Turkey, unlike most Muslim countries, is the most democratic. Ataturk's reforms after 1923 were revolutionary after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Even before Ataturk, Turkey was known to be much more tolerant of Non-Muslims than it's Muslim neighbors. Turkey even took in Jews that were being persecuted in Spain at the time of the Inquisition.
So, Muslims haven't caused any problems in Europe? Tell that to the Spanish, the English, the Germans, the French...
again this post is totally pointless: watch:
"So, Christians haven't caused any problems in the World? Tell that to the Mexicans, the Africans, the Australians, the ..."
"So, Jews haven't caused any problems in middle east? Tell that to the Palestinians..."
I do think envy is a motivating factor. While, there are some oil rich Arab/Muslim states, the majority of Muslims in the Middle East & Asia are very poor. Many Muslims hear stories about the days when Islam was at the center of intellectual progress. So, who's to blame for the current state of things....it must be the Jews, the Christians, or any Non-Muslim.
'..who's to blame for the current state of things....it must be the Jews..' Errm, no. The Zionists are to blame for the occupation.
Muslims need to look within themselves if they really want to find out why they have fallen behind the West.
So the reason that the Zionists have stolen their land and spent 60 years terrorizing them is because of some intrinsic natural trait peculiar only to Muslims? Interesting.
At the root of all of this, is the radical Islamic philosophy of converting or killing any Non-Muslim. The ultimate goal is to make the entire World into a Sharia State.
Regarding the issue of Palestinian resistance to the occupation, this is irrelevant.
Are you Chinese, or do you just live/work in China? If you are Chinese, it seems quite comical for you to criticize America and talk about those who violate the rights of others.
As for your question re: what nationality I am, and where I happen to be living; this is completely irrelevant.
Maybe you'd care to explain why my criticizing U.S foreign policy seems comical to you?
First things first...Israel needs to stop making illegal land grabs.
Until that happens...my sympathy will remain lukewarm for their argument.
By doing that they invite hatred....so be it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I get my information from a variety of sources, but I highly suggest reading "The Two Faces of Islam," by Stephen Schwartz. Very interesting read!
So according to you the only religion in the world that causes trouble is Islam?
As others have pointed out, all religions have there extreme views and people who follow them.
Byrnzie posted loads of information but i notice you have chosen to ignore it. Maybe take a look at it and see the other side of the coin.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Are you Chinese, or do you just live/work in China? If you are Chinese, it seems quite comical for you to criticize America and talk about those who violate the rights of others.
It seems comical to me to see an American act high & mighty to do the same thing.
I strongly disagree with you here. Everywhere there are Muslims in the world, there is trouble/conflict. Many people actually think "Islam" means "peace," but it happens to mean "submission".
How enlightening. Though I think you may have forgotten something here. Are you suggesting that all of us non-Muslims are naturally more civilized? Let me give you a few clues as to how civilized we are, and of what a great example we set for the ignorant people of the Middle East....
The Holocaust
Hiroshima
The Rape of Nanking
The Bosnian war - The massacres at Tuzla and Srebrenica
Rwanda genocide
The bombing of the road to Basra 1991
One of the problems is that many people, along with the mainstream media in the West, try to portray the issue as complicated. It's not actually very complicated at all. It's actually pretty straightforward; Israel needs to begin abiding by the consensus of the international community - excluding the U.S - and the dictates of the U.N security council, and withdraw from the post 1967 occupied territories.
I can agree with you that our mainstream media definitely takes the side of Jews over the Palestinians in the US. However there is no doubt in my mind that European media takes the side of Palestinians. Here's why:
Britain was in control of Palestine prior to, during and for a short time after World War II.
After world war II Europe was destroyed and was trying to rebuild. Millions of Europeans were displaced but especially the Jews because they didn't know what to do with the Jews so they basically were kept in the same camps and then shipped around. Of course they were not killed but the conditions and treatment remained terrible which was even done in front of reporters and cameras at one point. The Jews didn't feel welcome in Europe and wanted to go to Palestine because ironically back then the Palestinians treated Jews better than Europeans.
Now again Britain was in control Palestine but Britain didn't want the Jews to go to Palestine which caused problems because Jews really weren't welcome anywhere. Therefore the UN decided to create an Israeli state in the Middle East. However the increasing numbers of Jews to the Middle East began to create problems with Arabs and the fighting began. Many countries wouldn't recognize Israel at all.
So basically this problem was created by ill treatment of the Jews by the British government, of course the Nazis and many European governments. It seems nothing has changed. It's much easier to demonize the Jews than to take responsibility for what has happened.
Now does this make it right what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians? No but they've learned from the best . They are still fighting for their survival in a world that doesn't want them anywhere.
You can easily say ship the Jews around again and go back to 1967 boarders, however their population has increased so much it would cause overpopulation and the problems that come from overpopulation. We're talking about a freakin tiny piece of land.
That being said the Palestinians deserve more. They need to be treated much better by the Israelis and need a nice safe place to call home that the Israelis stay out of permanently.
It's not easy!
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
Turkey, unlike most Muslim countries, is the most democratic. Ataturk's reforms after 1923 were revolutionary after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Even before Ataturk, Turkey was known to be much more tolerant of Non-Muslims than it's Muslim neighbors. Turkey even took in Jews that were being persecuted in Spain at the time of the Inquisition.
Tell that to any Greek Cypriots, or Kurds. I'm sure they'd have a few things to say about it.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1881/kurdistan96/Photo2.jpg
'These pictures and the heinous crimes they show are not aberrations. These scenes are repeated often in southeastern Turkey, the historical land of the Kurds. Armed with East German rifles, West German armored vehicles and sophisticated American weapons, Turkish soldiers are creating the largest moonscape on the face the earth, raining death and destruction on the Kurds and their land. House Concurrent Resolution 136 of the 104th Congress notes that more than 2,650 Kurdish villages have been destroyed in this most recent Turkish assault on the Kurds.'
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/us_terr_st.htm
'Chomsky: It's very simple. If they do it, it's terrorism. If we do it, it's counter-terrorism. That's a historical universal. Go back to Nazi propaganda. The most extreme mass murderers ever. If you look at Nazi propaganda, that's exactly what they said. They said they're defending the populations and the legitimate governments of Europe like Vichy from the terrorist partisans who are directed from London. That's the basic propaganda line. And like all propaganda, no matter how vulgar, it has an element of truth. The partisans did carry out terror, they were directed from London. The Vichy government is about as legitimate as half the governments the US has installed around the world and supports, so yes, there was a minor element of truth to it, and that's the way it works. If somebody else carries it out, it's terror. If we carry it out, it's counter-terror. I think perhaps one of the most dramatic examples right at this moment is a place where I just was a couple of weeks ago, southeastern Turkey. Southeastern Turkey is the site of some of the worst terrorist atrocities of the 1990s.
ES: This is the attacks on the Kurds.
Chomsky: The attacks on the Kurds created a couple of million refugees. It left much of the countryside devastated. Tens of thousands of people killed. It was every imaginable barbaric form of torture you can dream of. It's all well documented in Human Rights Watch reports and so on. How did they do it? Well, they did it with a huge flow of U.S. arms, which peaked in 1997. In that one year, the arms transfers to Turkey from the United States were higher than the entire Cold War period. You know up until the counter-insurgency started. But look at the way it's treated. This massive international terrorism run and supported by the United States is considered a great triumph of counter-terrorism.
If you read the State Department reports on terror they praise Turkey for its success in showing how to counter terror. You read a front page article in the New York Times and it praises Turkey for showing how to deal with terror. Turkey was selected as the country to provide the forces for what they call the international force for Afghanistan. Actually it's for Kabul alone. It's Turkey that's being paid by the United States extensively to carry out the repression of terror, thanks to their achievements in countering terror — namely by carrying out some of the worst terror of the 1990s. Massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities with U.S. support. Now you know this is a real achievement of the intellectual culture to be able to do this. But it illustrates very well the answer to your question. Terror and counter-terror. If some enemy state did this, we'd be not just outraged, we'd be bombing them.'
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I can agree with you that our mainstream media definitely takes the side of Jews over the Palestinians in the US. However there is no doubt in my mind that European media takes the side of Palestinians. Here's why:
Britain was in control of Palestine prior to, during and for a short time after World War II.
After world war II Europe was destroyed and was trying to rebuild. Millions of Europeans were displaced but especially the Jews because they didn't know what to do with the Jews so they basically were kept in the same camps and then shipped around. Of course they were not killed but the conditions and treatment remained terrible which was even done in front of reporters and cameras at one point. The Jews didn't feel welcome in Europe and wanted to go to Palestine because ironically back then the Palestinians treated Jews better than Europeans.
Now again Britain was in control Palestine but Britain didn't want the Jews to go to Palestine which caused problems because Jews really weren't welcome anywhere. Therefore the UN decided to create an Israeli state in the Middle East. However the increasing numbers of Jews to the Middle East began to create problems with Arabs and the fighting began. Many countries wouldn't recognize Israel at all.
So basically this problem was created by ill treatment of the Jews by the British government, of course the Nazis and many European governments. It seems nothing has changed. It's much easier to demonize the Jews than to take responsibility for what has happened.
Nothing in what you've posted here demonstrates that the European media takes the side of Palestinians.
Greasing Up to Power
Posted July 13, 2004 http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/07/13/greasing-up-to-power/
'The Glasgow study shows that BBC and ITN news reports are biased in favour of Israel and against the Palestinians.(7) Almost three times as much coverage is given to each Israeli death as to each Palestinian death. Killings by Palestinians are routinely described as “atrocities” and “murders”, while Palestinians deliberately shot by Israeli soldiers have been reported as “caught in the crossfire.”(8) In the period the researchers studied, Israeli spokespeople were given twice as much time to speak as Palestinians. Both BBC and ITN reports have described the West Bank as part of Israel.(9) By failing to explain that the Palestinians are living under military occupation, following the illegal seizure of their land, correspondents routinely reduce the conflict to an inexplicable “cycle of violence”. Even this cycle is presented as being driven by the Palestinians: the Israelis are reported as “responding” or “retaliating” to Palestinian attacks; violence by the Palestinians is seldom explained as a response to attacks by Israelis.(10) Both networks regularly claim that the US government is seeking peace in the region (ITN has described it as “even-handed”) while omitting to mention that it is supplying some $3 billion a year of military aid to Israel.(11)'
Now does this make it right what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians? No but they've learned from the best . They are still fighting for their survival in a world that doesn't want them anywhere.
You can easily say ship the Jews around again and go back to 1967 borders, however their population has increased so much it would cause overpopulation and the problems that come from overpopulation.
Would it? Do you have any evidence to support these claims?
Not that they're in any way relevant of course. If you think that the illegal occupation can be justified on the grounds of over-population within Israel then I wish you the best of luck.
Are you Chinese, or do you just live/work in China? If you are Chinese, it seems quite comical for you to criticize America and talk about those who violate the rights of others.
The truth hurts, no matter who reveals it. That's a Chinese proverb.
and for your information, Hamas, your "terrorist organization", actually said they'd start having peace negotiations if Israel went back to the 1967 borders.
'In a conciliatory message to Israeli voters on the eve of the election, Palestinian Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said Hamas wanted to end the bloodshed and the longstanding conflict in the region.
"We don't want a whirlpool of blood in this region," Haniyeh told reporters in Gaza City as he prepared to present his cabinet to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
"We want the rights and dignity of our people. We also want to put an end to this complicated conflict that has been going on for decades." Hamas leader Haniyeh said his movement's victory in the January 25 parliamentary election was not the reason why the conflict was continuing. "On the contrary," he added, "Hamas's presence in power marks the beginning of resolving the crisis."
...He added that the Palestinians would not accept the future borders of a Palestinian state as defined by Israel...
Haniyeh stressed, however, that his cabinet was entitled to pursue the fight against Israeli occupation. "Hamas was elected on the basis of the principle of defending the legitimacy of resistance to the occupation," he said...
He said his cabinet's program would emphasize the Palestinians' right "to defend themselves against Israeli measures and challenges."[/b]
Incoming Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar took a more militant stance when he declared on Sunday that Hamas would not "give up one inch of Palestine." Addressing a rally in Beit Sahour on the second anniversary of the assassination of former Hamas leader and founder Ahmed Yassin, Zahar said, "Even if the US gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives." He said Yassin had sacrificed his life "for the sake of the Aksa Mosque and Palestine and his blood would therefore not be wasted. Our right to pursue the resistance will remain as long as the occupation continues over our lands and holy sites."
So, people who flip out and riot because someone published a cartoon of Mohhamad, aren't wacky?
It's rational behavior? I love the way you and your friends on this board rationalize radical Islam.
Have you ever heard of Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or any of the millions of people who follow/followed these fruitcakes? It's just that, when discussing wackos, I think these people win hands down.
Have you ever heard of Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or any of the millions of people who follow/followed these fruitcakes? It's just that, when discussing wackos, I think these people win hands down.
Yeah, I don't care for people who follow those idiots, as well. It still doesn't change the fact that those who riot/kill based on a fucking cartoon, are incredibly wacky.
I think every newspaper should publish cartoons of Mohhamad, just for the fun of it.
Yeah, I don't care for people who follow those idiots, as well. It still doesn't change the fact that those who riot/kill based on a fucking cartoon, are incredibly wacky.
I think every newspaper should publish cartoons of Mohhamad, just for the fun of it.
And would you also think it was o.k if every newspaper published cartoons showing Jesus with a dick up his ass? Or would you regard that as offensive?
It still doesn't change the fact that those who riot/kill based on a fucking cartoon, are incredibly wacky.
this again shows some fantastic insight into Islam, you're very understanding?
So lets get this straight
The only groups of people you have a problem with are..
(1) zealots/religious extremists
(2) religions
(3) all middle eastern countries bar Israel & Turkey
(4) Palestinians
(5) people that use logic
(6) non-Americans that comment on US foreign policy
(7) anyone who suggests an alternate view of the world other than yours
and (8) Islam (it deserves its own mention outside of Religion, clearly, because its inherently evil?)
And would you also think it was o.k if every newspaper published cartoons showing Jesus with a dick up his ass? Or would you regard that as offensive?
I really couldn't care less, personally, although you're really stretching the issue here. I never said newspapers should publish cartoons of Mohhamad with a dick up his ass, or anything close to that. I merely stated that every newspaper should publish cartoons of Mohhamad, nothing more.
I guess you just had anal sex with a man on your mind, which is fine if that's what you're into.
this again shows some fantastic insight into Islam, you're very understanding?
So lets get this straight
The only groups of people you have a problem with are..
(1) zealots/religious extremists
(2) religions
(3) all middle eastern countries bar Israel & Turkey
(4) Palestinians
(5) people that use logic
(6) non-Americans that comment on US foreign policy
(7) anyone who suggests an alternate view of the world other than yours
and (8) Islam (it deserves its own mention outside of Religion, clearly, because its inherently evil?)
Since, I'm extremely logical, I take exception to #5. I wish I had the time to educate and inform all the nuts on this board, but unfortunately I do have my own work that needs to be done. Also, I would add Lebanon to the list of countries I like, but Hezbollah really needs to go before I make that decision.
Zionism is racism...and Israel is only shitting on themselves.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
And would you also think it was o.k if every newspaper published cartoons showing Jesus with a dick up his ass? Or would you regard that as offensive?
You are missing the point.
Of course it would be considered offensive.
But I don't think Christians would riot,burn Muslim places of worship or kill any Muslim religious leaders.
"they don't give a shit Keith Moon is dead,
is that exactly what I thought I read?"
You are missing the point.
Of course it would be considered offensive.
But I don't think Christians would riot,burn Muslim places of worship or kill any Muslim religious leaders.
Wow, another voice of reason here!
Most of the people posting here stretch the truth and twist facts to suit their own agenda. Of course, I'll be accused of doing just that, but I expect that.
You are missing the point.
Of course it would be considered offensive.
But I don't think Christians would riot,burn Muslim places of worship or kill any Muslim religious leaders.
Why? Are they not human or are they above? They certainly have no problems with blowing up abortion clinics.
Swords...you're wrong...the agenda of most of the people here is the truth. No one will be accusing you of that, considering you make your posts based on your "common sense".
Since, I'm extremely logical, I take exception to #5. I wish I had the time to educate and inform all the nuts on this board, but unfortunately I do have my own work that needs to be done. Also, I would add Lebanon to the list of countries I like, but Hezbollah really needs to go before I make that decision.
seems to me that if you were really a logical person you would try deny having issues with number 1-4, and 6-8
You are missing the point.
Of course it would be considered offensive.
But I don't think Christians would riot,burn Muslim places of worship or kill any Muslim religious leaders.
Are Christians getting reamed up the a$$ by an oppressive world superpower?
hmm
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
again this post is totally pointless: watch:
"So, Christians haven't caused any problems in the World? Tell that to the Mexicans, the Africans, the Australians, the ..."
"So, Jews haven't caused any problems in middle east? Tell that to the Palestinians..."
'..who's to blame for the current state of things....it must be the Jews..' Errm, no. The Zionists are to blame for the occupation.
So the reason that the Zionists have stolen their land and spent 60 years terrorizing them is because of some intrinsic natural trait peculiar only to Muslims? Interesting.
Regarding the issue of Palestinian resistance to the occupation, this is irrelevant.
As for your question re: what nationality I am, and where I happen to be living; this is completely irrelevant.
Maybe you'd care to explain why my criticizing U.S foreign policy seems comical to you?
Until that happens...my sympathy will remain lukewarm for their argument.
By doing that they invite hatred....so be it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So according to you the only religion in the world that causes trouble is Islam?
As others have pointed out, all religions have there extreme views and people who follow them.
Byrnzie posted loads of information but i notice you have chosen to ignore it. Maybe take a look at it and see the other side of the coin.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
It seems comical to me to see an American act high & mighty to do the same thing.
But you're probably perfect, right?
How enlightening. Though I think you may have forgotten something here. Are you suggesting that all of us non-Muslims are naturally more civilized? Let me give you a few clues as to how civilized we are, and of what a great example we set for the ignorant people of the Middle East....
The Holocaust
Hiroshima
The Rape of Nanking
The Bosnian war - The massacres at Tuzla and Srebrenica
Rwanda genocide
The bombing of the road to Basra 1991
Sure...
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1881/kurdistan96/Photo2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1881/kurdistan96/Photo5.jpg
I can agree with you that our mainstream media definitely takes the side of Jews over the Palestinians in the US. However there is no doubt in my mind that European media takes the side of Palestinians. Here's why:
Britain was in control of Palestine prior to, during and for a short time after World War II.
After world war II Europe was destroyed and was trying to rebuild. Millions of Europeans were displaced but especially the Jews because they didn't know what to do with the Jews so they basically were kept in the same camps and then shipped around. Of course they were not killed but the conditions and treatment remained terrible which was even done in front of reporters and cameras at one point. The Jews didn't feel welcome in Europe and wanted to go to Palestine because ironically back then the Palestinians treated Jews better than Europeans.
Now again Britain was in control Palestine but Britain didn't want the Jews to go to Palestine which caused problems because Jews really weren't welcome anywhere. Therefore the UN decided to create an Israeli state in the Middle East. However the increasing numbers of Jews to the Middle East began to create problems with Arabs and the fighting began. Many countries wouldn't recognize Israel at all.
So basically this problem was created by ill treatment of the Jews by the British government, of course the Nazis and many European governments. It seems nothing has changed. It's much easier to demonize the Jews than to take responsibility for what has happened.
Read up
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/displacedjews_2.htm
Now does this make it right what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians? No but they've learned from the best
You can easily say ship the Jews around again and go back to 1967 boarders, however their population has increased so much it would cause overpopulation and the problems that come from overpopulation. We're talking about a freakin tiny piece of land.
That being said the Palestinians deserve more. They need to be treated much better by the Israelis and need a nice safe place to call home that the Israelis stay out of permanently.
It's not easy!
Tell that to any Greek Cypriots, or Kurds. I'm sure they'd have a few things to say about it.
Turkey's War Crimes
http://www.kurdistan.org/Articles/crimes.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1881/kurdistan96/Photo2.jpg
'These pictures and the heinous crimes they show are not aberrations. These scenes are repeated often in southeastern Turkey, the historical land of the Kurds. Armed with East German rifles, West German armored vehicles and sophisticated American weapons, Turkish soldiers are creating the largest moonscape on the face the earth, raining death and destruction on the Kurds and their land. House Concurrent Resolution 136 of the 104th Congress notes that more than 2,650 Kurdish villages have been destroyed in this most recent Turkish assault on the Kurds.'
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/us_terr_st.htm
'Chomsky: It's very simple. If they do it, it's terrorism. If we do it, it's counter-terrorism. That's a historical universal. Go back to Nazi propaganda. The most extreme mass murderers ever. If you look at Nazi propaganda, that's exactly what they said. They said they're defending the populations and the legitimate governments of Europe like Vichy from the terrorist partisans who are directed from London. That's the basic propaganda line. And like all propaganda, no matter how vulgar, it has an element of truth. The partisans did carry out terror, they were directed from London. The Vichy government is about as legitimate as half the governments the US has installed around the world and supports, so yes, there was a minor element of truth to it, and that's the way it works. If somebody else carries it out, it's terror. If we carry it out, it's counter-terror. I think perhaps one of the most dramatic examples right at this moment is a place where I just was a couple of weeks ago, southeastern Turkey. Southeastern Turkey is the site of some of the worst terrorist atrocities of the 1990s.
ES: This is the attacks on the Kurds.
Chomsky: The attacks on the Kurds created a couple of million refugees. It left much of the countryside devastated. Tens of thousands of people killed. It was every imaginable barbaric form of torture you can dream of. It's all well documented in Human Rights Watch reports and so on. How did they do it? Well, they did it with a huge flow of U.S. arms, which peaked in 1997. In that one year, the arms transfers to Turkey from the United States were higher than the entire Cold War period. You know up until the counter-insurgency started. But look at the way it's treated. This massive international terrorism run and supported by the United States is considered a great triumph of counter-terrorism.
If you read the State Department reports on terror they praise Turkey for its success in showing how to counter terror. You read a front page article in the New York Times and it praises Turkey for showing how to deal with terror. Turkey was selected as the country to provide the forces for what they call the international force for Afghanistan. Actually it's for Kabul alone. It's Turkey that's being paid by the United States extensively to carry out the repression of terror, thanks to their achievements in countering terror — namely by carrying out some of the worst terror of the 1990s. Massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities with U.S. support. Now you know this is a real achievement of the intellectual culture to be able to do this. But it illustrates very well the answer to your question. Terror and counter-terror. If some enemy state did this, we'd be not just outraged, we'd be bombing them.'
no he/she just idolizes this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Could this be your idol?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_Mao
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
BBC The birth of Israel 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEFPxRDhT_U
torrent:
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/3326/BBC-The-Birth-of-Israel-2008
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Nothing in what you've posted here demonstrates that the European media takes the side of Palestinians.
Greasing Up to Power
Posted July 13, 2004
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/07/13/greasing-up-to-power/
'The Glasgow study shows that BBC and ITN news reports are biased in favour of Israel and against the Palestinians.(7) Almost three times as much coverage is given to each Israeli death as to each Palestinian death. Killings by Palestinians are routinely described as “atrocities” and “murders”, while Palestinians deliberately shot by Israeli soldiers have been reported as “caught in the crossfire.”(8) In the period the researchers studied, Israeli spokespeople were given twice as much time to speak as Palestinians. Both BBC and ITN reports have described the West Bank as part of Israel.(9) By failing to explain that the Palestinians are living under military occupation, following the illegal seizure of their land, correspondents routinely reduce the conflict to an inexplicable “cycle of violence”. Even this cycle is presented as being driven by the Palestinians: the Israelis are reported as “responding” or “retaliating” to Palestinian attacks; violence by the Palestinians is seldom explained as a response to attacks by Israelis.(10) Both networks regularly claim that the US government is seeking peace in the region (ITN has described it as “even-handed”) while omitting to mention that it is supplying some $3 billion a year of military aid to Israel.(11)'
And you're right about pro-Israel bias in the U.S. It's even more blatant:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html
Would it? Do you have any evidence to support these claims?
Not that they're in any way relevant of course. If you think that the illegal occupation can be justified on the grounds of over-population within Israel then I wish you the best of luck.
No. But It's also not as complicated as people like to pretend.
The truth hurts, no matter who reveals it. That's a Chinese proverb.
Actually, it's not. I just made it up.
naděje umírá poslední
This is true:
HAMAS calls for 'end of bloodshed' 3/28/2006
http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=738
'In a conciliatory message to Israeli voters on the eve of the election, Palestinian Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said Hamas wanted to end the bloodshed and the longstanding conflict in the region.
"We don't want a whirlpool of blood in this region," Haniyeh told reporters in Gaza City as he prepared to present his cabinet to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
"We want the rights and dignity of our people. We also want to put an end to this complicated conflict that has been going on for decades." Hamas leader Haniyeh said his movement's victory in the January 25 parliamentary election was not the reason why the conflict was continuing. "On the contrary," he added, "Hamas's presence in power marks the beginning of resolving the crisis."
...He added that the Palestinians would not accept the future borders of a Palestinian state as defined by Israel...
Haniyeh stressed, however, that his cabinet was entitled to pursue the fight against Israeli occupation. "Hamas was elected on the basis of the principle of defending the legitimacy of resistance to the occupation," he said...
He said his cabinet's program would emphasize the Palestinians' right "to defend themselves against Israeli measures and challenges."[/b]
Incoming Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar took a more militant stance when he declared on Sunday that Hamas would not "give up one inch of Palestine." Addressing a rally in Beit Sahour on the second anniversary of the assassination of former Hamas leader and founder Ahmed Yassin, Zahar said, "Even if the US gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives." He said Yassin had sacrificed his life "for the sake of the Aksa Mosque and Palestine and his blood would therefore not be wasted. Our right to pursue the resistance will remain as long as the occupation continues over our lands and holy sites."
Have you ever heard of Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or any of the millions of people who follow/followed these fruitcakes? It's just that, when discussing wackos, I think these people win hands down.
Yeah, I don't care for people who follow those idiots, as well. It still doesn't change the fact that those who riot/kill based on a fucking cartoon, are incredibly wacky.
I think every newspaper should publish cartoons of Mohhamad, just for the fun of it.
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
And would you also think it was o.k if every newspaper published cartoons showing Jesus with a dick up his ass? Or would you regard that as offensive?
this again shows some fantastic insight into Islam, you're very understanding?
So lets get this straight
The only groups of people you have a problem with are..
(1) zealots/religious extremists
(2) religions
(3) all middle eastern countries bar Israel & Turkey
(4) Palestinians
(5) people that use logic
(6) non-Americans that comment on US foreign policy
(7) anyone who suggests an alternate view of the world other than yours
and (8) Islam (it deserves its own mention outside of Religion, clearly, because its inherently evil?)
I really couldn't care less, personally, although you're really stretching the issue here. I never said newspapers should publish cartoons of Mohhamad with a dick up his ass, or anything close to that. I merely stated that every newspaper should publish cartoons of Mohhamad, nothing more.
I guess you just had anal sex with a man on your mind, which is fine if that's what you're into.
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
Since, I'm extremely logical, I take exception to #5. I wish I had the time to educate and inform all the nuts on this board, but unfortunately I do have my own work that needs to be done. Also, I would add Lebanon to the list of countries I like, but Hezbollah really needs to go before I make that decision.
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You are missing the point.
Of course it would be considered offensive.
But I don't think Christians would riot,burn Muslim places of worship or kill any Muslim religious leaders.
is that exactly what I thought I read?"
How I choose to feel,...Is how I am.
Wow, another voice of reason here!
Most of the people posting here stretch the truth and twist facts to suit their own agenda. Of course, I'll be accused of doing just that, but I expect that.
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
Why? Are they not human or are they above? They certainly have no problems with blowing up abortion clinics.
Swords...you're wrong...the agenda of most of the people here is the truth. No one will be accusing you of that, considering you make your posts based on your "common sense".
Sure, because that would be unprecedented, right?
Sure you do.
Bye!
Figures!
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
seems to me that if you were really a logical person you would try deny having issues with number 1-4, and 6-8
Are Christians getting reamed up the a$$ by an oppressive world superpower?
hmm
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")