War against terror

[denoir 0]

I didn't miss it - I ignored it, primarily because I wanted to avoid another discussion over religion...

Right.  And yet 15 hrs later, on page 131 you continued with:

Religion developed because of the lack of understanding of the world. As we understand more of how the universe works, gods become less relevant. You do understand that the god that you believe in is... blah... blah... blah...

Sorry, wrong post. I remember ignoring one of your last posts because of the content - actually, I wrote a reply, but decided against posting it. It must have been some other post then.

Quote[/b] ]

The religious right in the US (who I don't have much love for), nasty as they may be have a very limited influence. Yes, I know it's all the rage to call all Americans religious nuts, but if you look at the real situation you'll see that not only is that stereotyping, but that is very bad stereotyping.

Hang on there!! Who's stereotyping here? You're the one who just said they are all nasty, not me. I only said they have a lot of power, which is not a stereotype at all if they represent the largest religious group in the US and they turn out on election day in greater numbers than any other religious group.

I indeed think that the religious right in the US is a nasty thing. It's not stereotyping, it's an opinion against their political agenda.

Quote[/b] ]Just because they do not represent the majority required to change the US Constitution does not mean they don't influence foreign policy. Didn't you read the article by Daniel Pipes?

I don't see the relevance of it. Pipes is an idiot whose opinions are not representative of neither Americans nor Jews. You'd be better off quoting Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter..

Quote[/b] ]What does this mean? Are you claiming that America's Evangelical Christians opposed the invasion?

They were pretty much neutral on the issue. They did however oppose the election result and the idea that an Islamic party could come to power. If you look at various editorials from representatives of that group in the media, you'll see that they really did not have a homogeneous opinion on Iraq and its future.

Take a look at their umbrella organization: The Christian Coalition of America and you'll see no mention of Israel and much less Iraq in their agenda. They are mostly interested in banning abortion, banning gay marriages, giving tax cuts to married couples and families and moving social security to the care of religious organizations.

Quote[/b] ]Do you honestly think I'd be concerned about the influence of American Evangelical Christians if the US was only as powerful as your average Islamic country?

You don't have to be able to influence a powerful organization to kill people. It's not a question of how powerful, but a question of how extreme.

Quote[/b] ]For someone who refuses to discuss moral relativism you seem to be quite comfortable concluding that the killing of hundreds or a few thousands is worse than the suffering of millions. I'm not drawing any such conclusions because I don't think it's an either or situation. I believe it is mostly the sufferering of many that leads to radicalism in some, resulting in the killing of the few. Somehow you believe that the killing can be stopped by fighting the radicalism, while leaving the suffering in place. I don't agree.

Oh, really? Now please answer this: Which millions are suffering from the actions of the American Christian Evangelicals? In what way are they suffering?

Quote[/b] ]Jewish extremists considered the British presence in Palestine illegal. Muslim extremists consider the American presence in the Middle East illegal. Rabbis espouse a right to a geographical region based on religion just as much or even more than Imams do. And just as you may point to Imams promoting violence over political solutions I can point to Rabbis doing the same thing.

So, where does the comparison break down to the extent that it bears being ignored?

I saw no point in answering that because the answer should be very obvious. That was a political movement, not a religious one. Like the IRA, it did have a religious component of support, but the cause was political and the goals were political. They did not kill wicked infidels because they didn't follow Jewish laws. They killed because they wanted to get rid of British rule.

Quote[/b] ]- Where do you place the curve for American Evangelical Christians, which is what we are really discussing?

Between devout and radical. I'd guess around the mean of the Islam curve.

Quote[/b] ]- What info do you have to support placing the world's average Muslim somewhere between devout and radical?

About the same that you have for saying that American Christian Evangelicals are not secular or that Europe is more secular than America. The graph was however just an illustration of what I meant that the problems caused by extremists is a consequence of the general distribution of the religion. It's not to be taken as a quantitative display of data.

Arguments for that religion plays a more central role in the lives of Muslims than it does in the lives of Christians can be made from the fact that law in Islamic countries is religious based rather than based on secular values. Furthermore you could take a look at simple statistics such as number of atheists or church/mosque attendance.

Quote[/b] ]- Where do you place curves for Judaism, Buddhism and Hindu followers?

For Judaism, I would probably place it somewhere between Christianity and Islam. As for Buddhism et al, I don't know.

Quote[/b] ]And perhaps the areas beneath your curves should be proportional to respective numbers of followers:

Again, the graph was for illustrating the mean position vs number of extremists argument and not meant to be a quantitative visualization. In reality, besides a different mean, you would have a different standard deviation and of course, as you point out, a different total area. It is also reasonable to assume that "religious zeal" is probably a number of variables.

[Bernadotte 0]

Take a look at their umbrella organization: The Christian Coalition of America and you'll see no mention of Israel...

Oh really?

(complete reply later)

[denoir 0]

@ July 29 2005,15:18)]Anyways I'll give an example - the Van Gogh's murderer wasn's an islamist (a person seeing muslim culture as supperior and wanting to spread it to all world, by force) and his driving motive wasn't Islam as a religion.

Of course his motive was religion. In his own words his driving motivation was the

Takfir wal-Hijra Islamic ideology.

(as for Islamism, it's primary raison d'etre is the opposition against western influences in Islamic countries)

Quote[/b] ]First of all if he was an islamist he would agree with 100% of shariat courts' verdicts (as they are made under Allah's law and influence and are allways right).

Only if you accept them, which de facto only a smalller number of Muslims actually do. The Shia don't accept them, the Wahabbi don't accept them etc Islam, like most religions have a number of sects which have divergent opinons on the purpose and meaning of their religion.

If you don't recognize the pope as the ultimate religious authority, it doesn't mean that you're not a Christian, just that you don't belong to the mainstream Catholic sect. There is no such thing as an "official" definition of which interpretation is the "right" one. As it's all based on just faith, all interpretations are equally valid.

Quote[/b] ]

Furthermore he wouldn't oppose Van Gogh's films - as they are being made by non-muslims for non-muslims, and the oppinion non-muslims have about muslims and their culture - in oppinion of an islamist - DOESN'T MATTER (their end is near anyways, right?).

Of course they care about infidels and heretics! It's one of their primary concerns and always has been. While some sects are tolerant to other religions or other sects, most are not. And most sects (wrongly) consider secularism as a competing religion and treat it the same way.

Quote[/b] ]Also - from my observations - there are NO radical muslims in small towns and villages.

That's not very difficult to understand. The percentage of homicidal Muslim radicals is extremely small. In the UK for instance there are are nearly 2 million Muslims. So far we've seen 10 or so people willing to blow themselves up.

So in a small population, the chances of finding a homicidal radical are basically nil.

Quote[/b] ]One more thing I recently realised - europeans are not tolerant - we're simply too lazy to learn anything about other religions and use phrase "I'm a tollerant person" which - in our oppinion - releases us from knowing anything about them.

We're not tollerant - europe is ingnorant.

I agree that Europe is not (or better to say Europeans are not) as tolerant to other cultures as America is (which is a truly multicultural society). On compared to the Islamic world, we're very tolerant. We accept other cultures, we have a secular rule so we tolerate all forms of religions. At least on paper you have every possible right you could ask for.

In fact, I think that in most EU countries (Italy, Poland and Malta being strong exceptions), a devout Muslim will be treated more normally than a devout native Christian. People accept foreign religions as part of foreign cultures, which are respected to a large degree. Native Christians on the other hand are looked upon mostly with contempt as anachronic and in general just weird.

Europe does however have other issues with multiculturalism that are not specifically related to religion. We have fairly closed societies while the influx of immigrants with very different cultures is greater than the birth rate of Europeans. So people are becoming more and more xenophobic. Of course, the media isn't helping at all, by just showing negative examples.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]It advocates armed battle against jews, christians and apostate muslims to restore the unity of the islamic world order (ummah). The ummah is to be led by a Caliph, who rules according to the Sharia.

Well if the murderer was to follow this teachings he would see no problem. The sentences were according to Sharia, and if so they were right.

What good does it bring killing someone who made a documentary film about things You support and see as good and rightous?

I'll state my question once more: did the murderer think that sharia courts are allright? A simple Yes/No question.

If Yes - why did he see the film as offending - it only shown deeds his idelogy supports.

If No - he was no Islamist. He was ashamed of Islamists' dooings and didn't want world to see them.

OK let me put it like that: someone makes a film about Holocaust and gets shot by a declared neo-facist while riding a bicycle. Did the neo-facist support the idea of Holocaust? If Yes - he'd buy the film, sit down and relax, have a beer and say something like "whoo! These were the times!" (that's exactly how KKK members watch films about slavery - I've read a review from their pages once). But instead he opposes the film. Why?

-KKKs like the films about slavery because they think it is right.

-Why would the neo-facist oppose a film about Hollocaust?

-Why would an Takfir wal-Hijra follower oppose film about Sharia?

Was he not influenced by european way of thinking about human rights etc. would he oppose the film? Would he see Sharia courts as shamefull and discrediting?

Quote[/b] ]There is no such thing as an "official" definition of which interpretation is the "right" one.

Any interpretation that can be abolished without any doubts trough using Qu'ran/Bible is not the right one. Interpretation which doesn't hold up against a part of Qu'ran/Bible and ignores the parts that would abolish it is in fact an interpretation based on censorship of Qu'ran/Bible. This should not be tolerated.

You allready got an example from Miles Teg and You propably understand that Wahabi doctrine doesn't hold up against Qu'ran and the Prophet's own dooings - and so it is surely based on censorship of Qu'ran (the pices that don't fit are never read - that is the same as if they erased it) and thus Wahabis are not real muslims.

Quote[/b] ]In fact, I think that in most EU countries (Italy, Poland and Malta being strong exceptions), a devout Muslim will be treated more normally than a devout native Christian.

That's because of the stereotype muslims now have.

The stereotype also influences them and many people are drawn to this religion by this stereotype I suppose.

Have You missed the remarks made by me and not only about avarage radical muslim's profile? Can You deny that majority are young males discovering their "long forgotten spirituality"?

I wonder if You heard of "dragging people into suicides"? The suicider, for example, shots his family before killing himself, or a case of airliner crash, where pilots struggeled and trough the end raport was not clear it seems that one of pilots crashed the plane? Maybe in some cases young, unhappy people have used terrorism to commit a suicide and take their revange on the world?

The report posted a few pages ago was an interesting lecture. You can discuss with conclussions yet the statistics are statistics.

[Just in case - I'm not flamming at You Denoir, in fact discussion with You is quite plesant to me.]

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just because they do not represent the majority required to change the US Constitution does not mean they don't influence foreign policy.  Didn't you read the article by Daniel Pipes?

I don't see the relevance of it. Pipes is an idiot whose opinions are not representative of neither Americans nor Jews.

Who cares about his opinions or who they do or don't represent?  Just tell me which acts of Christian Zionism cited in the Pipes article you are refuting?  If none then the article clearly makes a strong case for the Evangelicalist's influence on foreign policy.

See the relevance now?  Not yet?  Then let's consult Wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]U.S. foreign policy and Christian Zionism

Many in the Christian Right refer to apocalyptic and other Biblical prophecy in their support of Israel, and support of Israel is often seen as a matter of biblical doctrine. The school of interpretation of Biblical prophecy in which Israel figures most prominently is called premillennial dispensationalism. This has created a movement called Christian Zionism.

According to Ribuffo, the Old Christian Right was generally isolationist, while Diamond notes the Christian Right since the 1950s has tended to support U.S. military intervention and covert action(see references below). After the September 11, 2001 attacks, many leaders in the Christian Right joined with neoconservatives in strongly supporting the War on Terror in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expressing profound sympathy for Israel, some have gone so far as to advocate the "transfer" of the Palestinian population from the West Bank to another Arab nation (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt or Saudi Arabia) as the only viable long-term solution to the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.

You don't have to be able to influence a powerful organization to kill people.

Isn't it rather reductive to suggest this is simply about killing people?

Quote[/b] ]For someone who refuses to discuss moral relativism you seem to be quite comfortable concluding that the killing of hundreds or a few thousands is worse than the suffering of millions.  I'm not drawing any such conclusions because I don't think it's an either or situation.  I believe it is mostly the sufferering of many that leads to radicalism in some, resulting in the killing of the few.  Somehow you believe that the killing can be stopped by fighting the radicalism, while leaving the suffering in place.  I don't agree.

Oh, really? Now please answer this: Which millions are suffering from the actions of the American Christian Evangelicals? In what way are they suffering?

The UN recognises about 1.3 million refugees living in camps as a result of Palestinians being dispossessed during the formation of Israel.  This does not include a further 4 million stateless Palestinians who the UN no longer considers to be refugees.  Whichever numbers you wish to choose, the physical and emotional suffering of these people is difficult to deny.

Now, if what I posted above wasn't enough to convince you of Christian Zionism's contribution to all this suffering then perhaps you should read this too.

Denoir, haven't you asked yourself why Israel hasn't fully annexed all territories captured in 1967 like nearly every other victorious nation would have done since the dawn of time?  The reason is primarily religious.  Integrating a large non-Jewish population would hasten the day that Israel would cease to be a "Jewish state" terminating an important part of Evangelicalist endtime prophecy.  And we can't have that, for Christ's sake.  It is religion that keeps the captured Palestinians stateless and so many away from their homes.  And it is this religion-spawned and Christian Zionist sustained suffering that continues to form a dangerous plank in Al Qaida's platform.

Quote[/b] ]Jewish extremists considered the British presence in Palestine illegal.  Muslim extremists consider the American presence in the Middle East illegal.  Rabbis espouse a right to a geographical region based on religion just as much or even more than Imams do.  And just as you may point to Imams promoting violence over political solutions I can point to Rabbis doing the same thing.

So, where does the comparison break down to the extent that it bears being ignored?  

I saw no point in answering that because the answer should be very obvious. That was a political movement, not a religious one. Like the IRA, it did have a religious component of support, but the cause was political and the goals were political. They did not kill wicked infidels because they didn't follow Jewish laws. They killed because they wanted to get rid of British rule.

Then why didn't they terrorise the British Authority during the first 26 years of their rule?  I'll tell you.

The British White Paper of 1939 called for the creation of a unified Palestinian State, abandoning any plan to have Palestine partitioned into Jewish and Arab states.  Perhaps this could have been called a political struggle if the Jews in Palestine were being denied a home, but they weren't.  From 1939, they were terrorising the British for the sake of achieving a separate Jewish nation in a country called Palestine.  Why?  Because God promised it to them several millenia earlier.  So, what seems to be obviously political to you seems plenty damn religious to me.

[denoir 0]

@ July 29 2005,19:51)]Well if the murderer was to follow this teachings he would see no problem. The sentences were according to Sharia, and if so they were right.

What good does it bring killing someone who made a documentary film about things You support and see as good and rightous?

That's a nice try, but it doesn't hold up. Van Gogh wasn't making objective documentaries, he was slandering Islam. He consistently referred to Muslims as "goat fuckers" etc

The guy was clearly an asshole, but of course that doesn't justify killing him.

Quote[/b] ]I'll state my question once more: did the murderer think that sharia courts are allright? A simple Yes/No question.

If Yes - why did he see the film as offending - it only shown deeds his idelogy supports.

If No - he was no Islamist. He was ashamed of Islamists' dooings and didn't want world to see them.

The answer would be yes, but your conclusion wrong. His films did not show deeds that his ideology supported, it was slandering Islam and its followers. And by Sharia law, insults against Islam are punishable by death.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]There is no such thing as an "official" definition of which interpretation is the "right" one.

Any interpretation that can be abolished without any doubts trough using Qu'ran/Bible is not the right one. Interpretation which doesn't hold up against a part of Qu'ran/Bible and ignores the parts that would abolish it is in fact an interpretation based on censorship of Qu'ran/Bible. This should not be tolerated.

Then you wouldn't tolerate any religion. All modern mainstream religions conveniently skip portions of scripture - often saying that the interpretations shouldn't be taken literally. For instance neither mainstream Jews nor mainstream Christians go around killing people that work on the Sabbath/Sunday although the Torah/Old Testament clearly says so.

That's why radicalism is very often associated with radicalism. Non-radicals take more than just the scripture into consideration - they weigh it against the practical consequences. In the west, this is more widespread due to the secularization of society.

Quote[/b] ]You allready got an example from Miles Teg and You propably understand that Wahabi doctrine doesn't hold up against Qu'ran and the Prophet's own dooings - and so it is surely based on censorship of Qu'ran (the pices that don't fit are never read - that is the same as if they erased it) and thus Wahabis are not real muslims.

If Wahabis are not real Muslims, then you've just dissed the entire population of Saudi Arabia and quite a few others. It is one of the dominant forms of modern Islam.

Quote[/b] ]

Have You missed the remarks made by me and not only about avarage radical muslim's profile? Can You deny that majority are young males discovering their "long forgotten spirituality"?

That a majority does that? Yes, I have not seen any evidence of that. I do think there is an integration problem in Europe, where immigrants from Muslim nations easily end up isolated. These isolated communities take on an Us vs the World position and easily become radicalized.

Ironically they don't have that problem in the US because their lack of social security. People are forced to work to survive, and when they work they learn how to interact with other cultures. In Europe you have a very strong social security that can give you a decent quality of life, even if you don't work. It's very typical in French suburbs to have nearly isolated (by their own choice) Muslim communities, where the unemployment is nearly 100%. So people have a lot of free time, they feel being outside the French society.. which generally spells trouble.

Quote[/b] ]I wonder if You heard of "dragging people into suicides"? The suicider, for example, shots his family before killing himself, or a case of airliner crash, where pilots struggeled and trough the end raport was not clear it seems that one of pilots crashed the plane? Maybe in some cases young, unhappy people have used terrorism to commit a suicide and take their revange on the world?

Possibly, but then again, why arn't there depressed Buddhists, Atheists etc that do that? The only suicide bombers we've seen in recent times were Muslims or Christians (in Lebanon).

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Who cares about his opinions or who they do or don't represent?  Just tell me which acts of Christian Zionism cited in the Pipes article you are refuting?  If none then the article clearly makes a strong case for the Evangelicalist's influence on foreign policy.

Come on now! Truman did recognize Israel 11 minutes after they declared themselves an nation. However, he still up hold the arms embargo and Israel had to look somewhere else (i.e. Czechs) for arms.

You care to forget about the US stance during the Suez War? Evangelical influence my ass. FYI, it wasn't until 1972 when the US started to use it's Security Council veto, for Israel, when Israel popped up in a resolution that would of had condemned them. Ronald Reagan tried to help end the conflict in Lebanon. If Evangelicals had influence, Reagan would of allowed Israel to do their "thing". Also, the US joined with the UN Security Council to condemn their bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor (   ). Oh, what about Jonathan Pollard being thrown in jail? Evangelical influence my ass. That stuff is in the pass right? Lets talk about now.

The US govt. vetoed a sale between Israel and China a few months ago do to the threat of those weapons being used against another ally of the US. If Evangelicals had influence, the sale would of had gone through because that would be going against the "chosen" ones. What about the US push for Israeli settlement withdrawal from Gaza that is going on right now? That is less land for them!*

*Evangelicals may have litte influence because they lobby like Israel and Arab countries do.

[denoir 0]

Take a look at their umbrella organization: The Christian Coalition of America and you'll see no mention of Israel...

Oh really?

(complete reply later)

Ah yes, lovely, leave out words in your quote. You can prove me even more wrong if you cut some more, like:

Take a look at their umbrella organization: The Christian Coalition of America and you'll see no mention of Is...

Gee, let's see... They use the word "is" quite a lot, so I must have been wrong.

The actual quote was:

Quote[/b] ]Take a look at their umbrella organization: The Christian Coalition of America and you'll see no mention of Israel and much less Iraq in their agenda.

(emphasis added)

This is their official agenda to which they have numerous links on the site, so it's hard to miss:

http://www.cc.org/issues.cfm

With the easy to understand title:

"Christian Coalition of America's Agenda for the 109th Congress (2005)"

But thanks for the link anyway, it shows how the current US foreign policy isn't at all in line with what the Christain Coalition thinks it should be.

Quote[/b] ]Who cares about his opinions or who they do or don't represent? Just tell me which acts of Christian Zionism cited in the Pipes article you are refuting? If none then the article clearly makes a strong case for the Evangelicalist's influence on foreign policy

Again, I don't see the significance of it. There's nothing earth shattering there. I'm not refuting any of it, but I do not consider that making "a strong case" for the Evangelicalists influence on foreign policy. This especially since the Evangelicalists boycotted all political activity until the presidential elections in 1989 when they reversed their position. Before that they did not at all get involved in politics or political lobbying. They first became relevant when they joined forces with the Republicans in 1992.

Quote[/b] ]The UN recognises about 1.3 million refugees living in camps as a result of Palestinians being dispossessed during the formation of Israel. This does not include a further 4 million stateless Palestinians who the UN no longer considers to be refugees. Whichever numbers you wish to choose, the physical and emotional suffering of these people is difficult to deny

So, according to you the Palestinian refugees are the result of American Evangelical interference into US foreign policy. Right. Well that doesn't hold water, especially given that this started a long time before the Evangelists got any political ambitions. Not to mention that it doesn't fit very well with historical facts either. After WW2, Europe, not America was Israel's greatest ally - and this continued for quite a while. The Suez war was a good example of European-Israeli cooperation, where America was on the other side (due to their wish that the European colonial influence should be ended).

It was first far later - the early seventies when Europe politically shifted their sympathy more to the Palestinian side - no doubt as a result of the left-wing political influences of that time.

I really hate to disappoint you, but America's loyalty to Israel is not due to anything as spectacular as religious prophecies. It was established for the same reason as America's loyalty to South Vietnam et al - as a counter weight to the Soviet support of the other side. The Soviets found natural allies in the Arabs due to their communist-pan-Arabian governments. They were ideologically far closer to the Soviet Union and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So of course America had to support Israel.

If you want to blame somebody for the Palestinian situation, blame Israel, blame Europe's passive acceptance to it, blame the cold war. But blaming the American Evangelists is beyond absurd. They are not that influential and they've only been a political force for a decade.

Quote[/b] ]The British White Paper of 1939 called for the creation of a unified Palestinian State, abandoning any plan to have Palestine partitioned into Jewish and Arab states. Perhaps this could have been called a political struggle if the Jews in Palestine were being denied a home, but they weren't. From 1939, they were terrorising the British for the sake of achieving a separate Jewish nation in a country called Palestine. Why? Because God promised it to them several millenia earlier. So, what seems to be obviously political to you seems plenty damn religious to me.

The desire for self-control is not religious, but political. Would you call the struggle of the Albanians in Kosovo religious? Or would you say that the American war of Independence was a religious war? (The separatists clearly wanted to have nothing to do with the Church of England any more) etc

I'll say this though - in Judaism, a separation of nationalism and religion is difficult. It's basically a single identity. So to exactly say what is driven by national interests or religious interests is very difficult.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Take a look at their umbrella organization: The Christian Coalition of America and you'll see no mention of Israel and much less Iraq in their agenda.

(emphasis added)

Do you honestly think a Palestinian refugee is going to suffer any less because the Christian Coalition of America explicitly opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, <span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>but</span> has not stipulated it in their agenda?

I'm not refuting any of it, but I do not consider that making "a strong case" for the Evangelicalists influence on foreign policy. This especially since the Evangelicalists boycotted all political activity until the presidential elections in 1989 when they reversed their position.

Can you provide a reference for that?  Or are you arguing that Christian Zionists are not a subset of Evangelicalists?  The Pipes article, which you are not refuting, gives examples of Christian Zionists exercising political influence long before 1989.

So, according to you the Palestinian refugees are the result of American Evangelical interference into US foreign policy.

No, that's not what I said.  Perhaps we'd better clear up our definitions of Christian Zionism vs Evangelicalism before we continue to discuss their past and present influence on the Middle East conflict.

Quote[/b] ]The British White Paper of 1939 called for the creation of a unified Palestinian State, abandoning any plan to have Palestine partitioned into Jewish and Arab states.  Perhaps this could have been called a political struggle if the Jews in Palestine were being denied a home, but they weren't.  From 1939, they were terrorising the British for the sake of achieving a separate Jewish nation in a country called Palestine.  Why?  Because God promised it to them several millenia earlier.  So, what seems to be obviously political to you seems plenty damn religious to me.

The desire for self-control is not religious, but political. Would you call the struggle of the Albanians in Kosovo religious?

If Muslim Albanians were migrating to a Christian Serb-populated Kosovo from all corners of the planet with the aim of establishing an independant Muslim state on the basis of a 4000 year old promise from God then, yes, I would call it religious.  Wouldn't you?

[Bernadotte 0]

blah blah blah

Please don't present a dozen examples of Israel not getting their way as a serious argument against the influence of Christian Zionists in the Middle East conflict.  The Israeli government has even given them their own "embassy" in Jerusalem.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Take a look at their umbrella organization: The Christian Coalition of America and you'll see no mention of Israel and much less Iraq in their agenda.

(emphasis added)

Do you honestly think a Palestinian refugee is going to suffer any less because the Christian Coalition of America explicitly opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, <span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>but</span> has not stipulated it in their agenda?

I honestly think that the Palestinians won't suffer more or less regardless of what the Christian Coalition thinks or writes.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm not refuting any of it, but I do not consider that making "a strong case" for the Evangelicalists influence on foreign policy. This especially since the Evangelicalists boycotted all political activity until the presidential elections in 1989 when they reversed their position.

Can you provide a reference for that?  Or are you arguing that Christian Zionists are not a subset of Evangelicalists?  The Pipes article, which you are not refuting, gives examples of Christian Zionists exercising political influence long before 1989.

The Pipes article mentions a few instances of influential Americans advocating for the existence of the state of Israel. It does not in any way provide any evidence that their motivation was Christian Zionism. There are dozens of other possible reasons. And even if it was Christian Zionism it wouldn't mean much. You had American Nazis lobbying represented by some influential people that wanted America to join the war on Germany's side. That doesn't mean that it was an influence of any relevance.

And if you look at the initiatives mentioned in the Pipes article, you should notice that they had no impact whatsoever, just as today the Christian Coalition's calls against a Palestinian state are not heeded - although they are in a much more powerful position today. They have a born-again Evangelic in the White House - it doesn't get any better for them than this - and yet their wishes are not fulfilled. They can't even get support for their most elementary domestic policies.

As for my references, specifically about the rise to politics of the Christian right, it's a BBC documentary called "The power of nightmares". I highly recommend it. Beyond that, you can see:

The political mobilization of the new Christian Right. I havn't read the whole article, at a glance it seems to tell a similar story.

Quote[/b] ]

So, according to you the Palestinian refugees are the result of American Evangelical interference into US foreign policy.

No, that's not what I said.  Perhaps we'd better clear up our definitions of Christian Zionism vs Evangelicalism before we continue to discuss their past and present influence on the Middle East conflict.

I think we can go with the Wikipedia definitions, ok?

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

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

Quote[/b] ]If Muslim Albanians were migrating to a Christian Serb-populated Kosovo from all corners of the planet with the aim of establishing an independant Muslim state on the basis of a 4000 year old promise from God then, yes, I would call it religious.  Wouldn't you?

The parallels you are drawing is to Zionism, but that was just as much as a nationalist movement as it was a religious one.

Now put all this in context with the original discussion - the connection of radical Islam to modern day terrorism (WTC, London, Madrid, Bali..). Don't you realize how far-fetched your explanations are?

British citizens are blowing themselves up in the subway because an American religious group allegedly has influence on American foreign policy which has led to alleged unconditional American support for Israel which has given Israel allegedly free hands to allegedly make life miserable for the Palestinians.

You are reaching at straws here and you have not in any way established the following important claims:

1) That one or more religious groups or sects is influencing American foreign politics in a pivotal way (enough to define or change policy)

2) That American policy towards Israel has influenced the way that Israel deals with the Palestinians.

3) That the situation of the Palestinians has anything to do with terrorist attacks on western soil (excluding Israel)

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Take a look at their umbrella organization: The Christian Coalition of America and you'll see no mention of Israel and much less Iraq in their agenda.

(emphasis added)

Do you honestly think a Palestinian refugee is going to suffer any less because the Christian Coalition of America explicitly opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, <span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>but</span> has not stipulated it in their agenda?

I honestly think that the Palestinians won't suffer more or less regardless of what the Christian Coalition thinks or writes.

First you tell me to look at their agenda because of what it doesn't say about Israel and now you tell me their opinions are irrelevant to the Middle East situation.

Think that's my cue to go call it a day.

[Harnu 0]

For topic: War against terror, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Ikea.

War on Terror Alert:

2nd Chicagoland IKEA store is up. Homeland defense has failed. The resistance begins soon.

[billybob2002 0]

blah blah blah

Please don't present a dozen examples of Israel not getting their way as a serious argument against the influence of Christian Zionists in the Middle East conflict.  The Israeli government has even given them their own "embassy" in Jerusalem.

Examples that counter your claim about their so called influence. There are other reasons that we support Israel, and the relationship we have with other ME countries, which outweight their so called influence. blah blah...

From Third International Christian Zionist Congress

Quote[/b] ]

The modern Ingathering of the Jewish People to Eretz Israel and the rebirth of the nation of Israel are in fulfilment of biblical prophecies, as written in both Old and New Testaments.

US foregin policy has never called for the Palestinian terrorities to be annex to Israel (that would be Eretz Israel).

Quote[/b] ]Regarding Islam, we express the following concerns with Muslim attitudes towards Jews and Christians out of a sense of compassion for the millions of people who believe that they follow in the faith of Abraham by way of Islam, and with a commitment to intercede for them, that the Spirit of Truth will reveal to them the true nature of the faith of Abraham:

....

I don't see Bush going to SA and telling King Fahd or the princes that Allah is an false god. Or, breaking off the relationship between the US and SA.

[denoir 0]

First you tell me to look at their agenda because of what it doesn't say about Israel and now you tell me their opinions are irrelevant to the Middle East situation.

:

It's your theory that they are influencing US foreign politics, so I showed you their agenda. That doesn't in any way contradict my opinion that what they think or don't think of Israel is more or less completely irrelevant for US foreign policy in the region.

Again, there's not much to support your theory. You've given a few examples of what could be interpreted as calls for policy based on a religious agenda - but there are far more examples - and systematic ones - of actual policy that contradicts that agenda.

[Bernadotte 0]

It's your theory that they are influencing US foreign politics, so I showed you their agenda.

Actually I don't believe the Christian Coalition should be regarded as an umbrella organisation for Christian Zionists.  So, unless you know of a direct CC/Christian Zionism connection, let's just leave the CC out of this discussion.

You had American Nazis lobbying represented by some influential people that wanted America to join the war on Germany's side. That doesn't mean that it was an influence of any relevance.

I don't think Christian Zionists act as a lobby group any more than mainstream Muslims do.  The Christian Zionist belief is primarily held by the worlds 335 million Christian Evangelical church leaders/followers.  And considering that most of them are in the US, they account for a huge percentage of the US electorate that certainly does not need any lobby group to be heard.

However, according to Wikipedia, "Most people and groups who are called Christian Zionist subscribe to the theological belief self-consciously, but the political implications are a by-product."  In other words, a Christian Zionist may have outwardly supported pro-Israel policies for reasons to do with Cold War strategy, while keeping their true religious motivations to themselves.  This way a US ambassador to the UN can present the most trivial excuses for vetoing a Sec Council resolution against Israel because he knows that at least 40% of his constituency will never question the decision.

Incidently, Christian Zionists very greatly outnumber Jewish Zionists.

They have a born-again Evangelic in the White House - it doesn't get any better for them than this - and yet their wishes are not fulfilled.

And what are those wishes?  They seek to have the Jews repopulate the Holy Land and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.  And there's not much room in their plan for those pesky Arabs and their Al Aqsa Mosque (even though peaceful coexistence is not necessarily inconsistent with Christian Zionist goals).

So, I understand how Bush's apparent support for the Palestinians can seem to contradict Christian Zionist goals, however I have yet to see his support extending beyond words.  Hell, he was the first US president in 30 years who refused to meet Arafat.  In any case, only a hardcore radical would argue that Bush is a Christian Zionist puppet, but I would really like to know what Bush has actually done for the Palestinians that is out of step with what most Christian Zionists want.

Quote[/b] ]If Muslim Albanians were migrating to a Christian Serb-populated Kosovo from all corners of the planet with the aim of establishing an independant Muslim state on the basis of a 4000 year old promise from God then, yes, I would call it religious.  Wouldn't you?

The parallels you are drawing is to Zionism, but that was just as much as a nationalist movement as it was a religious one.

Certainly it was nationalist when they were considering places like a region in southeast Siberia offered to them by the Soviet Union.  ...Certainly no promise from God, there.

Now put all this in context with the original discussion - the connection of radical Islam to modern day terrorism (WTC, London, Madrid, Bali..). Don't you realize how far-fetched your explanations are?

Ok, then let's take a closer look at the original discussion:

I think the three monotheistic religions create problems. I do however think that Islam is as practiced today the primary problem. I do not however wish to underestimate for instance the damage that the US Christian right is doing on the global scale.

...Hardly far-fetched.  I strongly agreed with what you said.

The west has taken a pragmatic approach and killed off most of the interference of religion in affairs of any significance.

Here's when our opinions began to diverge.  Suddenly according to you, "the damage that the US Christian right is doing on the global scale" had lost a great deal of significance.

All I've been saying is that, in the War on Terrorism, mainstream Islam is not the only religious movement that needs to be reformed (secularised?).  And given the sheer number of Christian Zionists that cast ballots in the world's most powerful nation, I feel we should be scrutinising their role every bit as much as mainstream Islam.  Still, you do not agree, even though I presented the following quotes relating to Christian Zionism from Wikipedia sources:

Quote[/b] ]Many in the Christian Right refer to apocalyptic and other Biblical prophecy in their support of Israel, and support of Israel is often seen as a matter of biblical doctrine. The school of interpretation of Biblical prophecy in which Israel figures most prominently is called premillennial dispensationalism. This has created a movement called Christian Zionism.

Christian Zionism is the belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy, and is a necessary precondition for the return of Jesus to reign on Earth. This belief is commonly though not exclusively associated with evangelical Protestants in the United States.

Modern Christian Zionism is a politically potent consequence of this religious interest in the modern state of Israel, as contemporary events are interpreted in light of their understanding of biblical prophecy.  The Christian role in supporting the establishment of Israel following World War II is well known; and it is regarded by some critics as, in part, a kind of self-willed fulfillment of prophecy.

Expressing profound sympathy for Israel, some have gone so far as to advocate the "transfer" of the Palestinian population from the West Bank to another Arab nation (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt or Saudi Arabia) as the only viable long-term solution to the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.

Politically, Christian Zionism is important because it mobilises an important Republican constituency; fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants who support Israel.

The government of Israel has given official encouragement to Christian Zionism, allowing the establishment in 1980 of an "International Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem. The main function of the embassy is to enlist worldwide Christian support for Israel. The embassy has raised funds to help finance Jewish immigration to Israel from the former Soviet Union, and has assisted Zionist groups in establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

I do not wish to compare the relative significance of the Cold War or Israeli politics with Christian Zionism as you and Billybob have done.  Naturally there are many other important influences.  I've tried to keep our discussion focused on the need to reform other religious movements in addition to Islam in the War on Terrorism.

You are reaching at straws here and you have not in any way established the following important claims:

1) That one or more religious groups or sects is influencing American foreign politics in a pivotal way (enough to define or change policy)

2) That American policy towards Israel has influenced the way that Israel deals with the Palestinians.

3) That the situation of the Palestinians has anything to do with terrorist attacks on western soil (excluding Israel)

1)  Christian Zionist beliefs are held by as much as 40% of the US electorate.  That 40% of the US electorate is able to influence American foreign policy is undeniable.

2)  And I haven't established that the earth is round, either, have I?  Get this!  The US spends about 40% of its total foreign aid budget in support of Israel.  Withholding or even delaying those billions has strongly affected Israel's policies, even contributing to the political demise of Israeli prime minister Shamir in 1992.  And let's not forget the 30 - 40 UN Sec Council resolutions against Israel that the US has vetoed.  Al Qaida certainly hasn't lost count.  

3)  I suppose the mentioning of Palestine in nearly every statement, claim, manifesto by every real or wannabe Al Qaida cell for the past 12 years may have escaped your attention.

Denoir, let's keep in mind what every Middle East leader and the majority of world leaders told Powell on his post-9/11 anti-terror coalition building journeys:  "America will not be able to win it's war with Al Qaida until the Israel/Palestine crisis is resolved."  Only time will tell if all those world leaders are correct or if you are correct.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And considering that most of them are in the US, they account for a huge percentage of the US electorate that certainly does not need any lobby group to be heard.

Actually, they do lobby like everbody else.

http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.benefits

Quote[/b] ]

The lobby arm of the NAE is a potent force in the arena of state, national and international politics. The force of 30 million Americans united under a common banner is an effective and powerful tool in shaping legislation. Under the leadership of Richard Cizik, the Office Governmental Affairs has been instrumental in promoting, amending and sometimes defeating key legislation regarding religious liberties and moral issues. There is a battle for the public arena and the front line lobbyists are crucial to advancing the agenda of conservative, evangelical Christian America.

Israel also has lobby groups. For example,

http://www.aipac.org : America Israel Public Affairs Committee

.....

Quote[/b] ]Nonetheless, you keep arguing that Bush's apparent support for the Palestinians contradicts Christian Zionism, even though I haven't seen his support extending beyond words.  Hell, he was the first US president in 30 years who refused to meet Arafat.  Nobody here is arguing that Bush is a Christian Zionist puppet, but please tell me what Bush has really done for the Palestinians that is out of step with what most Christian Zionists want.

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena....id=mena

Quote[/b] ]

USAID Works To Facilitate Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza

Congressional testimony of USAID director for Palestinian areas

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working to facilitate the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and lay the foundation for a Palestinian state, according to James Bever, USAID mission director for the West Bank and Gaza.

"The Palestinian political leadership transition, the current municipal elections, the upcoming legislative elections, and the government of Israel's disengagement plan from the Gaza Strip and settlements in the northern West Bank all present an unprecedented opportunity to enhance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and pave the way for the state solution," Bever said in prepared testimony before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee July 26.

Bever said the USAID programs dealing with the Palestinian political leadership follow three objectives:

•  support a moderate Palestinian leadership,

•  support Gaza disengagement,

•  promote longer term stability toward a Palestinian state.

Quote[/b] ]1)  Christian Zionist beliefs are held by as much as 40% of the US electorate.  That 40% of the US electorate is able to influence American foreign policy is undeniable.

Do you think all those millions of people are thinking about Israel all the time and that is their sole issue? I guess Bill Frist, Senate majority leader and republican, didn't commit suicide when he came out for more funding in Stem Cell research a few days ago.

Quote[/b] ]2)  And I haven't established that the earth is round, either, have I?  Get this!  The US spends about 40% of its total foreign aid budget in support of Israel.  Withholding or even delaying those billions has strongly affected Israel's policies, even contributing to the political demise of Israeli prime minister Shamir in 1992.  And let's not forget the 30 - 40 UN Sec Council resolutions against Israel that the US has vetoed.  Al Qaida certainly hasn't lost count.  

Got something to back up that 40% of total foreign aid budget? I just don't understand that percent. The reason for asking because if you go to the account tables at

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/28783.pdf , that 40% would not add up (just scan the totals of each "aid" in the 2003 actuals). Also, Iraq received 18.4 billion a year ago.

Quote[/b] ]And given the sheer number of Christian Zionists that cast ballots in the world's most powerful nation, I feel we should be scrutinising their role every bit as much as mainstream Islam.

So, Christian Zionists are blowing themselves up and other evil deeds in the name of God? That is news to me.

[Bernadotte 0]

Got something to back up that 40% of total foreign aid budget? I just don't understand that percent.

I'm sure it's a pre-Iraq figure and it also includes the $2 Egypt automatically gets for every $3 Israel gets in accordance with their Camp David deal.

[denoir 0]

It's your theory that they are influencing US foreign politics, so I showed you their agenda.

Actually I don't believe the Christian Coalition should be regarded as an umbrella organisation for Christian Zionists.  So, unless you know of a direct CC/Christian Zionism connection, let's just leave the CC out of this discussion.

CC is an evangelical umbrella organization. Unless you think that CZ is not a mainstream belief in evangelicism, then it should be included in this discussion. They are also relevant because they are the most influential Christian political group in the US.

Quote[/b] ]And considering that most of them are in the US, they account for a huge percentage of the US electorate that certainly does not need any lobby group to be heard.

Quote[/b] ]1) Christian Zionist beliefs are held by as much as 40% of the US electorate. That 40% of the US electorate is able to influence American foreign policy is undeniable.

I challenge those statements.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=17

7% of the US adult population are evangelicals. We agreed that the CZ were a subset, hence there's even fewer of them. And even if all evangelicals were CZ, it says very little - as it doesn't state how important that issue is to them. Looking at the primary evangelical political organization - i.e the CC, you see that Palestine is not a primary issue. They are mostly concerned with abortions, sexual "morality", creationism etc

Quote[/b] ]And let's not forget the 30 - 40 UN Sec Council resolutions against Israel that the US has vetoed. Al Qaida certainly hasn't lost count.

Yeah, which they started using in the 70's - long after the Palestinians fled or were chased off their land.

Quote[/b] ]Get this! The US spends about 40% of its total foreign aid budget in support of Israel.

That 40% figure sounds very questionable. What is classified as "foreign aid"? And mind you again, that the US started arming Israel first after the Soviets started arming the Arabs. Before it was the British and the French.

Quote[/b] ]In other words, a Christian Zionist may have outwardly supported pro-Israel policies for reasons to do with Cold War strategy, while keeping their true religious motivations to themselves.

Aha, so their great influence is that on occasion they agree with US policy and shut up about it?

Quote[/b] ]3) I suppose the mentioning of Palestine in nearly every statement, claim, manifesto by every real or wannabe Al Qaida cell for the past 12 years may have escaped your attention.

You mean like the Madrid bombings or the London bombings?

(Palestine was never even mentioned)

Quote[/b] ]Denoir, let's keep in mind what every Middle East leader and the majority of world leaders told Powell on his post-9/11 anti-terror coalition building journeys: "America will not be able to win it's war with Al Qaida until the Israel/Palestine crisis is resolved." Only time will tell if all those world leaders are correct or if you are correct.

Of course they are full of bullshit. Without exception every single Arab regime has a corrupt leadership which has been using Israel as a standard populist object of hate. And the worst of all is their blatant hypocrisy - they are doing jack shit to help the Palestinians and yet they argue like the well-being of the Palestinians is the best thing in the world. This anti-semitism has been used for so long that it's basically part of the culture today.

There was an excellent BBC article a while ago, I'll see if I can find it. Basically it was about how the citizens of Baghdad in more often than not blamed water shortages, electricity shortages etc on Israeli sabotage. These were utterly absurd conspiracy theories, something that these clearly brain-washed people did not realize.

Either way, nobody really gives a damn about the Palestinians. Their best allies so far have been Europeans, not their fellow Arabs.

[billybob2002 0]

Got something to back up that 40% of total foreign aid budget? I just don't understand that percent.

I'm sure it's a pre-Iraq figure and it also includes the $2 Egypt automatically gets for every $3 Israel gets in accordance with their Camp David deal.

In 2003, Israel recieved a litte bit more than 3 billion in military financing aid out of little more than 5 billion (very close to 6 billion) in military financing given out and 596 million in economic support. The economic support and military financing aid was the only aid given to them in that State Dept. .pdf (that should include everything..explicitly the aid named Israel). So, that would be more than 3.682 billion in aid given to Israel out of more than 18.2 billion (i did not include one aid because it said request..) total. So, it is more closer to more than 20% than 40% of the total aid given out in the year 2003. I did not use the 2004 figures because they were estimates and Iraq recieved the most aid in that year(2003 were the actual figures).

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf#search='Israel%20aid' ...fun read  

[Bernadotte 0]

So, it is more closer to more than 20% than 40% of the total aid given out in the year 2003.

I probably got my data out of this.  Enjoy! And please include that Egypt automatically gets US aid totaling 2/3 of whatever Israel gets for having signed the Camp David treaty.  This raises your 20% estimate to 33%.

But, if you are arguing on behalf of Denoir that US policy has not affected the way Israel treats the Palestinians because the level of aid is closer to 33% than 40% (that was the issue) then I don't see how the difference in figures resolves anything.

If not then please continue this side discussion with PMs so we can get back to discussing the War on Terror.

[Bernadotte 0]

CC is an evangelical umbrella organization. Unless you think that CZ is not a mainstream belief in evangelicism, then it should be included in this discussion.

I'd like to keep the topic on the need to reform (secularise?) America's Christian Evangelicalism in addition to global mainstream Islam in the War on Terror.  Discuss the political agenda of CC or any Muslim lobby as well, but please do so within the context of the topic.

Quote[/b] ]And considering that most of them are in the US, they account for a huge percentage of the US electorate that certainly does not need any lobby group to be heard.

Quote[/b] ]1)  Christian Zionist beliefs are held by as much as 40% of the US electorate.  That 40% of the US electorate is able to influence American foreign policy is undeniable.

I challenge those statements.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=17

And if I jump through this hoop too will it change your mind?

I doubt it.  Nonetheless, from the same page you are quoting:

Quote[/b] ]89% of evangelicals describe themselves as an “evangelical Christian" compared to <span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>39% of adults nationwide</span>.

Looking at the primary evangelical political organization - i.e the CC, you see that Palestine is not a primary issue. They are mostly concerned with abortions, sexual "morality", creationism etc

They all believe in Satan as well but you don't see anything about Satan in their political agenda, do you?  Please tell me how the political agenda of a lobby group representing 2 million people has anything to do with the need (or lack of need) to secularise the beliefs of up to 100 million people in the War on Terror.

Quote[/b] ]And let's not forget the 30 - 40 UN Sec Council resolutions against Israel that the US has vetoed.  Al Qaida certainly hasn't lost count.  

Yeah, which they started using in the 70's - long after the Palestinians fled or were chased off their land.

Again, so what?  

Quote[/b] ]In other words, a Christian Zionist may have outwardly supported pro-Israel policies for reasons to do with Cold War strategy, while keeping their true religious motivations to themselves.

Aha, so their great influence is that on occasion they agree with US policy and shut up about it?

No, of course not.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  Why is it so difficult for you to understand that in a democracy like the US, 40% of the electorate having a common mindset about a specific issue can significantly influence US policy on that issue, and do so easily without the need for a lobby?

Quote[/b] ]3)  I suppose the mentioning of Palestine in nearly every statement, claim, manifesto by every real or wannabe Al Qaida cell for the past 12 years may have escaped your attention.

You mean like the Madrid bombings or the London bombings?  (Palestine was never even mentioned)

Really?  Are you claiming those are the only 2 statements that don't refer to Palestine?  Please show me

(Btw, the only references to Zionism that don't have implications for Palestine are those from Bob Marley.)

Quote[/b] ]Denoir, let's keep in mind what every Middle East leader and the majority of world leaders told Powell on his post-9/11 anti-terror coalition building journeys:  "America will not be able to win it's war with Al Qaida until the Israel/Palestine crisis is resolved."  Only time will tell if all those world leaders are correct or if you are correct.

Of course they are full of bullshit. Without exception every single Arab regime has a corrupt leadership which has been using Israel as a standard populist object of hate. And the worst of all is their blatant hypocrisy - they are doing jack shit to help the Palestinians and yet they argue like the well-being of the Palestinians is the best thing in the world. This anti-semitism has been used for so long that it's basically part of the culture today.

What is anti-Semitic about Tony Blair and nearly every other European leader having pressed Powell to make progress resolving the Israeli/Palestinian dispute towards winning the War on Terror?

Or is it only anti-Semitic when another Semite says it?  

Either way, nobody really gives a damn about the Palestinians. Their best allies so far have been Europeans, not their fellow Arabs.

Try telling that to the families of all the Arab soldiers who have died fighting on behalf of the Palestinians in 5 wars with Israel (3 started by Israel).

Supporting Palestinian refugee camps for nearly 60 years:

Jordan, 10 camps, 304,430 refugees

Lebanon, 12 camps, 225,125 refugees

Syria, 10 camps, 119,776 refugees

There's an entire UN division dedicated to their care.  Hardly a nobody.

Furthermore, haven't you ever heard of the Arab Oil Embargo?

Egypt's president was even assassinated in 1981, mostly because he was seen to have abandoned the Palestinians in making peace with Israel.  Btw, the organisation behind the assassination went on to become a founding component of Al Qaida.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'd like to keep the topic on the need to reform (secularise?) America's Christian Evangelicalism in addition to global mainstream Islam in the War on Terror.  Discuss the political agenda of CC or any Muslim lobby as well, but please do so within the context of the topic.

Are there ACEs blowing themselves up in the name of God? What is the point in reforming them? Islamic terrorism (violence in the name of "Islam") is 1000x bigger than American Christian Evangelicalism terrorism which rarely happens.

Quote[/b] ]Why is it so difficult for you to understand that in a democracy like the US, 40% of the electorate having a common mindset about a specific issue can significantly influence US policy on that issue, and do so easily without the need for a lobby?

Majority of the American electorate want the border secure (north and south) but you do not see the President running to secure the border do you? Reagan did not do it. Bush Sr. did not do it. Clinton did not do it. W Bush did not do it.

A common mindset is not going to work in this Republic but actions (i.e. Lobby) are key.

Quote[/b] ]

Furthermore, haven't you ever heard of the Arab Oil Embargo?

It was not about the Palestinians... from wiki

Quote[/b] ]announced that they would no longer ship petroleum to nations that had supported Israel in its conflict with Egypt—that is, to the United States and its allies in Western Europe.

....

Quote[/b] ]Egypt's president was even assassinated in 1981, mostly because he was seen to have abandoned the Palestinians in making peace with Israel.  Btw, the organisation behind the assassination went on to become a founding component of Al Qaida.

I think the internal problems and him actually suing for peace with Israel (not following status quo like other Arab nations) was bigger than the Palestinians issue.

[Nemesis6 0]

...fighting on behalf of the Palestinians in 5 wars with Israel (3 started by Israel).

Ok... First we have the 1948 war. That wasn't started by Israel. Then we have the 1967 war - Which was, fortunatly, started by Israel. If you don't know why, I'm not surprised. Then next up we have... let's see... the Yom Kippur war. This was started by the Arabs. Then, we have the war in 1970. Initiated by Egypt. Next up, we have the 1973 war, AKA: The Yom Kippur war. Initiated by the Arabs. Next up, the 1978 war(Operation Litani), this was initiated by Israel for a good reason. And lastly, we have the 1982 war. One can argue both points here. The invasion came after a failed assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom, but also to stop Katyusha rockets from being fired.

But counting only the big ones(real wars! Israel has, with good reason, started 2 wars. One can argue both sides heavily on the Lebanon issue, but it was initiated by the terrorists.

[Bernadotte 0]

In March you said:

1967 - After some thorough research into this war, I can say that it was more or less the Arab countries that initiated the hostilities.

And now you say:

Then we have the 1967 war - Which was, fortunatly, started by Israel. If you don't know why, I'm not surprised.

Hey, I'm just glad you decided to keep doing your "thorough research into this war."