babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Palestinian guerrilas carry out succesful attack on IDF

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Palestinian guerrilas carry out succesful attack on IDF
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 12:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
5 IDF soldiers killed in Gaza tunnel blast

quote:
Five Israel Defense Forces soldiers were killed and six wounded in the Gaza Strip on Sunday when a booby-trapped tunnel blew up under an army outpost near Rafah.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706

posted 13 December 2004 02:32 PM      Profile for scribblet        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
5 IDF soldiers killed in Gaza tunnel blast



Another attempt to derail the peace process.

From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 13 December 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some Israeli minister had the chutzpah to call this 'terrorism'.

Have these guys never heard of the Boy That Cried Wolf?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 13 December 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Some Israeli minister had the chutzpah to call this 'terrorism'.
There might be a legitimate case for refraining from calling the initial attack terrorism (eventhough the people who planned it and executed it were most definitely terrorists and belonged to a terrorist group). But, after the initial explosion was detonated, medical personnel rushed to the scene to be met by machine gun fire. Surely attacking non-combatants (even if they are part of the military) is terrorism.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paladin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3119

posted 13 December 2004 03:02 PM      Profile for Paladin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One could argue that Palestinian fighters attacking members of an occupying army constitute the "resistance" or could be called "freedom fighters"... as were their predecessors, the Stern Gang
From: Jugular knotch | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There might be a legitimate case for refraining from calling the initial attack terrorism (eventhough the people who planned it and executed it were most definitely terrorists and belonged to a terrorist group). But, after the initial explosion was detonated, medical personnel rushed to the scene to be met by machine gun fire. Surely attacking non-combatants (even if they are part of the military) is terrorism.

So, the missile attack that ended the life unarmed and wheelchair bound non-combatant Sheik Ahmed Yassin is terrorism (even if he was a part of the Hamas military organization,) yes?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 13 December 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So, the missile attack that ended the life unarmed and wheelchair bound non-combatant Sheik Ahmed Yassin is terrorism (even if he was a part of the Hamas military organization,) yes?
No, because he was not a non-combatant. He was part of the Hamas command structure, personally authorizing terrorist attacks. Even in conventional war, commanders are legitimate targets. And, I would hope that you would agree that, had he been in a wheelchair, Hitler would still have been a legiimate target too.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 December 2004 03:55 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Surely attacking non-combatants (even if they are part of the military) is terrorism.

I agree. Wholeheartedly. So it is agreed: Hamas, the USA and Israel are all terrorist organizations.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, because he was not a non-combatant. He was part of the Hamas command structure, personally authorizing terrorist attacks.

So then, the leadership of the PFLP, should be let go for their role in the assassination of Rehevam Ze'evi since he was an Israeli cabiney minster and therefore part of the Israeli command structure, and therefore a legitimate target, right?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 13 December 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So then, the leadership of the PFLP, should be let go for their role in the assassination of Rehevam Ze'evi since he was an Israeli cabiney minster and therefore part of the Israeli command structure, and therefore a legitimate target, right?
Nope. Ze'evi was the Minster of TOURISM! He was not an active, on duty, member of the military command structure.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry it was a WAR Cabinet. Sharon called it war no? Decisions are joint in Cabinet, and sorry Ze'evei was no mere cabinet misnter, he was also a known proponent of transfer, and also a IDF reserve officer.

And Yassin, only blessed the bombers, by absolving them of responsibility for their crime, he never ordered the attacks.

I just wanted to see how self-serving your answers were going to be.

Point is this in the Geneva convention, killing unarmed persons is strictly illegal. It even goes so far as forbid attacking retreating soldiers, whom may be armed but not in combat.

Were Israel to have tried to arrest Yassin and in the process killed a number of amerd body guards it would have been a completely legitimate act, however a rocket attack that also killed at least two, for all we know, completely innocent bystanders is obviously a terrorist act, if you like that term -- I prefer war crime.

I see here that in this attack, the Paletinian guerillas were nice enough to "confirm the kills," as the IDF refers to it. Sweet. It is also a war crime.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 13 December 2004 05:34 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I just wanted to see how self-serving your answers were going to be.
And I wanted to see how far you would go to defend Hamas.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 06:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But you see: I don't. Suggesting that the manner in which someone is executed is exactly the same caliber of crime as the ones they are purported to have engaged in, is not defending them. Quite the opposite.

Where have I defended Hamas?

The difference between you and I is that I am able to distinguish 'war crimes' based on universal principals of laws applied equally to all, outside of my politcal views, you are not. This is why I can note that several war crimes were committed during this action. I can see that suicide bombing is also a war crime, as is dropping a bomb on a residential neighborhood to eliminate one suspected Hamas militant.

On the other hand, you are completely unable to admit that anything that Israel does deviates from law or even moral standards. You will comdemn anything Palestinian, and defend anything Israeli.

I know you would like to have it that I am your equal opposite, that would conform to your world view where I am the "defender of Hamas," and you the "defender of Israel," two entities in a historic clash of civilizations, but sorry, no, we are not two self-interested entities serving our own contrary yet equally singular and opposed agendas, that is your pardigm, not mine. I don't support Hamas, but you do support Sharon.

Your self serving sophistry is precisely the tiresome kind of rhetoric which has destroyed the currency of the Israeli view among people all over the world, and here in Canada where 90% of all Canadians think that Canada should be neutral, and 30% believe that Israel is involved in terrorist activities.

But you guys persist, tirelessly destroying the country you think you are defending.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 13 December 2004 07:22 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
And I wanted to see how far you would go to defend Hamas.
Were you suprised at how far Cueball went? I wasnt

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 07:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
K asshole where did I defend Hamas or is slander the only kind of debate you guys can engage in when faced with fact and arguement?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 13 December 2004 07:28 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And Yassin, only blessed the bombers, by absolving them of responsibility for their crime, he never ordered the attacks.


Is that all he did? Blessed a bunch of brutal murderers? Oh well OK then...


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 13 December 2004 07:30 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You seem to be defending Yassin for his actions. In your opinion was he a criminal?

Oh yes Hamas are not "militants", they are terrorists...or do you disagree?

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 07:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It isn't my fault that you come of like the sputtering political fringe dwellers that you are.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 13 December 2004 07:47 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He doesn't seem to be defending Yassin to me. He seems to be trying to establish an objective standard for atrocities that does not consider who is committing them, and you seem to be constantly trying to squirm around any sort of standard by accusing him of defending the crimes of Hamas. Can you explain the difference, morally speaking, between the IDF and Hamas crimes referred to in this thread?
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 13 December 2004 10:54 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The difference between you and I is that I am able to distinguish 'war crimes' based on universal principals of laws applied equally to all, outside of my politcal views, you are not. This is why I can note that several war crimes were committed during this action. I can see that suicide bombing is also a war crime, as is dropping a bomb on a residential neighborhood to eliminate one suspected Hamas militant.

On the other hand, you are completely unable to admit that anything that Israel does deviates from law or even moral standards. You will comdemn anything Palestinian, and defend anything Israeli.

I know you would like to have it that I am your equal opposite, that would conform to your world view where I am the "defender of Hamas," and you the "defender of Israel," two entities in a historic clash of civilizations, but sorry, no, we are not two self-interested entities serving our own contrary yet equally singular and opposed agendas, that is your pardigm, not mine. I don't support Hamas, but you do support Sharon.

Your self serving sophistry is precisely the tiresome kind of rhetoric which has destroyed the currency of the Israeli view among people all over the world, and here in Canada where 90% of all Canadians think that Canada should be neutral, and 30% believe that Israel is involved in terrorist activities.


Wow. You seem to think you know an awful lot about me. Anything else you can tell me about myself that I didn't know?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your a bit of a prick.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 13 December 2004 11:15 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Can you explain the difference, morally speaking, between the IDF and Hamas crimes referred to in this thread?
Yes, I can.

Yassin was complicit in the targetted murder of innocent civillians for political purposes (perhaps a textbook definition of terrorism). The soldiers killed guarding the border between Gaza and Egypt were not complicit in any particular crime that you can demonstrate to us. You may call "the occupation" a crime in itself. But these particular soldiers were not responsible for any warcrimes.

The attack on Yassin was not an "attrocity" at all. It was a legitimate defensive act from a legitimate state military force. The UN, Israel, and everybody else recognizes the Palestinian Authority as the sole representatives of the Palestinian people. Hamas is not a legitimate military force. So, any military action that they take is by definition illegitimate (and usually terrorism).

Israel does not videotape their military actions for the purpose of taunting. The blowing up of this tunnel was videotaped by several cameras. The groups responsible voluntarily claimed responsibility. This footage was released to the media for the sole purpose of terrorizing the Israeli population.

Hamas and the Fatah Hawks (aparently new kids on the terrorist block) claimed that it was done to avenge what they called "the murder of Yasser Arafat". This is quite clearly a futile grasp for an excuse for their horrifying action. The tunnel took 4 months to dig. Arafat wasn't even sick then. So, that could not have been why they did it.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 13 December 2004 11:16 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Your a bit of a prick.
Merry Christmas

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 13 December 2004 11:18 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Someone calls you a prick and you respond "Merry Christmas?" What exactly is that supposed to mean, Phono?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 December 2004 11:49 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Obviously an anti-Christite.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 11:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is the basic underlying hypocritical point underlying your arguement. You will rage and rage about Yassin's responsibility for killing civilians, as unjustifiable. Fair enough. Now you have argued the case that Palestinians can not even target 'innocent' occupying soldiers.

Conversely, Israel may target anyone they like, armed or unarmed, wherever they are. You will always have an excuse, ready at hand. You think that clever preverication and arguement will win the day. Most people look at you and go, hmmm, that guy is a bit of prick.

Happy Chuanuka Habibi.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 13 December 2004 11:54 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Someone calls you a prick and you respond "Merry Christmas?" What exactly is that supposed to mean, Phono?
I'm fighting ill will with good will, a personal attack with personal good wishes. In a context like this, I try to avoid a "fuck you" contests. I'm just content to have other people show how disgusting they be while I keep my cool.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 December 2004 11:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you a Christian? No, I believe you once made the assertion that you were Jewish, now you wish me Merry Christmas? Funny how you assume that I am not Jewish. It's a bit of an insult to make presumptions about someones religious views and to raise their possibly Cherished religious occasions in mid arguement, and then bless them, not from your faith, but the faith you presume they have. For all you know I'm Muslim.

You even assumed in another thread that I was male.

So... it isn't good will, it is you being a bit of a prick. I don't think you understand good will.

Good will is not suggesting that people support Hamas simply because they do not think that assassinating their leadership, without even the pretext of any legal proceeding, while at the same time killing numerous others, is lawful or moral. It is very, very sleezy. If you look back at the thread you will see it is at that point where I got nasty.

That is why you are a bit of a prick.... and when I said that I was being nice.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 14 December 2004 12:00 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm just content to have other people show how disgusting they be while I keep my cool.

Riiight. So how long will it be until you start speculating about Cueball's sex life again?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 12:07 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm fighting ill will with good will, a personal attack with personal good wishes. In a context like this, I try to avoid a "fuck you" contests. I'm just content to have other people show how disgusting they be while I keep my cool

Yeah, right. I don't believe you, but anyway, it's no big sin on Babble to tell people to fuck right off. You'd have done better by simply stating your objection to harsh language. As it stands, I think, you've injected a poisonous, bigoted message in your retort that is unfortunate, but, nevertheless, indicates how you feel.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 12:09 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Cueballs sex life? Is it round and white? Who knows?

Who's killing who? You pay your money and you take your chances.Who's occupying that territory, anyway?


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 December 2004 12:11 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
... and then, as the dust settled and each side returned to their respective corners, the village idiot wandered in ...
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 12:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did you ever see that movie Queen of Hearts?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 12:16 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
This is the basic underlying hypocritical point underlying your arguement. You will rage and rage about Yassin's responsibility for killing civilians, as unjustifiable. Fair enough. Now you have argued the case that Palestinians can not even target 'innocent' occupying soldiers.
First of all, the soldiers that were killed were all Bedouins. They can hardly be called occupiers. Even if you don't think Jews are native to the land, surely the Bedouin are. The terrorists didn't just manage to kill Bedouin members of a mixed batallion. They waited until after the joint Egyptian shift was over (the two share responsibilities at the post). They knew exactly who they were targetting.

Also, they were not engaged in combat opperations. In the Israeli Army, Bedouins are not typically compelled to serve in areas where it is likely that they will have to fight against fellow Muslims. They were guarding a border, a situation in which one would not typically attack unless in self defense. In order for resistance to be legitimate, don't the resisters have to have a well founded belief that they are in danger? Hamas and the Fatah Hawks could not possibly have believed that these soldiers constituted an immediate threat.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Conversely, Israel may target anyone they like, armed or unarmed, wherever they are. You will always have an excuse, ready at hand. You think that clever preverication and arguement will win the day. Most people look at you and go, hmmm, that guy is a bit of prick.
Your question makes the false assumption that Israel is in the habbit of targetting people for no reason. That's a flat out lie. Surely individual soldiers have acted outside of the bounds of military discipline and ought to be punished when they do. And, they are. The fact of the matter is that when Israel kills a innocent person, it's seen by Israelis as a mistake. When Palestinian terrorist groups kill innocent people, it's seen as a success. That's the moral difference between the IDF and terrorists. No hypocrisy there.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 12:16 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
I hope you guys don't wind up in the same pocket.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Frac Tal, if you've got nothing useful to say, then shut up.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 12:44 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Same to you, Hinterland.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 12:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back again...

I see that you are now fully engourged.

Now you are meandering around trying to make something of the ethnicity of those killed. As if the British use of Native soldiers made their occupation of India somehow legitimate, or that the Viet Cong should only have attacked US army units in Vietnam. They were Bedouin. So what? They were in the IDF. The letters stand for Israeli Defence Force. It is not a Bedouin organization.

The Bedouin are occupying Gaza Strip. Now I understand everything. You are truly a genius!

Now too, you want to compare the reasons that Palistinian militants and the IDF kill the people that they kill. I thought the "reason" that Palestinian militants attacked Israelis was because of anti-Jewish racism, I guess we can put that old cannard to sleep now, given that they kill Bedouins as well, yes?

You sound more and more like a lawyer who lost their case desperately trying to come up with a convincing summary. You are even diliberatetly skipping over facts you have estabished, and contradicting your own previous conclusions, in your weaseling.

Are you digging all the way to China tonight?

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 12:48 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Same to you, Hinterland.

Fuck off, Frac Tal.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 12:48 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
My jaw just hit the floor, cueball.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 12:51 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure your forehead will appreciate the company.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 12:53 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm glad you are impressed. Anything to say for yourself? I mean do you have any opinions of your own you would like to contribute. What do you think? Do you really think the fact that the soldiers killed were Bedouin makes a big difference Frac Tal?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 12:57 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Don't ask Frac Tal such hard questions. It might require reading, research and critical analysis. That's so fucking...hard. Just let Frac Tal interject with snide comments...I know that works for me when I've got nothing to say.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 01:23 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
You're the expert, Hinterland.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 01:24 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Which bed are you in, cueball?
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 01:37 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're the expert, Hinterland

I know you are, but what am I?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 01:42 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
The best you got Hinterland.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 01:51 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The best you got Hinterland.

Well, what does that mean? "The Best you got Hinterland". Does that mean that a person called "The Best" got me? No, that seems kind of dumb. Does it mean, me, Hinterland, has got "the best?" Maybe, but it seems kinda' hollow, you know? I mean, I appreciate the best, I love the best, yet, my life isn't more or less fulfilled. Especially compared to douche-bags like Frac Tal.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 01:56 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Aw, quitcherballin, Hinterland.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 02:00 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
The day you say anything remotely interesting, informed, or even irreverently amusing, Frac Tal, is the day I drop dead.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 02:02 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
So, drop dead.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 02:03 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You missed the fine print.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 02:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You missed the fine print.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 02:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You missed the fine print.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 02:07 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Call your lawyer three times.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 02:13 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
You're an idiot.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 14 December 2004 03:52 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh yeah, that's why I don't read Israel threads. Gotta be reminded every so often, I guess.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 14 December 2004 05:56 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An army illegally occupying someone else's land is not a "legitimate state military force". People who are occupied don't have a legitimate state military force, so I suppose their resistance actions against the occupying army are by that token "terrorism".

I don't like to see anybody get killed, but the occupation remains the problem.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 09:52 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh yeah, that's why I don't read Israel threads. Gotta be reminded every so often, I guess.

If it weren't for the right-wingers apologising for all kinds of barbarity and shutting down debate with scurrilous and immoral accusations of bigotry and racism (not to mention the policing of the Left), I wouldn't bother reading these threads, either.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 14 December 2004 02:24 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sheesh. OK, whatever Macabee and Phonicidal may think, international law and many UN resolutions are clear that the occupation is illegal, and whether legal or not is certainly an occupation of territory Israel has no title to. In such circumstances occupied people are legally allowed to fight occupying troops.

Now, "confirming kills", as in, shooting people dead after they're down--that's not nice. But as far as I know, every single formal and informal armed force engaged in combat in the world today routinely does it, from the Americans to the IDF to any given group in a conflict in Africa and on and on. So it's hard to argue that there's anything uniquely nasty about the way these Palestinian resistors behaved.

On the other hand, very few combatant groups target medics. That's very nasty and seriously illegal. As far as I know, up until now the only groups to consistently and deliberately target medics, ambulances or hospitals were the IDF and the US armed forces. Wonder who these Palestinians could have learned it from? Of course the difference is that the IDF routinely shoots civilian ambulances trying to rescue civilian casualties, whereas these were at least military medics rescuing military casualties. But it was still vicious and illegal, if less so than some standard (if vigorously, somewhat hollowly, denied) procedures of the occupation.

Of course if it had been the IDF doing it, I'm sure it would have been explained to us that the shooters were afraid the claims of being medics was a ruse to get closer and use grenades etc., so what they did was OK. Perhaps the Palestinians should adopt this kind of face-saving, announcing after each bus-bombing that yes, there were innocent people on that bus, but the target was an IDF soldier who was a known war criminal. They wouldn't offer any actual evidence, because in actual fact they wouldn't have a clue. But hey, when the Israelis do it everyone seems to accept it, even though again, evidence is never forthcoming and anyone with an oz. of sense knows that the sequence generally didn't go "identify terrorist, blow place up, justify civilian deaths", it went "blow place up, invent terrorist, justify civilian deaths".


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 02:31 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
An army illegally occupying someone else's land is not a "legitimate state military force". People who are occupied don't have a legitimate state military force, so I suppose their resistance actions against the occupying army are by that token "terrorism".
I make some distinctions between legitimate resistance and terrorism. But, I don't think that a serious case can be made for the legitimacy of blowing up a tunnel and then waiting for rescue workers to arrive before setting off another bomb. Nor do I think a case can be made for Hamas' legitimacy in general. But, I suppose that firing on an Israeli soldier who is engaged in combat operations could be termed "legitimate resistance" depending on the circumstance.
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
I don't like to see anybody get killed, but the occupation remains the problem.
Look, I am all for creating a Palestinian state. But, I don't think that can happen until the Palestinians can learn to govern themselves and stop blowing stuff up. If Quebec were the West Bank, Canada wouldn't leave until we were sure that the new state wouldn't attack us. So, whether we agree with the occupation or not, it can't end until Palestinians are ready for it to end.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can see why it is that you would like Palestinians only to engage in defensive operations, leaving all the offence to Israeli would be very nice of them. Too bad.

How convenient that you manage to come up with numerous justifications for any armed Israeli action yet demand that Palestinians refuse any, and term any action by them as provocation. Laughable logic.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 02:57 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
How convenient that you manage to come up with numerous justifications for any armed Israeli action yet demand that Palestinians refuse any
No, actually I welcome Palestinian military action provided it is against the terrorists in their midsts. A recent survey suggests that a slim majority of Palestinians now oppose terrorism against Israelis. Previous numbers showed an overwhelming majority supporting terrorism. So, it looks like they are getting the right idea and the tides are changing.

But, if Palestinians are unable or unwiling to act against Hamas, who will fight them other than Israel? Arafat didn't. Hopefully Abbas will. Unfortunately, short of a Palestinian civil war-those who want peace vs. those who don't-I don't see how else this situation will work itslef out in the near future. I would prefer that Palestinians settle their inner disputes peacefully. But, if they want a state now, they may have to take more drastic action against those Palestinians who are using terrorism to delay statehood.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 14 December 2004 02:57 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I promise we won't attack you!

*Disclaimer* - the following is not calling Israel a Nazi state - An elderly friend of mine was in the French resistance as a lad. His cell blew up a lot of stuff - not all of it directly occupation combat troops, SS, Gestapo or Vichy police.

No, I can't accept your reasoning - we've heard that over and over again from colonial powers everywhere - including here with regard to First Nations people - they are violent, not ready to govern themselves, etc. I think that unfortunately occupation creates such situations and deforms the societies and thought processes of occupier and occupied alike. A nation that oppresses another cannot be free. And in this case, cannot be safe ...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 14 December 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I make some distinctions between legitimate resistance and terrorism. But, I don't think that a serious case can be made for the legitimacy of blowing up a tunnel and then waiting for rescue workers to arrive before setting off another bomb.

This reminds me of the U.S.-made bomblettes used by Israel during the Six Day War that were designed to embedd themselves deep in aircraft runways or other hard surfaces and detonate much later, the idea being that the bombs would take out whoever came to repair the damage caused by the initial impact. I only mention it to show that such activities are common practice during war time.

quote:
Look, I am all for creating a Palestinian state. But, I don't think that can happen until the Palestinians can learn to govern themselves and stop blowing stuff up. If Quebec were the West Bank, Canada wouldn't leave until we were sure that the new state wouldn't attack us. So, whether we agree with the occupation or not, it can't end until Palestinians are ready for it to end.

Oh those silly Palestinians! When will they learn that if they stop "blowing stuff up", then Israel would almopst certainly withdraw from the OT, dismantle the settlements its building and relocate the inhabitants to within pre-1967 boders (after all, the only reason they're building so many settlements is because of the Palestinian's prolicivity to blow them up), tear down the wall and recognize the autonomy of the Palestinian people. Right?

Give your head a shake.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 03:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So phono basic facts... how many Israeli's were killed by Palestinian militants in 1999?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 14 December 2004 03:19 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So phono basic facts... how many Israeli's were killed by Palestinian militants in 1999?

According to B'Tselem ("The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories") one Israeli civilian and two Israeli security personnel were killed in the occupied territories in 1999 by Palestinians.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Von Mises Pieces:
According to B'Tselem ("The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories") one Israeli civilian and two Israeli security personnel were killed in the occupied territories in 1999 by Palestinians.
And, assuming it is accurate, what possible relevance could that statistic have? It's almost 2005. Since 2000 (and especially 2001) the situation has changed drastically. We need to move forward with the peace process.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 December 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Phonicidal, before we move forward with the Israeli "piece" process maybe you can provide me with some historical facts I seem to be missing?

In 1999 how many Palestinians were killed by the IDF, and how many illegal Israeli settlers were relocalted back to Israel proper and their illegal settlements demolished and returned to the Palestinians?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
http://tinyurl.com/3r4xs

quote:
JERUSALEM — Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader campaigning to succeed Yasser Arafat in elections next month, said in an interview today that the four-year-old armed uprising against Israel was a mistake and must end.

Abbas seems like a realist and a man who wants peace, so his people may prosper.

quote:
“The uprising is a legitimate right of the people to express their rejection of the occupation by popular and social means,” Abbas said. “Using the weapons was harmful and has got to stop.”

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Frac Tal ]


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 14 December 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

In 1999 how many Palestinians were killed by the IDF, and how many illegal Israeli settlers were relocalted back to Israel proper and their illegal settlements demolished and returned to the Palestinians?[/QB]

I can help with the first question - according to B'Tselem again, 8 Palestinians were killed by Israelies (IDF and Israeli civilians) in the Occupied Territories in 1999. Seems to have been a relatively quiet year all-round.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 14 December 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And what was happening in 1999?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frac Tal:
Abbas seems like a realist and a man who wants peace, so his people may prosper.
It certainly looks that way. Only time will tell if Abbas is able to, first, get the support of the Palestinian people and, second, practice what he preaches. Israel seems to be giving him some leeway by refraining from strongly criticizing him publicly.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 07:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is phonocidal, that during the period between 1967 and 1987, for instance Palestinian militants killed Israelis at a rate similar to the murder rate in the city of Toronto, adjusted per capita. The rate goes slightly up with the begining of the first Intifada, and multiplies 6 fold in the years between 2000, and the present, the period that coincides with Sharons rejection of the Oslso accord, and the re-invasion of the West Bank.

This shows that re-occupation of the West Bank has been a misreable failure at achieving its stated objective of saving Israeli lives. Are you suggesting that Paul Martin should declare marshall law and send the army into Toronto as a measure of for halting the appalling crime wave?

It also shows that your thesis that Israel will withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza strip when the Palestinians pipe down is simply false, given that Israel had 30 years of relative quiet to pick up stakes and leave. And Israel has not chosen to do so.

In fact during the period of Oslo, 1994-1999, one of the most peaceful segments of the entire occupation period Israeli settlement increased markedly. There is simply no evidence at all that Israel ever intends to leave.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 15 December 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually Cueball the point is that Abbas is much more sincere than you. He atleast wants peace.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 12:19 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And a news report tells us today that Israeli settlements, despite assurances to the contrary, are exapnding apace.
quote:
The bulldozers were preparing the ground for hundreds of new homes, despite the Israeli government's claim that it is not expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Like other building work along the route of the barrier, it seems to be an attempt to ensure that the land between the fence and the 1967 border remains in Israeli hands in any final agreement with the Palestinians.

Source

I agree Abbas is a man of integrity who wants peace. To bad there is no such man to deal with on the Israeli side.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 15 December 2004 01:41 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
About the title of this topic, "Palestinian guerrilas carry out succesful attack on IDF". What exactly made the attack "succesful", and why would you want to portray it as such? If nobody had been killed or injured, would it have been "unsuccesful"?

Edited to add:

It looks like it was not such a success for Hamas. They are shitting their pants about what Israel is going to do in response. Apparently not all of them are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Phonicidal ]


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 December 2004 03:13 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Apparently not all of them are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.

What an arrogant, ethno-centric, racist comment. Do you actually feel good writing things like this?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 December 2004 09:15 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually Cueball the point is that Abbas is much more sincere than you. He atleast wants peace.

Its not my fault that you come of like the far-right lunatic fringe dweller that you do. Did you read tea leaves to come to this conclusion about my views.

Sharon says, he wants peace. What of it? Everyone says they want peace. The discussion is about how to achieve it.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 09:17 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For people like him violence is always justified if it is committed by their side. They are sectarians no different than white supremacists or nationalist chauvinists of any stripe.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 December 2004 09:18 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Apparently not all of them are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.

This is not ok on babble.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 December 2004 09:23 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
About the title of this topic, "Palestinian guerrilas carry out succesful attack on IDF". What exactly made the attack "succesful", and why would you want to portray it as such? If nobody had been killed or injured, would it have been "unsuccesful"?

It is look like a successful operation in that it fulfilled its objectives, limited as they were: Destroying an Isreali facility, killing a number of IDF soldiers, making the papers world wide, etc. etc.

Was 1939 German invasion of Poland a 'succesful' operation... by Jove it was!!!! So was D-Day. Even Dunkirk has been descirbed a succesful operation.

Listen, it is clear that you have so far indulged yourself in the heady wine of duplicitous Newsqueak, that you can not even identify the actual meaning of common words.

Success? Go look it up if you are confused.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 December 2004 09:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
Edited to add:

It looks like it was not such a success for Hamas. They are shitting their pants about what Israel is going to do in response. Apparently not all of them are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.


Hi Phonicidal. Maybe you shouldn't have edited to add that. Racist characterizations of Muslims aren't allowed in the Middle East forum. Consider this a warning.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 December 2004 11:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It looks like it was not such a success for Hamas. They are shitting their pants about what Israel is going to do in response. Apparently not all of them are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.

Shouldn't the response be one which is primarily defensive. After all you made the case earlier that, in the case of Palestinians:

quote:
I suppose that firing on an Israeli soldier who is engaged in combat operations could be termed "legitimate resistance" depending on the circumstance.

It seems that Israel is planning an offensive response as per your article. Should it not be the case that Israelis too should only engage Palestinians who are "engaged in combat operations," directly, not those whom are sitting at home eating their dinner?

Conversely, if the IDF doea enter Gaza to attack Palestinians, are the Palestinians now allowed to fire back as they will be firing on soldiers engaged in combat operations?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 15 December 2004 11:47 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Apparently not all of them are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.
I see that you have bought the Neo-Con Propaganda For Dummies Hand Book.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 01:36 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Phonicidal says this: It looks like it was not such a success for Hamas. They [Hamas members] are shitting their pants about what Israel is going to do in response. Apparently not all of them [Hamas members] are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.

And gets this sputteringly self-righteous nonsense in return:

quote:
Hinterland: What an arrogant, ethno-centric, racist comment. Do you actually feel good writing things like this?

quote:
skdadl: This is not ok on babble.

quote:
Michelle: Hi Phonicidal. Maybe you shouldn't have edited to add that. Racist characterizations of Muslims aren't allowed in the Middle East forum. Consider this a warning.

Perhaps Phonicidal was a little broad in his characterization, but he was clearly not referring to ALL Muslims, who may or may not be Arabs, or to Arabs in general, who may or may not be Muslim. He was referring to Hamas, a group I doubt anybody is about to confuse with a secular, nationalist, rational movement. Hamas explicitly rejects secularism in Article 27 of its Charter:

quote:
Secular thought is diametrically opposed to religious thought. Thought is the basis for positions, for modes of conduct and for resolutions. Therefore, in spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought. For the Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion, and anyone who neglects his religion is bound to lose.

Article 11 rejects nationalism:

quote:
This is the law [once Muslim, always Muslim - ed.] governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

I.e. watch out, Spain! You've been previously consecrated! A view shared, not coincidentally, with Osama bin Laden and his fury about the 500+ year old Reconquista. Hamas does not espouse Arab nationalism - it seeks a unified theocratic state of all current and former Islamic territories, nationalism be damned, or at best used as a Trojan horse.

One of Hamas' slogans is "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." (Charter, Article 8)

It's difficult to write on a t-shirt, and I don't see how it rhymes with the good old "hey hey ho ho" chant, ("deathforthesakeofAllahisthewaytogo?") but Hamas unarguably uses its bastardized interpretation of Islam to recruit suicide bombers. I doubt every suicide bomber is promised 72 virgins, or doesn't have his (and occasionally her) own reasons for blowing himself up and taking as many Jews as possible with him, but let's not pretend it doesn't happen - Hamas-run schools vigourously promote the concept of martyrdom; unlimited sex with 72 virgins being one of the fringe benefits.

Since when did making (supposedly) offensive comments about the brainwashing techniques of a perverse offshoot of a poetic and honourable religion rise to the level of racism? Many Muslims and non-Muslims I know think Hamas just as psychopathic (an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behaviour without empathy or remorse) as I do.

A lot of Babblers seem to have no problem making the most scurrilous and vicious accusations against the oh-so-terrifying US religious right, yet nobody has seen fit to holler the old "racist!" canard about that yet. Well, unless they're hollering it at the religious right, which is fine and dandy. Seems to be the final statement on far too many arguments here.

"RACISTS!!" .... aaaaaand, scene. Turn off the lights when you leave.

I'm hardly going to lose any sleep because Phonicidal thinks Hamas and its leadership are mental (sorry if I'm projecting, Phonicidal, and hopefully Nova Scotia doesn't bust me for saying "mental"), but I'm certainly not going to pretend that mocking what boils down to a religiously-based sect (I don't think anyone's shown that it's either racially homogenous or motivated by racial concerns) is "racist".

(edited to change "Hamas and its members" to "Hamas and its leadership" in the preceding paragraph, and then again to fix some formatting errors)

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmm, isn't Israel a religously based state? I mean, we are told Israel cannot be a federation of Jews and Arabs because Israel would lose its "Jewish Character". And since many Israelis, including those in leadership positions, hold similar goals as Hamas (in that they view Israel as God given and view Eretz Israel and the conquring of lands to be included in Eretz Israel as legitimate) and since Israel is engaged in violence against, has engaged in ethnic cleansing and currently subjugates some 3.5 million people, your opinion is the same of that state as Hamas?

I mean, you are one of those all righteous and angry so long as it is only those other people being railed against are you?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 03:46 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Hmmm, isn't Israel a religously based state? I mean, we are told Israel cannot be a federation of Jews and Arabs because Israel would lose its "Jewish Character". And since many Israelis, including those in leadership positions, hold similar goals as Hamas (in that they view Israel as God given and view Eretz Israel and the conquring of lands to be included in Eretz Israel as legitimate) and since Israel is engaged in violence against, has engaged in ethnic cleansing and currently subjugates some 3.5 million people, your opinion is the same of that state as Hamas?


Ahhhh!! RACISM! RACISM!! Come see the repression inherent in the system!


quote:
I mean, you are one of those all righteous and angry so long as it is only those other people being railed against are you?


Tighten your wingnuts, chum.

One member derides Hamas amd a bunch of other members lose their marbles and denounce him as a racist, apparently because he, um, doesn't think very highly of Hamas' recruiting methods, I suppose.

What does my disappointment with a ham-handed attempt by some members (sadly, a moderator and an assistant babbler included) to silence another by shrieking "racist!" (even though what the "offending" member wrote had nothing to do with race), have to do with my opinions on Israel?

Hamas disgusts me. So do some Israelis. That help you out, ya big racist, you?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, Van Mouse Trap, their respionses to a post that was clearly offensive, and I would suspect intentionally so, were so much more subdued to your own hysterical reaction to my simple enquiry to your equally hysterical rant.

I see over in another thread Stockholm is being supported by someone who believes Canada could actually be inundated by some 90 million Nigerians and thus be transformed, overnight, into a third world country.

And phungicidal is being supported by a hysterical wildman all agahst that someone else was offended by his offensive comments/

If one can be judged by the company they keep or the company that comes riding to their rescue, as laughable as that is, then their are harsh judgements waiting, to be sure.

This is where you insert your hysterical response:


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 04:16 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

This is where you insert your hysterical response:

Or, presumably, I could ask you a simple question.

This is what Phonicidal said that has gotten him a "warning":

quote:
It looks like it was not such a success for Hamas. They are shitting their pants about what Israel is going to do in response. Apparently not all of them are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.

Where is the supposed "racism"?

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 04:21 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say it was racist. I said it was offensive. If they found it racist you would have to ask them why.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I didn't say it was racist. I said it was offensive. If they found it racist you would have to ask them why.

So you don't see it, either...

Hinterland, Michelle? A little help here, please?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 15 December 2004 04:51 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Hi Phonicidal. Maybe you shouldn't have edited to add that. Racist characterizations of Muslims aren't allowed in the Middle East forum. Consider this a warning.
Excuse me Michelle, but that is not a racist characterization of Muslims at all. It is a characterization of the beliefs genuinely held by members of Hamas. I understand why there is extra sensitivity surrounding the Muslim community. But, legitimate criticism of some Muslims should not be called anti-Islamic any more than criticizing policies of the Jewish State should automatically be called anti-Semitic.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 December 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's offensive because it trys to reduce Palestinians who give their lives in the fight for freedom and their own viable country, to a matter of some sex starved freak out to get layed!
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 15 December 2004 05:08 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
It's offensive because it trys to reduce Palestinians who give their lives in the fight for freedom and their own viable country, to a matter of some sex starved freak out to get layed!
You may have a right to be offended (as misguided and easily offended as you apparently are). But, don't I also have the right to offend without an arbitrarily issued "warning"?

I don't consider what I wrote to be racist. Was it anti-Hamas? You betcha! Do some pro-Hamas folks get offended by that? You betcha, the sequel! Is it racist? Absolutely not!


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 05:08 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
It's offensive because it trys to reduce Palestinians who give their lives in the fight for freedom and their own viable country, to a matter of some sex starved freak out to get layed!

Whether it's offensive or not is irrelevant - Phonicidal was accused of being a racist.

Can you spot the racism in the problematic quote?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 December 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course not ... 72 virgins? That's just your standard no-denomination slur.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 15 December 2004 05:25 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Of course not ... 72 virgins? That's just your standard no-denomination slur.
Maybe you're right. It's not non-denominational if you consider Hamas to be a religious denomination.

I have not attacked the concept of being rewarded with 72 virgins (or raisins, if you ask some scholars) in heaven for dying for Allah. What I have attacked is Hamas' application of that belief. They have bastardized certain Islamic beliefs and focus on murderous interpretations of otherwise peaceful precepts. In doing so, Hamas is certainly doing more to damage the public image of Islam that I have in this forum.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Of course not ... 72 virgins? That's just your standard no-denomination slur.

And? Where's the racism?

Hamas has been known to use the promise of 72 virgins in suicide bombers' postmortem rumpus rooms as a recruiting device. If you think that's fine, that's your problem. Using that rather unusual sales gimmick to make fun of the chickenmartyrs in the Hamas leadership for talking the talk but not walking the walk hardly qualifies as racism.

This, after all, was the context for Phonicidal's comment:

quote:
"For security reasons, and because of Israeli threats to target Palestinians, Hamas has decided to call off the annual rally," said Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri. "We are aware that the decision will come as bad news to Hamas supporters, who have been looking forward to seeing the Hamas leaders for the first time in more than one year."

Hamas, in a statement on the anniversary of its establishment, reiterated its opposition to a cease-fire with Israel and said the "resistance remains our strategic option."


[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 December 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
You may have a right to be offended (as misguided and easily offended as you apparently are). But, don't I also have the right to offend without an arbitrarily issued "warning"?

I don't consider what I wrote to be racist. Was it anti-Hamas? You betcha! Do some pro-Hamas folks get offended by that? You betcha, the sequel! Is it racist? Absolutely not!



I'd give you some examples of how I could make some offensive comments about the IDF using specific references to some "odd" Jewish religious belief, but I first of all don't think that taking such a racist tact would be the right thing to do, secondly, I would rightfully get a warning from the Mods, and thirdly, you wouldn't be capable of understanding the lesson anyway!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 15 December 2004 05:35 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
I'd give you some examples of how I could make some offensive comments about the IDF using specific references to some "odd" Jewish religious belief
Go for it. And, let's see if you get a warning for it. I bet you won't.

Anyway, I don't believe that you could come up with such examples. Most Israelis do not use religious arguments to explain the actions of the IDF. But, if a Jew were to misuse obscure sections of Jewish law to justify murder of Muslims or Arabs, I would be against that. Hamas openly discusses their religious reasoning for murdering innocent Israelis.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 December 2004 05:53 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This whole argument about Hamas' alleged irrational religious zealotry is the same tired argument used by some supporters of the Occupation to illegitimize the Palestinian national resistance.

Phonocide probably gets paid piecework for every time he trots out this argument.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 05:53 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

I'd give you some examples of how I could make some offensive comments about the IDF using specific references to some "odd" Jewish religious belief, but I first of all don't think that taking such a racist tact would be the right thing to do, secondly, I would rightfully get a warning from the Mods, and thirdly, you wouldn't be capable of understanding the lesson anyway!


Hamas uses a glorified image of the afterlife (six dozen ready-and-waiting virgins included) to convince desperate young men to blow themselves up.

Hamas refuses a cease-fire and remains committed to "resistance".

Hamas cancels a rally because its leaders fear they might be hurt or killed by the Israelis.

Hamas leaders apparently don't qualify for the virgin deal, or don't really think it's worth dying for. Or, perhaps, would rather have poor kids do their dying for them.

Phonicidal says, basically, "what a bunch of hypocrites".

Hinterland and Michelle use this to accuse him of racism! (Michelle even gives him a "warning").

With me so far?

Where is the racism in this? If it's not there, does Phonicidal deserve an apology? I think so. Baselessly calling somebody a racist is a horrible thing to do, and I hope that the accusing member of the Babble administration will do the stand-up thing and withdraw her "racist" remark and warning. No harm, no foul, eh?

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 December 2004 06:15 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Phonicidal says, basically, "what a bunch of hypocrites".

See, there is a way to make a point about a specific organization without resorting to speech that demonizes the belief of a religion.

Of course, this would be the first case of religious zealots using their religion in a hypocritical manner.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 December 2004 06:26 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:

Anyway, I don't believe that you could come up with such examples. Most Israelis do not use religious arguments to explain the actions of the IDF.

Sorry, I was under the impression that the IDF was fighting to preserve Israel as a Jewish State.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
See, there is a way to make a point about a specific organization without resorting to speech that demonizes the belief of a religion.

Demonizes the... whaaa?

Once again, broken down into small little pieces:

quote:
It looks like [the tunnel bomb] was not such a success for Hamas.

Maybe, maybe not. Too soon to tell. No point.

quote:
They [Hamas leaders] are shitting their pants about what Israel is going to do in response.

Probably not literally, but they did cancel their big rally, explicitly stating their fears of Israeli retaliation. So, point to Phonicidal.

quote:
Apparently not all of them [Hamas leaders] are ready to get their 72 virgins just yet.

Hmm. If martrydom operations can get Hamas-sponsored suicide bombers 72 virgins, then no, apparently the Hamas leadership isn't ready to step up to the plate itself. Point to Phonicidal.

And that's all he said. How does that justify being called a racist and issued a "warning"?

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 15 December 2004 06:42 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
duplicate

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 December 2004 06:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm curious, female suicide bombers... do they also get 72 virgins. Are the virgins male, or is Hamas some kind advanced liberation theology Islamic cult that believes in a post-mortem Lesbian cult?

Looking forward to more of your insights on Islam phonocidal...


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 15 December 2004 07:49 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I'm curious, female suicide bombers... do they also get 72 virgins.
Irshad Manji asks the same question. So, you're in good company.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 December 2004 05:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't this an excelent and intelligent direction you've takne this thread down. I am proud of you. We have now reduced the problem to teenage sex fantasy.

Good work. Knowing that Zionists are directly confronting the issues raised by Palestinians in a mature manner, as opposed to reducing them to pastiche generalization based on simplistic prejudices, assures me that the conflict will be resolved very soon, and that the waste of life cease.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 16 December 2004 12:00 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Isn't this an excelent and intelligent direction you've takne this thread down. I am proud of you. We have now reduced the problem to teenage sex fantasy.

The topic for the last two dozen or so posts has been about a moderator carelessly branding another babbler a racist, for merely raising what he sees as the hypocrisy of the leadership of a terrorist group.

Odd, though, that somebody so... vigilant against racism, real or, in this case, imagined, has no problem conflating a religion, Islam, with an entire group of people (the apparently monolithic Palestinian community).

The argument was derailed as soon as Michelle whipped out the "r" word, for reasons that have yet to be revealed. I've asked for an explanation (which nobody has been able to provide), and suggested that if one isn't possible, then perhaps Phonicidal deserves an apology but certainly should have his "warning" withdrawn. And silence reigned across the land...


quote:
Good work. Knowing that Zionists are directly confronting the issues raised by Palestinians in a mature manner, as opposed to reducing them to pastiche generalization based on simplistic prejudices, assures me that the conflict will be resolved very soon, and that the waste of life cease.

Hamas was at issue, not Palestinians. HAMAS. Not Muslims. HAMAS. Not Arabs. HAMAS. You know, that little bridge club that knows all too well about wasting lives.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 16 December 2004 12:58 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Von Mises Pieces:
The argument was derailed as soon as Michelle whipped out the "r" word, for reasons that have yet to be revealed. I've asked for an explanation (which nobody has been able to provide), and suggested that if one isn't possible, then perhaps Phonicidal deserves an apology but certainly should have his "warning" withdrawn. And silence reigned across the land...
Yeah, about that...:
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle in another thread:
Actually, I would like it if people didn't call each other "racists" here, even if you think, truly, in your heart of hearts, that someone is racist. Calling people anti-semites is against the rules, and so is calling people racists. This is a highly-charged debate, and I don't think that's constructive on either side.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boy, this is foul.

First requirement: Can someone give me a source for the line about "72 virgins"?

Second: Can someone tell me of any other confession in the world that alludes to "72 virgins"?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 16 December 2004 01:11 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No one called you a racist. Many people called what you wrote offensive, and even suggested that what you wrote was racist in its structure.

You could simply have apoligized or clarified.

If you don't think what you wrote was offensive or racist, then continue on as you see fit, and the mods will moderate as they see fit.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 16 December 2004 01:35 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
First requirement: Can someone give me a source for the line about "72 virgins"?
A quick web search revealed some passages. Somebody more conversant in the Koran may wish to fact-check these.

quote:
The righteous shall return to a blessed retreat: the gardens of Eden, whose gates shall open wide to receive them. Reclining there with bashful virgins for companions, they will call for abundant fruit and drink.
Q 38:51-2

quote:
Mohammed promised his followers seven heavens in which:

They are to cohabit with demure virgins...as beauteous as corals and rubies...full-breasted maidens for playmates...in the gardens of delight.... They're to lie face to face on jewelled couches, and be serviced by immortal youths...young boys, their personal property, as comely as virgin pearls.... We created the houris [dancing girls] and made them virgins, carnal playmates for those on the right hand.... We are going to wed them to dark-eyed houris. [The Koran 55:56; 55:58; 78:33; 56:12; 52:16-17, 24; 56:35-38; 52:20]


In both cases, no mention is made of dying as a "martyr". That may be an extremist interpretation of what it means to be "righteous". We'd have to look into it a bit more to find out.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 16 December 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
First requirement: Can someone give me a source for the line about "72 virgins"?

Hey mister Hamas recruiter! What happens if I fight the good fight for Allah?

Hadith Sahih Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 2 Number 35:

quote:
The Prophet said, "The person who participates in Holy battles in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr).

Hmmm... sounds good, but if worse comes to worst and I do end up dead, what do I get in Paradise? You got booty up there?

Tafsir of Surah ar-Rahman:

quote:
"It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham Abdullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.'

Wow. That is pretty wide. Wait a minute - who did Muhammed say is waiting for me in Paradise?

Al-Nabaa, Sura 55:56:

quote:
Maids of modest glances whom no man nor jinn has deflowered before.

Are you sure they're virgins?

Ayah 74 of the same sura repeats for those who missed it the first time:

quote:
The chastity of the black-eyed was not violated by man or jinn.

But wait - say during my martrydom operation I lose my, er, "block and tackle"?. What good then are more virgins than I can shake a stick at?

Never fear. Sahah Tirmzi v2 p138 has you sorted:

quote:
A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men.

Nice. Presumably, the 72 virginal wives granted to a guy with the virility of a hundred men aren't there for conversation.

There are dumb bits in the Bible, and this may come as a shock to some, but there are also some pretty wacky ideas in the Koran, depending on just how well one can suspend one's disbelief. You might not be too impressed with the 72 virgins, but they're there, as part of the "smallest reward". And quite possibly not just for martyrs, but all guys who make it to Paradise.

And then there are really lovely, poetic parts of the Koran. Just like the Judaic and Christian Bibles. And just like other religion, there are fanatics who will twist any allegory or, well, incredibly archaic and patriarchal themes to justify whatever they like. For example, getting poor, desperate kids to blow themselves up in exchange for virgins that jinni have managed to keep their paws off of. Damn those jinni. Can't take your eyes off 'em for a second. But if my options are either stick around a refugee camp waiting to get shot while collecting songbirds, or get myself into Paradise where I'll have servants, virgins, and a whole lot of loot? Tempting.


quote:
Second: Can someone tell me of any other confession in the world that alludes to "72 virgins"?

Hmm... I don't remember any promise of Heavenly virgins from my brief incarceration in the kiddy prison that is Sunday School. Might have paid more attention if that was brought up. I've also assumed Heaven would be an incredibly fun-free place to be. Full of Shriners and Mormons and nuns and such, eating Philadelphia cream cheese and barely resisting the temptation to scream how fucking bored they are.

Christian Heaven doesn't sound like nearly as much fun as Islamic Paradise. Kind of like comparing a hospital ward to the Bunny Grotto.

Jesus tells a parable involving 10 virgins, but it's a cautionary tale about being prepared to wait a long time, like the ant and grasshopper fable. Basically, while awaiting the return of the Lord, silly virgins don't carry extra oil for their lamps, smart virgins do. What their virginity has to do with thinking ahead, which I think is covered by silly/not silly, I dunno. And many interpretations think the silly virgins are meant to represent Jews, which isn't very nice at all.

Mary is revered as a virgin, yet she was married to a hunky Ty Pennington carpenter guy, so the chances of that being true are probably pretty slim, though some religious scholars try to get around that by reading in a pre-existing vow of chastity. Bad luck, Joseph, old bean. Not sure if you'll be getting any in Heaven, either!


Not really sure what the Jewish faith has tucked away in the "Heavenly Virgins" annex. Can anyone help?

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2004 02:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, as I thought, VMP, you and Phonicidal were referring to ... all Muslims? all Arabs?

As in: you were slinging a literary allusion from a sacred book of an entire religion (but only that religion) into a negative characterization of a much smaller and more specific group of people.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 16 December 2004 03:01 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
So, as I thought, VMP, you and Phonicidal were referring to ... all Muslims? all Arabs?

As in: you were slinging a literary allusion from a sacred book of an entire religion (but only that religion) into a negative characterization of a much smaller and more specific group of people.


No. As far as I could tell in my cursory search, there is no quid pro quo connection made between "martyrdom" and x number of virgins in the Koran. It looks like it's been Islamic extremists who have linked the two. And, that's exactly who I was criticizing.

edited to add italicized above.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Phonicidal ]


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 16 December 2004 05:11 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
So, as I thought, VMP, you and Phonicidal were referring to ... all Muslims? all Arabs?

Sigh. All Arabs aren't Muslim. All Muslims aren't Arabs. The terms aren't synonymous, which I'm sure you're well aware of. Fishing for an opportunity to yell racist or just being condescending?

All Muslims aren't jihadists. All Arabs aren't jihadists. Only 3% of Iranians are Arab, but that didn't stop that evil old bastard Khomeini from turning the place into a fundamentalist Islamic nightmare. All Muslims aren't even observant - a buddy of mine loves bacon and can drink me under the table. All Muslims aren't impatiently awaiting their chance to score with heavenly virgins. I'm not sure why you keep implying that my criticism of the Hamas death cult is in any way a blanket condemnation of all Muslims.

Hamas I consider a murderous theological cult on a par with the Branch Davidians, though far more influential and destructive. You may disagree; that's hardly germane. I'm sure members of both sects love their children in their own way - again, so what? Neither would know the Enlightenment if it kicked them in the ass. I hardly think either sect is representative of the parent religion as a whole, though both use mainstream holy scripture to justify their particular brand of nonsense.

Identifying the scripture used by the Branch Davidians isn't condemning Christianity or even implying that a tiny fraction of Christians are as crazy as the BDs. Yet the same scripture is used by both groups.


quote:
As in: you were slinging a literary allusion from a sacred book of an entire religion (but only that religion) into a negative characterization of a much smaller and more specific group of people.

The literary allusion that dying for Allah gets a guy 80 000 servants, six dozen Jinni-proof virgins, a bucketload of aquamarine, and an afterlifetime supply of holy mega-Viagra?

And when discussing a murderous sect that uses an interpretation of Islam as its raison d'etre, which sacred books do you think should be examined? The Rig Veda? The Kojiki? The Book of Mormon? The Tao of Pooh?

I could do a similar exposition on why homosexuality, according to the Old Testament, is wrong. As are menstruating women, shellfish, and tattoos. Does bringing that up disparage Judaism or Christiany as a whole? Does me flat-out saying it's a load of crazy old crap from thousands of years ago cast aspersions on all Jews and Christians? Of course not. The Ten Commandments are even older, but have stood the test of time much better.

Just because something is considered sacred does not make it above examination and criticism, nor should criticism of particular passages be considered as slanders against the entire religion. Sunnis and Shias certainly have divergent views of the same texts, as do Catholics and Protestants. Using textual sanctity as an excuse for theocrats killing people with tattoos or less-than-satisfactory beards (both OT no-nos), or convincing impressionable youths that suicide bombing will be well-rewarded by the man upstairs, is insane.

Pretending that criticizing the recruiting tactics of groups like Hamas is in any way insulting Islam in general is insulting to every moderate, to every Muslim seeking a peaceful resolution, and to every Muslim insulted by Hamas' crass manipulation of Islam for the purpose of having the next generation commit mass suicide.

The Old Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, but I feel no qualms about ridiculing any Christian or Jewish groups that use Leviticus to justify repressing gays and lesbians with words from their own sacred texts. Or is Leviticus above criticism because some Christian homophobes think it's holy?

Nobody I think worthy of any sort of influence over the lives of millions, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or other, would use mystical hocus pocus to convince poor people to kill themselves. Those that do deserve castigation. If that involves looking at their sources, so be it. I don't know of any Christians who would view me criticizing parts of Leviticus as tantamount to insulting their entire religion.

I'd say it is those "smaller groups of people" to which you refer (such a nice, milquetoast way of referring to users like Hamas) that have created the negative characterization, and they're the ones who have disparaged the religion. None of the Muslims I know have expressed the desire to convince poor co-religionists to martyr themselves for Allah, despite what parts of their religious texts suggest is the possible reward. Hamas is more than happy to do it, and I have no problem calling them on the carpet.

To imply that criticizing Hamas is criticizing Islam is ludicrous.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca