No. of Recommendations: 26
John Baird: ‘Why Israel holds such a special place in my heart’

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fu...

But as I have said frequently, Canada will not “go along to get along.” Not under this Prime Minister’s watch and most certainly not under my watch as Canada’s Foreign Minister.

Canada upholds Israel’s right to exist—as a Jewish state—in peace and security.

On this point, there is no space for moral equivocation or ambivalence. We are compelled as a country of free citizens to speak clearly.

We have the right, and therefore the obligation, to speak out and to act.

Canada will not accept the attempt to judge Israel by a different standard than any other state, we will not passively observe the effort to delegitimize and isolate it within the international community, nor will we stay silent while the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory or its people.

Canada stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You sure know how to make a lib cringe with those comments.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Libs are practically uniformly cowardly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Canada upholds Israel’s right to exist—as a Jewish state—in peace and security.
...
Canada will not accept the attempt to judge Israel by a different standard than any other state


I'm not sure about Canada, but in the United States, the standard is freedom of religion. The US is not a "Christian state". We do not give special privileges to Christians.

Nations should represent citizens, not religions.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nations should represent citizens, not religions.

________________________

If so many states did not want to kill Jews, I would cut Israel a lot less slack -- so grand proclamation are great, it is what libs do, they just ignore consequences and reality while doing them, but it does make them feel good about themselves, so enjoy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
ls If so many states did not want to kill Jews, I would cut Israel a lot less slack

So basically you believe we should judge Israel by a different standard than any other state.

I can see your reasoning.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 25
PeterLibrul wrote: So basically you believe we should judge Israel by a different standard than any other state.

Yes.

In grade school, most children for the most part can stand up for themselves, but when the entire bus is ganging up on one child, another child (or two) usually intervenes.

Likewise, we have relatively tiny Israel trying to exist surrounded by pure hatred--the sole basis for which is a crazy, freedom-hating, women-hating, phuqued up religion. Without decent others intervening, Israel would've been wiped off the map long ago, thereby allowing pure hatred to win.

Israel hasn't been the aggressor; therefore, yes, Israel should be judged by a standard that identifies the aggressor as a religion-crazed hatred-spewing bully without the school bus.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So basically you believe we should judge Israel by a different standard than any other state.

I can see your reasoning.
___________________________

I think we should judge each state by a certain amount of common standards as to human decency and behavior as far as being aggressive toward other states. Internally, they pretty much should again have free reign with the exception of what I think would commonly be seen as inhumane -- torture, murder, enforced labor and enforced poverty(and there is such a thing) - they want to be Muslim, Catholic or Buddhist etc, it is not any of our business heck I truly believe communism is a religion as is socialism so that is OK by me too and has always been as far as America is concerned. Sure we get preachy but we deal with them like any other nation.

But I do think Israel gets a little extra slack in its' defense of self based on history of aggression against Jews by too many states. Additionally, I certainly understand Jews making their own Religion based state more than I understand almost anyone else doing it. They though they were safe in Russia, they thought they were safe in Austria they thought they were safe in Germany I might not ever trust a non-Jewish state either to be honest. I wouldn't hold it against gypsies if they formed their own state and were a little paranoid about aggression toward them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
...we have relatively tiny Israel trying to exist surrounded by pure hatred--the sole basis for which is a crazy, freedom-hating, women-hating, phuqued up religion. Without decent others intervening, Israel would've been wiped off the map long ago, thereby allowing pure hatred to win.

Israel hasn't been the aggressor; therefore, yes, Israel should be judged by a standard that identifies the aggressor as a religion-crazed hatred-spewing bully without the school bus.


How did this post get 16 recs? There's only one correct fact in it: Israel is a relatively tiny country.

Israel isn't surrounded by enemies. Islamic anti-semitism isn't the sole reason for its problems. Israel has been and certainly is now capable of defending itself without outside intervention. And it has, as often as not, been an agressor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
xLife wrote: And it has, as often as not, been an agressor.

Link, please.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Until Israel makes satisfactory amends and restitution to the Palestinians, there will not be peace.

Israel created itself in the most bloody and unfair fashion by driving off thousands of Palestinians form their homes, farms, and orchards. There were massacres and wholesale evictions without compensation.

The King David Hotel was bombed and British soldiers killed.

Injustice only breeds injustice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Until Israel makes satisfactory amends and restitution to the Palestinians, there will not be peace.

Israel created itself in the most bloody and unfair fashion by driving off thousands of Palestinians form their homes, farms, and orchards. There were massacres and wholesale evictions without compensation.

The King David Hotel was bombed and British soldiers killed.

Injustice only breeds injustice.
__________________________

Geez, as a good little lib, I figured you'd be pining for the Israelis to be getting reparations from the Egyptians et al, after all their ancestors did enslave them
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Geez, as a good little lib, I figured you'd be pining for the Israelis to be getting reparations from the Egyptians et al, after all their ancestors did enslave them

I thought this was cool point. Of course, reparations would be extremely difficult to prove and not because of the distance in time from then to now: there is virtually nothing outside the Bible that indicates that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, no matter what Pat Robertson or Charlton Heston may suggest.

The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/the-jewish-thinker/were-...

I do think it was a clever idea, though.

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Until Israel makes satisfactory amends and restitution to the Palestinians, there will not be peace.

Israel created itself in the most bloody and unfair fashion by driving off thousands of Palestinians form their homes, farms, and orchards. There were massacres and wholesale evictions without compensation.

The King David Hotel was bombed and British soldiers killed.

Injustice only breeds injustice.
-----------------------------
Ignorance breeds PA Dwellers:

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/05/20/contemporary-coverage...

The early Zionists, looking toward a binational state, never thought they would, could or should replace the Arabs in Palestine. When terrorism and fighting mounted in 1947-48, Arab leaders urged Palestinian Arabs to flee, promising that the country would soon be liberated. Israelis tried to induce the Arabs to stay. For this reason, the Israelis do not now accept responsibility for the Arab exodus. Often quoted is the statement of a Palestinian Arab writer that the Arab leaders “told us: ‘Get out so that we can get in.’ We got out but they did not get in.”

After the Israeli victory, Arab leaders outside of Palestine reversed their policy and demanded that all the refugees be readmitted to Israel. Israel reversed its policy, [and] refused to repatriate large numbers of Arabs on the ground that they would endanger the state. Nasser, for instance, has said, “If Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.”

Now 1.3 million Arabs, not counting the recent influx, are listed as refugees. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has an international staff of about a hundred and spends nearly $40 million a year, 60% of it from the U.S. government. UNRWA services are performed by 11,500 Arab employees, most them refugees. Obviously, this group has an interest in not solving the refugee problem.

So have the host governments. Consistently they have refused to go along with any plan or policy for the resettlement or assimilation of the refugees, preferring to use them politically. In 1955 the Arab League scuttled a Jordan Valley development project precisely because it would have reduced, perhaps by 250,000, the number of Arab refugees.

It’s about time this dangerous deadlock ended. The inevitable reshuffle of the Middle East ought to include a plan to phase out the refugee problem in five or 10 years. Israel, to show goodwill, should repatriate a few thousand refugees per year. All of the 1.3 million could be absorbed in underpopulated Iran and Syria, provided their governments would cooperate in internationally supported developments projects. Persuading Arab governments to adopt a policy of resettlement should be central to U.S. policy, and it would be worth putting up quite a lot of A.I.D. money to get the job done.
------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty long read, but very interesting.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
xLife wrote: And it has, as often as not, been an agressor.

Link, please.


Oh, brother. Are you serious? You want me to teach you Israeli history?You'll just quibble and play "they started it." Anyway, what kind of link would you possibly find convincing?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 23
xLife wrote: Anyway, what kind of link would you possibly find convincing?

I'd like one legitimate news story of an instance since May 14, 1948 where Israel attacked anyone without provocation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
PinotPete wrote: The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.

If one believes there's no God, and the Bible/Torah is nothing more than fairy tales, your premise may hold water. Fortunately for the Jews and unfortunately for you, there's non-Biblical history to provide clues.

Public works were an ongoing activity in Egypt through the millennia. According to the archaeological record, workers were not customarily slaves but paid laborers. Thus, Egypt would have drawn workers from near and far. The Hebrews, starting with, say, Joseph's people, would doubtless have been one of the laboring peoples. Time passes, and the Egyptians begin to depend on Hebrew labor and skills.

At some point, the Hebrews decide to pick up stakes and move on; to settle in their own land. Perhaps Moses had gone out to look around and had come back with stories about this great place called Canaan.

The Egyptians stood to take a big hit in their labor pool and said, "No, you have to serve out your contract first." The Hebrews said, "Sorry, no," with Moses saying, "Let my people go." The rest, as they say, is history. The Bible added the drama.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If one believes there's no God, and the Bible/Torah is nothing more than fairy tales, your premise may hold water. Fortunately for the Jews and unfortunately for you, there's non-Biblical history to provide clues.


I agree with you there may be "clues" to the Bible's historical stories based on how the various cultures that interacted with the Hebrews worked. I think it entirely possible that the Hebrews could have been in Egypt at some point and worked as laborers, as you say (which is not exactly how the Bible describes the Hebrews, though). Possible, yes. Actual evidence, no. That's all I was saying.

I also think you can believe in God without believing that the Biblical words themselves are inerrant. There is the idea of inspiration and people, though inspired, can make mistakes.

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Must we go back to Biblical days for a solution to the ancient problem of Israel vs. Palestine?

The practical reality is that the world community attempted to draw a line under the problems in May 1947 after (literally) centuries of unrest. These facts are not in dispute:

On May 15, 1947, the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations resolved that a committee, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine". In the Report of the Committee dated September 3, 1947 to the UN General Assembly, the majority of the Committee in Chapter VI proposed a plan to replace the British Mandate with "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem..., the last to be under an International Trusteeship System". On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II). The Plan attached to the resolution was essentially that proposed by the majority of the Committee in the Report of September 3, 1947. Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote on May 11, 1949. The Israeli Declaration of Independence was read out on Friday, May 14, 1948 by David Ben Gurion, who then became the first Prime Minister of the new state. The State was quickly recognized by the United States and the USSR. (Source: Wiki)

Since May 14, 1948, there hasn't been a single instance of aggression provoked FIRST by Israel. Not a single one. Has Israel stated (over and over) that they would defend themselves against aggression? Yes...and they have...but that's not anything like destroying the peaceful creation of a Jewish state that was endorsed by practically the entire world.

Have nations grown utterly weary of witnessing and trying to diplomatically intervene in the relentless whining and complaining of Palestine? Yes, but Israel has acquesced to many of Palestine's demands and--guess what--they're just not going to acquesce anymore.

If peace-loving nations allow Palestine to continue its bullying, the PA provides a road map for any other nation that seeks to overcome other nations, the result being what a mess. This simply cannot be allowed, in my opinion. Therefore, the United States should defend Israel as it's in our national interests to do so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
xLife wrote: You want me to teach you Israeli history?You'll just quibble and play "they started it." Anyway, what kind of link would you possibly find convincing?

CC replied: I'd like one legitimate news story of an instance since May 14, 1948 where Israel attacked anyone without provocation.


I knew you'd want to play "they started it."

In the history of warfare and conflict, there's no such thing as an unprovoked attack. There's always a provocation or rationalization. The Arabs were provoked into attacking Israel in '48. The Israelis were provoked into attacking the Arabs in '67. Etc. etc.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
xLife wrote: The Arabs were provoked into attacking Israel in '48.

Of course they were.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, and the City of Jerusalem. Each state would comprise three major sections, linked by extraterritorial crossroads; the Arab state would also have an enclave at Jaffa. The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. In consideration of its religious significance, the Jerusalem area, including Bethlehem, with 100,000 Jews and an equal number of Palestinian Arabs, was to become a corpus separatum, to be administered by the UN. The Jewish leadership accepted the partition plan, without reservation, as "the indispensable minimum," glad to gain international recognition but sorry that they did not receive more. Arguing that the partition plan was unfair to the Arabs with regard to the population balance at that time, the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League firmly opposed the UN action and rejected its authority to involve itself in the entire matter. [Of course they did.] They upheld "that the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations." (Source: Wiki)

The practical reality is the Palestinians are prepared to fight forever. Warring is now part of their DNA and they continue to school their children in hatred. This is a fact. Trying to obliterate the Jews has become their entire reason d'etre. They will accept no intervention by international peace keepers (see above). Meanwhile, they continue, through their crazy religion, to cut off the genitalia of their female children, deny civil rights to their women, and otherwise prove themselves to be despicable examples of human beings. None of this is true of the Jews. None.

I'm sorry, but the Palestinians must not be allowed to persist behaving like bullies, if not downright animals, clinging to a bizarre theology that now threatens the entire world with terrorism and otherwise resist peace in the region.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Teaching Palestinian children to hate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKMjKKfvstA

Here's what constitutes "provocation" by the Palestinians. Buncha babies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E23jXF_Naf4&feature=relat...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Son of Hamas Leader calls it like it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHq25tnZoFs&feature=relat...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Son of Hamas Leader calls it like it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHq25tnZoFs&feature=relat......

cc


good stuff cc....

i wonder if this guy is still alive though?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Mosab Hassan Yousef (Arabic: ???? ??? ?????) (born 1978) is a Palestinian and son of a Hamas founder and leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef. From 1997 to 2007, he worked undercover for Israel's internal security service Shin Bet, which considered him its most valuable source within the Hamas leadership. According to Israeli sources, the information Yousef supplied prevented dozens of suicide attacks and assassinations of Israelis, exposed numerous Hamas cells and assisted Israel in hunting down many militants, including his own father. In March 2010, he published his autobiography titled "Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices."

http://www.amazon.com/Son-Hamas-Gripping-Political-Unthinkab...

Yousef has since converted to Christianity and moved to San Diego, California. His request for political asylum in the United States was granted pending a routine background check on June 30, 2010. (Source: Wiki)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
glad to know he's still living.

i would be very afraid.

very courageous man to speak out against this "religion"....religion of death and hatred.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Cath,

As gratified as I am that you're taking the time to teach yourself some history, I really don't want to play "who started it?"


Warring is now part of their DNA and they continue to school their children in hatred. This is a fact. Trying to obliterate the Jews has become their entire reason d'etre. They will accept no intervention by international peace keepers (see above). Meanwhile, they continue, through their crazy religion, to cut off the genitalia of their female children, deny civil rights to their women, and otherwise prove themselves to be despicable examples of human beings.

None of that is "a fact." It's racist bulls***. And this is so backasswards it made me laugh:

...the Palestinians must not be allowed to persist behaving like bullies.

I agree Palestinian society is sick, but they're nuts in the way abused children are sometimes psychotic. Sixty years of being treated worse than second-class citizens and having the crap kicked out of you whenever you protest will do that to you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
oh it's felix talking about bullchit...well, he's an expert spouting it so case closed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
xLife wrote: I agree Palestinian society is sick, but they're nuts in the way abused children are sometimes psychotic. Sixty years of being treated worse than second-class citizens and having the crap kicked out of you whenever you protest will do that to you.

Well, then get ready for a movie about the Prophet Muhammad--the leader and founder of your phuqued up religion--that purports to show him as he really was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37DZ1i2IPu8&feature=playe...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Oh, and I might add, because you cut the labia off your little girls and treat your women like chattel, not only are you treated like second class citizens, you are, in fact, second class citizens.

Start behaving like evolved human beings and maybe you'll actually receive the respect you think you deserve.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, then get ready for a movie about the Prophet Muhammad--the leader and founder of your phuqued up religion...

Umm... I'm not a Muslim, Cath. Never have been. Not my religion. I'm an atheist. I think most religions are phucked up. And I'm not sure what your point is, but thanks anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The practical reality is that the world community attempted to draw a line under the problems in May 1947 after (literally) centuries of unrest. These facts are not in dispute...

You really don't know diddly about the region's history. The UN Partition Plan was not an attempt to end centuries of unrest, literally or figuratively. European Jews didn't even start to immigrate to Palestine until the late 1880s, about 65 years earlier. And neither the resident Jews, Christians, nor Muslims, who collectively considered themselves Palestinians,were happy about the illegal immigration of Eastern European Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aliyah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_f...

Here's a good book with which to educate yourself:

Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001. Vintage Books, 2001

Morris is unapologetically in favor of an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, so he's right up your alley.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, and I might add, because you cut the labia off your little girls and treat your women like chattel, not only are you treated like second class citizens, you are, in fact, second class citizens.

Who is the "you" you are referring to here?

FGM is mostly an East African culture thing, not a Muslim or religious thing. Ethiopian Jews practiced female circumcision before immigrating to Israel, where, like most Arab nations, it is illegal. It is relatively rare among Palestinian Arabs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm/fgm-islam
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<FGM is mostly an East African culture thing, not a Muslim or religious thing>

You know not what your are talking about. It is very prevalent in Countries like Saudi Arabia amongst others in the area. It is part of the muslim control over females.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<FGM is mostly an East African culture thing, not a Muslim or religious thing>

You know not what your are talking about. It is very prevalent in Countries like Saudi Arabia amongst others in the area.


I didn't say it wasn't prevalent in Saudi. But don't take my word for it. Read the link. Or anything on FGM.

It is part of the muslim control over females.

If you say so. Why then do Christian and Jewish Africans do it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Grouse and Cath,

Like most religions, there are plenty of reasons to hate Islam. FGM just isn't one of them. Despite what some idiots -- both Islamic and, obviously, not -- think, it's not a Muslim practice. It's a cultural practice that predates Islam in parts of the world most of which later became Islamic. In fact, one of the worst types of FGM is called Pharonic Circumcision.

If you want, you can continue to celebrate your ignorance, but wanting something to be true because it reflects badly on people you despise doesn't make it true.

Cheers,

Felix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Yours is the ignorant view, travel in that area and you will see


Look beyond Africa and see.... I know I've lived outside of the the US where we have not had the exposure and have muslim friends in places like Turkey who slam their own muslim counter points for this practice.

You have the ignorant view!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yours is the ignorant view, travel in that area and you will see.,?i.

Dude, I lived in Israel for six years and have travelled all over the Middle East and much of Africa.

I ...have muslim friends in places like Turkey who slam their own muslim counter points for this practice.

As they should. It's a barbaric practice. It's just not Islamic practice even though many of the a**holes who do it think it is. You shouldn't use their ignorance as an excuse for your own.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Until Israel makes satisfactory amends and restitution to the Palestinians, there will not be peace.

Israel created itself in the most bloody and unfair fashion by driving off thousands of Palestinians form their homes, farms, and orchards. There were massacres and wholesale evictions without compensation.

The King David Hotel was bombed and British soldiers killed.

Injustice only breeds injustice.


Divorced from facts, divorced from reality. What a warped view of the history of Israel. Stunningly stupid commentary.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
JR

educate yourself before you make accusations of stupidity.

Just how do you think Palestinians were driven off their ancestral lands and who bombed the Kind David Hotel?

Moron
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"JR, educate yourself before you make accusations of stupidity.Just how do you think Palestinians were driven off their ancestral lands and who bombed the Kind David Hotel?" - flightdoc



I think it was Tele who enlightened me to the fact that all land throughout history has been acquired by countries stealing it from each other.

It has probably been the way of mankind for the last 250,000 years. Us stealing it from the Indians was probably no different than what they had been doing to each other soon after they arrived in the New World.

Life is neither kind nor fair and like the Preacher said to me soon after we got married and I was whining to him about how unfair life was...

he said to me, "Get over it."

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"I think it was Tele who enlightened me to the fact that all land throughout history has been acquired by countries stealing it from each other. "

I'd venture the lands of where Israel is today was part of at least half a dozen empires.

Let's see....the Greeks invaded lots of that area...turkey.....Instanbul.....the famed city of Troy...

The Egyptians controlled much of it....way back when 8000 years ago.

The Romans moved in...took it over....

Before that didn't the Persian empire include it?

Then Germany almost over ran all of it....they took over most of northern Africa..till we booted them out...and before Germany took them over much of Africa was 'colonial' with Spain in Morocco, the French in Algeria and other places, the Portuguese there - there are mud forts the Portuguese built still in Saudi Arabia.....

and before that, if you believe your bi-bull.....there were 10,000 years of fighting as this king and that king took over 'this empire' and 'that empire' as groups fought each other...from the Hittites to all the others mentioned in the gory bi-bull. 250,000 people were slaughtered in the Olde Testament. That was a lot since the world population back then was probably 15 million.....

Before the Europeans came here, there was inter tribal warfare continually....tribes came and went.....the folks who built Cahokia...an empire of nearly 1,000,000 souls in Illinois...simply vanished....as did other Native American civilizations. There are Pueblos in TX, NM, and CO....that grew to tens of thousands...and then vanished....and hundreds of years later their land taken over by others.

Sometimes it is 'war'...other times, one group simply 'out populates' the rest and wins .....Which is why the Native Americans lost....

Which is why, in 2100, most of Europe will speak Arabic and bow down to Mecca 5 times a day.....the islamos with 8 kids apiece will simply outnumber the native Europeans in two generations.




t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
xLife wrote: I'm not a Muslim, Cath. Never have been. Not my religion. I'm an atheist. I think most religions are phucked up.

You're just an apologist for Islam. I see.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
xLife wrote: [Female genital mutiliation] is relatively rare among Palestinian Arabs.

You're simply wrong.

Prevalence of FGM by country.

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

Near and Middle East

Afghanistan -- Female genital mutilation is present in Afghanistan.

Iran -- Female genital mutilation exists in Western and Southern Iran, primarily in Iranian Kurdistan where it is reported to be widespread, but also in regions such as Khuzestan.

Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan (72.7% prevalence (excluding Dohuk), Type I and II. There is no law against FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan, but in 2007 a draft legislation condemning the practice was submitted to the Regional Parliament, but was not passed. A 2011 bill criminalizing the procedure was passed by the parliament of Iraqi Kurdistan and now awaits the ratification of President Massud Barzani.

Jordan -- Female genital mutilation is prevalent in Jordan.

Oman -- The practice is prevalent in Oman.

Pakistan -- The practice is prevalent.

Palestinian territories -- Female genital mutilation is present in Palestinian territories.

Qatar -- Female genital mutilation is present in Qatar.

Saudi-Arabia -- Female genital mutilation is prevalent, but is declining.

Syria -- Circumstantial evidence suggests FGM exists in Syria.

Turkey -- Circumstantial evidence suggests FGM exists in regions inhabited by Kurdish populations.

United Arab Emirates -- The WHO mentions a study that documents FGM in the United Arab Emirates, but does not provide data. The practice is reportedly prevalent in rural and urban UAE, but is declining.)

Yemen -- 23% prevalence in women 15 to 49; in addition to the adult prevalence, UNICEF reports that 20% of women aged 15–49 have a daughter who had the procedure.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I'd venture the lands of where Israel is today was part of at least half a dozen empires.

Let's see....the Greeks invaded lots of that area...turkey.....Instanbul.....the famed city of Troy...

The Egyptians controlled much of it....way back when 8000 years ago.

The Romans moved in...took it over....

Before that didn't the Persian empire include it? - tele


---------------

Here is the Imperial history of the Middle East in 90 seconds. Really great animation. Nobody can claim that some particular slice of territory was "originally" theirs.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
xLife wrote: [Female genital mutiliation] is relatively rare among Palestinian Arabs.
---
CC replies:You're simply wrong.

Prevalence of FGM by country.

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

Palestinian territories -- Female genital mutilation is present in Palestinian territories.


Cath,

I'm not wrong. That's exactly what I said. FGM is present in the Palestinian Territories. It's also present in Israel and the U.S. for that matter. It's relatively rare though.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/10/female-c...

Again, FGM isn't an Islamic thing, even though many ignorant people, both practitioners and critics, think so. It's a very old, mostly African, custom that predates Islam.

Regards,

Felix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
xLife wrote: I'm not a Muslim, Cath. Never have been. Not my religion. I'm an atheist. I think most religions are phucked up.
---
You're just an apologist for Islam. I see.


No. You are blind. I'm not apologizing for anything. FGM is a horrific and barbaric practice. It's just not an Islamic practice. Like I said previously, there are plenty of phucked up things about Islam (like most religions) but FGM isn't one of them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Felix, cutting the labia and clitoris off female children is a practice predominently associated with Islam. It doesn't matter from whence it came; Islam wholeheartedly embraced the practice and practices it today. I don't give a rat's titty about the history of female genital mutilation. I know only that Islam just loves to torture its children and treats their women like chattel. Therefore, my perception is that Islam is barbaric and so are its people. Thus, they're second class citizens in my mind so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they're treated that way.

It's up to Islam to change its behavior and thus its image to garner the respect it thinks it deserves. It's not up to me to excuse barbaric practices by "understanding" how such practices came to be a central tenet of Islam.

Maybe Islam needs to hire you to conduct its PR. You sure seem to love 'em.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Felix, cutting the labia and clitoris off female children is a practice predominently associated with Islam. It doesn't matter from whence it came; Islam wholeheartedly embraced the practice and practices it today.

Cath - You're wrong. As much as you want it to be, it is not an Islamic practice. It's not wholeheartedly accepted. It is, as I've said, a barbaric practice that predates Islam in part of the world where Islam is now prevalent, mainly Egypt and West Africa, though by no means limited to that region.


I don't give a rat's titty about the history of female genital mutilation.

It is abundantly clear that you cherish your ignorant, biased opinion to the facts.

By the way, what does any of this have to do with the subject of the thread, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
xLife wrote: As much as you want it to be, [FGM] is not an Islamic practice.

Yes, it is.

http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-genital-mutilation-an-...

Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem?

Among social activists and feminists, combating female genital mutilation (FGM) is an important policy goal. Sometimes called female circumcision or female genital cutting, FGM is the cutting of the clitoris of girls in order to curb their sexual desire and preserve their sexual honor before marriage. The practice, prevalent in some majority Muslim countries, has a tremendous cost: many girls bleed to death or die of infection. Most are traumatized. Those who survive can suffer adverse health effects during marriage and pregnancy. New information from Iraqi Kurdistan raises the possibility that the problem is more prevalent in the Middle East than previously believed and that FGM is far more tied to religion than many Western academics and activists admit.

Many Muslims and academics in the West take pains to insist that the practice is not rooted in religion but rather in culture. "When one considers that the practice does not prevail and is much condemned in countries like Saudi Arabia, the center of the Islamic world, it becomes clear that the notion that it is an Islamic practice is a false one," Haseena Lockhat, a child clinical psychologist at North Warwickshire Primary Care Trust, wrote. True, FGM occurs in non-Muslim societies in Africa. And in Arab states such as Egypt, where perhaps 97 percent of girls suffer genital mutilation, both Christian Copts and Muslims are complicit.

But at the village level, those who commit the practice believe it to be religiously mandated. Religion is not only theology but also practice. And the practice is widespread throughout the Middle East. Many diplomats, international organization workers, and Arabists argue that the problem is localized to North Africa or sub-Saharan Africa, but they are wrong. The problem is pervasive throughout the Levant, the Fertile Crescent, and the Arabian Peninsula, and among many immigrants to the West from these countries. Silence on the issue is less reflective of the absence of the problem than insufficient freedom for feminists and independent civil society to raise the issue.

***

Don't even talk to me about the stature of Muslims unless/until this practice--and treating their women like chattel--has been completely extinguished. Until then, Muslims are lower than dirt, in my opinion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
xLife wrote: As much as you want it to be, [FGM] is not an Islamic practice.
---
CathCoy counters: Yes, it is.

http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-genital-mutilation-an-......

Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem?


Umm... that link is on my side, even the part you cite:

And the practice is widespread throughout the Middle East.

Yes. Just as I said.

Many diplomats, international organization workers, and Arabists argue that the problem is localized to North Africa or sub-Saharan Africa, but they are wrong.

True. It is mos prevalent there, but is not practised only there, just as I wrote.

The problem is pervasive throughout the Levant, the Fertile Crescent, and the Arabian Peninsula, and among many immigrants to the West from these countries.

Again, just as I said. The problem is "present" in Palestine, but also in the U.S., Israel and many other places. It is prevalent in places where it has been part of culture for centuries pre-dating Islam. You're singling out Palestinians on this is obdurately irrational. There are soooo many other reasons to hate them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm singling out Muslims, of which Palestine is predominantly.

You're trying to defend the indefensible. Please stop.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm singling out Muslims, of which Palestine is predominantly.

Again, that makes no sense. FGM isn't an Islamic practice and it is relatively uncommon among Palestinians.

What you are doing is about as logical as singling out Americans for murdering child "witches." Christians in Africa murder child witches. Americans are predominantly Christian. There's probably a few cases of American Christians actually murdering kids they thought were witches.

Actually, that's less logical because the Christian Bible does in fact command Christians to kill witches whereas the Koran generally forbids female genital mutilation.

If you want to single out countries, you'd do better with Guinea and Somalia where the incidence of FGM is close to 100%. That you single out Palestinians for criticism suggests you're less interested in the issue of FGM than in bashing Palestinians. (Or maybe you just like to make and stubbornly defend factually incorrect and illogical arguments.)


You're trying to defend the indefensible. Please stop.

Again, I'm not defending anything, especially not female genital mutilation. It's an abhorrent and barbaric practice. I'm not defending Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel. It's an astoundingly stupid and vile thing to do. I'm not even defending the behavior of Palestinians in general. Remember, I'm the one who called their political culture psychotic.

Why are you so desperate to slander me that you'd misstate my position by 180 degrees? Do you enjoy being exactly wrong?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
xLife wrote: FGM isn't an Islamic practice and it is relatively uncommon among Palestinians.

Yes, it is an Islamic practice, and I've posted credible links more than once to illustrate how prevalent it is among Muslim states, of which Palestine is one. Here's another one, and then I'm done.

FGM: 'traditional practice' in 32 countries, of which 29 are OIC States -- 3 million girls mutilated worldwide each year, 95% of Egyptians

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/fgm-traditional-practice-i...

We decided to speak out again on a "traditional practice", whose religious links are vociferously denied, despite irrefutable UNICEF facts and figures. FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is spreading in Europe with some migrant populations that practise it traditionally. There are now over 1,500 cases in Geneva and nearly 10,000 in Switzerland, with hundreds of thousands in European Union countries. This won't cease until it is strongly penalized, backed by an unambiguous fatwa from the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar (Cairo) stating, unambiguously, that this 'cultural relativism' is forbidden by all legal traditions in Islam - unfortunately, this is unlikely. The subject is still considered taboo at the UN and an explicit mention of Sharia justification usually leads to an angry denial and rude denigrations, as we have learned from personal experience since 1993.

List of OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) member states by population

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

As for you...ploink.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
xLife wrote: FGM isn't an Islamic practice and it is relatively uncommon among Palestinians.

CathCoy responds: Yes, it is an Islamic practice, and I've posted credible links more than once to illustrate how prevalent it is among Muslim states, of which Palestine is one.


No it isn't and no you haven't. You reposted the links I provided to you, which clearly explain that FGM is not an Islamic practice. That it is instead a pre-Islamic custom generally forbidden by Islam, but nonetheless done by many Muslims, mainly those in East Africa. And nothing you've posted suggests that FGM is prevalent in Palestine (the subject of the thread).


Here's another one, and then I'm done.

Jihad Watch is not a credible source. It's an anti-Muslim blog written buy a bigot.


As for you...ploink.

Right. Hateful ignorance is bliss.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
Until Israel makes satisfactory amends and restitution to the Palestinians, there will not be peace.

Israel created itself in the most bloody and unfair fashion by driving off thousands of Palestinians form their homes, farms, and orchards. There were massacres and wholesale evictions without compensation.


Israel can pay restitution for all the few Palestinians who were driven out by Israel, plus the larger number who left in order to be out of the way of the invading Arabs, just as soon as every Moslem country from Pakistan to Morocco pays restitution for all the Jews who were driven to leave those countries in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Israel will have a great deal of money left over, by the way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Until Israel makes satisfactory amends and restitution to the Palestinians, there will not be peace.

Please, Israel has traded land for peace multiple times, it barely bought time before the next wave of attacks occurred.

Peace, to Western Civilization is the normal state of society. Peace, to the muslim world is the period between wars where you are preparing for the next war.

Israel created itself...

Obviously you didn't study history. Long story short, fall of Ottoman Empire, British Control, UN mandate of partition, Civil War (i.e. the Jews having to fight for the very existence).

So in a twisted way, you could say Israel created itself, just like its had to create itself every day since 1948, fighting to stay alive.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think it was Tele who enlightened me to the fact that all land throughout history has been acquired by countries stealing it from each other.


You needed Tele to tell you that? <LOL> I've always seen that fact as self-evident.

Well, maybe Sealand is the first exception...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Well, maybe Sealand is the first exception." - Andrew


When you go to the Florida Keys there are strips of the old overseas highway bridges where they left the bridge and just disconnected the middle of it. They left them there so people can walk out on them and fish.

Maybe I should go out on one of those old bridges and declare it an independent nation and set myself up as King? I mean why not? I've got the right name?

King Arthur
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe I should go out on one of those old bridges and declare it an independent nation and set myself up as King? I mean why not? I've got the right name?

King Arthur



In Sealand's case, the fort he occupied was ruled by the UK courts to be outside their jurisdiction (even though the Brits built it in the first place) because it was built beyond British territorial waters, therefore it was in "international waters" and therefore belonged to no one. I think you would have to find a loophole like that for your claim to be valid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"In Sealand's case, the fort he occupied was ruled by the UK courts to be outside their jurisdiction (even though the Brits built it in the first place) because it was built beyond British territorial waters, therefore it was in "international waters" and therefore belonged to no one. I think you would have to find a loophole like that for your claim to be valid." - Andrew


Plus one end of the old bridges are still attached to the Keys so the people can access it and walk out on the bridge and fish.

I've seen pictures of Sealand. It looks suspiciously like an old derelict platform of some type to me. It ain't much. I'm sorry but I'm not impressed.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I've seen pictures of Sealand. It looks suspiciously like an old derelict platform of some type to me. It ain't much. I'm sorry but I'm not impressed.


It's an old British WWII fort that was abandoned in the 1950s. It's not much, but I am impressed with the fact that a British WWII veteran found a legal loophole to declare independence and found his own country. I'm also impressed that he managed to marry a former beauty queen in spite of the fact that he was so disfigured (from war injuries) that the doctors told him to forget about ever attracting a woman. But he did, and he made her "Princess Joan". Very romantic!

-Baron Andrew of Sealand (reb may look like a Baron, but I'm the real thing... heh)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Another lovely aspect of Islam. [Warning: graphic photo]

Devotees turn mosque floor red during mass flagellation to mourn Shiite martyr

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238211/Blood-flows-...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"It's an old British WWII fort that was abandoned in the 1950s. It's not much, but I am impressed with the fact that a British WWII veteran found a legal loophole to declare independence and found his own country." - Andrew


They probably let him stay there so he'll take care of the place. He lives there at the discretion of the British. Trust me, if they cared or wanted him off that platform he'd be gone. Him being there is probably a a way of keeping the place up at minimal expense to the British government.

When I moved to Florida I lived in an old derelict ranch house between Ft. Pierce and Vero Beach. Leverette let me live there for free because I watched out for the place while I was there and sort of half-heartedly kept the place cleaned up. Same idea. That way Leverette didn't have to pay someone to take care of the place. We both benefited.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Another lovely aspect of Islam. [Warning: graphic photo]

Devotees turn mosque floor red during mass flagellation to mourn Shiite martyr

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238211/Blood-flows-......

CC


CC,

If I didn't know better, I'd say you have some issues with the practicioners of the Religion of Peace.

LOL

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They probably let him stay there so he'll take care of the place. He lives there at the discretion of the British. Trust me, if they cared or wanted him off that platform he'd be gone. Him being there is probably a a way of keeping the place up at minimal expense to the British government.


No. That's not the history. There were other similar abandoned forts in the general vicinity, but the British blew them all up and destroyed them. They had no use for them anymore. The only reason Sealand didn't get blown up was because Roy Bates and his family had already taken it over and moved in. The family successfully fought off British warships (and, later, Dutch and German terrorists).

The British government also tried to use the courts to evict the family. Their own courts ruled against them, saying it was outside of British territorial waters and therefore there was nothing the British government could do. The case was thrown out.

Later, in the 1970s, when Sealand was attached by a band of Dutch and German terrorists, the Bates family took one of the German terrorists prisoner. Germany tried to negotiate with the UK for the prisoner's release, but the UK told them there was nothing they could do as it was outside of British jurisdiction. Germany was, therefore, forced to negotiate directly with Sealand for the prisoner's release.

See, Art, it helps to know the history and not just make things up. :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The family successfully fought off British warships (and, later, Dutch and German terrorists)." - Andrew


LOL! They successfully fought off British Warships? Sounds like something from a British Comedy! Too bad the Argentinians didn't have their help during the Falkland Islands war.

Britain obviously didn't care that much. Trust me, if some country really wanted that derelict they'd have it. The whole thing is a hoot!

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trust me, if some country really wanted that derelict they'd have it. The whole thing is a hoot!

There are quite a lot of countries that exist because certain other countries don't bother to conquer them.

There are, for example, 15 recognized independent countries with no military.

Haiti is not one of them, but back in the Reagan administration the US took over the country pretty easily.

Sealand is independent because the British government tried to claim title to it under *existing* British law, rather than enact new law making it part of Britain. The British courts ruled that under existing law, no it isn't part of Britain, so Britain had to give it back. But if Parliament had first enacted a new law asserting sovereignty over it and making its "pretend" government illegal, the British courts almost certainly would not have had a problem with that.

The German invasion? Probably assumed that the platform would be unoccupied - inadequate intelligence. I don't know how the matter would have proceeded in German courts if that had been the case. But then the German government acknowledged that Sealand was outside their jurisdiction by attempting to negotiate with Britain for the release of the prisoner, and then had to negotiate with the government of Sealand, so they also have functionally recognized Sealand as a nation and NOW it would probably be illegal under German law for them to invade without a formal declaration of war.

I imagine that after the incident with Germany, a good portion of the population of Britain that is even aware of Sealand takes a bit of perverse pride in the country and regards it as sort of a national pet.
Print the post Back To Top