The Middle East part 2

[theavonlady 2]

And when it comes down to it, politicians reading an internet forum run by a bigot will not strap explosives to their chest or grab a rifle and get on a bus to jerusalem or into Iraq...

Why should they when it's much easier to send your tax dollars in th form of apaches, hellfire missiles and JDAMs.

Which are used to target those terrorists themselves.

How twisted you are!

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Which are used to target those terrorists themselves

And British peace activists ect.

[Bernadotte 0]

How do you explain the contradiction between the paragraph you quoted and the 3rd paragraph?

How do you explain the paragraph you quoted, while overlooking the entire theme of the Sheik's sermon, as stated in the same article a few paragraphs before your out-of-context quote:

Quote[/b] ]In speaking of terrorists who killed fellow Muslims, al-Sheik was clearly referring to the Prophet Muhammad's final sermon, delivered on Mount Arafat 14 centuries ago.

It contained the line: "Know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and the Muslims are brethren. Fighting between them should be avoided."

Wake up and smell the coffee, infidel!

There is no contradiction.  The 3rd paragraph asks questions in a way to be answered with, no.  However, I can see how an incurable Islamophobe might interpret it differently.

Now, instead of making vague references to his statements, why not actually state your personal interpretation so that we all might get a <s>good laugh</s> clearer understanding of your mentality.

[theavonlady 2]

I would suggest AVon to read the whole article before writing that kind of bs. Quote from the article, said by the same cleric:

Quote[/b] ]"Islam forbids all forms of injustice, killing without just cause, treachery ... hijacking of planes, boats and transportation means," he said.

Once again, from the article:

Quote[/b] ]In speaking of terrorists who killed fellow Muslims, al-Sheik was clearly referring to the Prophet Muhammad's final sermon, delivered on Mount Arafat 14 centuries ago.

It contained the line: "Know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and the Muslims are brethren. Fighting between them should be avoided."

Then you toss in the following reference of 1 out of 2 million attendants:

Quote[/b] ]Pilgrim Mustafa al-Shawwaf, a Canadian of Syrian origin, said he agreed that terrorists had tarnished Islam. He criticized Muslim fundamentalists, including the Wahhabis, for practicing an exclusive form of the faith.

The next paragraph, which you left out quotes him as saying nothing more than:

Quote[/b] ]"Such rigidity of thought needs to be changed," he said.

This part of the article comes after discussing the Saudi Arabian's, Kuwaiti's and Jordanian's intentions to purge school books of terms offensive to other religions and Al-Sheik warning against "changing the religion's basics" in school curricula.

Or are you agreeing that this 1 of 2 million applies the definition of terrorism equally to attacks against Muslims and non-Muslims?

But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this 1 in 2 million Syrian Canadian man is a universal peace loving man.

Make that 2 in 2 million.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Which are used to target those terrorists themselves

And British peace activists ect.

A busload of them? Planeload?

And where is that solider now? Charges against him have been upped to manslaughter. Justice prevails?

As for calling the guy who was killed, Tom Hurndall, a "peace activist", please don't lie. he was a member of the ISM, a pro-terrirost organization, something that seems to appeal to you, maybe.

The biggest irony is that Mr. Hurndall what shot by an Arab. That's right. The IDF solider who is accused of shooting him is an Israeli Bedouin soldier.

You can read more about the ISM's life threatening antics here.

Oh............. speaking of lies, Mr. Hurndall was not killed by an Apache, Hellfire or JDAM.

[theavonlady 2]

Wake up and smell the coffee, infidel!

There is no contradiction.  The 3rd paragraph asks questions in a way to be answered with, no.  However, I can see how an incurable Islamophobe might interpret it differently.

I can see how an apologist for terrorism can massage a clearly written AP new item.

Quote[/b] ]Now, instead of making vague references to his statements

I quoted the references verbatim.

Quote[/b] ]why not actually state your personal interpretation so that we all might get a <s>good laugh</s> clearer understanding of your mentality.

Maybe you need to brush up on your English reading skills.

[Bernadotte 0]

And where is that solider now? Charges against him have been upped to manslaughter. Justice prevails?

Following 8 months of pressure from the British foreign ministry the soldier was finally arrested for giving false evidence.

As for calling the guy who was killed, Tom Hurndall, a "peace activist", please don't lie. he was a member of the ISM, a pro-terrirost organization, something that seems to appeal to you, maybe.

ISM is a pro-Palestinian group.  Are the terms Palestinian and terrorist simply synonymous for you or can you actually support what you've said about them?  ...Or is that racist rant with the dead-link google references on ISM the best you can do?

The biggest irony is that Mr. Hurndall what shot by an Arab. That's right. The IDF solider who is accused of shooting him is an Israeli Bedouin soldier.

Yup, I can hear old Ariel Sharon now:  "Why didn't you tell me he's an Arab.  Raise the charges to manslaughter, immediately."

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]A busload of them? Planeload?

At least 2 UNNARMED peaceactivists, at least, BBC

is saying that he is/was a peaceactivists, how about using international newsagencies as a source next time?

Quote[/b] ]And where is that solider now? Charges against him have been upped to manslaughter. Justice prevails?

Where is the driver of the bulldozer who drove over a female peaceactivist by purpouse, as you can see from the pictures?

Quote[/b] ]As for calling the guy who was killed, Tom Hurndall, a "peace activist", please don't lie. he was a member of the ISM, a pro-terrirost organization,

And what terrorist acts did he do? to earn a bullet in the forehead? if bbc is calling him peace activist im entitled to it also

Quote[/b] ]The biggest irony is that Mr. Hurndall what shot by an Arab. That's right. The IDF solider who is accused of shooting him is an Israeli Bedouin soldier.

Ah I thought we were talking about israeli/palestine conflict, but i see that you like to talk this ethnically, that wouldnt surprise me a bit, please continue!

Quote[/b] ]Oh............. speaking of lies, Mr. Hurndall was not killed by an Apache, Hellfire or JDAM.

No, he was killed by a bullet, sponsored by united states, like the Apache, Hellfire and JDAM.

[qUiLL 0]

after reading much of this post and all the evidence and crap, ive come to the conclusion that...

everything is so biased and it gets pretty obvious when you use evidence that is biased or twisted in each other's favor in order to back yourself up. arguing this out is as pointless as the conflict itself, although i think its good to let everyone know what you think anyway (as i am doing so myself lol)

i feel there is never one answer for who is right however. the people who are always right in history are the ones that can convince everybody of that. and that is not happening any time soon with this conflict...

[turms 0]

after reading much of this post and all the evidence and crap, ive come to the conclusion that...

everything is so biased and it gets pretty obvious when you use evidence that is biased or twisted in each other's favor in order to back yourself up. arguing this out is as pointless as the conflict itself, although i think its good to let everyone know what you think anyway (as i am doing so myself lol)

i feel there is never one answer for who is right however. the people who are always right in history are the ones that can convince everybody of that. and that is not happening any time soon with this conflict...

Smartest post ive seen in this thread As for the sources, i consider international newsagencies as the only reliable source (unlike others)

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]A busload of them? Planeload?

At least 2 UNNARMED peaceactivists, at least,

So in a war that has been going on for 4 years, started by the Palestinians, you have nothing better to do than to point out that in that entire time, when Israel has been under constant intentional attack, two ISM terrorist supporters, in combat zones, with the intent on interfering and endangering Israeli soldiers, were killed?

And you don't even mention (I had to) that in the last case, the soldier is under arrest and awaiting trial, possibly on manslaughter charges?

Quote[/b] ]BBC

is saying that he is/was a peaceactivists, how about using international newsagencies as a source next time?

Whoa! The every reliable and untouchable BBC. You know, the same BBC whose chairman and then some had to resign this week in the face of the Hutton report.

Why don't you read what I linked to, instead of putting blinkers over your eyes.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And where is that solider now? Charges against him have been upped to manslaughter. Justice prevails?

Where is the driver of the bulldozer who drove over a female peaceactivist by purpouse, as you can see from the pictures?

Obviously he's not guilty. You'll have to ask the mods to open up the Mideast Peace Part 1 thread, if you want to continue the arguments already presented there.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]As for calling the guy who was killed, Tom Hurndall, a "peace activist", please don't lie. he was a member of the ISM, a pro-terrirost organization,

And what terrorist acts did he do?

Notice very carefully that I did not call him a terrorist.

Quote[/b] ]to earn a bullet in the forehead? if bbc is calling him peace activist im entitled to it also

Just keep your head in the sand. No problem. More on the ISM.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The biggest irony is that Mr. Hurndall what shot by an Arab. That's right. The IDF solider who is accused of shooting him is an Israeli Bedouin soldier.

Ah I thought we were talking about israeli/palestine conflict, but i see that you like to talk this ethnically, that wouldnt surprise me a bit, please continue!

No problem.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Oh............. speaking of lies, Mr. Hurndall was not killed by an Apache, Hellfire or JDAM.

No, he was killed by a bullet, sponsored by united states, like the Apache, Hellfire and JDAM.

How exciting but that's not what you said in the first place. Makes no difference anyway.

And the bottom line is that Hurndall's shooter is in prison, awaiting prosecution. Specifically the IDF stated:

“The IDF expresses its sorrow for the passing of Mr. Tom Hurndall, who was seriously injured in a shooting incident in the area of Rafiah, April 11, 2003, and passed away last night.

â€On Monday, Jan. 12, the military court of the Southern Command issued an indictment against the soldier suspected in the shooting in which Hurndall was injured. The soldier is charged on six counts: aggravated bodily assault, two counts of obstruction of justice, one count of submitting false information, enticement to submit false information and un-becoming conduct.

â€Following the death of Hurndall, the charges against the soldier will be altered.

â€The IDF will work to clarify the circumstances of this serious incident and will prosecute those involved to the fullest extent of the law.â€

[Bernadotte 0]

after reading much of this post and all the evidence and crap, ive come to the conclusion that...

everything is so biased and it gets pretty obvious when you use evidence that is biased or twisted in each other's favor in order to back yourself up.

I wonder if you are referring to the interview I posted yesterday on this page.

It's probably the most biased thing I've posted all week.

(...maybe the only thing I've posted all week.)

The interviewer is a center-right Israeli journalist.

Ther interviewee is a left-wing Israeli history professor.

The source is a left of center Israeli newspaper - 3rd largest in Israel.

Yup, definitely biased.

[theavonlady 2]

after reading much of this post and all the evidence and crap, ive come to the conclusion that...

everything is so biased and it gets pretty obvious when you use evidence that is biased or twisted in each other's favor in order to back yourself up. arguing this out is as pointless as the conflict itself, although i think its good to let everyone know what you think anyway (as i am doing so myself lol)

i feel there is never one answer for who is right however. the people who are always right in history are the ones that can convince everybody of that. and that is not happening any time soon with this conflict...

Smartest post ive seen in this thread  As for the sources, i consider international newsagencies as the only reliable source (unlike others)

Yes, like those two article about the Sheik's preaching their definitions of terrorism to Hadj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia.

Excellent point there, turms.

[theavonlady 2]

after reading much of this post and all the evidence and crap, ive come to the conclusion that...

everything is so biased and it gets pretty obvious when you use evidence that is biased or twisted in each other's favor in order to back yourself up.

I wonder if you are referring to the interview I posted yesterday on this page.

It's probably the most biased thing I've posted all week.

(...maybe the only thing I've posted all week.)

The interviewer is a center-right Israeli journalist.

Ther interviewee is a left-wing Israeli history professor.

The source is a left of center Israeli newspaper - 3rd largest in Israel.

Yup, definitely biased.

BTW, the original article link in Ha'Aretz is here.

Benny Morris' follow up protestation, which you may have missed, is here.

[turms 0]

after reading much of this post and all the evidence and crap, ive come to the conclusion that...

everything is so biased and it gets pretty obvious when you use evidence that is biased or twisted in each other's favor in order to back yourself up. arguing this out is as pointless as the conflict itself, although i think its good to let everyone know what you think anyway (as i am doing so myself lol)

i feel there is never one answer for who is right however. the people who are always right in history are the ones that can convince everybody of that. and that is not happening any time soon with this conflict...

Smartest post ive seen in this thread  As for the sources, i consider international newsagencies as the only reliable source (unlike others)

Yes, like those two article about the Sheik's preaching their definitions of terrorism to Hadj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia.

Excellent point there, turms.

LOL Avon, Iwas only quoting from the same article that YOU posted first

[Bernadotte 0]

Where is the driver of the bulldozer who drove over a female peaceactivist by purpouse, as you can see from the pictures?

Obviously he's not guilty.

Might be interesting to note that the victim was a US citizen and, unlike the UK government, the US government still refuses to pressure Israel to conduct a full and open investigation into the matter.  Obviously, this doesn't automatically mean that the bulldozer operator was guilty, however it remains quite far from obvious that he was innocent.

[Bernadotte 0]

BTW, the original article link in Ha'Aretz is here.

Benny Morris' follow up protestation, which you may have missed, is here.

Great! And, no, I hadn't read the follow up. Thank you.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Whoa! The every reliable and untouchable BBC. You know, the same BBC whose chairman and then some had to resign this week in the face of the Hutton report.

Oh that bbc report where it clearly says "This report was privately funded and reflects the personal views of the author."

Going to grab a coffee now.. play nice and remember ti feed the kids

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Whoa! The every reliable and untouchable BBC. You know, the same BBC whose chairman and then some had to resign this week in the face of the Hutton report.

Oh that bbc report where it clearly says "This report was privately funded and reflects the personal views of the author."

I suppose it can't be accurate because the BBC didn't "approve" it.

Once again, ignoring presented information, without even a minimal rebuttal to the points being made. Head in the sand.

Quote[/b] ]As for the sources, i consider international newsagencies as the only reliable source (unlike others)

You're obviously a very trusting person. Just as a one out of a zillion example, who's the liar/coniver in the following example:

Dissembling Demolitions.

[Guest]

Here you all are arguing semantics over what the sheik did or didn't say.  While its clear that you have enormous reserves of energy to rush to his defence, why don't you hop on over to www.memri.org, click on the first article you see, and defend whoever is translated there as well.  Then after  you've diffused our concerns of murderous anti-semitism for a day, pick another.  

Memri is a fantastic resource.  They do nothing but translate publicly available speeches, articles, tv spots, from arabic to english.  They have hundreds there - because there is a pattern.  Hate and incitement is a major problem in the muslim world. This is not a partisan issue, it's straight fact.  Just because supporters of israel are the only ones who point it out does not discredit its urgency...

If you don't trust memri, find a friend you trust who speaks arabic, or learn it (as i am doing) and find out for yourself.  Its appaling.

Its always tit-for-tat here, but the major messages are not getting through (both ways)...  The major message of this post is as follows.  Whatever the sheik said is irrelavent, not because he meant this or that, but because this is what his buddy, Sheik Saleh al-Taleb, said the day before...

Quote[/b] ]"Oh God, give victory to the mujahedeen (holy warriors) everywhere," al-Taleb said. "Give them victory in Palestine. Oh God, make the Muslims triumphant and destroy their enemies, and make this country and other Muslim countries safe. Oh God, inflict your wrath on the criminal Zionists."

That took me about 5 minutes to find (source: USA Today)

At least be open minded enough to give memri a look...

http://www.memri.org

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]"Oh God, give victory to the mujahedeen (holy warriors) everywhere," al-Taleb said. "Give them victory in Palestine. Oh God, make the Muslims triumphant and destroy their enemies, and make this country and other Muslim countries safe. Oh God, inflict your wrath on the criminal Zionists."

That took me about 5 minutes to find

Pity the time wasted!

[Bernadotte 0]

Memri is a fantastic resource.  They do nothing but translate publicly available speeches, articles, tv spots, from arabic to english.  They have hundreds there - because there is a pattern.  Hate and incitement is a major problem in the muslim world.  This is not a partisan issue, it's straight fact.  Just because supporters of israel are the only ones who point it out does not discredit its urgency...

If you don't trust memri, find a friend you trust who speaks arabic, or learn it (as i am doing) and find out for yourself.  Its appaling.

I agree it's appalling and it's why I never quote Arab media sources.  And whenever they seem to get a story right they are nearly always quoting (or misquoting) an international media source.  So why not get it straight from the source.

My problem with MEMRI is its name.  They should call themselves EAMRI or the Extremist Arab Media Research Institute, instead.  They tend to ignore moderate Arab opinion and extremist Israeli opinion.  I agree that hate and incitement is a major problem in the ME, but MEMRI ultimately adds to it by presenting only the worst of the one side and the best of the other.

Selective MEMRI? ...definitely partisan.

[theavonlady 2]

They tend to ignore moderate Arab opinion

Why don't you quote moderate Arab opinion then? I'm sure there must be a moderate Arab site that does.

Won't you give us your links?

Quote[/b] ]and extremist Israeli opinion.

Can you give us an example?

Quote[/b] ]Selective MEMRI?  ...definitely partisan.

Please, guide us from our erring ways.

[Bernadotte 0]

Just as a one out of a zillion example, who's the liar/coniver in the following example:

Dissembling Demolitions.

I'm not sure this is such a great example.

CAMERA's complaint is that the captions of these Palestinian homes demolished by the IDF failed to mention that they were unoccupied, although the stories generally did.

So what?  

By suggesting that it's important for the reader to know they were vacant, CAMERA asserts that the IDF have been cast in a bad light unfairly if the reader is left thinking that the IDF demolished occupied dwellings.

But... but... the IDF demolish occupied dwellings all the time.  And had these dwellings been occupied the IDF would have demolished them all the same, no?  My point is that it is CAMERA who is making the IDF look bad by linking the unoccupied/occupied question with the IDF looking good or bad.

[Bernadotte 0]

Why don't you quote moderate Arab opinion then?

LOL...  As if...

You don't even accept my moderate Israeli sources.