The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

What on earth are you talking about? What lefty has ever said that immigrants want to come here for any reason other than Western nations are superior economically?It is the likes of Canadian Steve which claim they sometimes have ulterior motives to change the nations, rather than to simply come here and enjoy prosperity. You mean like the Jews? Oh wait that's not very pc to recognize is it?Yep they were criticized for the same thing, until their very different culture was allowed to assimilate. Indeed you could look right in their texts and see how superior and separate they had to live from everyone else. But eventually they did didn't they?A bit of tolerance and time goes a long way in allowing another culture to assimilate.In reality both cultures must assimilate to each other.As far as France goes, obviously there are some issues of poverty and alienation going on. Much like when poor blacks rioted after the R King verdict, or many other instances. Its probably going to take a while. The people involved in the riots are wrong and making a big mistake as it cannot help them... but they obviously must feel better by doing it.Good leadership is called for, let's see if any emerges.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Phat, here's a big clue, for all this psychologist talking about how antimaterial these people are, take a look at the actual nations. What do you see? While the nations are impoverished there are always really really rich guys at the top accumulating all sorts of wealth.It is the exact same thing as the Xian leaders here.They all believe in materialism and a devoted fanaticism to some ancient time. Its ironic that Islam gets singled out for wanting to recreate a 7th century empire, when every day Xians and Jews openly proclaim and work to recreate a 3000 year dead kingdom of Israel, as well as return to pre 7th century science and theology.All you guys are looking backward, or should I say large contingents of people professing allegiance to Abraham are seeking to resurrect past glories. Likely because the future can be seen and they are not in it. Not in the same way as they once were.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, that sure was convincing. I do not equivocate between fundamentalists of any religion and my culture. And there differences between the threats faced between Islamic and the other Abrahamic fundies. I have already discussed this.Given the amount of time I have spent describing the differences, and stating that I believe Islamic militancy is a serious problem, and supported the Afghan war, its pretty ridiculous to see a claim of equivalency thrown at me.It all depends on WHO we are talking about. When did the Kingdom of Israel fall, and when was the nation of Israel established? I was only rounding and maybe I it is closer to 2000 years rather than 3000. That's fine. What's the difference? It's only 1300 years back to the time period you fundies are critizing muslims for wanting to go back to, that is less than the time you guys want to turn the clock back for Israel. Right?And it is not a liberal democracy. If it had been then it would not exist. The vast majority population in the region did not want it. They did not get a vote. A dictate was imposed upon them. The majority population was then divided up so that portions were forced to live in a new nation which by law restricts their movements and keeps them a voting minority.Both of those prevent the nation of Israel from being considered a modern liberal democracy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

But I have never made that equation and have refuted your assertions I have made such an equation many times. Here is goes one last time. Will it make it through the concrete? Who knows...Currently militant Islamic fundamentalists pose a very real danger. They are engaged in aggressive violent action against perceived enemies. In general, they pose a greater physical and national security threat than any other religious extremist group.That said, it is not like all Islamic people are militant Islamic fundamentalists, nor are there no militant fundamentalists of other religious persuasion. Fundamentalists (militant or other) of the Abrahamic tradition are all interested in setting back the clock to their past "achievements". Thus they all pose dangers to our systems of govt and way of life.The greatest NONVIOLENT threat to our way of life in the west comes from Xian fundamentalism. To believe something is less a threat because it is less violent is to make an equivocation about the nature of power and change. Peacefully? How is force of arms of a nation peaceful? Legal dictations for others is not peaceful. The Xians have loaded the Bible with explanations of that fact... when they are not in charge of course! You are equivocating again. Modern lifestyle of its citizens does not mean liberal democracy. And its funny that you should say if I were to live there... that's the point Steve, unlike modern liberal democracies I cannot just go and live there.If I were jewish then I would have a "right of return" based on a mythical concept that my home is there because I am jewish regardless of centuries passing. As I am not I would not. If I were Arab I would have blocks put in place.Yes, the MidEast is filled with rather poor nations which have not moved much toward modern conveniences, nor liberal democracy. Israel has modern conveniences, and is a step closer to liberal democracy comparatively. That doesn't make it a real liberal democracy. The level of your propaganda is repulsive. The Arabs had a different way of life but were moderately successful in living there. Despite your description to make it sound like no one lived there, in fact there were many millions of Arabs and only a small portion of Jews. The Jews were not creating wealth which brought in the Arabs.What is true, and this I completely commend on the part of Israeli Jews, is that they have done fantastic work in land reclamation from the desert. These methods were not being practiced in the 19th century.On the flipside the wealth the Jews have generated since the establishment of Israel has been self-fulfilling. They get great amounts of money brought in, and have financial control over surrounding Palestinian businesses. It is a great example of modern helotism as practiced by the Spartans. I have succesfully rebutted this claim in another thread with you. To claim this now is willful deception. I am not about to look up and repost the evidence I provided. Suffice it to say you can find enough at Wikipedia by looking up the British Mandate and the formation of modern Israel. Next to them, not with them. The Arabs were perfectly willing to share a nation with jews. Their only problem was having a Jewish nation created separate from but within their lands. So you are both blaming the victims, and suggesting that they have some sort of power despite being victims? Nice. What a bullshit artist you are. They engaged in terrorism and I would not. They demanded a homeland for a people based on religious myths of a God granting them land, which I would not.They did not hold a vote of the people in that region to decide on the course of govt in that region and instead relied on dictates made by foreign powers in support of their race oriented nationalist leanings. I would not have done that.You show me where they were interested in the DEMOCRATIC INTERESTS of the PEOPLE IN THAT REGION (that's what democracy is Steve) and we can talk. Otherwise quit with the propaganda.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, no he's not. Please stop supporting base propaganda. I have posted links to the history of that region before at EvC, and to Steve in specific, including estimates from the very organizations he claims were right for setting up Israel.There was a very large population within that region. Not all of it was "nomadic", but even if it were, how does that suggest that they did not have rights over what to do with the land? The discussion was democracy. Unless democracy is rule by those that will use the land to its utmost and bring great wealth, then I am unsure what this side argument has to do with anything.There were many people living there, and only a very small percentage were Jewish. A Jewish national homeland was NOT the democratic process in action.Yes Israelis have used technology and wealth to improve the land in general, as well as to fit the demands of what we enjoy. Thus greater western prosperity signs have appeared. Wonderful. But that is like saying that a corproration should have the right to kick you off your land because it can produce much more than what you would, and consider that "democratic" because it was successful in produce wealth. Look there is a difference between what happened then, and what to do now, and how we should discuss what is going on.I totally agree that UNLESS ISRAELIS decide they want to dissolve the state of Israel, or allow it to be a nonracist state, the only choice the Palestinians have is to forget about the past and build their own nation in peace with Israel. Those opposed to the formation of Israel had their chance and they lost. They should move on and nothing is gained by continuing to fight except some theoretical appeals to justice.I also agree that not all Arabic or Islamic groups help Palestinians. Sometimes they use the Palestinians, and even hurt them.Okay that's all fine. But that does not change the facts surrounding what occured, and what Israel is. Is it or is it not a Jewish nation, designed to keep a single religious/racial group as a majority such that all others cannot gain a democratic voice in that nation? Did it not come about by force imposed on a majority population opposed to its creation?This is all very simple, and the answers do not suggest what we should do about it now.I like the US and I want to see it prosper. That does not mean I have to pretend that its prosperity was NOT the result of some horrendous human atrocities against many different races, and was not wholly democratic until late last century... and even still involves some problems as a functional democratic republic.We have to admit to the issues which need to be resolved, in order for them to be resolved. Apparently CS cannot even admit basic facts, much less how they might be interpreted in valid ways separate from his own opinion.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-10-2005 12:28 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes I can. I can also distinguish between a legitimate use of secular govt, and a naked powerplay abusing the instruments of democratic govt.But that is besides the point. Much conversion was at the point of a gun throughout the world, whether you want to admit that that was how it happened to create the Xian majorities we now have, or not. Second, the majorities attempt to continue indoctrinating people and prevent other cultures from entering... using force to do so. That is conversion by force. Why shouldn't I read the paper produced by Feith who helped develop the strategy for Bush, and states specifically that it is for securing Israel? And that this was admittedly part of Xian and Jewish conservative strategies?I mean why on earth should I read the watered down version presented before congress, and not anything directly written by those that formulated the plan?But that said I do not believe the war in Iraq was to convert. I mean sure Bush now claims it is about converting them to democracy loving people, and then converting the whole region, oh and lest I forget ensuring that Xian evangelists can get in and not be prosecuted, but that is less than simply removing Hussein for many other reasons.Of course Bush did lie to get us into war, that is an established fact. It was that or he was one of the most ignorant and poor leaders this nation has ever produced. It is modern in that it has modern things. It is liberal in that there are some liberal institutions within it, and it is a democracy in the fact that they vote to achieve political decisions.But that does not erase the facts that it was imposed upon an existing population againts the will of the majority, dividing the people up into regions in a process that is deemed illegal today (not to mention anti democratic), in order to achieve a false Jewish majority in an area where it was small minority, and functions to keep nonjews from ever attaining leadership within that nation, including using unequal immigration rights based on religion/race.Sorry steve, you can't erase the problems by asking everyone to judge a book by its cover.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well all I can say is that they were probably biased. I can also find the same thing, including that wonderful claim that the region was "a land without a people, for a people without a land".The facts are there. Yes it was an impoverished territory, and yes Jews have done a fantastic job recovering desert land. That does not change the demographics which are public record. Well that sure is blaming the victim. If not imposed on them there would be no Israel. How do you think it became a nation? Voted in? That would be the ONLY democratic route and you will see that none was ever taken.It was imposed by foreign powers on the region. The Palestinians were willing to live in a nation with Jews, but this was rejected by Jews and Xians who wanted to create a nation state for Jews, regardless of the facts on the ground.That is the history. Yes, once imposed the Palestinians were (rightfully) opposed and willing to war toward that end. They lost and so now should move on. But to make it seem like Israel simply formed in some democratic way and Palestinians arose to fight it is to ignore facts. So what you are saying is that you didn't bother reading my post before responding. I specifically said that they lost the war and should move on. I agreed that at this point in time their best shot is to live peacefully and forget theoretical ideas of what should have happened. They lost.What does not change are the facts of how Israel was formed. Just as I don't claim that the native americans got what they deserved after attacking us, and that's why we have the land now. I'm not for Native Americans (or southerners) for fighting lost battles at this point, but I don't believe in revisionist history either.Got it?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh come on... Pagans were converted by force by the Romans (once Xianized) and by the Church afterward. Jews were horribly persecuted and were often forced to convert or die as were muslims.Yes, even within Xian ranks there was persecution, just as there is now within Islam.The idea that you are going to rewrite history and pretend that Latin America was largely peacefully converted is nauseating (they were led by CONQUISTadores). And what about the mass reculturalization of North American natives?And somehow you forgot about Africa (like south africa?) and the entire orient region. The horrific efforts of missionaries in places like the Polynesian islands is public record.Asking me to provide evidence for this... which is rather widely available... is as odious and absurd as asking me to provide evidence that the holocaust occured or that Romans really persecuted Xians. You really believe that it was all church socials don't you?By the way, many still resort to intimidation. Here in Amsterdam they march around in the red light district from time to time, sometimes yelling at people. And have recently taken to going into adult movie theaters to stare and sermonize at people.Back in the states some church orgs would take pictures of people or license plates of people that would go to bars or adult places of business to (try and) shame them publically.Thus it is not only conversion to religious principles, but expectations of behavior based on religious beliefs.By the way, it wasn't an Islamic group that just rewrote the definition of science using a legal powerplay in Kansas, in order to undercut science and replace it with forced classroom indoctrination of creation stories... It was Xians.That is why I say Islam is much less a threat to "our way of life" at this time, than fundie Xianity. Militant Islam poses a physical threat, but not a real permanent threat to our way of life at this point in time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, I am no longer in the business of relinking to stuff after I have already given exhaustive discussions of subjects. You can look through my posts, or threads on the subject, to find what you need.I simply cannot bring myself to repeat all my work again and again, when it is so obviously ignored (exampled by Canadian Steve).But I will point you in a very good direction if you are really interested (meaning I don't have to do all your footwork).CNN and Wikipedia have excellent histories of the region and the conflict. One great place to start (besides Israel and sublinks from those pages) is to look up the British Mandate, and the Balfour document, under which modern Israel began to form.As Jar suggests, it is really playing definition games to try and pretend a longstanding majority population did not exist there and it was certainly not Jewish. Given the vastly outnumbered Jewish population it should be obvious that any such process would be artificial and unjust. Land was divvied to create a single land with a majority Jewish population. You should be asking yourself why it simply didn't take the original borders of the region, instead of the meandering and broken lands that were imposed.In any case, the process used then is viewed as illegal and antidemocratic today in modern democracies.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This just shows you are not aware of what happened.The lands which are now the palestinian territories and Israel could have been made one nation. If not, why not?The Balfour declaration is quite enlightening as to reasons why it was divided as it was by the foreign powers that would be in charge of the area. It has to do with more of playing the Great Game, than any necessity for people on the ground.And let's say for a second that it must be split up, should it not then have been up to the people in the region and not imposed upon those people by foreign powers?Before you answer you need to research something and think about it carefully... The Jews were engaged in a terrorist campaign against the British because the British were not going to grant them everything they wanted for Israel. Thus the answer from the Israeli side would be no. They only wanted what Jews right there in the region desired, and would support foreign intervention only as long it supported their ends, and not in favor of what the majority population in the region wanted.AbE: Whoops forgot to say, I do agree there was no set nation state at the time. That does not equate to people not living there in large numbers and relatively self regulating and able to choose their own democratic future.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-10-2005 02:23 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

They have no claim, just as modern native Americans have no claim to the entire US which unquestionably was their's until we invaded.If Palestinians should give up their struggle now, because they lost a war (and I agree with this) then so goes it for the Jews given the more than a millenia of nonexistence of their nation.And I will add to this that there were people there before the Jews arrived. It says so in the Bible as well. The Jews moved OUT OF EGYPT, into those lands and then first commited a genocidal purge of their own people who did not agree, or might not agree, or were related to people that might not agree with the new laws. And then slaughtered people after people in the region to expand their empire.Some certainly remained, and we can read the stories of the Jews dealing with those people. You can read texts from other nations about the rise of Israel in that region at the time. That would be people that existed in that region.You are playing an game of arbitrary dates and events and definitions.What people have any claim on land Steve? Especially after they lose that land and it has been populated by others for over a millenia.One might also note that while Arafat gets criticized for not really being Palestinian, exactly how many of the Jews in the Zionist movement were actually from Israel, that is were living there from an unbroken descendency from the old kingdom? And even if many were, what right would that give them over their neighbor's lands?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Look this is complete disinformation and I have already proved this to you with facts. You can keep repeating your fallacious claims but I already showed you the facts coming from the very organizations you agree were in charge of the area.The Jews were in a minority. A very small minority within a region that could very well have been one nation. The people of that region, while not a nation, lived there just the same as the Jews. They were the ones willing to live in a single nation with the Jews, and the Jews rejected that.The Jews insisted on a single nation to be carved out within that territory using rather unusual border development. You try and paint the fact that they were willing to allow the people on lands within the new border to stay, but that does not equate to being willing to live with nonJews. If it could have been cut around them and still allow the Jews a nation, that is how it would have been cut.And the people allowed to live there were forced to be a minority in a region where they were the practical majority. And they were going to be forced to remain politically castrated forever, and given second class treatment. They do not have the same rights, particularly with regard to immigration and family reunion as Jews.Who is or who is not racist is patently obvious. The people willing to share a nation as equals in the first place were not the racsists. Those that demanded a race and religion based singular nation on an area to disenfranchise those that would remain inside those borders are the racists.Its pretty much a definition. Uh, I already discussed this. What we did to the native americans was equally wrong, and in many cases much much worse as far as brutality is concerned. The construction of the US and the construction of Israel are both on the bodies of innocent people, badly treated.And as I have already said, while I still believe some reparations are in order for Native Americans, I do understand that the time is long past for a practical solution involving handing back all lands. It wouldn't make any sense. Likewise, and I already told you this as well stating so elsewhere in this thread, that the same goes for Palestinians.They had a very good cause to war on Israel, they did and they lost, and further fighting is pointless. It simply creates a greater body count for a reality that will not change. At this point handing over huge tracts of land or kicking out all the people that live in Israel is not realistic.See Steve, if you would actually read my posts maybe you'd understand what is being said to you. I am not creating an argument that Israel should be destroyed, nor that Palestinians should keep waging a war of violence. All I am doing is not whitewashing history.You seek the victors right of justifying means by the ends, and rewriting history to pose the losers as without any validity, and your own side with the utmost. A base propagandist. What an interesting quote.Well first of all it means nothing. This is an adhominem attack on anyone disagreeing with a position. Or maybe a guilt by association. It just goes to show that even ordinarily great speakers and minds can get carried away and end in error.I am anti-Zionist, but I am not anti-Jew. On top of the fact that I have been friends with many jews, and some of the people I most respect and have influenced me are jewish (I even have a love-hate relationship with the infamous Israeli general Moshe Dyan), I have gone further than that and acted for jews. I welcome them to live right alongside me and help defend them from harm. I have acted against Nazis, that is publicly with Jews against Nazis.The idea that Judaism is synonymous with desiring the ancient kingdom of Israel as a homeland is to undercut many jews who do not feel that at all. If you read up on Zionism you will find out that it did not always exist within Judaism, and even the location of where a homeland could be was in dispute. Eventually Israel was chosen, but that movement was not shared by all jews. This is not true. Ask around. Not all jews would agree. And what I love is that it is a twofold refutation of your own position.According to this the jews were purged from Israel, thus none did remain to have any claim. And also that means that building Israel is to rebuild a Jewish (that is a single racial-religious) nation, and thus NOT a modern liberal democracy. Indeed it also shows that it is based in theology and so an imposition of religion on a region at the force of arms.Ad Hoc arguments will always come around to bite you in the ass, and this one certainly took a few pounds of your flesh.Democracy means the will of the people in a region, not the fulfillment of a racial dream of a homeland, based on myths of territory granted by God and destiny.Or were you suggesting that because MLK said something it must be true? Last time I checked he wasn't Jewish and in no way was a spokesmen for all jews. Argument from NONauthority carries even less weight than an Argument from Authority.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-11-2005 06:17 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Who said we had a moral right? What we have is a practical right. At this point giving back land en masse would be a practical impossibility and causing the same kind of harm to a different set of people.No one today is culpable for what others did in the far past. Neither are those today actually victims of what happened in the past. However we are still in a position where we cause harm to those same people. The continued victimization must end and some reparations are in order.When did the practical right begin? I admit it is arbitrary, but it would be once permanent settlements had grown sufficiently to preclude undue hardship to throw the people living there out, especially for the gain that the original victims would receive for the return of land.One difference with Israel, is that the people who commited atrocities and the victims of some of the atrocities are still alive. And the prosecutions are also still going on.Palestinians have a greater practical and moral claim to return of land and other reparations, then Native Americans have at this time.Then again as I have said that would justify neither group to violent action in pursuit of such reparations. It would make them understandable, but not just.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, he is wrong and I don't buy into arguments from authority, nor arguments from nonauthorities.Like any human MLK did some things that were helpful and beautiful and then he also did some things that were mistaken and ugly. Unlike fundies I do not have to deify men to agree with them when I think they are doing right, such that I cannot point out when what they do or say is fallacious.It must be tough for you having to scrape the bottom of the logic barrel in defense of your position as you are now doing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks, you've been doing well yourself. I liked the last concise bit of depantsing. I'd say unmasking but what was revealed seemed more an ass than anything above the neck.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)