UN Warned Israel SEVENTEEN TIMES That School Was a Refugee Camp - 16 People Murdered

originally posted by: Kram09
a reply to: Stuyvesant

The one time I did actually try to speak to a Muslim, he refused to talk to me. He was handing out brochures on the street corner. I was watching him - he was only handing out the brochures to dark-skinned men, but would not offer them to caucasian men. I thought it was interesting. I asked him (nicely) for one. He acted as though I absolutely didn't exist. He would not even make eye contact. I asked him again, and he totally ignored me a second time. So I pulled one of his leaflets out of a nearby trash can (which is probably and hopefully where most of them ended up) and it was an epithet about the evil white capitalists, and an appeal to Muslim brothers to band together to work against the establishment.

It's sad that this is your only encounter with a Muslim. You came across one guy handing out nonsensical leaflets and then use that to tar them all with the same brush.

It's like me saying I don't know any Americans but I read this guy's post where he was basically admitting he was a racist bigot, therefore all Americans are complete lunatic racists.

I have to say I've never come across a post where a member has pretty much admitted they're a racist. Oh sure, you use words like ethnocentric, but it's pretty what you mean.

The definition of ethnocentric:

1. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group.
2. Overriding concern with race.

Again, you're wrong. My lone encounter with that Muslim was NOT why I "tar them with the same brush." I tar them with the same brush because I have studied their history and their political and religious writings. That lone encounter had nothing to do with my worldview on Islam (although granted, it certainly didn't give me any reason to feel warm & fuzzy about Muslims, either).

The funny thing is, you accuse me of being racist, but the racist ideology is Islam. They are the people-group who believe their culture is superior - they even state it right in the Hamas charter I quoted.

By the way, here's the Wikipedia entry on "Ethnocentrism."

"Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture. Ethnocentric individuals judge other groups relative to their own ethnic group or culture, especially with concern for language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity. Ethnocentrism may be overt or subtle, and while it is considered a natural proclivity of human psychology, it has developed a generally negative connotation."

So let me clraify my position a bit. I don't think whites are "better" than blacks or hispanics or any other people group. Got that? What I *am* saying is that I examine other cultures from my own cultural perspective, not from theirs, or from some [allegedly] objective point of reference.

I *do* think the ideas, philosophies, religions, and worldviews that people hold *can* be (and ought to be) examined in a "discriminating" way (using that term positively, not negatively).

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Stuyvesant
No, you are totally wrong. CHristianity has NOT done "exactly the same thing." Why don't you Google or Wikipedia "Islamic terrorism" and "Christian terrorism" and see what you come up with. Look at the numbers. Look at the facts.

History IS one-sided, when it comes to Islam.

Oh, that explains - you are looking at wrong keyword...

Try 'crusades' or if you like more precise, try to search for Siege of Jerusalem in 1099 and massacre that followed.

I know, history is a b%^#...

I'm not denying the crusades, or the fact that Christians in history have been involved in massacres.

What I am suggesting to you, if you are willing to examine it, is that the scales of death and conquest are incomparable. There is a clear scale difference, which the sane adult will recognize.

Here's the death count from your Seige of Jerusalem link:

"Josephus claims that 1.1 million people were killed during the siege..."

Islam is responsible for the deaths of 80 to 100 million Hindu deaths (in its conquest of India).

According to historian Will Durant: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

Compare the overall "death count" for:

Christianity
Buddhism
Hinduism
Judaism
Islam

Heck, throw in:

Fascism
Communism

...and see who comes out clearly and decisively on top. And then ask yourself why the media and academia keep wanting to call it the "religion of peace."

First of all, I am not here to discuss or defend Islam - as I actually dislike and will never support ANY religion. IMHO world would be better place if there is no yet 'another way' to separate people, humans.

As for conquest, was it Islam or Muslim that did conquest * you would have to provide sources, that will help*.

Do you understand that under that line, you cover 500 years of conflicts that include huge number of wars, while first census in India did not happen until late 19th century, so even population numbers are at best 'estimates'?

Just wonder, should we consider to call recent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan 'christian occupation'?? For sure Bush was under impression that he was doing God's wish..

originally posted by: blupblup
There is nobody more annoying than Mark Regev.... every time he is trotted out, he just pisses me off.

Also Jon Snow (no...not THAT Jon Snow) grilling Regev....really gets "testy" in the last few minutes

Those interviews a really telling. Regev takes any opportunity to put unfounded accusations into the viewers ear. "Lets be clear" and then roll out a baseless accusation that he "heard"

Snow cornered him pretty good. Israel HAS factored in that innocent civilians are going to die from the attacks, which makes the civilians targets by default. And that is the white-wash version, the one he had to admit to, to avoid the much darker truth that targeting the civilians was not reaction but the plan all along. The Palestinian's ARE the threat to Israel. Even if Hamas is gone, Israel is still going to have to look over their should and pay huge reparations to the Palestinians for what they have done to them. Israel is painting the Palestinian civilians as innocent by-standards and I don't believe Israel really sees them that way. Remember the "little snakes" comment from the pretty Israeli MP?

What does Israel have planned for the Palestinians after Hamas is gone. Is it possible for Israel to force the UN to evacuate them from Gaza? If so, it would be the most epic "give us your country for your own safety" move, modern history has witnessed.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

This was your post:

Look at the history of Islamic conquest since its inception. Islam has 1400 years of solid bloodshed and attempts at conquering other lands and spreading it's diseased, psychotic religious notions.

Spare me the "coexistence" baloney. Islam doesn't co-exist. It conquers.

However you now try to play the semantics game and mention "terrorism." You didn't mention terrorism in your original post so stop trying to suddenly change what you said.

No, you are totally wrong. CHristianity has NOT done "exactly the same thing." Why don't you Google or Wikipedia "Islamic terrorism" and "Christian terrorism" and see what you come up with. Look at the numbers. Look at the facts.

History IS one-sided, when it comes to Islam.

Yes let's look at Wikipedia shall we? Take as just one example, the Spanish Colonization of the Americas

Here's an interesting quote from the article:

The motivations for colonial expansion were trade and the spread of the Catholic faith through indigenous conversions.

The Spaniards were committed, by Vatican decree, to convert their New World indigenous subjects to Catholicism.

So none of that happened did it?

How do you think the looting and pillaging of Latin America was undertaken?

All told, it is likely that between 60 million and 80 million people from the Indies to the Amazon had perished as a result of the European invasion even before the dawning of the seventeenth century. Although much of that ghastly population collapse was caused by the spread of European diseases to which the native peoples had no immunity, an enormous amount of it was the result of mass murder. A good deal, as well, derived from simply working the enslaved native laborers to death.

Link

What about European practices in Africa too?

Therefore it is you who are totally wrong and any brief perusal of a history book will show this to you.

a reply to: Kram09

I'm not trying to play any semantics games with you. Terrorism is an integral component of Islam. And nowhere did I say "none of that happened" in regard to Catholic expansion/indoctrination, the Crusades, etc. (so quit projecting).

My position is that Islam is quantitatively more dangerous than any other religious group, and that the death-count as a result of Islamic "conquest" far exceeds that of any other religion, Christianity included.

You don't agree, you think I'm "totally" wrong, and that's fine. As you say, a brief perusal of history will tell the tale. I agree with that part. Feel free to re-examine it. Let anyone who is interested in it make up their own minds based on solid historical numbers & evidence, and their own powers to analyze it. I'm certainly not going to waste my time going back and forth with you about it.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

Feel free to re-examine it. Let anyone who is interested in it make up their own minds based on solid historical numbers & evidence, and their own powers to analyze it. I'm certainly not going to waste my time going back and forth with you about it.

No. You have made these assertions so it is you who should back them up with facts.

Where are the facts about Islamic conquests

and that the death-count as a result of Islamic "conquest" far exceeds that of any other religion, Christianity included.

as you put it?

And nowhere did I say "none of that happened" in regard to Catholic expansion/indoctrination, the Crusades, etc. (so quit projecting).

Yes that's pretty obvious. Your words are there for everyone to see. It's you who made assertions and then tried to change what you were saying.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

Terrorism is an integral component of Islam.

No it's not.

a reply to: Kram09


What part of "I'm certainly not going to waste my time going back and forth with you about it" did you not get?

The facts of Islamic conquest and Islamic terrorism are just a few clicks away on Google and Wikipedia for anyone who wants to examine them. Start here.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

Sheer laziness. I think we can safely discount anything you post in the future.

a reply to: Kram09

Did you read the link I provided?

Nevermind, discount this. It is posted after your last conclusive and thought-provoking post.

Edited to add: Who's "we?" You got a mouse in your pocket?

a reply to: Kram09

the only people who should say we are kings, editors and people with tapeworms.
mark twain

a reply to: Stuyvesant

Did you read the link I provided?

Nevermind, discount this. It is posted after your last conclusive and thought-provoking post.

Edited to add: Who's "we?" You got a mouse in your pocket?

Yes I read the link but you act like you made a huge effort. You just went on Wikipedia which anyone can do.

Like I said, sheer laziness. Making assertions, then expecting other people to go and find the information themselves.

originally posted by: Kram09
a reply to: Stuyvesant

Did you read the link I provided?

Nevermind, discount this. It is posted after your last conclusive and thought-provoking post.

Edited to add: Who's "we?" You got a mouse in your pocket?

Yes I read the link but you act like you made a huge effort. You just went on Wikipedia which anyone can do.

Like I said, sheer laziness. Making assertions, then expecting other people to go and find the information themselves.

I asserted that terrorism is integrally linked to Islam. Then I provided a link which undeniably corroborates my assertion. I'm curious what you think of the information in the link I provided. Care to comment on that?

And yes, I do expect other people go and find information for themselves. Nor do I expect (or desire) that they believe anything I type. I want people to investigate, analyze, and think - for themselves. If I can provide thought-provoking posts or links, great.

So let's discuss the information in the link and cut the banter. Yes, the Wikipedia link that references Islamic Terrorism. In particular, the part (2/3 down this rather large Wikipedia entry) which is headed as "Examples of Attacks." They provide a long list (but by no means a complete list) of recent examples of Islamic terrorism.

Do you think they were justified? Can you excuse them? Do you still believe, after reading the link and examining the data, that the one underlying link to all of those attacks was not Islam?

I'm really rooting for you to do well, here. Make your case.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: blupblup
There is nobody more annoying than Mark Regev.... every time he is trotted out, he just pisses me off.

Also Jon Snow (no...not THAT Jon Snow) grilling Regev....really gets "testy" in the last few minutes

Those interviews a really telling. Regev takes any opportunity to put unfounded accusations into the viewers ear. "Lets be clear" and then roll out a baseless accusation that he "heard"

Snow cornered him pretty good. Israel HAS factored in that innocent civilians are going to die from the attacks, which makes the civilians targets by default. And that is the white-wash version, the one he had to admit to, to avoid the much darker truth that targeting the civilians was not reaction but the plan all along. The Palestinian's ARE the threat to Israel. Even if Hamas is gone, Israel is still going to have to look over their should and pay huge reparations to the Palestinians for what they have done to them. Israel is painting the Palestinian civilians as innocent by-standards and I don't believe Israel really sees them that way. Remember the "little snakes" comment from the pretty Israeli MP?

What does Israel have planned for the Palestinians after Hamas is gone. Is it possible for Israel to force the UN to evacuate them from Gaza? If so, it would be the most epic "give us your country for your own safety" move, modern history has witnessed.

Bump .. because this is a great post and the interviews need to be heard by as
many as possible.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East . Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel ‘s ancient sovereignty over Gaza , Judea, and Samaria.
That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?