9/11 thread

That makes sense, but there is, nonetheless, an important piece of hidden info. the Koran expressly says that Islam is to displace Judaism and Christianity. it mentions no other faiths by name, only a generalized term of infidels.

Right, and I'm sure a lot of the common people go for this... but I have a feeling the actual leaders and diplomats don't really concern themselves with this (except to use it as propaganda).I see what you are saying though. I think of it this way:Is Bush as stupid as all the fundamentalists he gets to vote for him? Or is Bush more clever and simply spouts fundamentalist rhetoric to gain their support?

quote:

---

ow can a nation, attacked at her brith by 5 armies, "seize" land not
hers?

---

By winning,

quote:

---

By that reasoning france, russia and poland seized german lands during WWll. Russia seized japanese land.

---

If they took land within Germany's pre-war borders then yes, they did.

quote:

---

If that's the kind of reasoning that prevails, no wonder the arabs keep attacking israel. The worst that can happen is that they lose war #1, 2, 3, 4, or however many, and then get to "morally" reclaim what they lose. Not exactly any risk for their aggression, is there?

---

So basically you say that we should pretend that Israel didn't take land that the UN had allocated to the Palestinians because you can't think of any other cost to the losing side in a war other than losing territory.

If y'all want to have at each other about Israel/Palestine and evils of Islam (inherent or otherwise) or whatever, then for the love of God propose a thread dedicated to it.This thread is about 9/11 and whilst Islam/Israel/the UN etc are related topics, it would be nice if their relevance to the specific date (and the events directly surround it) was referenced occasionally.Comments to the relevant thread in my sig etc.

---

well, first, it is the eladers we're dealing with. second, there is a reason american muslims do not support American efforts to bring democracy to the homelands, why they on the whole are not terribly cooperative with authorities' efforts to capture Islamists, why they reflexixely support just about any Muslims arrested for terrorist activities, Al Arian being a case in point. The reason is greater identity with Islam than with beuing American, with being citizens of a liberal democracy. that identity, in some respects, relfects an aspect of islamism: Muslims are a people who are meant to be superior to, not live as one with, non Muslims. here's another way of looking at it: were Israel taken over by fascists who destroy its democracy, American Jews would demand that the US free their fellow Jews and reinstate democracy. That's because Jews identify with the west, with being western liberal democrats, and respect their nation, the US, as a guardian of the civilization and its values.Second, we should not overlook that there are islamist nation states who pursue islamist goals. Moreover, some have won elections on that platform, such as the algerian islamists, whose victory was denied them by the military. Or take hamas's victory. Yes, fatah corruption was a factor. So was the belief that hamas would better confront Israel. But hamas's Islamism cannot be ignored either. it was a factor for a significant proportion of their voters.As for Bush...I know you're only offering ananalogy, but it also serves to illustarte the difference between the majority of Christian fundamentalists and the majority of Muslims fundamentalists. As i posted earlier, consider that Bush advocates liberal democracy, while Islamists advocate the destruction of freedom. Consider how Christians reacted to the Da Vinci Code, and how Islamists reacted to 13 dumb cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper.

Then perhaps you can explain why it is a non issue to all the world that france, the czech republic, Poland, russia and others won land from germany and japan after WWll, but it's one heck of an issue to all the world that the arabs lost land to israel as a result of their aggression? And while you're at it, you might also explain why the world, and the UN, barely cares about Chinese land grabs in Tibet, Arab land grabs in Sudan (heck, the world can barely be bothered about the genocide they commit there, let alone the land grab), and other truly imperialist marches, but everyone obsesses about israel?And why is it for you that history begins in 1967, when the moral hypocrites created an entirely new notion of justice because Israel won? What about history before then, when Israel was the jews before Arab invaders took it in the 7th century? Or when the league of Nations granted israel much more land than it now possesses in 1922, but lost most of it because the british reneged for geopolitical reasons at the time? Why don't you demand that teh arabs respect the original mandate? Yhy is that the arabs get 99.9% of the land dispersed after the ottomans fall, and 22 states, but you begrudge the speck the Jews got because they won after fighting relentless invasions a piece of dust in the big picture. And why is it that Israel's offers of a state to the palestinians of a state in exchange for peace, but tgheir obstinate refusal because only the death of israel will satisfy them, is off your radar with respect to moral judgment? Why one standard for the Jews, adn one for every other people on Earth?

You are assuredly right.

You're the one saying that it should be an issue. According to you we should deny that it happened. I've never seen anyone else say that. So far as I am aware it's not an issue mainly because there's nobody who chooses to make it an issue. The Germans and Japanese have accepted their losses. You should also ask yourself why the territory lost by Germany in WW I DID become an issue.As far as I ama wae the seizure of Tibet certainly is an issue, but political influence in the UN (including China's permanent seat on the Security Council and it's position as a nuclear superpower) prevent the UN doing anything against it.

quote:

---

And why is it for you that history begins in 1967...

---

Why am I mainly talking about events that happened in 1948 and earlier if I think that history starts in 1967 ? You're making no sense

quote:

---

...when the moral hypocrites created an entirely new notion of justice because Israel won?

---

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Does this "new idea of Justice" mean the idea that an Arab could be wronged ? The idea that Jews shouldn't be given special rights ? Because you don't seem to like the idea that Arabs might have legitimate grievances against a Jewish state.

quote:

---

What about history before then, when Israel was the jews before Arab invaders took it in the 7th century?

---

What about it ? That was long, long ago. Columbus' arrival in the Americas was more recent but you don't see me saying that all of the US or Canada should be given back to the pre-Columbian peoples. And if you want ancient history, according to the Bible the Jews themselves were violent conquerers - it's probably partly true at most but many people who support Israel's "right" to the land believe it.Any other plans you refer to weren't implemented and have no force

quote:

---

Why don't you demand that teh arabs respect the original mandate?

---

The UN partition ? Who says that I don't ?

quote:

---

Why is that the arabs get 99.9% of the land dispersed after the ottomans fall, and 22 states, but you begrudge the speck the Jews got because they won after fighting relentless invasions a piece of dust in the big picture.

---

In general the Arabs got the states because that is where they lived. Are you saying that more land should have been taken away to be given to other people ? I'll grant that the borders were badly drawn in some cases and that, for instance, the Kurds should have been given a state rather than being divided between three others - but that's as much the fault of the conquering powers as it is of the Arabs and Turks.And I don't begrudge Israel the right to exist - I just say that we shouldn't whitewash what the Israelis have done. And that is why you you engaged in such gross misrepresentation of my position.

quote:

---

And why is it that Israel's offers of a state to the palestinians of a state in exchange for peace, but tgheir obstinate refusal because only the death of israel will satisfy them, is off your radar with respect to moral judgment?

---

Firstly that is a misrepresentation of the actual situation. THere are significant problems with Israel's idea of a Palestinian state and the border issues are not resolved.WOrse, it is a misrepresentation of my views. I am as much against Palestinain terrorism as I am against Jewish terrorism. I am in favour of a two-state deal, and I beleive that it is an absolute necessity for peace. And both sides have to give up more than they are currently willing to do to acheive it.In future if you want to know my views then ask them, rather than making things up to try to smear me for telling truths you don't like.

quote:

---

Why one standard for the Jews, adn one for every other people on Earth?

---

I suggest you should ask yourself that question. You are the one arguing for a different standard for the Jews. I am certainly not.

Sorry, but what you are recounting is a crude cartoon version of history.Your arguments are consistently tailored around the need to place "blame" at Islam's door. For what I suspect are reasons of faith you clearly have an anti-Islamic agenda so there's no debating historical nuance with you.We could continue, but I can predict that you will continue to argue something along the lines of "plucky Christianity has fended off an evil threat from the dark imperialistic hordes of Islam for over 1000 years" etc, etc.Hardline Muslims preach EXACTLY the same sort of thing about Christianity, by the way....Edited by RickJB, : Typos.

There have been plenty of 9/11 threads, their quality is a judgement left to the reader. Ironically, this isn't a 9/11 thread. In fact, I'm not sure there ever has been a topic. I'd be tempted to hand out suspensions, but since there never really was much of a topic to be 'on', it seems harsh to suspend people who are 'off' it.Instead, I'm going to put the thread out of its misery. There are plenty of things being discussed here, any one of which might make an interesting (or heated) discussion in its own right. If you feel something needs to be resolved open an appropriate thread with an actual topic so it can be moderated effectively.Thank you for your time and understanding. Comments can be made to the appropriate thread in my sig. This may be one of the few times I say that with any confidence that people will pay attention to it since the thread is going to be closed!

---