Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I was Russia I would have nuked Chechnya and then said here is your separation. Allah Akbar m/fssss..

Hmmm... Nice.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

I can find a lot of cases where Muslims have deliberately killed children in both Israel and Iraq. Sorry that is not opinion but reality..

i dont think anyone will deny that these things happen, but there are also many counter-examples

if the US if funding the israeli side of these conflicts that you are citing, dont you think that means we are deliberately killing children as well? if we didnt fund israel with weapons and money, they wouldnt be able to continue these wars, and would have been wiped off the map years ago...israelis do the same sorts of killing that muslims do...do you think that just because we are on their side, that they dont kill innocent people intentionally? thats ridiculous

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

Well, don't you just know everything?

Of course civilian casualties occur, its a sad reality of war. Any chance the enemy can, they will force you into a position to injure civilians. Then they twist the events out of context in an attempt to gain support.

If the media was sooo biased in our favor, why did they broadcast the Haditha killings, what about the five soldiers charged in the rape and murder of that 14 year old girl, Abu Ghraib, I can keep going. So don't worry, the media is not with-holding any of the horrible things from you.

Panel: U.S. Underreported Iraq Violence

WASHINGTON -- U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

** Hence the media can only report on the stories they know about**

Here is the link to the full story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120601325.html

yeah, we all know how reliable the washington post is

[Heracles 417]

I can find a lot of cases where Muslims have deliberately killed children in both Israel and Iraq. Sorry that is not opinion but reality..

i dont think anyone will deny that these things happen, but there are also many counter-examples

if the US if funding the israeli side of these conflicts that you are citing, dont you think that means we are deliberately killing children as well? if we didnt fund israel with weapons and money, they wouldnt be able to continue these wars, and would have been wiped off the map years ago...israelis do the same sorts of killing that muslims do...do you think that just because we are on their side, that they dont kill innocent people intentionally? thats ridiculous

So basically Israel should just be destroyed and then things will be peaceful. Come on now. While I agree that there a lot of good, normal and intelligent Muslims out there, there are also a lot of extremist nut bags who will always find someone to scapegoat for their problems; But never themselves of course. If Israel and the US completely left the earth then it would be someone else to blame, probably Europe. It's the way the cookie crumbles for those guys. Instead of looking at Dubai, Malaysia etc as examples of success through peace they prefer to be stuck in never ending wars. In the end they only loose. So while everyone in DUBAi is living it up, Palestines are living in 3rd world ruins..

Edited September 12, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[mawilson 2,133]

The Palestinians didn't own Palestine, Britain did.

It was won by battle and was Britain's land to deed as they wished.

End of story.

and which fictional story would that be!???? seriously do your history homework!!!

Palestine was under Ottoman rule until World War I. During World War I, Britain kicked

the Ottomans out, and shortly thereafter issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which laid

plans for a Jewish state in Palestine.

You do your history homework. Thank you.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

I would like to know what your opinion is on Turkey's occupation on Cyprus. After all this did occur in 1974 and not 1948.

a bit off topic, but why not?

those sort of 'drawing a line in the sand' sorts of measures never work, do they?

cant we all just get along?

i think its clear that they are going to have to decide for themselves where the division is to be made...the greeks want sole power over the land, and the turks (obviously) dont agree with that...should turkey be occupying the entire island? no, ethnic turks are only a minority there...as for that minority, they do have a right to live there and to have a say in the government...they have been there (about) as long as the colonies in america...i think it is quite clear that there will be no stable, unified government...and i know you want to know this...no i dont think the ottomans should have gone there to begin with...but when generation after generation has lived there, what else can be done? its going to eventually become two countries (or part will go to greece and part to turkey), but nobody but the people who live there can decide where the divide is to be made

to come full circle, israel is still a baby compared to this example...generation after generation has not lived there

[Heracles 417]

I would like to know what your opinion is on Turkey's occupation on Cyprus. After all this did occur in 1974 and not 1948.

a bit off topic, but why not?

those sort of 'drawing a line in the sand' sorts of measures never work, do they?

cant we all just get along?

i think its clear that they are going to have to decide for themselves where the division is to be made...the greeks want sole power over the land, and the turks (obviously) dont agree with that...should turkey be occupying the entire island? no, ethnic turks are only a minority there...as for that minority, they do have a right to live there and to have a say in the government...they have been there (about) as long as the colonies in america...i think it is quite clear that there will be no stable, unified government...and i know you want to know this...no i dont think the ottomans should have gone there to begin with...but when generation after generation has lived there, what else can be done? its going to eventually become two countries (or part will go to greece and part to turkey), but nobody but the people who live there can decide where the divide is to be made

to come full circle, israel is still a baby compared to this example...generation after generation has not lived there

How is Israel a baby? It was their land prior to the Palestinians 'occupying' it.

Cyprus is not Turkish so to say we will just let them work it out is a clear double standard.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

I can find a lot of cases where Muslims have deliberately killed children in both Israel and Iraq. Sorry that is not opinion but reality..

i dont think anyone will deny that these things happen, but there are also many counter-examples

if the US if funding the israeli side of these conflicts that you are citing, dont you think that means we are deliberately killing children as well? if we didnt fund israel with weapons and money, they wouldnt be able to continue these wars, and would have been wiped off the map years ago...israelis do the same sorts of killing that muslims do...do you think that just because we are on their side, that they dont kill innocent people intentionally? thats ridiculous

So basically Israel should just be destroyed and then things will be peaceful. If Israel and the US completely left the earth then it would be someone else to blame, probably Europe.

you didnt answer my question and yes, as i have previously stated, if israel didnt exist then many less people would be suffering on both sides

It's the way the cookie crumbles for those guys. Instead of looking at Dubai, Malaysia etc as examples of success through peace they prefer to be stuck in never ending wars. In the end they only loose. So while everyone in DUBAi is living it up, Palestines are living in 3rd world ruins..

for one, dubai is an oil rich country, and that will only last for so long...oil eventually runs out...they are 'successful' in your eyes, not because of peace, but because of oil money...this is the original view that i mentioned about how we judge countries...granted, palestine is not in good shape, but to say that they chose to be in such a condition is absolutely absurd...all you see is the fact that they do not have american style night clubs and resorts, like dubai

[almaty 19]

doodlebug,

I wouldn't call them 'statistics'

How about this case? Beslan School massacre where they took hostage and killed children. 386 killed who where mainly children in an elementary school.

thats one example, not statistics

One example!!!!!! If I was Russia I would have nuked Chechnya and then said here is your separation. Allah Akbar m/fssss..

brother infidel, i have allot of respect for you and your views, but this was out of line..first of all, i take this personal since my wife's family is from there and she is Chechen...

2nd, most of the Chechens are against the terorists that are trying to put Islamic religious rule.

3rd, since the deaths of the terorists ring leaders the Chechen area...has died down, not gone as there are scattered small groups, but nothing like before...

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

How is Israel a baby? It was their land prior to the Palestinians 'occupying' it.

Cyprus is not Turkish so to say we will just let them work it out is a clear double standard.

israel is a baby because it was created in 1948...i was pretty sure that you understood that

i believe you were the one who said, in mocking fashion, 'how far back are we going to go here? should we go back to judea?'

to say so, and now state it as a premise for your argument is also a blatant contradiction...and when israel was created, palestinians were living there, not jews...

if native americans werent virtually killed off, but rather dispersed throughout the world, and one day someone said 'ok, georgia (or whatever state) is now going to be an native american homeland, everyone OUT!', that would seem reasonable to you, even though we have lived here for hundreds of years?

secondly, i made a point to say that i dont believe in nations playing the bully and imposing on foreign lands

third, i addressed the fact that even though i dont believe in imperialism, if a group of people has inhabited a land for generation after generation (like both palestinians and the turks in cyprus), then they too have a right to the land...even though it was acquired unjustly...there is a time factor here, and the land has clearly become home to people who had nothing to do with the original aggressors (ie: me, living in america)

Edited September 12, 2007 by babybluesusie

[Logres 0]

its not as thought britain recieved a mandate over palestine because they went to battle in the middle east and won...that is not the case...they were on the winning end of WWI, yes, but they didnt ever fight a war specifically to obtain those lands, nor did they fight the palestinian people for the land...they obtained a mandate over the land and a few (about 30) years later they created israel...you argue that the palestinians are the aggressors here and that the israelis are peace loving and willing to negotiate, but is it the chicken or the egg...the point is that the original aggressor was the british by creating this state in the first place, and granting themselves power that they had no right to have

'Granting themselves power'? If this is going to come down to historical accuracy, it might be better to be historically accurate.

After the fall of the Ottoman empire, the 'League of Nations' awarded the mandate of Palestine to Great Britain. Great Britain was tasked by the international community with baby-sitting Palestine until the state could stand on it's own two feet, additionally the 'League of Nations' specifically asked that this administration included finding a home for the Jews. Great Britain withdrew from Palestine after the 'United Nations' initial plans for slicing up the land was rejected out of hand by the Arab/Jewish inhabitants - other UN members supported the plans.

The ensuing wars from the point of Israel pronouncing independence are unfortunate, but are not down to Britain owning the land and then just deciding to give it over to the Jews.

[Logres 0]

third, i addressed the fact that even though i dont believe in imperialism, if a group of people has inhabited a land for generation after generation (like both palestinians and the turks in cyprus), then they too have a right to the land...even though it was acquired unjustly...there is a time factor here, and the land has clearly become home to people who had nothing to do with the original aggressors (ie: me, living in america)

So how long does one group have to live in a state so that you recognise it as their 'home'? 5 years, 50 years, 500 years....... By your very own conclusions, if we had the same discussion in 100 years (or whatever value you deem fit to use) time the Israelis have equal rights to pronounce the land their home as the Arabs do.

[mawilson 2,133]

if we didnt fund israel with weapons and money, they wouldnt be able to continue these wars, and would have been wiped off the map years ago...

Israel has plenty of resources to survive without America's support.

America hasn't always supported Israel, you know. The US gained respect

for Israel after they had defeated Egypt, Jordan and Syria in the Six-Day War,

facing overwhelming odds.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

'Granting themselves power'? If this is going to come down to historical accuracy, it might be better to be historically accurate.

After the fall of the Ottoman empire, the 'League of Nations' awarded the mandate of Palestine to Great Britain. Great Britain was tasked by the international community with baby-sitting Palestine until the state could stand on it's own two feet, additionally the 'League of Nations' specifically asked that this administration included finding a home for the Jews. Great Britain withdrew from Palestine after the 'United Nations' initial plans for slicing up the land was rejected out of hand by the Arab/Jewish inhabitants - other UN members supported the plans.

The ensuing wars from the point of Israel pronouncing independence are unfortunate, but are not down to Britain owning the land and then just deciding to give it over to the Jews.

Great Britain was on the winning side of WWI and had HUGE influence over the decisions of the 'League of Nations'

you view it as babysitting, I view it as imperialism...call it what you will

my point is that you might want to look at who was involved in the 'League of Nations' and question what their agendas were...also my point still stands that the people who inhabited the land had no say as to what was happening to their land (ie: they were not a part of the talks)

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

So how long does one group have to live in a state so that you recognise it as their 'home'? 5 years, 50 years, 500 years....... By your very own conclusions, if we had the same discussion in 100 years (or whatever value you deem fit to use) time the Israelis have equal rights to pronounce the land their home as the Arabs do.

i am glad that you were smart enough to raise this point, bravo

yes, one's 'home' is a fluid term, and no, i cannot give you an exact time when it would be suitable for one say they have rights to a land

if theres anyone left in 100 years, still fighting, then yes they do deserve to call that land home...it still doesnt mean that the initial invasion was a just measure