Who Are The Palestinians?

[rhodescholar]

Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of your mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.

Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."

When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying **** as to your opinion on Israel.

For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them. I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full. Amazing how they manage...

 

[Challenger]

Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

He was Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord

Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states. Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state. It was a druze stonghold.

It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.

ACRE was autonomous, not independent. There was no palestine state.

Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant and autonomous to me.

But no mention in all that of Palestine

Read all the posts, idiot.

 

[Challenger]

Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of your mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.

Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."

When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying **** as to your opinion on Israel.

For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them. I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full. Amazing how they manage...

Your mindset, on the other hand, is clearly mired in the cesspit.

 

[rhodescholar]

No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...

I love ***** like this who discuss the symptoms, but never the cause.

I'd normally start posting that the arabs have refused the offer of a state multiple times, but like this ****, they have no interest in creating a state of their own - their sole interest is to destroy israel, so I am not going to even bother.

The arab muslims are good at one thing, destroying what others have created. If Israel were to be removed (as in the jews relocated) the arab muslims would stream in and we'd see war there for the next 1,000 years, at least, or until they just killed themselves.

I'd also explain that the arabs were attacking jews in israel decades and centuries before Israel was founded, so with that in mind, why would any sane human question the jews' desire to keep away from the arab muslims, who do not tolerate the sovereign rights of anyone else in the mideast.

Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?

 

[Challenger]

ACRE was autonomous, not independent. There was no palestine state.

Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant and autonomous to me.

It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord". There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk. They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman. It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.

It is a feudal lord of a county, not country

Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws. Acre was not palestine.

The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful. It takes seconds. They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.

Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan

I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for. So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.

Why should other posters do your homework for you? Think before opening your mouth. A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office

Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be

Looks like someone's upset you.

Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of All Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.

But still no mention of Palestine by name

Yes, you are nuts. I agree.

...said the pot.

I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself. Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are. That is the bottom line. If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.

But but haven't you heard the news? You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters." It's called Palestinian mentality. Heh Heh!

No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.

And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is "rational human behaviour"

...and yet despite 1400 years of alleged "Muslim persecution" Jewish people still migrated to Muslim lands...clearly jewish people are all Masochists then.

 

[rhodescholar]

...

So according to this ****, I can mass slaughter, suicide bomb, and fire rockets at all of the south american and chinese immigrants who have moved into the US.

What is really funny is that a very large portion of Israel, almost half, are sephardic jews ethnically cleansed from arab muslim countries, but this turd of course could never grasp this simple irony.

 

[rhodescholar]

...and yet despite 1400 years of alleged "Muslim persecution" Jewish people still migrated to Muslim lands...clearly jewish people are all Masochists then.

Amazing how assholes like this attack jews for mistreating arab muslims, but then excuse away the historical horrendous mistreatment of jews by muslims in the mideast. Really a lot of low IQ muslims and apologists for them here.

 

[ChrisL]

Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of your mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.

Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."

When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying **** as to your opinion on Israel.

For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them. I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full. Amazing how they manage...

Your mindset, on the other hand, is clearly mired in the cesspit.

You're a cess pool of bigotry.

 

[ChrisL]

...and yet despite 1400 years of alleged "Muslim persecution" Jewish people still migrated to Muslim lands...clearly jewish people are all Masochists then.

Amazing how assholes like this attack jews for mistreating arab muslims, but then excuse away the historical horrendous mistreatment of jews by muslims in the mideast. Really a lot of low IQ muslims and apologists for them here.

Maybe they're terrorists trying to spread their propaganda via forum posts?

 

[toastman]

I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself. Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are. That is the bottom line. If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.

The Jews in Palestine used terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals, the King David Hotel bombing is just one example. Some of their Prime Ministers had done time in prison for terrorist activities. And clearly, current Israelis use terror to force the Palestinian to accept occupation and oppression without resisting. Very hypocritical supporting Jewish terrorism while railing against Gentile terrorism.

How is retaliating against Palestinian terrorism considered terrorism ?

The Israeli army destroys buildings with weapons, buildings with terrorists and other hostile targets. Terrorism is attacking without distinguishing between civilian and combatant in order to bring fear among people, in order to achieve a political or religious goal. Basically, EXACTLY what Hamas does.

You aren't there when the air force commanders are explaining to their pilots what targets to it. You are not there when the commanders explain the mission to their soldiers.
All you do is spew Palestinian propaganda day in day out. Not to mention you support people who cheer and hand out candy upon hearing that innocent people have been killed.

Israel bombs schools that are filled with women and children, killing thousands at a time. That is intentional terrorism in order to terrorize the non-Jews into meekly accepting Jew oppression and occupation.

"US 'appalled' by 'disgraceful' Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school"

The US called that attack “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible”.

US appalled by disgraceful Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school World news The Guardian

The U.S has killed 500 times more civilians in a fraction of the time. Gaza is a tiny tiny slither of land. Any school that was hit was hit by an errant shell from an artillery battery or tank, not a fighter jet. Stuff like this happens, and it's tragic.
But unlike Palestinians, Israelis don't cheer and celebrate upon hearing that innocent civilians have been killed.

Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of your mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.

I'm not American, I'm Canadian and I wasn't bragging.
PleAse show me a video of Israelis cheering upon hearing thaglt civilians have been killed.

 

[toastman]

"Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"

Usual Phoney bullshit. He just makes things up.

"The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"

The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.

"They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."

Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?

"Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"

Then, after invading, settling and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?

Because they bever invaded Palestine. An invasion is a military offensive.
The 'European Jewish invasion' is Palestinian propaganda.

Invasion =
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as in a disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun, as in, "the annual invasion of the resort by tourists".
4. Infringement by intrusion.

Take your pick, invasions aren't necessarily military in nature.

None of those apply to European Jewish Immigration.

Definitions 2. and, or 3. certainly do.

No, they don't thise definitions came with an example.
Number 2 is for a disease and number 3 is for tourists.
You're just like Monti, you can't handle the truth.

 

[RoccoR]

rhodescholar, Challenger, et al,

How interesting --- that you should ask this question.

No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...

Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?

(OBSEVATION)

​

Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims (relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran) or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion (believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?

(COMMENT)

First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers. In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have (for nearly a century) consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences. The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally. So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.

When one looks at the Muslim (as the practitioner) or Islam (as the religion practiced) relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread. But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:

1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​

Is it the Muslim (as the practitioner) that is responsible for these radical conflicts? Or, is it Islam (as the religion practiced) that spreads the hostility and conflict? If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes: The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted: "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will? Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?

Have Muslims (as the practitioners) destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities? Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rhodescholar]

Is it the Muslim (as the practitioner) that is responsible for these radical conflicts? Or, is it Islam (as the religion practiced) that spreads the hostility and conflict? If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes: The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted: "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will? Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?

Have Muslims (as the practitioners) destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities? Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.

I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.

 

[MJB12741]

Is it the Muslim (as the practitioner) that is responsible for these radical conflicts? Or, is it Islam (as the religion practiced) that spreads the hostility and conflict? If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes: The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted: "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will? Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?

Have Muslims (as the practitioners) destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities? Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.

I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.

Not all Muslims are world terrorists. However, the overwhelming majority of world terrorists are Muslims. Anyone disagree?

 

[Phoenall]

"Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"

Usual Phoney bullshit. He just makes things up.

"The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"

The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.

"They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."

Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?

"Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"

Then, after invading, settling and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?

Because they bever invaded Palestine. An invasion is a military offensive.
The 'European Jewish invasion' is Palestinian propaganda.

Invasion =
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as in a disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun, as in, "the annual invasion of the resort by tourists".
4. Infringement by intrusion.

Take your pick, invasions aren't necessarily military in nature.

None of those apply to European Jewish Immigration.

Definitions 2. and, or 3. certainly do.

WRONG AGAIN as they were invited to migrate and close settle, unlike the muslims who just arrived and claimed the land under sharia law.

 

[Phoenall]

They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict. That is an invasion.

No they didn't

They immigrated to the region, got attacked by 5 Arab armies INCLUDING the Palestinian Arabs, and then expelled some of the Palestinians, who were trying to expel the Jews..
If a European Jewish army came to Palestine through a military offensive, THAT'S an invasion. But that's not what happened,

Is this your only answer to reality.......................

 

[Phoenall]

Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant and autonomous to me.

It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord". There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk. They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman. It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.

It is a feudal lord of a county, not country

Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws. Acre was not palestine.

The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful. It takes seconds. They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.

Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan

I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for. So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.

Why should other posters do your homework for you? Think before opening your mouth. A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office

Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be

Looks like someone's upset you.

Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of All Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.

But still no mention of Palestine by name

...said the pot.

I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself. Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are. That is the bottom line. If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.

But but haven't you heard the news? You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters." It's called Palestinian mentality. Heh Heh!

No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.

And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is "rational human behaviour"

Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?

 

[Phoenall]

Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of your mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.

Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."

When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying **** as to your opinion on Israel.

For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them. I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full. Amazing how they manage...

Like all neo Marxists the only people allowed human rights are muslims, criminals and neo Marxists. Anyone else is not worthy of them

 

[ChrisL]

Is it the Muslim (as the practitioner) that is responsible for these radical conflicts? Or, is it Islam (as the religion practiced) that spreads the hostility and conflict? If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes: The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted: "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will? Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?

Have Muslims (as the practitioners) destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities? Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.

I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.

Yes, but those who would deny there is a problem are the ones standing in the way of real progress. They make excuses for it and that doesn't help anyone.

 

[ChrisL]

Is it the Muslim (as the practitioner) that is responsible for these radical conflicts? Or, is it Islam (as the religion practiced) that spreads the hostility and conflict? If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes: The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted: "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will? Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?

Have Muslims (as the practitioners) destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities? Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.

I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.

Also, the fact that a lot of Muslim countries are run by dictators who do not want to allow the people to become educated or have a lot of contact with the outside world. A good example of this is how some Muslim countries discourage women from becoming educated. Why? Because then these women would see and understand how they are being oppressed. Then, daddy can't give them away to another man for a dowry (basically selling their daughters).

I think it's a combination of a lot of different factors.