Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Sixties Fan]

• It depends on who you kill. Murdering a man in front of his wife and 2-year-old son, and not killing the wife and son, shows Palestinian “values,” says Fatah leader Abbas Zaki:

Zaki: “We don’t kill people as we please. There are values”

• Zaki lied, claiming the murderer spared the wife and 2-year-old son after killing the father. In fact, the murderer attempted to kill all three but wife and son survived with stab wounds

• Zaki lied, claiming the Palestinian leadership does not support the murder of Israeli women and children

• Zaki praised the teenage terrorist murderers – who he called “children” - for leading the 2015 terror wave

(full article online)

It's official. It's a Palestinian "value" to murder Israeli men on their way to prayer | PMW Analysis

 

[Hollie]

Islamic terrorist misfits doing what Islamic terrorist misfits do.

This was another “proportional response” by Israel that unfortunately does little to curb the propensity of the Islamic mindset toward offensive
gee-had.





Israeli jets target Hamas sites in response to rocket fire

For the second time in less than 24 hours Israeli jets struck Hamas positions in the southern Gaza Strip following earlier rocket fire on Thursday evening.

The military said that Israeli jets struck an “underground infrastructure and a naval target” belonging to Hamas in the southern Gaza Strip as well as “a terrorist military compound in the northern Gaza Strip.”

 

[Hollie]

The Hamas fashion mavens have little else to do but ride around in pickup trucks and issue pompous threats.

I’m guessing their bosses in Tehran are getting a bit peeved about the occupation forces made up of PIJ and Hamas weren’t playing nice and Hamas was slaking off regarding getting into the gee-had.



Islamic Jihad: We agreed with Hamas to respond to future ‘aggression’ together

Ziad al-Nakhala makes remark after Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing, sat out latest escalation between terror groups in Gaza and Israel.

mourning Abu al-Ata’s death.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Hamas fashion mavens have little else to do but ride around in pickup trucks and issue pompous threats.

I’m guessing their bosses in Tehran are getting a bit peeved about the occupation forces made up of PIJ and Hamas weren’t playing nice and Hamas was slaking off regarding getting into the gee-had.



Islamic Jihad: We agreed with Hamas to respond to future ‘aggression’ together

Ziad al-Nakhala makes remark after Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing, sat out latest escalation between terror groups in Gaza and Israel.

mourning Abu al-Ata’s death.

Well, when you consider that under Hamas' benevolent rule, unemployment for young men in Gaza is about 80% this is pretty much a plum job. I wonder how many of them would want to do this if they had other employment opportunities.

 

[Coyote]

Of major world religions it would fit all three Abrahamic Faith's. They all have some form of righteous killing or holy warrior or just war that does not result in eternal damnation. Not sure about other faiths.

1. This is not what I said, when I gave examples of the ideology, and not the ideology I'm speaking of.
2. I'm really tired of all three "Abrahamic" faiths being lumped together. The ideology is very different in each.
3. There is a very great difference in ideology between a just war and "kill them all, JC will sort them out".
4. You keep reducing complex ideologies down into their simplest components, rather than seeking to understand.
5. You continue to try to make all faiths and religions the same or equivalent - they are not.

Exactly, I know of only 2 Abrahamic faiths that are 'major world religions'.
The original one is less than 1% of the world's population, and always kept small.

The mere combination 'holy-warrior' or 'holy-war' represent duality inherit in all cultures that were influenced by Judaism, but is entirely foreign to Jewish thought.

Roughly speaking, Christianity inherited from Judaism a lenience towards the mercy measure, while Islam is extremely on the judgement side.

With Judaism, aside from being the original, its the sane middle in its correct balance,
and without the push to convert or conquer the entire world. At its core It has its set cultural boundaries in which it was intended to apply, a thing the other two lack.

Maybe this is the key to understanding those 'major world religions' from the perspective of political ideology along the last 2,000 years of history.

Yes! Thank you. (and the idea of Judaism as a "world religion" seems more than a little odd to me.)

I disagree.

There are Jews spread across the world - occupying many different cultures from India, to Russia, to North America, to the Middle East, to Europe...it's a world religion albeit small compared to some of the others. What's not a world religion? Say the Jaines for one. Samaritins. And others.

There are a number of ideas which are found in Xtianity and Islam which are foreign to Judaism. Possibly claimed to be sourced from the Jewish texts, but with such a foreign worldview that it is unrelatable to Judaism. There are also a number of ideas which seem similar but are understood in very different ways.

Perhaps but both Christianity (why do you call it Xtian?) and Islam have at their base the Old Testament of the Jews which...unfortunately also contains some pretty harsh stuff.

As examples (in no particular order):

grace vs. forgiveness vs. teshuvah

I'm curious - can you describe what you mean here?

heaven/hell vs. the world to come

I think the idea of heaven and hell is seriously messed up - especialy the idea that you will suffer in torment forever for the acts of one lifetime which is an atom in the bucket of forever. I kind of understand where it came from...Christianity evolved as a religion of slavery and oppression, a way for poor people in a harsh life to believe there is something better out there if they just hang in there until they die.

reward/punishment vs. repair of the world

You have me there...the idea that this world is less important than the next has always disturbed me...it implies we don't have to worry so much about what we do to this world.

the purpose of sacrifice

Can you expand on that?

the need for salvation vs. the labour of performing mitzvot

That one is a bit complicated - assuming I understand what you are saying. Christianity is mixed with it's many different sects and it's possible I am getting it all wrong. There are those that believe that good works are part of salvation and those believe salvation requires only belief. Is that what you are talking of? Please expand

To bring it back to why this matters. If one holds a fundamental belief that there is a heaven, and that a place in that heaven is dependent on holding certain beliefs and that reward in heaven is merited by certain actions, it puts you in an entirely different place than if one holds a fundamental belief that the afterlife is more or less irrelevant. If one holds a fundamental belief that there is a hell and all people who hold the the "wrong" beliefs or perform the "wrong" actions, will suffer for agony for all eternity, it puts you in an entirely different place than if one holds a fundamental belief in the sanctity of life in the only world which matters.

Interesting Shusha...not sure if I have said this but I'm not religious, not atheist either but one primary reason is what you just stated above. It's not something I can live with.

To put it bluntly, why worry about the sanctity of my life, if I'm just going to burn in hell for all eternity anyway? And why worry about the sanctity of your own life when you can fast-track yourself to paradise?

IF it works that way...and I'm not sure it does in Christian or Islamic theology as developed by it's founders.

I think often about what Ghandi supposedly said (but sadly...actually never did but still a good quote)
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Same with Islam. There is what the prophets actually (supposedly) said and what the many interpreters and followers afterwards said and did.

 

[Coyote]

;kl;

You really are one of the most dishonest posters I've run across here in zeal to personally attack. It would probably be better to just ignore you but I'll attempt a reasonable response.

This shows quiet the desperation when dealing with facts.
If you pay close attention to the line of our conversation here, several pages back when we talked about the case about the Jewish teenager, who you kept claiming committed a crime which he was acquitted from, you'll see that all I brought was facts.

Call them dishonest, take them personally or totally ignore them,
changes nothing.

So what is your point?

First, I was talking about reactions around the world to the 9/11 attack and how that attack was condemned.

Your poll from 2011 shows dropping support for bin Laden himself...
what does it say about how people felt about the actual attack? I can find and link to condemnations and offers of help world wide after the attack - including from the Muslim world if that is required. Do you have any polls that actually reflect how people felt about the attack?

What people felt... condemnations from the Muslim Brotherhood on TV...

Does it change something,
do you even realize the magnitude of the facts you've just brought?

This is from Wikipedia but it links to the actual Pew Polls (it's just easier to insert it this way) - this is what people felt about suicide bombings (the act itself) between 2006 - 2013:


Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia
Suicide bombings[edit]
In a 2006 Pew poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[49]

In Europe[edit]

• (35 vs 64) 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 16% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (24 vs 70) 70% of Muslims in the UK believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 15% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (13 vs 83) 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (27 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 16% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.

In mainly Muslim countries[edit]

• (53 vs 45) 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 28% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (26 vs 61) 61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 17% thought it could be justified often or sometimes
• (57 vs 43) 43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 29% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (69 vs 28) 28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 46% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (22 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (28 vs 71) 71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.

In 2007, 17% of Muslims in Palestinian territories believed it could rarely or never be justified, and 70% thought it could be justified sometimes or often.[50] In comparison, 32% stated in 2014 it was never justified, while 13% said it was rarely justified, 46% said it is often or sometimes justified.[51] A 2011 report by Pew Research stated that 81% of American Muslim thought it was never justified, 5% said rarely, 7% sometimes and 1% often.[52]

In a 2013 poll, 91% of Muslims in Iraq said suicide bombings to defend Islam from enemies could never/rarely be justified while 7% said it was often/sometimes. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, 96% said it was never/rarely justified while 3% said often/sometimes. In Albania, 93% said it was never/rarely justified while 6% said often/sometimes. In Russia, 90% said never/rarely while 4% said often/sometimes. In Kosovo, 82% said it was never/rarely justified while 11% said often/sometimes. In Azerbaijan, 96% said it was never/rarely while 1% said often/sometimes. In Tajikistan, 85% said never/rarely while 3% said often/sometimes. In Kazakhstan, 95% said never/rarely while 2% said often/sometimes. In Kyrygztsan, 82% said never/rarely while 10% said often/sometimes. In Afghanistan, 58% said never/rarely and 39% often/sometimes. In Morocco, 74% said never/sometimes and 9% said often/sometimes.[53]

A 2014 Pew poll showed that support for suicide bombings had fallen to a great degree in Muslim-majority nations over the last decade:[54]

• (46 vs 45) In Lebanon, 45% it could never justified, 25% rarely and 29% said often/sometimes.
• (59 vs 38) In Egypt, 38% said it could never be justified, 35% rarely while 24% said often/sometimes.
• (29 vs 58) In Turkey, 58% said never, 11% rarely while 18% said often/sometimes.
• (44 vs 55) In Jordan, 55% said never, 29% rarely while 15% said often/sometimes.
• (8 vs 90) In Tunisia, 90% said never, 3% rarely while 5% said often/sometimes.
• (61 vs 33) In Bangladesh, 33% said never, 14% rarely and 47% said often/sometimes.
• (33 vs 60) In Malaysia, 60% said never, 15% rarely and 18% often/sometimes.
• (22 vs 76) In Indonesia, 76% said never, 13% rarely and 9% often/sometimes.
• (7 vs 83) In Pakistan, 83% said never, 4% rarely and 3% often/sometimes.
• (34 vs 60) In Nigeria, 60% said never, 15% rarely and 19% often/sometimes.
• (31 vs 56) In Senegal, 56% said never, 16% rarely and 15% often/sometimes.

In mostly non-Muslim nations:

• (45 vs 50) In Tanzania, 50% said never, 19% said rarely and 26% said often/sometimes.
• (46 vs 48) In Israel, 48% said never, 30% rarely and 16% said often/sometimes.

Let's examine:

• Islam is the 2nd largest religious group in the world, there're 1.8 billion Muslims .
• An average of 70% against and 30% in support for suicide bombing

That's 540 million Muslims worldwide who support suicide bombings.

How many people are there in whole of US?
Now what is interesting is that after going through a strict system of screening at immigration, and life in a free society, the support for suicide bombing in the US among the Muslim community reduced only by 10%.


This extensive PEW poll shows the most fundamentalist Muslim societies and their views on enforcement of Sharia, honor killings, and capital punishment for converting out of Islam:

Pew research: The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

The Arabs in Gaza and Judea are among the most fundamentalist Islamists.
Without any correlation to recent history of conquests and defeats, Muslim or non-Muslim rule.

It also "just" happens, that the Palestinian cause is the fulfillment of the imperialist goal of an exclusive Muslim domination over the entire middle east.

To sum it up:

Israelis know full well who they're dealing with, without the need for Pew polls.
Media coverage for Islamist apologists won't change the facts, neither you shoveling their PC bs about the "poor peaceful" 70% who're the victims for being associated with the 30% of the savages in their community, but that still prevents nothing for the later.

Still, the only effective preventive force against the Islamist ideology is reached in an environment of a non-Muslim rule. Either through successful military campaign and correct security measures, or reformation of their faith, only in close proximity to other functional societies who's culture challenges their core religious tenants.

Only external, or non-Muslim force and environment are effective, the 70% are at large passive and ineffective in preventing the spread of the Islamist ideology.

Media coverage is largely anti-Islam.

One thing of note - what puts a leash on extremism is secular societies and governments - not the individual faith. When government and religion are intermixed it never ends well for minority religions. The issue is not one of "non-Muslim" rule - it is NO religious rule. A secular government, that protects all religious freedom and rights. There is no society where religion is intertwined with government that does not in some way oppress (or worse) religious minorities.

 

[Coyote]

Of major world religions it would fit all three Abrahamic Faith's. They all have some form of righteous killing or holy warrior or just war that does not result in eternal damnation. Not sure about other faiths.

1. This is not what I said, when I gave examples of the ideology, and not the ideology I'm speaking of.
2. I'm really tired of all three "Abrahamic" faiths being lumped together. The ideology is very different in each.
3. There is a very great difference in ideology between a just war and "kill them all, JC will sort them out".
4. You keep reducing complex ideologies down into their simplest components, rather than seeking to understand.
5. You continue to try to make all faiths and religions the same or equivalent - they are not.

Actually...I think YOU are the one who is reducing complex ideologies into their simplest components, particularly with Islam. For example you seem to imply there is a kill for Allah's rewards ideology and ignore the fact that, at least according to it's original intent there is a whole host of rules and regulations governing when you can fight, who you can fight and how you treat those you fight. (not that Muslim extremists pay attention to that either).

You are arguing there a no commonalities - I'm saying there are - not the SAME - but commonalities.

 

[Coyote]

Ah...I see...you keep shifting the goal posts. There are only a handful Islamic Extremist groups that operate on a world terrorism stage so that pretty much limits 9t - most are involved in local conflicts. Mass murderers...hell...where do we start? The Buddhist genocide of the Rohinga? Kosovo? Drug cartels in Mexico? (some consider drugs religious )

The problem is you attribute atrocities by individuals and terrorist groups as representative of the whole. There are over 1.8 billion muslims. How many are involved in terrorism? If we go by your claims - the world would be a bloodbath. It isn't.

Your little part of the Islamic world sure is a bloodbath. What’s the body count in Iraq and Syria over the past 5 years?

I can understand you take offense at anyone criticizing your politico-religious ideology but to suggest that “only a handful of Islamic terrorist groups” is just nonsensical.

Here’s a list of US designated foreign terrorist groups. You will notice that one particular politico-religious ideology has an overwhelming representation.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/IF10613.pdf

What you want to ignore is that Islamic terrorist franchises get ideological and financial support from the wider Islamist community. Not all people have to actually commit a particular act to approve of it. I’m not likely to dismiss the motivations that compel the “tiny minority of violet extremists” to fly commercial airliners into buildings, to bomb bus and subway trains and to slaughter innocent people out for an evening’s meal at a restaurant. That sort of argumentation is merely an attempt to divest oneself of any responsibility from the consequences of the ideology.

Yes...blood bath in Iraq. What started that hmm?

Also, try to stick to what I actually say. My statement was concerning Islamic extremist groups involved in world wide bombings (as you put it). Most are actors in local conflicts.

Yup. 1.5 billion or more Muslims, polls showing weak support for extremist violence...how many did you say are involved in extremism?

Yes...blood bath in Iraq. What started that hmm?

Number of suicide bombings in Iraq before the US invasion. - 0

Hmmm!

I think Hollie thinks the US invasion of Iraq is a conspiracy theory?

I read a long time ago that terrorist attacks were more about occupation than religion. Look at the region: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Palestine, and Egypt.

Which ones have terrorist attacks? Syria, Iraq, and Palestine.

Which ones are occupied? Syria, Iraq, and Palestine.

I think that it is nothing so simplistic.

There are those that think it's entirely do to religious ideology.

I think there are many reasons:

Most important - terrorism is a tactic of those that don't have conventional military strength. It's easy - doesn't require much funding - anyone can do it.

Because it's a tactic - it's used by many groups for many reasons.

The countries most affected are largely those with poorly functioning governments, failed states, ongoing ethnic/tribal/religious conflicts and weak central governments.

There are a lot of reasons - but it is way too easy to blame it on religious ideology or "occupation".

 

[Shusha]

There are Jews spread across the world - occupying many different cultures from India, to Russia, to North America, to the Middle East, to Europe...it's a world religion albeit small compared to some of the others. What's not a world religion?

Jews are spread across the world. The Jewish religion, though, very strongly resides with the Jewish people. Its a religion of a singular people. Thus, not a world religion. Very different from Xtianity and Islam which are world religions precisely because they no longer reside within only one culture.

 

[rylah]

;kl;

You really are one of the most dishonest posters I've run across here in zeal to personally attack. It would probably be better to just ignore you but I'll attempt a reasonable response.

This shows quiet the desperation when dealing with facts.
If you pay close attention to the line of our conversation here, several pages back when we talked about the case about the Jewish teenager, who you kept claiming committed a crime which he was acquitted from, you'll see that all I brought was facts.

Call them dishonest, take them personally or totally ignore them,
changes nothing.

So what is your point?

First, I was talking about reactions around the world to the 9/11 attack and how that attack was condemned.

Your poll from 2011 shows dropping support for bin Laden himself...
what does it say about how people felt about the actual attack? I can find and link to condemnations and offers of help world wide after the attack - including from the Muslim world if that is required. Do you have any polls that actually reflect how people felt about the attack?

What people felt... condemnations from the Muslim Brotherhood on TV...

Does it change something,
do you even realize the magnitude of the facts you've just brought?

This is from Wikipedia but it links to the actual Pew Polls (it's just easier to insert it this way) - this is what people felt about suicide bombings (the act itself) between 2006 - 2013:


Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia
Suicide bombings[edit]
In a 2006 Pew poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[49]

In Europe[edit]

• (35 vs 64) 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 16% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (24 vs 70) 70% of Muslims in the UK believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 15% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (13 vs 83) 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (27 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 16% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.

In mainly Muslim countries[edit]

• (53 vs 45) 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 28% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (26 vs 61) 61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 17% thought it could be justified often or sometimes
• (57 vs 43) 43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 29% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (69 vs 28) 28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 46% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (22 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.
• (28 vs 71) 71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% thought it could be justified often or sometimes.

In 2007, 17% of Muslims in Palestinian territories believed it could rarely or never be justified, and 70% thought it could be justified sometimes or often.[50] In comparison, 32% stated in 2014 it was never justified, while 13% said it was rarely justified, 46% said it is often or sometimes justified.[51] A 2011 report by Pew Research stated that 81% of American Muslim thought it was never justified, 5% said rarely, 7% sometimes and 1% often.[52]

In a 2013 poll, 91% of Muslims in Iraq said suicide bombings to defend Islam from enemies could never/rarely be justified while 7% said it was often/sometimes. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, 96% said it was never/rarely justified while 3% said often/sometimes. In Albania, 93% said it was never/rarely justified while 6% said often/sometimes. In Russia, 90% said never/rarely while 4% said often/sometimes. In Kosovo, 82% said it was never/rarely justified while 11% said often/sometimes. In Azerbaijan, 96% said it was never/rarely while 1% said often/sometimes. In Tajikistan, 85% said never/rarely while 3% said often/sometimes. In Kazakhstan, 95% said never/rarely while 2% said often/sometimes. In Kyrygztsan, 82% said never/rarely while 10% said often/sometimes. In Afghanistan, 58% said never/rarely and 39% often/sometimes. In Morocco, 74% said never/sometimes and 9% said often/sometimes.[53]

A 2014 Pew poll showed that support for suicide bombings had fallen to a great degree in Muslim-majority nations over the last decade:[54]

• (46 vs 45) In Lebanon, 45% it could never justified, 25% rarely and 29% said often/sometimes.
• (59 vs 38) In Egypt, 38% said it could never be justified, 35% rarely while 24% said often/sometimes.
• (29 vs 58) In Turkey, 58% said never, 11% rarely while 18% said often/sometimes.
• (44 vs 55) In Jordan, 55% said never, 29% rarely while 15% said often/sometimes.
• (8 vs 90) In Tunisia, 90% said never, 3% rarely while 5% said often/sometimes.
• (61 vs 33) In Bangladesh, 33% said never, 14% rarely and 47% said often/sometimes.
• (33 vs 60) In Malaysia, 60% said never, 15% rarely and 18% often/sometimes.
• (22 vs 76) In Indonesia, 76% said never, 13% rarely and 9% often/sometimes.
• (7 vs 83) In Pakistan, 83% said never, 4% rarely and 3% often/sometimes.
• (34 vs 60) In Nigeria, 60% said never, 15% rarely and 19% often/sometimes.
• (31 vs 56) In Senegal, 56% said never, 16% rarely and 15% often/sometimes.

In mostly non-Muslim nations:

• (45 vs 50) In Tanzania, 50% said never, 19% said rarely and 26% said often/sometimes.
• (46 vs 48) In Israel, 48% said never, 30% rarely and 16% said often/sometimes.

Let's examine:

• Islam is the 2nd largest religious group in the world, there're 1.8 billion Muslims .
• An average of 70% against and 30% in support for suicide bombing

That's 540 million Muslims worldwide who support suicide bombings.

How many people are there in whole of US?
Now what is interesting is that after going through a strict system of screening at immigration, and life in a free society, the support for suicide bombing in the US among the Muslim community reduced only by 10%.


This extensive PEW poll shows the most fundamentalist Muslim societies and their views on enforcement of Sharia, honor killings, and capital punishment for converting out of Islam:

Pew research: The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

The Arabs in Gaza and Judea are among the most fundamentalist Islamists.
Without any correlation to recent history of conquests and defeats, Muslim or non-Muslim rule.

It also "just" happens, that the Palestinian cause is the fulfillment of the imperialist goal of an exclusive Muslim domination over the entire middle east.

To sum it up:

Israelis know full well who they're dealing with, without the need for Pew polls.
Media coverage for Islamist apologists won't change the facts, neither you shoveling their PC bs about the "poor peaceful" 70% who're the victims for being associated with the 30% of the savages in their community, but that still prevents nothing for the later.

Still, the only effective preventive force against the Islamist ideology is reached in an environment of a non-Muslim rule. Either through successful military campaign and correct security measures, or reformation of their faith, only in close proximity to other functional societies who's culture challenges their core religious tenants.

Only external, or non-Muslim force and environment are effective, the 70% are at large passive and ineffective in preventing the spread of the Islamist ideology.

Media coverage is largely anti-Islam.

One thing of note - what puts a leash on extremism is secular societies and governments - not the individual faith. When government and religion are intermixed it never ends well for minority religions. The issue is not one of "non-Muslim" rule - it is NO religious rule. A secular government, that protects all religious freedom and rights. There is no society where religion is intertwined with government that does not in some way oppress (or worse) religious minorities.

Media is not the problem,
but the fact that the 70% are largely passive against Islamism.

The assumption that "it is NO religious rule" doesn't stand the test of reality.
What will the Muslims of China say? What will the Christians of USSR say?
Fundamentalist secular regimes are devastating to all religions and minorities - as well as the majority.

While in spite the "Separation of State and Church" that is now become a hollowed sound byte, vast majority of western countries are actually religious on one level or another, each having their national churches and clear religious symbolism and heritage intervened with the state and legal system , even the US - they are free societies that provide Muslim immigrants more freedom than their countries.

Christian countries provide more freedom and quality of life to Muslims than Muslim countries. The Jewish country provides more freedom and quality of life than any of the surrounding Muslim countries, and the only one where the Christian community actually grows.

And concluding with your first comment - in all of the examples above largely the extremists hold public positions representing the Muslim community, and initiate most organization.

The media in this context is actually the victim of Islamism,
it provides dialogue that is lacking in much of the Muslim world, but is mainly used by the extremists to promote their agenda, and profit from the so called "moderates" who are busy with apologetics and PC culture to shift the blame.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Of major world religions it would fit all three Abrahamic Faith's. They all have some form of righteous killing or holy warrior or just war that does not result in eternal damnation. Not sure about other faiths.

1. This is not what I said, when I gave examples of the ideology, and not the ideology I'm speaking of.
2. I'm really tired of all three "Abrahamic" faiths being lumped together. The ideology is very different in each.
3. There is a very great difference in ideology between a just war and "kill them all, JC will sort them out".
4. You keep reducing complex ideologies down into their simplest components, rather than seeking to understand.
5. You continue to try to make all faiths and religions the same or equivalent - they are not.

Exactly, I know of only 2 Abrahamic faiths that are 'major world religions'.
The original one is less than 1% of the world's population, and always kept small.

The mere combination 'holy-warrior' or 'holy-war' represent duality inherit in all cultures that were influenced by Judaism, but is entirely foreign to Jewish thought.

Roughly speaking, Christianity inherited from Judaism a lenience towards the mercy measure, while Islam is extremely on the judgement side.

With Judaism, aside from being the original, its the sane middle in its correct balance,
and without the push to convert or conquer the entire world. At its core It has its set cultural boundaries in which it was intended to apply, a thing the other two lack.

Maybe this is the key to understanding those 'major world religions' from the perspective of political ideology along the last 2,000 years of history.

Yes! Thank you. (and the idea of Judaism as a "world religion" seems more than a little odd to me.)

I disagree.

There are Jews spread across the world - occupying many different cultures from India, to Russia, to North America, to the Middle East, to Europe...it's a world religion albeit small compared to some of the others. What's not a world religion? Say the Jaines for one. Samaritins. And others.

There are a number of ideas which are found in Xtianity and Islam which are foreign to Judaism. Possibly claimed to be sourced from the Jewish texts, but with such a foreign worldview that it is unrelatable to Judaism. There are also a number of ideas which seem similar but are understood in very different ways.

Perhaps but both Christianity (why do you call it Xtian?) and Islam have at their base the Old Testament of the Jews which...unfortunately also contains some pretty harsh stuff.

As examples (in no particular order):

grace vs. forgiveness vs. teshuvah

I'm curious - can you describe what you mean here?

heaven/hell vs. the world to come

I think the idea of heaven and hell is seriously messed up - especialy the idea that you will suffer in torment forever for the acts of one lifetime which is an atom in the bucket of forever. I kind of understand where it came from...Christianity evolved as a religion of slavery and oppression, a way for poor people in a harsh life to believe there is something better out there if they just hang in there until they die.

reward/punishment vs. repair of the world

You have me there...the idea that this world is less important than the next has always disturbed me...it implies we don't have to worry so much about what we do to this world.

the purpose of sacrifice

Can you expand on that?

the need for salvation vs. the labour of performing mitzvot

That one is a bit complicated - assuming I understand what you are saying. Christianity is mixed with it's many different sects and it's possible I am getting it all wrong. There are those that believe that good works are part of salvation and those believe salvation requires only belief. Is that what you are talking of? Please expand

To bring it back to why this matters. If one holds a fundamental belief that there is a heaven, and that a place in that heaven is dependent on holding certain beliefs and that reward in heaven is merited by certain actions, it puts you in an entirely different place than if one holds a fundamental belief that the afterlife is more or less irrelevant. If one holds a fundamental belief that there is a hell and all people who hold the the "wrong" beliefs or perform the "wrong" actions, will suffer for agony for all eternity, it puts you in an entirely different place than if one holds a fundamental belief in the sanctity of life in the only world which matters.

Interesting Shusha...not sure if I have said this but I'm not religious, not atheist either but one primary reason is what you just stated above. It's not something I can live with.

To put it bluntly, why worry about the sanctity of my life, if I'm just going to burn in hell for all eternity anyway? And why worry about the sanctity of your own life when you can fast-track yourself to paradise?

IF it works that way...and I'm not sure it does in Christian or Islamic theology as developed by it's founders.

I think often about what Ghandi supposedly said (but sadly...actually never did but still a good quote)
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Same with Islam. There is what the prophets actually (supposedly) said and what the many interpreters and followers afterwards said and did.

Some Jews don't spell out Christianity in full, and write an X instead, either because it is a heretic faith (because of the trinity concept), or because so many Jews were killed over the centuries because of that faith. As you can see, I personally don't subscibe to that idea. Other ppl write it that way, merely as shorthand.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Haaretz: 5.5 Million Palestinians 'Fled Their Native Lands'

 

[Coyote]

There are Jews spread across the world - occupying many different cultures from India, to Russia, to North America, to the Middle East, to Europe...it's a world religion albeit small compared to some of the others. What's not a world religion?

Jews are spread across the world. The Jewish religion, though, very strongly resides with the Jewish people. Its a religion of a singular people. Thus, not a world religion. Very different from Xtianity and Islam which are world religions precisely because they no longer reside within only one culture.

So world religions would be Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism?

 

[Shusha]

There are Jews spread across the world - occupying many different cultures from India, to Russia, to North America, to the Middle East, to Europe...it's a world religion albeit small compared to some of the others. What's not a world religion?

Jews are spread across the world. The Jewish religion, though, very strongly resides with the Jewish people. Its a religion of a singular people. Thus, not a world religion. Very different from Xtianity and Islam which are world religions precisely because they no longer reside within only one culture.

So world religions would be Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism?

Hinduism, as far as I know, is still culturally cohesive.

But I’ll give you Buddhism. Also Baha’i.

 

[Shusha]

Of major world religions it would fit all three Abrahamic Faith's. They all have some form of righteous killing or holy warrior or just war that does not result in eternal damnation. Not sure about other faiths.

1. This is not what I said, when I gave examples of the ideology, and not the ideology I'm speaking of.
2. I'm really tired of all three "Abrahamic" faiths being lumped together. The ideology is very different in each.
3. There is a very great difference in ideology between a just war and "kill them all, JC will sort them out".
4. You keep reducing complex ideologies down into their simplest components, rather than seeking to understand.
5. You continue to try to make all faiths and religions the same or equivalent - they are not.

Exactly, I know of only 2 Abrahamic faiths that are 'major world religions'.
The original one is less than 1% of the world's population, and always kept small.

The mere combination 'holy-warrior' or 'holy-war' represent duality inherit in all cultures that were influenced by Judaism, but is entirely foreign to Jewish thought.

Roughly speaking, Christianity inherited from Judaism a lenience towards the mercy measure, while Islam is extremely on the judgement side.

With Judaism, aside from being the original, its the sane middle in its correct balance,
and without the push to convert or conquer the entire world. At its core It has its set cultural boundaries in which it was intended to apply, a thing the other two lack.

Maybe this is the key to understanding those 'major world religions' from the perspective of political ideology along the last 2,000 years of history.

Yes! Thank you. (and the idea of Judaism as a "world religion" seems more than a little odd to me.)

I disagree.

There are Jews spread across the world - occupying many different cultures from India, to Russia, to North America, to the Middle East, to Europe...it's a world religion albeit small compared to some of the others. What's not a world religion? Say the Jaines for one. Samaritins. And others.

There are a number of ideas which are found in Xtianity and Islam which are foreign to Judaism. Possibly claimed to be sourced from the Jewish texts, but with such a foreign worldview that it is unrelatable to Judaism. There are also a number of ideas which seem similar but are understood in very different ways.

Perhaps but both Christianity (why do you call it Xtian?) and Islam have at their base the Old Testament of the Jews which...unfortunately also contains some pretty harsh stuff.

As examples (in no particular order):

grace vs. forgiveness vs. teshuvah

I'm curious - can you describe what you mean here?

heaven/hell vs. the world to come

I think the idea of heaven and hell is seriously messed up - especialy the idea that you will suffer in torment forever for the acts of one lifetime which is an atom in the bucket of forever. I kind of understand where it came from...Christianity evolved as a religion of slavery and oppression, a way for poor people in a harsh life to believe there is something better out there if they just hang in there until they die.

reward/punishment vs. repair of the world

You have me there...the idea that this world is less important than the next has always disturbed me...it implies we don't have to worry so much about what we do to this world.

the purpose of sacrifice

Can you expand on that?

the need for salvation vs. the labour of performing mitzvot

That one is a bit complicated - assuming I understand what you are saying. Christianity is mixed with it's many different sects and it's possible I am getting it all wrong. There are those that believe that good works are part of salvation and those believe salvation requires only belief. Is that what you are talking of? Please expand

To bring it back to why this matters. If one holds a fundamental belief that there is a heaven, and that a place in that heaven is dependent on holding certain beliefs and that reward in heaven is merited by certain actions, it puts you in an entirely different place than if one holds a fundamental belief that the afterlife is more or less irrelevant. If one holds a fundamental belief that there is a hell and all people who hold the the "wrong" beliefs or perform the "wrong" actions, will suffer for agony for all eternity, it puts you in an entirely different place than if one holds a fundamental belief in the sanctity of life in the only world which matters.

Interesting Shusha...not sure if I have said this but I'm not religious, not atheist either but one primary reason is what you just stated above. It's not something I can live with.

To put it bluntly, why worry about the sanctity of my life, if I'm just going to burn in hell for all eternity anyway? And why worry about the sanctity of your own life when you can fast-track yourself to paradise?

IF it works that way...and I'm not sure it does in Christian or Islamic theology as developed by it's founders.

I think often about what Ghandi supposedly said (but sadly...actually never did but still a good quote)
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Same with Islam. There is what the prophets actually (supposedly) said and what the many interpreters and followers afterwards said and did.

Some Jews don't spell out Christianity in full, and write an X instead, either because it is a heretic faith (because of the trinity concept), or because so many Jews were killed over the centuries because of that faith. As you can see, I personally don't subscibe to that idea. Other ppl write it that way, merely as shorthand.

I use Xtian and JC to denote I reject the idea that historical personage held any sort of divinity or special status.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

This is one of those timeless topics and specific questions raised by the study of personal and individual pursuits in which the outcome is not set by the culture or society, but by the individuals themselves. The solution is a system of inner thoughts which come together to explain the concept of something that is greater in magnitude, and set upon principles independent of the idea to be explained.

Religions and are all about the possibility of something beyond the existence of normal consciousness. Often based on a set of beliefs, rituals and spiritual practices that transcend the stream of life and existence into the supernatural.

So world religions would be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism?

(COMMENT)

Organized Religions and the Places of Worship; whether is be Stonehenge of the disorganize belief in the powers of the natural environment - through to the contemporary period of Tombs, Mosques, Cathedrals, and Churches of the monotheist period of today.

But as time goes on, humanity tends to rely less and less on the belief in the supernatural, thaumaturgical, and wonders or miracles → moving more towards the concept that once life is extinguished, the lifeforce essence and cumulative information and knowledge once stored by that entity as volatile memory are extinguished with it with the cessation of life.

What happens after death (cessation of life) is of no consequence because the entity that is composed of volatile memory, information and knowledge return to the state to a time before the entity knew of its existence.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

There are Jews spread across the world - occupying many different cultures from India, to Russia, to North America, to the Middle East, to Europe...it's a world religion albeit small compared to some of the others. What's not a world religion?

Jews are spread across the world. The Jewish religion, though, very strongly resides with the Jewish people. Its a religion of a singular people. Thus, not a world religion. Very different from Xtianity and Islam which are world religions precisely because they no longer reside within only one culture.

So world religions would be Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism?

Hinduism, as far as I know, is still culturally cohesive.

But I’ll give you Buddhism. Also Baha’i.

I'd say that Judaism is a world religion because of its immense influence, despite its small numbers. Much more so than the Baha'i religion, even if the Bahais have greater numbers. I mean look how everyone in the world is obsessed over Israel, one of the smallest countries in the world!

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep saying that, but you DO NOT cite any official forum to support that conjecture. There is a movement to express this idea, in such a way without fact-checking. And this same movement likes to suggest that their expression on this point in history, without any supporting document.

The partition plan flopped and was never implemented. There was no territory allotted for a Jewish state.

What territory did Israel claim and how was it acquired?

(ON THE OTHER HAND)

"The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

You cannot openly say that it was not implemented. That is just an uncorroborated Arab Palestinian supposition.

Question (b): Do you have armed forces operating in areas (towns, cities, districts) of Palestine where the Arabs are the majority, or outside Palestine?

Answer to Question (b): We consider the territory of Israel as a single unit with a Jewish majority. As indicated above, the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel; parts which, with the notable exception of Jerusalem, formerly for the most part, contained Arab majorities. These areas have, however, been mostly abandoned by their Arab population. No area outside of Palestine is under Jewish occupation but sallies beyond the frontiers of the State of Israel have occasionally been carried out by Jewish forces for imperative military reasons, and as a part of an essentially defensive plan.​

Question (c) If so, on what basis do you attempt to justify such operations?

Answer to Question (c): The above operations in areas outside the State of Israel are justified on the following grounds:​

• 
  In order to repel aggression, and as part of our essentially defensive plan, to prevent these areas being used as bases for attacks against the State of Israel.

• 
  In order to protect Jewish population, traffic and economic life, including the protection of those Jewish settlements outside the area of the State where, owing to the absence of any duly constituted authority and the failure to implement the guarantees and safeguards provided for under the General Assembly Plan, life and property are in imminent danger. Similar considerations apply in the absence of any international statute for the City of Jerusalem to the Jewish area of the City.

SOURCE: REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE •

• S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 4 March 1949 UNSC Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
• A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep saying that, but you DO NOT cite any official forum to support that conjecture. There is a movement to express this idea, in such a way without fact-checking. And this same movement likes to suggest that their expression on this point in history, without any supporting document.

The partition plan flopped and was never implemented. There was no territory allotted for a Jewish state.

What territory did Israel claim and how was it acquired?

(ON THE OTHER HAND)

"The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

You cannot openly say that it was not implemented. That is just an uncorroborated Arab Palestinian supposition.

Question (b): Do you have armed forces operating in areas (towns, cities, districts) of Palestine where the Arabs are the majority, or outside Palestine?

Answer to Question (b): We consider the territory of Israel as a single unit with a Jewish majority. As indicated above, the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel; parts which, with the notable exception of Jerusalem, formerly for the most part, contained Arab majorities. These areas have, however, been mostly abandoned by their Arab population. No area outside of Palestine is under Jewish occupation but sallies beyond the frontiers of the State of Israel have occasionally been carried out by Jewish forces for imperative military reasons, and as a part of an essentially defensive plan.​

Question (c) If so, on what basis do you attempt to justify such operations?

Answer to Question (c): The above operations in areas outside the State of Israel are justified on the following grounds:​

• 
  In order to repel aggression, and as part of our essentially defensive plan, to prevent these areas being used as bases for attacks against the State of Israel.

• 
  In order to protect Jewish population, traffic and economic life, including the protection of those Jewish settlements outside the area of the State where, owing to the absence of any duly constituted authority and the failure to implement the guarantees and safeguards provided for under the General Assembly Plan, life and property are in imminent danger. Similar considerations apply in the absence of any international statute for the City of Jerusalem to the Jewish area of the City.

SOURCE: REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE •

• S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 4 March 1949 UNSC Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
• A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

You are ducking my question.

Here is another question for you to duck. Resolution 181 states that all Palestinians who normally live in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will become citizens of that state.

When did that happen?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In some cases, as it appears in this case, you are asking for me to describe the reasoning for an alternative set of events. You know that the Arab Palestinians

You are ducking my question.

(COMMENT)

I did not "duck" any valid question. None at all.

And by the way, I cannot speak for every single event (those which happened and those which were prevented from happening) which each of the entities could have been involving.

And I don't speak for the State of Israel.

Here is another question for you to duck.
Resolution 181 states that all Palestinians who normally live in the territory that becomes the Jewish state will become citizens of that state.

(COMMENT)

This is one of those alternative questions.

In February of 1948, the UN Palestine Commission began its work. The Arab Palestinians decided NOT to participate in the actualization of self-governing institutions AND rejected the notion of a partition AND refused to participate in establishing the shape of the new governments.

When did that happen?

(COMMENT)

The order of operations in the establishment of the Jewish State, the Arab State and the City State, was altered when the Arab Palestinians refused to cooperate. THUS, the Israelis were not enjoined to render assistance to the Arab Palestinians. No obligation was incurred by the Israelis and no binding promises were made to the Arab Palestinians (because they rejected the process from start to finish).

(HOWEVER)

In September 1949, the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine estimated 711,000 Palestinian refugees existed outside Israel, with about one-quarter of the estimated 160,000 Palestinian Arabs remaining in Israel as "internal refugees."

That suggests a portion of the Arab Palestinian people remained inside the territorial boundary; ultimately becoming citizens.

It is not likely that there is going to be a massive influx of Arab Palestinians; as a threat to the Israelis in the next three generations of Israelis.




Most Respectfully,
R