN, MSNBC, or BBC to get reliable news. They have all been proven to lie in the past, and have lost their credibility with in-depth news. They all focus on sensationalism to keep an audience tuned-in; great for money, bad for journalism. Moreso the American channels, but BBC knows they have to keep the public happy or they lose government funding. They all play to their respective audiences and disregard the truth when it’s inconvenient.

• 197 Scott // Jan 17, 2009 at 12:59 PM

  “Yo mean the solution with which you agree.”
  Egypt wouldn’t want a war with Israel, obviously, so they themselves would restrain most of the attacks. If Israel had total possession of the area, they wouldn’t be able to do any better than that.

  “That would be like the Israeli army posting a “how to wire a building with bombs” video on the net. Unwise.”
  Yeah like they need to. Just Google, “how to wire a bomb” and you will find out how. So it wouldn’t have made any difference.

  “A bomb isn’t dead when it’s disconnected from the detonator.”
  Never said it was,I was saying that the Israeli army had control over it, and so wouldn’t use it themselves.

  “Israel handles the money for Hamas, Fatah and the PA.”
  And they declare war on them and not cut off the money. Strange

  “Israel gives aid to Gaza in materials”
  Never heard about this.

  “Israelis send aid to Gaza as individuals.”
  You must mean the soldiers. Yeah, helping so much.

  “A territory, not a race.”
  No, you specifically said, “lying people”. As far as I can tell, land can’t lie.

  “And you proffer CNN as different and/or better than Fox News? That’s laughable as well.”
  Well I don’t see throngs of people saying how horribly liberal CNN is.
  In short CNN is less liberal than Fox is conservative.

  “The agency is a cancer that promotes Muslim Arab supremacism because it is run by Muslim Arabs. When you realize that, you’ll more clearly see what’s going on in the region.”
  I never said that they were without influences, I was just showing that your source had no proof.

  “Reconnaissance, intelligence gathering (follow the paper trail) and spies.”
  Yes, I can see how accurate their efforts are with the high number of civilian dead.

  “Nor would I watch CNN, MSNBC, or BBC to get reliable news.”
  Exactly, but no news anything is really totally reliable. I just try to go for the most reliable.

  “You may wonder why some people get upset when you defend Palestinians; you defend hate and murder, institutionalized genocide and Arab supremacism when you defend them.”

  Ah, I see that gone are the days where we are polite to each other. You now start accusing me of supporting hate, murder,genocide, and Arab supremacy. Wow you do know that I bashed Hamas just as much as you, right?
  You basically called me a terrorist.
  What the hell?

• 198 Donkeyrock // Jan 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM

  Scott,

  “Egypt wouldn’t want a war with Israel, obviously, so they themselves would restrain most of the attacks.”
  There’s no solution to Gaza’s aggression except to subdue them (“those people”… in Gaza… got it?). Any aggression must be met with overwhelming force to end the attacks from Gaza, and the outcry from much of the world against Israel’s self defense is not only baffling but morally bankrupt. Since no other country would be expected to put up with such conditions, and so many other conflicts going on around the globe that are more vicious, more of a humanitarian crisis, the only conclusion is anti-semitism. Congo, Darfur, Sri Lanka; just a few places where conflict is brutal and tens of thousands of civilians are being killed, yet there is no rioting in the streets around the world by or for Sudanese, Congolese or Sri Lankans. There are no 24-hour news stations plastering images of dead civilians and brutal soldiers about any of these conflicts even though there are more civilians dying, more soldiers using non-Western tactics, and they are far more newsworthy according to the criteria the news media have set for the Israel-Gaza conflict. Israel is singled out for reprobation above all others, and that makes the reprobation unjust and motivated by something other than any actions they take.

  “So it wouldn’t have made any difference.”
  Not the point, they couldn’t do it anyway.

  “And they declare war on them and not cut off the money. Strange”
  And they retaliate for rocket fire on their civilians and they keep sending aid to Gaza, and they use precision weaponry instead of regular bombs to limit civilian casualties, and they are vilified by world leaders while being kicked around because they are Jews. Strange.

  Israelis helping Gazans: Google some answers. I got some hits with “individual israelis helping palestinians” (no quotes).

  “You must mean the soldiers. Yeah, helping so much.”
  The soldiers are for helping Israel, not for helping Gaza. Your sarcasm was not missed.

  “”A territory, not a race.”
  No, you specifically said, “lying people”. As far as I can tell, land can’t lie.”
  I will reiterate and clarify for concepts too hard to understand: lying people in Gaza. They are a lying people in Gaza. Whether it is due to race, circumstances, or the liars are the loudest and heard the most, they are inveterate liars.

  “Well I don’t see throngs of people saying how horribly liberal CNN is.”
  That’s because you are a liberal and don’t read opposite opinions of news coverage bias. This is a human condition, not a liberal condition. We all have our comfort zones, and tend toward them for our information. There are millions of people in the US who consider CNN horribly biased toward leftist ideals; some are correct, some are wacky.

  “In short CNN is less liberal than Fox is conservative.”
  I contend just the opposite, but this would be an in-depth off-topic discussion leading to lots more writing than I’m already doing… and you know how verbose I can be.

  “your source had no proof.”
  The source had proof, you just don’t believe the proof because you believe the Gazans over the Israelis.

  “the high number of civilian dead.”
  You mean all those Hamas fighters in civilian clothing, of course.

  “Ah, I see that gone are the days where we are polite to each other.”
  Um, no, you inferred incorrectly.

  “You now start accusing me of supporting hate, murder,genocide, and Arab supremacy. Wow you do know that I bashed Hamas just as much as you, right?”
  Sure you say you hate Hamas, but you believe all the agencies that say terrible things about Israel, and they are all run by locals who are in Hamas and who subscribe to killing Jews because they are Jews. By supporting them, the agencies and the people who staff them, you support genocide. I’m sorry, but that’s just fact. Now, are all of them like that? No, but it seems most are like that, coloring the agency with a dark taint, and illegitimizing their principled stances.

  “You basically called me a terrorist.
  What the hell?”
  Actually I implied you were an unwitting supporter of such things. When you hold up Palestine over Israel, Palestinians of Israelis, you are not just promoting individuals, you are promoting an ideal of each culture. One culture is based on death, another is based on life. I’m guessing you know which culture is which. As I said early on in December, once you get down to individuals you’ll rarely find a bad person. But we don’t fight individuals in war, we fight ideals. Two intractable ideals meet at a crossroads, and one side has to win. I hope it’s the side that promotes life: Israel.

• 199 Scott // Jan 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM

  Donkeyrock,
  “yet there is no rioting in the streets around the world by or for Sudanese, Congolese or Sri Lankans.”
  well actually there are quite a few protests, but the difference is that the US doesn’t support any of those countries, but we do Israel.

  “Not the point, they couldn’t do it anyway”
  Yes they could have. It is actually absurdly easy to wire a bomb, so showing video of it wouldn’t have mattered really, except a bit of proof behind the soldiers.

  “and they use precision weaponry instead of regular bombs to limit civilian casualties”
  Prescision weaponry is regular bombs these days, but what about the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Gaza while the secretary general was arriving to broker peace talks in Israel? And using white phosphorus to do it? Breaking international law?
  I might have somewhat understood their actions earlier, but there is not explaining this.

  “Israelis helping Gazans: Google some answers. I got some hits with “individual israelis helping palestinians” (no quotes).”
  OK I googled it and I see some scientists working on avian flu, an attempt by a website to get exit visa’s from Gaza, a conspiracy website with the people being controlled by their states, ect. ect.
  Did you even read the list?

  “They are a lying people in Gaza.”
  No. No they are not. The initial refugee’s were forced into their current situation. That does not make an entire people a lier’s.

  “That’s because you are a liberal ”
  Surprising as you might find this, I’m not actually a liberal. Or a conservative. I think I finally came up with, (for political affiliation), was Theoretical Anarchist and Practicing Moderate. Weird isn’t it?

  “I contend just the opposite, but this would be an in-depth off-topic discussion leading to lots more writing than I’m already doing… and you know how verbose I can be.”
  Yes, I agree, better to stay on topic. We would go on forever.

  “The source had proof, you just don’t believe the proof because you believe the Gazans over the Israelis.”
  If the source had proof, it wouldn’t have kept saying “suspected”, and the like. They would have said confirmed.
  How about another Western Value. Innocent until proven guilty.

  And I do not believe Gaza over Israel. But I don’t really find cause to believe an occupying army about life in the occupied land.

  “You mean all those Hamas fighters in civilian clothing, of course.”
  Yes those little 2 year old Hamas fighters.

  “but you believe all the agencies that say terrible things about Israel”
  I assume your talking about UNWRA and the like. I don’t fully believe them. I don’t fully believe anyone who has an active stake in the area.
  You say that by supporting the U.N. I support genocide. …

  You know that’s like saying that if you supported the Allies , you support Hitler. Your rationalization makes no sense.

  “No, but it seems most are like that,”
  One bad apple can make the rest of the bunch look spoiled, now can’t it.

  “Actually I implied you were an unwitting supporter of such things”
  A supporter has to know if he is actually supporting something. If a widow is given food in Gaza, but gives it to her son when he says his family is starving, but he then turns and gives it to Hamas, is the widow supporting terrorism?

  Not that I’m the widow or anything. It’s just an example.

  “When you hold up Palestine over Israel”
  I’m not holding Palestine over Israel. Your holding Israel over Palestine. I believe one of those good old Western Values, “all men are created equal”.
  But you seem to think that if you are born Palestinian, that makes you bad.

  “As I said early on in December, once you get down to individuals you’ll rarely find a bad person”
  People in power make the country, but individuals make the society.

  -Scott

• 200 Donkeyrock // Jan 19, 2009 at 12:57 PM

  Scott,

  “well actually there are quite a few protests, but the difference is that the US doesn’t support any of those countries, but we do Israel.”
  Where are these protests? And the US does support those countries, check USAid.

  “Yes they could have. It is actually absurdly easy to wire a bomb”
  No government would willingly show bomb placement because that encourages and educates others; moreso in Gaza.

  “Prescision weaponry is regular bombs these days”
  Nope. Smart munitions are very expensive, and the only reason Israel can afford it is the military aid the US gives them. Otherwise they’d be using regular munitions and leveling city blocks to get rid of rocket emplacements.

  “the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Gaza”
  The shelling occurred because Gazans were firing at Israel from that position. Unlike peace-loving Gaza, the evil, mean Israelis target attackers, not civilians.

  “And using white phosphorus to do it? Breaking international law?
  I might have somewhat understood their actions earlier, but there is not explaining this.”
  This is rich. Even the benighted Red Cross said Israel’s phosphorous usage was legal. And I see no outrage from you at the rockets that were shot into Israel, targeting only civilians, that illegally used phosphorous munitions. You got an explanation for that?

  “Did you even read the list?”
  Yes, it was a weak list, but it showed individual Israelis helping Gazans; a farmer helping a former employee, a medic risking his life to save Gaza children under Hamas fire. Search some more if you’re interested.

  “No. No they are not. The initial refugee’s were forced into their current situation.”
  Yes, they are. These perpetual refugees have never lived on the land from which they’re supposedly displaced. Also, those who did live on that land left willingly when Arab countries promised to kill all the Jews and give the land back to them. I have no sympathy for these non-refugees.

  “If the source had proof, it wouldn’t have kept saying “suspected”, and the like. They would have said confirmed.
  How about another Western Value. Innocent until proven guilty.”
  the Fox article never says suspected. How about another Western value: veritas.

  “Yes those little 2 year old Hamas fighters.”
  Ah, those that die naturally and are paraded around like Israel intentionally targeted children. Do you honestly believe all the propaganda Hamas throws at you?

  “You say that by supporting the U.N. I support genocide [...] Your rationalization makes no sense”
  Having to reiterate previous points is annoying. These agencies are run by locals, the locals do not uphold UN values and support genocide, and the UN doesn’t stop the locals from using its facilities for those genocidal goals against Israel.

  “One bad apple can make the rest of the bunch look spoiled, now can’t it.”
  As do a million.

  “If a widow is given food in Gaza, but gives it to her son when he says his family is starving, but he then turns and gives it to Hamas, is the widow supporting terrorism?”
  Yes, unwittingly. If said widow was shown how her food was used and continued to supply it, then she would be a collaborator.

  “I’m not holding Palestine over Israel. Your holding Israel over Palestine.”
  You accuse Israel of war crimes while speaking of the mostly peaceful Gazans, so yes, you are holding Palestine in higher regard than you hold Israel. I prefer Israeli governance above the governance of Gaza, Judea and Samaria – many of those reasons I’ve stated previously — and if you had to choose between living in any of those territories, I’m betting you’d choose Israel, too.

  “But you seem to think that if you are born Palestinian, that makes you bad.”
  No, if you are raised in Gaza, Judea and Samaria as an Arab Muslim, then you’re more than likely going to turn out bad.

  “People in power make the country, but individuals make the society.”
  And Gaza is rotten from head to toe, targeting civilians, using its civilians to protect its military, and promoting genocide. Stalin, Hitler, Moussolini, all had fine individual qualities, and all were evil people who deserved to die the most painful death imaginable.

• 201 Scott // Jan 19, 2009 at 2:28 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  “Where are these protests”
  You haven’t been to a college campus recently, have you?

  “And the US does support those countries, check USAid”
  Supporting the country is different than supporting the people of the country.

  “No government would willingly show bomb placement because that encourages and educates others”
  No it doesn’t. If anything showing it would have given more evidence for the Israeli cause, but they didn’t.

  “Nope.”
  For post-industrial countries like the U.S. and Israel they are.

  “The shelling occurred because Gazans were firing at Israel from that position.”
  And the evidence of that comes from…?

  “Even the benighted Red Cross said Israel’s phosphorous usage was legal”
  Yes, I just read that report. That’s not what it said however. It said it couldn’t find any evidence that it was being used on civilians. I can’t see how it’s not being used on civilians in an area as populated as Gaza.

  “but it showed individual Israelis helping Gazans”
  Bully for them. I’m sure there would be individual Gazan’s helping Israeli’s too if they had anything to help with.

  “These perpetual refugees have never lived on the land from which they’re supposedly displaced. Also, those who did live on that land left willingly when Arab countries promised to kill all the Jews and give the land back to them.”
  Those 2 sentences contradict each other. The first one says they were never there. The next says there were some there. Now which is it, (according to you)?

  “the Fox article never says suspected. How about another Western value: veritas.”
  I didn’t mean it specifically said suspected. The fact is that they didn’t know anything for certain. i.e. they suspected. I just simplified it for you.

  “Ah, those that die naturally and are paraded around like Israel intentionally targeted children. Do you honestly believe all the propaganda Hamas throws at you?”
  Well if you want me to use the most conservative numbers, (the Israeli’s), then 1300 people are dead, with 400 being militants. 30% military casualties. Yeah nice job.

  “The locals do not uphold UN values and support genocide”
  most of them don’t

  “UN doesn’t stop the locals from using its facilities for those genocidal goals against Israel.”
  No proof of this apart from the word of the Israeli army.

  “Yes, unwittingly. If said widow was shown how her food was used and continued to supply it, then she would be a collaborator.”
  I see. So, following that logic, if you voted for Bush, that means you support torture. Right?

  “You accuse Israel of war crimes while speaking of the mostly peaceful Gazans, so yes, you are holding Palestine in higher regard than you hold Israel.”
  I accuse the Israeli ARMY of war crimes. Not the Israeli people. Most Israeli’s that I have met, (apart from the Mossad woman I met once. scary) are quite friendly people, and rather similar to the Gazans that I have met.

  “And Gaza is rotten from head to toe, targeting civilians, using its civilians to protect its military, and promoting genocide. ”
  The government is evil. Not the people.

  “Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, all had fine individual qualities”
  No they really didn’t.

  Carlos,
  Umm what is this thing that’s typing my words below me?
  It’s a bit odd, and unnecessary.

• 202 Donkeyrock // Jan 19, 2009 at 9:54 PM

  Scott,

  “You haven’t been to a college campus recently, have you?”
  No. So where are these protests? I haven’t read of any nearly as vociferous as the anti-Israel protests.

  “No it doesn’t. If anything showing it would have given more evidence for the Israeli cause, but they didn’t.”
  Show me the official US Army videos showing enemy bomb placement in situ.

  “For post-industrial countries like the U.S. and Israel they are.”
  I answered this originally.

  “And the evidence of that comes from…?”
  … the fact that Israel shelled the area. Otherwise, you’re accusing Israel of shelling a UN building for fun.

  “It said it couldn’t find any evidence that it was being used on civilians.”
  Which would be the illegal use of phosphorous munitions. Gaza does this to Israel, though.

  “Those 2 sentences contradict each other.”
  Since 95% of those alive in 1948 who left their homes in hopes the Jews were wiped off the map are now dead, the vast majority of the non-refugees never lived on the land.

  “they suspected. I just simplified it for you.”
  There was no supposition, just fact:
  “The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past, has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll, and provides textbooks to children that contain hate speech and other incendiary information.”

  “the most conservative numbers, (the Israeli’s), then 1300 people are dead, with 400 being militants.”
  And you found these numbers where…?

  “”UN doesn’t stop the locals from using its facilities for those genocidal goals against Israel.”
  No proof of this apart from the word of the Israeli army.”
  Let’s go with the 91% of Gazans who thought killing Jews was awesome. Refer to previous comments if you don’t recall.

  “if you voted for Bush, that means you support torture. Right?”
  Just as if you sent money to a charity to build schools in Pakistan and they turned around and build madrassas instead.

  “I accuse the Israeli ARMY of war crimes. Not the Israeli people.”
  The IDF represents Israel just as the US Army represents America. And what war crimes?

  “The government is evil. Not the people.”
  Again, 91% lovin’ up on the Jew killing. They are rotten.

  “”Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, all had fine individual qualities”
  No they really didn’t.”
  You ignored the point of people who have good qualities can be bad people, so maybe you could touch on that.

• 203 Scott // Jan 19, 2009 at 11:36 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  “So where are these protests”
  Well last week there were several here, but for some reason people don’t seem to care as much about actual genocide that isn’t talked about than people who talk genocide but can’t back it up. Figures.

  “Show me the official US Army videos showing enemy bomb placement in situ.”
  They don’t need to. The point was only a detonator and fuse were shown, which could have been gotten from anywhere in Gaza.

  “the fact that Israel shelled the area. Otherwise, you’re accusing Israel of shelling a UN building for fun.”
  And yet they apologized for it. I don’t see why they would do that unless they did something they knew was wrong.

  “Gaza does this to Israel, though.”
  And vice-versa.

  “the vast majority of the non-refugees never lived on the land.”
  That’s like saying that the Israeli’s who occupied the land in the 40′s are dead, so they don’t deserve it either.

  “has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll”
  Well that is a lie, as even in the same article it mentions several deterrents to terrorists.

  “And you found these numbers where…?”
  BBC. Use the most conservative number’s you want, civilian casualties outweigh actual Hamas deaths.

  “Let’s go with the 91% of Gazans who thought killing Jews was awesome. ”
  And you found these number’s where?

  “Just as if you sent money to a charity to build schools in Pakistan and they turned around and build madrassas instead”
  Yes I’m sure that American organization is building extremist schools. Excellent comeback.

  “The IDF represents Israel just as the US Army represents America. And what war crimes?”
  I don’t believe the US Army represents us. None of their recent actions have represented my opinions, therefore, it doesn’t represent me or a majority of the country.
  We were talking about white phosphorus, remember?

  “You ignored the point of people who have good qualities can be bad people, so maybe you could touch on that.”
  Alright, the point was that those people didn’t really have any good qualities. The difference between them and most of Hamas is brainwashing.
  Consider Nazi era Germany. Are all of those people evil because of what their elected government did?

  Cease-Fire: Thank God. Somebody has some sense.

• 204 Donkeyrock // Jan 20, 2009 at 3:22 AM

  Scott,

  “The point was only a detonator and fuse were shown, which could have been gotten from anywhere in Gaza.”
  The point was you didn’t believe the Israeli video of Hamas wiring a school and a zoo to explode because 1) it came from Israeli sources, and 2) no bombs were shown. I can’t do anything about your low opinion of Israeli sources, but I did explain why the IDF might not show bombs in situ.

  “And yet they apologized for it. I don’t see why they would do that unless they did something they knew was wrong.”
  Probably because they didn’t mean to hit the building, and even precision weapons can have a 45 meter leeway, so firing at attacking positions next to the UN building resulted in the UN building being hit; a PR bonanza for Hamas, which is what they want and why they fire from — and so close to — buildings with civilians in them.

  “And vice-versa.”
  As I explained before, Israel does not use phosphorous against civilians but Gaza does, so it’s not vice-versa.

  “That’s like saying that the Israeli’s who occupied the land in the 40′s are dead, so they don’t deserve it either.”
  Actually no, it’s nothing like that. A closer analogy would be American Indians shelling cities from reservation land because they claim their ancestors used to live on the land those cities occupy.

  “Well that is a lie, as even in the same article it mentions several deterrents to terrorists.”
  Please reread the article. You will see they process the applications against a list of Al-Qaeda and Taliban, not against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

  “BBC. Use the most conservative number’s you want, civilian casualties outweigh actual Hamas deaths.”
  The only numbers I’ve seen that equal what you quote have come from Gaza’s leadership, the same leadership that claims military victory in Gaza and that they’ve killed almost 100 IDF troops. Only two of the thousands of demonstrably false statements Gaza has made.

  “And you found these number’s where?”
  I again refer you to previous comments I’ve made in this thread.

  “Yes I’m sure that American organization is building extremist schools. Excellent comeback.”
  Thank you, it was quite excellent. You missed the point of the example, though.

  “We were talking about white phosphorus, remember?”
  Yes, and I showed you the claim against Israel is false. You were dubious of the Red Cross report, a source you have trusted and to which you have pointed to back up your own claims of Israel causing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I assume your lack of outrage at Gaza firing white phosphorous at Israeli civilians is because you think Israel deserves it.

  “Alright, the point was that those people didn’t really have any good qualities.”
  Those leaders had genuine affection for friends and family. That is a good quality. That good quality does not mitigate the fact that they were evil and deserved to be killed.

  “The difference between them and most of Hamas is brainwashing.”
  What brainwashing?

  “Consider Nazi era Germany. Are all of those people evil because of what their elected government did?”
  Not all were evil, but because their leadership was evil, inspiring or allowing the people to act aggressively within and without their borders, then they all had to be attacked and subdued until they no longer posed a threat to us.

  Ceasefire: Foolish. Israel will have to go back in eventually because Gazans won’t stop hating Jews and acting aggressively, and the Gazan casualties will be worse the longer Israel waits to finish the threat.

• 205 Scott // Jan 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM

  Donkeyrock,

  “The point was you didn’t believe the Israeli video of Hamas wiring a school and a zoo to explode because 1) it came from Israeli sources, and 2) no bombs were shown.”
  I would have had more chance of believing it if they had actual reporters instead of army staff.

  “but I did explain why the IDF might not show bombs in situ.”
  And I explained to you why that was pointless.

  “As I explained before, Israel does not use phosphorous against civilians”
  With Gaza’s population, using it anywhere in Gaza is as good as using it against civilians.

  “The only numbers I’ve seen that equal what you quote have come from Gaza’s leadership, the same leadership that claims military victory in Gaza and that they’ve killed almost 100 IDF troops.”
  Alright, 100 dead Israeli soldiers is ovbiously wrong, but then you give me the numbers that you think are right.

  “Thank you, it was quite excellent. You missed the point of the example, though.”
  You missed the sarcasm, and no I didn’t miss your point, I found it lacking.

  “Yes, and I showed you the claim against Israel is false. You were dubious of the Red Cross report, a source you have trusted and to which you have pointed to back up your own claims of Israel causing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza”
  You showed me one source who was somewhat skeptical about phosphorus being used. This against several reports of it’s confirmed use.

  “I assume your lack of outrage at Gaza firing white phosphorous at Israeli civilians is because you think Israel deserves it.”
  No I don’t. I just don’t feel the need to argue your side for you.

  “Those leaders had genuine affection for friends and family.”
  Yes what with Hitler killing his family along with him when he killed himself, and Stalin being totally away from his children, (paranoid), I can just see their good family qualities.

  “What brainwashing?”
  Extremist schooling is brainwashing. If every day as a child you had gone to school and were told to hate somebody, you probably would think you hated them.

  “Ceasefire”
  Or maybe cooler heads will prevail and some peace will actually come out of this mess.

• 206 Donkeyrock // Jan 20, 2009 at 6:40 PM

  Scott,

  “And I explained to you why that was pointless.”
  You explained why you don’t trust the video, not that it is pointless.

  “With Gaza’s population, using it anywhere in Gaza is as good as using it against civilians.”
  Mere supposition to demonize Israel.

  “you give me the numbers that you think are right.”
  I don’t care how many fighters versus civilians were killed, I want to end Hamas and scare the living shit out of anyone who would attack Israel so they know they will die if they do attack Israel again. All civilian deaths are caused by Hamas using the civilian infrastructure to launch their attacks anyway, so if civilians die, it’s all because Gaza is attacking Israel.

  “You missed the sarcasm, and no I didn’t miss your point, I found it lacking.”
  No, I didn’t, and yes you did, because you replied to the example itself, not the substance of the example.

  “This against several reports of it’s confirmed use.”
  No one denies phosphorous was used, just not against Gaza civilians. Your other sources are all Hamas and Gaza leadership. You may cite the UN, and I’ve shown they are mostly Hamas, so those sources are actively against Israel.

  “I just don’t feel the need to argue your side for you.”
  So I guess we can dispense with your ruse of being a humanitarian since my side doesn’t deserve your outrage or concern when their human rights are constantly violated.

  “Extremist schooling is brainwashing.”
  I assume you’re talking of Gaza, even though both Nazis and Gazans teach hate and death for the Jews.

  “Or maybe cooler heads will prevail and some peace will actually come out of this mess.”
  Peace while mortars and rockets are still being fired at Israel. This is your idea of peace?

• 207 Scott // Jan 21, 2009 at 9:35 AM

  Donkeyrock,

  “Mere supposition to demonize Israel.”
  It’s not supposition, using it anywhere against Israel would be a war crime as well, as it is also a rather high density country.

  “All civilian deaths are caused by Hamas using the civilian infrastructure to launch their attacks anyway, so if civilians die, it’s all because Gaza is attacking Israel.”
  So if I punch you, and you shoot me, it was my fault that I’m dead?

  “Your other sources are all Hamas and Gaza leadership”
  You do realize that I have never used a report that came directly from Hamas, right?

  “So I guess we can dispense with your ruse of being a humanitarian since my side doesn’t deserve your outrage or concern when their human rights are constantly violated.”
  Ouch. Of course I feel concerned for Israel, but pardon me, I feel a bit more outraged about 1300 deaths in the last month, than something like 8 in the past 2 years.

  “I assume you’re talking of Gaza, even though both Nazis and Gazans teach hate and death for the Jews.”
  Well, of course I was talking about Gaza. I’m not sure if you realized, but the Nazi regime was destroyed about 64 years ago.

  “Peace while mortars and rockets are still being fired at Israel. This is your idea of peace?”
  Not particulary, but neither is Israeli soldiers killing farmers for no apparent reason.

• 208 Donkeyrock // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:18 AM

  Scott,

  “It’s not supposition, using it anywhere against Israel would be a war crime as well, as it is also a rather high density country.”
  There are accepted uses of phosphorous in battle, for smoke creation and illumination (there may be more, I’m not sure). Israel says they used it legally and there is no evidence they are lying. Gaza fired a mortar round of white phosphorous into Israel, which is indiscriminate and a war crime.

  “So if I punch you, and you shoot me, it was my fault that I’m dead?”
  Yes, it’s self defense.

  “You do realize that I have never used a report that came directly from Hamas, right?”
  Many of the reports you use originate from Gaza propaganda. Just because the BBC relays the propaganda doesn’t mean it’s true.

  “I feel a bit more outraged about 1300 deaths in the last month, than something like 8 in the past 2 years.”
  I think this goes to your question about being shot for punching someone. You don’t seem to see force that eliminates a threat — in self defense, no less — as legitimate, personally or nationally. I do think it’s legitimate and even necessary. Now all those deaths are for naught because the threat persists and Israel will have to go in again sometime. This death-count parity is a false comparison, since it’s not about how many people are killed, it’s about ending any threat from an aggressor, and Gaza is the aggressor. The longer Gaza is treated like a recalcitrant child instead of an adult with responsibilities, the longer this aggrieved, ultra-violent acting-out will persist.

  “the Nazi regime was destroyed about 64 years ago.”
  And yet the Nazi ideology still persists. They have children and they raise them to hate.

  “Israeli soldiers killing farmers for no apparent reason.”
  Where is this?

• 209 Scott // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM

  Donkeyrock,

  I’m not quite sure you understand the nature of white phosphorus.

  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5itANfU09PlEkGZtw8SzLIBzbymBAD95QPFCG0

  Read some of that, it describes what it does to people. In a high population area, you might now be able to see why you can’t use it.

  “Yes, it’s self defense.”
  Well actually if you did that in America, you would go to jail for the rest of your life.

  “Many of the reports you use originate from Gaza propaganda. Just because the BBC relays the propaganda doesn’t mean it’s true.”
  The reports I use try to pull the best information they had together from all sources, Israeli and Gaza.

  “This death-count parity is a false comparison, since it’s not about how many people are killed, it’s about ending any threat from an aggressor, and Gaza is the aggressor.”
  Gaza isn’t the aggressor, Hamas is. The military isn’t the only way to get rid of a bad government. The next election would have been enough for people to see what Hamas really is.

  “And yet the Nazi ideology still persists. They have children and they raise them to hate.”
  And yet has no real power.

  “Where is this?”
  oh my God, I am so slow. The article I was reading was from April. Sorry. My mistake

• 210 Donkeyrock // Jan 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM

  Scott,

  “In a high population area, you might now be able to see why you can’t use it.”
  I’m not quite sure you understand the rules of war; you’ll see that Israel’s use of white phosphorus was not illegal.

  “Well actually if you did that in America, you would go to jail for the rest of your life.”
  No, if you attack me I can shoot you dead. It’s not against the law.

  “Gaza isn’t the aggressor, Hamas is.”
  Hamas leads Gaza, therefore Gaza is the aggressor.

  “The military isn’t the only way to get rid of a bad government.”
  True, but it’s the most efficient way when you’re under attack from that government. That is, it’s efficient when you don’t bitch-out and finish the job.

  “And yet has no real power.”
  And yet, that wasn’t the point.

  “The article I was reading was from April.”
  I was reading about the Palis who ran over women and children in Jerusalem with bulldozers back in July.

• 211 Scott // Jan 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM

  “I’m not quite sure you understand the rules of war; you’ll see that Israel’s use of white phosphorus was not illegal.”
  White phosphorus can only be used in a place where it is known that there are no civilians. In Gaza City, that is pretty much nowhere.

  “No, if you attack me I can shoot you dead. It’s not against the law.”
  If there is no immediate threat against your life, then no, you cannot.

  “Hamas leads Gaza”
  Hamas isn’t really a party as is understood here in America. When they gained control, they already had their army. So it is just Hamas attacking Israel.

  “True, but it’s the most efficient way when you’re under attack from that government. That is, it’s efficient when you don’t bitch-out and finish the job.”
  Well with the quality of the Israeli Mossad, (similar, but better, than the CIA), the Israeli’s could have waged assassinations against the leader’s, waged a propaganda war, or several other courses of action besides bombs and invasion.

  “And yet, that wasn’t the point.”
  Then I obviously missed whatever the point was.

  “I was reading about the Palis who ran over women and children in Jerusalem with bulldozers back in July.”
  I don’t remember that, but I just need to check the dates before I use them.
  But I Google’d Gaza and Bulldozer, and all I found was a bunch of news of Israeli Bulldozers running over things.

• 212 Donkeyrock // Jan 24, 2009 at 11:26 AM

  Scott,

  “White phosphorus can only be used in a place where it is known that there are no civilians. In Gaza City, that is pretty much nowhere.”
  Again, supposition. You’re just guessing.

  “If there is no immediate threat against your life, then no, you cannot.”
  If I fear for my life, yes, I can, and that includes getting beaten to death. Don’t punch people, they can shoot you.

  “Hamas isn’t really a party as is understood here in America. When they gained control, they already had their army. So it is just Hamas attacking Israel.”
  They were voted into office, “gained control” of Gaza, use its land, resources and people, and attack a sovereign country with all that they have. That’s a territory attacking, not a party. Gaza is attacking Israel, not just Hamas.

  “the Israeli’s could have waged assassinations against the leader’s, waged a propaganda war, or several other courses of action besides bombs and invasion.”
  I think Israel did that; it didn’t work. Regardless, they don’t have to restrain themselves only with covert operations when being attacked.

  “But I Google’d Gaza and Bulldozer, and all I found was a bunch of news of Israeli Bulldozers running over things.”
  Pretty amazing that you can Google that and not find the brutal murders of Israeli civilians by Jihadis, but Israel knocks down a building and it’s big news. That’s what I call media bias.

• 213 Scott // Jan 24, 2009 at 12:04 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  “Again, supposition. You’re just guessing”
  We’ve been over this. Gaza is one of the most tightly pack area’s in the world, and considering the properties of white phosphorus, it would be considered a war crime. So no not guessing.

  “If I fear for my life, yes, I can, and that includes getting beaten to death. ”
  You wouldn’t be able to prove you had fear for your life, unless I was like a 6’4″ 300 lb biker.

  “Gaza is attacking Israel, not just Hamas.”
  Have you ever heard of any non-Hamas member from Gaza attacking Israel? If not then yes, it is just Hamas.

  “I think Israel did that; it didn’t work. ”
  You think they did it. Either they did or they didn’t. So let me get this straight. The Israeli army can locate the majority of the hidden weapons and leader’s in Gaza, but they can’t just kill the leader’s?

  “Regardless, they don’t have to restrain themselves only with covert operations when being attacked.”
  The point was, that when dealing with terrorist organizations, covert ops work better.

  “Pretty amazing that you can Google that and not find the brutal murders of Israeli civilians by Jihadis, but Israel knocks down a building and it’s big news. That’s what I call media bias.”
  Actually I agree.

  Have a nice day.

• 214 Donkeyrock // Jan 24, 2009 at 12:46 PM

  Scott,

  “So no not guessing.”
  Yes, you’re guessing. You’re basically saying, “it’s densely populated, so there’s a civilian packed into every square foot of Gaza, so obviously white phosphorous is hitting civilians.” But this isn’t the case; Gaza is densely packed, but there is plenty of open territory, and there’s a good chance — given Israel’s track record — that there were no civilians in the area where they may’ve used any offensive white phosphorus.

  “You wouldn’t be able to prove you had fear for your life, unless I was like a 6’4″ 300 lb biker.”
  No need, you initiated the aggression, it’s my judgement of your intentions that will determine my response. Don’t punch people, they can shoot you.

  “Have you ever heard of any non-Hamas member from Gaza attacking Israel? If not then yes, it is just Hamas.”
  Yes, Fatah members (you know, those supposedly peaceful Jew-killers who control Judea and Samaria). Again, regardless of what party they belong to, Gaza is attacking Israel. You wouldn’t say British Labour is attacking Afghanistan, so insistence on blaming only a ruling party in Gaza is weak and excuses the Islam-induced genocidal hatred of the Gaza populace.

  “So let me get this straight. The Israeli army can locate the majority of the hidden weapons and leader’s in Gaza, but they can’t just kill the leader’s?”
  I don’t know, go ask them.

  “The point was, that when dealing with terrorist organizations, covert ops work better.”
  My counterpoint was Israel isn’t just dealing with a leadership, they’re dealing with a populace that wants it killed. Further, Egypt seems to be collaborating with Gaza to get munitions in through the Rafah tunnels by not policing tunnels and not allowing anyone else to monitor the tunnels. Iran is already resupplying Gaza, so the killing will continue.

• 215 Scott // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:30 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  “But this isn’t the case; Gaza is densely packed, but there is plenty of open territory, and there’s a good chance — given Israel’s track record — that there were no civilians in the area where they may’ve used any offensive white phosphorus.”
  Yeah I’m sure no civilians ever, oh I don’t know, walk to work, go out for a stroll. The point is, in a situation like this the probability is that there would be civilians wherever it was used.
  Don’t bring up Israel’s track record. At the minimum estimate 1/4 of the dead were civilians. Wonderful track record.

  “Don’t punch people, they can shoot you.”
  I think that we won’t be able to agree on this. It’s all a matter of the situation.

  “You wouldn’t say British Labour is attacking Afghanistan”
  I already said that Hamas isn’t a party like here in the west. Hamas is it’s own military.

  “My counterpoint was Israel isn’t just dealing with a leadership, they’re dealing with a populace that wants it killed.”
  You were the one talking about threat’s and without leadership, the threat would be greatly taken care of.

  “Egypt seems to be collaborating with Gaza to get munitions in through the Rafah tunnels by not policing tunnels and not allowing anyone else to monitor the tunnels.”
  So you must not be hearing the things about Egypt shooting Hamas member’s as they go into Egypt.

• 216 frank // Jan 24, 2009 at 4:03 PM

  Israel started and funded Hamas. Just google Hamas and you will see that the Jews are behind all the so called terrorist plots.

• 217 Scott // Jan 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM

  Wow. That is one of the most obviously wrong statements I have ever heard in my life.
  Anti-Semites have no place here.

• 218 Donkeyrock // Jan 24, 2009 at 5:05 PM

  Scott,

  “Don’t bring up Israel’s track record. At the minimum estimate 1/4 of the dead were civilians. Wonderful track record.”
  You’ve got balls. You defend Gaza with a 95% gleeful and purposely civilian kill rate against Israelis and you have the audacity to tell me not to bring up Israel’s amazing track record of preventing civilian deaths by leafletting, calling phones, blaring warnings to citizens of an enemy territory it has every right to attack (so it will stop Gaza’s genocidal crimes against humanity) and not targeting civilians at all? You profess a bankrupt morality with that single quoted statement.

  You ignore the overwhelming amount of war crimes from Gaza — from purposely targeting civilians, to using its own populace as human shields (forced and voluntary), and so much more — to focus on castigating Israel — a country trying to stop a deadly, genocidal aggressor — with accidental civilian deaths in a defensive war, and for not giving its enemies as much free food, water, electricity and other goodies as they can demand. You are defending the lowest common denominator of humanity; hateful, spiteful, demanding others help them while promising to kill their benefactors, and they won’t help themselves or stop being backwards because they are coddled.

  “Yeah I’m sure no civilians ever, oh I don’t know, walk to work, go out for a stroll.”
  During a firefight? Yeah, that’s common.

  “The point is, in a situation like this the probability is that there would be civilians wherever it was used.”
  Point is, Israel goes out of its way NOT to hit civilians, while your poor, downtrodden Gazans demand the death of Jews.

  “I already said that Hamas isn’t a party like here in the west. Hamas is it’s own military.”
  Your redefinition does not make it accurate.

  “You were the one talking about threat’s and without leadership, the threat would be greatly taken care of.”
  The threat stems from Islam, not just one of the many parties advocating Islamic rule.

  “So you must not be hearing the things about Egypt shooting Hamas member’s as they go into Egypt.”
  So you must not be reading about Egypt not policing the tunnels.

• 219 Scott // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:05 PM

  Donkeyrock,

  “You defend Gaza”
  Have I not gone over this enough? I do NOT defend Hamas. I just don’t approve of millions who did not even want them in power paying the price for them.

  “blaring warnings to citizens of an enemy territory”
  What about the bombings of the places that people had run to hide from the bombs? They didn’t call or leaflet these places.

  “food, water, electricity and other goodies”
  Wow. The fact that you think food and water are goodies, I encourage you to live weeks without either.

  “During a firefight? Yeah, that’s common”
  In battle, white phosphorus is used to cover troop assaults and such, ergo it would be fired first.

  “Your redefinition does not make it accurate.”
  So, your trying to say that Hamas isn’t it’s own military?

  “The threat stems from Islam, not just one of the many parties advocating Islamic rule.”
  Without Hamas and all of the extremist Islamic group educating children about extremist ideals, would there be a problem? No.

  Alright, at the beginning, it was fun debating you. But in the past few weeks, you have called me a supporter of terrorism, genocide, hate, murder, and said that quote, “You profess a bankrupt morality”. You and any other people reading this will notice that I have tried to be polite, but I won’t take it anymore.
  There is a famous quote, (I don’t know who by), “When a man uses insults to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak – probably both”

  And there is another one which I am now going to adopt.
  “When an argument flares up, the wise man quenches it with silence”

  I won’t be responding to you after this.

  Good day to you.

• 220 Donkeyrock // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:42 PM

  Scott,

  Once again you miss your chance to explain your support of Gaza, a population riddled with racial and ideological supremacists while raining crocodile tears of opprobrium upon Israel, a country that does everything but slit its own throat to help those who vow to kill it.

  I have never labeled you, you inferred those labels from what I wrote. You, however, have been busy adding sarcasm to your responses, ignoring and misrepresenting key elements of the discussion, and then claiming victim status when I show you that your stance is morally bankrupt. Through that tactic I think I now see why you identify with Gaza so closely.

  In your silence I hope you find wisdom. Good bye.

• 221 Steve M // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:56 PM

  If the majority of Palestinians in Gaza want peace so badly and they are supposedly in the majority, why don’t they just overthrow their Hamas Terrorist government? I mean let’s face it, they want peace just as much as the Israeli’s, right? Then why don’t they band together and show the world they want peace and then they can begin rebuilding their new peaceful 21st century civilization where living peacefully alongside the Jew is a reality?

  Because the Palestinians are not a majority of peaceful people. They are an animalistic society living in the 7th century. Their goal is the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

  At Pro Israel rallies in NYC where I work, I see peaceful song induced gatherings with a folksy atmosphere. At Pro Palestinian rallies I see hate and Shouts of jihad and calls for Israel to be washed into the sea. A much more violent atmosphere exist’s at these anti-Israel rallies.

  Golda Meir was right. Peace will come when Palestinian mothers learn to love their children more than they hate the Jew.

• 222 Steve M // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:03 PM

  Oh, and as for who’s land Israel belongs to??? Ask yourself this. In the time of Jesus, who were the people living in the land as their own? Let’s bear in mind that the words Palestine and Palestinian didn’t exist yet until the Romans invented them as a means to insult the exiled Jews from their homeland.

  Oh and the pictures of the morter shells being signed supposedly with hate messages from Israeli little girls???? Umm, that was exposed in 2007 as being a stunt by Hezbollah using Lebanese children to write hate messages in an effort to paint Israeli children as messengers of hate. Too bad they didn’t write in Hebrew instead of Arabic. It may have taken CNN longer to expose the ruse by Hezbollah.

• 223 Donkeyrock // Mar 9, 2009 at 11:21 PM

  Steve M.,

  Amen.

• 224 Mr Mister. // Jan 14, 2010 at 7:39 PM

  Well,

  The Canaanites lived in “Israel” before the Jews, but n.596 of the Mitzvot morally justified their genocide. Let’s not forget how genociding all of Sodom & Gomorrah (including the children), was, also, morally justified. Don’t get your wool rustled, this is historical fact. This same rationale is used to justify killings the Palestinians, because Jews believe they are scum, fact.

  So, when Palistine “became” israel, how were the Palistinians “removed”. Their water was poisioned, among other things.

  So, how the Jewish religion says they are God’s choosen people, oh sorry, god said that, and everyone else is justified to be killed (because, well, we’re just gentiles), how is this not the most racist position possible?

  I love the saying, “Religion freezes the heart, and enslaves the mind”.

  Really, both the Isrealis and Palistinians are pawns here.

• 225 Nemo // Jan 16, 2010 at 12:38 AM

  Interesting attempt at a troll, “Mister”. Go back to the playground, until you’re ready to join the adults at the grown-up table.

• 226 Auaschwitz #A-107 // May 22, 2010 at 9:46 AM

  Israel has abused the Palestinians totally and then they try to cry victim.

  Modern day Israel has had it’s victim card revoked. Today’s Israel is a bunch of fat arrogant spoiled children, living off the legacy of the Holocaust while making a new one on the Palestinians “because God promised us their land”

  There is much talk of children bombers but when was the last time that happened?

  But no mention of the illegal genocide conducted Dec 2008 to Jan 2009 with illegal weapons being used along with shooting children for fun

  I suggest any who support Israel to Google “Killed by Israel- Eaten by Dogs” for little Shahd’s story.

  Then go to Pakalert and look for Gaza Horror Pics. You can see what’s left of her halfway down the page.

  Can’t miss it, she’s the half baby with the bones sticking out where feet used to live

  And then come back here and try to give me that humane Israel baloney ’cause I have a thousand more stories of shooting the mom when she tried to get the body of her baby roasted by an illegal phosphorous missile

  And this Nemo calls the guy a troll for saying the truth?

• 227 Australian Patriot // Jul 14, 2010 at 11:48 AM

  Gaza, supports Hamas. Hamas has launched rockets into Israeli population centers killing men, women and children. Israel has retaliated, using the sledgehammer versus fly approach which it was fully justified in doing so.

  How long will it take people to realize that Israel is surrounded by hostile nations intent on its destruction and the genocide of the Israeli people for the simple fact that they are Jews.

  I support Israel, and i hope they stand firm against these terrorists.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website