Pakistan disabled girl arrested for blasphemy

[Sofiyya 1,687]

All Muslims are converts who "snatched away" people's homes ?

You are, indeed, confused.

He's so confused that he's not even worth responding to.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think going to war with any country for any reason other than they have attacked our country or pose a grave security threat is unacceptable.

As to the subject of, where most of the soldiers Christians. Who knows. Many faiths among out military. I suspect less than half are practicing Christians. The point you miss is they are not there for religious reasons. Muslims are killing and committing acts of terrorism as acts of religious faith.

As for the WMD. There was a lot of evidence they were there. Many from both sides of the aisle thought they were. We know they had them at one point so where are they ?

"Muslims" who are killing in the name of Islam aren't really practicing Muslims either, or they wouldn't be running around killing people. BTW, most of the people they're killing are non-combatant Muslims, not non-Muslims. Most of the people the troops are killing are also "collateral damage" Muslims.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

A good source of history information about the conflict

a site doesn’t take sides, that has a more or less accurate information about the dispute can be found here.

My link

This was long, so I am breaking it down into the relevant sections (also fixing quote tags so it's easier to see the sources)

The link is to MidEast Web, founded by a guy named Ami Isseroff, who is what used to be called "a liberal Zionist." Hardly neutral, he essentially places all blame on the Palestinians for the continuing conflict. Which is not exactly "not taking sides." But considering that your source is a Zionist Israeli to begin with, I'm not surprised that he would find Isseroff so "moderate" - he is moderate... well, in comparison with Netanyahu or Lieberman.

Let's move on to his points:

OK, let’s talk about the maps from left to right (chronological order):

Map 1: 1946

The map is NOT graphically correct. Several things are not accurate. First – the british had ruled israel. this was not arab land or jewish land. jews and arabs were living in british occupation. Another thing that needs to be said is that the bottom half of the map was unpopulated – it is a desert part in israel, and even today, it has less than 10% of the population living there because of the conditions. so it should not be green or white. it was largely empty.

This is his Shell Game #1 argument. In fact, the green and white map represents Arab-owned and Jewish-owned land ("private property,") not the entity that governed it. The desert part (what is known as the Naqeb or Negev desert) is the traditional land belonging to the Bedouin (who happen to be Arab.) Just because they didn't have western-style property deeds does not mean that this territory had not been known and accepted as Bedouin land for millennia, and both the British and the U.N.knew this. The green-and-white map is based on British and U.N. records, by district, showing land ownership:

Exhibit A - U.N. document, 1950

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No countries are Islamic. ?? Really ever hear of the Islamic Republic of Iran ??? How man Muslim countries rule by Sharia law. ?? Your not dealing with facts

Just because a country calls itself Islamic doesn't make it Islamic. Algeria's official name is People's Democratic Republic of Algeria. Do you agree that Algeria is democratic because the word is in their name?

Yes, no countries are Islamic. Countries cannot be Islamic. No countries are ruled by Shari'a (if you knew what Shari'a is you would know that). Some employ fiqh law (often confused with Shari'a). I'm dealing with so many facts, I can make your head spin. I have a PhD in Islamic law and history, and spent nearly 25 years working legal cases in Muslim countries around the world. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

[웃 910]

Here is a map from 3200 BCE:

Here is a map of Native American territory from 1500 CE.

1700 CE

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The arab population in israel was larger than the jewish population, and they were both growing at a large rate.There was a large influx of jews coming in(most of whom were fleeing the increasing persecution in Europe). There was lots of killing and massacres against the jews until the UN decided to partition the land (as seen on map 2).

My link

Both populations were growing; however the Palestinian growth was overwhelming due to natural increase, while the Jewish growth was due to illegal immigration.

As far as massacres, the author conveniently neglects to mention the hundreds of massacres being perpetrated against the Palestinians. This link lists just the ones committed by Irgun between 1937 and 1948; there were many others committed by other Zionist terror gangs, over the decades before partition:

Exibit B:

List of Irgun Attacks 1937-1948

On the eve of partition, even after decades of mass illegal Jewish immigration, the population of Palestine was still predominantly Arab (both Muslim and Christian.) Only in the Jaffa district (location of modern-day Tel Aviv) was there a Jewish majority; in Haifa, it was about 50/50:

Exhibit C: 1946 Supplement to a Survey of Palestine, later reprinted in 1950 as United Nations map 93(b)

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't disagree with you. Many Christians in this country are perverting the faith to preach hatred . The difference is that here they are just irritating and we laugh at them. In many Muslim countries those wing nuts are running the country.

There is a reason we have separation of church and state and we don't allow the ten commandments to be hung in courtrooms. In most Muslim countries religious law is the law of the land.

The problem with your dismissal is that your right wing nut jobs are not just irritating. They're developing foreign policy, including US policy toward Israel, and deciding where your tax dollars are spent. They're pressuring our presidential candidates, parties and representative to prove how "pro-Christian" they are. You and those who gave your post a star don't know much about your own courtrooms. Several have the 10 commandments on display. Its allowed if its referred to as a "historical" document, like the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. For example:

10 Commandments will return to Monroe Co. Courthouse

8:03 PM, Jun 13, 2012

Written by John Henry

The Ten Commandments will soon make their return to the Monroe County Courthouse.

The ancient documents used to be on display in the Madisonville building seven years ago, but were eventually taken down when the Supreme Court ruled in a similar McCreary County, Kentucky case that such acts endorsed religion.

Monroe County Mayor Tim Yates has decided to put the documents back on display due to a new state law Governor Bill Haslam signed in April. The legislation made it legal for the 10 Commandments to be placed in public so long as they were presented in a historical context, alongside other historical documents.

Yates said Monroe County will put the Ten Commandments next to other documents like the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.

"What we're doing is displaying these as historical documents," Yates said.

. . .

The US Congress has retained a Christian chaplain at taxpayer expense since 1789 to open the session with Christian prayer and provide Christian guidance to Congressional members and staff.

Both Moses (pbuh) with the tablets and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are carved in friezes on the Supreme Court Building.

The right wingers know how to motivate and move their agenda forward. While you're laughing at them, they're working hard to change your way of life.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Map 2:

The UN decided what the division would be(israel got most of the uninhebited, desert part). arabs got the right part, and lots of the top and parts of the left. For context – the right side of the map borders with Jordan, which means the UN declared the green right part to actually be jordanian terrotory. the top part id bordering with syria and lebanon. the bottom part borders with egypt.

My link

This is his Shell Game #2. In fact, in an attempt to place as many Jewish communities as possible into the proposed Jewish State, the partition plan awarded to the future Israel the areas which contained the major Jewish population centers (no matter that they were still areas with a primarily Arab population) - including the fertile farmlands along the coast, the eastern Galilee including the Sea of Galilee (a major water source for the area,) as well as most of the Bedouins' land. Along with the rest of the Arabs, their opinions about dividing their land simply didn't matter.

Under the plan, the Jewish State was to receive 56% of historic Palestine, although Jews made up barely 1/3 of the population.

His mention of Jordan is a red herring; Jordan was not part of historic Palestine or part of the U.N. partition plan, nor was it the homeland of Palestinians.

Notice the kvetching insinuation that even taking more than half of historic Palestine was somehow unfair. The Beast can never be fed enough.

map 3:

The important thing to remember here is that the arabs did not accept the UN decision and instead began to wage war against the israelis (who wanted to accept it). During this war the israelies had won, and had pushed the arabs back into what is now seen in map 3 (second from the right). Remember, this was war and the green zones were attaching the white ones. so green was smaller at the end of the war.

in essence, map 2 never came into existence. except in the minds of the UN.

that’s how it roughly stayed until 67.

This is his Shell Game #3. The U.N. Partition Plan was never implemented; however, the provisional government of Israel specifically accepted the borders demarcated in the U.N. Partition Plan in both its announcement of independence and its Declaration of Independence, as well as in its petition to the U.N. to become a member state, and those are the borders that have been internationally recognized.

Exhibit D: Letter from the Jewish Agency for Palestine to President Truman announcing the establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948

...the State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947...

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Gotta step out for a while... have fun and remember: the longer your post, the more I get to respond to

[웃 910]

Exhibit E: World Map 2000 BCE

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Like Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...

According to a 2008 U.S. Department of Defense survey of active-duty military, 22% self-identify as evangelical or Pentecostal, 19% self-identify as Roman Catholics, 20% self-identify as simply "Christian." That's 63%. Another 20% self-identify as "no religious preference," but most of these are nondenominational Christians - only .5% call themselves "atheist." A even smaller number self-identify as Muslim or Jewish. So you're looking at more than 80% Christian (those who definitely believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ):

No, most Muslim terrorists are not committing their acts because of religion; they are fighting against what they perceive as foreign occupation of their land. According to the landmark study of suicide terrorism by Robert A. Pape, who studied every single suicide terror attack from 1980 to early 2004:

Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the CIA and all other U.S. military-intelligence experts concluded that there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs; in fact, there was clear evidence that Iraq had abandoned any WMD program years before. They advised George W. Bush of their conclusions.

However, Bush didn't want to hear that. He was determined to do what his daddy couldn't (take out Saddam) and he insisted that there had to be WMDs there - to justify his war. So he created the Office of Special Plans, a 2-man unit inside the Pentagon designed to cook the books and give him what he wanted - fabrications. That's how he ended up making a monkey of himself with figments of his own imagination, like the Nigerian Yellowcake...

Yes just like Vietnam, Grenada, Libya ( Afghanistan and Iraq are debatable). We damn sure had no business in Vietnam .

You say only 60 say they are Christian but then claim more than 80% are. Your not being honest. I have been in the US military. Not an overtly Christian atmosphere for sure. We darn sure don't have mandatory daily prayer.

I am not going to keep arguing with you. Most Islamic countries have harsh laws, suppress women, and are intolerant of other views. Islam supports a world wide culture that supports radicalism or it would not be possible for it exist. If the good Muslims you speak of vastly outnumbered the bad Muslims and despised them, the bad Muslims would not have so much influence. Also your argument that the Islamic Brotherhood is not a fundamentalist radical orgnization is laughable. Look up Fundamental Islam on Wikipedia and look at the first paragraph.

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

The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran is seen by Western scholars as a political success of Islamic fundamentalism. Economist Eli Berman argues that Radical Islam is a better term for many post-1920s movements starting with the Muslim Brotherhood, because these movements are seen to practice "unprecedented extremism", thus not qualifying as return to historic fundamentals.^[4]

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

OK continuing….

map 4:

so how did we get from map 3 to map 4?

in 67, Egypt decided to declare war on Israel (the bottom gray in the map is the start of egypt. They essentially closed all the bottom part of israel and parts which are not seen on this map.

Jordan and Syria (to the right and to the top of israel) quickly joined in the war, and israel was now attacked from 3 sides. yes. that includes in inner green part that was actually attacking israel from almost within it.

Israel gained victory in that war, pushing back jordan, syria and egypt into what will now look closer to map no. 4 (most right).

My link

No, Egypt did not declare war on Israel in 1967. Israel initiated the war, attacking Egypt in a Pearl Harbor-style surprise attack, destroying virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force while it sat on the ground. Israel then launched an attack against Jordan.

Israel tried to claim that it was a pre-emptive war, responding to a threat of attack by the Egyptian Air Force, and that the Zionist State was in danger of annihilation.

But in fact Egypt had a third of its armed forces in Yemen at the time, and was never in any position to threaten Israel’s security.

I really don’t know what your source is talking about with the claim that Egypt “closed all the bottom part of Israel.“ He may be referring to the so-called “blockade” of the Straits of Tiran, but they are not inside Israel - they are between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, at the southern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. But it lasted only one week and was already over 2 weeks before Israel attacked Egypt. Referring to it as a “blockade” at all has been called “questionable”:

“An Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years…. “The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation.”

The attack on Jordan was completely unprovoked. Syria was drawn into the war after Israel attacked Egypt because of its mutual defense agreement with Cairo.

According to his memoirs, the war of 1967 was launched over the objection of Yitzhak Rabin. And both Rabin and Menachem Begin later admitted publicly that Israel knew Nasser was not planning an attack.

Rabin, quoted in Le Monde in 1968 “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to Syria in May (in a show of support for the Syrians who were under threat and attack by Israel) would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

In 1968, Begin was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “In June 1967 we again had a choice, the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

In 1972, Ha’aretz quoted General Mattiyahu Peled, who played a major role in developing strategies for the attack, as saying “The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June of 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence was only a bluff, which was born and developed after the war.”

Ezer Weizmann, Israeli Air Force General, openly declared that “There was never any danger of extermination.”

Mordecai Bentov, former Israeli cabinet member, stated in 1972 in al Hamishar newspaper that “All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories.”

Not only was the 1967 war due to Israeli aggression, it was planned well in advance, to complete the conquest of Palestine. Under the “fog of war,” Israel carried out another round of ethnic cleansing, expelling about 250,000 Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank and the Golan.

Israel's actions were in complete violation of international law (as usual,) and countless U.N. resolutions have demanded that Israel end its illegal occupation and allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and property.

But it’s a pattern that Israel has repeated over and over - first in 1948, then in 1956, and again in 1967. Israel attacks it neighbors, occupies land beyond its borders, violates international law by transferring its own civilians into these regions, and then uses these illegal settlements as justification for annexing them into Israel in the name of “defense” and “security.”

If Tel Aviv can get something going against Iran, I would not be surprised if Israel tries to use the distraction to cover yet another round of ethnic cleansing - most likely going after the Palestinians of East Jerusalem and the rest of Area C, if not the rest of the West Bank.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

the settlement problem

After Israel had won, it could have chosen to do many things – for example negotiate with jordan and leave the places won over to something like the 67’ border. But it chose, for mostly security, ideological and religious reasons, to stay in those territories and start building settlements there. it built roads that divided the occupied land and basically did lots of things which today there is nothing really good to say about them (and is slowly trying to turn back the wheel on some of them). Still, the security aspect is the one that is the most relevant today. It keeps the other side farther away. if they were closer, their missiles could have easily hit 60% of israel, instead of 30% right now.

A hole we can’t get out of

My link

He's right that it's a hole Israel dug for itself.

But the rest doesn’t even make any sense. If Israel seized the West Bank because it was afraid of “missiles” hitting Israelis, why would it keep moving its civilians over there, even closer to these “missiles” it’s supposedly so worried about ?

It’s all a scam. Israel claims it must have a "buffer zone" between it and any neighboring country. So Israel invades its neighbors and seizes territory from them, but then moves its civilians into illegal settlements there and claims to annex the land into Israel. Then it claims it needs additional territory for a new buffer zone. The idea is - the “buffer zone” keeps moving outward, and Israel keeps getting more and more territory. Only the neighbors don’t like it too much.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

a lot of what people have a problem with today is the fact that israel as a country supported and still supports parts of the settlements, which are not legal by international law. the reasons, again, are security,ideological and religion (promised land etc..). there is a great divide among the israeli people whether this should continue or not but the situation has now become too problematic to easily solve. Many also believe that the settlements are a security measure that helps to keep the missile attacks farther away from the cities.

for example, Israel had actually gotten fully out of part of the territories (gaza for example), but got back missilies and rockets (which is why we see the Israel coming back in – to stop this). there were many negotiations and many agreements that were broken or followed by both on a single side of the conflict, and many believe that there is no one to talk to on the other side.

many in israel believe that two states are the end result any way, (something like the 67 borders) but want to make sure that the other state will not try to destroy israel (as it had promised to do, with the backing of iran and syria) many times. a state next to you has to recognize that you have a right to exist, and not try to burn you.

My link

It’s real easy to solve - take the army out, and bring in the U-Hauls. The settlers will leave real quick. The problem is - they'll go back to Israel.

This is the quandary Israel has created for itself - it created the settlers, armed them, and let them terrorize the Palestinians with impunity. The West Bank is like the Wild Wild West where settlers make their own law and do as they please, under the watchful protection of the Israeli army. Israel created about a half million violent nutjob zealots, and it really doesn’t want them returning to “civilized” Israel. The settlers also have a lot of political power, and they get real mean when they don‘t get their way. They’ll price tag Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, maybe assassinate another Prime Minister.

Anyway, about the “no one to talk to” fallacy - the Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel within the 1967 borders since the early 1990s. Even Hamas has agreed to abide by the 1967 borders if Israel ends its occupation and ends the blockade and siege of Gaza. All this has essentially been ignored by Tel Aviv for one reason only: because it’s not done taking the West Bank yet. It figures there will be plenty of time to make peace later, when Israel is done eating up what’s left of Palestine.

There’s an old saying - careful what you wish for. Israel wished for all of Palestine. It may get it - but it will come at a heavy price: the millions of Palestinian untouchables who live there. So Israel will have to make a hard choice - does it remain a democracy, with equal rights for all (meaning no more Jewish majority,) or does it drop all pretensions of that, and become an outright apartheid state, with one ethnic uber-group lording it over the untermensch ? Or does it go for Round 3 of ethnic cleansing ?

[james&olya 1,121]

I have never before heard many of these details. I have long known that Israel did not have clean hands where it came to issues with the palestinians but never knew how bad. I would like to hear what response the Israel supporters on here can make to this. Is all of this really true?