.jpg)
Whether you were North American or South America, whether you were from England or Zimbabwe, whether you were Christian or don't follow a religion, whether you believe in peace or war. Please try to read following words, try to read them neutrally, try to separate yourself from international current situation, and finally tell me what do you think..
Let's imagine that Muslims were a poor people who suffered for many many years, this people always tried to live as one people under one state ruled by an Islamic government but in vain, they always lived torn in various states, finally Muslim leaders gathered in conferences and argued about the place where they will have their state, they though about Mali, Australia, Brazil but they didn't accepted all these suggestions, finally they approved on America to be the place where they will declare their future state.
India (the invader of American lands) promised Muslims to establish a national Muslim community on American lands (exactly in Kansas) and promised not to affect civil and religious rights of non-Muslims groups residing in America.
A group of rich Muslims traveled to America, they started to buy wide plots of American lands and resided in it, they only allowed Muslims to work in these plots, after that those rich Muslims started to bring flocks and flocks of Muslims from all the world to these lands by all their belongings and children and families to reside permanently on these lands, Muslim leaders instituted a semi-government ruling Muslims who lives on these plots.
American people started to feel the danger of those Muslims on their nationalism and they decided to raise up a revolution and strikes against those Muslims and against establishing a Muslim national community on their American lands, India decided to go to UN to solve the problem, UN decided to make a partition of the American lands between Americans and Muslims by giving a half of American lands for the Muslims and the other half for Americans, American people refused this solution, India declared the end of its invade of American lands, Muslims declared their own Islamic state in Kansas intending to declare it on the whole American lands in the future, and they had their chair in UN organization. American people refused this state declared on their own lands. They decided to fight against this state.
Tens of years passed,
and American people continued to fight against this state, and still till this moment,
and Muslims continued to expand their state, and still till this moment.
Muslims still killing American babies, women, old men and youth, and still demolishing their homes, and followed the policy of discrimination between Muslims and non-Muslims (if you were a Muslim every thing is ok, if you aren't no thing will go properly)
and Ameircans still fighting and providing men and women calling them martyrs.
....
So what do you think?!!!!
Do you think that India have the right to promise Muslims to establish a national community on American lands?!!!
Do you think that UN is right to divide the American lands among Americans and Muslims?!!!
Do you think that in the way of solving the problem; states should argue about what is the parts we will give to Americans and what is the parts we will give to Muslims of American lands?!!!
Do you think that UN members should gather to argue about ways to stop American threat against this Islamic state?!!!
Do you think that the case which must be argued is 'Are Muslims having their complete rights in this state?' ?!!!
Do you think that the thing which must be firstly discussed is 'How will we make two states together, an American one and another Islamic, on American lands?' ?!!!
Should we support Muslims to still have their state, and condemn Americans to fight against this Islamic state?!!!!
Or should we support Americans to fight against this Islamic state till they have their independence and get back every inch of their American lands, and condemn Muslims for every thing they do in this state?!!!!
16 comments:
Hi all my guests,
Before any thing, this issue must be argued.
I think that before discussing issues like Jihad, suicide bombers(as you call them) and many other, this issue must discussed firstly.
And remember; separate yourself from international current situation; America isn't the first state of the world but India.
Thanks and hope to hear from you soon,
Mohamed
Mohamed,
I confess I am disappointed in you and in your post. I usually prefer to eschew ad hominem attacks but your logic is so flawed as to be non existent.
I suppose, one place to begin is with your comment to your own posting.
You wish to argue the issue of Israel. It is obvious that you are unable to see beyond it. Because of this, it is impossible to have a conversation with you about anything else. It makes you tiresome, Mohamed. You are like a dinner guest who keeps drawing the conversation back to himself when evryone else at the table has moved on to other subjects.
Secondly, give the people who respond to you a little credit. Some of us have tried to educate ourselves about the concept of Jihad. Personally, I think we do a disservice to Muslim when we refer to radical Muslims as Jihadis. Such jihad is not al-jihad al-akbar but it seems to be what some Muslims promote so all are painted with the same brush.
Thirdly, I am uncertain what you meant when you stated: "America isn't the first state of the world but India." You had better explain it but only if it is relevant to arguement.
But let us address the greatest and most obvious flaw in your logic. Reductio ad absurdem, it is:
"I am Mohamed. I am a Muslim. Although my nationality is Egyptian, I am a Muslim first and foremost. All Muslims are alike. All Muslims think as I do and want the same things I do as a Muslim."
It's those last two sentances Mohamed. Do you really beleive that most Muslims living in Indonesia give a rat's patoot about the Palestinians?
"This people always tried to live as one people under one state ruled by an Islamic government but in vain..."
Mohamed, it appears as if you yearn for the return of Caliphate. It that true? Historically, the Caliphate reached its zenith before 1258 A.D. when Baghdad was conquered by the Mongols.
So I suggest in the words of one of my favorite singers, you take a giant step outside your mind.
History is linear. Before 1258, Muslim civilization expanded rapidly and achieved some intellectual success before the Caliphate was subsumed. What is the lesson here? The Caliphate was not destined to endure. Yet, you seem to want to go back and live in the past. Learn from the past Mohamed, do not try and repeat it.
The Palestinians have wound up on the wrong side of history. One can argue credibly that the same thing happened to the Jews after the Roman conquest of Judea in 135 A.D. although there was another diaspora in the 6th to 8th century B.C.
Perhaps one day, 17 or 18 hundred years hence the Palestinians will reclaim their lands, although I doubt it. The reason for doubt is a subject for another day.
Perhaps you think that Hamas and Fatah and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda will some day make things right for the Palestinians. Do you?
Mohamed, I have in prior comments urged you to move on, something you are clearly unable or unwilling to do. Alas.
You see, again you are using the Palestinian issue to try and claim some type of "moral high ground" on behalf of your faith.
Whereas most of the western world looks at the Palestinians and thinks that they are savages who are unwiling to lead a civilized existence.
In 1970, King Hussein of Jordan expelled the Palestinians because they were a threat to security. In 1990, the Palestinians hailed and supported Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, not only backing th ewrong horse but also dimishing their stature among civilized people of all faiths.
Yes, the issue of the Palestinians is ongoing, serious, and seemingly intractable. There is a possibility for peace in that portion of the Middle East when the Palestinians their puppeteers arrive at the conclusions that Israel is here to stay and that armed struggle will only result in misery for Palestinians as it has for nearly 60 years. I, for one, am not holding my breath for that to happen.
So Mohamed, please tell us how the religion peace seems to promote people to strap explosives to their bodies or drive explosive laden vehicles which they explode killing innocent men, women, and children who are of their own faith?
Regards.
the loop garoo kid,
I think that I stated I want to argue this issue before other isuues.
Do you know what this means?!!
This means that I will argue them later, after arguing this firstly.
Do you know why this is more important than other issues?!!
Because if we approved that Israel is a nice state, established on International law rules, then Hamas and Fatah and every fighter against Israel is a bad guy which must be fought against, and we should support Israel then.
And if we approved that Israel is an invader land, establised against International law rules, then Hamas and Fatah are good guys, and just defending their lands, and they aren't the aggressors, but Zionisits are the aggrerssors by coming to establish their state on another independent state.
So, try to argue firstly with me this issue, and then we can argue about what you are calling suicide bombers, and I want to talk about the fact that not all who claim to make Jihad are one, and so on.
So, my question for you is; if you were an American in this example what should you do, and if you weren't whether an American or a Muslim or Indian what do you think about this example?!!
Peace be with you,
Mohamed,
And with you also.
At this juncture I need to ask a vey simple question: Are you as Palestinian?
I thought you were an Egyptian. If you are a Palestinian, that would explain your fervor on this particular issue.
If you are not a Palestinian, to me that is a very bad sign. It is a bad sign because then you are passionately and impossibly involved with an issue that does not concern you directly. This renders you an enabler, an agitator, and a warmonger.
Do you know what other Arabs do who are afflicted with such passion? They blanket themselves with the flag of Jihad and become involved in conflicts that have naught to do with them. Some fight; some become suicide bombers.
So Mohamed, it is time for you to explain and justify your passion.
It is also time for you to eat a little reality cake. I will explain this term. It is the opposite of "pie in the sky." Eating reality cake means accepting the world as it is, not as one would have it. Usually, eating reality cake involves personal matters but it is not necessarily limited to that.
You see Mohamed, the Palestinians lost the most recent war for Palestine.
Since 1200 B.C., or B.C.E. as the politically correct now call it, Palestine has been ruled in succession by the Jews; teh Persians; teh Greeks; the Romans; the Arabs; the Crusaders; the Mamelukes; the Ottomans; and the British.
So who are the Palestinians to whom you refer and when did they ever rule themselves?
Let us examine three occurances in the last 60 years: the Cuban Revolution; the Chinese invasion of Tibet; and the creation of Israel.
When Castro took over Cuba, many Cubans fled his regime. Many of those settled in the United Staes, particularly in South Florida.
I have had conversations with Cuban Americans from time to time. When the subject of Castro arises, they are more rabid than you are about Israel.
They are waiting for Castro to die. Some are planning huge celebrations when he does. Many of these people harbor the fantasy that when Castro dies, they will be able to return to Cuba and reclaim their porperty. That isn't going to happen. These people wound up on the wrong side of history in the sense they lost the war. They lost everything except their lives.
In 1950, the Peoples Republic of China invaded Tibet, forcing the Dalai Lama to flee. I think the Dalai Lama is a wionderful person. He is a force for peace, truth, and everything that is positive in the human spirit.
Unfortunately, the Dalai Lama wound up on the wrong side of history. Most Tibetans carry his picture and venerate him. I am quite familiar with the Chinese, Mohamed, and they will never allow the Dali Lama to return to Tibet. The railroad from Beijing to Lhasa is now running. Each day it brings more Han Chinese to Tibet. What is happening in Tibet, Mohamed?
Now let us consider Israel. Put away your law books, Mohamed, this is not a purely legal matter if it is a legal matter at all. Anyway, you would lose the legal arguemnt also.
The Palestinians lost the war. I mean the Palestinians have been losing the war since 1200 B.C.
The wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 are only the most recent ones.
Like the Cubans, the Palestinians are never going to get their property back. Not in our lifetime; not in or children's lifetimes; not in their children's children's children's lifetimes.
So the Palestinians who "resist" as you say have a choice. They may continue to the military fight, with their enablers such as the Iranians and you Mohamed, or they can accept Israel and try and make a better future.
Gaza is completely depondent on Israel for water, electricity, and other basic needs. Fatah has been a completely ineffective party so far as advancing the interests of the Palestinians. It is corrupt. Its leaders have siphoned off millions if not billions of dollars of aid meant for ordinary Palestinians. Small wonder that when given the opportunity of electing its own leaders, the Palestinians rejected Fatah.
Of course the problem is the Palestinians endorsed Hamas, whose basic tenet is that Israel has no right to exist and must be destroyed. This is not a succesful philosophy for dealing with a nation upon whom the welfare of your populace is completely dependent.
So Mohamed your choice and the choice of the Palestinians is really quite simple. Accept defeat and peace or endorse the same Philosophy that has failed since 1948 and continue to live in squalor and poverty.
Now, what about them suicide bombers?
Pax vobiscum.
Mohamed,
Rueters reports that six United Nations peacekeepers--3 Spaniards and 3 Columbiuans serving in the Spanish Army--were killed by a suicide bomber in southern Lebanon on Sunday.
So, where was the legitimate "resistance" here?
Meanwhile in Iraq there wee three suicide bombings, one of which targeted a police HQ; one of which targeted a government compound; and one of which targeted a hotel lobby killing at least six tribal leaders, one of whom was Fassal al-Igoud, a former governor of alAnbar province who was a memeber of the Anbar Salvation Council, a group formed to rid al Anbar provinnce of Al Qaeda.
There were three checkpoints through which the bomber was able to pass. Sopunds like an inside job to me.
The BBC reports that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command, has released a videotape in which he calls for Hama tounite with al Qaeda after the former's victory over Fatah in Gaza.
In the past, al Qaeda has criticized Hamas for taking part in the Palestinian political process.
The BBC reports: "Hamas leaders, who espouse a more moderate brand of Islamist politics, have always shunned al Qaeda advances."
Figure that the BBC would deem Hamas as "more moderate' instaed of more accurately describing Hamas as "less extreme" or even "less rabid."
Of course w/ friends and admirers like al Qaeda....
Now, what about them suicide bombers?
So?!!
What are you expecting from me?!!
To answer you?!!!
You didn't reply my questions when I asked about if you were one of them, however I told you about the necessity of your answers.
So, here you are my rules;
I don't like the one who just want to be replied, the one who only want to ask and requists others to answer, but you should reply also on others questions. That's the nature of a fruitful discussion.
I don't like also the one who speaks with me out of a specific background and ignors my actual ideas and beliefs, so you should forget all the false background which your Media gives you, and only chat with me out of my beliefs and ideas.
That's my rules, then if they fit you then you're welcome to continue the discussion which I hope to be fruitful. If they don't, then I can't force you to chat with me.
My questions again if you forgot them;
What would you do if you were American in that example?
What will your position be if you had any nationality other than Indian, Islamic and American about what Muslims did with Americans in that example?
Peace be with you,
Mohamed,
It figures. You do not answer questions because you cannot answer questions.
You are studying law, Mohamed. If you always "speak the truth" do so now.
Your basic problem, so far as your argument is concerned, is that you have taken an untenable position; you have attempted to illustrate the justness of your cause; and you have failed miserably except in two regards:
1. Perhaps you recall a prior conversation whn I advised you that you were my enemy. The more you talk, the more I am convinced of it. 2. People like you re the reason there will never be peace in the Middle East.
Either you are a Palestinian whose family was compelled to leave Israel at some point after 1948, in which case you have a personal stake which may be a legitimate grievance or you are an outsider which makes you an apologist; an enabler; and a fomenter of trouble.
There will never be peace in the Middle East until people like you recognize the state of Israel and stop trying to turn back the clock to 1947.
If that is not the solution, Mohamed, what is? Do you think Israel, as a nation, is going to say: "We were wrong; the U.N. was wrong; we are sorry about the last 60 years; just don't shoot us while we go back to wherever we came from."
You know who the most intractable Israelis are? The ones who believe they are fulfilling a divine mandate by settling in the West Bank.
In a larger sense, I am beginning to beleive that reb may be correct. He thinks the problem is with Islam. I am unwilling to go that far yet. I think the problem is a cultural one.
If you were a rational person, you would take the position that people who become suicide bombers and who take innocent lives are perversions and are not true Muslims.
See, either you are for peace or you are not. If you are, work for justice. Chairman Mao said political power comes from the barrel of a gun, or words to that effect. Civilized justice does not come from the barrel of a gun. It comes in a court of law.
It is not administered by strapping explosives to one's body and setting them off in a hotel lobby.
You understand of course that people in my country believe that suicide bombers think that are going straight to paradise where they will be waited on hand and foot by 72 houris and that there are other elaborate justifications for the collateral damage they cause, like the deaths of women and children.
Then Mohamed comes along and at first he seems reasonable. That is until He starts answering questions and then it turns out that all he wants to do is talk about how Israel is illegal. Is that what you learn at law school?
When I went to law school, I stuidied Torts, Property, Contracts, and Constitutional law. What good is it to study why the state of Israel is illegal and should not exist? Will that cause Israel to go away? Will that bring peace to the Middle East.
Please understand that I do not believe that there be peace in the Middle East until there is a separate Palestinian state but the more I read your comments, the more I think maybe not.
Just ask yourself the following question: Are you ever going to convince a European or a North American that Israel should not exist?
One more point. You said: "so you should forget all the false background which your Media gives you." What false background? I need ssome citations here Mohamed.
Your hypothetical question is simply not worth contemplating. Valid hypotheticals have to have some basis in reality.
So I reread your hypothetical and again, it omits a number of facts.
The first is that Arab Palestinians have not been "independent" since 1099 at the latest, although one could argue that the Abbasids (750-969) and the Fatimids (969-1099) were conquerers.
In 1948, the United Nations, with a two thirds vote of the General Assembley, passed Resolution 181, the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Palestinian Arabs rejected the plan and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the plan.
On May 15, 1948, the Britsih Mandate in Palestine ended, the state of Israel having been proclaimed the day before. The neighboring Arab staes and armies, including Lebanon, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, the Holy War Army, the Arab Liberation Army, and local Arabs attacked immediately and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequentky the partition plan was never implemented.
The 1949 Armistice Agreements, eliminated Palestine as a distinct Territory dividing the territory between Israel, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.
So Mohamed, what about Egypt, Syria, and Jordan?
Israel was created by right of conquest just as the Kingdom of Judea was destroyed and its Jewish populace exiled by the Roman emporer Hadrian in 135 A.D., Rome having previously conquered Judea.
How can you give more weight to recent Palestinian claims than to older Jewish ones?
How have the Palestinians been treated by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria?
With respect to Israel, in 1948, the Arabs went to war and lost. Perhaps they will reconquer what is now Israel some day, but I doubt it. Two of the neighboring states, Egypt and Jordan, have signed peace treaties with Israel recognizing that peace better serves their national interests than does a perpetual state of war.
So Mohamed, do you think you can pose hypotheticals and put forth specious legal arguements to undo what was accomplished by force of arms? Do you think that the Jews, scattered most recently by Hadrian expelling them from their homeland do not have as legitamate a right to live in Israel as the Palestinians do?
Care to make another argument on this subject?
So long as you remain committed to the destruction of Israel, Mohamed, you remain part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Tick tock
I believe that's an Atomic Clock!
When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets his
Nukes, and spreads them around among his Kill-Culture Allies, the Desert Sands will then be turned into irradiated glass, the silly Fantasy of the 12th Imam will never appear, and Sunni & Shia, Hamas & Fatah shall never again hope to enjoy modernity, science, and
industry, nor will average, decent families ever be allowed to plan for prosperity, and educate their children... for Radical Religion Will Rule In the Final Hours over Goodwill-To-All-Men, and Rational Behavior, The Rule of Law and Common Sense.... will become a withering dream, and a vague memory for the unlucky survivors of the Final War. The Tsunami of Hatred Has Finally Won This Wicked Game.
Better To reign In Hell,
Than To Serve In Heaven!
The Sun God, Moon God, Zoroaster,
Pele, Jehovah, and Allah must find another planet, and try again!
What Fools We Mortal Be. reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
Snake Hunters,
I'm intersted to know what do you think about the REAL reason that American army came to Iraq.
Mohamed
Is it not obvious? We know the mind
of the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. He
was bold, Moved into an "Act of War" against the USA, ignored International Law, grabbed our Embassy! Saddam Moved into Kuwait, as a first easy step to the Saudi Arabian Oil Fields.
Osama bin Laden also dreams of creating a Saudi Revolution with "God's Warriors".
Each of the above Mini-Dictators use the same identical tools:
a) Shari'a
b) Ancient Religious Passions
c) Fear of the Emir's blade
d) The old tradition of keeping females subservient to men.
e) Intolerance of All Free Thought.
Totalitarianism Vs Freedom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We are Muslims! We are Muslims! We
are Muslims!" Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The greatest mystery is why the educated mind would choose to defend it.
One photographer selects mountain and lake, with a gorgeous sky, his friend chooses to Frame a Spider. Explain it to me. reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
In your analogy of India partitioning America, you leave out the fact that the Ottoman Empire lost the war. And becasue they lost the war, they lost their lands which became partitioned into Syria, Lebanon (by the French) and Palestine,Jordan and Iraq by the British.
So let's change your analogy. America goes to war against India and loses. Then India says because you went to war with us and lost, we will break up your country into sections...
Under such a scenario, the moral high ground you want to give to the Amerians is not there, is it?
But of course, you misrepresented the actual Israeli/Palestinian conflict didn't you?
Try to be accurate next time.
But it's not Israelis who won the war!!
Let's keep the analogy working. If India won a war against the US and planted Muslims in America it would have every right to do so.
But Britain and France were victors against the Ottomans and divvied up the territories how they liked. The British decided to split Ottoman Palestine into two sections: one for Jews and one for Arabs. What's the problem there? Muslim lands account for one quarter of the earth yet there is no room for a small speck of land for Jews?
When Germany lost the war (WWI) it also lost territory including all its colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific.
If you don't want to lose territory don't start wars. If Jordan didn't want to lose the West Bank it should have made peace with Israel. If Syria didn't want to lose the Golan heights ... If Egypt didn't want to lose the Gaza Strip ...
Post a Comment