RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Popular anti-Semitism in the mideast.(65 posts)

Popular anti-Semitism in the mideast.Sintesi
Apr 22, 2003 3:52 PM
Somebody is bigotted, that's for sure.

http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/default.asp

Anti-Semitic portrayals in popular media is wide open in one of the most sophisticated, forward-looking Muslim/Arab countries around. Mubarak seems a little disinterested in the subject. His pose? "It's free press. What are you gonna do?" Well then, does he go on to denounce the blatant Anti-Semitism as not representative of the Egyptian Government? Not a peep!

I wonder how many non-Zionist Jews live in Syria? These Arab countries are sooo careful to make this distinction between regular Jews and Zionists. I mean they don't care if someone is Jewish do they?

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/syrianjews.html

Nice. Almost Palestinianesque. What an irony.

In the schools of our ally Saudi Arabia?

"According to the Saudi textbooks, the Jews are a wicked nation, characterized by bribery, slyness, deception, betrayal, aggressiveness and haughtiness. They were a negative element in Arabia even before Islam and cooperated with Muhammad's enemies after the emergence of Islam, for which they were punished by the Prophet with exile and, in one case - putting to death of the men and enslavementof the women and children. In spite of this they remained disloyal to Islam and created dissension within it. Their present occupation of Palestine constitutes a danger to the neighboring Muslim countries. The Jews have been a harmful element in world history, and are responsible, inter alia, for the French and Bolshevik revolutions and for the outbreak of World War I. In order to illustrate the negative role of the Jews to Saudi Arabian students, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are presented to them as an authentic historical source. They are said to have been the secret resolutions of the first Zionist Congress that was convened in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. One textbook mentions that perdition is the desired fate for the Jews"

http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/Publications.asp?did=744

Where is the tolerance? Where is the appreciation for different cultures? Where is the love?

Didn't we see all of this once before? Who is condemning this poison. Who is making the demands that count? Why would anyone who loves humanity turn a blind eye to this?

All I can say is this is EVIL going unchallenged. This is our historic shame in the west and a current reality in the mideast. What are the lessons to be learned from open, virulent demonization of the Jew? Somebody must of learned something. Was it only Israel that remembers this lesson?
Mistake #1: Using the media as a guide to popular sentiment.czardonic
Apr 22, 2003 4:14 PM
Especially in the M.E. where media is recopgnized to be either state sponsored or at least tightly leashed.

Your pleas for tolerance pre-suppose that Arabs in general are easily duped and pre-disposed to hatred. Where is the love?
I can't wait to see the Iraqi/Jewish tour industry flourish.Sintesi
Apr 22, 2003 5:36 PM
Now that they're almost a free country.

You want to be an apologist for evil that's your affair. You're in great company. Got any excuses for Egypt's free press? Basically the press writes what it wants and the Government bans what bugs them. From what I understand it's usually articles that criticize Mubarek, the government, other Arab countries doing bad, reporting on ill treatment of Coptic Christians by the government that get yanked. Mubarek doesn't seem to have a problem with Egypt's FREELY EXPRESSED anti-Semitism.

Are you "pre-supposing" Jew-approving Egyptian Arabs are phlegmatic and lazy? Because they sure aren't chiming in very energetically. All that free press available to them and all and they don't avail themselves. (That's joke mind you. Not what I truly believe. Really, there is NO NEED TO REPLY. Just want to save you some time because I know you are a busy boy hanging out here all day dismissing other's opinions right and left. Big job; somebody has to do it.)

You pre-supposed my pre-supposition. What the hell is that? A presupposition that doesn't even exist mind you. How can a man be wrong twice in one sentence? You NEED to characterize me as believing a ludicrous point so you can draw your smug conclusion. Astonishing. Here it is again:

"Your pleas for tolerance pre-suppose that Arabs in general are easily duped and pre-disposed to hatred"

It's pretty easy to win an argument with a straw man like that. YOW!! Buddy you don't even need another man in the room to make an argument. That is tour de force amazing. Hats off you mad man.

Do just wake up in the morning believing what you want to believe and you go to bed the same way?

Ciao my tiny corner of a glazed fruit pie.
You equate Arabs with Evil. 'Nuff said. (nm)czardonic
Apr 22, 2003 6:10 PM
No, Anti-Semitism is evil.Sintesi
Apr 22, 2003 6:44 PM
Really batting a thousand today. Man, you can't win an argument unless you characterize someone as stupid, bigotted, misguided, etc....

Adieu, my little slice of apple fritter.

"'Nuff said."

That's great.
I could have told you that!Live Steam
Apr 23, 2003 6:17 AM
His argument loses credibility when he slips into defensive mode. It generally manifests itself in demeaning one's character and/or intellect. He's probably a reject from his high school debating team :O) Foul! Czar, you lose 4 points for abusing the moderator!
Mistake #2; Knee-jerk responses to prove one's liberalitySteveS
Apr 22, 2003 5:46 PM
And with no meat or substance to the argument, in this case, the implicit idea that the generality of the Arab (Islamic) world is indeed tolerant by Western standards.

It was impressive that the individual Iraqi, Muhammad, bravely aided in the information passed for the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Thanks to him.

However, rather than just glibly popping off to feel good, let's take a look at some of the actions of Muslims the last 30 years:

1. Palestinian terrorists murdered the Israeli Olympic team at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
2. Achille-Lauro cruise ship take over and murder of Leon Klinghofer (sp?) by Palestinian terrorists.
3. The first attack on the World Trade Center by Egyptian led terrorists.
4. The bomb destroying Pan Am 109 (?) by Libyan terrorists.
5. The attack on an ancient synagogue in Turkey and murder of several elderly men by Muslims. (in the 1980s, if memory is correct)
6. The attack on a synagogue in Tunisian that killed a number of German tourists.
7. The attack on a number of European tourists in Egypt that killed a goodly number, done by the Islamic brotherhood.
8. The rather non-stop murder of Algerians by Algerian Muslim terrorists for years now.
9. The attacks on Shiite Muslims and Christians in Pakistan in the last few years done by Sunni Muslims.
10. Etc., etc., (I could easily go on but this grows depressing)

Whereas it may be true that there was indeed some tolerance of 'dhimmis' (Jews, Christians, "people of the Book";i.e., non-Muslims but not full-fledged pagan infidels) in early Islam, the reality is that full support to anti-Jewish bigotry is supported by most Islamic governments and spread by Islamic clergy today. If there are indeed "moderates" of this group that truly are tolerant by a western standard, they are few and far between. Feel free to include a list of examples of moderate Islamic leaders on a world class level.

There was an excellent program on Discovery or maybe the History channel that showed a very old Jewish cemetary in Kabul. In the countryside, there was an inscription on a rock in (if memory is correct) Aramaic. If so, this preceded the Islamic invasion of the 7th century A.D. However long ago that Jews lived in Afghanistan before Islam, they are all gone now and certainly didn't come about due to Islamic tolerance in the street or in the government.

To be fair, if unbalanced, MEMRI today gives a couple of examples of Arabic editorialists arguing against the current popular tide of anti-semitism in the Arabic world. Good for them.

However, remember that when Prince Abdallah came to New York after 9/11 to make a monetary donation, his real feelings came out when he tried to make a rationalization of his Saudi brethren's actions by trying to foist blame on the U.S. That is the true reality throughout a vast part of the Islamic world, including Europe, and not limited to Arabs only.
Why would I need to prove my liberalism?czardonic
Apr 22, 2003 6:08 PM
And, getting beyond your own glibness, what is your point? That bigoted generalizations are a valid predictor of belief or behavior?

Obviously, there is a long history of inter-religious intolerance and violence. Let's address specific acts and the specific people involved in them rather than adding to the intolerance with these facile broad-brush condemnations. It is preposterous to assert that the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today can be judged by the actions of a few, or a few thousand or even a few hundred thousand.
GoodySteveS
Apr 22, 2003 6:21 PM
Oh, goody, I was hoping for you to pop up and off and my wish is fulfilled. Again, you have nothing, add nothing, can adduce nothing but verbiage. Funny, with examples from Scotland, Germany, Algeria, Egypt, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the U.S., etc. you pop-off the Berkley/Salon party line of "bigoted," especially when reality conflicts with a theoretical world view. No, I gave concrete and real examples of murderous actions that grow out of a culturally approved philosophy of life and death.

Really, dude, you time and again produce nothing but snippy little sniper comments. Are you unable to produce a coherent argument? Actually, your responses are just drivel, but I guess they make you feel good.

Looking forward to your next knee-jerk response and hoping you won't fail me...
Well, you obviously have some personal issues. . .czardonic
Apr 22, 2003 6:35 PM
. . .that prevent you from having a rational conversation with me. Lesson learned. I will endeavor not to "snipe" at you any more. I certainly didn't mean to inspire such poinsonous sentiment.
HmmSintesi
Apr 22, 2003 6:49 PM
He had no response whatsoever. Never seen him limp off like that. He cracked.

Hey czardonic, why do you think everyone hates you? We don't hate you. We're your fan club.
Why would I need to prove my liberalism?Sintesi
Apr 22, 2003 7:01 PM
No one is saying "every" muslim. You force the generalization where quite obviously there is none. You know why? You NEED it to win the argument. But you can't win. You're wrong.

Steve even gave an example of moderate Arab commentary:

"To be fair, if unbalanced, MEMRI today gives a couple of examples of Arabic editorialists arguing against the current popular tide of anti-semitism in the Arabic world. Good for them."

Yeah, Steve's a real bigot. I'm a bigot, he's called Doug a bigot before. Everyone is a bigot. Wait am a simplifying your point of view?

The anti-Semitism in the Arab world is crap, it's a problem, it's a big problem.
I must be mireading the implication.czardonic
Apr 23, 2003 10:09 AM
The gist of Steve's post seems to be that there are a couple moderate Arabs to be congratulated among an far greater number of violent anti-semites. He's right that the vast majority of Arab leadership and punditry is anti-semetic, but I still dispute that as measure of the attitudes and behaviors of the vast majority of the worlds Arabs and Muslims.
Duuude, you are being smoked like a pipe. nmSintesi
Apr 23, 2003 2:46 PM
From unbiased sources I see...TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 7:26 AM
The use of these sources as "fact" is ridiculous. I'm sure we can find hateful literature from American sources as well - I saw a KKK member call Jerry Springer a "Jew bastard" this morning. Why single out the middle east?
This is a pretty ridiculas arguement to makeLive Steam
Apr 23, 2003 8:08 AM
You are equating the stance by an ineffectual, bigoted minority with that of a state sponsored educational system. The teachings by extreme Islamists not only demonize Jews, but it demonizes Christians as well. It is hateful and offensive. Why would anyone defend it?
For the second time in two days!!Jon Billheimer
Apr 23, 2003 8:18 AM
I agree with you Steam. Sheesh, there must be an astrological anomaly happening. Seriously, anyone even remotely familiar with the middleast knows that anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, or whatever the heck you want to call it is endemic, entrenched, near-universal. I've read the reports on educational material, spoken to Arab businessmen, listened to reports from my President and company controller when they were in Saudi Arabia, listened to retired peacekeeping soldiers recount their experiences, and listened to a couple of my own Arab employees. Anti-jewish sentiment in the middleast is akin to anti-communist sentiment in the U.S. during the fifties and sixties, only much more entrenched over the past sixty or seventy years. I don't think this is a politically incorrect observation, just a matter of everyday, verifiable reality.
Whew, one of us must be crossing over to the dark side :O)Live Steam
Apr 23, 2003 8:37 AM
Or one of us is beginning to see the light :O)

It is dumbfounding to read some of these post by your political brethren. They seem to have a very abstruse view on global affairs. It almost makes me want to believe that playing the Devil's advocate is their only reason for posting. No real substance or beliefs. Just arguement for arguements sake. But that has always been the game from the Left, hasn't it? Divide and conquer? :O)
I thrive on the ridiculous...TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 8:24 AM
1. I don't believe anything the ADL says as fact.

2. State-Sponsored religious education is not limited to Arab states. A number of studies, including "Israeli Textbooks and Children's Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs" by Maureen Meehan show that this sword cuts both ways.

The Israeli/Palistinian/Arab conflict is nasty. There's no question about it. But, contrary to popular American opinion, the fault here does not lie entirely in the Mosques of Saudi Arabia and Syria; the Israelis are equally culpable.
I thrive on the ridiculous...Jon Billheimer
Apr 23, 2003 8:47 AM
I don't think the Israelis are equally culpable. Culpable yes, but not equally so. No sooner had the U.N. established the State of Israel than virtually every Arab State in the region publicly swore to Israel's destruction. That position has changed little over the decades. So if you were the Israeli government what would you do?

I think that a Sharon is a natural consequence of an Arafat. Not to justify right wing Israeli sentiment or behaviour, but in fairness it is reflexive of and a reaction to initial Arab aggressions. Also, if I were an Israeli citizen I'd probably hate most Arabs too, after all these years of war and terrorism. Good grief, look at the American reaction after just ONE terrorist attack!!
The U.N. did not establish the "State of Israel"TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 9:49 AM
Your history appears a little, um, Zionist. The U.N. proposed (Resolution 181) that Palestine be divided into TWO states, one for Arabs, one for Jews. This remained a "proposal", until the Jewish faction declared itself a state, and took 77% of Palestine (including more than half of what the U.N. had proposed would be Arab). Small wonder that this pissed off the Arab neighbors.

Since you asked; if I was the Israeli government, I would withdraw my troops to the proposed partition areas, advocate for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and aggressively defend my boarders. Note the word "DEFEND" my boarders, not extend my boarders. If I were Israeli, I would probably hate the Arabs too; and if I were Palestinian, I would probably hate the Israelis -- and that is why there is a problem in the first place.
I think I mostly agree.Jon Billheimer
Apr 23, 2003 11:50 AM
IMO Israel should withdraw to their pre-1967 war borders. Arafat should be gotten rid of (politically that is:)- ) At that point a solution would probably be possible.
I think I mostly agree.Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 1:22 PM
I'm there too.
I think I mostly agree.TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 1:25 PM
While I agree that Arafat should leave, if the Palestinians democratically elect him, what can you do?

I think Sharon and Arafat should both resign for the good of the peace process. Both of them have bad blood that goes too far back.
sub-borderline Palestinian democracy.Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 2:37 PM
Apparently this "democracy" is valid to you. But the Israeli democracy isn't? Huh?

: )
I'm not saying he was...TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 2:42 PM
IF Arafat were freely elected by the Palestinians as their leader (which, I don't believe he ever has been), there would be an issue. But it is something of a challenge to hold elections for a country that doesn't exist...
"if the Palestinians democratically elect him, what can you do?"Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 5:59 PM
nm
Right, "IF"TJeanloz
Apr 24, 2003 7:07 AM
Okay Ted if that's the way you meant it.Sintesi
Apr 24, 2003 1:27 PM
Seems like you accepted it tho.
Chicken & Egg argument.......Len J
Apr 23, 2003 12:10 PM
If the displaced Kurds "resettled" Upstate New York (which is marginally populated (1.5 million people)) based on someones authorization (other the the good people of upstate New York) I wonder if we would be pointing at the reaction of the Upstaters or the Kurds as being in the wrong.

Fact is that the Isreali's (or jews or whatever one wants to call them) appropriated land that was populated by others and gave them no rights. What caused the mutual animosity, who started it? At the end of the day, both sides are entrenched in beliefs and actions that are both supportable and reprehensible. I think what TJ is pointing out is that we in the US are quicker to point out the "wrongness" of the general Arab position than we are to point out the (equally IMO) wrong Isreali position. It's a matter of balance.

Len
I thrive on the ridiculous...Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 1:20 PM
"But, contrary to popular American opinion, the fault here does not lie entirely in the Mosques of Saudi Arabia and Syria; the Israelis are equally culpable."

That's not the point. Try again.
Then what is the point?TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 1:23 PM
Is being anti-semite worse than anti-arab?

In my book, racist is racist.
Then what is the point?Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 2:34 PM
This is not the point:

"But, contrary to popular American opinion, the fault here does not lie entirely in the Mosques of Saudi Arabia and Syria; the Israelis are equally culpable."

This is the point:

Rampant anti-Semitism is disgusting, evil and it exists. Very ugly hateful Arab/muslim cultures out there that need to change. And they ain't "fringe."

Why not acknowledge this and then move on to your point. Then we don't have to do this internet pingpong.
Why not step back...TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 2:41 PM
Why not take a step back and say:

Rampant racism is disgusting, evil, and it exists. Very hateful cultures exist all over the world, and they need to change. These cultures include Arabs and Israelis, which is a cornerstone of the Palestine problem.

Or is only anti-semitism disgusting, evil, and existing? One thing that REALLY bothers me about the ADL is that they pretend that Jews are the only persecuted people in the world, and they don't do anything to practice what they preach, beyond helping their own self-interests.
Why not step back...Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 3:26 PM
It's like you're saying there isn't a special, historic, often systematic, hatred and demonization of the Jews. Of course racism is evil but that umbrella is insufficient to describe what is happening in the mideast.

If you want to accuse the Jews of hating the Palestinians, of loathing Muslims in general you should demonstrate solid, open, countenanced (undenounced), emblematic examples in Israel. Your problem with the Israelis and their bad behavior is not mitigating. And is not a refutation of anti-Semitism.

I believe the original point from purplepaul is why Do the Arab/Muslims get a pass on this? Why is it wrong everywhere in western society but openly accepted in those societies? What are the salient differences between this type of anti-Semitism than say the one you may have encountered in Belle Epoch France where such terms as "k*ke" and "Jew-b#tch" were printed commonly in the newspapers of the day. Those were anti-semitic societies even if not everyone felt that way. Germany, Belgium, Austria, it was all there. It was popularly called the "Jewish Question." In essence, what are we going to do with all those Jews? Apparently there were several "solutions." When Theodor Herzl began the Zionist movement it was in response to this question. Where are we going to go? Because we can't stay here. The Jews have been singled out and scapegoated since forever. The Palestinian/Jewish relationship is a European created problem that they have shamelessly backed away from. I feel sorry for the Jews and I feel sorry for the Palestinians.

As far as the JDL goes they are Jewish advocates with a definite mission. To fight back, to expose. Zealous? You bet your bippy. I'm not familiar enough with them to know what other humanitarian projects they be involved with. Maybe it's as you say or maybe it isn't. I don't know.
Racism is racism..TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 3:38 PM
There's nothing special about anti-semitism except it's ability to generate press. Racism and genocide are racism and genocide. I don't care if it's a Jew or Kurd on the receiving end, it's all equally bad. A lot of peoples have been systematically oppressed throughout the ages; and I refuse to say that one of these groups is more important, more worthy of defense, than the other. People are people.

What of the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia? Was that not so bad, because they were Muslim?
If you can't see it you can't see it.Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 4:11 PM
You're entrenched.
PointSteveS
Apr 23, 2003 2:45 PM
I pointed out terrorist actions by Muslims from Libya, Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. There are others easily recounted. The problem of Islamic fanaticism is very real and not a fantasy that will be eliminated by wishful thinking. Nor is there any equivalent list of actions done by Jews to Muslims across the world.

Until people honestly face this fact, whether in the Western world or the Islamic world, expect more Muslims to commit terroristic murders. Sorry if that hurts someone's feelings, but I am more sorry for the innocent people that they will kill. Then watch and read the celebrations of these actions in the Islamic world. Very ugly indeed.

The good news is that at least someone like Musharraf is making an effort in Pakistan, as long as he is in power. It is pretty slim pickings naming other Muslim countries of the same ilk, but Mororcco and sometimes Yemen have made some efforts. ('Course the latter lost 10 terrorists tied to the Cole attack just recently. Ineptitude or complicity?)
Terrorist stereotyping...TJeanloz
Apr 23, 2003 3:08 PM
There is no question that there is a lot of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. It is ugly, and it is nasty. But not all terrorists are from Saudi Arabia.

Unfortunately, terrorists are not unique to the Muslim faith. How about Baruch Goldstein, who killed 30 Muslims as they prayed (and whose grave became a shrine)? How about Timothy McVeigh? How about the IRA? How about November 17? How about ETA?

The list of non-Muslim terrorists is quite long and distinguished.
Very simpleSteveS
Apr 23, 2003 4:09 PM
You are encouraged to bring up a list of Jewish or "Christian" terrorist activities in the last 30 years. Note that they will have to be fully supported by their respective clergies. Thats in order to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

What I listed, partially, was not stereotyping, but reality. Stereotyping would be saying something like, since Timothy McVeigh was former military and white, significant numbers of white males, WASP, veterans are terrorists.

I am not aware of any great clerical support for the terrorism of the IRA or ETA. It would need to emanate from Pope John Paul to be accurate. And again, my challenge was to provide a list of Jewish terrorisms on people across the world, and to be fair, it needs to be in the last 30 years and not repudiated by the majority of Jews.

Good luck.
I'm interested in this response, nmSintesi
Apr 23, 2003 4:44 PM
I'll bet.czardonic
Apr 23, 2003 5:10 PM
Steve has stacked the deck pretty thouroughly.

Who is the Muslim Pope, anyway? You know, for the purposes of a "fair" comparison between the IRA and the Al Aqsa Martyrs.
Your failure to respond substantially is pretty clearly marked.Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 5:31 PM
Apologize your heart out. That there is no Muslim Pope? Is this your withering response? That is very powerful muffin boy.

You do "seemingly" neglect a significant portion of his argument in favor of what you perceive to be a "weak point."

Polemics?

YOU BE THE JUDGE PEOPLE!

Monkey piss. I'm missing Charlton Heston battle the earthquake!
Your arguments either ignore substance. . .czardonic
Apr 23, 2003 6:07 PM
. . or narrow the terms until no "substantive" counter argument can be offered, or even resonably expected. Barring that you try to personalize the debate, as if truth or logic were contingent on character or style. Barring that you post gibberish. Barring that you disappear.


I certainly didn't neglect his argument. He makes a very convincing point as long as you ignore his arbitrary and self-serving distinctions. The requirement that any IRA terrorism be condoned by the Pope in order to be equivalent to Muslim terrorism is emblematic. There is no Muslim equivalent to the Pope, thus there is no way equate Catholic and Muslim terrorism on Steve's terms. How convenient.

Meanwhile, those murdered in the name of Catholicism, Protestantisms, Judaism or more earthly causes (or more than 30 years ago) are just as dead and the hatred that inspired these crimes is just as damnable.
Reread his post.Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 6:20 PM
It is you who are "narrowing" the argument around this ridiculous literal mindedness of yours. Pope. Schmope. Show us the money or piss off you sugar coated wheat tasty.

Personalize? Did someone insinuate someone, call someone, a "bigot?"

You are a great one for dismissing others on the "consider the source" tact.

If it confounds you that is exactly your tuff crap.

BTW, the substantive example option is wide open. You just fail to respond. And I can't wait for when you try.
Your post was bigoted and your qualification was well advised.czardonic
Apr 23, 2003 6:45 PM
I see you have narrowed the charge to the more subjective "insinuation".

How am I a great one for dismissing the arguments of others based on the source? I'm responding to you aren't I?

As for substance, I already explained that Steve's post intentionally precludes "substantive" response. He starts out by asking for examples of Jewish or Christian terrorism. Then he hedges by requiring that they have occured in the last 30 years. Then he further hedges by requiring that they emanate from Pope John Paul to be "accurate". Accurate how? There is no Muslim equivalent to the Pope, so he has set the burden of accuracy to a point that even he can't meet with examples of Muslim terrorism.
Apparently it wasn't bigoted. Kind of realistic.Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 7:20 PM
It's not the response it's the dismissals. Really, the cluelessness on your part is not helping.

Once again, reread. "christian terrorists" not just Catholic. Did he say some thing about the non existant world-wide Jewish terrorist network? The Pope? Whatever. The Catholics are "blessed" with a monolithic ruling body who denounces terrorism. What parallels do you find amongst the protestant Christian body?

The 30 years? Maybe he was trying to keep things temporal. If you need to scrub history then I guess you have a host of replies don't you? And so do I BTW, on any side you care to choose. You are on it with the false limitation angle.

But you can still respond in a substantive manner if you'd like. But you ain't gonna "seemingly."
Then there you go. Why would I apologize for calling you on. .czardonic
Apr 23, 2003 8:12 PM
. . .a statement that you subsequently repudiated and subsequent to that reaffirmed?

Your position is that Arabs can be fairly characterized by by the rhetoric of a few despotic leaders and the action of an infintesimally small minority. My position is that it this is an obviously unfair and predjudicial characterization, a.k.a. bigotry. If you have some other explanation then I would be glad to hear it.

Re-read yourself. I was referring to the proposed (by SteveS) comparison to the Pope endorsed IRA terrorism, not Christian terrorists in general or the ETA of which he also requires Papal blessing to recognize. Its not my fault that his own "false limitation angle" blows up in his face before he even completes the sentence.

"World-wide". Good point. One more arbitrary distinction behind which to hide the double standards inherent to your argument.
Gee whillikersSteveS
Apr 23, 2003 9:01 PM
Gee whillikers, I made it too tough on you to do an apples-to-apples comparison, but even so you have completely failed to do anything and I have kept all kinds of ammunition in reserve. Rats! I did so want to blast you, figuratively speaking, with both barrels.

Here, I will help you an itty-bitty bit. In Shiaism, an ayatollah has an authority to issue a "fatwa", an order to kill someone for Allah, like the one Ayatollah Khomeini,or his successor, issued for the murder of Salmon Rushdi. Within Sunni Islam, any number of authorities like muftis have varying degrees of authority over their followers. And of course for Wahabism, our pal Osama warms to cockles of the hearts of a good portion of Al-Jazeera's viewership, even if he is self-proclaimed. (It is true that both the Caliphate and Sultanates are extinct, Allah be praised.) The point being that within the realms where I gave specifics, there have been and are Muslim clergy backing fully the terrorist's actions.

All you had to do was show the various instances where the Catholic church, led by the Pope, had encouraged the actions of ostensibly Catholic IRA in Ireland or ETA in Spain. Again, in the last 30 years. Simple. But it appears you no can do. (I know why you can't come up with anything here, even if you and the other pinks and greens can't see it)

This seems to be a pattern for you, when faced with an ugly reality, all you can do is snipe, but not produce anything. Oh, I know...those naughty Franks were so ugly 1000 years ago in the Crusades, or something of that ilk. Sorry, no wash. We are discussing the world we live in now, not the actions of hundreds of years ago.

Here ya' go, give some examples of Jews bombing airliners, hijacking ocean liners, repeated murders of attendees at mosques, or Jewish suicide bombers killing people at weddings, discos, or riding buses to work. Surely you can do this in an unbigoted and liberal manner. Have at it..., again in the last 30 years. I will make it even easier, even without rabbinic approval in advance, but they still have to have rabbinic support after their murders.

Apples-to-apples.
Bull.czardonic
Apr 23, 2003 9:34 PM
How were you hoping to blast me with both barrels. I joined this thread after your expertly restrained initial salvo.

I've heard different version of what a Fatwa is, varying from your assertion that it represents some kind of force of Islamic Law to a definition that dismisses it as a Islamic version of a press release. I suspect the different definitions result from the myriad interpretations of Islam and the varying degree to which Muslims adhere to these authorities. Of course, that reality is absent from your broad brush characterizations.

Of course there are Muslim clergy involved in advocating terrorism. Are you telling me that there are no Catholic or Protestant clergy backing terrorism in Norhthern Ireland? Or Protestant clergy advocating violence against Jews in America? Or rabbis condoning the violent subjugation of the Palestinians? And for the sake of actual accuracy, "clergy" would have to apply any priest, minister or rabbi that can maintain a following of some sort based on their reputation as a religious leader.

I freely admit that there are no apple-to-apple comparisons to be made. Its hardly surprising given your fantastically labored definition of apple -- must have grown in the Garden of Eden to qualify. Do you have any Arab apples to compare to the IDFs indiscriminate repression?

Of course, you could conceded every one of these points and still fall back on the fact (stiplated!) that there are simply more Muslim terrorists than there are Jewish terrorists. But, aren't there also many more Muslims?

And what do you mean by sniping, anyway?
Yipping alongSteveS
Apr 23, 2003 9:53 PM
As always, you have failed to produce anything or answer the challenge. You spout off but really have no insight into the problem or even address the question, the best that your mind can generate is an oblique shot (snipe) at a phrase, or whatever that makes you feel good. Time and again you try and fail miserably at these kinds of exchanges. The problem is, you have nothing to exchange, because it isn't there, an adequate list of Jewish terrorisms within the last 30 years. Too tough for you. Try to focus on the challenge.

Ever notice those little canines that yap at someone's heels, too small to protect or defend anything, just noisy pests? Snippy. In little-doggy talk, they must be yipping their equivalent of 'bigot, bigot.' Makes 'em feel big and tough. Not.

Man, I do so hope you've got big gears on your bike, can climb a hill in a 56x11 at 100rpms and your bike weighs 8 lbs. fully laden. Something to compensate for these repeated failed forays at adult discourse and debate. The other guys have already noted your style and failed scope.

Better return to your 'call them a bigot' old stand-by. Weak, man, really, really weak. Good luck with your yipping.
I already stipulated that I could not meet your challenge.czardonic
Apr 23, 2003 10:17 PM
More than once, along with the obvious reasons why. You didn't meet my challenge or even acknowledge it, as is your style.

Actually, most of my bikes are fairly low end. I'm a decent climber, but I'm a spinner.
I didn't repudiate. I clarified and apologized ...Sintesi
Apr 24, 2003 3:46 AM
for the misunderstanding it may have engendered. Please, what is this the third time I have to say that I don't believe "all" muslims are anti-Semites? That seems pretty straightforward. The point is this evil is openly accepted or at the very least tolerated by a wide margin. It's pathetic. What is more pathetic is your continued denial because you can't stand the fact that what we have been pointing out is true.

I know you were referring to the Catholic reference, I pointed out to you that you were ignoring the other references to "christians" and "jews." Here it is again:

"You are encouraged to bring up a list of Jewish or "Christian" terrorist activities in the last 30 years. Note that they will have to be fully supported by their respective clergies."

If you have popular, well known Catholic church writings that exhort Catholics to kill Anglicans then have at it. OR go to other churches, Jews, etc... He's given you the entire world and the last 30 years and you keep crying foul.

One of your classic debating tactics is to pull the topic off subject, distort it, and continue to widen the parameters until either (A) you confuse all parties involved and it becomes moot and you can walk away from it or (B) you find a weak point on which to pounce and claim the argument won even though it is not the original statement. We're on to you Sophist.
And I acknowledged your apology. So what is your damage?czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 10:32 AM
If my tactic is to widen the parameters, it is in response you yours of narrowing them to the cramped space within which your arguments can withstand any challenge. (And I'm the sophist?) It a bit ridiculous to cry foul because I criticize weak points. Are those not the points that should be criticized? Your whining is especially silly since I stipulated to your strong points.

Again, is it your assertion that sponsorship of violence is limited to Muslim clergy? And that is without narrowing what you recognize as "sponsorship" to Papal emanations or Church writings. I'm talking about any clergy member condoning violence in any way against other religious communities. I just want your opinion.
Yeah that's my tactic alright.Sintesi
Apr 24, 2003 2:10 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. You haven't responded to any points all you've done is complain. Please.

You sound like you just wandering around up there.

I'll take this as a capitulation on your part. Till we meet again biscuit.
". . .Barring <i>that</i> you disappear." (nm)czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 2:14 PM
What and spoil your delight? Nope. Nope. NO. nmSintesi
Apr 24, 2003 2:26 PM
Your post was bigoted and your qualification was well advised.Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 7:45 PM
'I see you have narrowed the charge to the more subjective "insinuation".'

You don't insinuate people are close minded bigots? You haven't called people bigots?

It's a tactic on your part and a crock. You're bankrupt dad. No apology no acknowledement. You lack a little humility don't you? Kind of undermines your positions and ultimately exposes a certain lack of wisdom.

Don't see that? Didn't think so.
You've got me there.czardonic
Apr 23, 2003 8:38 PM
What I was getting at is that your original complaint was that I called you a bigot, a charge that couldn't have been supported. Changing it to "insinuation" allows you rely on your own interpretation of an indirect comment.

However, that doesn't seem as relevant a distinction as I originally thought, and moreover provides a grain of truth to your projective fiction about my sophism.
Yawn. Doi. etc...Sintesi
Apr 24, 2003 2:17 PM
I think you called me a bigot outright. You insinuate OTHERS are bigots, narrow, whatever.... C'mon wake up and try not to let things go by you. Happens constantly with you.

It's personal attacks anyway you want to look at it.

I'm not to impressed at your attempts to rationalize and explain the minituae of your thought processes. So you can give that a rest.

"projective fiction." Well maybe you have something getting projected up somewhere.

Go get 'em tiger.
Shoudn't you be basking in the glow of victory? (nm)czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 2:22 PM
Plenty work left I assume. I guess it will depend. (nm)Sintesi
Apr 24, 2003 2:27 PM
Yes, I believe the most significant difference ispurplepaul
Apr 23, 2003 4:59 PM
the endorsement of violence and hatred against the Jews by Arab and Muslim religious and political leaders. There are very, very few who state that Arab problems stem from themselves, probably because their lives are threatened should they say so.

But what I find so incomprehensible is that anyone could argue that Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East don't scapegoat Jews and openly call for their extinction. Substitute your favorite ethnic group/race for "Jew" and I think you'll see how such rhetoric would elicit a totally different (apoplectic) response.
What the hell.Sintesi
Apr 23, 2003 5:48 PM
Loren Greene is breaking into the stairwell to save the poor office workers. I'm taking a break.

I decided to reread. Give me the "unbiased" sources to refute my examples.

Really, you owe me a 6 pack.
Fact of the matter per the 'rest of the world'the Phantom
Apr 26, 2003 2:33 PM
Isreal may have the right to exist but not at the expense of it's rightful neighbors. They need to stay within the 1967 borders and build a big wall... Isreal has seriously mentally deranged individuals who are viscious and apallingly narrow minded. Isreal is the real enemy and the root source of all evil in the current world. Fact: 85% of the population of that part of the world is being abused by the most racist and hated country on earth. Fact: The New York Times has called for the end of any form of foreign aid to Isreal. It would be about time... An opinion from a reliable source of the news not the sickening U.S.'Jews Media'. We here in the U.S. have a severely warped opinion about the facts from real world. It's time for a wake-up call, a 180 degree change in U.S. foreign policy and economic sanctions plus the sixth fleet to enforce the new rules... My opinion, I'm sick of the 10 Billion dollars sent yearly to the whining and utterly obnoxious Isreali crybabies without repayment terms. Make them stand on their own two feet and suffer from world opinion and isolation. The conficts would very rapidly end. Fact: Egypt has similar funding and repays it with interest. Fact: We tax payers fund atrosities against innocent people with anti personnel bombs killing children with rocks and slingshots. Money that could, in one year put $10 to $20,000 pay raises to every teacher in the U.S. plus a computer on every desk of every student. The U.S. taxpayer effectivly funds a state of the art educational system in Isreal, putting the most offensive country on earth ahead of typical Americans. Fact: the 'Jews Media' carefully will avoid this issue with deception. Fact: Isreal's enemies have nuclear capabilities and might use them at any time. My prediction, Tel Aviv will not exist in the next five years unless Isreal wakes up to reality. Lastly, I am sick of the Jew first opinion force feed to us by the most mind polluted and offensive people on earth.