Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[DeadPoolX 9]

As for Israel... I think that country would gladly attempt to work out a peace treaty with the Palestinians that is effective. The problem is seems to be that Palestinian militants and terrorist groups are hell-bent on opposing any negotiations with Israel (even if it means saving the lives of their own people), so they attack and kill Israelis. Then, of course, Israel retaliates. The terrorist groups use this response as fodder to feed their sick hatred of Jews, brainwash more Palestinians into killing even more Israelis, and... well, it doesn't take a genius to see how this is working out.

you make some good points about the type of conquering that goes on today, as opposed to the traditional way, but there are some other things that i just dont agree with

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

I don't need to go into the history of the British mandate, thanks to Logres, so I'll just concentrate on what I have in bold instead.

If you read what I wrote a little more closely, you'll see that, while I am more sympathetic to the Israeli cause (just as you are to the Palestinian cause), I did not call Palestinians the "aggressors" as a whole. I referred to "Palestinian militants and terrorist groups," which obviously does not include every single Palestinian in the area.

I have no doubt that there are numerous Palestinians who would much rather just live in peace (even with the Israelis) than deal with the constant violence around them. Unfortunately, there are enough Palestinian terrorist factions to overshadow whatever the rank-and-file moderates may desire.

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

Well, then color me "ridiculous," because I really don't believe that Israel does the same sort of things that terrorist groups do. Not one bit.

Has the Israeli Defense Force accidentally killed civilians? Absolutely. But then again, so has every military in the world, starting from the beginning of time. Civilian causalities are an unfortunate reality in warfare. Nobody wants them, but they can -- and will -- happen. The best any military can hope for is to reduce the number of these incidents from occurring.

The IDF does NOT attempt to murder innocent men, women and children, all of whom are out playing, shopping for groceries, going out for a meal or partying at a dance club. Israel's military force tries to target different forms of opposition to the country, which usually comes in the shape of terrorism. The point is that the IDF doesn't target civilians intentionally, whereas terrorists do.

In addition, whatever Israel does with the weaponry the United States gives or sells them is their own business. Once the U.S. has made the trade, it's no longer any concern of ours. Just because Israel purchases a bomb from the U.S., it doesn't mean that have to use it. That's their choice. If everyone began blaming suppliers for what purchasers did, then there would be chaos.

Would we blame Ford or BMW if someone got into a car accident and killed another person? After all, those automakers sold the car to those drivers and if those drivers never had the car in the first place, they couldn't have gotten into the accident and killed someone else! It must Ford and BMW's fault! It couldn't possibly be that the driver never bothered to bring in his car for maintenance or that he wasn't paying attention to the road or maybe he was chatting on his cell phone or drunk or tired or a million other things.

What I'm getting at is that what we ultimately do is our own decision. We make not like the consequences that follow, but the choice is ultimately our own.

'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)

Did any of these same people fight in the trenches or fly bi-planes in World War I? No? Then they didn't get a vote. The League of Nations was set up as an international collective of "all the countries that mattered" for the time. Elitist? Perhaps, but then this was right at the beginning of the 20th century and many people (especially the leaders, all of whom were born in the previous century) still thought along "old world" lines.

Essentially, there were three main purposes to the League of Nations:

1. Punish Germany and Austria-Hungary through reparations, loss of land, etc., and completely carve up the Ottoman Empire.

2. Divide up the "spoils of war" amongst the winners.

3. Ensure that the Great War (aka WWI) was truly the "War to End All Wars" and that nothing like it ever happened again.

Well... they succeeded in doing numbers one and two correctly, but as we all know, the third item on the list didn't quite work out as planned. Anyway, the second purpose included the area within the Middle-East that would eventually become Israel. That, and other areas, were handed over to the British.

So even though I disagree with Babybluesusie on most things, I do have to agree on the subject of imperialism. At that time in history, that was the "order of the day" and there was nothing wrong with it; nothing to be ashamed about. That was just how things were done. Things are generally a bit different today, but back then, it was considered "okay" to step all over others if they got in your way or if they were of a "lower socio-economic class."

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

It seems to me that if the term "home" is fluid and the amount of time a group of people must inhabit an area is a requirement for them to make it their home, then someone will always say that the Palestinians have a "greater right" to the land than the Israelis. That's assuming, of course, that both groups of people survive the next 100 years or so.

Still, I don't think "time there" is really a necessity to call a place home. I think it's ability to "keep and control" it. Take the United States, for instance. Technically speaking, some could claim that this land really belongs to the Native Americans who were here before any Europeans settled North America. Perhaps they're right; it all depends on your point-of-view. But since the Europeans-turned-Americans conquered, kept and eventually controlled the land which would become the United States of America, it is now our home. Of course, anyone can be an American too -- you can come from a Native American background and be an American just like someone whose ancestors came from somewhere in Europe or Africa or Asia or the Middle-East. It doesn't matter. But the point is that Americans "kept and controlled" this land, so we gained it as our nation and home, while the Native Americans who were here first failed to "keep and control" it, so they lost it.

Fair? No, not really. But as that old famous quote goes... "To the victor go the spoils!" B)

Wondering if the people on the ground see much difference between a terrorist attack and ‘collateral damage’…. Best intentions don’t really cut it if the result is the same… That’s part of the challenge of this sort of conflict IMO.

I highly doubt that those on the ground care what the motives were of whoever did what if they lost loved ones in a botched bombing run. They're still going to be very upset and angry. Still, the point is that countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and many others DO NOT attempt to kill innocent civilians. This doesn't always mean they are successful, but they do try to limit the unnecessary loss of life. Unfortunately, that does little for the people who've just lost a family member or two.

However, intent is a major factor here. It makes all the difference in the world. Without intent, there would be virtually no difference between the military and terrorist cells. Without intent, there would be no difference between self-defense and murder. Without intent, there would be no difference between a compliment and sexual harassment. Without intent, there might not even be a difference between sexual role-playing and rape.

But there is a difference between all of those. Why? Because of the intent. The end result is the same or at least, virtually the same, in all cases. It's the intent behind the situation that changes the entire scenario.

Edited September 12, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

are you defending the view that a foreign power can just walk in and claim that there is a new country where one doesnt exist? i know its possible, but is it right?

No, when did I say that?

'Right' and 'Wrong' are subjective terms that the most brilliant minds in the history of Western philosophy have yet to agree on, so I think it is unlikely that I will be able to provide you with a conclusive answer.

I think you may be missing the obvious here – that in every other instance (I can think of) where a country was artificially created and the results imposed upon a native population in total disregard of the will of the people living under the new regime, it has been a disaster (i.e. Yugoslavia, India under the British Raj, good few African countries – including Rwanda)

I didn't state any views, so I probably missed most things.

In each case given above, you would have walked away and left the administration of each country to it's inhabitants?

Be Seeing You!

Well the histories of each of those examples (including Israel) are clearly complicated by subsequent developments; and we can argue the point as to whether western involvement in the 3rd world (European and then American) has brought about a lot of the problems we are dealing with today.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I highly doubt that those on the ground care what the motives were of whoever did what if they lost loved ones in a botched bombing run. They're still going to be very upset and angry. Still, the point is that countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and many others DO NOT attempt to kill innocent civilians. This doesn't always mean they are successful, but they do try to limit the unnecessary loss of life. Unfortunately, that does little for the people who've just lost a family member or two.

However, intent is a major factor here. It makes all the difference in the world. Without intent, there would be virtually no difference between the military and terrorist cells. Without intent, there would be no difference between self-defense and murder. Without intent, there would be no difference between a compliment and sexual harassment. Without intent, there might not even be a difference between sexual role-playing and rape.

But there is a difference between all of those. Why? Because of the intent. The end result is the same or at least, virtually the same, in all cases. It's the intent behind the situation that changes the entire scenario.

It makes a difference in our perceptions certainly - but does it make as big of a difference to native populations? Hard to say.... This is coming off the back of the findings of a recent opinion poll that sharply contrasts with the claims made by the general the other day; to be fair to him something that is probably outside his mandate.

[Heracles 417]

I didn't state any views, so I probably missed most things.

In each case given above, you would have walked away and left the administration of each country to it's inhabitants?

Be Seeing You!

it is possible to assist without imperialising...it is also possible to find out what the people of that country would want, rather than imposing foreign influence upon them...there are other ways of dealing with things, than what has been done in these past examples

What it comes down to is that have we commandeered passenger aircraft and slammed them into buildings? Have we driven cars into towns and deliberately blown them up to inflict maximum deaths on civilians?

Did we cheer when innocent people where targeted and killed on Sept/11????

[Logres 0]

What is actually being discussed at this point? I'm confused.

[mawilson 2,133]

What is actually being discussed at this point? I'm confused.

Islam, a plan, a canal, Pamalsi!

(Ok, so Pamalsi is not a word, but can you find a better palindrome? )

[Heracles 417]

What is actually being discussed at this point? I'm confused.

For me personally is the double standards within the pro Palestinian / death to Israel community.

[Peikko 1,575]

What it comes down to is that have we commandeered passenger aircraft and slammed them into buildings? Have we driven cars into towns and deliberately blown them up to inflict maximum deaths on civilians?

Did we cheer when innocent people where targeted and killed on Sept/11????

That's a dangerous road to travel....Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or don't those civillian targets count because the ultimate aim was so worthy?

Of course, 'terrorism' is a terrible thing, no doubt about it, but so is war.

(oh, and why do we need to label civilians as 'innocent'?)

Edited September 12, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Heracles 417]

What is actually being discussed at this point? I'm confused.

Islam, a plan, a canal, Pamalsi!

(Ok, so Pamalsi is not a word, but can you find a better palindrome? )

Anyone who denies such a plan is only kidding themselves. The leaders of countries such as Iran and the heads of terrorists groups like Al Qaeda have verbally made this intention clear time and time again.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think the point has been that whether there is a 'plan' or not amongst Islamic extremists, is somewhat of a red herring as the vast majority of Muslims don't have some 'world domination' strategy...as yet. Push 'em far enough though, and you just might make it come true.

Ultimately...no religion should have 'world domination' on their agenda...and yet, many do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the point has been that whether there is a 'plan' or not amongst Islamic extremists, is somewhat of a red herring as the vast majority of Muslims don't have some 'world domination' strategy...as yet. Push 'em far enough though, and you just might make it come true.

Ultimately...no religion should have 'world domination' on their agenda...and yet, many do.

As happened with Iran following the 1953 US-Sponsored coup.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

What it comes down to is that have we commandeered passenger aircraft and slammed them into buildings? Have we driven cars into towns and deliberately blown them up to inflict maximum deaths on civilians?

Did we cheer when innocent people where targeted and killed on Sept/11????

That's a dangerous road to travel....Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or don't those civillian targets count because the ultimate aim was so worthy?

Of course, 'terrorism' is a terrible thing, no doubt about it, but so is war.

(oh, and why do we need to label civilians as 'innocent'?)

hiroshima and nagasaki were part of a declared war. the most important factor in the use of the bombs on those two cities was to get japan to surrender, otherwise it would have been a bloody invasion on par with iwo jima.

and at the time, no one was really sure what the bombs would do. radiation was an unknown at that time.

i'm surprised you didn't mention the firebombing of dresden......now that was totally unnecessary.

[almaty 19]

What it comes down to is that have we commandeered passenger aircraft and slammed them into buildings? Have we driven cars into towns and deliberately blown them up to inflict maximum deaths on civilians?

Did we cheer when innocent people where targeted and killed on Sept/11????

That's a dangerous road to travel....Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or don't those civillian targets count because the ultimate aim was so worthy?

Of course, 'terrorism' is a terrible thing, no doubt about it, but so is war.

(oh, and why do we need to label civilians as 'innocent'?)

hiroshima and nagasaki were part of a declared war. the most important factor in the use of the bombs on those two cities was to get japan to surrender, otherwise it would have been a bloody invasion on par with iwo jima.

and at the time, no one was really sure what the bombs would do. radiation was an unknown at that time.

i'm surprised you didn't mention the firebombing of dresden......now that was totally unnecessary.

excellent to mention dresden..i agree....hmmm..billy pilgrim where are you?

Edited September 13, 2007 by almaty

[Peikko 1,575]

My point was a more general one, that when you engage in war, decisions are taken for 'military reasons' that do target civilians. That you want to rationalise it is understandable, but the rationale for these decisions is, at best, questionable. The fact remains that these were civillian targets and to suggest that no one had any idea what might happen as an excuse is untennable. The idea was to put a stop to the war so clearly they had some clue that the effects would be catastrophic!

War is dangerous, bloody and kills the general population. Terrorism may target the general population beyond what some people see as 'legitimate collatoral damage' but that's just one point of view. Clearly, 'terrorists' see their actions as reasonable given their circumstances (they are often small units, not platoons, squadrons, whatever)

I know it's common practice to try to make out that terrorism is somehow worse than other forms warfare, but quite honestly, the lines are way to blurry for my liking.

[almaty 19]

in war, peole not just soldiers die..i think in WWII, civilians were seen as part of the propaganda to weaken the enemies will...today, it is still used, but more in a controlled and calculated manner..today, technology is much better than dumb bombs dropped high from a flying fortress...