Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's "moderate" facade continues to be exposed as the exercise in deception that it is. He has said of Israel, according to audio revealed by Pamela Geller, that "a one-state solution is...more coherent...than a two-state solution."
By that, of course, he meant a Sharia state with Muslims holding all the political power and Jews relegated to the institutionalized discrimination of dhimmi status. Any doubt of that was dispelled when he said: "In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. . . . In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority."
Moderate!
One more arab country (56 ain't enough) with a ruling muhammad at the helm
Oh glorious day!
In "a true peace", eh?
Translation from IslamoFascistSpeak:
True = On Muslim Arab Terms
It's that, "or else" (jihad).
It amazes me how many people seem to hold to the utterly ridiculous view that Israel -- tiny Israel -- controls the Middle East, and indeed, everything else as well. I got into a bout with a HuffPoster once who kept arguing that the world is controlled by Zionists in Israel and America, and how that's so unfair and how Israel should become one-state because it's just not right that Israel is a Jewish state when so many "Palestinians" nearby are moslems.
The illogic of it is migraine-inducing.
I mentioned the fact that Israel is only 1/1,000th the area of the ME and asked why, if they really are running things, they'd settle for such a miniscule slice of their very own "kingdom" to live in?
I think to that, the HuffPoster replied: "Do you have any idea just how INSANE you are?!?!?"
LOL
Keep in mind this explains why Imam Rauf can say (and has said) many times, with a straight face, that he's a supporter of Israel.
And that he's against killing innocents.
And that he's for justice.
Doublespeak.
Read Brother Tariq by Caroline Fourest for a complete lesson about the doublespeak master, Tariq Ramadan. Is Rauf is trying to challenge Ramadan's crown?
May be that is why the State Dept sent this guy to Arab countries and appease them with this news. I bet he is saying the same thing about USA also!!! Don't be impatient, we have got all infidels under control!!!
And what would an "Arab state with a Jewish minority" look like, if Feisal Abdul Rauf has his wish? It would be a state, given that the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" are 98% Muslims, that of course would try to live under the Shari'a, as Feisal Abdul Rauf devoutly wishes the United States would do so, and tells his fellow Muslims in this country that, while for now they should obey the secular laws of the United States, no one should prevent them from working to undo those laws, and replacing them with those that are Shari'a-compliant.
An Arab state with "a Jewish minority" under Shari'a would of course treat those Jews as non-Muslims have have always been treated, over the past 1350 years, under Islam. If you want to find out exactly what happened to the Hindus (Jains, Buddhists) under Muslim rule in India, read the Indian historian K. S. Lal, or Francois Gautier, or Koenraad Elst.
If you want to find out what happened to Eastern Christianity under Islam, one wonderful book -- possibly her masterpiece -- is Bat Ye'or's "The History of Eastern Christianity Under Islam."
And if you want to find out what happened to Jews, even the Jews in supposedly wonderful (see Maria Rosa Menocal, and all who swallow her fantasy-history whole) Islamic Spain, see Evariste Levi-Provencal; for Jews elsewhere, see the multi-volume work, using in part the historical treasure-trove of the Cairo Geniza, of Eliyahu Ashtor on the Jews of Egypt and Syria Under the Mamluks; more generally, for a work on the Jews under Muslim rule, see Georges Vajda.
Of course for those who have decided that history, and consequently the truth, do not matter, even the listing of such scholars is somehow an insult, an offense, an impolite reminder to the ignorant, such as Mayor Bloomberg, of their own ignorance, and obstinate refusal to recognize their responsiblity, before they presume to speak about Islam, or about such things as the New York Ground-Zero Mosque, to find out a lot more both about the doctrines (the immutable texts and tenets) of Islam, the attitudes and atmopherics of islam, and the history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslims, and the history, too, of how those many non-Muslim peoples were treated over many centuries of subjugation to Muslim rule.
Mayor Bloomberg could, with a flick of his finger, employ someone to translate Antoine Fattal's great work on the legal status of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Why doesn't Mayor Bloomberg do that? If he needs a good French translator, I can suggest three right off the bat who have native commands of both French and English, and who would be delighted to take on the task.
We have been finding out a lot about Feisal Abdul Rauf this last month or two. We know he refuses to condemn Hamas, claiming lamely that this would interfere with his attempt to "build bridges." Presumably on the Muslim bank of the river or divie he, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is attempting to bridge would have nothing to do with him if he were to forthrightly condemn a terrorist group that exists for the sole purpoose of destroying the tiny Jewish state, and of pushing Jews back into the condition of permanent degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity that was their lot as dhimmis --see Maimonides for his description of how Jews were treated in Islamic Spain -- under Muslim rule.
And that is exactly what Feisal Abdul Rauf wants for the Jews of Israel. He wants an end to the only Jewish state that exists, on one-fifth of one-one-thousandth of the territory that the Arabs now possess. He wants a "single state" that will become an Arab state "with a Jewish minority." And since he has never mentioned, never opposed, the treatment of non-Muslims under the Holy Law of Islam, that is the Shari'a and, on the contrary, has made clear that he reveres that same legal system that means unending and cruel inequality (that degradation, that humiliation, that physical insecurity that, over the centuries, led so many Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others to join the "party of the masters" -- that is Islam, in order to escape their otherwise at-many-times unendurable fate).
This is what the begetter of this mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, wants for the Jews of Israel. He wants them to be stripped, but by "peaceful means" rather than immediate and open warfare, which as a Slow Jihadist he knows will not work. He wants a state in which the Arabs, by demography, will take over. In this respect he is similar to Houari Boumediene, who in 1974 at the U.N. declared that the men of the South, and he meant by this the Muslims of North Africa, would conquer Europe through "the wombs of our women." Qaddafy has repeated this claim many times since, and so have Muslim clerics and journalists and diplomats and "intellectuals" all over the place -- you can catch some of them at www.Memri.org, and others you can find as far afield as the letters pages of the English-language "Dawn" in Pakistan. Oh, Muslims are keenly aware of how demography is working in their favor, because the elites of Western Europe, with a carelessness, a nonchalance, an indifference that amounts to criminal negligence on a civilisation-wide scale, allowed into their own countries many millions of Muslims, without first finding out what Islam inculcated, and what the chances were, therefore,of a happy integration into the host countries,or if, instead, these Muslims-- with a few exceptions -- would constitute a poermanently hostile force, working to undo, as best it can, the legal and political institutions and social understandings of the advanced Western democracies whose worship at the Altars of the Idols of the Age, Diversity and Tolerance, are unfortunately accompanied by the sacrifice of their own achievements, in political and legal institutions, in political and social and above all mental freedoms, that can be undone, as everything else that over three thousand years has been achieved in the West can be undone, merely by numbers -- by Muslims simply coming to be such a large presence, one constantly replenished with funds for mosques and madrasas from the Saudis and other rich Arabs, while the local Muslims have found the way to take advantage of every benefit offered, and paid for by the Infidel taxpayers, of these Western European nation-states -- free education, free medical care, free or heavily subsidized housing, and much more.
Feisal Abdul Rauf is not, pace Mayor Bloomberg (whose ownh private demons based on childhood worries about antisemitism, and who has spent his life making money and not on cultivating his understanding of men and events except in the narrowest possible, money-making way, and who is not only ignorant of Islam, but has decided -- possibly because the oily and ingratiating Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy have made it a point to exercise all their wiles to win over Mayor Bloomberg, a self-righteous, stubborn, and not very intelligent man (save for his ability to make money, which some not very intelligent people can do quite well at, for reasons that deserve to be pondered)-- a moderate Muslim. He is a "moderate-sounding" Muslim for Mayor Bloomberg. But Mayor Bloomberg cannot keep dismissing, and dismissing, every new bit of evidence that shows just how unpleasant (as, for example, a slumlord) Feisal Abdul Rauf is, or how strange his refusal to discuss funding (Mayor Bloomberg claims he "doesn't care" where the funds come from, and no one should even inquire -- how can he possibly say that, when in every area of politics we need to find out where the money comes from, and this 100-million dollar mosque is all about politics, and nothing to do with an inoffensive "house of worship."
For god's sake, Mayor Bloomberg, you are not dealing here with the Amish. A little world-historical reality has got to enter your head.
If not now, when?
Open Letter to Imam Feisal Rauf
The Infidel Task Force
www.infideltaskforce.webs.com
infideltaskforce@live.com
September 1, 2010
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
May I extend my congratulations along with an abundance of “thanks”.
Our congratulations because you are the one single entity that has created more Islamic awareness in the world then any person I can recall. More then Osama bin Laden or the Ayatollahs of Iran combined.
You and your group have created the education and opened more American eyes to the reality of Islam then any one thing has ever done before. You have showed America just how demanding, unyielding and relentless Islam can truly be. The further you continue with this push, the deeper the investigation on you and your group will proceed.
Your partner, Sharif el-Gamal, is under constant investigation about where the construction money is coming from. We are told he is in arrears in New York City taxes by $227, 570.43. Not to forget that the tax bill will go up January 1st by another $90000.00. This seems to be a more pressing need then the $150 million needed to construct the building in the first place.
We send our thanks because we, as a tolerant and forgiving people who will always help one another through times of need, clearly see how intolerant you can be. Your group has called us every conceivable name in the Islamic playbook.
No one, ABSOLUTELY no one is trampling on your Constitutional right to religious freedom and the right to construct a place to worship.
Whereas you, Imam Rauf, and your group of planners and the political supporters with the likes of Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Pelosi, have and still continue to prevent and restrain the American people from exercising their right to speak out against your Park 51 initiative.
Politicians and the left leaning media such as CNN, MSNBC and Associated Press are being particularly diligent in condoning statements made by opposing groups led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Calling us Islamaphobes, bigots or racists will certainly not help your cause. But in fact, it will succeed in inflaming more of the American public to speak out opposing it.
You and your Mosque organizers and your political cronies are continuously and rigorously trying to silence our Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech.
The ability to speak freely, whether for something or someone or against something or someone, is a thorn in the side of Islam. Islam cannot fathom the idea of Americans or people of any free country criticizing and stating their concerns of what they truly care about.
We will not implore….
We will not beg….
We are through asking….
Now we are saying, it is time to reconsider the placement of that mosque.
IT IS TIME TO CHANGE THE LOCATION TO A MORE SUITABLE AREA
IT IS TIME TO STOP YOUR DEMANDS AND YOUR HATRED RHETORIC AND PUT AN END TO THIS INCESSANT SELFISHNESS.
IT IS TIME TO STOP THE INTOLERANCE ISLAM IS SO WELL KNOWN FOR.
YOU KEEP TELLING THE WORLD THAT ISLAM IS PEACE AND LOVE AND CHARITABLE….THEN SHOW IT TO US NOW!!
Show your concern for the America that you say you love. Show it to the families that lost their loved ones on 9/11. Show us now!!
Always remember, Imam Rauf, buildings can be replaced. Those lives lost on 9/11 cannot.
Sincerely Yours,
BlackbootJack
Editor-In-Chief
The Infidel Task Force
Great comments, Hugh!!
Muslim immigration to all non-Muslim countries in general, and to West in particular has to be stopped ASAP(should have been stopped 50 years back. They do not contribute anything good to the society and want to make our societies as backward as theirs in all Islamic paradises!!
Why can't the West understand this?? Even the primitive societies and jungle men and women understood this but our present day societies are on a suicidal path.
And the argument over how to really solve this problem goes on:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/christopher-hitchens-discovers-that-the-ground-zero-mosque-imam-is-not-as-moderate-as-he-is-cracked.html
I too support a one-state solution, but I have a feeling Imam Rauf has a different "one state" in mind than what I would like!
"Read Brother Tariq by Caroline Fourest for a complete lesson about the doublespeak master, Tariq Ramadan. Is Rauf is trying to challenge Ramadan's crown?"
When it comes to slick-talking taqiyya artists, Frere Tariq has nothing on Feisal Abdul Rauf. Yet, I've noticed that they're not as clever as they think they are (particularly two-bit amateurs like Nihad Awad) - eventually their dissembling catches up to them.
"We know he refuses to condemn Hamas..."
--------------
That kind of bugs me, but not for the obvious reason.
Why do you think it is that he won't, and not just him, but all of his associates as well? Would that not just be another example of taqiyya? Would not Hamas/any terrorist group understand that condemnation by allies might be necessary in order to advance Islam?
Why would they be so thin-skinned about being "condemned" when the advancement of Islam is at stake?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that if he had come out loud and strong, condemning Hamas and all others, the level of heat would have been greatly reduced.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that if he had come out loud and strong, condemning Hamas and all others, the level of heat would have been greatly reduced....
But that would require condemning the jihad which is a religious obligation. That is a bridge too far.
nabi ZK (pbum)
What he means is he supports democracy. That's radical for fans of apartheid I suppose, but moderate for a lot of less racist people.
Could someone please arrange for a meeting between a Yemeni Jew who immigrated to New York last year with nothing but their immediate belongings, fleeing in terror from his Muslim oppressors who followed Mohammad's commands to the letter?
Please let me know what happened to that Jewish minority in Yemen.
Don't tell me they were all "extremists."
Exactly. The Intifada is a jihad-based action, therefore Quranically based action.
Hatred of the Jews is almost stronger than lying to advance Islam, so it can't falter.
"What he means is he supports democracy. That's radical for fans of apartheid I suppose, but moderate for a lot of less racist people."
LMAO!
P.T. Barnum thanks you for the affirmation.
Rauf Exposed! ...in other words, Rauf does not think that Israel has a right to exist, which is just more muslim doublespeak.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Similar news, as it relates to a two-state solution from Israel Today News ...
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Ryan Jones:
"Obama wants signed agreement, not peace"
Diplomatic sources revealed to Israel's Yediot Ahronot that when direct Israeli-Palestinians peace talks resume in Washington on Thursday, US President Barack Obama intends to strongly press both sides to sign a peace deal, even if it can't be fully implemented.
According to the leaked transcript of a conference call between Obama Administration officials and US Jewish leaders, Obama will pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to sign a framework deal now that will lead to the signing of a final status peace deal within one year. However, the implementation of that final status deal is expected to take at least 10 years.
During the first year, Obama wants to see Netanyahu, Abbas and their respective teams holding meetings at a hectic pace in order to iron out differences in the run up to signing the peace deal. When the two sides hit roadblocks, US officials will intervene.
The signing of such an agreement will give Obama the diplomatic achievement he needs to bolster his increasingly unpopular presidency. But that will do little to change the situation on the ground in Israel, as evidenced by the fact that even Obama acknowledges it can't be implemented in the short term.
In fact, it is likely to exacerbate the conflict by further restraining the Israelis from combatting violence against their own, a development that has traditionally encouraged the Palestinians to escalate their campaign of terror.
In other words, as some observers put it, Israelis are likely to pay with their lives so that Obama and his party can remain in power.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=21790
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, students of Bible prophecy know what this peace deal could mean ...
The best solution is a two state solution - Eretz Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan.
But Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist!! They're evil!!
When DP111 and Israel don't recognize Palestine's right to exist, that's fine.
Jesus had words for the hypocrites. We should listen.
"The best solution is a two state solution - Eretz Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan."
lol, good one! ...yeah, the Palestinians already have a state, it's called Jordan ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why don't the Palestinians have a state?
First of all, the Palestinian Arabs do have a state. Its called Jordan. During the League of Nations Mandate period, the land originally set aside by the League of Nations as the Palestine Mandate was supposed to provide for a national home for the Jewish people. The British were given the authority to manage the Mandate and help the Jews make the transition to independence. Instead, almost 80% of the original Mandate land was carved out and arbitrarily made into the Arab country of Trans-Jordan (later renamed Jordan). In all the land of the Mandate east of the Jordan River it was "No Jews Allowed". West of the Jordan, the 20% part of the Mandate, the British restricted Jewish immigration and gradually adopted policies that were more and more pro-Arab. Palestinian Arabs are the majority of the population of Jordan even today.
All of Israel today, and the Jewish lands historically called Judea and Samaria (now the West Bank) plus Gaza are entirely within the 20% slice of the British Mandate left over after the creation of Transjordan. The British Mandate Overview page gives a table with the details of this geographical distribution of the Mandate lands.
In all of the history of the region, there never was a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs are not a distinct people. With very few exceptions, they are a highly mixed group of immigrants from all over the Middle East and even further regions: Assyrians, Persians and Romans from ancient times, Turks, Armenians, Greeks, Albanians, and Italians, Afghans, Kurds, other Europeans including Germans, Bosnians, Circassians as well as Egyptians, Bedouins, Algerians, Sudanese and many others who have been identified in the population. Most of today's inhabitants can trace their history in the Palestine area no further than the early 20th century when many came to Palestine attracted by the Zionist prosperity and, after World War I, the political stability of the British administration of the Mandate.
Palestinian Arabs have been offered the opportunity to create a state many times, starting with plans advanced during the British Mandate which the Arabs rejected. Then the United Nation partition plan of 1947, which brought Israel into existence, included a nation for the Palestinians, but the Arabs rejected it. Over the decades since there has been plan after plan that would bring peace to the region and a state for the Palestinians: all they had to do was let Israel live in peace. Arabs rejected all these plans, up to and including at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in 2001, and kept the armed struggle going.
It should also be remembered that from 1948 to 1967 the land known as the West Bank, historically Judea and Samaria, part of the Land of Israel, was held by Jordan. During that period the Gaza Strip was held by Egypt. There were no "occupied territories", no "settlements" or any of the other excuses used today to attack Israel. But there was also no peace. Palestinians and the neighboring Arab countries continuously attacked Israel and worked for the destruction of the Israeli state. At the same time, there was no call for Palestinian independence or statehood even though it could have been done by Jordan with the stroke of a pen.
On November 15, 1988, a Palestinian state was proclaimed by Yasser Arafat at a meeting of the Palestine National Council in Algiers. This was the second declaration of such a state, the first being at a meeting in Gaza in October 1, 1948 during Israel's War of Independence. Both the Gaza and the Algiers declarations are largely irrelevant today, notwithstanding that the Algiers Declaration received enormous attention at the time. Since the PLO did not control the intended Palestinian territory, it was only a symbolic act.
In all probability there will be an independent Palestinian Arab state some day, but only after the Palestinian Arabs find leadership that is committed to peace with Israel.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_whynostate.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jon. Israel is a democracy where Arab, Druze, and other non Jewish citizens have full franchise. And the palis? Not so much. Or do you think pali society is a model to be emulated? Would Israel would be better off with a similar system? Would the people of Israel be better off being ruled by those who kill them and then dance in the street to celebrate? Isn't it somewhat barbaric to celebrate the murder of innocent people and even a pregnant woman? To involve children in the celebrations? Would you like to be ruled over by such animals?
You are so progressive jon. You are such a humanitarian and so liberal. You are winking at genocide like all the other Jew haters. And you call us racists? You are an idiot. A simpleton. Just drop it.
nabi ZK (pbum)
jon. It wasn't a rhetorical question. Would you like to be ruled over by people who kill your children point blank and then dance in the street to celebrate? People who lionize the murderers of children? Will you answer? I seriously doubt it. But you will be back tomorrow on another thread calling out hypocrisy and racism. The nabi only wishes he could be as progressive as you are. Were you an obama voter by any chance?
nabi ZK (pbum)
Supposedly Israel is a democracy and Israel extends to the Jordanian border. So do the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza have a right to vote in this state of Israel? Do they have "full franchise". As I look at them they're deprived of basic food stuffs, like pasta, fruit juice, chocolate. Israel blocked their access to shoes. Is this what democracy looks like?
No, I wouldn't like to be ruled over by people who kill my children and then dance in celebration. That's why as I look at the statistics of Palestinian children killed by Israel and Israeli children killed by Palestinians, I think it's a tragedy that Israel doesn't accept the international consensus for a two state settlement. In the last 10 years tragically 124 Israeli children have been killed. 1441 Palestinian children have been killed. I wonder if you are aware of the Palestinian children or if they don't matter because they are Arab or Muslim or something like that.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html
Not an Obama voter.
Jon inhabits a most "interesting" parallel universe.
Right, the poor, poor Palestinians.
Truckloads of aid go through Israel to Palestine, every day. Thousands and thousands of tons of food and other aid. You know who is blocking aid to the Palestinians? Hamas.
Try and spin that, leftard.
"Moderate" Ground Zero mosque Imam Rauf: "In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority"
.................
And what would life look like for that "Jewish minority"? Let's see—here's a story about the plight of the pitiful remnant of Jews left in Yemen—where they have lived for 3000 years:
"Sharia supremacists threaten Yemeni Jews for selling wine"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/01/sharia-supremacists-threaten-yemeni-jews-for-selling-wine.html
Supposedly Israel is a democracy and Israel extends to the Jordanian border. So do the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza have a right to vote in this state of Israel? ...
The West Bank is disputed territory and not part of Israel. The status of these territories is subject to negotiation. They were promised to the Jewish Homeland but then taken by Jordan in the 48 war then retaken by Israel in the 67 war. There is a definite perception that this will form part of a future pali state when peace breaks out, if ever. This is occupied territory and that status is acknowledged by Israel. So no. The people of the West Bank are not citizens of Israel. I thought you might know that since the constant refrain is "end the occupation".
Gaza was, of course, part of Egypt and was taken, along with the Sinai when the Egyptian army was defeated in 67. Since that war was started by Egypt there was no requirement that it be returned ever. But it was returned, complete with major real estate improvements in Sharm al Sheik and a few new oil wells which the Israelis had drilled. This happened when Egypt and Israel signed the Camp David peace accords. At that time, Gaza, which was populated by palis was reserved to be part of a future pali state as well. It was occupied territory until the unilateral Israeli withdrawal in 05. It is no longer occupied but it is under blockade at this point. So no, the Gazans are not now and never were Israeli citizens. Wow, are you misinformed. Where do you get these crazy ideas?
Is this what democracy looks like?...
No. This is what it looks like when there is a hot war and one side is blockading the other to restrict the flow of arms. If the Qassams stopped there would be no blockade. How convenient of you not to notice this. BTW jon, do you consider artillery attacks on Israeli population centers with unguided missiles to be a war crime? Do you condemn such actions or does your narrative only condemn Israeli retaliation with precision weapons? Such weapons, while devastating, are used against combatants and targets of military significance.
I think it's a tragedy that Israel doesn't accept the international consensus for a two state settlement....
Ah yes jon. Is it only Israel which does not accept the two state thing, which they actually do in principle, surprised again that you didn't know that, or possibly the palis do not accept this. Our moderate Imam Rauf does not seem to accept a two state solution, which is the true topic of this thread. In general, mohametans do not accept the existence of the "Zionist Entity", and for religious reasons discussed at length in this forum. Why is it that countries like pakistan or indonesia, which are not party to the conflict, have such problems with the "Zionist Entity" that they will not have diplomatic relations with Israel?
In the last 10 years tragically 124 Israeli children have been killed. 1441 Palestinian children have been killed. I wonder if you are aware of the Palestinian children or if they don't matter because they are Arab or Muslim or something like that...
No jon. You are projecting. Children are children. But one side deliberately targets children and the other does not. Would you care to comment on the case of Samir Kuntar, hero of the resistance? People get killed in war and that is tragic. However,Israel takes a measured approach to the application of lethal violence even going to the point of dropping cement bombs, no explosives, kinetic energy only, when there is a great risk of harm to non combatants. This is possible only because they use precision guided weapons. The IDF actually debates whether the target is worth the risk to civilians before mounting an operation. The palis, again, not so much.
As far as the numbers go that has no meaning to me. Intentions count. There is a concept of collateral damage, damage which is not intended. Israel does not target children although many have been killed. Of course dead is dead, but such unintended deaths are regretted by the Israeli government. The palis intend to kill non combatants under the theory that Israel is fully militarized and basically all adults are part of the armed forces or reserves. Oh yeah and the kids, because nits grow into lice, because they want to inflict grief and pain on their enemy. Is that a war crime jon? Do they ever express regrets for unintended victims? Or rather do they pass out sweets and hold block parties to celebrate. Just asking. Well check out the case of Mr. Kuntar if you have any questions about this.
jon. You can't come in here with this paper thin liberal BS and expect to be taken seriously. Learn something about the conflict and the history before you spout off.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Your web site is quite biased and is just propaganda. It is typical of the "progressive" crowd to present their viewpoints as undisputed facts. Your web site is filled with such garbage. Did you notice that or were you only too willing to believe?
nabi ZK (pbum)
Zonie
good answers. They won't shift 'Jon' one millimetre, but they ought to help clear the heads of any new readers, new to this subject, who might have been momentarily confused by 'jon''s regurgitated propaganda.
For the sake of those new readers, I'll post a beautifully brief little article that sums up all the main points relevant to the war in the middle east, the jihad being waged against the Jews:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/why_islam_will_never_accept_th.html
Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel
- By Steven Simpson, THE AMERICAN THINKER June 30 2010
And I'll throw in Hugh Fitzgerald on 2 state/ 1 state / n-state 'solutions', and the Treaty of Hudaybiyya:
"Neither Israel itself, nor many in the outside world, seem willing to comprehend that there is no solution, one-state or two-state or n-state, to the Jihad.
"There is only the matter of remaining overwhelmingly -- and perceptively -- more powerful, capable of wreaking great damage on those who would attack.
"No treaty with Infidel states, and Israel is such a state, can conceivably be permanently honored by a Muslim signatory.
"Pacta sunt servanda is a Western idea.
"In the Muslim world, treaties are not to be obeyed, but if made with Infidels, to be violated as soon as the Muslim side feels itself strong enough to press its advantage.
"The model for all time -- see Majid Khadduri -- is Muhammad's Treaty with the Meccans in 628 A.D."
- from an essay posted by Hugh | August 15, 2006 11:10 AM in this thread:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/08/will-cease-fires-never-cease.html
(The Treaty of Hudaybiyya being that which, as is firmly believed by Muslims, Mohammed feigningly made and then treacherously broke; with the result, that he gained control of Mecca: new readers will find a useful outline and discussion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya and its implications for later Muslim practice, in Mr Spencer's 'Truth About Muhammad', pp. 136 -139).
As for 'Jon', more and more I incline toward the view that 'jon' knows damn well what the facts are...and that he doesn't give a damn, because he's a Mohammedan; he's in here lying for the advancement of Islam.
And if he isn't a Jew-hating Mohammedan, he's a westerner who hates Jews. Really, really hates Jews. He can protest that he doesn't, that all he's doing is legit criticism of Israel, all he likes; but I don't believe him.
Thanks dda.
The nabi was shocked today when someone on another thread thought that I don't have sympathy for Israel. While the nabi is not a Jew, raised Catholic by my Catholic mother, now agnostic, my father was a Jew and also all of his ancestors for at least several generations. I am actually related to David Horowitz who is a cousin of my dad. I was regaled with stories about how he was a dyed in the wool commie raised by commie parents! Guess he got over that. :)I am a Zionist. My father was a Zionist. And my grandfather was a Zionist.
I have been to Israel twice in my life. Once as a child prior to the 67 war when Jerusalem was divided. I was 9 years old at the time and I distinctly remember sandbags in the windows of a restaurant we ate at placed there because of snipers. Now why would anybody shoot at non combatants who are enjoying dinner at a nice restaurant? At that time, looking out from a vantage point at the King David Hotel, I learned about the concept of no mans land. We visited with relatives who had emigrated to Israel after WWII.
I returned as an adult and toured around by rental car. I picked up hitchhikers and I met many very nice people. A young woman in uniform who told me that America was a paradise. An elderly man who spoke no English but invited me to his home for dinner with the family. In Bethlehem I met a young Palistinian man who I hired as a tour guide. He took me to Hebron and Jerico. It was quite amazing to see the excavations at Jerico, one of the oldest settlements in the area. This young man told me that if land was exchanged there would be peace. Never happened. I could not imagine going to Hebron or Jerico today. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine going back to Bethlehem. Things have gotten worse, much worse, in the interviening years. So much for the peace process.
Anyhow I am a true supporter of the State of Israel and for anyone to suggest otherwise really rankles.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Yes, Zonie, I'm aware that the West Bank and the Gaza are not in fact Israeli territory. I was taking assertions of poster's here, who claim that there is no such thing as a Palestinian state, and I was pretending that they were right in order to illustrate that on their view Israel is not a democracy.
Yes, the Sinai was returned after a total diplomatic disaster by Israel and the United States. In 1971 Egypt offered Israel a full peace treaty in exchange for the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Sinai. Israel basically refused thinking Egypt couldn't do much about it. They preferred expansion to peace as they always have. Egypt threatened violence if Israel didn't withdraw for a couple of years, but Israel with US backing ignored them. So finally in October 1973 Egypt did launch the offensive. Their performance shocked Israel and was a near disaster for them. Egypt was finally beaten back, but it was touch and go for a while. So Israel realized that Egypt had to be taken seriously. The result was the Camp David Accords. The terms of peace were almost exactly the same as what had been offered in 1971, but with some additional conditions that made it worse from Israel and the United States perspective. The war and the worse agreement could have been avoided by simply accepting the peace offer of 1971, but Israel preferred expansion to peace.
So now it was clear that Egypt wasn't a basket case and couldn't be ignored. So they had to be bought off. Today the US sends them $2 billion/yr, which is nothing but a bribe to get them to do what Israel wants. Call it additional funding for Israel if you like. With the threat of Egypt no longer there since US tax dollars are now being funneled to them to pay them off and sustain their now brutal dictatorship, Israel could turn northward and proceed with more aggression, with Lebanon the new target. So they prepared for that offensive and finally invaded in 1982, killing tens of thousands of civilians.
You say "If The Qassim's stopped there would be no blockade." That's false. There have been long periods where there was virtually zero violence coming from the Palestinian side. They were totally compliant and non-resistive for years prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. In fact the cease fire that was installed in 2008 worked perfectly. No Hamas rockets were fired for a 6 month period. That was finally ended when Israel invaded Gaza in November 2008 (election day in the US so nobody would notice).
Actually, yes, I recognize that Palestinian rocket fire into population centers is a war crime. Israel's response is also criminal. Legally you are entitled to respond with violence if you have no peaceful alternatives. But Israel does have peaceful alternatives. For instance they could accept the terms of the peaceful settlement that have been on the table for over 30 years, accepted by the entire world, including the Arab and Muslim world.
To assert that "Mohametans" do not accept the existence of the "Zionist entity" is to betray some rather extensive ignorance. Look at the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. Full acceptance of the Zionist entity, including the normalization of relations, which is a step beyond the annual agreement voted on at the UN (and passing by margins like 150-3, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the entire Muslim world endorsing peace, and only the US, Israel, and a few of their patrons on the other side). If they refuse to accept the existence of the "Zionist entity" why do they vote for the existence of this "Zionist entity" every single year?
Your assertions that Israel takes a measured approach are belied by the human rights organization's reports and even IDF soldiers themselves. You can read their testimonies with regard to the Gaza Massacre of 2008/2009. Should we believe you or the IDF soldiers?
Understand this and be very vigilant America because it is now happening before our eyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpM6QKaAgP0&feature=player_embedded#!
TAQIYYA, TAQIYYA, and more TAQIYYA! Learn from HISTORY! Stop ALL mosques now!
What a distorted view you have jon. Israel always had bad expansionist intentions and anything good must have been forced on them. So they were shocked in 73 into eventually giving back Sinai a few years later? Refresh my memory. Didn't the Arabs lose the 73 war also? Oh yes the invasion of Lebanon was unprovoked as well. Sure sure.
To assert that "Mohametans" do not accept the existence of the "Zionist entity" is to betray some rather extensive ignorance....
They are full of it and you are a credulous fool. They do not and will not. It's all just a big game of tough cop nice cop. Trust is required to make peace. So because Iran votes for a so called peace initiative at the UN we should assume that they are sincerely working for peace? Actually they are Israels biggest enemy at this point. They fund Hezbollah and Hamas and supply them with the weapons to fire at Israel. They regularly call for the elimination of Israel which they call a cancer in the region. What an tool you are jon. You are the ignorant one here. Go read a few more UN reports so you can feel like the true pseudo intellectual you aspire to be.
Your source for all this BS is a website filled with articles by Chomsky and Finkelstein. Oh yeah they are real smart guys. Chomsky will also tell you what a good guy Pol Pot was and how everything that happened in Cambodia was the fault of the US. It seems that you would believe that as well.
Hezbollah? Exactly what are they resisting at this point that they are the "arms of the resistance"? Is Lebanon occupied at this point? They are going to provoke another war which you will then blame on Israel.
Oh, and Hamas was abiding by a self declared tadiya, not a formal truce, which they ended by entering Israeli territory and kidnapping Gilad Shalit. You always mention the response but never the provocation. Why is that jon? Possible because you are a useful idiot who gets his info from Chomsky. Possibly because you are evil and knowingly winking at genocide. At this point it's hard to tell. Let me spell it out for you. Israel has the right to defend itself.
Your assertions that Israel does not use force in a measured way is bunk. It doesn't matter what "human rights organizations" say. They are biased leftist tools just like you. Just like Chomsky. Just like Finkelstein. You spend all your time on the actions of Israel but apparently Hamas and Hezbollah get a free pass. Proof? Did you ever respond to the questions I asked about their war crimes? You could have agreed that artilery fire into population centers is a crime. But you would not. You could have asserted that the Qassams are not war crimes. But that would reveal your true face. So you change the topic and talk about something else.
jon. Go to hell. OK.
nabi ZK (pbum)
It's just one false assertion after another with you, ZK.
You say Chomsky says Pol Pot is a good guy. Do you have a single quote to that effect from Chomsky?
You say Iran calls for the elimination of Israel. By that do you mean they call for the violent destruction of Israel? If so do you have a quote?
I can produce the voting record of Iran on the existence of Israel and how they vote for an independent Jewish state with secure borders. You just assert that they don't. They may vote that way but it's all a lie because you're a mind reader. You need to do better than that.
You say I don't respond to your question about Palestinian war crimes. Just read my prior post. I responded and agreed that it was a war crime.
You mention Gilad Shalit and then say that I'm the one that only talks about the reaction, not the provocation. Shalit was a soldier in an invading army. Like it or not it is not a war crime to capture a soldier from an army that is attacking you. But what provoked that? You fail to mention that the day before Israel invaded Gaza and kidnapped two civilians. Brothers. That's a crime. Why don't you discuss the provocation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muamar_family_detention_incident
jon. I will say it again. Go to hell.
Thanks for citing further resources as I've been trying to catch up on history/politics of the region, even going back to the Old Testament.
Bloomberg may be blinded by his own self business interest, but have you written to him? Can't hurt. It's not just Bloomberg, but simple historical facts need to be brought into the negotiation table, so called "peace talk."
I would push for even the earlier commitment made to Israel, 1917 and 1920 when there were still no Arab settlements. British went against borders drawn by the Balfour Declaration accepted by the League of Nations, and in fact committed an act of treason when they restricted Jewish immigrants when European Jews were being rounded up by the Nazis, rather than facilitating them like they were supposed to, and instead encouraged Arabs migration into the Jewish homeland. The result was the Holocaust.
Pogroms started again this time in the Arab lands as soon as Israel came into existence in 1948, 750,000-900,000 Jews had to flee leaving everything behind everything for which they received zero compensations. Yet where are the Jewish refugees that we never hear about and nobody talks about? They were all accepted and integrated by the newly created, fragile State of Israel who, right upon re birth had to not only defend itself militarily but had to fight for the right to defend itself in the court of public opinion.
Under their rule, Jewish lives depended upon the goodwill of their Muslim rulers, sometimes relatively benign call it "Golden Age" of tolerance when Jews were allowed to make contributions and kept useful, sometimes not. No doubt this describes the state that Rauf and others would like to see.
What would be "fair" and reasonable and legal is for Arab states to absorb and integrate the multigenerations of Palestinian refugees. Cry human rights violation in Lebanon, in Syria, Jordan, etc., for not granting the full citizenship, not accommodating them 60+years ago. Shame on them!!
Jon wrote:
You say "If The Qassim's stopped there would be no blockade." That's false. There have been long periods where there was virtually zero violence coming from the Palestinian side. They were totally compliant and non-resistive for years prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. In fact the cease fire that was installed in 2008 worked perfectly. No Hamas rockets were fired for a 6 month period. That was finally ended when Israel invaded Gaza in November 2008 (election day in the US so nobody would notice).
.......................
What rot. Israel *unilaterally* pulled out of Gaza in 2005—an odd action for a state that supposedly is hell-bent on "expansion".
Jon also wrote, responding to Zonie Kafir:
You say Chomsky says Pol Pot is a good guy. Do you have a single quote to that effect from Chomsky?
.......................
Noam Chomsky did not, perhaps, go so far as to assert that Pol Pot was a "good guy". But his did say this, which is not exactly a ringing condemnation of the Killing Fields:
"The propaganda system has been committed to eke what profit it could from the misery of Cambodia. Questions of truth are secondary. ... The central theme that liberation from Western domination is a fate to be avoided at all costs is constantly and persistently drilled into popular consciousness."
—Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, "After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina & the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology" Boston: South End Press, 1979. (pp. 292-293)
graven. He went further than that. Chomsky was a sympathetic apologist for the Khmer Rouge. He never recanted those views either.
Notice also that "jon" says the kidnapping of Shalit was not a war crime. True but it is an act of war. No? Oops. He missed that point. What a tool.
nabi ZK (pbum)
gravenimage, Gaza withdrawal was West Bank expansion. The resources were diverted to the West Bank. There's also a blockade on Gaza, which is an act of war. When Israel's sea lanes were blocked by Egypt at the Straits of Tiran this prompted war according to Israel. But in Israel's case the blocking was more symbolic than anything and they had alternative routes. None of this changes what I said though. There's been long stretches without Qassim rockets. Israel still won't accept a peaceful resolution.
Your quote from Chomsky sounds fine and has nothing to do with calling Pol Pot a good guy. ZK refers to Chomsky holding certain unmentioned views that he "never recanted". We're not told what those views were or where they can be found. Is that considered persuasive around here?
jon, Go to hell.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Just today...
THE people of the Middle East are "capable of removing the Zionist regime from the world scene", Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an annual Palestinian solidarity day address in Tehran.
"If the leaders of the region do not have the guts, then the people of the region are capable of removing the Zionist regime from the world scene," he said as the crowd chanted "Death to America! Death to Israel!"
Iran is implacably opposed to the new peace talks and has given strong support to the Islamist Hamas movement, which controls Gaza and which carried out two shooting attacks against Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank in the run-up to their relaunch that killed four and wounded two.
nabi ZK (pbum)
I'm a mind reader.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Chomsky and Herman wrote:
Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that...
executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent,
... where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing....
So the Khmer Rouge only killed a few thousand but that was justified. Any mass deaths are the responsibility of the US for being there in the first place. Yadda Yadda.
Khmer Rouge apologist. Propagandist. Leftist Tool. Anti American. Anti Israel.
The moronic pseudo intellectual jon is ignorant of the facts as usual.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Oh, and the nabi forgot to mention how "jon" is such a humanitarian and progressive who likes to wink at genocide. Just like Chumpsky.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Ignorant is not quite the right word. Possibly willfully blind to evil. Or possibly just plain evil.
nabi ZK (pbum)
"jon" keeps repeating these lies because he hopes that with enough repetition people will start to believe them. Also he hopes to wear out his antagonists with endless requests for documentation on anything they say while, like all progressives, presenting his own views as incontrovertible fact and or presenting the views of "experts", actually fellow travelers, as proof. Notice that's just what Chumpsky did also. He cited people who agreed with his views and called them "highly qualified specialists". Well QED then. For the weak minded anyhow.
nabi ZK (pbum)
...Richard Feynman said that Science is "disbelief in the authority of experts"...
Let's take a look at the full Chomsky quote just for fun.
"...there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. They also testify to the extreme unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf. Chomsky: At War with Asia, on the problems of interpreting reports of refugees from American bombing in Laos). We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."
Let's note a couple of things. First, the death estimates are not his. He's quoting his sources. Second, calling for honesty, even with regards to brutal tyrants, is not apologetics for said tyrants. If you say Hitler exterminated 60 million Jews I'll correct you. Does this mean that I regard Hitler as a good guy? That's just a total non-sequitur. The savage US bombing campaign in Cambodia prior to the rise of the Khmer Rouge played a significant roll in the death toll. Chomsky's point is that when the US was hostile to Pol Pot media reports were quick to attribute atrocities to him. When the US reversed itself and backed Pol Pot subsequently, suddenly Pol Pot's crimes weren't being discussed.
Not unlike Saddam Hussein, who slaughtered Kurds at Halabja with US weaponry and support. When he became an enemy of the state suddenly the media was aghast that he would slaughter his own people. Why didn't it matter when he was doing it and we could have stopped it?
We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments...
How disingenuous for him to present such obfuscation when it was perfectly clear to everyone at the time that the Khmer Rouge was beyond evil. Appologist. Propagandist.
Do you remember the events when they came into Phnom Penh? City dwellers were marched into the countryside. What does this have to do with quelling the peasants, as chumpsky implied above? Nothing. Propaganda. Obfuscation.
And we shall discount the reports of refugees. Surely because some of them reported children pressed into labor gangs where the laggard ones were executed and the other kids were forced to carry out the executions. Surely that would not fit the narrative. And besides the experts he quotes are far more erudite and better equipped to know what was happening.
The killing in question came after the rise of the Khmer Rouge. We are not talking about the "civil war" deaths. You complete ass. You won't back down from your pseudo sophisticated crap will you? The US was not in Cambodia at the time of the killing fields. US allies or whatever were not fighting a civil war in Cambodia at that time. They had been defeated.
It is also disingenuous to say that the US backed Pol Pot because we had issues with the regime installed by the Vietnamese invasion. That is not the same as backing Pol Pot. That is backing Cambodian solutions to Cambodian problems.
Do you believe in the killing fields now "jon"? Or do you still feel that chumpsky has it right that the facts are really unclear?
Are you a 9/11 truther by any chance?
And you gratuitously throw in the Halabja stuff. How nauseatingly predictable you are at this point. Yes yes. We didn't criticize him at that point because he was fighting the hated Iranians.
So later on we knew he had WMDs because we sold them to him and we had the receipt. Actually it was the French as I recall but whatever. But from the next page...Bush lied! There were no WMDs! He had WMDs and used them liberally against the Iranians and even against his own people. But he didn't have them anymore and wouldn't use them against anyone else. That's called the cognitive dissonance of the left.
Oh yes and the media lies and manipulates the truth. How profound. Master of the Obvious you are. How about you lie and manipulate the truth and so does your cherished source Professor chumpsky?
And just returning briefly to the point at which you interjected this crap may I ask if you think Professor chumpsky's judgement, having been shown to be so blindingly brilliant in the Cambodian case, should be taken seriously by anyone in the case of "palestine"? If you were under the gun would you trust him? If it was a matter of life and death?
Take your pseudo intellectual code pinko garbage and stuff it.
The nabi just wanted to mention in passing that he has a friend who is a medical doctor who does humanitarian work in Cambodia. She told me that it is tragic that almost all Cambodians who were alive at that time have committed heinous acts such as murder. Yes the KR made everyone an accessory to their crimes and this has left deep scars.
Oh. scratch that. Professor chumpsky says only a few thousand people died. And he has experts to prove it. Experts prove stuff don't you know. Right? And chumpsky is revered by progressives everywhere. he is a super expert! So his statements are facts and if anyone has a different idea about that then, well, they are just knuckle dragging apes. Just as the nabi has been called ignorant and uninformed on this very thread.
nabi ZK (pbum)
What are the Gazans doing and choosing, Jon? If they are capable of choosing of course under the anti-democratic HAMAS-boot.
Isn't it obvious that at least they can get independent? In exchange for not being a thorn in Israels side, they can start on the road to be a sort of Singapore.
At least a part of Gazans are sane adult humans, Jon, and them having this choice, people should confront them with it and hold them accountable for waging a war against a much stronger enemy that is NOT necessary to fight for them, the Gazans. Not necessary for THEIR territory, survival, resources. Which would all be granted and much more by Israel if Gazans were truly neutral.
Please honor their humanness and responsibility for their choices, and berate them for their stubbornness in pulling at a tigers' tail, arguably primarily out of Islamic motivations.
I think Gaza is not a democracy and Israel is. I think Gaza s still overwhelmingly Islamic and because of that alone anti-Democratic. See Nonie Darwish "Shariah for Dummies" which shows 33 shariah-laws who are in contradiction to democratic laws.
And I think Israel is a collection of normal humans, fallible but no more so than other collections of normal humans in democratic societies. They act as best and fair as all humans, not some imaginary angelic humans, are capable of anywhere on earth, in their circumstances.
That alone should make all truly democratic people align with Israel against it's theocratic anti-democratic opponents, in my opinion.