Women and children and infants⦠Just breed like hell, and then teach them all en mass anti-Western hatred riddled with lies and ridiculous and paranoid conspiracy theories. Then, assume they deserve the moral high ground because they have all these mentally abused and confused children and helpless infants that can be used as human shields every time Israel is provoked. Israel's only provocation is its existence. So, perhaps it's in Israel's best interest to untie its hands and end this perpetual nonsense once and for all. By the way, people are wising up in the West. So expect the support to dry up. This old and tired Muslim propaganda campaign is finely dead. Once again, letâs review how Muslims/Arabs think: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3706 ========================================= âHow do Muslims worldwide think? âTo find out, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press carried out a large-scale attitudinal survey this spring. Titled "The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other," it interviewed Muslims in two batches of countries: six of them with long-standing, majority-Muslim populations (Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey) and four of them in Western Europe with new, minority Muslim populations (France, Germany, Britain, and Spain). The survey, which also looks at Western views of Muslims, yielded some dismaying but not altogether surprising results. Its themes can be grouped under three rubrics. A proclivity to conspiracy theories: In not one Muslim population polled does a majority believe that Arabs carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001, on America. The proportions range from a mere 15% in Pakistan holding Arabs responsible, to 48% among French Muslims. Confirming recent negative trends in Turkey, the number of Turks who point the finger at Arabs has declined to 16% today from 46% in 2002. In other words, in every one of these 10 Muslim communities, a majority views September 11 as a hoax perpetrated by the American government, Israel, or some other agency. Likewise, Muslims are widely prejudiced against Jews, ranging from 28% unfavorable ratings among French Muslims to 98% in Jordan (which, despite the monarchy's moderation, has a majority Palestinian Arab population). Further, Muslims in certain countries (especially Egypt and Jordan) see Jews conspiratorially, as being responsible for bad relations between Muslims and Westerners. Conspiracy theories also pertain to larger topics. Asked, "What is most responsible for Muslim nations' lack of prosperity?" between 14% (in Pakistan) and 43% (in Jordan) blame the policies of America and other Western states, as opposed to indigenous problems, such as a lack of democracy or education, or the presence of corruption or radical Islam. This conspiracism points to a widespread unwillingness in the umma to deal with realities, preferring the safer bromides of plots, schemes, and intrigues. It also exposes major problems adjusting to modernity. Support for terrorism: All the Muslim populations polled display a solid majority of support for Osama bin Laden. Asked whether they have confidence in him, Muslims replied positively, ranging between 8% (in Turkey) and 72% (in Nigeria). Likewise, suicide bombing is popular. Muslims who call it justified range from 13% (in Germany) to 69% (in Nigeria). These appalling numbers suggest that terrorism by Muslims has deep roots and will remain a danger for years to come. British and Nigerian Muslims are most alienated: Britain stands out as a paradoxical country. Non-Muslims there have strikingly more favorable views of Islam and Muslims than elsewhere in the West; for example, only 32% of the British sample view Muslims as violent, significantly less than their counterparts in France (41%), Germany (52%), or Spain (60%). In the Muhammad cartoon dispute, Britons showed more sympathy for the Muslim outlook than did other Europeans. More broadly, Britons blame Muslims less for the poor state of Western-Muslim relations. But British Muslims return the favor with the most malign anti-Western attitudes found in Europe. Many more of them regard Westerners as violent, greedy, immoral, and arrogant than do their counterparts in France, Germany, and Spain. In addition, whether asked about their attitudes toward Jews, responsibility for September 11, or the place of women in Western societies, their views are notably more extreme. The situation in Britain reflects the "Londonistan" phenomenon, whereby Britons preemptively cringe and Muslims respond to this weakness with aggression. Nigerian Muslims generally have the most belligerent views on such issues as the state of Western-Muslim relations, the supposed immorality and arrogance of Westerners, and support for Mr. bin Laden and suicide terrorism. This extremism results, no doubt, from the violent state of Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria. Ironically, most Muslim alienation is found in those countries where Muslims are either the most or the least accommodated, suggesting that a middle path is best - where Muslims do not win special privileges, as in Britain, nor are they in an advanced state of hostility, as in Nigeria. Overall, the Pew survey sends an undeniable message of crisis from one end to the other of the Muslim world.
You're missing the irony. The militarily powerless have long argued that terror is a legitimate form of warfare against civilians. After all the suicide bombers routinely strike at cafe's and not checkpoints, eh? Terrorists rational is "if an electorate selects leaders who enforce policies we disagree with then that same electorate is culpable." Ok fine. But now the shoes on the other foot. If Hamas and terror are the official, elected voice of the Palestinian people then Israel has a moral highroad to use force against those civilians.
fascinating read. So basically, reconfirming our war on Bin Laden and 'terrorism' from the beginning is our war on a large part of Islam, notably the people who suffer the most (usually from despicable governments/etc). I've long thought we should've thought the war entirely economically. I sometimes wonder how things would've turned out if in 2002 instead of going to war, we adopted protectionist stances, and mandated 40mpg cars, and heavily tariffed imports from quickly developing nations (to reduce world oil demand based on our consumption). Better yet, we did everything in our power to force oil down to $10/barrel. Oh... Then these state run oil-revenue dependent governments would have no-one to blame but us for this imposed poverty, and would've spawned a wrath of violence upon us for hurting them financially. So basically, thing wouldn't be not much different. Such a cynical view of the world..
Just to let you know, you shouldn't bother with DrawDown. He has been spewing his virulently anti-Semitic garbage here for a long time, and has been banned many times. Do a search under the usernames 'coinz' and 'skalpz'... you will see that the guy is not to be taken seriously. As you say, there is plenty of room for discussion, but not with someone of his ilk.
Then you support machine gunning down the entire populous including women, children and infants? Should we include the dogs, cats, camels and cattle in that remedy, as well? Surely they support Hamas. DD
Hi RobMc I am following this discussion with interest (except for the droolings of the child Drawdown). I wonder if you can respond, since a couple of people have pointed out that since the Palestinians elected Hamas, it seems that the majority might actually support this kind of action. Maybe you don't think we can extrapolate from Hamas' election and infer that those who voted for them are ideologically aligned with the terrorists who carried out this kidnapping. I don't know what the voter turnout was like in this past election, something that would obviously impact the discussion.
traderNik Wow, is that a reasonable question put by a reasonable person, don't see many of those around here It is a very tricky question which as you correctly infer is at the heart of most of this discussion. I guess my answer is that I cannot view this situation as an isolated occurence in a shitty mess in one little part of the world. So the fundamental principle is that I don't believe that it is right for a state (or anyone) to deliberately target civilians. There are obviously lots here who think "they voted for Hamas, so fuck 'em" and I get the feeling that dddooo would like to say that but still somehow insists that the Israelis are not deliberately terrorising the civilian population. If you (or one) believes that Israel is treating the civilian population fairly or that to terrorise them you have to kill them then there is obviously no wider discussion to be had. There is the question of the vote percentage but imo it is to a certain extent a red herring. Was it 60%, 80%, so do we just say its ok to target 60 or 80% of the population? If we are talking in a wider sense then all we are saying is that civilians can be targeted for their political views as a wider collective. I just cannot subscribe to that. There are too many situations where civilised people would find that abhorrent even though many (including many on here) would argue that this is a special case, we were provoked, they elected a group which supports terrorists etc etc. There is always going to be an argument put forward by someone that this or that is a special case. It is very unfashionable to talk about human rights atm but it extends palestinian citizens as much as to US citizens. If you voted for Bush and Bush has declared war on Saddam Hussein then by the same logic currently employed by some on here it would make you a legitimate target - "they voted for Bush, and he declared war on me, so fuck 'em". I'm sure if anyone has read this far then there will be howls of abuse and dddooo's accusations. But we would argue, correctly, that it is morally repugnant and inexcusable. So, as far as I am concerned there is no get out clause that says :- "we believe in human rights for our citizens 'cos we're the good guys but them baddies have been nasty to us and I don't like what they believe in so fuck 'em". As I said previously, although dddooo doesn't seem to believe me 'cos I haven't started a thread on ET about it, if the Israelis had shot some suicide bombers or flattened a militant training camp then no problemo. I am pro-Israel and pro shooting terrorists. BUT, and this is key for me, as soon as you say that civilians are fair game because of their political opinion you are using the same argument as the fuckers the world is trying to fight. Unfortunately the simpletons argument put forward by Bush "you're with us or with the terrorists" seems to have gained credence to the point where, in any complicated arena, dissent from one position is seen as support for another (just see the silly thread titles that appear - NYT supports terrorists etc, or the knee jerk accusations in this thread). Its a good way to bludgeon people into a position but it means that intelligent discussion is also a victim of terrorism. Sorry for the long reply. Cheers Rob