Physia

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY

Any comments on these?

How is creating more hatred for the better.... ever?

It is not hurting us. It is already growing day by day. This bumps us back to the point of "reform." That's how it's for the better.

Please point me to it.

Since the Quran says that 'Mecca' can't be bombed, it will create contradictions, which will lead to reform. I believe I have said it in other posts, so I am repeating it here.

Let's get this straight:

1. You propose we bomb Mecca.
   
2. I say that risks making the moderates that don't hate us hate us.
   
3. You say there's already hatred, so that's not an issue.
   

 

The problem is that bombing Mecca not only reinforces the hatred already brewing among radicals, it also turns those who don't hate America against us. It'd be safe to say that most Muslims don't want to kill all Americans, but a bombing campaign risks changing that.

It would be more interesting to have Muslims discuss this topic with us, but I believe that we must look at the bigger picture of it.

Reform in Islam equals a new way of thinking and interpreting Quran. There is a downfall in the proposition of bombing Mecca I believe, and that is the freedom the radicals have to interpret the Quran however they want. They can easily continue on with their radical Islamic teachings of anti-Democracy, anti-West, etc., and by bombing Mecca that will attract others, moderates could be included. What I would like to question is: Are moderates going to be attracted to the idea of contradictions in the Quran and hint for reform, or are they going to be attracted to the idea that 'an imperialist state,' as they regard us, attacked the center and holiest place in Islam? I will go ahead and actually question some of my Muslim friends about this, and get their input.

Very well. I'll dig up my copy of the Quran if you can tell me where to look.

I do not have a Quran with me, but I've asked a friend to look up. Once they get the correct Aya's, I'll post them on here. They assured me, however, that there's something close to this in the Quran.

How much reform did 9/11 cause in the USA? How much "reform" did Islam taking Jerusalem cause within Christianity?

 

There is not going to be any refrom inside Islam if we bomb Mecca! Instead, there is going to be instant hatred of the USA, hatred that the radical Islamists will use to unite all Muslims against us! In Muslims outnumber us considerably and, together, the nations with a majority of Muslims in the population have greater industrial power and more natural resources than we do.

 

The end result of bombing Mecca is a world war with us vs all the Muslim nations and Europe sensibly being neutral and sitting it out. And the result of the war is that the Muslim nations conqueor the USA.

 

The reform in Christianity ONLY came when there was no external enemy. As long as Christianity was engaged in fighting the Crusades, there was no reform. The Catholic Church had a stranglehold on Christianity. It was only after Europe turned inward and were not fighting another ideology were Luther and Calvin able to instigate the Reformation. Of course, that was an extremely bloody affair. Do you really think that such a series of wars today would be just within Islam? No, we have to help Muslims to a better way for their religion to mature. Bombing Mecca won't achieve any of your aims.

 

Good grief! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? No, of course not. Ordinary logic has gone by the boards. Bombing Mecca is not logically tenable as a solution to the current problem. With logic gone, why read history? After all, history is used to logically predict the outcome of actions.

9/11 and taking over Jerusalem are not the same issue as Mecca.

Mecca is mentioned in the Quran that it can't be bombed, so based on that I make a conclusion that there will be 'reform' or 'some type of change' within Islam.

Also, to clarify myself, I did not deny that it will create hatred, but I believe it is for the better.

I've never heard of this before and it's resonating with me this morning for some reason. What if the "cover" is a political and sociological one? I think most Western leaders would view bombing Mecca as an attack on *all* Islam, even if the enemy is only a small faction within the whole religion.

 

Does the Quran also have provisions for what the faithful should do if Mecca is attacked, or is the "cover" so impenetrable that it's a moot point?

I'll try to get some information about the Quran and Mecca relations and all that.

Now, what I am certain about, Mecca is considered the center of Islam, the place where their Prophet was born.

I do not see how you jumped from your premise to your conclusion.

I believe I've said how before, in my previous posts.

So you deny that there is a population of Muslims that does not hate America. Very well. I can provide counterexamples.

Make no mistake here; I did not deny that there is a population that does not hate America, I've stated that there are moderates that hate America, even if they are moderates.

Source?

Islamic teachings, and I have also been told by a Muslim friend that it has been said in the Quran; thus why I said it's said in the Quran in previous posts. I will get more information on this as soon as I can, but Islamic teachings do teach that. On Iraqi tv, there was a Sheikh that usually explained why they think that's the case, but I am not sure what happened to this Sheikh.

If that's true, then it's an interesting idea if you could do it without killing anyone, just breaking stuff. But we have thorny issues of morality to consider and that kind of action is despicable. If we were at a state of war with those people, then I could see it, but we know we're fighting radicals, not a nation. More recruitment propaganda for radical murderers doesn't sound like a terrific plan clinically, and quite an inhumane one morally.

I do like to stick to the point that reform is one of the two cases that will stop radical Islam from growing. Once reform happens, Muslims will get a different view about certain subjects in Islam, thus there are no excuses for radical Sheikhs to produce more radicals. Not to forget that it will grow more hatred if Mecca was bombed, but it will create a big mess that can't be controlled except by reform. As Phi for All said, they will find a way to create explanations for why it happened, and that's what results in reform.

That's what they must do to not approve of radical Islam? Sure, I'd love for them to do these things (and I believe some have been done), but inaction != consent.

These are the guidelines to show that they do not approve of radical Islam, not the guidelines to disapprove of it. That they can do amongst themselves, but this they must show in public.

What?

What is the point of having moderates that disapprove of radical Islam, but don't do anything about it? Are they making any difference? Of course not, hence it is like they are not present there.

I don't see how it will trigger reform. I can see it triggering hatred (all those moderate Muslims will hate you) but not reform.

 

What would you do if someone nuked the Vatican? Say "oh, well, we needed the reform" or decide to kill the guy who did it?

It will create contradictions inside the Quran, which will lead to reform. Hatred.. That's already present, it should not be a worry at all. Even if they are moderates, that doesn't mean they like you.

The Vatican issue is totally different., review my reply to ecoli about the Mecca comment if you please. Mecca is said to be 'unbreakable,' a place that can't be bombed. The Vatican, on the other hand, is just like any other place, hence the consequences of bombing the Vatican differ from the consequences of bombing Mecca.

McCain has had a number of policy mis-steps lately. Actually kind of a staggering number of them. It's almost as if he decided it was time to start taking policy positions, but hadn't quite gotten around to talking to an advisor about it. Yesterday Joseph Lieberman had to step up to McCain while he was still at the microphone and correct him after he claimed that Iran (shiites!) was helping Al Qaeda (sunnis!), which of course is their blood enemy!

 

It's more than a little embarassing, and if so much attention wasn't being focused on the Democratic "civil war" at the moment I think it would be getting a lot more attention.

Don't be so sure. They are two faces of the same coin. If you think outside of the box for a moment, they are both fighting those who they call 'infidels' or 'koffar' or 'people of the book.' Shiites don't necessary need to support Al Qaeda with money or weapons to be supporting them. They are supporting them by sparking an increase in radicalism, and by being a home for exported terrorism. Iran supports Hamas, for example, who are Sunnis.

Unless, of course, that religion is Islam, eh? You are so internally inconsistent it's laughable.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't have any problems with Islam, if I need to clear myself.

Now back to my original comment and why I said it; being a scientist does not mean you can't be a believer, and being a priest does not mean you don't believe in evolution. Nobody's perfect.

Well, your last comment shows me just where your mind truly is on this issue, but for those who choose to be part of a mature society, I share these links to address your first point.

 

 

 

 

Is it perhaps his middle name which scares you, or have you just been lied to with an email smear campaign and simply chosen to believe it blindly and regurgitate it to others?

He is Muslim by origin. Keep in mind the place where he was raised; Indonesia.

Their teachings make us inferior to them, hence why I do not support a Muslim running the United States.

About the videos, what difference do they make? You think that a person who pledge allegiance to the flag can't do anything against it? And about the e-mails, I never got anything about Obama or anything related to the U.S. elections. I don't believe in such e-mails anyways. I am entitled to my own opinion.

Now, give us the meat and potatoes on why that is. You said yourself "it's an analysis you must think about", so surely you've thought about it and can discuss it right?

History for the first part. Racism is still present in the United States. End of the civil war did not end racism, a very big difference.

About the 'harsh sex' comment; women think with their heart, not their brain. I do not mean to generalize, but it is well-known. Very few women think with their brain; Clinton certainly is not one of those.

Ignoring all the other prejudices and claims in this thread, I'll just make a point for the sake of science (since this is a science forums, though a politics thread):

I am not really that much 'into' American elections; whoever comes won't make a lot of difference anyways, but McCain is preferable.

For the links you gave, what difference does it make? If he denied evolution for example, does it mean it is not present? And does it mean that the United States will quit all of its scientific and technological advances? I don't think so. The person is free to say whatever he wants. Not everything that is said, is true. A person, especially in such position, can say whatever they can in order to get a certain group of supporters. Now, I am not saying that this is surely the case, but it could be. Bottom line, it does not affect the line of the United States. It is a minor issue, not a major one.

Religion and science complete each other, IMO.

Claiming that radical muslims are going to kill us or convert us is propaganda, my friend.

I don't think so. Enough priests and sisters in Palestine and Iraq were killed that prove that. They claim that they are fighting the Jews, because in the Torah 'supposedly' (something they claim), it says that the Jews believe they are the 'chosen' people on earth, while all other religions do not and should not exist. Their actions, actually, contradicts with the reason they are giving for fighting the Jews. They're putting that claim on them.

Moderate muslims do stand against it. If I offered you proof of that, I'm sure you'd ignore it. I have many moderate muslim friends as anecdotal proof.

 

And bombing mecca? I couldn't think of a stupider plan. Why don't we nuke washington because Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma city.

Don't worry bud, I know many, many moderate Muslims as friends, in fact my girlfriend is a Muslim, from a well-known family in Muslim history. But, that's not what I am suggesting here. I do not care about individuals who oppose radical Islam. I am talking about the bigger image. A few moderate Muslims here and there won't do anything. Moderate Muslims need to protest, protest, and protest. They need to have their voice heard by the radicals. They need to prove to the world, and to other Muslims, that radical Islam is wrong, that it does not portray the message of Islam.

Bombing Mecca will trigger reform inside Islam. In their Quran, it says that Mecca is surrounded by a cover and it can't be bombed. Make conclusions about what will happen if it was bombed.

Physia, you have put forth a classical false dichotomy. Either moderate Muslims stand against radicals, or they approve of them. You are seeing the issue as vastly less complex than it is.

 

There are several questions that came to mind when I read your post. The foremost was simple: what do you propose these moderate Muslims do? They clearly do not support the radicals (or they would not be moderates), but they cannot "stand against" them. How does one "stand against" a terrorist organization? Issue a statement saying "I do not approve of this message"? There is no central church in Islam. There is no Pope in a turban to say "we do not approve of these radicals."

 

I can assure you, as ecoli can, that there are many moderate Muslims who disagree strongly with the actions of radicals, but they are helpless. They do not have the bombs you wish to use. Their choice is to not support the radicals, and that they do.

 

Second, I question your decision to bomb Mecca. What, exactly, do you propose that will achieve? It will prove to the world that we are an intolerant and hateful nation. It will kill innocent civilians. It will give those moderate Muslims a very good reason to become radical Muslims. It will, in short, turn the tide against us.

 

Bigotry, whether you are faking it or not, is not appreciated on this forum. I would like to remind you of rule 2.1.c, and your obligation to abide by it.

If there are moderate ordinary Muslims, then there must be moderate sheikhs. These sheikhs should issue Fatwas condemning redical Islam. These sheikhs must teach that radical Islam is wrong. They should preach moderate Islam. Moderate Muslims must protest and make their voices heard.

As I told ecoli, I am not talking about individuals, for they can't do anything really. They must be in large groups, in large protests, in order to get attention, lots of it.

Moderate Muslims, especially sheikhs, must go on Al Jazeera tv to preach moderate Islam.

Muslims do have religious references (Khamani'i for Shiites and the Saudi king for Sunnis, in addition to many religious leaders), sadly most of those are radicals. If there are some moderates from those, these are the ones that perform a great danger on those radicals.

The choice of not supporting radical Islam does not really do anything. It is like saying there is nothing such as 'moderate Islam.'

Now, to the issue of bombing Mecca, and I explained it to ecoli.

It will trigger reform inside Islam, and that is what I want. At the peak of Christian extremism, reform was the only way that changed that.

Again, I am speaking about the bigger image.

We are in Iraq to trigger the emergence of an ideology that can neutralize the ideologies of Khomeini and Qutb and thereby reduce the risk of World War

 

I thought we were there because of wmd's... or was it to get rid of Saddam...I can't keep up ithe reason keeps changing everyday. It all changes except for the dying and astronomical cost.

That's your opinion. The reason is one, but the ways change.

Removing Saddam was a mistake I tell you. He was killing thousands of Shiites, but it had to be balanced by removing him .

Sounds like our very simple plan too - convert to our cause or die. You're either "with us or against us" right?

 

Of course, their silly ideas of god and death wouldn't be a problem if we weren't over there with guns, tanks and flags for them to use as convincing recruitement props.

That's propaganda.

That *is* simple. Simple-minded, I mean.

 

I can assure you, if radical Islam becomes *all* of Islam, the solution becomes much simpler. It is the moderates that give Islam a humanitarian image with the rest of the world. Lose that image and it will be an easy decision to eliminate the threat *completely*.

'If' is the problem. But, those so-called 'moderate' Muslims who do not stand against radical Islam, approve of it.. Don't they? Otherwise, why wouldn't they stand against it?

The only way to defeat them is to bomb Mecca. Those who know about Islam will understand the reason behind this .

First, if he were Muslim, why does that matter?

Second, he's not Muslim, so clearly Physia is not paying attention to fact, but instead being spoon fed lies and regurgitating them here.

 

Nice quote, bascule. Clever.

Do some research bud. CNN's or FOX's opinions don't matter to me.

Muslims can't run the United States; that's the matter. We need a white president, not a dark one , from the harsh sex also.

McCain for president.

Well at least I gotta admire you for being honest about your prejudices.

It's an analysis that you must think about. It goes further than your nose, so try to think based on that.

Question yourself of why I said that, then you might disagree with your statement.

America can't afford to elect a dark person (who is Muslim by origin and all of a sudden radical-relations appear) or a woman (whose husband's term was one of the worst and whose tears run down her cheeks on television) as presidents.

I always wonder what "global domination" is supposed to mean. Unify the world under a single caliphate, right? That's what Rudy Giuliani has been warning me about, as if it's a real possibility. Well, how is that supposed to happen? Does Al Qaeda have plans to convert me and everyone I know to fundamentalist Islam? Because I don't think I'm very susceptible, and I haven't even heard a pitch, yet. I'm thinking nobody in that organization has really thought this through in the long term. I mean, hell, at least Hitler had a plan.

They do have a very simple plan. They either kill you or you convert to Islam.

God bless George W. Bush, one of the best presidents to come to the U.S. We just need a nuclear hit on Iran before you leave office... Then go ahead and continue with your life.

Don't be so cheerful, McCain is stronger and is on the same steps.. Well, most of them. One who laughs at last, laughs a lot .

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, the Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

Student does not answer.

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

Student has no answer.

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.

Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The

class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

WANT TO KNOW WHO THAT STUDENT WAS?

This is a true story, and the student was none other than:

Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the current president of India.

I was hoping to strike up the thought of Moderate Islam vs Radical Islam. There are more moderates in the world than there are radicals, yet we do not see demonstrations, or any diplomatic fights made by them against radicals. Here, in the United States (a state that practices freedom of speech to the fullest), Hizballah supporters were allowed to demonstrate in Michigan, against the United States, and step on U.S. flags in the U.S. with slogans such as "Death to America."

Where are the moderate Muslims to counter that? Are they afraid? If so, of what? Do they agree with it? If so, why is it when we make a comment such as "Islam is inspired by violence," a Muslim pops up and says: "That is not the real Islam, it is the radical Islam." But, what is the real Islam? How can we see it if they don't show it to us?

Here is an example of a ex-Muslim that left Islam and turned into a secular human being, moreover, she is fighting the ills of Islamic fanaticism and introducing the problems of it into the Arab world. The only thing I disagree with her about is that she is not differentiating between moderates and radicals, but as I said before; where are the moderates?

She is speaking in Arabic in those clips, but there are English subtitles. She is saying important things and I hope you watch them, we need more people like her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY

Violence is not a tool to solve anything, but if you are facing such a threat that denies your presence as a 'human being' and wants to kill you or you live like them, violence is the first tool that pops up to your mind.

This problem must be solved from within. If the moderate Muslims don't revolt against the old fundamental Sheikhs, we can get no where.

Muslims must ask for reformation inside their beliefs and teaching doctrines; otherwise, radical Islam will take over moderate Islam in no time.

Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Islam to Western civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television, it reveals an "insider's view" of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. The film also traces parallels between the Nazi movement of World War II, the Radicals of today, and the Western world's response to both threats.

Sorry to offend you if I did bud, but if in southern California Mexicans felt like they need a separate country from the States, they shall revolt and take over?

That just doesn't seem logical.

KOSOVO was always a province and WILL REMAIN a province.

These independence declarations are trash.

Sooner or later they will be gone.

Whenever a province seems like they want an independent state, they shall have it?

That is illogical.

Again, how's that working out so far?

 

And perhaps more to the point, arguments in favor of freedom and peace have universal appeal, but arguments in favor of helping one specific religious sect achieve its mystical nirvana at the expense of another one, not so much. I get that you fear they all want to wipe you out, but what you want me to approve doesn't seem a whole lot more appealing.

Trust me; I have no problem with the Muslim religion. My problem is with Islamists - who are extremist Muslims that interpret the Quran falsely. In fact, my problem is with any extremist from any religion - even my own.

But, to answer your worries; I am not saying wipe out all the Palestinians. I am saying that they can't wipe up Israel.

Also, for the record, you can't continue on with a peace plan without working out a fight... Just so you know. P.S. -- how is the Road Map working out again?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DrDNA, the Torah and the Bible also indicate that this piece of land was inhabited by Jews, at the times of Christ, before, and after.

Also, just so nobody confuses what I am saying with what they're relating; Jews are people who follow a certain religion (Judaism) and not a race; so, by relating them to a race (whether what DrDNA proclaimed in his post about Canaanites, or whether they were like the Brits or Italian Americans, and whatnot).

The question is not whether the inhabitants of the land are x race/civilization, but what religion they followed.

Also, iNow,

Don't forget to do a study to show how land shifted and changed over the centuries. What you are saying does not make a difference, anyhow.

Anyways, we're drifting away from the topic.

If time is fast; what is the speed of time and how do you measure it?

Blut und Boden, eh ?

כן, באופן מוחלט

-------------------------------------------------

I understand that most of you do not like to involve religion in the political crisis that is happening in the middle east, but to get your facts straight for you; it is all about religion.

Any Islamist movement that has risen up had one main goal, no matter which sect it was; and that goal is to liberate Jerusalem, as they liked to refer to it, from Zionists (which I repeat, is a movement to put Jews in their righteous home).

DrDNA, I do not need to look at it from the other perspective, from the same perspective that had tried to persecute me for what I believe in multiple of times. They refused to co-exist, and all the chances that has been given to them; well, it is their problem. The land belongs to Israel, whose capital is Jerusalem, and whose inhabitants are Jews (by origin, which is how the land righteously belongs to them).

Edtharan,

You make good points, but---

Choose whichever point you want to start from and explain to me the following: Why is it there? Who brought it there?

And for your explanation of beliefs:

Well, I should of went further and posted "I am asking you to be a believer of God."

But, to put it as the way you are, sure why not? You can be a believer of God and a science fanatic at the same time. At the end, God created a brain for you to be able to analyze materials, interpret ideas, and think about solutions.

Jerusalem is the righteous home of the Jews, which is why Zionism was created as a movement to have all Jews return back to where they belong. As I have said before, Israel was there thousand of years ago, and it was re-established by the end of World War II.

Arabism, which is the nationalistic idea to unite all of the middle eastern Arab nations under one Arabic army. This idea blurred the real image of "Zionism" and turned it into a killing movement, where in fact, it is not. By making that image blurry, they proceeded to create something they referred to as the "Palestinian cause" which is an illusion that was fabricated to fight Israel."

If they were really fighting 'Zionists,' then why do they commit crimes against innocent Israeli citizens? All of the crap they say on tv is just a cover for their anti-Semitism and inability to co-exist with another religion in the region - which is also why the Christian presence in Lebanon went from 65% of the population by the early '60s to less than 32% today. That is due to immigration of Christians to various parts of the world, which include north America, south America, Caribbean, Europe, and Australia. Very little percentage to Asia and the Arab world.

What do you think about this conflict that has been going on since the re-establishment of the State of Israel?

Let my response persuade to you what I think about this conflict.

Who is responsible for this conflict to start in the first place?

The Arabs.

The Palestinians' date=' who claim their lands were stolen, were a victim of filthy Arab owners, who sold these lands to the Israelis after Israel was re-established under the British mandate over Palestine. Using Arabism propaganda, this truth was totally covered. That's when the actual conflict started, and how I reason it as Arabs are the responsible.

Why did all the Arab countries sign an undercover peace treaty with Israel, while Syria and Lebanon hasn't? Noting that Syria is already in failing peace talks with Israel and in Lebanon, Hizballah is the main opposer for a peace treaty between the two neighboring countries as it is under Syrian control and Iranian direct support.

Starting with Saudi Arabia, they very well knew that a constant conflict will lead to nowhere. Instead, all Arab countries except Lebanon and Syria, improved all ties with Israel. Syria, on the other hand, is just negotiating with Israel under the table. Nothing is being accomplished, and Syria never presents its land as a place for combat or battleships. Nothing has happened in Golan since it's abduction by the Israelis.

Hizballah in Lebanon is a very different story. Their main objective is to liberate Jerusalem, and Islamzie Lebanon. They are under direct Syrian and Iranian sponsorship, which do not recognize the State of Israel. In Lebanon, not everybody supports Hizballah. In fact, less than 50% of the population supports it, composed of mainly Shiites. Having said that, I will move on to say that some Lebanese support a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon, with open borders, and diplomatic ties between the two countries. There is one block however, Hizballah to start with, and Syrian hegemony that is composed of other puppets in Lebanon and the Palestinian refugee camps. Once this block is removed, I am 99% certain a peace-treaty will be on the way. The question is; how do we remove Hizballah?

Palestine; legitimate to be a state or not? What is your reasoning? I have a small story that I'd like to tell you as we go through.

Well' date=' I will start by my story.

The night before Christmas eve, I was at a friend's house having a drink and he has invited some of his friends over as well. Amongst them was a Palestinian, so we opened a discussion about middle eastern politics and whatnot. I came upon the Palestinian (sorry I can't say any names) with the following question: If Israel gave you all of its land, keeping 1 km2, and gave you all of your prisoners and whatever you ask for; would you, if you had the chance, go in there and slaughter every single Israeli? His reply was: Yes, Yes. Of course I would. We were speaking in Arabic, just to make it clear.

Reviewing the fights happening between the Palestinians (Hamas and Fatah), I would say that Palestine should not be a legitimate state. They are fighting each other and they refuse to accept the State of Israel. By that, they refuse to accept a state. At least, Hamas does, but if you can't control one side; nothing is guaranteed.

Taking that and my little story; no, Palestine shall never be a state, and it never was. The Palestinian cause was an illusion proposed by Arab leaders and used as a reason to fight Israel. I believe a Saudi sheikh confessed on Iraqi tv about the Palestinian cause.

Who is right and who is wrong? What are your reasons, evidences, opinions, and whatnot?

There is no right or wrong in such issues.

There is respect my presence and claim it, and we live in peace. Or there is, do not recognize me and we will fight till death. That's how I see it.

Hizballah in Lebanon; after the United Nations Security Council issued resolutions 1595 and 1701 which call to disarm all militias in Lebanon (particularly Hizballah) and the implementation of an international tribunal (which was hardly implemented) to try the criminals who are responsible for the assassination of former PM Rafiq Hariri and the related assassinations' date=' and after the Cedar Revolution, the Sanioura government has been calling for the disarmament of Hizballah and the end of Syrian ongoing hegemony over Lebanon (despite the withdrawal of all their army). What do you think about these steps, and how do you think is the best way to help, secure such calls, and enforce them? And what, in your opinion, do you think the right action that the Lebanese government and the March 14 coalition (pro-government, pro-west, pro-U.S., and pro-France) should take against the Hizballah-led Syrio-Irano opposition?[/quote']

 

Hizballah and all of the pro-Syria puppets are responsible for the assassinations of the freedom-fighting politicians of Lebanon. Each of the assassinated politicians opposed Syria and its hegemony over the country.

The best way to support the internal situation from the outside is to support the Lebanese government (as the American and French governments are doing). Another way is to strengthen the army, after knowing where the weapons are going to.

I think the steps March 14 are taking are excellent and patriotic. However, they have been on the defensive too much and need to take the offensive as fast as possible. They need to elect a president by 50+1 and call for a foreign country to come in and defend the president and governmental institutions avoiding a very possible and likely coup d'etat launched by Hizballah. That's the only way to liberate the country from all of the puppets whose blood has been soaked with treason.

 

Comments' date=' opinions?[/quote']

 

Watch this small video: http://www.sendspace.com/file/vgaeb9

Ignore the Arabic speaking in it, and see the pictures. That's who the Palestinians are, and these are their atrocities. This is what the Palestinians, the Syrians, and the Arabists did in Lebanon in order to fight Israel.

 

The person speaking is Bachir Gemayel. Do a research about him, if you want.

 

As Bachir Gemayel said, "We've been attacked for being Christians, but we fought as Lebanese."

 

In retrospect, perhaps putting Israel there was a bad idea. It's not as though we can dismantle the country and move it to Madagascar now, though.

 

Israel was re-established. It has been there for over 3,000 years.