Pressure on Pope to apologize to Muslims

[kyleb]

Listening to that report again I must comment I think this is one of the wisest Popes in history.

I can't consider the Pope's long standing prejudice against Islam as wise, but even the most ignorant arguments can occasionally spark intelligent debate; much like Mel Gibson's recent drunken ramblings is helping him see the error of his own bigotry. That the article you posted earlier, "http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/764193.html ", did a great job in predicting that happening here.

 

[Yonoz]

I can't consider the Pope's long standing prejudice against Islam as wise, but even the most ignorant arguments can occasionally spark intelligent debate; much like Mel Gibson's recent drunken ramblings is helping him see the error of his own bigotry. That the article you posted earlier, "http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/764193.html ", did a great job in predicting that happening here.

Mel Gibson made unmistakably racist remarks in drunken stupor, I think the Pope was much more calculating.
EDIT: If I may quote that article:

A large part of having the courage of one's convictions, is a willingness to see how they actually stand up to the other side, in the context of discussion in which both sides listen at least as intently, as they talk.

As equals.

For the rightists among us, courage, in this sense, means examining your own actions and views and fallibilities as critically as you do those of your rivals.

For the leftists among us, self-esteem, in this context, means looking with the same appreciation and understanding of your own side's virtues, as you would those of the other side.

 

[kyleb]

I'm appreciate what you quoted but you are surely mistaken with you meant to be getting at with the bold, I am not a Leftist and I don't see any virtue in Muslim leaders preaching ignorant bigotry either.

As for the Pope, I highly doubt he had been hitting the bottle like Gibson, and his argument was certainly far more byzantine (pun intended ), but it was dearly presented in an attempt to rally Christianity rather than as a call for dialog with Islam. Regardless, like Gibson, the Pope "opened up the little box of horrors" in his head; and, though his words were presented in a far deliberate manor than Mel Gibson's outbursts, in much the same way it has shaken up the people on the other side of those delusions into steeping in and setting the record straight.

 

[Yonoz]

I'm appreciate what you quoted but you are surely mistaken with you meant to be getting at with the bold, I am not a Leftist and I don't see any virtue in Muslim leaders preaching ignorant bigotry either.

How would you define yourself then?
I highlighted that section for a reason. This isn't about the empty half:

...looking with the same appreciation and understanding of your own side's virtues, as you would those of the other side.

In this case, I think that virtue is the Pope's honesty.

As for the Pope, I highly doubt he had been hitting the bottle like Gibson, and his argument was certainly far more byzantine (pun intended ), but it was dearly presented in an attempt to rally Christianity rather than as a call for dialog with Islam.

Rally Christianity to what purpose? It is quite possible that His Holiness has strong opinions on the matter of Islamic fundamentalism. This fundamentalism is supported by hundreds of millions of Muslims that make a very hard to reach crowd. What better way to shake things down in the Muslim world? What better way to signal those masses that something is wrong with the people they're supporting? Richard Clarke describes his concentric circles model 10+ minutes into this video: http://www.cgs.uiuc.edu/resources/webvideo/rac.html" .

Regardless, like Gibson, the Pope "opened up the little box of horrors" in his head; and, though his words were presented in a far deliberate manor than Mel Gibson's outbursts, in much the same way it has shaken up the people on the other side of those delusions into steeping in and setting the record straight.

And that is exactly what we need - to shake people up into stepping in and setting records straight.

 

[kyleb]

How would you define yourself then?

Purple.

Seriously though, I am a libertarian. I disagree far to much with the Left in many areas to be labeled a Leftist though, and I've been called a Neo-Con as well for various positions but I have very little in common with them. In many areas I favor traditional conservative polices, although I have no respect for the dogmas that often come mixed them.

I highlighted that section for a reason. This isn't about the empty half:In this case, I think that virtue is the Pope's honesty.

I don't see any virtue or honesty in bigotry. Best I can tell, the virtue or honesty only comes in working past such things.

Rally Christianity to what purpose?

To promote his "Christian understanding of God", did you read the whole speech?

As for Clarke, I watched from 10:00 to 20:00 of the video and didn't hear him state anything but the obvious. Regardless, the 'God commands' group is only a subset of the of 'jihadist' supporters "circle' anyway, with many in that circle being those who know the difference between the Koran and extremist interpratations of it, but are opposed to us propping up their corrupt leaders, occupying their lands, and installing our corporations to play middlemen on their oil. Much like we have the hardcore religious settlers, and people like Jack Abramoff sending sniper scopes and such to the settlers, and then there are other backers of non-religious ideologies who lend support in various ways as well. But on either side, even they do come to understand the difference between what the Scriptures say and what they have been interpreting them to mean, how many do you think that will really change?

I personally doubt many, though I am hopping that what comes from this will help clear up some misunderstandings here in the West. Not that I have any reason to believe the Pope will be changing his mind, but at least some others might.

 

[Yonoz]

I don't see any virtue or honesty in bigotry. Best I can tell, the virtue or honesty only comes in working past such things.

Again, I don't see how the Pope's words can be interpreted as bigotry.
Don't you think the Pope's honesty in this case is helping people "work past" the differences between the west and the Muslim world?

To promote his "Christian understanding of God", did you read the whole speech?

I have read the speech, and the relevant part is actually quite minor. "Christian understanding of God" is a very broad description, what I understood from the speech is that in his understanding of God, the Pope believes spreading God's word by sword actually conflicts with that God's existence. Kind of like saying "God exists because you believe in it, and no God that will allow its word to be spread by sword is worth believing in, therefor God must be against spreading its word by sword".

As for Clarke, I watched from 10:00 to 20:00 of the video and didn't hear him state anything but the obvious.

Am I to understand you take it as obvious that there are hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims from Indonesia to the former Soviet Block that need to be arrested or killed? If so we are making great progress.

Regardless, the 'God commands' group is only a subset of the of 'jihadist' supporters "circle' anyway, with many in that circle being those who know the difference between the Koran and extremist interpratations of it, but are opposed to us propping up their corrupt leaders, occupying their lands, and installing our corporations to play middlemen on their oil.

They are opposed to you propping up corrupt leaders - they don't care if those corrupt leaders come from anywhere else - heck, they love being the corrupt leaders themselves. They are opposed to you occupying their lands, but they don't mind worse things like the ethnic cleansing in Darfur - because Muslims are doing it. They love the imperialists' archaic partitioning of the ME that allows them to control historically abused minorities like the Kurds but they want to eat the cake and leave it whole by rejecting the Jewish nation's right to exist as an independent equal among them. So it is not the matter of corrupt leaders or occupation that is really bothering them - they simply want more power.

Much like we have the hardcore religious settlers, and people like Jack Abramoff sending sniper scopes and such to the settlers, and then there are other backers of non-religious ideologies who lend support in various ways as well.

In that sense you are correct, however that circle model can be applied to settlers as well. Most settlers are quite peaceful and down to earth, they live very close to the centre of Israel and commute to work there every day. The hard-core extremists reside in remote areas, and they indeed deserve the despicable name they have earned for themselves. Unfortunately they tarnish groups that are in some sense victims of circumstance.

But on either side, even they do come to understand the difference between what the Scriptures say and what they have been interpreting them to mean, how many do you think that will really change?

These people don't simply follow the written word in such a way because they think it's a good interpretation; their behaviour is motivated by certain values, they follow certain leaders, their perception of the world is very firm. I have, through long, often tiring, dialogues, convinced quite a few Israelis to "switch" their support to left-wing parties. It's a very difficult task one-on-one, and it's impossible for the Pope to be able to change things all by himself - thankfully he is not alone on this front. It is true, however, that there is a leadership vacuum in moderate Islam.

I personally doubt many, though I am hopping that what comes from this will help clear up some misunderstandings here in the West. Not that I have any reason to believe the Pope will be changing his mind, but at least some others might.

Let us agree that this is one of many crises with Islam, and as such it is one of the least bloody. It may eventualy emerge as beneficial, time will tell.

 

[kyleb]

Again, I don't see how the Pope's words can be interpreted as bigotry.
Don't you think the Pope's honesty in this case is helping people "work past" the differences between the west and the Muslim world?

And again, if instead he had built an argument against Judaism off some quote which read “Show me just what Moses brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to engage in blood libel”, Surely you can see how there is no honesty in such bigorty there?

I have read the speech, and the relevant part is actually quite minor. "Christian understanding of God" is a very broad description, what I understood from the speech is that in his understanding of God, the Pope believes spreading God's word by sword actually conflicts with that God's existence. Kind of like saying "God exists because you believe in it, and no God that will allow its word to be spread by sword is worth believing in, therefor God must be against spreading its word by sword".

Right, the Koran doesn't command spreading Islam by the sword just like the Torah doesn't command engaging in blood-libel.

Am I to understand you take it as obvious that there are hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims from Indonesia to the former Soviet Block that need to be arrested or killed? If so we are making great progress.

What do you mean by "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? Besides, what I heard Clark say was obvious so I'm still where I was before I heard Clark make his statements; and he didn't say hundreds of thousands of thousands he approximated 50,000-200,000, and he didn't say we have to kill or arrest them all.

They are opposed to you propping up corrupt leaders - they don't care if those corrupt leaders come from anywhere else - heck, they love being the corrupt leaders themselves. They are opposed to you occupying their lands, but they don't mind worse things like the ethnic cleansing in Darfur - because Muslims are doing it. They love the imperialists' archaic partitioning of the ME that allows them to control historically abused minorities like the Kurds but they want to eat the cake and leave it whole by rejecting the Jewish nation's right to exist as an independent equal among them. So it is not the matter of corrupt leaders or occupation that is really bothering them - they simply want more power.

Really? As in the whole God-forsaken lot of them? Are you sure you are not exagerating and overgeneralizing things perhaps a bit here?

In that sense you are correct, however that circle model can be applied to settlers as well. Most settlers are quite peaceful and down to earth, they live very close to the centre of Israel and commute to work there every day. The hard-core extremists reside in remote areas, and they indeed deserve the despicable name they have earned for themselves. Unfortunately they tarnish groups that are in some sense victims of circumstance.

Many settlers don't even realize they are living on the other side of the green line, and your government subsidized them as warm bodies to aid in the continuing expropriation of Palestinian land. Them and there children are shamelessly benign use as human shields by the religious and non-religious ideologues perpetuating this madness in their ongoing land grab.

These people don't simply follow the written word in such a way because they think it's a good interpretation; their behaviour is motivated by certain values, they follow certain leaders, their perception of the world is very firm. I have, through long, often tiring, dialogues, convinced quite a few Israelis to "switch" their support to left-wing parties. It's a very difficult task one-on-one, and it's impossible for the Pope to be able to change things all by himself - thankfully he is not alone on this front. It is true, however, that there is a leadership vacuum in moderate Islam.

Yet then for example, there was secular leadership in Palestine before that was torn apart for the sake of taking more land.

Let us agree that this is one of many crises with Islam, and as such it is one of the least bloody. It may eventualy emerge as beneficial, time will tell.

You are going to have to explain what that unspecified pronoun is referring to before I can rightly agree here.

 

[Yonoz]

And again, if instead he had built an argument against Judaism off some quote which read “Show me just what Moses brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to engage in blood libel”, Surely you can see how there is no honesty in such bigorty there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry" :

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

It's a quote, nothing more. He was quite clear these were not his beliefs. I think that would be enough for any straight-minded person, especially considering his record.
In the hypothetical case of Judaism being as violent as Islam, and those were the words of someone who was engaged in a battle with a Jewish empire, I would not see anything wrong with the Pope simply quoting it to make an example of the need for a Christian-Jewish dialogue. The Pope's saying "this is how Christians who were at battle with you perceived you, don't make the same mistake".

Right, the Koran doesn't command spreading Islam by the sword just like the Torah doesn't command engaging in blood-libel.

It does in some places, but no more than other semite scriptures, and as could be expected for such an old text it is wide open to interpretation. No one claimed that though. A religion is more than its scriptures.

What do you mean by "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?

"We" as in you and I. We are conducting a dialogue. We are trying to understand each other.

Besides, what I heard Clark say was obvious so I'm still where I was before I heard Clark make his statements; and he didn't say hundreds of thousands of thousands he approximated 50,000-200,000, and he didn't say we have to kill or arrest them all.

I believe he did.

Really? As in the whole God-forsaken lot of them? Are you sure you are not exagerating and overgeneralizing things perhaps a bit here?

Not the whole lot, the people who control the whole lot. It is the above mentioned 50,000-200,000 active terrorists.

Yet then for example, there was secular leadership in Palestine before that was torn apart for the sake of taking more land.

What are you referring to?

You are going to have to explain what that unspecified pronoun is referring to before I can rightly agree here.

Let us agree that this latest crisis over the Pope's words is one of many crises with Islam, and as such it is one of the least bloody. It may eventualy emerge as beneficial, time will tell.

 

[kyleb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry" :
It's a quote, nothing more. He was quite clear these were not his beliefs. I think that would be enough for any straight-minded person, especially considering his record.

Again, in his position, as far as he is conserned his words are God's beliefs; and his words exemplified his position against Islam with far more than just the quote, as does his record.

In the hypothetical case of Judaism being as violent as Islam, and those were the words of someone who was engaged in a battle with a Jewish empire, I would not see anything wrong with the Pope simply quoting it to make an example of the need for a Christian-Jewish dialogue. The Pope's saying "this is how Christians who were at battle with you perceived you, don't make the same mistake".

The Pope was talking about uniting Christianity in a room full of Christians, references to Islam were presented as contrast to that. And what you suggested isn't even hypothetical, it is just a matter of perspective.

It does in some places, but no more than other semite scriptures, and as could be expected for such an old text it is wide open to interpretation. No one claimed that though. A religion is more than its scriptures.

The various Scriptures do command various things, but the Koran does not command Muslims to spread their faith by the sword. Some Hadith suggests such things in various situations, but to disparage Islam as a whole for that would as disingenuous as condemning Judaism for sections of Talmud.

"We" as in you and I. We are conducting a dialogue. We are trying to understand each other.

I"m saying that your "we" is rather one-sided to me though as I didn't agree to any" hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims from Indonesia to the former Soviet Block that need to be arrested or killed".

I believe he did.

Could you please provide the time stamp of where you believe he did, and a recounting of which words you are referencing?

Not the whole lot, the people who control the whole lot. It is the above mentioned 50,000-200,000 active terrorists.

That is the lot I was referring to as well.

What are you referring to?

I am referring to the corrupting Fatah and the empowerment of Hamas.

Let us agree that this latest crisis over the Pope's words is one of many crises with Islam, and as such it is one of the least bloody. It may eventualy emerge as beneficial, time will tell.

I don't see this as a crisis for Islam just as I don't see some imam spouting ingorant bigorty about the West as a crisis for us. The only crisis I can see in any of that is the bigorty, and I can't rightly pin that on the people it is directed at.

 

[Yonoz]

Again, in his position, as far as he is conserned his words are God's beliefs; and his words exemplified his position against Islam with far more than just the quote, as does his record.

"His words are God's beliefs"? So are you saying the Pope can't quote anyone, because whatever comes out of his mouth whether he's quoting a third party or reading something aloud is God's belief, even if he later states "These words do not reflect my belief"?
What in your opinion is the Pope's position against Islam?

The Pope was talking about uniting Christianity in a room full of Christians, references to Islam were presented as contrast to that.

Have you even read the speech?

And what you suggested isn't even hypothetical, it is just a matter of perspective.

What planet are you on?

I"m saying that your "we" is rather one-sided to me though as I didn't agree to any" hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims from Indonesia to the former Soviet Block that need to be arrested or killed".

That's why I typed those 2 magic words, "if" and "then".

Could you please provide the time stamp of where you believe he did, and a recounting of which words you are referencing?

18'12"

The Al-Qaeda people, and probably the second circle out - the Jihadists - are not open to persuasion, and we do probably have to arrest them, put them in jail, and perhaps in some cases engage them in combat.

That is the lot I was referring to as well.

Great. So that brings us back to the point that these people are not fighting injustice, they're fighting the west. It seems there's a special reservoir of zealotry that's reserved for fighting non-Muslims.

I am referring to the corrupting Fatah and the empowerment of Hamas.

Then what did you mean by this:

Yet then for example, there was secular leadership in Palestine before that was torn apart for the sake of taking more land.

Who was taken apart?

I don't see this as a crisis for Islam just as I don't see some imam spouting ingorant bigorty about the West as a crisis for us. The only crisis I can see in any of that is the bigorty, and I can't rightly pin that on the people it is directed at.

Forgetting a few firebombed churches and one murdered sister, aren't we?

 

[kyleb]

I'm not forgetting any of that, I just didn't figure that is what you were talking about as I've seen British soccer matches turn into more of a "crisis" than that. What planet are you on? I'm on one with approximately 50,000-200.000 "jihadists" out of well over 1 billion Muslims; and round about 100,000 extremist settlers out 16 million Jews and only a fraction of those religious at all. From that perspective Judaism can easily be argued to be more violent than Islam.

But no, you give a pass to such extremists as they use economic incentives and even there own child children as human shields in Israel's continuing land grab, all while backing bigotry directed at the predominate faith of those who's land your nation continues to expropriate. And beyond that you take Clark's somber acknowledgment of what protecting ourselves from the "jihadists" could intail as some sort of unshackled battlecry. Seriously, Yonoz, what planet do you live on?

 

[Yonoz]

I'm not forgetting any of that, I just didn't figure that is what you were talking about as I've seen British soccer matches turn into more of a "crisis" than that.

Riiiiiight.

What planet are you on? I'm on one with approximately 50,000-200.000 "jihadists" out of well over 1 billion Muslims; and round about 100,000 extremist settlers out 16 million Jews and only a fraction of those religious at all. From that perspective Judaism can easily be argued to be more violent than Islam.

"100,000 extremist settlers" - how did you come up with that figure? You're also forgetting that these 50,000-200,000 Jihadists are merely active terrorists, there are hundreds of millions that support them. This figure also does not include for example an entire Muslim military engaged in ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Historically, the contrast becomes even sharper, but I know exactly what will happen if we go there.

 

[kyleb]

http://www.umich.edu/~uac/threeweeks/Volume2.6/soccer.html", and feel free to present your own figures if you want to dispute mine.

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.umich.edu/~uac/threeweeks/Volume2.6/soccer.html", and feel free to present your own figures if you want to dispute mine.

If you'll read my first comment again please:

Let us agree that this is one of many crises with Islam, and as such it is one of the least bloody. It may eventualy emerge as beneficial, time will tell.

EDIT: Crises don't have to be lethal, eg the Cuban missile crisis, the energy crisis etc.
I'm just wondering what you call "extremists". Are there 100,000 settlers planning to kill anyone? No. There are, according to Richard Clarke, 50,000-200,000 Jihadists planning to kill people.

 

[Yonoz]

Here's a fresh example of how the Jewish State treats Jewish terrorists: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/768024.html"

Jerusalem District Court on Wednesday sentenced a Jewish terrorist to four consecutive life sentences plus an additional 12 years in prison for murdering four Palestinian men.

Asher Weisgan was convicted on September 11 of murdering four Arab workmen and wounding a fifth at a factory in the West Bank settlement of Shilo where they all worked, the day before the implementation of the Gaza disengagement plan in August 2005.

The penalty is the maximum permissible by law.
If only other nations in the ME were to treat their terrorists this way.

 

[kyleb]

If you'll read my first comment again please.

I am well aware of what you said there. Perhaps you would be severed by reading the discussion that came after that again.

And by extemist settlers I mean the one's who think God grants them the right to steal land.

 

[Yonoz]

I am well aware of what you said there. Perhaps you would be severed by reading the discussion that came after that again.

I have read it. As I said, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis" needn't be lethal.

A crisis (plural: crises) is a turning point or decisive moment in events. Typically, it is the moment from which an illness may go on to death or recovery. More loosely, it is a term meaning 'a testing time' or 'emergency event'. It is a concept in economics (discussed elsewhere) and in international relations, discussed below.

International relations
...In this context, a crisis can be loosely defined as a situation where there is a perception of threat, heightened anxiety, expectation of possible violence and the belief that any actions will have far-reaching consequences (Lebow, 7-10).

Can we agree this is a crisis involving Islam?

And by extemist settlers I mean the one's who think God grants them the right to steal land.

Yes but we're talking about violence:

What planet are you on? I'm on one with approximately 50,000-200.000 "jihadists" out of well over 1 billion Muslims; and round about 100,000 extremist settlers out 16 million Jews and only a fraction of those religious at all. From that perspective Judaism can easily be argued to be more violent than Islam.

 

[Yonoz]

I wanted to quote the mentioned article but it appeared only in Hebrew. Thankfully someone has already gone to the trouble of translating this rather lengthy piece: http://imshin.net/?p=453" by Ben Dror Yemini. This is just the first two paragraph and the summary:

Fact no. 1: Since the establishment of the State of Israel a merciless genocide is being perpetrated against Muslims and/or Arabs. Fact no. 2: The conflict in the Middle East, between Israel and the Arabs as a whole and against the Palestinians in particular, is regarded as the central conflict in the world today. Fact no. 3: According to polls carried out in the European Union, Israel holds first place as “Danger to world peace”. In Holland, for instance, 74% of the population holds this view. Not Iran. Not North Korea. Israel.

Connecting between these findings creates one of the biggest deceptions of modern times: Israel is regarded as the country responsible for every calamity, misfortune and hardship. It is a danger to world peace, not just to the Arab or Muslim world.

...

Lebanon: The Lebanese civil war took place from 1975 to 1990. Israel was involved in certain stages, by way of the first Lebanon War in 1982. There is no disagreement that a considerable part of the victims were killed in the first two years.

Most assessments talk of over 130,000 killed. Most of them were Lebanese killed by other Lebanese, on religious, ethnic grounds and in connection with the Syrian involvement. Syria transferred its support between various parties in the conflict. The highest estimates claim that Israeli activities were the cause of around 18,000 people, the great majority of which were fighters.

Lebanon summary: 130,000.

Yemen: In the civil war that took place in Yemen from 1962 to 1970, with Egyptian and Saudi involvement, 100,000 to 150,000 Yemenites were killed, and more than a thousand Egyptians and a thousand Saudis.

Egypt committed war crimes by incorporating the use of chemical warfare. Riots in Yemen from 1984 to 1986 caused the deaths of thousands more.

Yemen summary: 100,000 to 150,000 fatalities.

Chechnya: Russia turned down Chechen Republic demands for independence, and this led to the first Chechen war of 1994 to 1996. The war cost the lives of 50,000 to 200,000 Chechens.

Russia put a great deal into this conflict, but failed miserably. This did not help Chechens, because although they had gained autonomy there republic was in ruins.

The second Chechen War began in 1999 and officially ended in 2001, but it has not really ended, and number of the victims is estimated at 30,000 to 100,000.

Chechnya summary: 80,000 to 300,000 fatalities.

From Jordan to Zanzibar: In addition to the wars and the massacres, there have also been smaller confrontations, that have cost the lives of thousands and tens of thousands, of Muslims and Arabs (killed) by Muslims and Arabs. These confrontations are not even taken into account in the tables presented on these pages, because the numbers are small, relatively speaking, even though the numbers of those killed are far higher than the numbers of the victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here are some of them:

Jordan: 1970 to 1971 the Black September riots took place In the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. King Hussein was fed up of the Palestians use of the country and their threatened to take control of it. The confrontation, mainly a massacre in the refugee camps, took thousands of lives. According to estimates provided by the Palestinians themselves - 10,000 to 25,000 fatalities. According to other sources - a few thousand.

Chad: Half of the population of Chad are Muslims: In various civil wars 30,000 civilians have been killed.

Kosovo: In the mainly Muslim area of Yugoslavia about 10,000 were killed in the war there from 1998 to 2000.

Tajikistan: Civil war from 1992 to 1996 left about 50,000 dead.

Syria: Hafez Assad’s systematic persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood ended in the 1982 massacre in the city of Hama, costing the lives of about 20,000 people.

Iran: Thousands were killed in the beginning of the Humeini Revolution. The precise number is unknown, but is somewhere between thousands and tens of thousands. The Kurds also suffered at the hands of Iran, and about 10,000 of them were murdered there.

Turkey: About 20,000 Kurds were killed in Turkey as part of the conflict there.

Zanzibar: In the earlyu 1960’s the island was granted independence, but only for a short time. At first, the Arabs were in power, but a black group, made up mainly of Muslims, slaughtered the Arab group, also Muslim, in 1964. The estimates are that 5,000 to 17,000 were killed.

Even this is not the end of the list. There were more conflicts with unknown numbers of victims in former USSR republics with Muslim majority populations (like the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagurno Karabach), and a disputable number of Muslims that were killed in mixed population countries in Africa, such as Nigeria, Mauritania or Uganda (in the years of Idi Amins reign in Uganda, in the decade that began in 1971, about 300,000 Ugandans were killed. Amin defined himself as Muslim, but in contrast to Sudan, it is hard to say that the background for the slaughter was Muslim, and it certainly wasn’t Arab.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

To all the above, one can add this data: The great majority of Arabs killed in the framework of the Israeli-Arab Conflict were killed as a result of wars instigated by the Arabs and as a result of their refusal to recognize the UN decision regarding the establishment of the State of Israel, or their refusal to recognize the Jews’ right of self-definition.

The number of Israelis killed by Arab aggression has been relatively much higher than the numbers of Arabs killed. In the War of the Independence, for example, more than 6,000 Israelis were killed out of a population that was then made up of 600,000. This means: One percent of the population. In comparison with this, Arab fatalities in the war against Israel came from seven countries, the populations of which were already tens of millions. Israel did not dream, did not think and did not want to destroy any Arab state. But the ostensible goal of the attacking armies was “to liquidate the Jewish entity”.

Obviously, in recent years, the Palestinian victims have received most of the attention of the Media and the Academia. In actual fact, these make up just a small percentage of the total sum of all victims. The total sum of Palestinians killed by Israel in the territories that were conquered is several thousand. 1,378 were killed in the first Intifada, and 3,700 since the start of the second Intifada.

This is less, for instance, than the Muslim victims massacred by former Syrian president, Hafez Assad in Hama in 1982. This is less than the Palestinians massacred by King Hussein in 1971. This is less than the number of those killed in one single massacre of Muslim Bosnians by the Serbs in 1991 in Srebrenica, a massacre that left 8,000 dead.

Every person killed is regrettable, but there is no greater libel than to call Israel’s actions ‘genocide’. And even so, the string ‘Israel’ and ‘genocide’ in Google search engine leads to 13,600,000 referrals. Try typing ‘Sudan’ and ‘genocide’ and you’ll get less than 9 million results. These numbers, if you will, are the essence of the great deception.

The occupation is not enlightened, but is not brutal

Another fact: Since WWII, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the national conflict with the lowest number of victims, but with the world’s highest number of publications hostile to Israel in the media and in the Academia.

At least half a million Algerians died during the French occupation. A million Afghanis died during the Soviet occupation. Millions of Muslims and Arabs were killed and slaughtered at the hands of Muslims. But all the world knows about one Mohammed a-Dura (whose death was regrettable, but there is some doubt whether he was killed by Israeli gunfire at all).

It is possible and acceptable to criticize Israel. But the excessive, obsessive, and at times anti-Semitic criticism serves also as a coverup, and in some cases also as an approval, of the genocide of millions of others.
Occupation is not enlightened and can’t be enlightened. But if we try to create a scale of ‘brutal occupation’, Israel will come last. This is a fact. This is not an opinion.

And what would have happened to the Palestinians if, instead of being under Israeli occupation they were under Iraqi occupation? Or Sudanese? Or even French or Soviet? It is highly probable that they would have been victims of genocide, at worst, and of mass killings, purges, and deportations at best.

But luckily for them they are under Israeli occupation. And even if, I repeat, there is no such thing as an enlightened occupation, and even if it is acceptable and possible, and at times necessary, to criticize Israel, there is no occupation and there has never been an occupation with so few fatalities (indeed, there are other injuries that are not manifested in the numbers of fatalities, such as the refugee problem. This will be discussed in a separate chapter).

Television screen ethics

So why is the impression of the world the direct opposite? How come there is no connection between the facts and the numbers and the so very demonic image of Israel in the world?

There are many answers. One of them is that western ethics have become the ethics of television cameras. If a Palestinian terrorist or a Hizballah man tries to shoot a rocket from the midst of a civilian neighborhood, and Israel retaliates with fire - causing the death of two children - there will be endless headlines and articles all over the world that “Israel murders children”. But if entire villages are destroyed in Sudan or whole cities are erased in Syria, there will be no television cameras in the area.

And so, according to television ethics, Jose Saramago and Harold Pinter sign a petition protesting ‘genocide’ and ‘war crimes’ perpetrated by Israel. They have never read the Geneva Convention either. They probably do not know that, aside for very few exceptions, the actions of Israel against military targets hitting civilians is allowed according to the Geneva Convention (protocol 1 paragraph 52.2). And because these people are so submerged in television ethics, they will not sign any petitions in protest of the genocide of Muslims by Muslims. Murder for the sake of it. They are allowed to do it.

Television ethics is a tragedy for the Arabs and the Muslims themselves. Israel pays dearly because of it, but the Arabs and the Muslims are its real victims. And as long as this blue screen morality continues, the Arabs and the Muslims will continue to pay the price.

Epilogue

There are those that claim that Arab and Muslim states are immune from criticism, because they are not democratic, but Israel is more worthy of criticism because it has democratic pretences. Claims like this are Orientalism at its worst. The covert assumption is that the Arabs and the Muslims are the retarded child of the world. They are allowed. It is not only Orientalism. It is racism.

The Arabs and the Muslims are not children and they are not retarded. Many Arabs and Muslims know this and write about it. They know that only an end to the self-deception and a taking of responsibility will lead to change. They know that as long as the west treats them as unequal and irresponsible it is lending a hand not only to a racist attitude, but also, and mainly, to a continuation of their mass murder.

The genocide that Israel is not committing, that is completely libelous, hides the real genocide, the silenced genocide that Arabs and Muslims are committing mainly against themselves. The libel has to stop so as to look at reality. It is in the interest of the Arabs and the Muslims. Israel pays in image. They pay in blood. If there is any morality left in the world, this should be in the interest of whoever has a remaining drop of it in him. And should it happen, it will be small news for Israel, and great news, far greater news, for Arabs and Muslims.

 

[kyleb]

I have read it. As I said, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis" needn't be lethal.

Yeah, but then when I said I don't see this as a crisis for Islam you responded with your pompously phrased question:

Forgetting a few firebombed churches and one murdered sister, aren't we?

So are you talking about voilence or not?

Can we agree this is a crisis involving Islam?

Best I can tell, you can't even agree with yourself on the nature of the "crisis" you are arguing here.

Yes but we're talking about violence:

And Abermoff wasn't sending the extremist settlers sniper scopes and the like to provide friendly means to expropriate Palestinian land.

 

[Yonoz]

Yeah, but then when I said I don't see this as a crisis for Islam you responded with your pompously phrased question:

So are you talking about voilence or not?

Violence is just one aspect of this crisis, if you want more examples of an international crisis you can look back to the previous pages of this thread.

Best I can tell, you can't even agree with yourself on the nature of the "crisis" you are arguing here.

Well is it or isn't it?

And Abermoff wasn't sending the extremist settlers sniper scopes and the like to provide friendly means to expropriate Palestinian land.

Oh did he send 100,000 sniper scopes?

 

[kyleb]

I can't say on the numbers there, but he is fair from the only one the only one supporting the extremist settlers either; the settllers who teach their kids to throw rocks at Arabs and Internationals alike while the IDF watches, using those children as foot solders in this continuing conquest of land.

 

[bartman fartman]

Muslims offend other religions all the time why should they be the only ones who get apollogised to.

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3309164,00.html"

Holy See's foreign minister tells UN General Assembly that misunderstanding between cultures breeding violent extremism; blasts those who 'regard the possession of nuclear weapons as an element of national pride'

 

[Anttech]

Pope was misinterpreted'
Lajolo reiterated the Vatican's view that Benedict's remarks were misinterpreted. He said the pope has sought only to promote rational dialogue and understanding - which he considers the opposite of the narrow views and fundamentalism that give rise to violence.


Lajolo suggested that the cause of the anger over the pope's remarks may also lie in the lack of understanding between religions and a schism between reason and faith.


"It falls to all interested parties - to civil society as well as to states - to promote religious freedom and a sane, social tolerance that will disarm extremists even before they can begin to corrupt others with their hatred of life and liberty," said Lajolo, who also serves as president of the Governatorate of the Vatican City State.


The Vatican's view that Benedict's remarks have been misinterpreted was part of the general theme in Lajolo's speech about misunderstandings in the modern world. He compared it to the story of the Tower of Babel, saying the "confusion of tongues" In the Biblical city was a symbol

of the fracturing and hostilities in the contemporary world.



'Nuclear program to boost national pride'
"Human pride hampers the acknowledgment of one's neighbor and the recognition of his or her needs and even more makes people distrusting," The Vatican Minister said, also saying "today, that same negative fundamental attitude has given rise to a new barbarism that threatens world peace." Terrorists bent on "Rejecting the best achievements of our civilization" are one example, Lajolo said, but major powers, in their attempt to make the world more fair, may also occasionally slide into believing that this can only be achieved by force.


"It can go so far as to regard the possession of nuclear weapons as an element of national pride," He said.


Lajolo called for the United Nations to intervene promptly in conflicts to prevent major violence, and reproached the world body for not responding sooner with a ceasefire resolution to end the 34-day war between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon.


"I regret to say that the Security Council's resolution 1701 of Aug. 11, 2006, could have been adopted with the same wording one month previously," Lajolo said.

Without any editing this time :)

So where do you stand with regards to Nuclear weapons? There are ok, as long as you don't admit you have them?

 

[Yonoz]

I was told it is against forum guidelines to quote entire articles, what I quoted was the heading and subheading, I encourage everyone to read the actual source.

So where do you stand with regards to Nuclear weapons?
There are ok, as long as you don't admit you have them?

I'd say nuclear weapons are always undesirable, but I can understand why they were sought by the Israeli leadership in the 1950's.
Officially Israel has never threatened to use nuclear weapons, though it is rumoured it did a few days after the successful Arab attack that launched the Yom Kippur war, a time when many thought the country was doomed. If that rumour is true, then Israel was saved thanks to its nuclear deterrence.
Another thing to keep in mind is who is in control of the weapons, now and in the future. No Israeli Head of State has ever declared they want to wipe other countries off the map and Israel is a relatively stable democracy. Iran on the other hand is a theocracy that exports terror and whose leaders continually make clear their intentions about Israel. Even if Ahmedinejad wasn't as outspoken about it, for all we know tomorrow the Ayatollahs may appoint an even more extermist president.
I think most Israelis agree that Israel's nuclear capability is a necessity. Unfortunately, because of demographic and geographic parities, it is not an effective deterrence against a nuclear-powered Iran. It is impossible for Israel to maintain a nuclear force large enough to carry out an effective nuclear counter-attack after an Iranian surprise attack.

 

[Anttech]

So what gain would Iran take from "wiping Israel of the map." To be themselfs wiped of the map? If you have nukes you don't use them, if you do, then you get nuked back. Its simple as that. Israel has nukes, if Iran will get them, they won't use them against you, if they do then goodbye Iran.

Yonzo, I distrust the Israel government as much as I distrust the Iranian government. Let's not foget your government "invaded" Italy to capture and imprison an Arab Israel (Ilegally, Mordechai Vanunu) for 18 years because he was speaking out against your Nukes to a British news paper, when the Israeli government was "Ilegaly" making Nukes. That says a whole lot about the Israeli government right there. You got away with making Nukes because of your Washington lobby groups, something the Iranians can't do.

You may claim you need your nukes for your security, Iran probably feels the same.

That there speech by the Vatican was a swipe at the US, Israel and Iran.

 

[Yonoz]

So what gain would Iran take from "wiping Israel of the map." To be themselfs wiped of the map? If you have nukes you don't use them, if you do, then you get nuked back. Its simple as that. Israel has nukes, if Iran will get them, they won't use them against you, if they do then goodbye Iran.

Those are the disparities I speak of. I'd rather not get into the topic, but MAD logic does not work here, especially when you're talking about Islamic extremists.

Yonzo, I distrust the Israel government as much as I distrust the Iranian government. Let's not foget your government "invaded" Italy to capture and imprison an Arab Israel (Ilegally) because he was speaking out against your Nukes to a British news paper . That says a whole lot about the Israeli government right there.

He was not an Arab Israeli. He was a Jewish Israeli who worked in the nuclear facility in Dimona, a top secret facility - there's a highway going past it, if you stop on the shoulder near the fence you will be approached immediately by the security services and asked to move on. He wasn't just speaking out against nuclear power, he was uncovering state secrets that he agreed by contract to keep to himself and himself alone. He was repeatedly warned by the security services he will be arrested if he continues to supply classified information to journalists. Much of what is publicly known about Israel's nuclear program comes from him.

You may claim you need your nukes for your security, Iran probably feels the same.

Yes but no Israeli leader has ever said Iran should be wiped from the map, Israel is not exporting terror and it is not ruled by religious zealots.

 

[Anttech]

My Bad, he was a jew. Nevertheless as the saying goes glasshouses...stones, we can speculate on why Iran wants nukes all we want, the same as we all speculated in the 80's what Israel would do with theres, but we have no way of knowing.

Anyway the Iranian government arent Islamic Extremest. The sames as Pakistan arent. Every country that has nukes has them for one reason, defence. Not offence, I think we can logically conclude that Iran would use them for the same reason. Unfortunately all moral high grounds between the "west" and Islamic states such as Iran are null and void due to the way the "west" has been conducting its business for the past decades

 

[Yonoz]

My Bad, he was a jew. Nevertheless as the saying goes glasshouses...stones, we can speculate on why Iran wants nukes all we want, the same as we all speculated in the 80's what Israel would do with theres, but we have no way of knowing.

You can look at Israel's record with nuclear weapons and see that it has never threatened to wipe any nation or country. Even our mistakes were made in the name of ill-perceived self-defense.

Anyway the Iranian government arent Islamic Extremest. The sames as Pakistan arent.

Iran is a theocracy, and the real power is held by the Council of Guardians and Supreme Leader - which are Islamic extremists by any count. The ones not appointed by the Supreme Leader are the product of a Justice system that executes girls that have been repeatedly sexually assaulted by older men by hanging and abused women by stoning.

Every country that has nukes has them for one reason, defence. Not offence, I think we can logically conclude that Iran would use them for the same reason.

Nuclear weapons are a powerful regional leverage, especially when they are held by a government that is known to export terror around the globe. I have posted an example before of likely scenario in which Iran threatens to use its nuclear weapons when it is not directly threatened. A nuclear Iran could also produce a suitcase bomb, and that might "fall into the hands" of "resistance fighters". It is unchecked power in the hands of archterrorists.

Unfortunately all moral high grounds between the "west" and Islamic states such as Iran are null and void due to the way the "west" has been conducting its business for the past decades

Yes but Israel is not the "west", it is a nation state with strong survival instincts.

 

[Anttech]

Much of what is publicly known about Israel's nuclear program comes from him.

And I salute him for that!

Yes but no Israeli leader has ever said Iran should be wiped from the map, Israel is not exporting terror and it is not ruled by religious zealots.

That is an opinion, and catch sound bites Just because a man prays a few times a day, and follows his relgious book, doesn't make him a Zealot, or does it? Iran supports Hezbollah yes, but the USA supported the Taliban at one point. Does that make the USA an exporter of terrorism?

 

[selfAdjoint]

but the USA supported the Taliban at one point. Does that make the USA an exporter of terrorism?

According to some, yes. And it's really hard to answer them.

 

[Anttech]

You can look at Israel's record with nuclear weapons and see that it has never threatened to wipe any nation or country. Even our mistakes were made in the name of ill-perceived self-defense.

What track record, if you don't admit you have them how can you threaten to use them to wipe a nation or country pubically?

Iran is a theocracy, and the real power is held by the Council of Guardians and Supreme Leader - which are Islamic extremists by any count. The ones not appointed by the Supreme Leader are the product of a Justice system that executes girls that have been repeatedly sexually assaulted by older men by hanging and abused women by stoning.

Yes Iran isn't perfect, but neither are other Nuclear countries, Russia for example.

Look basically there is not point looking down our noses at Iran and saying we (anyone) are morally better, and more just, thus we can have the bombs and you cant. It isn't a valid argument. The only argument I can think of is that we (The nuclear nations) want to keep our position at the very top of the food chain, and thus we dont/wont allow you to have them. So run along and we will give you some economic benifits.

Yes but Israel is not the "west", it is a nation state with strong survival instincts.

I know you arent the "west"

 

[Anttech]

t's a quote, nothing more. He was quite clear these were not his beliefs. I think that would be enough for any straight-minded person, especially considering his record.
In the hypothetical case of Judaism being as violent as Islam, and those were the words of someone who was engaged in a battle with a Jewish empire, I would not see anything wrong with the Pope simply quoting it to make an example of the need for a Christian-Jewish dialogue. The Pope's saying "this is how Christians who were at battle with you perceived you, don't make the same mistake".

To bring this thread back on topic:
Exactly. To understand the popes very wise speech, you have to understand the context of that quote, and the context of the person who said that in the first place. His speech was a master stroke and has highlighted some massive contradictions, intentionally or not. Not only that, but it seems to have opened a dialogue, rather than shut doors.

 

[Yonoz]

And I salute him for that!

You may, but to the State of Israel he's a traitor and he was treated as such.

That is an opinion, and catch sound bites Just because a man prays a few times a day, and follows his relgious book, doesn't make him a Zealot, or does it?

No, this is what makes a man a zealot:

Speaking at the Conference for the Unity of Islam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Ali_Khamenei#Ali_Khamenei_and_violation_of_Human_rights" said: "human rights are a weapon in the hands of our enemies to fight Islam."

According to Reporters sans frontières : "Ali Khamenei [...] is one of the most dangerous predators of press freedom". Since 2000, he has shut down hundreds of pro-reformist publications and jailed numerous journalists.

Khamenei introduced the concept of "insider-outsider". Accordingly in his administration outsiders have less rights compared to insiders and can not have any administrative posts.

In February 2004 Parliament elections, the Council of Guardians banned thousands of candidates, including most of the reformist members of the parliament and all the candidates of the Islamic Iran Participation Front party from running. This led to a win by the conservatives of at least 70% of the seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Jannati" is considered close to the Iranian Islamic conservatives, and is heavily criticized by the reformists for his active role in not approving reformist candidates to run in various elections and blocking their legislation.

He is disdainful of non-Muslims, having said "non-Muslims are animals that chew their cud and cause corruption on Earth." During a Friday Prayer on 4 August 2006 Ayatollah Jannati asserted, "upport for Hizbollah [is] a duty."

 

[Yonoz]

What track record, if you don't admit you have them how can you threaten to use them to wipe a nation or country pubically?

Can you find reference to a non-public threat?

Yes Iran isn't perfect, but neither are other Nuclear countries, Russia for example.

True.

Look basically there is not point looking down our noses at Iran and saying we (anyone) are morally better, and more just, thus we can have the bombs and you cant. It isn't a valid argument. The only argument I can think of is that we (The nuclear nations) want to keep our position at the very top of the food chain, and thus we dont/wont allow you to have them. So run along and we will give you some economic benifits.

You can look at it this way if you like.