The equivalence argument I speak of, is your equating fundamentalist Christians with islamists, and that you do so seeminly always and in all ways. It is apparent that Islamists are world wide and are perpetuating incredible violence around the globe. Christians are not.
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.
Christians attempt to convert peacefully.
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!
As for Israel, it is, indisputably, a liberal democracy. truly, it is absurd to say otherwise. Were you to live there, you'd pretty much feel as if you were in the US.
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.
That is why they were only too happy to sell land to jews in the 19th century, often thinking them stupid for buying useless desert and swamp. But these Jews, being westerners, created industry, irrigated, and created services. That brought Arabs back, for jobs and other conveniences and opportunities.
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.
This was sanctioned by The League of Nations. But the british, official stewards, reneged on their obligations to the jews and league of Nations, because they were currying favour with arabs. So the land the Jews were to get got smaller and smaller, and then there was none.
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.
As Israel was finally being formed after WW 11, the jews invited the Arabs there to create democratic state with them.
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.
But some stayed. That is why Israel has one million Arab citizens, who are in parlimant, in the media, even on the supreme court - which has often heard petitions from palestinians in the territories and ruled in favour of them.
So you are both blaming the victims, and suggesting that they have some sort of power despite being victims? Nice.
Israel acted from the beginning like the liberal democracy it was born. It acted as would you, being the liberal democrat you are.
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)
™ Version 4.2
