All free people should stand with Israel

'...may our ally's enemies...' tear each other to pieces.

Go Israel!

My wife and I have long supported Israel and pray for Her Peace on a regular basis. My best advice as a Minister would be to always watch Nation Israel as the "canary in the mine" as ALL the Nations WILL be judged according to their stand about this tiny country. Don't mess with Israel or Texas OR any of the good old U.S.Of A.!-----I wonder if Jihad-watchers were aware that President Nixon (who wasn't a strong supporter of Israel) airlifted massive military supplies to Israel during the 67 war because his mother had told him that one day he would be able, as President, to save that little Nation thereby fulfilling the great destiny that he had been born for.

Israel is the only free country in the Middle East. All other countries in that very troubled region of the world are more or less, some more, some less, unfree. The chief reason for this dearth of freedom is Islam. Shame on Islam and long live Israel.

I stand with Israel, always!
I wish there was something concrete I could do. Any ideas?

God bless Israel. Allah, the moon god, will be crushed.
"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet ..." (Revelation 12:1)

I'm over here, but I stand with Israel over there...

I STAND WITH ISRAEL UNCONDITIONALLY!!!

i had the good fortune to live in this great country for a few years and experience first hand this miraculous place and the incredible ongoing drama that unfolds daily over there...
as sarah palin said on her recent visit to israel: "israel should stop being so apologetic"

amen to that!

There is a Google add on this page "How to convert to Islam" What's up with that? Are they targeting you?
Well, praise the Lord who protects Israel.

Israel is all that is stopping the jihadis from attacking the west with their full venom, at the moment, their hatred and bile is focused on "the zionists", and should Israel fall, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria and all the other lands which have once been onder the yoke of islam will be next for their special brand of "tender" love.

I stand with her always.

There is a Google add on this page "How to convert to Islam" What's up with that? Are they targeting you?
Well, praise the Lord who protects Israel.

To Israel

Many Happy Returns!!!

July 18-20, Washington DC:

'Christians United for Israel' -

http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2011Summit_Schedule.

A reprise.

Glenn Beck on Israel.

(First 20 mins of video.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvvLmciG4uI&feature=player_embedded

Yeah! May 14 is my birthday, too!

I used to believe in Israel too, but last year I changed my mind...

Amen to that Ms. Palin! Israel and the Jews must never give in to Caliph Hussein Obama, the suspected most dangerous agent of the real and savage Jew-hating MASTERMIND of global terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood. See - http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=220307

Column One: Obama’s newest ambush
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
05/13/2011 16:13

Netanyahu doesn’t have to give in. He can stick to his guns and defend the country.
With the new international security credibility he earned by overseeing the successful assassination of Osama bin Laden, Obama apparently believes that he can withstand congressional pressure and make the case for demanding that Israel surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to Hamas and its partners in Fatah…..
Regarding Egypt, they argue that the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power is a good. This was the point of Obama’s Passover and Israel Independence Day messages….
Unlike his predecessors, Obama’s interest in the Palestinians is not opportunistic. He is a true believer. And because of his deep-seated commitment to the Palestinians, his policies are even more radically anti-Israel than the PLO-Fatah’s. It was Obama, not Abbas, who demanded that Jews be barred from building anything in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. It is the Obama administration, not the PLO-Fatah, that is leading the charge to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood…...

Robert, you'd have a lot more supporters if you dropped you UNCONDITIONAL and UNCRITICAL support for Israel.

I stand with Israel, and if ever my country -- America -- rejects her, I will have a decision to make about my country.

Although more a Postmil and by no means a Dispensational Premillennialist, this Christian is pro-Israel. My chief criticism of modern Zionists is that they still trot out the Holocaust as the chief justification for a modern Israel, when at this point, the plight of the Mizrahi Jews (somewhat more than half of the Israeli Jewish population, I understand) who were driven from the Muslim world is a far more salient issue when confronting Falastin Arab, anti-Semite, and Marxist claims.

I think Dallas99, Mr. Sanity and Wellington made very salient points about the sort of state modern Israel is. I heartily thank them for their comments.

May it be:
Israel 1948 - eternity: World without end, amen.
Islam 610 - 2011: burning in hell.

The Torah is the best reason for believing the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. The prophets specifically said the Jews would return to the land of their forfathers in the last days."

'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again.'
Ezekiel 11:17

Happy Birthday, Israel. Live long and prosper.

One way to support Israel is through buying their products.

BTW, Israeli wines have won many prestigous European awards. Try them!

More thoughts by Kepha:

http://unclecephas.blogspot.com/2011/05/naqba-day.html

Psalm 121 says "He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps" for it is the Lord himself who watches over Israel

@ Guide Inside....I appreciate the humor and only wish I could pave the middle east.

@ Dallas99 Thanks for your response. Those are some very good ideas and I'm going to borrow a few. Shalom!

I choose to hold fast to what is good, thus, I choose to stand with Israel !!

Happy Birthday Israel! May God bless you and all those who support your wonderful country! l am so proud being Canadian who has a wonderful conservative PM Harper who supports Israel!

Happy 63th Birthday!
It reminds me of Chaim Weizmann who developed a synthetic for the acetone for British government during World War I. Acetone was then used in the production of explosives. Weizmann developed the synthetic made from horse-chestnuts among other things. His discovery led the British government to support Zionism. You may say that Israel may well owe its birth to a chemical discovery.

There's always a Divine hand at work !!

Genesis 12 Verse 1 to 3

And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed....

Stand your ground Israel! The deed to your land is written in documents over 3000 years old. Those who want to take it back from you held a shorter fraudulent title obtained by first invading it and murdering your ancestors in the name of the Mohammedan paedophile warlord, (no real peace to his followers). More recently once they murdered their first innocent Israeli, the murderers have lost forever a land of lesser value than the life they took.
Happy day of justice to Israel and every human aspiring to the highest standards of justice , mercy and goodness.

God continues to bless His chosen.

PS, "palestinians", once you abandon your self perpetuated loathing and put all your energies unto anything positive you ll starting with the abandonment of the destructive lies of mohammedanism, you will obtain comparable success as those of your neighboring Hebrews as long as you seek peace.

I will concede that I am occasionally critical of Israel. Like when they dismantle settlement in Judea & Samaria, them allowing Muslims any access to the 'Dome of the Rock', them not retaliating full blown militarily to rocket attacks on Sderot, them being a provider of both money and services to the Palis in the West Bank, them allowing places like Nazareth to become majority Muslim - quite a few things.

Ideally, I'd like to see Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Sinai to become a part of Israel again, and all the Muslims of these areas, including Israel proper, deported to Cyrenaica.

Hi Robert. Count me in.

Just to be clear in what follows -- I am a Christian, not a Jew. But I give no truck to the purveyors of prophecy whose support of Israel arises from an apocalyptic fantasy, though I'm glad they support her. (I don't dismiss eschatological prophecy, I just reject that we can map out the timetable and point to the players; that's entirely in God's domain, and we should leave such things to his timing. I don't get the point of being cheerleaders or commentators claiming an inside track, when Our Lord himself declared that nobody but God knows the specifics).

Still, I cannot help but notice how strikingly the history of Israel/Jews (which are inextricably bound) have fulfilled YHWH's original promise to Abraham that his descendants would be a blessing to all nations.

So excuse me while I probably sound a bit like the purveyors of prophecy I revile above, but is it not striking that this most reviled of nations, since their enslavement in Egypt several thousand years ago, have uniquely survived the worst of oppressions and dispersal into the nations, and yet maintained a strong national identity. Even while being treated as the dung of the earth, they have not been broken by oppression, but in every place they are planted, through industry, initiative and pure, indomitable spirit, have flourished and become blessings to their host Gentile communities. I can't look anywhere in our city without noting the libraries, museums, concert halls, hospitals, schools and miscellaneous public works endowed to all by this tiny subcommunity. Their generosity to neighboring communities seems unbounded, yet in return they are slapped and spit upon, and swastikas are painted on their doors. Since the founding of Modern Israel, the same has been true collectively of the nation of Israel, not to mention their disproportionate contribution to all the Arts and Sciences, to the benefit of mankind as a whole.

I have no particular attachment to any intrinsic need for the state of Israel to exist; however, given that it does exist, this drive to vilify it or seek its destruction is no less than a crime against humanity; the nation exists, it is a unique bastion of tolerance and liberal democracy in a region of tyrants and oppression, and it must not, cannot, simply be unmade to satiate ancient grievances that clearly cannot be appeased by so little as giving Palestine over to the Arabs. If Israel did not exist then one could reasonably debate whether it should be created. But she DOES exist, and so this question cannot be admitted in polite conversation, not simply because of her mere existence but because of her clear value to the world.

Because of the nature of my position, I think it would not be correct to call me a "Zionist". So what am I? After much thought, I finally think I have the answer; ironically it comes from Islamic holy writ:

I am a Gharqad Tree (as cited in the Hamas Charter).

Hi Robert. Count me in.

Just to be clear in what follows -- I am a Christian, not a Jew. But I give no truck to the purveyors of prophecy whose support of Israel arises from an apocalyptic fantasy, though I'm glad they support her. (I don't dismiss eschatological prophecy, I just reject that we can map out the timetable and point to the players; that's entirely in God's domain, and we should leave such things to his timing. I don't get the point of being cheerleaders or commentators claiming an inside track, when Our Lord himself declared that nobody but God knows the specifics).

Still, I cannot help but notice how strikingly the history of Israel/Jews (which are inextricably bound) have fulfilled YHWH's original promise to Abraham that his descendants would be a blessing to all nations.

So excuse me while I probably sound a bit like the purveyors of prophecy I revile above, but is it not striking that this most reviled of nations, since their enslavement in Egypt several thousand years ago, have uniquely survived the worst of oppressions and dispersal into the nations, and yet maintained a strong national identity. Even while being treated as the dung of the earth, they have not been broken by oppression, but in every place they are planted, through industry, initiative and pure, indomitable spirit, have flourished and become blessings to their host Gentile communities. I can't look anywhere in our city without noting the libraries, museums, concert halls, hospitals, schools and miscellaneous public works endowed to all by this tiny subcommunity. Their generosity to neighboring communities seems unbounded, yet in return they are slapped and spit upon, and swastikas are painted on their doors. Since the founding of Modern Israel, the same has been true collectively of the nation of Israel, not to mention their disproportionate contribution to all the Arts and Sciences, to the benefit of mankind as a whole.

I have no particular attachment to any intrinsic need for the state of Israel to exist; however, given that it does exist, this drive to vilify it or seek its destruction is no less than a crime against humanity; the nation exists, it is a unique bastion of tolerance and liberal democracy in a region of tyrants and oppression, and it must not, cannot, simply be unmade to satiate ancient grievances that clearly cannot be appeased by so little as giving Palestine over to the Arabs. If Israel did not exist then one could reasonably debate whether it should be created. But she DOES exist, and so this question cannot be admitted in polite conversation, not simply because of her mere existence but because of her clear value to the world.

Because of the nature of my position, I think it would not be correct to call me a "Zionist". So what am I? After much thought, I finally think I have the answer; ironically it comes from Islamic holy writ:

I am a Gharqad Tree (as cited in the Hamas Charter).

Long live Israel. Jihadists shall perish by its own canabalism. Instead of being envious of Israel's progress, these Islamists should learn from Israel how to improve quality of life ( donot leave everything on Allah ).

Israel, Thank You !!! You are doing more for us than we do for you. Dont let the bastards get you down (as we say in Australia)!!!

And may the best of your past be the worst of your future!

Happy Birthday and many many many more !

oh sure, stand with israel. never mind their growing list of human rights violations, never mind their brutal occupation and blockade, never mind their complete disregard for international laws, their immunity from critcism and unconditional protection while they collectively punish a foreign state, their Zionist agendas based on religious beliefs, their differential treatment of palestinians and israelis on their own soil, their destruction of palestinian homes and infrastructure, or their and their apologetics despicable tranishing of real jewish victims memories by their use of the holocaust to justify the violence israel commits today.

yeah, great country to stand with for "all lovers of freedom"; freedom to do whatever the state wants despite the human cost to other neighbouring states or international laws...

I have been away from the internet all day, so have not had much chance to comment.

Anyway: a belated Happy Birthday to the state of Israel.

I would second, in particular, the comments made above by Wellington, Mr Sanity and Infidel Pride.

In addition I commend to all Francophone lurkers and posters two excellent books by French reformed lay theologian, scholar and cultural gadfly, Jacques Ellul: "Un Chretien Pour Israel" and "Ce Dieu Injuste? - Theologie Chretienne pour le Peuple d'Israel". Ellul was a Righteous Gentile whose memorial tree stands in the avenue at Yad Vashem.

Reading Ellul immunised me permanently against the Arab Muslim Big Lies.

(Another book, 'Jacques Ellul: Islam et Judeo-Christianisme' is also worth reading, since it contains a long essay, not published before his death, that he wrote at the time of the First Gulf War, on the subject of Islam and the biblical faiths - it is called "Les trois piliers du conformisme' 'the three pillars of conformity', and it examines and demolishes the arguments - 'we are all sons of Abraham' [i.e. the '3 abrahamic faiths' canard], 'we all worship one god' [the '3 great monotheisms' canard' and 'the people of the book' - which are commonly used by Muslim dawa artists to pull the wool over the eyes of naive Jews and Christians in the West.)

But "Un Chretien Pour Israel" is a masterpiece. The chapters on the PLO (which became 'Fatah') and on the first Lebanon War, are particularly striking. Ellul analyses - clause by clause - the PLO's 1968 charter and concludes that it is "a perfect expression of the Jihad".

I will quote here the final paragraph of Ellul's epilogue to Un Chretien Pour Israel, in French and then in my own school-girl-ish English translation.

'Un chretien pour Israel, que’est ce que c’est?

'Rien, un roseau qui fremit au vent, un bruissement de feuille, un livre parmi cent mille livres; et qui, dans amertume, sait que ce livre pourra etre utilise par toutes les propagandes, ou incompris par tous les partis pris differents.

'Tentative qui ne fera pas bouger d’une ligne la marche du temps politique. Et cependant il faut le faire, parce qu’un chretien pour Israel, c’est d’abord un homme qui vit dans l’Esperance du Seigneur, et qui prie.

- One Christian who supports Israel, what is he?

'Nothing: a reed that quivers in the wind, a murmuring of [a] leaf, of a page, one book among a hundred thousand books; and who knows with bitterness that this book will be used for every propaganda, or not understood by all the other partisans.

'An attempt which cannot shift by one line the march of political time.

'And nevertheless he had to do it because a Christian who stands for Israel is, first of all, a man who lives in the Hope of the Lord, and who prays."

I repeat:

'...un chretien pour Israel, c’est d’abord un homme qui vit dans l’Esperance du Seigneur, et qui prie.'

In that, Ellul speaks for me, and for many others.

AMEN to this Brothers and Sisters!! And if "NEVER AGAIN" is to really mean it, next time Israel is attacked from Lebanon, Iran or wherever it comes, Israel must ruthlessly and utterly destroy their enemies with all the power needed so that these attackers are unable to rise again for 20 years the devastation being that great!! No more of this worrying about so-called "world opinion" by the usual suspects concerning "civilian" casualties - NO! If citizens of a country allow anyone to attack Israel from within their borders then they too are guilty of aggression and must suffer the consequences. For anyone to plead otherwise is laughable...

Oops got distracted in re-writing one part:

You may well criticise the 1948 exodus as well, but don't forget that they were offered citizenship alongside jews, and yet they refused unwilling to live under the government of non-muslims. And whilst there was hostile action from the IDF (the specific reasons for it are unclear in every source I have seen, most likely in response to attacks as is the case today), it is equally true that the exodus was in a large part the fault of the palestinian leadership moving the people out in preparation for the 1948 war.

If only Bibi had free reign, I think we would see considerably more "self-defense" on Israel's part. Anyway, I STAND WITH ISRAEL UNCONDITIONALLY, FOREVER ! ! !

Happy Birthday, Israel! May your father Isaac (born of the promise) triumph over your Uncle Ishmael (born of the flesh).

I was born in Britain, lived many years in the USA. Both countries were very good to me and I love them both.

I came to live in Israel some years ago to be with my family.
I am oppressed by the constant criticism and blame from many sources to which Israel is exposed. The Palestinians with their terrorist suicide bombings, rockets, and constant indoctrination and incitement against Israel, are never brought to heel by such critics. The Palestinians from 1947 until today never accepted Israel's agreement to partition which in 1947 would have given them the largest percentage of the country.
There is much more to be said, but this is not a history lesson.

But what I want to say is that I am gratefully heartened to read so many comments from Jihad Watch readers above in support of Israel. They are most sincerely appreciated. Thank you.

Wow!!! Safak Ozgun cites the UN, Amnesty and the EU, like we're not aware of how strongly anti-Israeli all these organizations are. The UN is dominated by the 50+ OIC countries, backed up by leftist governments who've generally been anti-Semitic, so their anti-Israeli propaganda is hardly surprising. Maybe Ozgun should be told to first get his people out of Kurdish areas of Turkey, as well as traditional Armenian territory in east Anatolia, and then be in a position to lecture us!

Standing for Israel. May God bless and protect her.

I just came from a Pro-Israel rally in Toronto. It is the second year for it and we were across Bloor St. West from a Pro-"Palistinian" rally. Even though the other side outnumbered ours our spirits were high. There were a lot of police to keep the two sides apart and I saw no violence. Long live Israel!

Well well well. Another idiot blithering on and on about stupid reports by the Useless Nations, as if that proves anything. Well, if Amnesty International says it it must be true. Such a weak mind you have. May the nabific one suggest including links to the writings of Gnome Chumpsky for added pseudo intellectual effect.

And chechar, you are a racist Nazi dips&%t. Exactly what could you mean by the "White Race" or "White Nation"? Don't bother to answer. The nabi does not engage in conversation or debate with the likes of you. My question is only meant to highlight the inanity of your idiotic racist thought process. Go to hell you White Nationalist a@#hole.

Big words do not an intellectual make. More often they are the hallmark of a pompous weak minded egotist.

To reiterate. Go to hell. Go straight to hell.

nabi ZK (pbum)

...um...and...Go Israel!...

People, there's no point in argueing wiht Safak. He doesn't see any difference between genocidal propaganda from HAMAS and the works of Robert Spencer. The following are quotes from an e-mail consonances with him (that he agreed to allow me to quote):

"Again a difference in values, to us it is pretty much the same. What you're sensitive to is not the same as what we're sensitive to. Are
you expecting everyone to be exactly like yourselves? There will be differences, you will just have to respect that. Plus, you didn't
answer my point on Hamas' propoganda not reaching a world-wide audience like Islamaphobic propoganda, and that Hamas' propoganda is anti-semitic but not genocidal."
He states, that views of whther something is anti-semetism and genocidal propaganda are measrly a matter of taste.

He sees no difference between mocking islam through cartoons or burning Korans and the violence that muslims do in response.

"You’ve asked that just because they’re poor, they shouldn’t take part in barbaric activities. Well, you obviously do not know what it means to be brought up in a 3rd world country. "

In other words, he is at least partialy excusing the violence because they are victems. He has claimed I misunderstood what he said, but never explained how. this seems pretty clear he is saying that if I had experience lving in a 3rd world country I would be a terorrist too. This is reinforced later when he says:

"...and I have websites all over the place against Christianity and I keep calling you violent, and I take the Bible and publicly burn it in the streets or draw cartoons mocking Jesus, and all of this resulting from the actions of just 0.07% of Christians around the world, some arguably fighting in a legitimate resistance to foreign occupation, wouldn't you eventually get pissed and want to do something about it?"
And accuses Christians of potentialy doing the same thing (even though they have not)

He sees no difference between terrorism and legitamite war. When I tried to clearify the definition of terrorism as targeting civilains, he quoted peter usinov (one person, and not an expert in terorrism or war): "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich", as if that were a compelling case.

He is not moderate, and not reasonable, and refuses to honestly debate me. When I challenged him to a match of terrorist violence by muslims and any other religion, he threw in the dead of the Iraq war, and when I asked him to explain how that was fair to add those in, and which religion that would be (since comparing Islam with all other religions together would be unfair) he refused and eventually banned me.

Also, he's not turkish, he's from the UAE (at least, that's what he told me). I'm not sure why people are assuming he's turkish.

@SafaK: If you do responce: Care to explain why it's fair to add the Iraq war in the comparison of Muslim vs. another religion's terrorism? What religion would the 10,000 dead belong to? How do you scientifically separate the killers of the dead from other beliefs such as muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc?

Also, if I got any quotes wrong, or out of context let me know. did I misunderstand, and do you believe that Muslim violence is in fact worse than burning Korans or making mocking cartoons of Mohammad? Do you believe that the genocidal propaganda of HAMAS is worse that the works of critics of Islam such as Gert Wilders and Mr. Spencer? Do you in fact believe there is a morale difference between war that does not target civilians and the far inferior terrorism that does?

And as Zonie pointed out, the blog presents itself as "white nationalist", and no matter how you dress that up, is still RACISM. Plenty of reasons to be sickened by Chechar.

Also, there are articles on Chechar's own blog that praise Hitler, wishing him a happy birthday and tries to downplay much of the atrocities he committed, blaming the Jews and saying Hitler was a "imperfect human" (not, as zonie said a monster as he should be known as).

As I said, disgusting. You are a traitor to the HUMAN race that we all belong.

I am very encouraged by the outpouring of support for Israel by most of the commentators. One small correction for Guide Inside...Johnson was president in 1967 and would not send aid, claiming "We are not the world's policeman."

Nixon airlifted desperately needed supplies in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War.

Foolster

The name 'Safak Ozgun' is very much a Turkish name, which is why all of us assumed that he's Turkish. Of course, there are all sorts of other possibilities - he may be a Turkish born citizen of the UAE, he may be an Arab who's just assumed a Turkish name here for goodness knows why, he may be something else altogether... None of that would alter any of the points made above about the Turks, or exculpate them if it turned out that he wasn't Turkish.

Although everything he told you came more out of the standard Leftist playbook - the stuff about ' a difference in values, to us it is pretty much the same. What you're sensitive to is not the same as what we're sensitive to, no difference between terrorism and legitamite war'. So he may even be a Western Leftist posing as a Turk. Same difference!!!

But as Zonie pointed out, he had pretty weak arguments if all he could do was cite UN reports and Wiki.

Infidel: I didn't realize it was a turkish name, and was just wondering why, that explains it.

"But as Zonie pointed out, he had pretty weak arguments if all he could do was cite UN reports and Wiki."
Agreed. When I debated him in e-mail he kept repeating over and over the same stuff, and when I mentioned the IOC's pushing the anti-Isreal agenda in the UN he said I was a conspiracy theorist!

So, I did look at the reviews. I noticed some interesting quotes in the book that one reviewer gives. I used the search function to find the quotes. For example:

"Jews did not have deep and genuine roots in German culture." (p. 117)
So German Jews were simply not intergrated and German enough?

or

"the visibility of Jewish Sucess in certin areas had far-reachcing implications. New retail outlets, large department stores, were largely in the hands of Jews, and such stores were often bitterly resented by small shopkeeperes who could not complete with the reduced prices and variety of goods offered in the new stores."
(p. 115)

Granted, envy was a factor in anti-semetism, but to say this was a major aspect is false and ignores the other realities of anti-semetisml.

Over all, I'm not impressed by what I've read, and it comes off as trying to blame at least partially the evils done against Jews on the Jews themselves.

By the way, I highly recommend the book "The new anti-semetism" by Phyllis Chestler. It's a very good read and covers much of the history of both old and new anti-semetism.

(A note: what I mean is, the point you are making is that the Jews are somewhat to blame, but the reasoning in ET is weak, and unless Jews were cooking non-Jews in ovens, locking them in camps, murdering them or doing experiments on them to say that Jews are even partialy to blame because they were successful is vile.)

Also, I've read some of your blog, both the old and new one, and their vomit Inducing.

I read the section. So, some Jew were a majority of the secret police? Why would that be a legitimate basis for discriminating and the progroms against Jews? When I said the arguments were weak, this wasn't just "skipping through" reviews as you say, but looking at the reviews, both negative and positive and reading excerpts. Could you please link to the passage in the book that talks about Jews locking up non-jews? (It's not in the section you mention).

As for my vomit "insult" (it wasn't it's hyperbole, and it's exaggeration of the truth, what you write makes me feel sick.), I think people can read what you wrote (or positively quote) and decide for themselves.

From an article on your blog:

"Hitler is the reason why race realism, eugenics, immigration control, and nationalism have been discredited in the eyes of whites the world over."

In other words, Eugenics (breeding of humans to remove undesirable traits, usually of non-whites) and race realism (I.e. racist belief in inferiority/superiority of certain races) aren't bad things).The article talks about how it's wrong to blame Hitler for the wrong things he did.

Do you believe non-whites are inferior in intelligence or morals to whites?

You post an article that calls Adolf Hilter "uncle Adolf", and says he is the "greatest man of our era".

On your old blog you quote:

"Have you ever wondered how similar Judaism and Islam are? They are almost mirror images of each other, except one is particularist and the other is universalist. —Euromike"

On the term ZOG (zionist Occupied goverment), a Conspiracy theory based on the idea of Jews running the world goverments:

"My mind changed [about using the term ZOG] when I realized that the Jews not only control the MSM but that they represent the most powerful lobby in American politics. No neo-cons, no Iraq war. "

Ah, those darn Jews run the media, and that's why their criticized one-sidedly, and the evil in the Muslim nations get white-washed. They run the US, and that's why the president's been throwing Isreal under the bus.

This is for the other posters to see just how vile you really are.

"You are quoting many sentences from my blogs, some of which I didn't write (those blogs are mostly a collection of articles I’ve read in the internet)."
Of course this is true, but if you weren't sympathetic to these ideas, why post them on the blog without comment, or criticizing the parts I mentioned? Saying that it is "merely a collection" makes you look extremely dishonest.

Do you mean you don't believe Hitler was the "Greatest man" or that he was a person who is unjustly blamed? If so, then why did you post such things on your blog without saying you disagree with those points?

"Which book?"
Sorry, I meant specifically Esau's Tears

"I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, as you can see in my recent article "
Just because you don't believe in those consperecy theories doesn't mean you don't believe in ZOG. Also, those who beleive in conspiracy theories of course don't think of them as such, and the article doesn't mention ZOG. However, the articles you write/post sympathetically that I quote above seems to indicate you do. This comes off as being an attempt at slight-of-hand.

Perhaps I'm mistaken. Do you believe that Jews control the media and US policy?

"“ZOG” is a pretty handy term that has become vernacular in nationalist blog discussions."

Handy because it represents an idea that Jews control the media and US policy, an idea is false. Why would using a term that represents a false (and frankly racist) idea be "handy"?

Of course non-White nationalists don't know the term, (I didn't, but noticed it on your blog and looked it up) and perhaps what you mean is you don't like to use it around people who might look it up and see what that means.

Or how about your OWN words on "the Jewish question":

http://chechar.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/just-a-comment/

"Eustace Mullins pointed out that the Byzantine Empire lasted 1,000 years, and the Jews never took over.

How? Simple: They kept them out of banking, education and government (we could do the same, but I’d add the media)."

In other words, keep the Jews "in their place" and nothing bad will happen. This of course doesn't answer why Jews in particular need to have this happen, and why Jews in a place of power is somehow a threat, and not say, white people?

"So, if Jews are allowed to, for instance, practice dentistry, have a shoe store, practice radiology, other occupations where they’ll be denied excess, unchecked influence, they can live a nice life, while being prevented from destroying us Europeans of Christian Heritage."

@Mason aka Foolste 41:

Before you bitch and cry about how you couldn't manage to convince me of your points and how you had to resort to such a cheap tactic like posting my responses to you here to get more support and to smear me on some way, answer your own challenge first:

"Look, the deal was this (and was always this): I show cases of muslim
violence in the last 10 years, and you show cases of non-muslim
violence in the last 10 years and we see which is bigger."

American = non-Musim
War = violence
Civilian death toll = 100,000 (estimated)

Don't change the goalpost, just answer.

Also, you wanted more genocidal comments from your freedom-loving JW community? Just on this thread:

“i for one, would not mind to see you muslimes have 365 nakbas with plenty of reasons given to 'celebrate' each one.”

@rest: most of the responses are "Turks did this & Turks did that". So what's your reasoning here, that because the Ottomans were a bunch of assholes Israel should occupy and oppress Palestinians? Stick to the topic, or need I remind you of the Native Americans, the Vietnamese, the Witch Hunts, the oppression of the Blacks, the Iraqis, or the Afghanis? With that reasoning, you also don't have a right to judge anything. Quite the example for the quote in the Bible about removing the log from your eye before removing the speck on other's.

@ Mr Sanity

You seem to be the only reasonable guy in this circus, so I'll debate with you alone.

“The UN is under a lot of pressure from the OIC of whom only Egypt recognises Israel, and even then for how much longer is uncertain”
The same could be said of the US’ influence over the UN, which far outweighs that of the OIC or another Islamic organization. And come on, this is just a conspiracy theory that Muslims have somehow taken over the UN. And are you seriously telling me that the UN, the EU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, several Israeli based NGOs such as B’Tsalem and Jewish Voice for Peace, and several other individuals and academics ALL have it in for Israel? That there is a world-wide conspiracy against Israel driven by Islam, that ALL these entities are somehow bribed by Hamas? Isn’t it more likely that Israel is actually guilty of various crimes against humanity and these organizations are merely reporting and speaking out against them?

“I am pointing out that there is a lot of fingerpointing and loud voices from islamic countries holding Israel to account for activities that pale in comparison to their own.”
Of course, many Islamic countries have as bad or worse regimes in place. But we’re not debating this, you don’t have to convince me and I don’t have to convince you. But this ultimately does not absolve Israel of any responsibility.

"Any "human rights violations" are no worse than any in the UK, the US, Germany etc."
Last I checked the US, the UK, and Germany are not illegally occupying another state (except for US occupation of Iraq) or imposing an illegal blockade. Just yesterday 12 protestors were killed by Israel, do the US, the UK, or Germany do that?

“The "intentional targetting of civilians" was the primary point of the entire report, so he withdrew the main criticism.”
True, but there are three points on this: 1- He has not withdrawn the civilian death tolls & destruction caused by Israel, which is the actual crime. 2- He was one out of 4 authors, 3 of which have stood by their report in its entirety. 3- The reasons for his withdrawal were quite clear, the pressure from Jewish organizations and from Israeli authorities.

“Unregistered palestinians are living in similar conditions to those in Israel ( I stand corrected on the Situation of registered Syrian palestinians) Those in Lebanon however, lead an utterly miserable existance.”
There are some issues with this. This doesn’t address the fact that it was Israel who made them refugees in the first place. This also doesn’t take into account that refugees in Lebanon or Syria are not citizens, while Palestinians living in Israel are citizens and therefore under the direct responsibility of Israel.

“This article may help.”
I still have some questions though: First off, the position of Arab governments on the Jews were divided. True, some oppressed them, but others protected them, so one cannot claim and Arab or Muslim war against Jews. Second, the Jews emigrated of their own free will, while the Palestinians were forced out of their property.

“The property was bought by a jewish businessman therefore he can do whatever he likes with it as long as any construction is according to code.”
The property was initially confiscated by Israel from a Palestinian family, then sold to a Jewish businessman. That’s the issue.

“Turkey is going to take some time (hopefully) to degenerate into an islamic state, but all recent changes have been aimed in that direction. The renewal of ties with Iran for example is worrying, as Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and it's influence in Turkey can only be negative under it's current regime.”
Turkey strengthening it’s ties with Iran is not a sign of turning into an Islamic state. Turkey has a very strong secular mindstate that is embedded into the population since childhood. Nothing is going to change that, even if somebody wished it. Nations don’t go backwards, they go forwards. Iran is a neighbouring state in Turkey with a lot of historical ties. Also, the same can be said of Israel about indulging in state terrorism. The flotilla incident is one example, where 9 Turkish citizens died. You can’t expect relations between Israel and Turkey to not sour after that.

“The PKK may well be a despicable organisation, but their justifications are the same as hamas and hezbollah.”
With one very important distinction: we are not occupying Kurdish lands. They threaten the sovereignty of the Turkish state set under internationally recognized borders. The lands they want from Turkey can fit 5 Israels in them. Also, not saying the situation of the Kurds in Turkey are any better, but at least Turkey has acknowledged the unfair treatment and are working towards closing the gap between the Eastern & Western parts. It won’t happen overnight, but they are trying.

“whilst not entirely untrue is also very misleading, as Israel claims a tiny portion of the world, whilst if Islamic claims were solely for the arabian peninsula as muslim land then I would have no arguments”
This is also misleading. If you read statements from most terrorists, they never made any such claim to the whole world. Their justifications are Israeli & US aggression towards the Middle East, which they see as unjust, and they see it is as their religious duty to fight back. Both Mechaal (leader of Hamas) and Bin Laden have said that once the situation in Palestine is resolved, they will end their terrorism. Of course, terrorism is never justified, but this is the reality.

“but they conquered vast tracts of the world through unprovoked warfare and killed or displaced huge numbers of the previous inhabitants until they hit fierce resistance in southern europe and still lay claim to the whole planet.”
This is all debatable and one-sided arguments, but it’s a very long topic and frankly I cannot juggle various topics at once. Let’s save it for another day, and for now I will not refute it.

Safak: I'm not smearing you, that's a lie. You said I could quote our conversation. You did fail to answer my questions, and you were in fact the one to block me.

And I was glad to honor our agreement, but it is you that is cheating. You well know I said that piling all non-muslim violence against Muslim violence would be unfair, but you have ignored this. You also contenue to ignore the obvious difference between war and terrorism (targeting civilians or not) and how I clarified that I meant terrorism specifically (no clarifying is not "moving goalposts"). You also again fail to answer my questions about how you are fairly applying the deaths in Iraq, and what religion you are crediting those kills.

You can't block me from here, so I suggest you answer my question honestly or drop it, because unless you do either I'm not going to let this go.

"Also, you wanted more genocidal comments from your freedom-loving JW community? "
So, that's what? Two now?

Also, your claim about the ultimate goal of terrorist groups being limited is false on the very face of it.

I have already talked with you about the genocidal goal of HAMAS to eradicate Isreal. Does HAMAS not count as a significant terrorist group considering the numbers of followers it has? Dud you forget the cases of genocide I pointed out, and how I demonstrated that they are STILL dedicated to that goal?

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world...Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]?"
-The Ayatollah Khomeini

“I was ordered to fight people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.” -Osama bin Laden, November 2001

"Muslims always look to live under Islamic Shariah not under the American constitution.
I am one of them, trust me. I know them.
I was very involved with my Muslim community for the first 10 years here in the United States.
I heard them a million times saying that we are here to eventually replace the American Constitution with Islamic Shariah." -Wafa Sultan

"We want to inform Bush and our rivals about our real intentions. We will establish Islamic rule from Alaska and Chile to South Africa, and from Japan to Russia. Beware, we are coming."
-Ibrahim Al-Maqdasi, on Al Jazeera

"The liberation of Jerusalem is the preface for liberating the world and establishing the state of justice and values on earth."
- Hizbullah Official

“Israel will disappear and after it the US.”
-Mahmoud az-Zahar

and on and on...
http://www.mypracticalphilosophy.com/jihadpages/goal.htm

What was that again?

@Mason aka Foolste 41:

Before you bitch and cry about how you couldn't manage to convince me of your points and how you had to resort to such a cheap tactic like posting my responses to you here to get more support and to smear me on some way, answer your own challenge first:

"Look, the deal was this (and was always this): I show cases of muslim
violence in the last 10 years, and you show cases of non-muslim
violence in the last 10 years and we see which is bigger."

American = non-Musim
War = violence
Civilian death toll = 100,000 (estimated)

Don't change the goalpost, just answer.

Also, you wanted more genocidal comments from your freedom-loving JW community? Just on this thread:

“i for one, would not mind to see you muslimes have 365 nakbas with plenty of reasons given to 'celebrate' each one.”

@rest: most of the responses are "Turks did this & Turks did that". So what's your reasoning here, that because the Ottomans were a bunch of assholes Israel should occupy and oppress Palestinians? Stick to the topic, or need I remind you of the Native Americans, the Vietnamese, the Witch Hunts, the oppression of the Blacks, the Iraqis, or the Afghanis? With that reasoning, you also don't have a right to judge anything. Quite the example for the quote in the Bible about removing the log from your eye before removing the speck on other's.

@ Mr Sanity

You seem to be the only reasonable guy in this circus, so I'll debate with you alone.

“The UN is under a lot of pressure from the OIC of whom only Egypt recognises Israel, and even then for how much longer is uncertain”
The same could be said of the US’ influence over the UN, which far outweighs that of the OIC or another Islamic organization. And come on, this is just a conspiracy theory that Muslims have somehow taken over the UN. And are you seriously telling me that the UN, the EU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, several Israeli based NGOs such as B’Tsalem and Jewish Voice for Peace, and several other individuals and academics ALL have it in for Israel? That there is a world-wide conspiracy against Israel driven by Islam, that ALL these entities are somehow bribed by Hamas? Isn’t it more likely that Israel is actually guilty of various crimes against humanity and these organizations are merely reporting and speaking out against them?

“I am pointing out that there is a lot of fingerpointing and loud voices from islamic countries holding Israel to account for activities that pale in comparison to their own.”
Of course, many Islamic countries have as bad or worse regimes in place. But we’re not debating this, you don’t have to convince me and I don’t have to convince you. But this ultimately does not absolve Israel of any responsibility.

"Any "human rights violations" are no worse than any in the UK, the US, Germany etc."
Last I checked the US, the UK, and Germany are not illegally occupying another state (except for US occupation of Iraq) or imposing an illegal blockade. Just yesterday 12 protestors were killed by Israel, do the US, the UK, or Germany do that?

“The "intentional targetting of civilians" was the primary point of the entire report, so he withdrew the main criticism.”
True, but there are three points on this: 1- He has not withdrawn the civilian death tolls & destruction caused by Israel, which is the actual crime. 2- He was one out of 4 authors, 3 of which have stood by their report in its entirety. 3- The reasons for his withdrawal were quite clear, the pressure from Jewish organizations and from Israeli authorities.

“Unregistered palestinians are living in similar conditions to those in Israel ( I stand corrected on the Situation of registered Syrian palestinians) Those in Lebanon however, lead an utterly miserable existance.”
There are some issues with this. This doesn’t address the fact that it was Israel who made them refugees in the first place. This also doesn’t take into account that refugees in Lebanon or Syria are not citizens, while Palestinians living in Israel are citizens and therefore under the direct responsibility of Israel.

“This article may help.”
I still have some questions though: First off, the position of Arab governments on the Jews were divided. True, some oppressed them, but others protected them, so one cannot claim and Arab or Muslim war against Jews. Second, the Jews emigrated of their own free will, while the Palestinians were forced out of their property.

“The property was bought by a jewish businessman therefore he can do whatever he likes with it as long as any construction is according to code.”
The property was initially confiscated by Israel from a Palestinian family, then sold to a Jewish businessman. That’s the issue.

“Turkey is going to take some time (hopefully) to degenerate into an islamic state, but all recent changes have been aimed in that direction. The renewal of ties with Iran for example is worrying, as Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and it's influence in Turkey can only be negative under it's current regime.”
Turkey strengthening it’s ties with Iran is not a sign of turning into an Islamic state. Turkey has a very strong secular mindstate that is embedded into the population since childhood. Nothing is going to change that, even if somebody wished it. Nations don’t go backwards, they go forwards. Iran is a neighbouring state in Turkey with a lot of historical ties. Also, the same can be said of Israel about indulging in state terrorism. The flotilla incident is one example, where 9 Turkish citizens died. You can’t expect relations between Israel and Turkey to not sour after that.

“The PKK may well be a despicable organisation, but their justifications are the same as hamas and hezbollah.”
With one very important distinction: we are not occupying Kurdish lands. They threaten the sovereignty of the Turkish state set under internationally recognized borders. The lands they want from Turkey can fit 5 Israels in them. Also, not saying the situation of the Kurds in Turkey are any better, but at least Turkey has acknowledged the unfair treatment and are working towards closing the gap between the Eastern & Western parts. It won’t happen overnight, but they are trying.

“whilst not entirely untrue is also very misleading, as Israel claims a tiny portion of the world, whilst if Islamic claims were solely for the arabian peninsula as muslim land then I would have no arguments”
This is also misleading. If you read statements from most terrorists, they never made any such claim to the whole world. Their justifications are Israeli & US aggression towards the Middle East, which they see as unjust, and they see it is as their religious duty to fight back. Both Mechaal (leader of Hamas) and Bin Laden have said that once the situation in Palestine is resolved, they will end their terrorism. Of course, terrorism is never justified, but this is the reality.

“but they conquered vast tracts of the world through unprovoked warfare and killed or displaced huge numbers of the previous inhabitants until they hit fierce resistance in southern europe and still lay claim to the whole planet.”
This is all debatable and one-sided arguments, but it’s a very long topic and frankly I cannot juggle various topics at once. Let’s save it for another day, and for now I will not refute it.

I'm going to be generous and assume that was an accident. Please see my posts above (this is just so you don't miss it)

"True, some oppressed them, but others protected them, so one cannot claim and Arab or Muslim war against Jews. Second, the Jews emigrated of their own free will, while the Palestinians were forced out of their property."
This is another lie on both counts. Isreal tried to convince the Arabs to stay, but many left to escape the coming war with the promise of having more lands once the Jews were wiped out.

Jews were in fact ejected out of Arab lands, and they did not go of their own free will as you claim.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Refugees.asp#Whathap

You pretend to have the moral high ground but this is the third time you've lied (misrepresenting facts of how our conversation ended is lying) in this topic alone, and yet you are yet to admit to being dishonest. (and before you claim ignorance, I've already pointed out the facts about HAMAS and the refugees before)

You know what? This is pointless. I am dropping it, not because you're right, but because you refuse to acknowledge the GREAT difference between terrorism and war, and why one should be included and the other not. You also keep repeating the same things over and over without answering any of my questions. It's extremely tiresome.

Also, clarification is not moving the goal post. I had NEVER intended for war to be included, and I clarified that. But instead of moving on you kept repeating the same things over and over again about the dead in the Iraq war, despite my objections which you ignore. (For example, "autoconverting" all the Muslims, Buddists and Atheists to Chrsitianity in the SECULAR US army because of statements that Bush (and only Bush) made) that wern't actually a part of US policy as a whole)

I already pointed out how Islamic terrorist groups are just that, ISLAMIC from top to bottom and having one person at the top of a secular group made up of a great many number of religions doesn't make it Christian. Of course, you still refuse to even acknowledge this, and so this is nothing more than farce.

You still think that Muslims only commit violence because of what non-Muslims do (which conterdicts Islamic history, since mohammad himself engaged in non-defensive war/raids, and the history of Islamic aggression before the US even existed.

"Several have come up and said they will end their resistance once Palestine is liberated and US influence over the region ended."
Again, either you lied before when you said you no longer trust HAMAS' call to peace when I pointed out their dedication to genocide against Israel in our e-mail (and above) or you have some new evidence to change your mind that you are not mentioning. At any rate, I suggest you take a look at my post above with the quotes from Islamic groups and reevaluate whether this statement is true.

@Mason:

Quotes from Bin Laden:

Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.

In today's wars, there are no morals. We believe the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets.

I'm fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans.

I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.

We say our terror against America is blessed terror in order to put an end to suppression, in order for the United States to stop its support to Israel.

If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.

Just like you kill us, we will kill you.

This war in Iraq makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction, such as Halliburton and its sister companies. . . It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed: They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes. President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. . . all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. God willing, we will persist in fighting them. . .

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security.

Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example.

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same, and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children.

We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance that it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings.

Ahmedinejad:

If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel? Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?

If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.

There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.

I want to tell them (western countries) just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime (in Israel) soon be wiped out

My letter [Ahmadinejad's "letter to the American people"] had different aims and goals. Many American citizens in the messages and letters they sent requested that I bring up my points of view directly. Many of them said that the government of America doesn't let them receive my point of view in its entirety and without distortions. So I talked to them directly. The behavior of the American government has severely damaged the position of the United States. No country in the world looks upon America as a friend. When the U.S. is mentioned, people are reminded of war, aggression and bloodshed, and that's not a good thing. In other words, the American people are paying for something they don't believe in.

Hassan Nasrallah:

It is the responsibility of people to look for right and truth. As they hear me now, they should not accept everything I say. Even the masses of Hezbollah and the resistance should not do so....Forget what my faith is and what yours is. Hear what I say and see what I do and hear what others say and see what they do, and then decide.

Why do the Israelis resort to concealing the truth on the other side? Why? Do they do that only because they accuse the media outlets of setting the coordinates? This is nonsense. We have the coordinates of these Israeli settlements and military positions in the north, centre, or in any part of occupied Palestine. We do not need anybody to give us information, images, or the like. In that case, they want to conceal the true scene of the war on the other side because it will have definite impact on the Israeli street and media and the morale of the Israelis.

Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: 'Death to Israel.'"

As we see, this is an illegal state; it is a cancerous entity and the root of all the crises and wars and cannot be a factor in bringing about a true and just peace in this region. Therefore, we cannot acknowledge the existence of a state called Israel, not even far in the future, as some people have tried to suggest. Time does not cancel the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.

Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute [...] Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.

"What do the people who worked in those two [World Trade Center] towers, along with thousands of employees, women and men, have to do with war that is taking place in the Middle East? Or the war that Mr. George Bush may wage on people in the Islamic world?" he asked me. "Therefore we condemned this act — and any similar act we condemn.

Khalid Mashal:

As a Palestinian today I speak of a Palestinian and Arab demand for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land. This is a reality, but I won't deal with it in terms of recognising or admitting it

Israel is there, it is part of the United Nations and we do not deny its existence. But we still have rights and land there which have been usurped and until these matters are dealt with we will withhold our recognition.

(Hamas) cannot oppose the unified Arab stance expressed in the resolution passed by the Arab League summit. That resolution, approved in Beirut, speaks of recognizing Israel and normalizing relations with it in exchange or a full withdrawal and a solution to the refugee problem.

When Israel says that it will recognise Palestinian rights and will withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and grant the right of return, stop settlements and recognise the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination - only then will Hamas be ready to take a serious step.

I say that what Israel did to the Palestinian people is many times worse than what Nazism did to the Jews, and there is exaggeration, which has become obsolete, regarding the issue of the Holocaust. We do not deny the facts, but we will not give in to extortion by exaggeration.

Now before you claim once again that I'm buying into propaganda, let me remind you that I myself do not agree with most of these statements, especially those denying Israel's right to exist or the Holocaust or those calling for terrorism. This is just to show you that what is being said is ONLY against Israel and the US, and in some cases the UK. And the reasons are quite clear, US influence over the region and their invasion of Iraq, and Israeli occupation of Palestine and the treatment of Palestinians. These are the reasons for terrorism, and many have stated that they will stop their terrorism once the issues are resolved. Painting this as a holy war or as a world conquest is absolutely rubbish and does nothing but delay any real resolution to peace by eliminating all responsibilities Israel or the US may have.

" I am dropping it, not because you're right, but because you refuse to acknowledge the GREAT difference between terrorism and war, and why one should be included and the other not."

Listen, unless the US forces went to Iraq to hand out pancakes and host birthday parties, they are included in your "violence" list. Your challenge was of "violence", and go and ask the Iraqis if they think there's a difference between terrorism and war. Are you saying a war that caused 100,000 civilians, 33 times more than the casualties of 9/11, is ok but terrorism that results from it is not?

"I had NEVER intended for war to be included, and I clarified that."

Of course not, because you don't think that a war that cost 100,000 civilians was wrong at all... And you deliberately want to exclude ANYTHING that might give you a disadvantage.

And you're being a hypocrite by saying Muslims were in the US army during the Iraqi war. If that's true, then wouldn't that mean that Muslims supported the US during those days and therefore the issue is not really with Islam?

"I already pointed out how Islamic terrorist groups are just that, ISLAMIC from top to bottom and having one person at the top of a secular group made up of a great many number of religions doesn't make it Christian. Of course, you still refuse to even acknowledge this, and so this is nothing more than farce. "

This is you being completely dishonest by adding yet more conditions to your "challenge". First it was non-Muslim violence, then it was non-Muslim terrorism, now it's Christian or Jewish terrorism. Can you please admit that the TOTAL number of civilians killed by Islamic terrorism nowhere near equals that killed by the US alone during the Iraqi invasion? Be honest for once during this stupid debate!

"which conterdicts Islamic history, since mohammad himself engaged in non-defensive war/raids, and the history of Islamic aggression before the US even existed."

This is your one-sided and distorted view of history. But again, I will not debate it now because I'm not going to go into world history. Believe what you will...

"Again, either you lied before when you said you no longer trust HAMAS' call to peace when I pointed out their dedication to genocide against Israel in our e-mail (and above) or you have some new evidence to change your mind that you are not mentioning."

You didn't point out jack to me, I said I didn't trust Hamas (not no longer trusted, as I did not trust them before) because they supported Bin Laden. That was a source I posted to you. Don't take credit for what you couldn't do.

Look, YOU are the one being dishonest by changing the conditions of your points everytime I prove you wrong. You have done that throughout the debate we had, you make one stupid claim, I give you proof to refute you, then you go "yeah but is it more than this or is it more than that". I've proven you wrong on so many occasions that the list would be too long to write here and you know it. Yet you kept changing the goalposts and your arguments dishonestly, and since I got fed up and blocked you, you resort to carrying over the argument here and posting it like some child calling for his friends to come beat up the guy who insulted him. I told you before, our debate is OVER so long as you don't answer your challenge. Until then, don't bother making any points about anything else.

And Mason, while we're on the topic, you agree that there is at least one genocidal maniac here on this very thread. So as a lover of peace and equality as you claim to be, please go ahead and condemn him and refute him. While you're at it, ask your fellow JW collaboraters to do the same.

@Mason:

One more thing Mason, I at least acknowledge Israel's right to exist and I have said I would defend that right fiercely if somebody questioned it. I also condemned Hamas and others and told you that they are a terrorist organization. You, on the other hand, downplay everything Israel has done and white-wash all their crimes, not even admit a single one of their faults, and you treat the US invasion of Iraq like its not relevant or that it had absolutely no impact on the world. All you want to do is smear Islam, win arguments over me, and feed your huge ego despite the frequency of how often you were actually proven wrong. If you really wanted to have an honest debate with the hope of understanding something about the issue, you wouldn't keep insisting on fixing conditions to some ridiculous challenge to make it absolutely impossible for you to lose, a challenge which I told you doesn't prove anything because even if a single act of violence was committed in the name of religion then that religion is susceptible to violence. But you just want to smear Islam and blame it for everything without an iota of an attempt to see things in a different perspective.

So now I'll use your tactics against you. You issued the challenge yourself, don't back down from your word and prove to me that civilian casualties resulting from Islamic terrorism in the past 10 years outweighs those from a single, non-Muslim entity: the US invasion of Iraq. If you do, although I highly doubt it, know that I will add casualties caused by Israel to that list too. And I will keep going on to other non-Muslim acts of violence too. Since the US and Israel has been quite busy these past 10 years, I'm sure I'll find plenty of incidents. So you better get going on your count, you've got a loong way to reach my friend...

For those who haven't yet read it - Hamas' statement of purpose

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1609.htm#_ednref5

Excerpt:

The Islamic Resistance Movement maintains that the land of Palestine is Waqf land given as endowment for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection...
This is the legal status of the land of Palestine according to Islamic law.

'** In this respect, it is like any other land that the Muslims have conquered by force** [nota bene - dda} because the Muslims consecrated it at the time of the conquest as religious endowment for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection."

In other words: Hamas holds that *any part of the planet that Muslims have ever invaded and stolen* is Islamic land forever and must be regained by Muslims.

That means, for example, all of Spain and Portugal, Malta, Sicily, Croatia, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, all of Greece, a large swathe of Hungary and Romania, a huge chunk of southern Russia, and most of India; and the little country of Timor Lorosae which only recently got out from under Muslim Indonesia (which had previously invaded it, and decimated the population).

Israel is merely the aperitif or hors d'oeuvre in a dreamed-of reconquista...a reconquista not of lands ancestral to Arab Muslims, rather, of lands that Muslims (Arabs, and non-Arabs absorbed into the Arab Imperial Religion or the grand Arab Imperial Project, view, Total World Domination) invaded and stole from the original inhabitants and then lost when those original inhabitants somehow managed to shake off the Muslim yoke.

@dumbledoresarmy:

I assume you posted that as a reply to me.

"In other words: Hamas holds that *any part of the planet that Muslims have ever invaded and stolen* is Islamic land forever and must be regained by Muslims."

Is it written in their charter that their aim is global conquest? Or is this simply your inferrence, in other words, your opinion?

Another excerpt:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humane movement which respects human rights and is committed to the Islamic tolerance towards the followers of the other religions. It is hostile only to those among them who display hostility towards it or stand in its way, hampering its activities and foiling its efforts.

The point is Hamas, as despicable as they are, exist as a result of Israeli policy in the region. They are not after global conquest, have shown no indication towards a global conquest, and nothing in their charter suggests a global conquest. Their focus is on Israel & the US. Which tells me, logically, that there is a specific grievence they have with these two countries. Thus, a political motive and NOT a religious war.

There are two parallel conversations that have come to dominate this thread: Safak Ozgun's pro-Palestinian propaganda, and Chechar's advocacy of white racial politics. Ozgun's stance is standard Muslim anti-Israel propaganda, and isn't worthy of further consideration. However, although it's a bit off topic, I think Chechar's attempt to introduce race politics into the discussion warrants a further response. My apologies for its longishness.

I have reviewed Chechar's blog materials and have followed many of the links, enough to see where he is coming from. In short, he is effectively trying to insert white supremacism into the narrative, specifically genetic studies showing a systematic difference in characteristics among the various races and the implications for social policy. This is perhaps an interesting subject for those who are animated by the urge to assert the superiority of their own particular racial group, but it is out of place on this blog.

There is little doubt that there are, indeed, genetic differences that have accumulated among the various divergent races over hundreds or thousands of generations during the long sweep of history. Supremacists and eugenicists possessing the particular characteristic deemed to be superior are keen to translate this into social policy that favors themselves and the group to which they belong, to the disadvantage and detriment of those not possessing the same characteristics or belonging to their group. It has always struck me as significant that those who push the white supremacist line always seem to be white, just as those who push the black supremacist line are always black.

The problem with this is not that the studies ascribing systematic differences in racial characteristics are in error, but rather whether they should become the formal basis for enacting social policy that systematically discriminates in favor of the preferred group, and by extension against those not in the preferred group. The danger, as has been demonstrated by both Nazi and Japanese racial policies, is that this can, indeed has, lead to crude and cruel programs such as the the Nazi eugenics and breeding programs, or genocide.

The issue of documented genetic differences among races has generally been swept under the rug because of its explosive social and political implications. No one, destined by accident of birth either to be among those who are deemed superior or those deemed inferior, is exempt from this discussion. But the manner in which it is currently framed, in terms of which most of humanity falls into the disadvantaged category, no matter which characteristic is deemed to be superior, is guaranteed to generate pushback.

The solution is not to ignore the issue, but neither is it to embrace those who would use these studies as a basis for enacting policies that would exacerbate racial tensions in the service of asserting superiority. Unless civilization completely collapses, the physical isolation that led to the separation of the races over tens of thousands of years and the slow development of genetic differences is a thing of the past. With time the systematic differences among races will gradually disappear. In the meantime, I imagine there will be more sophisticated methods developed, not involving grossly inhumane measures such as Nazi-style neutering of mental deficients or running breeding programs, that will allow suppression of genetic defects or the enhancement of selected capabilities. Indeed, such capabilities are within reach now, allowing the possibility of completely leapfrogging the troublesome issue of "race" in discussions of social policy. This will be controversial, to be sure, but it will redirect the discussion away from the otherwise insoluble issue of "race."

In short, Chechar, there is no long term future in the agenda you have recently become enamored with. "Racial superiority" as a concept is outdated. I would urge you to think deeper about it in terms of more modern concepts that allow bypassing its inevitable destructive thrust.

@Safak:

What? How do those quotes show it is only against the US/Isreal? I have quoted from the same people saying the opposite, that the goal is world conquest. Nowhere in those quotes does it say that one of those people will stop at defeating the US/Isreal. (“serious steps” does not clarify what those “serious steps” are towards).

“Of course not, because you don't think that a war that cost 100,000 civilians was wrong at all... And you deliberately want to exclude ANYTHING that might give you a disadvantage.”

Wrong. I said before that I was unsure whether the war was wrong or right. Just because I don't think it's right to include in the comparison (for the reasons I gave that you continue to ignore) doesn't mean I think the war was right. You're trying to imply that I approve of civilians deaths is just another way to smear me and distract.

“And you're being a hypocrite by saying Muslims were in the US army during the Iraqi war. If that's true, then wouldn't that mean that Muslims supported the US during those days and therefore the issue is not really with Islam?”

Ha ha ha ha. No. Nice try. Just because SOME muslims are in the US military doesn't mean they automaticly represent true Islam, or counter the many more muslims killing and subjegating non-muslims. Logic fail. Also, this is pretty hypocritical considering you are saying that the kills by the US can be claimed as Christian since Bush was making Chrisitan claims (and no one else, and despite the fact that there is a mix of religions and non-religion in the US military.)

“You didn't point out jack to me, I said I didn't trust Hamas (not no longer trusted, as I did not trust them before) because they supported Bin Laden. That was a source I posted to you. Don't take credit for what you couldn't do.”
Again, this is untrue. At the beginning of our exchange you said that Isreal should try making peace with HAMAS (thus, HAMAS should be trusted), despite the genocidal charter which you said they didn't follow anymore. You repeated this point several times. I pointed out how HAMAS is STILL actively promoting and acting on genocide. That is when you finally said HAMAS is not to be trusted.

“And Mason, while we're on the topic, you agree that there is at least one genocidal maniac here on this very thread. So as a lover of peace and equality as you claim to be, please go ahead and condemn him and refute him. While you're at it, ask your fellow JW collaboraters to do the same.”

I hereby comdemn all notions of mistreating, denying rights of muslims based on their religion. I also refute any ideas of nuking mecca. Other people are free to condemn him as they wish. Now then, would you care to be so good as to refute Islamic violence by muslims, and state that violence by muslims is worse than the acts that they respond to (mocking cartoons and burning korans) as you refused to do before?

“This is your one-sided and distorted view of history. But again, I will not debate it now because I'm not going to go into world history. Believe what you will...”

That's not a refutal. Please see http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/islam_and_violence.html (Yes, it's “biased” but please refute the actual actions described in the article, which quotes the hadiths, such as the unprovoked attack of Kyahbar. )

As for the rest about the challenge, I'm ignoring since you still stubbornly cling to the idea that my “clearifications” is “goalpost moving”. If you really believed that Muslims do not target civilians more often than non-muslims you'd be willing to accept my clarified challenge, but you aparently do not.

And your accusations about me being dishonest is extremely laughable considering how many false statements you made here alone, and how many times you stated and then repeated things I supposedly said, but actually said the OPPOSITE of, and you never acknowledged your wrong, or apologized, even after I pointed to when I said the opposite.

“which I told you doesn't prove anything because even if a single act of violence was committed in the name of religion then that religion is susceptible to violence.”
I assume you meant “isn't susceptible”. The challenge isn't about a single act of violence, but comparing a total number. I said a number of times that one act of violence does not mean the whole religion should be blamed for it, so once again is an example of you claiming I said the OPPOSITE of what I said.

Also, you state that even if we did the challenge and you were proven wrong, you'd ignore it? Why should I be willing to do the work then?

Oh, and you might find this article interesting.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/16/the-myth-of-
israels-pre-1967-borders/

@Chechar: You are right, the things I quoted were off-topic, but was a response your reply to my off-hand comment about "vomit enducing", and it spiraled from there.

However, it wasn't "cherry-picking". I quoted large blocks, and in fact, I encourage everyone to go to your blog and do searches for the quoted text. You should be able to show context that shows I was mistaken in my quotes.

Yes, I did keyword searches, though partially from things I found naterualy on the site (How could I know to search for ZOG if I'd never heard the term before I read your blog?) and I wanted to see other instances.
Like I said, what you post on your blog, including quotes (that you do not quote to repute) naterualy reflects your own views, as how when Mr. Spencer posts articles here by other authors. If Mr. Spencer posted an article here in it's entirety by say David Duke (without quoting it to refute it) he would be rightly critisized as supporting a vile person. To say it's "just a collection" is misleading.

Also, I never said anything about the Proticals of Zion. You also never explained how a racist term like "ZOG" is "handy".

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/20109

http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/repackaging.html

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/27550

Thursday, 13 May 2010
Rare Color Footage of Israel, 1946-49

'This is absolutely amazing COLOR footage of Israel right before and right after independence. It was recently discovered in a private home in Boston.'

@Foolster 41:

Whatever, just admit that the civilian casualties resulting from US invasion of Iraq far, far exceeds that of Islamic terrorism. Then we'll discuss what you want to discuss.

Also, here's another genocider from your JW community:

"I'll tell you what, savage. What a pity the US isn't as demonic as what you say it is. Then your evil death cult would have been destroyed by the end of 2001."

This happens everytime I post something here. How much longer are you going to lie to me by saying there is no such thing on JW or that it's limited to one or two people?

And just for fun, I'll reply to you:

"You're trying to imply that I approve of civilians deaths is just another way to smear me and distract. "

No, I'm implying that you conveniently ignore the civilians killed by Israel & US in various wars, which resulted in terrorist groups dedicated to destroying them. You either can't see this reality, or want to deliberately ignore it to trash Islam or to distract the issues to free the US and Israel of any sort of blame.

"I have quoted from the same people saying the opposite, that the goal is world conquest. Nowhere in those quotes does it say that one of those people will stop at defeating the US/Isreal. (“serious steps” does not clarify what those “serious steps” are towards)"

What the hell, why do Muslim groups have to be absolutely perfect?? Just because they DIDN'T say they were going to conquer the world, that's reason enough for you to say they would??? Maybe they didn't think there would be a moron emerging from the US somewhere who would imply that they're going to conquer the world because they DID NOT say they wouldn't...

And let's take a look at your quotes: Khomeini (just one leader where I'll agree with you), Wafa Sultan (a woman who makes her living from bashing Islam and doesn't represent terrorist groups anyway, so I don't know what the relevance is), a Hizbollah official (I laughed at that one... Does this Hizbollah official have a name at least?), Ibrahim Al-Masdaqi (don't even know who this is). Once again, a huge difference in sources as I'm giving you statements from the terrorist leaders themselves and you'r giving me mostly random people, some of whom don't even have names... I warned you about bogus sources a million times before, you seem to not get it.

"Just because SOME muslims are in the US military doesn't mean they automaticly represent true Islam, or counter the many more muslims killing and subjegating non-muslims."

That is completely a lie and you know it. I have proven to you, and you have accepted it, that terrorism is limited to just about 0.07% of the entire Muslim population in our previous debate, and that was with very exaggerated numbers. That everything you accepted before magically went out the other ear just tell me that your intentions are just to smear Islam for no logical reason.

"I pointed out how HAMAS is STILL actively promoting and acting on genocide. That is when you finally said HAMAS is not to be trusted."

Listen, I don't know how big your ego really is, but please don't make me laugh with your lies because it's pathetic. Here's my message in full:

{
I'll say it right now, I apologise if I seemed like I was defending Hamas. After the below statement, they've lost any claim to a "resistance" movement:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jek0nDAwtsGeZzqSEa3OAu3n0kjA?docId=CNG.b74138877e2c6db836a76c96669b7602.7b1

Israel's status as an occupier is not affected by this at all, but now I agree that Hamas should not be negotiated with but completely wiped out. Palestinians deserve a proper representative of their struggle, it is not Hamas.
}

That was from MY OWN source, not yours and you had absolutely nothing to do with this. I must have done a real good job during our debate for you to cling to this as your only accomplishment, even though it most certainly was now.

"Now then, would you care to be so good as to refute Islamic violence by muslims, and state that violence by muslims is worse than the acts that they respond to (mocking cartoons and burning korans) as you refused to do before?"

I thought I already did during the debate. Haven't I condemned all the terrorist groups already?

"If you really believed that Muslims do not target civilians more often than non-muslims you'd be willing to accept my clarified challenge, but you aparently do not. "

Gaza War in 2008, 100:1 kill ratio in Israel's favor. US invasion of Iraq, 100,000 civilians dead, a majority of whose killers have not been identified (neither US nor terrorists). And the on-going death civilians in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan... So yeah, the facts are quite clear on your question.

" I said a number of times that one act of violence does not mean the whole religion should be blamed for it, so once again is an example of you claiming I said the OPPOSITE of what I said. "

Nice hypocricy right there. And I didn't claim you said this, I said I was the one who said it. My point was that religion is a neutral medium, by itself it is neither evil nor good, and that's all religions in the world.

"Also, you state that even if we did the challenge and you were proven wrong, you'd ignore it? Why should I be willing to do the work then? "

When did I say that?? Your challenge was non-Muslim violence vs. Muslim violence. I said even if you proved there were more civilian deaths in the hands of terrorists than there were in the hands of US in ONLY the Iraq war (which is one incident), you wanted to compare total figures so I could still increase US kills as per the rules of your challenge.

"Yes, it's “biased” but please refute the actual actions described in the article, which quotes the hadiths, such as the unprovoked attack of Kyahbar."

You mean Khaybar? There is no mention of Khaybar in the article. I can't refute the entire article because it is too long and I don't have that much time. I will refute Khaybar though, and if you want something else specifically post it here:

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

The attack was most certainly not "unprovoked". The chief of Khaybar took part in the besieging of the Muslims at Medina. They also paid other tribes to go to war against the Muslims. The Muslims did try to make peace with the Jews in Khaybar, taking their leader to meet with Mohammed. On the way the Jews attempted to attack the Muslim delegates. But it's mainly because they used their wealth to incite other tribes to go to war against the Muslims and they were responsible for the attack on Muslims during the Battle of Trench. So unprovoked it is not, and that's why I advised you before to at the very least verify what you read from biased sources by also reading objective ones on the same issue. But I guess it's pointless...

"What the hell, why do Muslim groups have to be absolutely perfect??"

I never said that. I said the sources I quoted contradict your sources. I may have been mistaken in this belief, and I'll look more into this.

"Listen, I don't know how big your ego really is, but please don't make me laugh with your lies because it's pathetic."
You said Isreal should make peace withh HAMAS, and you repeated this a few times, even after I pointed out HAMAS's genocidal goal. You downplayed it.

I said:
"I have asked every time you bring this up, Why? Why do you think they should be expected to negotiate with a group that is ACTIVELY killing them, calling for their deaths and spreading blood libels against them? This is akin to saying Britain should make peace with Germany while Germany is still commit attrocities, bombing London and spreading hateful genocidal anti-british propaganda. Wouldn't that be nieve?"

And you said after that:
"From our discussion here, it's obvious that there are two major issues: Israeli occupation and oppression of Palestine & Hamas' terrorism & anti-semitism. Nobody is going to come up with a magic solution to rid the Middle East of all problems, so we have to go step by step. Hamas' terrorism will end with the end of Israeli occupation, this is the stance of Hamas right now. So the first step is to test this, let Israel negotiate. Nobody is asking for Israel to make major concessions, all that they should do right now is engage in DIALOG WITH HAMAS. Why is that so difficult to do? "
(Emphisis mine)

So even after my pointing out HAMAS's active genocide, you think Isreal should deal with HAMAS. How is that not trusting HAMAS? This exchange happened a few times where I mentoned HAMAS's active geonicidal propaganda and their active violence, and you saying the charter is "irrelevant" and that Isreal should try to make peace.

You later changed your mind, I'm willing to not take credit for it (Perhaps I was mistaken it was because of my persuasion) but it's still changing your mind, which was my main point. Thus saying you ALWAYS saw HAMAS as a group not to be trusted is undenialbly FALSE.

"I thought I already did during the debate. Haven't I condemned all the terrorist groups already?"

No you didn't. Another lie.

"And I will not ONLY because this comes in the form of an accusation, like if I don't condemn it you're going to assume I'm violent. I don't have to prove myself to you and I'm not playing these games, so please do not attempt this again."

"If you "insist" one more time about me condemning something, anything, then this conversation is over. I have already told you my condemnation goes without saying,"
(This was your last message before blocking me)

Your saying it "goes without saying" isn't actually a comdemnaton.

"Gaza War in 2008, 100:1 kill ratio in Israel's favor. US invasion of Iraq, 100,000 civilians dead, a majority of whose killers have not been identified (neither US nor terrorists). And the on-going death civilians in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan... So yeah, the facts are quite clear on your question."

Civilan deaths != Targeting Civilians. I think you know this. Please show how Isreal or the US targeted civlians and how many.

"So even after my pointing out HAMAS's active genocide, you think Isreal should deal with HAMAS. How is that not trusting HAMAS?"

Yes, I did say Israel should try to make peace because Hamas did offer it. I don't trust Hamas, never have, and Israel has no reason to trust them too. I dont trust Israel either, and Hamas has no reason to trust them either. But that doesn't mean both should not try and negotiate anyway. Hamas has offered. What has Israel done?

"Your saying it "goes without saying" isn't actually a comdemnaton."

Yes it is, because you kept asking me to condemn every violence act one after another. I condemned them in full, and I said I don't support them. But you kept asking me to condemn every violent act after that each time you posted them, and I got mad at you because you were throwing undue suspicion at me and quite frankly, you were being annoying.

"Civilan deaths != Targeting Civilians"

I think the more important issue here is whether they died in the first place or not. Whether you throw a bomb and say you meant it, or throw a bomb and say you're sorry, it makes no difference to those who died as a result and to those who lost loved ones. Why do you think Arabs are so pissed off at Israel and the US, and not Japan and Italy? You're not addressing the real issues which caused terrorism in the first place, which is an unjustified war against the Iraqis and an illegal occupation of the Palestinians.

"That is completely a lie and you know it. I have proven to you, and you have accepted it, that terrorism is limited to just about 0.07% of the entire Muslim population in our previous debate, and that was with very exaggerated numbers. That everything you accepted before magically went out the other ear just tell me that your intentions are just to smear Islam for no logical reason."

What? I merely stated a logical fact (If a small number of X are in group Y, does not mean all in X are in Y). To say this is a lie is nonsensical and unfair since both statements are not muteral exclusive. You might as well say all logicians are liars.

Your claim that somehow our agreement on the .07% and my statement makes no sense, since the number of muslims in the US army I'm sure is very small (feel free to find figures to conterdict me), and so has no bearing on whether or not over .07% Muslims are terrorists/supremists.

Also, my statement that just because SOME muslims are in the US military doesn't mean they automaticly represent true Islam is absolutely true. It is a logical construct.

Just as it would be true to say that justs because SOME muslims are terrorists or supremists doesn't mean they automaticly represent true Islam. You have to look at the religion as a whole in what they teach and how they act.

You owe me an apology.

Also, on the HAMAS thing:

I said: "No, I don't trust them because they preach genocide, and it makes noense to say Isreal should trust them."
and you responded: "Whatever your reasons, it still does not change the fact that they have made an offer. Let me ask you this then, what would make Israel end its occupation and end its blockade?" (Thus, calls of genocide does not preclude being trusted to you)

Also to show your "honesty" here are some quotes from our exchange. A number of times you claimed I made statements I did not, and in fact made the opposite. When I pointed this out, you kept repeating the same thing over and over without apologizing or admiring your mistake.

Safak on May 4th: "You said nobody in the western media is calling for genocide? Does
Debbie Schlussel count in that:"

I never said that. In fact I said the opposite:

Me on April 22: "I've VERY RARELY seen the opposite, and I think you need to back up
this claim." (Emphsis added) Meaning I did see it sometimes, but not often.

Safak on May 4th: "Also, you say Jewish extremists don't exist, or that you want more
proof? How about This:"

I never said that. In fact I said on April 30ths: "Hnmm, maybe that's because there are NO LARGE NUMBER of Jewish or
Christian terrorists!" No large number != 0.

I don't see any blanket comdemnation, which was what I was looking for. I wasn't asking for you to comden seperate acts. Could you please quote where you comdenn violence (i.e. terrorism and surpemisism) by Muslims (besides saying it "goes without saying")?

This is what I said: "The only reason I asked was only because you talked about how non-muslims must top burning korans and mocking mohammad, but you don't mention the far worse violence by muslims as a result of these things. You also equated calls of genocide and burning the
koran/mocking Mohammad as if they were both the same, and “1st admentment” issues. I'm going to have to insist."

You equated Koran burnings with genocidal propaganda:

"But the world does see public burning of the Quran and stuff like that, and not everyone condemns it but hides behind "freedom of speech". Well in that case, even the sick Hamas-run state tv has a right to freedom of speech too."

As if Genocidal propaganda and burning Korans are the same thing.

You in fact excused violence by Muslims, saying they can't be judged by "your standards":

"We have different values here, people are much more sensitive towards their religion than they are towards their state, so please don't judge us based on your own standards. You can't expect us to be the same in every way. Again, if a collective of people in the East mocked 9/11, how would US citizens react?"

"You're absolutely right. But widely publicized bigoted events such as burning the Quran and drawing cartoons of the Prophet does not help quell the anger, so that at the least should stop."

In other words, those who burn Korans or draw cartoons are partialy responsible for the violent actions of Muslims.

"I don't trust Hamas, never have,"
Saying someone should deal with another group means to trust them. Thus you think Isreal should deal with them, means they should trust them to not go back on their promises. So either, 1.)you did trust HAMAS when you said Isreal should deal with them and you are lying about always trusting them or 2.)You think Isreal should trust HAMAS, even if you did not.

(Err. sorry. I mean "lying about NEVER trusting them")

There's a lot to be said about your last posts. I'll try to be as clear as possible:

"I merely stated a logical fact (If a small number of X are in group Y, does not mean all in X are in Y). "

Let me repost your quote:

" or counter the many more muslims killing and subjegating non-muslims"

That implies that a majority of Muslims are out killing and subjugating non-Muslims. That part is a lie.

Second, as you suggested, if a small number of X are in group Y, does not mean all X are in Y. Then see if this makes sense:

Terrorist = X
Muslims = Y
X = 0.07% of Y (a very, tiny group)

Therefore, X != Y

So if Muslims are violent or terrorists based on that logic, doesn't that prove that Islam itself is not violent but a neutral religion just like all other religions?

"Also, my statement that just because SOME muslims are in the US military doesn't mean they automaticly represent true Islam is absolutely true. It is a logical construct. "

Then the reverse is also true, that just because SOME Muslims resorted to terrorism, that doesn't mean they automatically represent true Islam. In other words, Islam is not violent (nor is it peaceful, but neutral) and is not the problem. In which case, this entire debate we had for over a month is concluded.

On Hamas: Everything you quoted I said are exactly what I said, that even though I don't trust them or you don't trust them or nobody trusts them, they made an offer to Israel. Israel is hardly deserving of trust themselves, yet Hamas took that step. Why can't Israel?

On my honesty, I did not lie. I implied you meant something, and I'm sure I saw a post. I just don't really want to go look for it now because the posts between us were too long. But if you're offended, then I'm sorry. That doesn't make me "dishonest", and if this is your attempt to discredit me, then you should stop with the ad hominem because even though I may have seen you write something or thought you wrote something, I was not dishonest with the facts and that's what you need to address.

"Could you please quote where you comdenn violence (i.e. terrorism and surpemisism) by Muslims (besides saying it "goes without saying")?"

Once again I won't go search through the posts for this. If it makes you happy, then I'll say it again. I condemn all violence done by Muslims. Can we move on from this condemnation game now?

"As if Genocidal propaganda and burning Korans are the same thing. "

You haven't proven that Hamas' propoganda was genocidal, that's one. Two, the Nazis used to draw Jews as long nosed, rat looking people, and that was considered genocidal propoganda. So when you draw Muslims as having a bomb on their head or burning the Quran, logically that should be considered genocidal under the same standards. It's not about Mohammed or the Quran, its about what they represent and their symbolic value. The fact that you can't understand this, or say "this is worse than this or this is worse than that" is no excuse and you have to stop reasoning things out on your own mind this way. We're not competing for who can piss the other guy off the most. Wrong is wrong, period.

Three, the West defends Quran burnings and mocking of Mohammed under freedom of speech. I simply used the same logic, that it is Hamas' freedom of speech to broadcast what they want. That by itself is not equating anything, and now you owe me an apology.

"You in fact excused violence by Muslims"

More dishonesty. I didn't "excuse" anything, I said Muslims had a right to be angry. The way they expressed it was wrong, but they had a right to be angry at the burnings and the cartoons.

"In other words, those who burn Korans or draw cartoons are partialy responsible for the violent actions of Muslims."

Yes, that is true. They did it knowing what it would cause, we can even assume they did it with the intent to cause the reactions. Thus, they are partially responsible.

"Saying someone should deal with another group means to trust them."

Can you stop with your assumptions about me? It is nothing but smear attacks by constantly saying "you lied" or "you dind't mean it". This is another reason I blocked you. How are you drawing these conclusions? Based on your own understanding of what a negotation is? They're supposed to negotiate, which two states in the history of the world sat at a negotiations table to end a war with full trust of each other? After decades of war, if you think they should negotiate only when they fully trust each you're being naive and stupid. On the other hand, they could keep fighting until either Israel is wiped out, or Palestine is wiped out. Which would you rather have, war or peace?

From John Roy Carlson, 'Cairo to Damascus', p. 450.

“I want to go to Israel”, I told Rabbi Schreibaum suddenly [this was in Nicosia].
He smiled, as if no request could be a surprise to him.
‘The HaTikvah is leaving for Haifa on Thursday with a group of immigrants. Why don’t you go along?’
“I have no visa for Israel, and my passport is full of Arab stamps”, I said.
“When you get to Haifa just tell them I sent you.”

The Hatikvah grossed eight hundred tons and was formerly an American coast guard cutter.

When it left Famagusta two days later, it was loaded with capacity with two hundred and eighty Jews and an American [i.e. Carlson himself].

They were an ill-clad, ill-fed lot of refugees. Many were survivors of Auschwitz who bore their death number tattooed above their wrists. Most were from southern Europe – Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria. I had expected to find them elated at their homecoming. But there was no elation. Pain, hunger and frustration had been their lot for a decade and they were benumbed.

‘Among the bedraggled children a half dozen carried violin cases.

'I thought it significant that these harassed Jews thought of music as well as survival; at no time during my stay among the Arabs had I seen anybody with a violin, or with any musical instrument of any kind.

‘Nor had I ever seen so many wash-tubs as on the Hatikvah.

“All that a family owned was dumped into the tubs, which also served as cribs,

**for invariably on top of every well-packed tub was an infant**.

“It was usually tended by its father; the mothers, exhausted, were asleep on the/ p. 451 double-decked cots jamming every inch of space on the decks.

“These infants were the gifts the wanderers who had been through the torture-chambers of Europe were bringing to Israel.”

{Note well: Jewish fathers who had been through hell, as had their wives, lovingly tending their babies so that their wives could have a well-earned rest; what a contrast with the attitude of men in the Arab Muslim world! - dda

Then from page 451 Carlson describes his impressions of Israel -

“From that day on I saw Israel as I had seen the Arab countries – mostly on foot, alone, dressed in native garb…I hitch-hiked from one end of the Jewish State to the other…”.

p. 452: “Children were treated with such tenderness and devotion, particularly in the kibbutzim, that I remarked about it. “They are our most precious possession,’ I was told at the Children’s Village maintained by the Mizrachi {note: Carlson doesn’t go into it, but the Mizrachi were the Jews from the ‘Arab’ world, those who had escaped from Dhimmitude, from oppression and pogroms and, in some cases, as in Yemen and parts of Kurdistan, chattel slavery - dda }. ‘They are the future Israel.”

{Note: this contrasts with the horrific and routine abuse of children that Carlson observed throughout the Arab Muslim lands}.

“I took hundreds of photographs. Not once was I stopped or questioned. In Egypt I remembered ruefully, I had been arrested twice the first day I attempted to take the most harmless of photographs.”

“I thought of the Arabs. How I wished Moustafa were with me now, so that he could return to Egypt to tell what he had seen: Arabs in the parliament; Arab workers receiving from one to two Israeli pounds per day, and more – or roughly the weekly wages of some I had seen in Egypt; Arab mothers at free Jewish clinics; Arab men and women voting side by side with Jews; Arabs, seated together with Jews at the coffee table; Arab children educated at compulsory schools; Arabs living in a democracy for the first time in their history. Moustafa would have agreed that the average Arab, even in matters of food, was far better off in Israel than under Arab feudalism.”

{But compare what Martha Gellhorn found in 1960, when she talked to the Arab Muslims – and, sadly, tragically, horribly, Arab Christians – inside Israel: pure, virulent, unmitigated HATRED simply and solely because they were no longer Top Dog able to abuse the Jews at will. These Arabs, the Muslims and even the Christians (!!) would rather live – starving, frightened, filthy and violent - in a miserable Muslim despotism, than as political equals with Jews in a Jewish state! - dda}.

Sorry, a correction:

So if Muslims are not violent or terrorists based on that logic, doesn't that prove that Islam itself is not violent but a neutral religion just like all other religions?

From Jacques Ellul, Un Chretien Pour Israel, the chapter entitled 'Antisemitism and Antizionism'.

I quote, the French first (apologies for the omission of the accents, I don't know how to put them in) and then a rough English translation:

"J’aborde ici une question qui est singuliere: une nouvelle forme et occasion de l’antisemitisme.

" Il y a eu l’antisemitisme religieux, puis l’anti-semitisme politique, et l’antisemitisme demonique (de l’Etat hitlerien).

" Il y a une permanence de l’antisemitisme. Pour Friedmann, l’antisemitisme est ce qui permet au peuple juif de garder son identite’.

"Mais, comme dit de Fontette, l’affirmation du caractere ineluctable de la tragedie juive est l’analogue de la croyance dans l’Election divine d’Israel et du peuple theophore. (Ce que rejettent avec virulence R. Ikor et tous les Juifs qui prefereraient mener la vie de tout le monde et ne pas porter le poids d’e^tre le peuple elu!).

-Here I embark on a singular question: a new form and occasion of anti-semitism.

There has been the religious anti-semitism, then the political anti-semitism, and the demonic anti-Semitism of Hitler’s state.

There is a persistence of anti-semitism.

For Friedmann, anti-semitism is that which allows the Jewish people to keep their identity. But, as Fontette says, the affirmation of the unavoidable character of the Jewish tragedy is analogous to belief in the divine election of Israel and of the god-bearing people. (R. Ikor forcefully rejects this, as do all Jews who would prefer to live life like everybody else and not bear the burden of being the chosen people!).

Mais aujourd’hui nous accedons a un nouvel avatar de cet antisemitisme: celui qui n’ose pas dire son nom, celui des intellectuels se proclamant fermement antiraciste, mais qui apparait dans la haine contre Israel avec toutes les ruses et les perversions que nous allons voir.

Personne n’a mieux montre cette haine du Juif a cause de l’election que J. Madaule (Israel et le poids de l’election, Le Centurion, 1983).

“Le choix d’un peuple ne devrait donc pas faire scandale, d’autant qu’Israel n’a pas ete choise pour n’importe quoi, mais tres precisement pour manifester au reste de l’humanite la presence de Dieu. Cela suffit a le rendre insupportable au sens le plus fort du terme, insupportable a tous les autres et insupportable a lui-meme. De la est nee de tout temps cette judeophobie, cette crainte haineuse du Juif, horrible caricature et en quelque facon antithese de la crainte de Dieu qui est le commencement de la Sagesse. La haine du Juif, en raison de son election, serait alors le commencement de la folie.”

Admirable comprehension. Et ce commencement de la folie, c’est ce que nous allons rencontrer tout au long de ces pages.

-But today we arrive at a new avatar of this anti-Semitism: that which dare not speak its name, that of the intellectuals who proclaim themselves firmly against racism, but who appear in hate against Israel, with all the subterfuges and the perversions which we are going to see [in this chapter].

No-one has better exposed this hatred of the Jews on account of their election, than J. Madaule (Israel and the burden of election, Centurion, 1983).

“The choice of a people would not have caused a scandal, except that Israel was not chosen for just anything but, very precisely, in order to show to the rest of humanity the presence of God. That is enough to make Israel unbearable in the strongest sense of the word, unbearable to everyone else and unbearable to himself.

"From this is born in every age that terror of the Jews, that hateful fear of the Jew, [which is] a horrible caricature and (after a certain manner) the antithesis of the fear of God which is the beginning of Wisdom.

"Hatred of the Jew, because he is chosen, would then be the beginning of Madness.”

'An admirable understanding. And it is this beginning of Madness which we are going to meet all the way through this book.' (that is, throughout the pages of Un Chretien Pour Israel' - dda).

'La haine du Juif, en raison de son election, serait alors le commencement de la folie.”

I think we have seen that 'folie', that Madness to which Madaule and Ellul refer , adequately on display in the postings of certain commentators in this very thread: commentators who are conspicuous by their absence from most other discussions that we engage in, but who sprang out of the shadows, snarling, hissing, spitting, when Mr Spencer expressed unequivocal support for Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjfFpFW9OdA&feature=related

“That implies that a majority of Muslims are out killing and subjugating non-Muslims. That part is a lie.”
No. Again, your twisting my words I said “many more” not majority, and I never mentioned Muslims as a whole. If you look at my entire quote, you'd see I was saying there are more terrorist/supremist mulsims than Muslims in the US military. Feel free to find a figure that proves me wrong.

“So if Muslims are violent or terrorists based on that logic, doesn't that prove that Islam itself is not violent but a neutral religion just like all other religions?”
No, it only proves that a small number who are either not terrorist/supremists does not mean all are, and visa-verse than a small number who are shown to be not terrorist/supremist does not mean all are. To somehow use this as “proof” is the opposite of the meaning of the argument.

“Then the reverse is also true, that just because SOME Muslims resorted to terrorism, that doesn't mean they automatically represent true Islam. In other words, Islam is not violent (nor is it peaceful, but neutral) and is not the problem. In which case, this entire debate we had for over a month is concluded.”
No. It merely proves there is coloration between a small number and the whole. You'd have to look at the entire group and look at the core teachings of that religion (the Koran and Hadiths). We can't agree on the terms, so this may never be resolved.

“On my honesty, I did not lie. I implied you meant something, and I'm sure I saw a post. I just don't really want to go look for it now because the posts between us were too long. But if you're offended, then I'm sorry. That doesn't make me "dishonest", and if this is your attempt to discredit me, then you should stop with the ad hominem because even though I may have seen you write something or thought you wrote something, I was not dishonest with the facts and that's what you need to address.”
For one thing, I REPEATEDLY said I did not say what you were saying, and pointed to the opposite (which I posted above) and you continued to repeat it, without bothering to actually quote where I said such things. This is why I think were and continue to be dishonest.
Also, you called me a liar a number of times, so why is it OK for you to do it, but “Ad honim” when I do it? Once again, I think you're holding me to a higher standard than yourself.

“You haven't proven that Hamas' propoganda was genocidal, that's one. “
I thought we had established this already. This is such an obvious fact I'm surprised you'd have to ask. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwpAX1xvrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H8HFb-YG00
And many more, search Youtube for “HAMAS TV Genocide”

“Three, the West defends Quran burnings and mocking of Mohammed under freedom of speech. I simply used the same logic, that it is Hamas' freedom of speech to broadcast what they want. That by itself is not equating anything, and now you owe me an apology.”
Burning the Koran, or drawing cartoons that mock the prophet do not directly call for violence against a group of people, as insulting as it is. However, implying that a group of people use blood of palastinans in their matza, have intentions to rule the world, imply that Jews are “apes and pigs” are all vile, and much worse. Yes, you are right that wrong is wrong, but there is a GREAT difference between calling for the death of a group of people and insulting a group. And this is the same if someone drew mocking pictures of Jesus or Bhudda, or burned the Talmud or the Bible. It still would be NOT AS BAD as genocidal propaganda.
Tell me, you woudn't punish a person for stealing a loaf of bread as a rapist right? Their both wrong, but it's entirely reasonable to examine the reactions to different wrong actions.
“Yes, that is true. They did it knowing what it would cause, we can even assume they did it with the intent to cause the reactions. Thus, they are partially responsible.”

I think this statement stands by itself. What happened to freedom of speech? Are people now response for the actions of others in reaction to what I say? If what I say makes you angry, do you have the right to hurt or kill me?

“It is nothing but smear attacks by constantly saying "you lied" or "you dind't mean it".”
Note the hypocrisy, as I said above. You keep calling me a liar, but when I call you on what I see as dishonesty, you say I'm smearing you.
“Once again I won't go search through the posts for this. “
Note that this doesn't actually disprove my accusation that you did not condemn before

“More dishonesty. I didn't "excuse" anything, I said Muslims had a right to be angry. The way they expressed it was wrong, “
When I say “excused” I mean, tried to downplay. You in fact do this, since you say those who do certin things (burning Korans, drawing cartoons) are partialy responsible. Thus, it is not dishonest to say you are excusing (though perhaps to be more clear, I should have said “partially excuse” or “downplay”) Islamic violence.

"If what I say makes you angry, do you have the right to hurt or kill me?"
To be clear, I'm using exaggeration. To be more precise, do you believe if you got angry and you hurt me, it would be partially my own fault?

"You'd have to look at the entire group and look at the core teachings of that religion (the Koran and Hadiths). We can't agree on the terms, so this may never be resolved."

Well we can look at the core teachings. We never did finish on the argument or on those quotes from the Quran which you showed me, which I then refuted. But using your own logic, that a small group of people do not represent the whole, it should at least mean that based on this alone the entire Muslim population cannot be considered violent. It doesn't prove they arent, but it doesn't prove they are either.

And if you follow through on the same pattern, since only a very small group of Muslims are terrorists, then the amount of Muslims who follow Islam peacefully greatly outnumber those who dont. Which means that Islam as a religion has a peaceful side which most subscribe to, and a violent side which an extremely small minority subscribe to. In other words, it is a neutral religion and depends on the person following it. Since violence has been committed on the name of other religions, you can make the same assumption about those. Tell if I'm wrong.

"It doesn't prove they arent, but it doesn't prove they are either."

Ugh. Yes, exactly, that is WHAT I SAID. in fact, MULTIPLE TIMES.

I said: "and visa-verse than a small number who are shown to be not terrorist/supremist does not mean all are."

I'm not sure why you're pointing out what I said like it's a new insight.

And I think it's pretty clear your INTENTIONALY misrepresenting what I say. Again, if it were just a misunderstanding, you wouldn't REPEAT the same arguments again after I explained.

When you said my statement was a "completely a lie" about Muslims, I might have believed you misunderstood.

I explained I was not meaning there were more terrorist/supremist muslims than non-violent muslims, but I was saying there were more violent muslims than ones in the US military. (and I asked for evidence that refutes this)

I said: "Also, my statement that just because SOME muslims are in the US military doesn't mean they automaticly represent true Islam is absolutely true."

This should have made it clear you misunderstood me and you should have dropped it.

You then quoted what I said, but chopped it in half, and made the same misprepresenation, ignoring completely my mention of the comparison.

"That implies that a majority of Muslims are out killing and subjugating non-Muslims. That part is a lie."

This is of course false. I never said such a thing. In fact, once again you are saying I said something that I said the OPPOSITE OF, since I said we had agreed on the .07% figure of violent muslims (thus 99.93% not doing so).

Tou then, strangely enough right after making this claim of what I was supposedly saying you quote my passage about the US military, which shows that the comparison I was making was between US military Muslims and violent muslims (not muslims as a whole), thus showing the premise you make in the previous paragraph false!

If you were really honest as you claim, you wouldn't need to resort to distorting what I said. this is far from the first time you've claimed I've said the OPPOSITE of what I said, and then repeated the same untruth multiple times after I have pointed out your error.