The Middle East part 2

[DracoPaladore 0]

When in fact, the peace was shattered if at all by the rocket attack by israelis earlier, killing 2 Hamas members, or by israel not actually releasing (any?) prisonners as per the roadmap.

Probobly misinformation or just lack of information. Same goes for probobly some of the US news broadcasts as well.

[ralphwiggum 6]

and neither is "militant" groups are disarming.

[Bernadotte 0]

When in fact, the peace was shattered if at all by the rocket attack by israelis earlier, killing 2 Hamas members, or by israel not actually releasing (any?) prisonners as per the roadmap.

Probobly misinformation or just lack of information. Same goes for probobly some of the US news broadcasts as well.

Here's the latest cease-fire scorecard:  7 Israelis vs 15 Palestinians.

Btw, Israel never agreed to a cease-fire.  The deal was if the terrorists stop killing Israelis then Israel would allow the 3.5 million Palestinian people to live slightly more normal lives.  However, Israel reserved the right to continue killing anyone it suspected would be killing Israelis in the absence of a cease-fire.

[Bernadotte 0]

and neither is "militant" groups are disarming.

That wasn't part of any agreement, was it?  George Bush has even stopped seeking that.

Besides, disarmament doesn't work as long as new weapons are so easy to acquire.  Eliminating the need for weapons is what works best.  Just look at N. Ireland - peace agreement first, then disarmament.

[Bernadotte 0]

yesterday, on a news, it was reported that US is telling Israel to stop construction of fence, or US will cut amount of support fund equalling that of constructing the fence to Israel.

Bush Sr tried to do the same thing about 10 years ago.  His strategy worked and ultimately led to the Oslo peace agreements.  Nonetheless, in 2000, Al Gore used it against the Republicans in a speech to the Israel lobby group, AIPAC:

Quote[/b] ]"I remember standing up against Bush's foreign policy advisers who promoted the insulting concept of linkage, which tried to use loan guarantees as a stick to bully Israel. I stood with you, and together we defeated them."

[sanctuary 19]

Found on my morning newspaper :

Wahabi authorities in Saudi Arabai made a fatwa against terrorism

They said in that fatwa that any terrorist will be judged according to their Sharia.

I searched a link in internet to confirm this and found this text

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/17/saudi.clerics.ap/index.html

I find this amazing , as if it is true and really active , it can have an impact

But what i find strange on the cnn link , is that there is no mention of the word fatwa , instead they use the words "The Council of Senior Clerics said in a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency "

Is there a more accurate link to see if this is a fatwa or not , as a fatwa is more serious for the muslim population of Saudi Arabia than just a statement ?

[Acecombat 0]

Where did they feed you with the word wahhabi?

By the way try and use normal english words , fatwa is a speech or general judgement of something by the muslims as a whole.

Yes its true what youre hearing it always has been.

[sanctuary 19]

By the way try and use normal english words , fatwa is a speech or general judgement of something by the muslims as a whole.

What are you saying ?

words have a meaning , why do you want me to not use an english word to replace the word fatwa (that has a special meaning)  , do i have next to call Saddam Hussein with your english word Johnny Thingy ?

Next time , please contribute to the discussion instead of saying ridiculous thing like that.

a fatwa is a fatwa an islamic religious decision , a state statement is a state statement and have no impact on islamic religious people even if in that case islam is Saudi Arabia official religion.

As the terrorists use the islamic religion as an excuse for their horrors , it means a LOT more in the islamic believers views that what was said is a fatwa .

If it was just statement from the Saudi state , it will mean nothing for them.

And in the cnn page , they didnt use the fatwa word to qualify the decision, so it can be confusing .

But in my newspaper, the article clearly said it was a fatwa.

Today , on my newspaper , again a bigger article on that fact , always with the word fatwa , but this time , the fatwa is pronounced in Iran too.

That continue to amaze me , as the repercussions can be heavy on the middle east with all those terrorists organizations ,

Of course if what was said by Iran and Saudi religious is for real (and not just another lie to appease western people)

And no one here in this thread react to those 2 news from Iran and Saudi Arabia ?

Now i dont know what amaze me the most , those 2 news or the apathy of the forum in that case.

[FSPilot 0]

They probably think their base will associate "fatwa" with terrorism, so they're trying to avoid the word.

[sanctuary 19]

They probably think their base will associate "fatwa" with terrorism, so they're trying to avoid the word.

I think you are right , the media are afraid of using some words

As the first fatwa that our western media ever heard was the famous "kill Rushdie" from Iran .

That is sad that some media has their communication politic and langage usage dictated by terrorist or fool.

So when the Iraq religious authorities made a fatwa to force the people pillaging to stop and send back what they stole 3-4 months ago , did the media were afraid of the fatwa word ?

In the TV french info i heard about this event in that time , they were not afraid to call a fatwa -> fatwa

But did other western countries media acted as CNN in the case of this Saudia/Iran fatwa by being afraid of using the right word in the right place ?

[Bernadotte 0]

Where did they feed you with the word wahhabi?

By the way try and use normal english words , fatwa is a speech or general judgement of something by the muslims as a whole.

According to dictionary.com...

Wah·ha·bi n. A member of a Muslim sect founded by Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792), known for its strict observance of the Koran and flourishing mainly in Arabia.

and...

fat·wa n.  A legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the *cough* <span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>English</span> *cough* Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.  Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Acecombat 0]

They probably think their base will associate "fatwa" with terrorism, so they're trying to avoid the word.

Yes thats it thats the main reason i was asking you to avoid the word sorry if i put that in a wierd way well english isnt my native language but....

And Benadotte keep that heritage dictionary away

Didnt you see what it says The American Heritage

These guys dont know what a wahhabi is they only manipulate it to their own interests.

[Bernadotte 0]

As the terrorists use the islamic religion as an excuse for their horrors , it means a LOT more in the islamic believers views that what was said is a fatwa .

This is not true in Palestine.  There, it is not a religious conflict.  The million or so Palestinian refugees are Christians, Muslims or secular who would be just as angry if their homes and property had been stolen by Buddhists or Hindus.

Hopefully, the fatwa will have some affect on a few of the terrorists who happen to be religious Muslims.

[sanctuary 19]

They probably think their base will associate "fatwa" with terrorism, so they're trying to avoid the word.

Yes thats it thats the main reason i was asking you to avoid the word sorry if i put that in a wierd way well english isnt my native language    but....

These guys dont know what a wahhabi is they only manipulate it to their own interests.

Those terms -wahhabi , fatwa are now known , at least in my frenchy country

There are several sects/movements in Islam religion and Wahhabi movement is one of them, as you can find Orthodox, Catholics , Protestants , Coptic etc... movement in the Christian religion .

And in Saudi Arabia, the majority of muslim there are Wahhabi .

So it will be irrelevant to invent other words to designate what already exist and is accepeted as word in lot of langage.

My langage is not english too (that s why i thought wahhabi was writed wahabi , as the french usage is wahabite )

This is not true in Palestine. There, it is not a religious conflict. The million or so Palestinian refugees are Christians, Muslims or secular who would be just as angry if their homes and property had been stolen by Buddhists or Hindus.

Hopefully, the fatwa will have some affect on a few of the terrorists who happen to be religious Muslims

Where did i said that Palestinian are terrorists and the Israel vs Palestinian is a religious conflict ?

In an other part , despite what you can say , in Palestine most of military groups are people that want the conflict to be a religious one as they use religious term , religious references etc.

So hopefully it is not a religious conflict , yes , but since a LOT of years some people tried their best to put this on the religious side , with the goal you know certainly Bernadotte : to have more cannon fodder for their need of power

And that is why i think the 2 fatwa issued by those 2 influent countries are very important , to disminish the influence of all those that want to make the conflict a religious one.

But that said, in the middle east, there is more than just Israel/Palestine conflict that this 2 fatwa can touch.

All the terrorists that use islam as their excuse are not all grouped in Palestine

[Bernadotte 0]

This is not true in Palestine.  There, it is not a religious conflict.

Where did i said that Palestinian are terrorists and the Israel vs Palestinian is a religious conflict ?

Did I say that you said Palestinians are terrorists?  Where?

However, the following sentence certainly sounds like you are calling it a religious conflict.

As the terrorists use the islamic religion as an excuse for their horrors...

Try to look at it this way:

Each side in the conflict wants to live in the same house.

The one side built the house and has owned the house for many centuries.

The other side showed up recently claiming that the Bible promised the house to them more than 2000 years ago, and it doesn't matter who is living there now.

Question:  How is it possible in these modern times that the owners could get kicked out by the folks with the Bibles?

Answer:  The folks with the Bibles had a Superpower on their side.

[sanctuary 19]

This is not true in Palestine.  There, it is not a religious conflict.

Where did i said that Palestinian are terrorists and the Israel vs Palestinian is a religious conflict ?

Did I say that you said Palestinians are terrorists?  Where?

As your reply was "This is not true in Palestine.  There, it is not a religious conflict" , it suppose that i said in the post this replied "It is true in Palestine, There it is a religious conflict"

And as by looking at my posts i dont find anything similar to this, that is why my reply was "Where did i said that Palestinian are terrorists and the Israel vs Palestinian is a religious conflict "

Ok ? ;)

However, the following sentence certainly sounds like you are calling it a religious conflict.

As the terrorists use the islamic religion as an excuse for their horrors...

This say exactly what is written : terrorists are using the islamic religion as an excuse.

Perhaps i should have wrote "majority of the terrorist groups are using the islamic religion as an excuse." , my fault.

As long there -very few- groups that are -regular resistant- (the very few groups making attacks on occupation army , and do not deserve the terrorist calling) this is not a religious conflict.

If those -few- groups didnt existed or stop making resistant actions against invading army to do the mass civilian killing insteaf , yes this conflict will be a religious one, as the others use religion as an excuse , logic.

Each side in the conflict wants to live in the same house.

The one side built the house and has owned the house for many centuries.

The other side showed up recently claiming that the Bible promised the house to them 2000 years ago, and it doesn't matter who is living there now.

this is false and more than incomplete summary on the events leading to the situation in Israel/Palestine and a dangerous revisionist shortcut of the history.

As i like history and especially the one of this area of the world , let me give you some historical hints with this history digest to show that the real story is a lot more complex than that statement

I use your terms

but here 1st group is Canaanites (are absolutely not the same as the 4th group !)

2nd group is Hebrew

3rd group is Roman/Byzance etc

4th group is Persia/Turk/Arabia etc

The house is Palestine/Israel

-8000  to -1300 The first group that owned the house during that time dont exist anymore , the second group + other groups invasions put an end to the first group. That is the same thing for several groups in the world that did not exist anymore.

-1300 The second group  invaded the house of the first group , (and not 2000 years ago , i suggest you to search for the complete and interesting history of the palestine+israel , you have a very incomplete view of the story) and kept it until -63 , with some invasion then victorious resistance against some other groups invading the house for short period of time..

--63  a 3rd group invaded the land of the second group , for a time they tolerated the second group under their domination , but after the 3rd group made some resistance actions , it was banned from the house by the 3rd group in 135 .

-313 , because the leader of the first group changed is religion in favour of the one teached by the one they crucified in +/- 30 , the 3rd group totally changed of form with new capital : Byzance , but kept the house as a sacred land.

The situation didnt changed until 632 , when the leader of the 4th group died.

-632 the 4th group , invaded the house , won battles against the now derelict 3rd group , and kept the house until 1095.

-1095 : The 3rd group has changed a lot , and is now partionned in several small groups , because of a leader change in the capital of the house very recently that decided to prevent visitor from the ex-3rd group to come, the ex 3rd group but now small groups allied came in war against the 4th group  . Lot of dead people , innocent and army one in all the groups in the house

During the several wars that took place , no group was owning enough of the house to really claim that it is their

The war situation ended in 1453 .

-1453 : The 4th group (that has changed his geography majority several time too) finally owned again the house. This situation was the same until 1800 , with very some small groups from the 2nd one coming back to the house during that time.

-1800 : the house is derelict , and now very poor , nothing changed until 1831 with a new leader that arised of one of the part of the 4th group

-1840 : small groups , issued from the 3rd group decided to have a look on the house.

-1880 : after more arrival from people issued of the 2nd group , the majority of the capital of the house is populated now 2nd group again,

2nd group people arrival continued with the situation until 1911 , at that time , first organisations wanting to kick out 2nd group people appeared in 2 cities of the house.

-1914-1918 : 1st world war with the result a part of the 4th group has lost any leadership . A new leader arised in the 4th group helped by some of the small successor of the 3rd groups , the same small groups that decided that the 2nd group can live in the house now.

In the 1918 , a country from the 3rd group own the house , 4th groups is now under domination

-1919 : important date , as a leader of the 2nd group allied with a leader of the 4th group to liberate the house, deciding that those 2 groups will have their own state in the house.

but unfortunately , the people of the 4th groups didnt agree with this leader and launched several actions against the country of the 3rd group and even the 2nd group itself

-1920 to 1926 , small groups successor of the 3rd group took ruling of the house and the country next to the house , rejecting the help and alliance they had with the 4th group (in the time they helped a leader of them during 1914-1918)

During this time, again arrival of some people of the 2nd group in the house.

-1929 : people of the 4th group killed entire 2nd group population of a city in the house , small war between those 2 group arised. This bad situation was there until 1939

-1939-1945 : 2nd world war, at the end , the 2nd group was genocided by a country of the old 3rd group (this country lost the war) the 4th group created an organization for themselves.

-1947 : The 3rd group newly created organization ONU that accepted everybody form other groups as members decided that 2nd group will have their state and 4th group their state , all in the house. 4th group organization reject this, small wars again between 2nd group and 4th group

-1948 : the 2nd group has its state , but immediately is attacked by the 4th group organization. The 2nd group won ! The 4th group left in mass the place , the 2nd group took their part.

What followed , you should know it by now if you made some search of the history of this area

Bernadotte, as you can see in this small history digest , your statement is more than incomplete and totally inaccurate , there is a LOT more history on the house leading to the situation that just the false heavy shortcut you said.

[Bernadotte 0]

Each side in the conflict wants to live in the same house.

The one side built the house and has owned the house for many centuries.

The other side showed up recently claiming that the Bible promised the house to them 2000 years ago, and it doesn't matter who is living there now.

this is false and more than incomplete summary on the events leading to the situation in Israel/Palestine and a dangerous revisionist shortcut of the history.

I was only trying to state the Middle East problem in under 40 words.  It is actually very accurate.  Instead of discarding it as false and dangerous, why don't you try telling me what is so false and dangerous about it?

Meanwhile, you have offered us a 2000 word chronologie that you mostly borrowed from L'Internet. Here are some comments on your version of Middle East history:

I use your terms

but here 1st group is Canaanites (are absolutely not the same as the 4th group !)

2nd group is Hebrew

3rd group is Roman/Byzance etc

4th group is Persia/Turk/Arabia etc

Why are you referring to the Palestinians as Persians, Turks and Arabs?  Isn't the name Palestinian derived from Philistine - what the Romans called the indigenous people of the region in ~600 AD?

-8000  to -1300 ...

According to which modern domestic or international laws can land claims be settled on the basis of historical events that occurred up to 10,000 years ago?  Not even in France.

Why don't you start the clock at around 1858, when the Ottoman Empire first introduced land ownership registration?  Your summary doesn't even mention that. How can your chronologie even begin to discuss a legal claim and right to land if it ignores this important detail?

-1880 : ... 2nd group people arrival continued with the situation until 1911 , at that time , first organisations wanting to kick out 2nd group people appeared in 2 cities of the house.

Why did they want to kick them out?

-1914-1918 : ...

In the 1918 , a country from the 3rd group own the house

Huh?? A country from the "Roman/Byzance" owned "Palestine/Israel" in 1918?  Is this your way of making everything more clear to us?  I'm afraid you've lost me.  The League of Nations decided that Britain would temporarily administer (not own) Palestine until they could govern themselves.

And you've entirely left out the MacMahon/Hussein and Sykes/Picot agreements of 1915, which promised independent self-rule to all Arab peoples who would help the Allies defeat the Ottomans.  This was promised before the Balfour declaration (which was only an expression of support and not a promise or agreement).

-1919

...

-1939-1945

And now you've completely left out the peace conferences of 1936 - 38 that resulted in the British White Paper of 1939, which troubled the "2nd group" so much that they formed a number of terrorist organisations and Palmach (shock units) to expell the British and as many Arabs as they could.  This is a very important historical example of organised terrorism succeeding and you should not ignore it.

-1947 : ...

-1948 : the 2nd group has its state , but immediately is attacked by the 4th group organization. The 2nd group won ! The 4th group left in mass the place , the 2nd group took their part.

How many Palestinians fled before Israel won the 1948 war?  You present it as if they all fled after.  The vast majority actually fled or were expelled during the conflict and terrorism that preceded it.

Bernadotte, as you can see in this small history digest , your statement is more than incomplete and totally inaccurate , there is a LOT more history on the house leading to the situation that just the false heavy shortcut you said.

Just because you aren't able to make a 40-word summary of the problem, doesn't mean it can't be done.

I strongly suggest you check out this Rabbi's version of Middle East history.  And please don't forget to tell me what was so false, inaccurate and dangerous about my short summary.

[Bernadotte 0]

Here's a well-worded statement on the Middle East conflict written by an American Rabbi that everyone should read - especially those who have posted opinions placing blame with "all Jews" in general.

Lumping together "all Jews" is as anti-Semitic as lumping together "all Blacks" or "all Arabs" or "all Asians" is racist.  Thankfully, the mods have demonstrated that such attitudes are not tolerated around here.  And if you still haven't figured out why, then maybe the following words from a prominent Jew will help you to understand:

Quote[/b] ]As we have seen, the root cause of the Palestine-Israel conflict is clear. During the 1948 war, 750,000 Palestinians fled in terror or were actively expelled from their ancestral homeland and turned into refugees. The state of Israel then refused to allow them to return and either destroyed their villages entirely or expropriated their land, orchards, houses, businesses and personal possessions for the use of the Jewish population. This was the birth of the state of Israel.

We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong.We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession. If you run into someone's car, for whatever reason, simple justice demands that you repair it. Our moral obligation to the Palestinian people is no less clear. It is time for all Jewish people of good conscience to make whatever amends are possible to the Palestinians in order to live up to the best part of the Jewish tradition - its ethical and moral basis.

Any criticism of Israel is traditionally seen by American Jews as harmful to the Jewish people, even if the criticism is true. But "my people, right or wrong, my people" is no different than "my country, right or wrong, my country". Once we start down the slippery slope where the ends justify the means we have left behind any claim to morality. Along with millions of other American Jews unaffiliated with the major U.S. Jewish organizations, we are outraged at the Israeli government's ongoing oppression of the Palestinians and feel that it has been the ruination of the high moral standing of the Jewish people.

The Israeli government could solve the Palestine/Israel crisis tomorrow. It actually would be in the best interests of its citizens to do so because random acts of terrorism against Israelis would cease if Palestinian demands for a viable, independent state were accepted and compensation for Arab losses made.

Here in America, we Jews are thoroughly assimilated into the mainstream of society and hold positions of power and influence in every field of endeavor. We do not need to be in a defensive mood anymore. We can afford to change our attitude from "is it good for the Jews?" to "Is it good?" At the very least, American Jews need to categorically state that we cannot condone Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and the intentional murder and crippling of Palestinian protestors armed only with rocks, as documented in reports by the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Israeli groups like B'Tselem, etc.

Israel's long-term interests can best be served by supporting Israeli peace groups, like Gush Shalom (www.gush.shalom.org), not the Israeli government and its brutal repression, which just leads to endless violence. Israeli peace groups rightfully criticize their government and we should too, since they claim to act in our name. American groups like the Jewish Peace Lobby, Jewish Voice For Peace and the Middle East Children's Alliance also deserve your support. Don't compromise yout ethics in blind support of bad politics--work for a just soultion instead.

-- Rabbi Michael Lerner

[sanctuary 19]

I was only trying to state the Middle East problem in under 40 words.  It is actually very accurate.  Instead of discarding it as false and dangerous, why don't you try telling me what is so false and dangerous about it?  

I dont know what game you are playing here with your 40 words thing

You stated this exactly

Quote[/b] ]The one side built the house and has owned the house for many centuries.

The other side showed up recently claiming that the Bible promised the house to them 2000 years ago, and it doesn't matter who is living there now.

I am sorry for this lack of true , 2000 years ago , it is just the +/- birth of the Christ

The "other side" you are talking about was there , a lot of time before this , what you said is just FALSE

Why it is dangerous ? Simple to understand

it because this simple quote from you, replacing the whole history in your beloved 40 words limit , not only false, mean something that you will recognize in a certain Us leader mouth

-First side is good

-Second side is wrong

Do not tell me that you didnt wrote this like this , it is just what anyone can understand from what you wrote in the quote

that is DANGEROUS

Now, take this as you want, you are playing a game of revisionist history , i will not discuss anymore with you .

The fact you quote the anti sionist Rabbin is irrelevant in what is the subject of our discussion, i never approved any of the 2 sides , neither their position on why they are the good side.

I wrote an history digest to show the complexity of the situation that we have now because your 40 words thing is false and dangerous.

Yes you can make summary , but by writing false thing , you are making revisionist history , that is all period.

Your personnal attack here by making look as some uneducated internet geek

Quote[/b] ]

Meanwhile, you have offered us a 2000 word chronologie that you mostly borrowed from L'Internet

is sad and pitifull , do you think that people has only internet media as references ?  cant you have any idea that people can have some history of the world books to look for dates when they are unsure.

I like history , i like reading book about it

But i am sorry , i dont care anymore of what you can say , revisionist talking + personnal attacks to someone that disagree with you are not what i call a discussion .

Bernadotte, as you can see in this small history digest , your statement is more than incomplete and totally inaccurate , there is a LOT more history on the house leading to the situation that just the false heavy shortcut you said.

Just because you aren't able to make a 40-word summary of the problem, doesn't mean it can't be done.

No need to say more , you are using your discussion method and again a personnal attack "you arent able bla bla bla" , i will not enter in your game.

Pathetic  , continue your game alone , i am out of your discussion, feel free to say "i win , you lose" i will not reply.

[Bernadotte 0]

I dont know what game you are playing here with your 40 words thing

The game is quite simple:  Try to state the Middle East problem accurately in ~40 words.  

You stated this exactly

Quote[/b] ]The one side built the house and has owned the house for many centuries.

The other side showed up recently claiming that the Bible promised the house to them 2000 years ago, and it doesn't matter who is living there now.

I am sorry for this lack of true , 2000 years ago , it is just the +/- birth of the Christ

The "other side" you are talking about was there , a lot of time before this , what you said is just FALSE

If this discussion were about the conflict in Northern Ireland then I don't think it would be necessary to recite the entire history since the time of the Druids, do you?  However, yes, you are correct, I should have said "more than 2000 years ago"  instead of "2000 years ago."

I have now corrected my false statement.  Thank you.

Why it is dangerous ? Simple to understand it because this simple quote from you, replacing the whole history in your beloved 40 words limit , not only false, mean something that you will recognize in a certain Us leader mouth

-First side is good

-Second side is wrong

Do not tell me that you didnt wrote this like this , it is just what anyone can understand from what you wrote in the quote

that is DANGEROUS

Now, take this as you want, you are playing a game of revisionist history , i will not discuss anymore with you .

International laws and agreements governing the rights of property ownership and territorial integrity have been understood and recognised for centuries.  World leaders should not be able to discard all those laws because of a biblical promise.  But that's exactly what they did in Palestine, and it was wrong.  You believe it is ok to ignore such a historic error.  I disagree.  Dealing with yesterday's errors is the first step towards ending today's suffering.

I wrote an history digest to show the complexity of the situation that we have now because your 40 words thing is false and dangerous.

Yes you can make summary , but by writing false thing , you are making revisionist history , that is all period.

I've asked you several questions about your historical summary.  I've shown you where your summary completely ignored many very important details.  You've chosen to ignore my comments and questions.  Perhaps you should ask yourself who is the real revisionist here.

Your personnal attack here by making look as some uneducated internet geek

Quote[/b] ]Meanwhile, you have offered us a 2000 word chronologie that you mostly borrowed from L'Internet

is sad and pitifull , do you think that people has only internet media as references ?  cant you have any idea that people can have some history of the world books to look for dates when they are unsure.  I like history , i like reading book about it

But i am sorry , i dont care anymore of what you can say , revisionist talking + personnal attacks to someone that disagree with you are not what i call a discussion .

I'm very sorry that I accused you of looking things up on the Internet.  You should not think that I was making you look like a geek.  Please don't cry.  Some of my best friends look things up on the Internet.

Bernadotte, as you can see in this small history digest , your statement is more than incomplete and totally inaccurate , there is a LOT more history on the house leading to the situation that just the false heavy shortcut you said.

Just because you aren't able to make a 40-word summary of the problem, doesn't mean it can't be done.

No need to say more , you are using your discussion method and again a personnal attack "you arent able bla bla bla" , i will not enter in your game.

Pathetic  , continue your game alone , i am out of your discussion, feel free to say "i win , you lose" i will not reply.

On the topic of personal attacks, let's not forget that you insulted AceCombat and the entire forum when you arrived in this thread:

Next time , please contribute to the discussion instead of saying ridiculous thing like that.

...

And no one here in this thread react to those 2 news from Iran and Saudi Arabia ?

Now i dont know what amaze me the most , those 2 news or the apathy of the forum in that case.

So you are amazed by our apathy, are you?  I suppose you think this topic has only 15 pages, even though the thread title clearly says part 2.  Perhaps you should visit part 1, which has 229 pages before you accuse the entire forum of apathy on this topic.

[denoir 0]

Bad day in Israel. 20 people killed, including some children in a suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]And in Saudi Arabia, the majority of muslim there are Wahhabi .

There is no such thing as a wahhabi man

It was a movement called the Wahhabi movement which was started by ABdul Wahab a strict adherent of Islam he initiated the movement and called for a complete law and order based in the country according to islam religious values , his initial fellow helpers were dubbed as wahhabi's.

But the movement ended when Saudi Arabia was made , it was only a movement spurred to generate greater Islamic influence in the people thats all.

This isnt a sect! We dont hell even call people here wahhabis.

Its the people outside the muslim world who wanna bloody divide everything up so they can manipulate it for their own conspiracies.

People living in SA are nothing but simple muslims .BottomLine.

This term wahhabi is coined just to give an even more aggressive outlook to the nature of our people i guess in the west.

[ran 0]

is quite simple:  Try to state the Middle East problem accurately in ~40 words.  

quite simple :

Ugly mess , long lasting territory war between bearded deaf fanatic people

see , i did it in 11 words :)and it's quite accurate IMO

[Bernadotte 0]

Those terms -wahhabi , fatwa are now known , at least in my frenchy country

Hey Ran.  Are the terms fatwa and wahhabi known in your "frenchy country?"

[Jinef 2]

Bernadotte, from what i gathered just sitting on my behind watching these arguments is that you are a Canadian (college?) student? You seem remarkably astute when it comes to middle eastern affairs and have quite a well rounded view. (well from my left of ghandi position anyway)

As there seems to be no solution to the bunch of hairy fanatics running around i am inclined to say just let the Israelis keep trying to suppress them with an iron hand and the Palestinians keep killing the Israelis. I give up trying to understand.

And i'm not French I'm worse!