Jul 22, 2007

Civilians or soldiers?!!

You should have heared about what Taliban may have committed of killing two German hostages, and the threat of killing other 23 South Korean.
That's true that their states may be invaders of your lands, but what is the crime of their citizens?!!!!!
Civilians are out of that game, when they came to your states they didn't come on the backs of tanks, they didn't come by air fighters hitting your homes, they didn't point a gun towards your children, then their is not any justification to threat their safety on your lands.
If Qur'an ordered us about war prisoners of soldiers that " And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,- " 76:8 so what about civilians, what about women, what about children?!!!  Islam don't order to frighten a child, or threaten an innocent woman.
Don't claim always that you are the ones who represent Islam, Muslims don't kill innocents and civilians, or even frighten kids. BUT when their lands are stolen and their innocents are killed and their children are tortured, then they turn into lions against those who commit that, and fight against every soldier who come to their lands on a tank or in an air fighter aiming at stealing their land, or every soldier who point a gun towards their children, women and their civilians.


The Loop Garoo Kid said...


Welcome back. For a number of months I have sought to solicit your opinion on the issue of suicide and other bombings in Iraq; Afghanistan; and now Pakistan where the violence is inflicted on Muslims by Muslims. In many of these bombings "innocents" in the form of non combatants; women; and children, are the victims as they were the intended targets.

It always seemed to me from my limited knowledge of the Quran, that such killing was unIslamic.
Do you agree?

Mohamed said...

Mr Kid,

Couldn't you get it?!!

I'm waiting for your answer on my question. Only after that I'll reply all your questions.

I'll be a good guy and repeat8 the question with the example;

If the example of India don't fit you so take that other;
Russia promised Muslims to give them a part of American lands to build their own homeland, Muslims declared their own state on this prmoised American land, and continued to expand this state blessed by UN and other states agreement.

Questions are;
*Do you think that Russia had the right to promise Muslims by that?!!
*What would you do if you were American in this example?!!

Here you are my questions, don't say then: 'It figures. You do not answer questions because you cannot answer questions.'. The key is in your hand; reply my questyions, I reply your questions. Don't, I don't.


By the way; when you reply my questions, please repeat your questions specifying what exactly you want.


The Loop Garoo Kid said...


I answered your question Mohamed. It's just that you did not like the answer.

We are in court. The readers of this blog are the jury. They decide and make the findings of fact. Unlike a real court, there is no judge. The judge makes the rulings of law--what evidence will be admitted into the record; what questions may be asked.

Some questions are hypotheticals. These questions are posed and the witness; the one who will answer the question, is asked to assume certain facts. Your June 22, 2007 question was hypothetical one.

In essence, I objected to your question because the facts that he witness was asked to assume are not part of the record and will never become part of the record. They never existed; they do not exist now; nor will they exist in the future. In the context of the metaphor, they are not part of history.

Mohamed, sometimes I represent people who have been injured in automobile accidents that were caused by the acts or omissions of another person. The second person disobeyed a red light at an intersection and caused a collision. Or, the second person was following my client too closely and when my client stopped for a red light, the second person struck my client's car from the rear, damaging the car and injuring my client.

In the United States, we do not believe that my client was injured because it was the will of God. We beleive that my client was injured because the second driver disobeyed a red light light or was following too closely.

Unless, he wants to make himself insane, my client cannot be permitted to think: "Suppose I had gotten out of bed 30 seconds earlier or 30 seconds later than I did. Then, I would have been 30 seconds ahead of where I was driving and when the guy ran the red light I would not have been there and I would not be injured now."

Your hypothetical is just like that thought. It is useless and self destructive.

You cannot put the toothpaste back into the tube Mohamed.

I for one, study the history so as to predict what may happen in the future, so as to avoid past mistakes. I did not support my country's invasion of Iraq, although I did support going into Afghanistan.

Saddam Hussein was a despot. I did not consider him a threat to the security of the United States in 2003. What I did know, from reading history, was that if Saddam Hussein were deposed, Iraq would fall into the chaotic state it is currently experiencing and which it is likely to experience until another powerful person assumes absolute control of the government. The best for which we can hope is that he will be more benevolent than Saddam Hussein, but I digress.

From your prior postings, although you rarely if ever come right out and say it, you believe the present state of Israel to be illegal. "The Israelis stole the lands of the poor Palestinians!"

Had the Israelis lost the Arab-Israeli war in 1948, would you be saying: "The poor Jews. First the Nazis killed 6 million of them and then the Arabs drove the Zionists into the Sea!"

How does your argument that Israel is illegal promote peace? How does that argument promote athe prospect of a better future for the Palestinians?

You see, Mohamed, it is not I who is unable to answer questions. It is you.

You are a Muslim before being an Egyptian. You are devout. You have recently traveled to Mecca and completed your Omra. You read the Qu'ran and probably understand it better than most who do.

Nevertheless, when you take the postion that first and foremost you are a Muslim, then when you chose to blog, you become a spokesmen for your religion.

I do have this issue. I hold that I am an American first and foremost. I beleive that whenever religion dictates policy--no matter what religion that may be--it is a mistake. That is my our Bill of Rights has the First Amendment.

If I am confronted by a person who says: "America is wrong. America should not have invaded Iraq," I can discuss the issue. America is a country; it is ruled by laws. Sometimes, the people we chose to run our government make mistakes.

But if one takes the position that I am a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian and that my actions are governed by a book which is the revealed word of God, then one invites questions. Questions like: "Would Jesus have approved of the Spanish Inquistion?" (I always thought the answer to that question was "No.") or "Would the prophet approve of driving an automobile full of explosives into a crowded marketplace and detonating it, killing women, children, shopkeeprs, shoppers, and other innocnet people?"

Yet, as I have been led to believe, the person driving the truck believs he is a good Muslim; he is a martyr; and he will go straight to Paradise where he or she will be served by 72 houris.

So is killing innocent civilians who are also Muslim permissable. What are the possible answers: If the revealed word of God states that it is permissible, why then we need a new revealed word of God. If it is not permissible, then we need an explanation as to why some Muslims believe it is permissible to blow up civilians and themselves whether it be in markets in Baghdad; office buildings in New York; buses in London; trains in Madrid; or night clubs in Bali.

Is the killing of all these innocent people justice?

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


I am interested in your opinion regarding recent events in Islamabad centering around the Red Mosque.

Emilie said...


I guess you won't rest until some American answers your question. I will answer it, but you won't like it. Now that you have changed your hypothetical example from India to Russia, it makes more sense. Russia is a super-power, like the US. Russia has taken over lands and instituted Communism and many people have died fighting them. I grew up under the threat of an atomic war with the USSR, and their ally Red China. We used to have drills in school where we would pretend Russia had dropped an atomic bomb on us, and we had to hide under our desks or run to the bomb shelters. Many homes, mine included, had small bomb shelters in the basement filled with canned and dried food and water.

I would look at the map of the USSR and see that it was much larger than the US, read that it had as many if not more weapons of mass destruction as the US, look at the pictures of their hated dictator Stalin, and we were all afraid. Could the Russians have dropped a bomb on us and taken over our country? It was possible until the US entered a nuclear race with the USSR and sent ships and submarines and built bases all over the world. Many countries were with us then, and some are now, since they had had war in their countries and been destroyed and they wanted a powerful ally to keep them safe.

But what if Russia had taken over the world and the US and said that not Muslims (they were atheists remember) but some other people, such as the Chinese could take over, would we think it was right? Yes, because "might makes right". If you lose a war, you have to follow the new rules made by the winner. That is what you seem to ignore, this fact that whoever is in power makes the rules. Would Americans and their allies, maybe Europe, Mexico and Canada fight with us against the Russians and the Chinese? I think they would. But would that be enough to expel the Russians and Chinese? Maybe, maybe not.

Remember that I am from a people that have been here in the New World for thousands of years. We were invaded and our lands taken by Europeans and our people killed and put in concentration camps called "reservations". Some of us have assimilated and become Americans, and those that don't wish to give up their ancient cultures and language live in reservations, although many have become Christians (not me). A long time ago, my people gave up. One chief hung his head and said "I will fight no more forever". I cry whenever I see a painting of that. A defeated people. Only a memory. Might makes right.

Can't you see that what happened in Israel is a microcosm of what happened to the New World? That it happened when the Romans ruled the world? That it happened when the Caliphs kicked the Jews out of their homeland and they were dispersed, only to dream of one day returning to Jerusalem? So your point, and your hypothetical example, are moot.

All college students in the US are told to read Machiavelli's "The Prince" where the lesson is that the means justifies the ends, and that might makes right, and that it is better to be a winner than a loser. The thing is, a winner can bring peace and prosperity for a while, but empires and nations last only until they start to turn on themselves, poison themselves from within, lose their ideals and ethics. We are always afraid that this will be the beginning of the end when our leaders forget what they fought for. So far we are still free to worship or not worship as we please, for women and racial minorities to still have equality.

Mohamed said...

Madam Emilie,

I didn't hope that you invlove in such a discussion. But if you started it then no problem.

My question to Mr.Kid was; what would you do if you were an American who found Russia promising Muslims to give them a part of American lands to create their homeland on it, then Muslims declared their own state with the agreement of UN. So, the question is what would you do; give up or resist declaring another state on your independent state?!! And what do you think about Russian prmoise; is it ok to prmoise another guy to give him a thing which none of them own?!!!

I hope that if you are going to reply these questions to reply them clearly and directly not as Mr.Kid did. I know that they refer to another thing for me; but I want an answer starts like that; "If I was American and found Muslims coming to my own independent country to declare their state; I would ..."
And please forget Israel, only imagine yourself inside that example.

You said that I won't be rest untill an American replies it. No, that's not the problem. The problem is that I asked Mr.Kid several times expecting a clear and direct answer, but he insisted to spin and to escape from replying. I expected an answer like I stated up.

Peace be with you, and waiting for your reply,

Emilie said...

"If I was American and found 'Muslims coming to my own independent country to declare their state; I would ...'
And please forget Israel, only imagine yourself inside that example".

Mohamed, (I thought you had asked me what I think about this topic, but I guess you didn't expect me to comment here; however, I want to speak to the other Americans if they will read what I have to say, coming as I am from the losing side).

If you want to forget Israel, then why can't we forget Muslims? SURE WE WOULD RESIST, and if we lost so be it, we would have peace for a while, and then try again another day if it got too bad for us, and if we won, new rules would have to be made. It is OK for the winning countries to decide who will take over what. The men in my family fought on the side of the British, even suffering descrimination while in uniform when they came back home.

"And what do you think about Russian prmoise; is it ok to prmoise another guy to give him a thing which none of them own?!!!"
To answer that: YES IT IS OK TO PROMISE ANOTHER GUY TO GIVE HIM A THING WHICH NONE OF THEM OWN. The Palestinians own that land as long as they can fight and win. But THEY LOST! And their neighbors, including Egypt, are not fighting for them. No one really owns a land until they fight for it. Animals are that way; they will kill for a good watering hole or other territory. Winners split the spoils among themselves. Those in control make the rules, those that don't agree resist til they win or are beaten. However, how long are they going to resist? Til they have nothing? The survivors have to come to their senses and assimilate to stop living in perpetual chaos.
You don't seem to understand that "might makes right". It is a fact of life. You take the situation in Israel-Palestine so personally because you are so close and you are a Muslim. PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND OUR POINT OF VIEW.

You won't ever get a clear answer from your American guests. Your example will never, ever work for us because there is no history of Muslims having been here or having had a kingdom here before. That is what is behind the decision to declare a state for Jews; they had a kingdom there before, they fought for it again, and they won. Maybe in future they will lose. Most countries agree with the decisions of the UN and international law.

To get back to your example, Russia, being an atheist state would never support a theocracy in any land. No one but a Muslim world power would support a Muslim takeover of anyone's lands. We can't answer your example because it doesn't make any sense to us.

I told you that anywhere that people invade a land, the people already there will resist, and if they win, then the invaders get kicked out. Does that answer your question? If the people already there lose, then they can expect to be taken over by the winner. When fighting stops after a people are defeated, there is peace. That is history.

Once my native people saw that fighting the Americans and the Spanish and French before them was useless because their technology and equipment and weapons of mass destruction were so much better, and because the invaders were so determined to claim that land, they quit fighting. (They also fought amongst themselves, like the Sunni and the Shia do). They had been beaten. The US government back then did what you say the UN did to Palestine. They gave the lands that had been "owned" by the Indians to the European invaders. They told the Indians, you can't go where you used to go, you can only go here now (to the reservations). Was that OK? I have to say YES, because we have had peace on this land for more than 100 years. This land was rebuilt from nature, and the cities in Europe and Japan have been rebuilt.

I see what is happening in Palestine--the natives are being squeezed and they start fighting and get beaten and innocents die. That has happened everywhere. The international law that is in power now is only watching now. Human rights groups even inside Israel are trying to make sure that Palestinians are not stripped completely of all their human rights.

Wars are terrible, and what the winners do seems terrible to you, I know. But you haven't seen what we have seen. You are too young.

I was just reading an article about the bombing of the German city Dresden. The city was beautiful, but when their armies' resistance wouldn't end, the English planes dropped 2,600 tons of bombs on the city. Then the Americans came with 300 of these huge planes called Flying Fortresses and dropped more bombs. The beautiful city center was destroyed and 25,000 people killed. Temperatures in the burning buildings reached 1800 degrees Farenheit, and pilots could see the burning city from 100 miles away! Stone walls melted! And this was just one city! Europe was almost destroyed because a dictator convinced his people that it was their right to own the world. But he lost. So, there was invasion, then resistance, but the bigger power won, and has been setting the rules since then. And this was white Christians against white Christians for the most part, and the Jews and other minorities got caught in the middle.

So, I am trying to tell you how the world works, but you won't listen. I hope you read this, and not keep saying, "Answer my example" because your example flies in the face of all people who have resisted and lost. We have a saying "Stop beating your head against a wall".

Maybe some day, Heaven Forbid, like one of your other guests said, the very sands there will be melted by worse weapons of mass destruction than there were in Dresden and other cities in Europe and Japan in 1945, and the world will be poisoned by a toxic nuclear cloud. You should see an old movie called "On the Beach" where submarines were coming up out of the water after World War Three to find no one alive on Earth. All poisoned by radiation, and the sailors knew that soon they would meet the same fate.

You know, my people say that every five thousand years Mankind destroys itself. We are nearing the end of the current 5,000 year cycle. We'll see in another few years if it will happen. So look at the bigger picture; to those in power who have seen worse, Israel-Palestine is not such a big problem unless you are on the wrong side of that skirmish.

Port Orchard, WA

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


Well put.

Mohamed, this is the same answer that I gave you stated slightly differently. You insist, as I have stated before, on trying to claim the moral high ground for the Palestinians. There is no point in doing this because as Emilie eloquently wrote, the Plaestinians lost the war. As I have written previously, the Palestinians, like Jews in Roman times, wound up on the wrong side of history.

Ask yourself this question: Has armed resistance to the state oof Israel resulted in a better life for the Palestinians. If your answer is yes, be prepared to defend it. Or will you merely contine to ignore questions which require difficult answers.

If you want to read about a true hero and resister, go to Wikipedia and read about Chief Joseph. For 3 months in 1877 he led his band of 800 Nexz Perces 1700 miles across the states of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. He outmanoeuvered and outfought 2000 US soldiers who pursued them until a 5 day battle in the beginning of October that was fought in freezing weather conditions. The Nez Perces had no food or blankets. On October 5, 1877 Chief Joseph surrendered. Herer are his words:

"I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead; Toohoolhoolzote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes and no. He who led the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are--perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me my chiefs. I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."

Neither Emilie nor I have ever suggested defeat is not bitter. When expelled from Judea by the Romans, the Jews kept their dream of Israel alive for more than 1800 years. In 1949, they created that land by force of arms.

The Palestinians are a defeated people. Armed resistance is the way to destruction which is worse than defeat. Do you continue to advoctae armed resistance for the Palestinians, Mohamed?

no_slappz said...


Can you tell me why Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, murdered Robert Kennedy, a candidate for the US presidency in 1968?

Mohamed said...

Madam Emilie,

You said that you think that Jews have a right to return to what they have always considered their homeland for centuries, and said also that the decision to declare a Jew state on Palestine is because of having a kingdom there before. I see there that it's a hint for the a historical story of that area which says that Jews came before Arabs. I know that Jews established a kingdom in the north called Israel, and in the south called Judea, after the falling down of Isreal in 721 BC the whole area of Palestine now became under the rule of Judea, when Judea fall in 586 BC Celdanes took Jews to Babel as prisoners. I know also that Jews left the area of Palestine when it became a barren land to Egypt, then they got back again there, and that they were lost in Sinai, then Jewish armies entered that area and killed most of people there and crossed their king, and they established there their kingdom till 975 BC when Solomon died and his two sons established two kingdoms Judea and Israel, and wars kept between the two kingdoms most of their time, till kings of neighbour kingdoms invaded them and Jews were sent to Babel, and after about 50 years of living in Babel some of them were get back there again when another king invaded Babel and ordered to allow Jews to go back there, and not much returned and majority preferred to keep in Babel where they lived for 50 years, but they still under the rule of these kings who invaded Babel, .... and along the history they suffered too much. That's the story of Jews in this area which is known now as Palestine, but is that approved that they were the first ones to establish a kingdom there?!! No. There is books which proves that there were others who established a civilization there before the first coming of Jews.
SO, that's true that Jews suffered along the years whether on Palestinian lands, or in other countries like Holocaust and Gas chambers, that's true that they were fired out of this area for the last time by Romans in 70 C. But is that a good reason for them to return back there and kill innocents and destroy their homes?!!

If having a civilization on a part of the world before people who already lives on that part is an enough justification to delete this people state and declare my own state then Muslims must return to Spain and declare their own Islamic state there; don't you know that Muslims had a great Islamic state there for hundreds of years in Spain and Portugal where Muslims lived beside Jews and Christians in peace and cooperation and had a great civilization which was much more better than civilization in Europe where they were killing scientists (No one forget Galileo and how he was cut off head for claiming that the earth is moving), and also European kings were sending their sons there to have knowledge, and where there is wonderful masterpieces and awesome buildings, and where there were scientists of every branch ... and so on. All of that is known is Andalusia. Muslims still there for 800 years. So, I ask again why -following your logic- don't Muslims go back again to Spain and Portugal and delete these names to declare a new Andalusia?!!!

Having a kingdom many many years ago on Palestinian lands isn't a reasonable justification to bring those millions of Jews from around the world and exile a people who lived for hundreds of years on that land independently, and force thousands of families and their children to leave their homes and kill thousands of innocents, just for the sake of one torn group which wants to live on one land. It's like a replacement process. A people instead of another people on the same land

I noticed that you're talking about how Jews suffered too much, how they were exiled from this land, how they were tortured in Holocaust .. etc. But you didn't mention any thing about what they themselves who suffered (or to be honest; their grandsons) through history, what they did with Palestinian people!!!

Do you think that a Palestinain whose kids and family have been killed cares about who lives many many years ago on the same land which he alrerady lives on?!!!! Do you think that a Palestinain whose home has been destroyed cares about Judea?!!! Those Jews who you're talking about didn't live on that land before nor their fathers or even grandfathers, may be the 10th grandfather. I mean that there is no strong moral relations between Jews and this land, and even if they feel that, I don't see it as an enough justification to replace a people by another.

You talked too much about what animals do, and how they leave the area when they are defeated. Madam Emilie, we don't live in a forest. There are still some values which rules human relation, there is justice, equity, mercy and sacrifice which Islam invited to. If we live in a forest and Zionists attacked Palestinain land and they lost a battle, then Palestinain should leave that land and search for another land to live in because forest laws are working. But if we don't live in a forest (I still believe in that) then Palestinains must still fighting and resisting till they get back their stolen land because there is still justice.

Do you think that this American Indian chief should have stopped fighting from the first time Europeans stole his own land, or he is right to resist in the first and give up in the end?!!!! I mean that when -as you think- Palestinains should know that resistence is useless, just after the first loss in one battle, or after years of resistence?!!!

Kid asked me if I believe that armed resistence is still useful or not. Kid, without armed resistence there would be an Zionistic state now which extent from Nile to Euvrate, there would be a part of Zionistic state on Egyptian land, there would be an illegal situation which stays stable till now, there wouldn't be Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (which you Madam Emilie says that you respect as a holy place for Muslims) and there will be instead Solomon temple because Zionists will demolish Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa to build their temple. Kid, you may say; 'But your chiefs are killed, looking glass is dead, the old men ...' Yes, that's true that armed resistence in Palestine against Zionistic invasion caused Zionists to kill children and babies and old women and demolish their homes, I know that well and every Muslim and Arabian and Palestinian know that very very well more than any other guy because they are our sons or mothers, but we aren't like that granfather of the native people whom your ancestors stole his land, we are ready to offer blood of our sons to set our stolen lands free the same like any people whose land had been stolen and his sons has been killed do. By the way; why you asked that question?!!! I'm sure that you don't care for Mohammad Al-Dorra and Eman Hajjo and thousands of children which have been killed by Zionists.
Blood of thousands of children, women, old men and tears of orphans and widows (which worth nothing for you) won't go in vain.

I think that by the belief of 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em' there is no stable thing, there is no values which will remain. If the invader came to my state and wanted to force his rituals and culture on me then by that belief then I'll get rid of my culture and forget my history and be the invader's culture. Resistance then has no meaning.

I believe that peace isn't just the state of Un-war, but refers to a state when every (or the majority) individual of two sides feel that they aren't oppressed, and to feel safety on their lives, homes, sons, government and economy.

I know very well that Jews severed too much, but what relates Jew's severness and Palestinian people?!!! Holocaust isn't a justification to steal other's lands or to delete an idependent state or to kill babies and their mothers.
And let us ask the history what Zionists did firstly when they came to Palestine before and after declaring their state. They committed massacres killing babies and old women, they demolished homes, they had Sharoon as their leader (His history is well-known), they did and did and did. So the question is; is that why a group which JUST aim to gather in one land do that?!!
Why Zionists exchanged Palestinian flag by their Isreali flag?!!! Is that's because they want to gather in one land?!! That's true that Jews suffered too much, but is that a resonable justification to make others suffer too?!! And if the world (which is every state approved on declaring Israel) felt sympathy why didn't they gave them a part of an empty land which there weren't any independent land, or to give them a part of wide Australian lands?!!! Any little child could know very well that giving them a part of an independent state where there is an independent people will cause big problems.
If I would like to help a poor man; I'd give him a thing which I own not a stolen thing, if not for the sake of the real owner, then for the poor man himself not be bared from it in the future when the real owner returns it.

You know?!! If Palestinians since last 60 years put down the weapon, and said; 'We will fight no more forever', then we can talk and argue about if Israeli state is legal or not, but the owners of the land didn't give up resisting and they didn't recognize Israel as a legal state. So even if the whole world admitted that Israel is legal, but what is most important is land owners view who kept resisting since the start of the invasion till now.

If that was true that states felt collective guilt towards Jews who suffered too much, so why they caused another suffering to another people?!!! A little kid can know that giving an independent state where there is a people lives to another group of people will cause that the people who lives on that land will defend it. Were states younger than a child?!!!

Let's us imagine that Hamas and all resistants in Palestine put down the weapon, let us imagine that the Palestinian governemnt approved Israel as a legal state, ok?!! Let's imagine that Israel was so happy with that and accepted the thing which it dreamed of for years. Let's us imagine then that the Palestinian governemnt succed in enhancing Palestinian people live. So, do that solve the problem?!!!!
You may say SURE YES, but I say SURE NOT. You know why?!! Because the Palestinain people will keep have that feeling of being oppressed. The same with the thief when he stoles a diamond from a poor man which he inherited from his uncle, the court gave him food and a good home, the diamond hasn't been returned back, the problem isn't solved.

I'm sorry for the long reponse, but I hope that you read it very well.


Mohamed said...

no slappz,

Can you tell me why America dropped two Nuke bombs on Japan killing innocents and causing radial bad effects which still till now?!!!


Don't ask me, ask Sirhan himself why he did that.

no_slappz said...

mohamed, you asked:

"Can you tell me why America dropped two Nuke bombs on Japan..."

Yes. The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to win the war against Japan.

As we know, the strategy worked. Japan surrended a matter of days after the bombs were dropped.

Had Japan not surrendered, the fighting would have continued and far more Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died.

Thus, dropping the bombs saved lives by ending the killing in August 1945.

I find it interesting that you refuse to speculate on Sirhan Sirhan's motive for killing Robert Kennedy. It's odd because you speculate on every other topic related to this discussion.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Ah Mohamed,

Once again you sadden me. You purport to be a student of the law and yet at every juncture you are guilty of a failure to think critcally.

no_slappz is absolutely correct. My father served briefly as part of the American occupation of Japan. He saw the beaches where he and his fellow marines would have landed; he learned of the Japanese government's training program to teach women and children how to kill American soldiers using knives and bamboo poles while sacrificing themseves.

If you read any history at all, which clearly you do not, you would then understand that the concept of surrender was inimical to Japanese culture. Are you not familiar with Banzai charges or Kamikazes?

Harry S. Truman was then president of the United States. He was confronted with a choice of evils and he made the choice that was least evil.

In the process, We and the rest of the world learned the horror of atomic and nuclear warfare. A horror successfully avoided since.
Therefore can you understand that when the president of Iran states: "Israel must be wiped off the map" and then has his country pursue a policy of acquiring nuclear weapons, most of us believe that the interests of mankind are better served by preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear power?

Mohamed, on the stage of the world, Muslims are fast gaining a reputation for being contemptuous of the value of human life: The World Trade Centers; London; Madrid; daily suicide bombings in Iraq where the targets are innocent civilians; the Taliban executing Korean Hostages.

Every western reader of your blog in every comment asks you to justify this contempt of human life; or in the alternative to explain it; or to renounce it personally.

Ther closest you came was 2 weeks ago. Not very close in my opinion. I have never read that you ever considered the Taliban to be a model of Islamic potential or do you believe that it was. When you speak of Islamic tolerance as you do when discussing Islamic rule in Iberia, the rest of think of the Buddhas of Bamyan.

Every person personally involved in war appreciates its horrors. So when the Palestinians, already living in poverty, embrace war in a conflict they cannot hope to win, how does that impress the dispassionate observer?

A brief comment on your revisionist version of history. The Muslims conquered Spain between 711 and 718. This was a Berber invasion and was part of the Islamic Ummyad Empire. Whereas it is true that Jews and Christians, being "Peoples of the Book" were allowed to practice their religion, they faced discrimination and many converted so as to escape the limitations and humiliations of their dhimmi status. The last Muslim ruler in the Iberian peninsula was expelled in 1492. Whereas it is true that during a period of history, Islamic countries were the centers of learning in Wewtern Asia, Northern Africa, and Europe, that period ended w/ the Renaissance in Europe. So, tell about Muslim cultures being centers of world learning for the last 500 years.

By the way, Galileo was imprisoned, not executed.

History is an endless repitition of war and conquest. The Jews managed to survive and keep their culture intact for almost 19 centuries before the founding of the modern stae of Israel. Did they do so by armed resistance?

I believe the Palestinians lost the war. You somehow think they merely lost the first battle.

In many ways, Emilie's comparison of Native Americans to Palestinians is a valid one. But your comments on oppression are unconvincing because the Palestinains will feel as if they not oppressed when Isrtael is destroyed, an event that is unlikely to occur, unless maybe Iran acquires nuclear weapons. If Iran does so and uses those weapons, I do not think anyone will be able to live in Palestine for thousands of years.

But as the Palestinians have shown, they cannot even coexist with themselves or did the recent events in Gaza escape you?

Mohamed you only wish for peace on your own terms. The losers of a war do not dictate terms. So fight forever if you wish Mohamed. When you grieve for the death of Eman Hajjo and all of the others you list: when you wonder why Eman Hajjo will not grow to be a man, do not blame the Zionists, Mohgamed. Look in the mirror.

no_slappz said...


I know you claim that muslims do not kill innocent children. But yesterday in Iraq a muslim suicide bomber killed 28 Iraqis. And 19 of the dead were Iraqi children.

Are you wrong about muslims?

Or were the children actually enemies?

Emilie said...


I don't mind your long response; I read it, and I hope you read mine:

Of course I think the Jews have every right to "reclaim the former kingdom" in Israel. I know that Muslims would wish they had established a new nation for themselves in Antarctica, but they had no history there. And yes, the powers that be should have known that creating a new Jewish state in the Middle East would create resentments there. How awful it would get must be a surprise to them, but it is done. There is no going back. It is a commitment.

Also, you say that there were other civilizations in that land before the Jews; of course there were; and other civilizations before them, going back to the tribes of prehistoric cavemen; doesn't the Bible say that Moses told Joshua to take Caanan? That if the people there agreed to let them settle there peacefully, fine, if not, then those people were to be wiped out, men, women children, their goats, etc. And that is what happened. The Jews won that war, established a kingdom there and kept on winning their wars for generations, but like they say, "to each there is a season", and it is their season again for as long as they are in power. That is the lesson the Bible teaches, and we should learn from it, but people don't listen. They are too idealistic.

You say that we don't live in a forest; well, I hate to tell you, but we have a saying: "It's a jungle out there, kid". We are protected by our parents, but we grow up and have to support ourselves, compete for an education, even a spot in a university, compete for a job, for a spouse, struggle to keep our jobs, our spouse, our standard of living.

Animals do the same; I see the little fawns outside my door being nursed by their mother, then when they grow up they are on their own in the cruel forest; sometimes their carcasses are found in the forest near the trails where we walk, killed by a powerful predator, the large cats we call cougars or mountain lions who always win until they get old or sick. Sometimes the powerful civilizations' own old age, corruption and disease can defeat them. The Roman Empire got old and sick and died as others did. The powerful Muslim kingdom in Andalusia failed and has not recovered that former greatness anywhere, nor will the Western world allow such a Muslim presence in any European country again. If that Muslim power had not started to deteriorate through its own faults, the Christians would not have been able to defeat them. Maybe the US will fail if we don't learn the lessons of the past.

People really are the same as animals; the powerful over the weak. The world is a jungle; it is not Paradise. The difference is that in our human jungle, the victors, having a higher human intelligence, can become our protectors, our way to a better, more peaceful life. Yes, my people had to give up or been annihilated compeletely, the determination, numbers and weapons of the invaders being superior. Yes, there is still resentment. Some of our young men are war captains that appear in the news every once in a while wanting the treaties and lands restored to the Native peoples but the status quo remains. Not enough of a movement is generated in their direction because of the peace and creature comforts we have enjoyed for over a hundred years under the current rulers. We will even fight in their wars (now our wars) to maintain that status quo. When compared to others who would rule over us, we take the ones we know and thrive under.

You see, I like our life now. Whenever I complain about the way the Native peoples were defeated, my husband says, "Emilie, do you like staying in five-star hotels with room service, etc.,?" I would not like to live in a world ruled by the war captains of the past. Those people lived almost like cavemen for thousands of years. They had no respect for human life; strong warriors ruled, and women and old people suffered the most, just like in some Muslim nations. I have no illusions of The Noble Savage, although I am of their blood and race. I cry for their demise, just as I would cry if there were no more tigers. They were there, then they weren't. That is progress.

I believe our various native cultures should be kept alive, but we lost our wars because there were so many tribes warring against each other, instead of joining forces to defeat the European invaders. Those that won't assimilate have given up everything in order to retain their culture and language on the reservations or ghettoes or barrios, and I choose not to live that way. No one has to live that way.

I see inner conflicts in the Middle East too. Shia against Sunni and vice-versa. If the Western and Jewish peoples would leave, there would still be those struggles. At least in Israel, the Muslims could live at a higher standard, since the Israelis have built a working infrastructure like in the US (good roads, transportation, irrigation, factories, nuclear plants for energy, improved economy) that would make life easier for everyone if there was peace like we have had for generations. That land was mostly a desert before the Israelis came, with people riding donkeys, pulling water out of wells, no electricity, extreme poverty, etc. With everyone putting down the weapons, the justice, equity and mercy that you would like for that area would be realized just as it is anywhere when people stop fighting each other and make improvements to benefit everyone.


Wars & Rumors Of Wars, that is the
5,000 years of recorded history.

The Native American discovered and occupied a nearly vacant, huge land-mass. They owned no Real Estate, they lived and followed grazing herds of wild animal. they clothed themselves in animal skins.
Tribes occasionally fought over prime hunting areas.

They banded together for mutual benefit. They were ruled by the wise and the strong; the Bold Chief, and the story-telling Medicine Man with drums, rattles,
and colored feathers, to scare off
the Evil Spirits! He claimed to know all the secrets of nature, of the Sun & Moon, Stars...the Rain & Lighting God, God of the Winds, and the "Great Spirit".

He had never heard of the European Gods, and their Bloody Prophets, But he soon would learn that these
people had Angry Competing Gods!


A people "own" only land they can
successfully defend.

If a Great Island suddenly popped out of the Pacific Ocean, and it was a Paradise, and the waters had precious gems and gold nuggets, who would "own" it?

Answer: Only a people with a great
population, and superior weaponry
could hope to Hold It!


Mohamed never offered to answer my
statements! They were on his other
Post. These Cry Out For Mohamed's Answers.
I must learn patience. reb




I've given you a brief history of two great lawyers that bestowed a
"God-given" First Amendment. Do you accept or reject this analysis?

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press,
and the Freedom to Think, without Government Imposing a Cruel Penalty
is essential to mankind's progress!
Do you agree, or not?

Do you believe in your women having
equal rights Under The Law, or not?
Are my questions too difficult?

You answered them, now answer me! reb