Categories
Blog

My Muslims Condemning Violence Cartoon

Here’s my new cartoon about the press interviewing Muslims about the Fort Hood shootings. I’m sure it will make some readers angry, as all the other cartoons are still grief cartoons.

tweetmeme_source = ‘dcagle’;
tweetmeme_url = ‘http://blog.cagle.com/daryl/2009/11/07/my-muslims-condemning-violence-cartoon/’;
tweetmeme_service = ‘bit.ly’;

Here’s my new cartoon about the press interviewing Muslims about the Fort Hood shootings.  I’m sure it will make some readers angry, as all the other cartoons are still grief cartoons.  I’m just making the point that the press often act like jerks in their persistent hunt for hints of support for the violence in the Muslim community.

OK.  Now you can get mad.

By Daryl Cagle

Daryl Cagle is the founder and owner of Cagle Cartoons, Inc. He is one of the most widely published editorial cartoonists and is also the editor of The Cagle Post.

163 replies on “My Muslims Condemning Violence Cartoon”

You don't have to look for if you want to find rejoicing muslims. Apparently you are just another journalist too lazy to look. This will make the muslims happy though. I bet you are hoping they will like you. I have good news…they will love you…and because they love you, they will kill you last! moron . And its you and the people who think like you who will be flabbergasted when the civil war actually starts in America. The dems almost insured it tonight. And hey, why not do a funny cartoon of allah? They will love that.

Actually, Cagle, you are one of the jerks of whom you speak. The GI in Little Rock, Arkansas was also murdered by a recent convert to Islam. (One killed, one wounded.) You don't have to be a scholar on the Koran to see the pattern here. Your kiss-ass attitude toward these killers is duly noted.

Note to Donna Barstow. Mr. Cagle is guilty of a Freudian slip here. I wonder if he wears a rag on his head.

A politically correct political cartoon (such as this one) is like decaffeinated espresso or non-alcoholic whiskey. What's the point?

Contrary to the small minded fascists on the comment board, I refuse to paint all Muslims with the same negative brush, as does Mr. Cagle. So fundamentalist Christians shoot abortion doctors because "murder is wrong"…..does that mean all Christians are evil murderers?! Think you might want to remember that glass house thing before you tarnish an entire faith.

Sincerely,
A former Catholic at a Jesuit College

I agree with this; not all Muslims are like this man; heck, this man wasn't even a terrorist. He was just overly stressed, and reacted the worst way possbile.
My cousin's wife was amoung the 31 wounded (she got shot in the arm, she is stable condition now), and even though what happened to her was horrible, there is no reason for me to be angry at all Muslims. It's the individual, not the group, just like with all other religions and organizations.

I'm absolutely positive that if Christians killed in the name of God that their religion would be called into question for each and every murder committed. If being a Christian meant killing non-Christians for being non-Christians then I would call Christians to account. But Christians don't murder innocent people in the name of God. Only Muslims do that.

It certainly would be welcome for the worldwide and American Muslim community to be more vocal and public in their condemnation of the radical element in their religion that resorts to violence against non-Muslims. However, what confuses me is why the right wing in this country demands we forcefully go into Muslim countries and push democracy upon their citizens, whether they are ready for the responsibilities that are necessary for democracy to succeed or not.

The Dutch among other people have found Islam places Allah above all else, including freedom of speech. Now they are in a dilemma they are having trouble reversing, because they allowed too many Muslims free entry into their country.

I understand we should try to nip future problems such as 9/11 in the bud, but at what price? Placing our entire economy in peril as well as the safety of our young people is too high. We should use our intelligence and air superiority to quell insurgents from organizing and limit trade of technology and other military hardware to rogue nations (including Saudi Arabia) until they comply to world peace.

If we want enough boots on the ground to control a country as large as Afghanistan, another 40,000 or even 80,000 troops will fall far short of our needs. I am old enough to remember Vietnam…

The United States has no right to forcefully go into any country with the object of cramming democracy down their throats. It will succeed only in bankrupting the US as the war will never end and support for it will wain with the lives lost. It's not about democracy anyway, it's about oil.

Christian terrorists? Sure, Eric Rudolph made no secret he was doing his terrorists deeds (bombing gay nightclubs, and abortions clinics) in the name of Christianity, yet the media almost never called him a Christian Terrorist. This not even mentioning Tim McVeigh, or Dr. George Tiller's assassin!

As for all the Islamophobia rampant here, I'd love to hear how many of these people really think Rep. Keith Ellison, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Yusif Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), or Mohammed Ali will kill for their religion!

ReFlex76 "As for all the Islamophobia rampant here, I’d love to hear how many of these people really think Rep. Keith Ellison, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Yusif Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), or Mohammed Ali will kill for their religion!"

Who cares?

@Hollie – you said "Most Muslims I knew and know are quick to condone violence."

You know that "condone" means excuse or support, right? I think you meant "condemn" since you went on to say "Most want peace. All want justice and what is right. "

Bad time to make such a poor spelling mistake. 🙂

That, BTW is my experience as well. Nobody rushed to condemn all the Christians when the Sunday school teacher raped and killed the little girl in NorCal and left her body in a suitcase. But then, she wasn't brown.

I vaguely remember some guy named Timothy McVeigh. Among other things, it seems he was a little angry about having been ordered to execute prisoners, and from having seen some of the slaughter out in the Kuwaiti desert. Not exactly the Christian, all-American thing to do.
People talk here about how all Muslims want to kill everyone (without offering any proof, by the way), but never consider how many innocent women and children were killed by American, British and Israeli bombs. Remember cheering during "shock and awe"? Ever consider the fact that that was directed at people?
In some ways, I have a strong sense of deja vu, here. On November 7, 1938, a Polish Jew by the name of Herschel Grynszpan assassinated a German diplomat by the name of Ernst vom Rath. Herschel's parents had been expelled from Germany but not allowed into Poland, and were stuck in limbo. As a response, the Germans burned down most of the synagogues in Germany on the night of 9-10 November 1938 (which is often glossed over by commemoration of the events of November 9, 1989). Why is it so easy to imagine someone like "texas justice" very happily burning down some mosques and sending his local Muslims off to a concentration camp because one American soldier, subjected to racist taunts and seeing the results of PTSD firsthand, flipped out?

Some people just don't get it, will never get it. They just don't know to bring themselves up to date on the comments they make. Here we go: Murder has always occurred. There have always been bad people. Christians commit murder just as people in every other culture have done for centuries. But here in the now the only religion that condones murder is Islam. Murder is not condoned in Christianity even though it occurs. The Islamic gunslinger at Fort Hood shouted out "Allah Akbar" several times before murdering his innocent victims. He didn't kill for money or jealousy or anger, he killed for "Allah." When a Christian starts killing in the name of God I will come closer to understanding some of the inane remarks above. When a Christian starts gunning down people while yelling "God is Great" then I might see where you're coming from. Until then please don't try to equate murder in the name of religion to murder for personal reasons.

Most Muslims / Islamics / Jews/ Christians ? etc., don't want violence. However, there are always nutjobs that profess a religious ideology while committing acts of violence and destruction in the name of their deity.
Just look at how many "Christians" posting here that are exhibiting no Christian ethics. The "Kill them all, let God sort them out" mentality.
If you look at what Cagle was saying, the journalists are going to extreme measures to make all Muslims seem outraged by acts committed in the name of Allah.
Bottom line is that not all Muslims are peaceful, but the same goes for anyone who uses religion as their excuse for hatred.

stoccado
maybe it just slipped your mind, but timothy mcveigh and the man who murdered dr tiller, and some others who have also murdered, all did it in the name of their religion, they were all christians. this does not apply to mosty of the christian community just as the ft hood killer does not apply to all the islam community.
we do not know why people hate so much, but in these columns there is much more in the u.s. than i would like to believe.

stoccado…and those of you who share his 'values'….to say there is TOO MUCH you do not know or understand is an understatement…suffice it to say that someone, anyone who suddenly explodes in violence as NUMEROUS military veterans are and have been doing for years…..and the fact that the United States is a terribly violent, gun adoring macho worshipping society…enmeshed in wars on nearly a continuous basis, fought mostly by those in US society who are on the margins in many different ways, it is REASONABLE to say that anyone ANYONE who explodes in violence who has given warning signs of impending unreasonable behavior….would be seen not by his/her ethnicity or religion but by their actions, as mentally ill…..is entirely absent …instead you stoop, as do lots of uninformed bigots….but US social violence, whether is was those who went "Postal" or blew up women's clinics, or Federal buildings or murdered their entire families, chopped up their wives, kids, etc (AND NUMBERS of them were done by mentally broken SOLDIERS)….this is exactly what is missing when folks make sweeping biased statements about a BILLION people…..if WAR and KILLING is endemic anywhere it is HERE, in EMPIRE…where we Americans have been 'democratically killing" populations for generations….mass slaughters..and those policies which the CIA calls BLOWBACK is an reason we see RESISTENCE against US bombs everywhere we drop them.. I hope/pray for your psychological and spiritual maturation..

Geoff; thanks for confirming that (1) you are European in that your date of "9-10 1938" is a non-US ordering of month and date; also, that (2) you are a biased ignoramous.

The nutcase at Fort Hood was not under direction to go kill someone. He has been instilled by his religion to hate. "Kill the infidels" he is taught. Infidels meaning all non-muslims. The same for the nutcase in Little Rock who killed a GI that he did not know. Christianity on the other hand preaches love and forgiveness and the "Christians" who do go out and kill do not do it because of their religion. You can hold Islam responsible for the followers of it's theological doctrine, a false doctrine.

I personally feel sorry for all the peace loving Muslims. I am of a different minority, and I cringe any time any one from my group commits a crime. If it is a major crime I feel worse because I know that some
prejudiced people will use that as an excuse to condemn and possibly hurt innocent people.

Now, I have not made a scientific study of people that injure others, either the original person committing
the crime or the "copy cat" person, but when you read the history of either, they are usually malajusted
and blame others when their life doesn't work.

Most people have lost a job, a boy or girlfriend or did not get accepted in to something they really wanted and don't go out and kill someone. They try to reevaluate the loss, improve in some way and start again working for new and important goals.

Any person who criticises or make fun of any religious or ethnic group or people of gender that they don't approve of is equally responsible for their crime in my mind. People that taunt others are disgusting…usually society's losers. If they made their own life work there would be no reason–or excuse- to pick on others. People that pick on others and seem to get a 'kick" at it, to me are the lowest form of humans….they are barbarians. I would like to see them on an island coping with people just like themselves. The might then "get it' how terrible their actions are.

How many posting on this thread, and in the U.S. generally, gave much thought to Islam prior to George W. Bush being elected, and the breathtaking propaganda machine that launched into the hate campaign against Muslims the second the World Trade Center came down? Or do any remember George W. stating God told him to attack Iraq? His religion of convenience is Christianity.

The U.S. government made Islam the enemy and everybody fell right into line. That effort to make enemies certainly worked. How many Christians would put up with any country demonizing each and every Christian, regardless of their individual church beliefs and policies. (There is as wide a variance in Muslims as there are Christians.) Don't kid yourselves into thinking Christians don't fight in the name of their religion – just check out the number of chaplains casting a shadow on the U.S. military with rather forceful insistence on adherence to Christian beliefs.

I know Christians who care not at all that thousands of people are being killed, raped, maimed, and made homeless in their name. What makes them any different from the average Muslim?

Daryl

Just what are you thinking? Let me pose a simple contrast for you? Are you hearing about Kelly the Catholic, Peter the Protestant, Mike the Mormon, Jaime the Jew or Srinivas the Hindu engaging in this kind of violence on a regular basis. Also let's ask a question, why do groups like CAIR, ISNA and MPAC all have statements ready immediately after incidents like these? Could it be because they know that the attackers are siting legitimate Islamic sources to justify their actions?

Perhaps the fact that we have only just seen a raid in Detroit against an Imam preaching intolerance and hatred and violence missed your radar Daryl, but some of the rest of us out here do notice the overwhelming number of times that the words Muslim, Islam and violence end up linked together. Not as an act of intolerance but as an accurate report of world events.

Given that a series of cartoons provoked enough outrage to cause riots around the globe you would think that the protectors of the Muslim faith would take to the streets to actively denounce thee people doing violence in the name of their faith. You would think that they would actively take to the airwaves to denounce the firebrands who spew forth their calls to violent Jihad as being un-Islamic. Given that they will take the time to try and defend the right of a cab driver to not have to pick up people with Alcohol in Minneapolis you would suspect that they could get very organized and vocal to denounce Jihad violence and to actively protest it. We do not see that. We see lame apologies after the fact, mild denouncements of individual acts and no organized rebuttal whatsoever of the calls to violence occurring around the world.

It is excepted that the majority of Muslims are not terrorist, however the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim and it is not wrong to question why that is or to attempt to understand what it is in their faith that allows for so much violence to be done in its name. To deny that these are the facts is to deny the reality unfolding around you every day.

You know something Ellis? I used to disagree with about everything you wrote, but lately we have been on the same wavelength. I am wondering which of us changed. I doubt that you did and I am sure that I didn't, but somethingsure happened.

MILITANT Muslims…like right wing wacko Christians who justify killing abortion doctors in that eye for an eye kinda way…are the ones who claim that killing is okay. The ones the media love to show you doing their beheading and throat slitting. Unfortunately the majority of the people posting here don't seem to have had the pleasure of having a Muslim friend. Your loss. And by the way, there has not been any proof that the killer at Fort Hood cried out "Alla Akbar" etc…but it makes a GREAT story. He is a victim of the ill thought out war in Iraq like so many others. And no, I'm not saying what he did was right or justified in any way, and yes you could also say he's a victim of 9/11, but my guess is it was much more about insanity than religion.

To fakegeoff –
Consider the thousands of Muslims killed by what is essentially a major terrorist group: the U.S. And for what? Tell me why the U.S. attacked two sovereign countries and has now begun to slaughter even more people in Pakistan. Also, how do you actually know that each and every terrorist act is committed by a Muslim just because someone makes that announcement? How about the terrorism committed by Israel? Did it ever occur to you that some of these individual terrorist acts are carried out to protest the actions of countries that are doing unimaginable torturing and killing.

You can't wipe out every country that has been home to any terrorist. If that be true then Great Britain, Egypt, Scotland, France, and many others have got to go. Terrorism has been with us throughout history, but it can and has been handled rather effectively. Oh, and I do have a long list of terrorist groups that are definitely not Muslims.

Muslims have it in their genes. You can't trust them. They wiil do anything in the world for you and are friendly, BUT, if they THINK it is in the best interest to their religion………………BOOM……….you are gone, no matter who you are.
Religious wars have no end. I wonder why we didn't go to Ireland?

It's not the way you apparently intended this cartoon to be understood, but it does seem that "hopping on one foot and touching your nose" is about all most Muslims actually do in response to terrorist acts committed in the name of Islamic beliefs. I.E. they're hopping and touching, INSTEAD of condemning.

Of course most Muslims do not personally commit terrorist acts, but if they really oppose it regardless of who the victims are, their PR has been a little weak. We hear more about the sympathizers and excusers than any Muslim opposition to Muslim violance, and I don't think that is all due to sensationalist press.

When self-described "Christians" commit such acts while claiming their religion as an excuse, we do seem to hear about that factor in those cases as well.

Folks forget the circumstances when the United States initially sent combat troops to Vietnam. The President (Kennedy) with the support of Congress (Tip O'Neill) sought to buttress the Christians (meaning Catholics) in Vietnam at the urging of the Archbishop of Boston. By coincidence (?), the Archbishop was the one of those primarily responsible for the coverup of the rape of American children by priests. Gotta love that religion. By the way, how many American children have Muslims raped lately? The morale of this story is to avoid folks who use religion to oppress, murder, rape, etc., others. It does not seem to make much difference which religion is in question.

I see quite a large amount of people trying to connect the Ft Hood shooter to 9/11, AlQaeda, Democrats, and whatever else the conservative teabaggers and certifiably insane religous fanatics hate on any given day.

There have been many Muslims in the U.S. over the years, some of them did some wonderful work, mostly related to civil rights in the U.S. for the betterment of the U.S. as a whole. There are always some percentage demanding that everyone else conform to their standards, most of that comes from the right wing christians, but also the fanatical muslims. That small percentage that floats to the top of the gene pool and starts screaming are usually the ones to watch and beware of, because they have no positive effect on the world around them. Which is a pity. I believe that most people in this country are happy just living their lives, and ask nothing more than to be left to enjoy life as they see fit.

Many times I see the media asking questions that never make any real sense, and would have been better asked more often between 2000 and 2008 of the Bush and Cheney horror. The one thing that amazes me, is that the Obama administration has released information on a more plots of terrorism being foiled during this year than during the entire Bush administration. Mainly because, I believe, the terrorists were running the show. Now the terrorist are donning their teabags and screaming for more insurance company profit and planning violent revolt.

Someday, maybe, the U.S. will come to it's senses and focus on education and not just the following of the fearmongers. It's pretty sad and it definitely does not make the U.S. look like the most sane owner of WMDs.

Were a frustrated Christian (regardless of color or origin) to enter an American Moslem gathering and indiscriminately wound and kill Moslems while shouting “Jesus is King”, there would be universal condemnation—right? I believe most Christians condemn the actions at Ft. Hood, but why have we not heard from the followers of Islam? Are news teams suppressing Moslem community outrage? Perhaps there is no outrage? If the goal of coming to America is to become American, then each of us should feel pain when anyone attacks any group, no matter race, color, age, religion, etc. We are many peoples, but we are also one people.

If I want to find a religious nut who supports violence in the
name of love dispensed through his or her favored belief
system, all I have to do is query fifty people at random in
most any large American city. I'll find one. A nut. Ready
for Jihad, Crusade, Helter Skelter, whatever, the righteous
rumble that frees the vengeful from feelings of guilt. .

Rabid Ayatollahs make sure that their supply is in place.
Rabid Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, they assure ours. Hitler,
whose movement aped the persuasive features of religion,
assured his. It is all the same thing under the various costumes.

Desperation and ignorance drive this pathology. One place
to start in the real assessment of how serious this problem is
with our own Christian fundamentalism, its growing political
power is to read the magnificent American Fascism by Chris
Hedges. Let us all start moving toward informed understanding
of what really is going on here, what are the shared causes
of fanaticism both in the Middle East and here in the U.S.A.

word to the wise…..

everybody may just want to take breath, stop and think a little.

If we continue to trash religions muslims, christians or otherwise, pretty soon some government figure is gonna figure out "the best way to end all this is to do away with religion period"…don't sound so good ??!!
watch & see…

correction:

American Fascists, The Christian Right and the War on America
Chris Hedges

Free Press, Simon and Schuster

To Baron

There is always a threat of totalitarianism in issues like these.

One has to take care to hold to the center in this regard. Mr. Hedges
declares an abiding fear of tolerating the intolerant. Many Christians
believe that non believers are damned, and many of those who do
are prepared to translate their contempt for those not of their faith into
public policy. In the event of a an American Christian theocracy, Well, j
ust what policy might that eventually amount to? History has the answer
written over and over again, still unheeded by too many.

This is as good a reason as any for separation of church and state.
It is an essential component of our check and balance system, seen
this way. As intolerant as the belief that non Christians are damned
is, history has taught us all the dangers of doing what you say that you
fear, banning religion. Separation of church and state is our art for
balance in this regard, and it is very much under attack by the Christian
fundamentalist movement.

And, one has to weigh one's risks. Your scenario is, frankly, far fetched.
Religion in America is a third rail political topic. Freedom of belief is
as important a pillar of our culture as our proscriptions against theocracy
of any sort. That is the check, balance, and art for this incredibly difficult
aspect of civilization. Let us hope that it holds.

All of this ignores what is really going on. We have in place
as psychiatrist who has daily been submerged in the war
horrors of others who has now himself gone off the deep end.

This is what we should be looking at, its implications. They
are vast. They have nothing directly to do with religion, everything to
do with war? What are we? How, when do we snap? Today's
New York Times takes a hard look at this one.

TO STACCADO

Um, I'm pretty sure that Christians did just that…kill in the name of God…I haven't read the rest of the posts to see if somebody already called you out, but….

THE CRUSADES????????????

Wasn't that exactly what Christians were doing when they murdered men, women, and children after the capture of Jerusalem????

Understand the world's history before you make dumb comments…oh, and I'm a Christian by the way…

The Crusades were under the direction of the Pope, not God. Get your act together before making a fool of yourself.

AND ALSO FRO STACCADO….

…I may be wrong, but you sound like you are married to a Jew…Islam doesn't teach hate…it also preaches love…this isn't a religious problem, it's a cultural one!!!

If I lock you in a room and tell you that the grass is blue and the sky is green for 20 years, your gonna walk out and assume it is. That's what's taking place here, not religion. In fact, the foundations of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the same.

Um, is the direction of hated of terrorists directed by Allah???? No, it's local leaders. The pope convinced people that they were killing b/c "to kill an infidel wasn't murder, it was the path to heaven"

Really Staccado, you proved my point…that the pope convinced Christians to MURDER in the name of God…isn't that exactly what's taking place here when you speak of muslims murdering in the name of Allah??

From what I understand, the Christian Crusader got their butts whipped and killed to the last man trying to whoop the Muslims around Jerusalem. Who was killing who the most? Read your history the Crusaders lost their tails.

JOHN DOE,

Are you telling me to read my history more??? Check the first crusades and see what Christian crusaders did to ALL muslims, not just muslim warriors…and just because Muslims killed also, doesn't mean that what Christians were doing was any better…and what about what Christians did to Jews, and anybody during a little thing called THE INQUISITION…IDIOT!!!

..oh, and I teach mid-east history so you can go read a book guy…and the studying of terrorism, the middle east, and Islam has been my profession for the last 4 years…

I'll read more of your dumb comments tomorrow b/c I need to go rest to teach some more middle east studies in the morning…

The Pope directed the Crusades, not God, not the Bible. The Koran directs the Muslims. The Pope, as with other Popes, thought that it was his mission in life to Catholicize (I coined that word) the world. That was just as bad as the rag heads trying to create a world of Islamic nuts by killing everyone else. Nothing can justify either.

Read the Koran, it teaches that all who are NOT muslim MUST be killed…..
The Judeo-Cristian bible teaches that ALL people must decide for themselves what or whom to pray.
Read the books yourselves, If you do, you may understand the coming apocalyptic times coming…
Remember the answer to the question is – 42 –

Islam has a practice called abrogation. This came about because of contradictory revelations in the Koran. To make peace with these contradictions it was decided that chronologically later revelations would supersede earlier ones and take prominence. The key to understanding why this is important is to understand that the Koran is not organized in a chronological fashion, but instead is organized by book length so to truly know which Surahs came later one has to look at when they were actually revealed to Mohammad. As an example take the mandate to not kill (Surah 5:32) as killing one is like killing all of humanity. Unfortunately this was abrogated by the later revelation in Surah 9:5, also know as the verse of the Sword, which extols that Muslims should "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush." Sadly the peaceful revelations where chronologically earlier than the violent ones and have been abrogated. This is why Jihadi "extremists" cite Islamic sources to justify their actions against "the infidels". This is also why no mainstream Islamic commentator has ever said that the Jihadi "extremists" were wrong in their citations.

In the view of the "committed Muslim" the Koran is a reflection of an eternal holy book in heaven and is not subject to questioning. It is a perfect book and has been unadulterated since its revelation by the Arch Angel Gabriel to Mohammad. Unlike the bible where the many of the tales are viewed as allegories to reveal greater truths, the truly faithful Muslim views the Koran literally and as such its message are not subject to interpretation. With that in mind remember Surah 5:51, which has not been abrogated, which states "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them…" The facts are available in the source materials.

Most Muslims / Islamics / Jews/ Christians ? etc., don’t want violence. However, there are always nutjobs that profess a religious ideology while committing acts of violence and destruction in the name of their deity.
Just look at how many “Christians” posting here that are exhibiting no Christian ethics. The “Kill them all, let God sort them out” mentality.
If you look at what Cagle was saying, the journalists are going to extreme measures to make all Muslims seem outraged by acts committed in the name of Allah.
Bottom line is that not all Muslims are peaceful, but the same goes for anyone who uses religion as their excuse for hatred.

I am surprised no one recalled that George Bush told an Israeli journalist that God had told him to attack Iraq. This delusion has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents and the displacement of another 5 million people, and the slaughter goes on. The politically correct acts of terror of McVeigh and the Ft. Hood doctor and even 9/11 pale in comparison to Bush's acts of Christian terrorism. This is how most of the Middle East (The War was sold as a way to stabilize the area) sees our military aggression, and that explains why most Middle Easterners rated Bush a far worse threat than bin Laden. It's not hard to see why so many Arabs and Persians hated Bush. Obama has the chance to change all that….if he just doesn't get stuck in Afghanistan…..oi.

When you attack and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and justify it with your religion, then it is totally hypocritical to suggest that Muslim is the violent religion. The fact is that all religions, with the exception of Buddhism (which is an atheistic philosophy of compassion and understanding) have justified and been used to justify barbaric murder and war on a massive scale. Bush used his Christian religion to justify his mass murder……and when people freak out at that and strike back, usually stupidly and pointlessly, the xenophobes rise up with their anti-Muslim bigotry, totally out of proportion to the true situation. For every act, there is an equal and opposite counteraction.

And one more (no doubt very popular) point: religion, because it is based on belief, can justify anything so it lends itself to justifying the unjustifiable by rational standards. It enables the greatest evils, wars, exploitations, cruelties (the Inquisition?). And when has religion ever stopped a war? Only Buddhism, a religion without God or an afterlife, has never started a war (excepting a Buddhist-led revolt in ancient China, which led to centuries of peaceful, prosperous Buddhist rule.) Otherwise, the role of religion in history is as a means of justifying terror, with no history of preventing violence. How ironic that Christ taught love and non-violence but the Christian 'God told George Bush to invade Iraq. I find it ironic that I, an atheist and a vegan (Jesus teaches veganism in the Essene Gospel) and a pacifist actually follow Christ's teachings, altho I totally reject all the bullshit about his divinity and resurrection blah bla blah.
No person who follows his teachings, or Buddhas, would go to war or for that matter oppose healthcare for all. Christ was pretty much a peacenik commie. The ironies are excruciating. It makes a good argument for dumping religion totally and getting with humanity.

Cagle finally scores a homerun cartoon.
Geoff is brilliant and humiliates his critics with wit and knowledge.
Glenda is spot on……awesome insight!

Rightwing loonies………….illiterate, rude, living in an alternate universe of ignorance, fear, denail and projection.
Rave on, lunatics…………….

Dale: I was educated at a small northeast liberal arts college that was founded as a theological seminary for the Universalist religion. Universalism was later united with the Unitarians to form the secular, liberal wing of Protestantism. It focused on the life of Jesus, rather than the resurrection. The general theme was that what was good and humane in a person passed on into a kind of universal collective consciousness.

Outside of the Book of Revelation, the words of Jesus in the New Testament could be considered more radical than even our Declaration of Independence as a basis for liberal thought. Peacenik commie may be a bit too course and controversial, but he certainly was a man in search of peace and equality for all people as a solution for the world's problems. I have often thought that a new religion, perhaps called Jesusism that also incorporates the teachings of Buddha (or Sidhartha,) Confucius, Gandhi and other peace loving teachers would be an interesting concept.

The fact is, I believe there were many devout folks dedicated to the betterment of mankind who should be emulated today rather than the present warrior brand who may be more sexy and marketable, but who only lead to hate, murder and worse fates…

I failed to mention a rather powerful organization, established in the name of Christianity by a Christian, that is totally supported by the U.S. government and has been employed with no oversight whatsoever, both at home and in the Middle East. This organization is guilty of documented crimes against humanity and continues as the dominant force in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This group is militant, well armed, well funded, and encouraged by their leader to kill Muslims.

I am speaking of Blackwater/Xe. A sad testament to the attitude and policies of U.S. government and possibly the most powerful group of mercenaries the world has ever seen.

No one posting would deny that violence in the name of religion has occurred repeatedly throughout the history of organized religion. This video counters a take on Muhammad expressed by professors, who are serious students of Islam, in that it expresses the violent aspects and interpretations only. Witness the vengeance of the Old Testament God of the Bible. Muhammad is also known to have surrounded himself with all manner of individuals from various religions, including Jews, serving as advisors, and to have counseled moderation in fighting except in self-defense.

However, we are discussing today's interpretation of these religions and the expression of same. Both religions have produced violent interpretations and actions based on those interpretations. My assessment of the situation today, is that the U.S. has exacted far more death and destruction in the name of Christianity, in spite of actual control of resources and power as a motive, than radical Islamists have planned for in their wildest of dreams.

Jillian – nicely stated. I did, in fact, cringe when I heard this man's name. Interesting that no religion was attached to any of the most recent killings committed the last couple of weeks by American citizens, equally heinous. The Fort Hood incident was carried out also, by an American citizen, born and raised here, and of late, totally submerged in the results of violence and human trauma. I have a friend who committed suicide after only two years of counseling traumatized citizens.

U.S. citizens and military are suffering for the crimes of the government, and it is taking a toll that is becoming much more apparent.

It just saddens me that a lot of people make generalizations. A lot of the people ranting here don't even know muslim people in their lives and pretend to think for them. That's just sick. So they make a generalizing statement that is supposed to hold truth based on the actions of people they don't know? So a few is supposed to represent the whole? And this is democratic….huh. But hey. I was one of those people who didn't know. And when you don't know that fuels fear. Until I met a fashionable and trendy girl studies for a nursing degree, who still goes to lunch with her friends, speaks her own mind, cracks her own jokes and is true to who she is. And she still practices Islam and her family's from Iraq.

So before you make your maind about a "scary" whole. Just get out of the house people. You are a better judge than the unknowing generalization.

(and for haters that will want to hate about my name I'm Chicana. Which means my family was in the US waaaayy before it was actually part of the US)

Dale,

That is your (and liberals as a whole) basic problem. Ignorance.
You do not know about Buddhism and you are so self righteous about your knowledge of Buddhism and its history. Anyway I am sure you will do your research now and I hope in great detail and learn about Buddhism.
And then there are other religions who have never waged wars, but have been time and again been harassed and ravaged by these Muslims.
Again, do not misunderstand me, I am not against Muslims. I am against this violence by Muslims over centuries.
For your kind information, you do not know about Zoroastrian religion. Check out history of this religion and how they resolved it.
Give me one example of where Hindus have attacked any other religion, other than of course in India in the name of Hinduism. Even there the Hindus have actually gotten fed up of all the atrocities that they have been put through in the name of Political Correctness.
Do you know about Jainism? Check out what they have gone through over ages.
Do you know about Sikhism? Check out their history.
You have a lot to learn Dale. Just because you shout out loud doesn't mean that you are right all the time.
Remember, none of these religions justify bloodshed, but when others start eliminating because you are not one of them, then they are left with no choice.
You my friend are safe here, that's why you have a high voice and self righteousness.
Just do one thing, go to Iran or Iraq or Palestine or Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Say you are a Christian or a Hindu or a Sikh or any other religion of your liking.
Then see the change in attitude.
I know you will come back claiming you have done it all.
I will just ask you one thing. You can cheat me or everybody here all the time. But can you hide your own truth from yourself? Every time you lie to us, you know the truth.
So who do you think you are cheating? Us or Yourself?
Read every comment of yours, then please let me know how truthful you have been with yourself.
I doubt if you have the courage to face the truth. Because if you had the courage to face the truth, we would not be having this debate. That is the bitter truth my friend. We have accepted it, you have not.
And as far as religion goes, why is that irrespective of all the diverse and geographically far locations where Civilization spawned, religion is common?
Do you mean to say that all the people who developed religion knew each other?
If that was the case then why are some events common amongst all the religions?
Again, questioning religion is good, but discarding it without explaining properly is not good.
Have you really researched a lot of things that you tend to refute?
You have the freedom, but do not forget, along with freedom comes the responsibility to protect it.
And this is where you fail. You fail to take responsibility for your freedom.
And you want to blame your failure on others who are fighting to preserve their freedom.
You are ready to give away your freedom to the government in the hope that they will understand everything you want.
And you are forcing others to give up their freedom.
Why Dale? You do what you want. You are free to do it.
But do not force others.
You are debating for the freedom of Muslim rights. Good very good. I support it.
But you are on the other hand forcing others to do what they do not want to do.
Why?
What right have you got to call them illiterates, or lunatics.
I just proved to you how much illiterate you are. What will you say about that?
And if you have any questions the do one thing,
Once again, read my this comment, line by line, understand it.
Research it.
Question yourself , if your response is truthful. Check if you yourself believe in your response.
Then if you are 100% sure of the correctness of your response, type it and submit it.

Tim, the religion you speak of already has a name. It is called Humanism, which believes that Man is God and all the rest is just fairy tales. You should talk to Geoff about that. He believes that He is God.

i'm not one to go off on a rant in ANY direction. just let me get it out short and sweet. my question to any of the moslem community who professes shame and sorrow over ANY terror or sicko attack is just this: why do we not hear of a fatwa against the perpetrators?

To know what kind of offensive militancy is preaced by Saudi-arabian state sponsored mosques, watch the british Channel Four Dispatchers brilliant investgative documentaries: Undercover Mosque and Undercover Mosque – the Return. Google video links are available. We have to see the reality right in the face, the islamic militants are backed by wealthy governments of Iran, Saudi-arabia, Gulf states and more. As we speak the Iranian Islamic Revolutioanry Gaurd is establishing a 2000 square metre complex of a Grand Mosque, so-called Islamic Cultural Center, and a language center for the Iranian Islamic diplomat corps…giving access to diplomats, i.e. intelligence and terrorism operatives. The Saudi state is at the same time establishing a similar Grand Mosque – the same has already happend in Berlin, London and other major European metropoles. It is a new wave of military-intelligence offensive against our liberal democracies. As a refugee from Iran to Denmark, I have been a witness. Listen to us witnesses of the new Islamic Holocaust, and do not let Islamic preachers deny or encourage another Holocaust, while their militant operatives shoot our civilians and military personnel. Our hearts are with the American military personnel and their families at Fort Hood and dear cartoonists, it maybe time to swithc from mourning cartoons to cartoons inspiring to defence of our liberal democracies. Launching USS New York, constructed of salvaged Twin Tower steel was such an inspiration: we will never forget and we will make battle ships out of our sarrow!

Extremists of any bent are dangerous. Extreme fundamentalist Christians are just as dangerous as extreme fundamentalist Muslims. The same could be said of extreme fundamentalists in any religion, including Humanists. Anyone who is willing to kill others in the name of their religion (and not just to defend themselves or their loved ones from the extremists of another religion) is an extremist. It is just that there are a lot more extreme fundamentalist Muslims out there than of any other persuasion, so they are quite apparent.

Muslims that live as minorities mixed in with non-believers are generally not extreme fundamentalists, but it only takes a small shove (or for them to become the majority) to put them in that position. If you don't believe me, look at what has been happening in Dearborn, Michigan, where Muslim political leaders have imposed Muslim rules on the community. Unlike the holy books of other religions, the Quran itself justifies killing infidels. It isn't just their leaders.

Cruizn – The U.S. is also being invaded by gangs from Central and South America that have taken over small towns and sections of bigger cities. They are running drugs with established routes, as between Atlanta and Birmingham, committing crimes and murders, including beheadings of rivals. Something could actually be done about these changes within the U.S. if the federal government would cooperate with local governments in ridding the U.S. of these individuals, and would respond when established citizens complain or express serious concern over Muslim activities within communities. It would appear, however, that the federal government is far more concerned with occupying the Middle East than they are looking after the health of their own country.

Pedram – Sad that a war machine was made from the remains of the World Trade Center. Rather symbolic of today's attitudes. That material could have been put to a more constructive use. Why not a memorial?

Glenda – "- The U.S. is also being invaded by gangs from Central and South America"

When the "gangs" start killing American servicemen and flying into towers they will get the notice that you desire.

Dale, the tower of marxist babble, is back again! He suffers from the Obumblesynddrome. Covering one lie with another lie. Ultimately, he has begun to believe his own prevarications and lunatic theories. He overdoses on broccoli and tofu. He desperately needs psychiatric care similar to that of the Ft. Hood terrorist. Dale worships Geoffchen, and Geoffchen worships Dale. It's a mutual admiration society of two desperate social misfits, whom life has passed by without a nod of recognition. It's impossible to respond logically to their incoherent rants. Better they are igonored and allowed to massage one another's whatever………………………………

fakegeoff………I have been a student of Buddhism for over 50 years; I am very close to Jainism. I speak not from theory but from practice. I practice understanding, compassion, and love. You challenge me for my "ignorance" but you offer no facts except those that contradict your own position (as with the Hindus).

I find it ironic that the most ignorant people call the best educated ignorant, the more educated, the more ignorant. This reminds me of Pol Pot, who searched out and killed people who had glasses and/or were literate.

And what is this crap about cheating you? Where do you get these crazy ideas? As a former teacher of the learning disabled, I dectect an unmistakable inability to comprehend what you read. You are so full of bullshit……I cannot even address most of the nonsense you have unraveled. I conclude with a quote from the World Vegetarian Congress:

ZOROASTRIANISM
DASTUR KHURSHED. D. DABU, M.A .
(F.T.S. High Priest Wadiaj AtashBeheram Bombay)

(1) According to the tenets of Zoroastrianism, a corpse is untouchable. It defiles men and materials. It is a sin to bring it near fire – much worse to cook any corrupt flesh.

(2) Zoroaster enjoined care of animals for various reasons :

Compassion to dumb animals,

Their great value in agriculture,

Their contribution to human comfort and diet (milk products, etc.)

Their great service as watch-dogs or horses required by soldiers and travellers.
(3) The Sacred Hymna (Gathas) declare it a sin to annoy or persecute animals even for games.

(4) It is pointed out that the Archangel Beheman (Bahman), who presides over the entire animal kingdom is highly displeased when men ill-treat animals. He is the Lord of Heaven, and naturally those who are cruel to dumb animals would be debarred from entry into that realm.

(5) It is pointed out that God created vegetables and water for men's consumption.

(6) There is a narrative of a sacred ritual meant to propitiate angels but through some oversight defiling animals flesh had become mixed with it. The holy Saint saw demons attracted to the scene as result of such neglect.

(7) All offerings to God have to be absolutely clean and pure. Animal sacrifices are prohibited by Zoroaster

From Zoroaster I take clarification of my vegan lifestyle, minus the God mumbo jumbo. I practice the teaching–that is what counts. Again, sir fakegeoff (you are no geoff for sure), you are as wrong as you can be. Wrong and arrogant—a toxic brew.

glenda…..your posts make my day. keep it up.

People forget that it wasn't being a muslim that caused him to start shooting. In our society, muslims are punching bags for insecure americans; they are this decade's convenient scapegoats.
Our military is at an extremely high stress level, it's a wonder this stuff doesn't happen more often; there's plenty of things going on that tell us the conditions are ripe for soldiers of ALL stripes to snap. This should be a warning.

Jillian – I take it that you are a rabidly radical left wing atheist Christian-hating muslim-loving piece of unadulterated york pudding.

Stoccado –
It appears you are uninformed as to the level of crime in the U.S. Extreme levels of destruction do tend to overshadow lower levels of ongoing, rather than sporadic, violence. Just as some diseases are rather more violent than others and therefore receive more attention in spite of their short life-span, the quiet viruses, for instance, continue on, spreading like a leaf fire, un-noticed for many years, taking more lives year after year.

The recent killings in Orlando are the sudden, attention getting type crimes. The brutal teenage beatings, stabbings, and shootings, the gang killings, death from imported drugs, scattered killings, brutalizings, and suicides among military personnel, etc., are the ongoing, steady violence that does far more to tear down the U.S. than the loss of those in the Trade Center. Revenge was sweet for all those affected by that event. There appears to be no cure or revenge, however, for that simmering violence that will ultimately take far more lives that those lost in New York.

Cultural death is also trauma, and can ultimately lead to violence. Muslims reshaping a community to their liking can possibly lead to violence whether or not those Muslims have violence in mind.

Stoccado –
I don't think you are contributing to the discussion. You are trying too hard to disrupt it with the obssession to prove the obvious, but with your own rabid take on it, not to mention insults. No one is excusing murder.

If you think for one minute most of us trust that farce titled "homeland security" then you have not kept up with their crimes and misdemeanors and omission. "Proving" that the shooter at Fort Hood is connected to Al Qaeda, a literal ragtag group of about 100, with no real leader, and that was admitted by the CIA to be a construct, and that has been blamed for even robberies at the local ice creamery means absolutely nothing in your efforts to condemn an entire people and their religion.

USS New York is the best memorial for the victims of 9/11 attacks on World Trade Center and the liberal democracies of the World. It reflects, what the vicitms would have done, if they knew they were about to be attacked by military forces of fascists. Negotiations with the enemy have always been a necessary part of national defence. But first of all you should recognize who's the enemy: some enemies are the Islamic states like Iran, Saudi-arabia and alike are enemies as their domestic allies, the likes of David Duke, former neonazi of Louisiana, former Grand Wizard of Ku-Klux-Klan, who was the official key note speaker at president Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference in 2006. Their alliance is not a discussion-club, these are highly violent alliances. I have to underline: this is fact not another theory, go check it out yourself before accepting or rejecting it. Denying it is as irrational as denying the Holocaust of WW II. You would need USS New York as much as you would need peace-efforts when dealing with aggressive, militant totalitarian states like the Islamic Iran, the Islamic Saudi-arabia and an Islamic, atomic Pakistan, whose Military Intelligence created and steers Taliban against our troops and the civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Be self-criticizing as liberal democratic freethinkers, but be not self-destructive, be not submissive to Islam, Nazism, Chinese communism nor to goalless, inhumane militaristism. Stand firm on defence of liberal democracy and freedom of speech. Dr Major Nidal Malik Hassan's ideology will not have left room for contructive dialogue, if not pushed by Fort Hood's finest men and women and USS New York's finest sailors! I am a witness, we iranians failed to recognize mullahs as enemies and we lost and our country became a safe heaven for international terrorism and bigotry. Do not do the same mistake elsewhere, please. It would be outright irresponsible.

Glenda – You are totally beyond repair, Glenda. You are obsessed with labels. You have a one track mind. Your liberal temperament does not allow for killers to be held culpable if they are Islamic. You don't want killers to be labeled but then you do it yourself when you defend them because they have some special place for them in your heart. You have a personal connection to the terrorists it appears. You will sell out your self respect to keep from offending these killers.

To address your concern. When someone doesn't get the point you repeat it. I've found that you are incapable of getting the point. Your mental block will please your handlers. You are limited in scope and shy on smarts. You say that you don't think that I am contributing to the discussion but what have you contributed? I'm tired of prima donnas such as yourself who just simply can't keep up with the discussion and then blame it on others. I have other things to do today than keeping this tripe going.

Why is it that Muslims have to defend their faith, when others have done acts of terror and not once did their religion come into play. Since 911 the media has looked for ways to hang Islam.

Most Muslims I knew and know are quick to condone violence. Most want peace. All want justice and what is right. When will the media finally see that?

@holie

the reason is because when others commit crimes they don't say, "I did it for christianity" or "jesus is great", it's always "allah akbar" and "kill the infidels" and they always talk about the holy war and the islamist ways and how the west is evil, Does that answer your question?

and yes most muslims i know too condone violence, but not everyone shares the same idea of what is right and wrong, take a look at middle eastern culture for example and how openly they oppress women a lot of them think it is normal and is correct, but they don't consider it oppressing it's just their way, so to them that is right

just like extremist truly believe that killing infidels is fine and is a pathway to heaven

Jimmy – Hollie meant to say condemn violence.

There is violence everywhere today. I mentioned Blackwater in an earlier post. They kill as many Muslims as they possibly can, and the U.S. does condone torture and much of it is horrific. I seriously doubt that any member of Blackwater yells Jesus is King before murdering women and children or whoever, but they are backed by a so-called Christian organization. Radical Islam is only one aspect of that violence.

Folks, As a Muslim, let me deeply apologize for the behavior of the Muslim shooter at Fort Hood. CLEARLY, there has never been any school or office shootings, or Oklahoma City bombings or ANY violent behavior towards innocent people by Catholics or any other religious factions. Indeed, I am shocked that the Muslim religion has not yet been banned because obviously its teachings encourage shootings and killing of innocent people. Yes, THAT must be it!! I must have read an older version of the Khoraan — but you know how the "rules" are up for change based on new publications and interpretations. Of course if this guy had been Catholic or some other religion, he would have been completely rational and sane, and would have seeked help from his non-Muslim friends. GOT IT!!

I am impressed by your knowledge about Zoroastrianism,
but you completely ignored that fact that they had to leave their motherland centuries ago because of Muslim atrocities.
FYI… they migrated from Persia, present day Iran because of monstrous acts of these Muslims trying to convert them to Muslims.

Can I know why in your display of knowledge you ignored this fact? Either you didn't know about it or you tried to Hide it.

Oh and as far as Buddhism goes, it also teaches you to be free from hatred, which I do not see from a person practicing Buddhism for 50 years.
I think that's the difference between somebody who talks practice and somebody who really practices.

"And what is this crap about cheating you? Where do you get these crazy ideas? As a former teacher of the learning disabled, I dectect an unmistakable inability to comprehend what you read. You are so full of bullshit……I cannot even address most of the nonsense you have unraveled."

Here it shows that you do not understand the practice of Buddhism, because this was the most famous practice of Buddha.
YOU CAN CHEAT OR LIE TO EVERYBODY, BUT YOU CANNOT CHEAT OR LIE YOURSELF.
That is God, He resides in you. It is the Quest of this Truth that all Buddha gave up everything for.

You will not know, because you do not know where you stand.

If you say you practice Buddhism, but are an atheist because Buddhism has no god, then you are cheating yourself.

Because Your Inner Self is God in Buddhism. God resides in You Dale. Hence, they say God is everywhere, because where you are God is inside you.
The religion talks about Love and respect for all living beings.
Sorry Dale, You do not know Buddhism.

You wasted 50 years of your life because you could not understand the simple truth preached by Buddhism and Buddha.

Also I doubt if you were a former teacher of learning disabled. And if you were, I feel sorry for your students. I can clearly see your lack of patience.

Just claiming you are doing this, or you are doing that, does not mean, that others cannot see through your lies. 🙂
That is old method of teaching. Today, its your actions that count towards your teaching and preaching 🙂
I you cannot walk what you teach, Sorry Dale, we cannot believe you.

As I said, you did not read your comment and, did not verify, if you are sure of what you are writing.

Sorry Dale, you failed. I pray, that you acquire the true knowledge that you have not yet acquired.

Good Luck.

fakegeoff: "What right have you got to call them illiterates, or lunatics." Exactly. Had a look in the mirror, lately?
And Cruizn: I think you have me confused with Cal.

Hey, fakegeoff: just wondering: have you ever heard of something called the "Crusades"? Followed the history of the Middle East since, oh… the days of Alexander the Great? Subjected to one invasion after another, by "dirty barbarian" crusaders who killed everyone in J'salem after it was sacked (Christian, Muslim and Jew), and who were despised by the Arabs for it. We're talking of a comparison between dirty, plague-filled European cities and places like Granada, in Spain, with gardens and working sewage systems, centres of learning, and religious tolerance not found elsewhere: some of the greatest Talmudic scholars were able to live and work in peace in Egypt, Arabic Spain, Baghdad… but not in Europe at the time.
Then there was a division under the Great Powers as a result of Sykes-Picot, and everything (oil especially) given to the French and the British, and since then a whole lot of corrupt regimes propped up in the interest of international oil companies. Could be a whole lot of reasons for some resentment, there, that extremists are more than willing to exploit.
I also noticed you didn't point out that Hinduism is vaguely racist, what with the caste system and all. But then, given your silence about Sassanid persecution of Christians and Manicheans, why should that come as no surprise? Not to mention Alexander.
But overall, the Abassids were a lot less "attrocious" than, say, the Crusaders, Isabella of Spain, the Inquisition, etc., so… about that mirror I asked about in my last post…?

No compelling reasons for profiling Muslims, huh? Let's take a look back, shall we?

1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11..On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. 2004 – Spain Railway bombings were done by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
15. 2005 London Railway bombings were done by:
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
16. 2006 plot to blowup airliners leaving London for US destinations. Who has been implicated?
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
17. 2009 Muslim U.S. Army Major kills 13 U.S. Army soldiers at Ft. Hood, TX, injuring 32

Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify Muslim male profiling, do you?

Geoff,

Again your ignorance shows.

What the world thinks as racist now, was not, what it was meant to be.

It was a method for everybody in the ancient times to have job security and a method to ensure the knowledge of the trade is passed on from generation to generation.

In those ages in India, the people of each caste were assigned a task and it was their responsibility to keep the trade alive from generation to generation.

If you have time read a bit deeper and you will find that there are some great stories and mythology of inter-caste marriages in Ancient India.

It became racist under the Muslim regimes of the Tughlags and the Moghuls and has continued since.

But then you have been educated to work with only somebody Else's knowledge.
You will never be able to find all those things.

It requires research, dedication and understanding.

Sorry Geoff, I do not see that in you.
I have only seen you commenting without understanding real issues of the locals.
Hence, I never expect, research, Logic and understanding from you.

Its not your fault.
Its not their fault either.
You have been trained to be Biased, and because the poor Indians were slaves, they have been trained to keep quiet. When they cannot bear it beyond a point, they fight.

Oh and dont just look up on the internet.
A Lot of Hindu/Sanskrit books that have been translated have wrong meanings.
Go to India and look up in the ancient books in the local libraries.
Spend some time there.
There is a lot for you to learn.
It is there you will see the real meaning of Lateral thinking.
It is not a coincidence that all the peaceful religions in the world have been born in India.
No coincidence that Gandhi was born there. 🙂
It will take you time dude. You have a lot to learn too. 🙂

Escritor de Tejas: you missed the guys who shot Yitzhak Rabin, JFK and Reagan, and caused The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, built the "death camps" at Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.; plus all the Vietcong. Plus, it's a well-known fact: everyone who ever causes an accident on the road is a Muslim. It's true. They also put lead in our gasoline just to kill our children.
In other words: you can play with statistics all you want. The point some people have been trying to make above is that it ain't necessarily so. Otherwise: what would you suggest, that all "Muslim males" start wearing green crescent moon armbands?

forgot to add Geoff, the Britisher's divide and rule policy just aggravated the strained caste relations in India. So I expect you to stop believing everything that the Britishers say.

Least you forget, the current Palestine Issue has been a creation of the British.
Remember the promise to the Muslims in WWII?
And then creating Israel instead?

Hope that sparks some acceptance of truth into you.

fakegeoff: that's why I mentioned Sykes-Picot, yes. Could have also cited the Balfour agreement.
And you will remember that the British did fight against the Jewish "terrorists" like Menahim Begin and the "Stern Gang," so it isn't like it was some kind of easy hand-over.
But I really don't know what kind of point you think you're trying to make.

wow, look ma!, its the three stooges. shouldn't she be caned for appearing in public in the company of non-family members? Or where is her burka?

The point I am trying to make is that, what the world believes in general about progress and freedom, the Orthodox Muslim world is not ready to accept. That's very unfortunate.
You will find 99% of the Orthodox Christians against a lot of things, they will rant and rave, but they will still give you the freedom to pursue what you want to.
This because they believe that everybody will get justice for their deeds at the time of Armageddon and they do not have the right to do justice.
Of course there will be exceptions and hence I said 99% and not 100%.
Similar is the case with the rest of the religions, including atheists (I call it religion because it is also a belief and like the believers do not know if God exists, the Atheists do not know if he does not exist.)
But all of them believe in freedom and individual responsibility.
Everybody will reap the fruit of his actions.
Unfortunately again this is not the case in Islam.
I will not be too radical and say 99% but I can definitely say 60%-40% divide for the Good Muslim-Bad Muslim ratio.
And more unfortunate is the case that they revert to Violence and not peaceful negotiations to solve problems.
This is a huge number. Not because they are 40% but because the 60% do not stand up against them and try to stop them.
This can be either because of fear or because of partial belief, I don't know and I will not judge.
But I will also blame the 60% because, they do not want to take responsibility for world peace.
Unlike most of the Christians, who will rant and rave, but will control their actions and take the right path, Muslims do not do so. And this has been happening now for too long to bear.
Look at it like this.
When a non-muslim does something against Islam – eg:- Cartoon of Mohamed, do you remember the reaction?
All the Muslims, good and bad were together to condemn it.
But when it came to condemning the wrongs against other religions by Muslims, there are only a few standing up against it.
I want this to change.
I want everybody here against Muslims or not, to be fair and just.
The reason I am not having a view about the comments against Muslims is because all those comments are just a current wave of anger and frustration.
Once they write it down and press submit, the anger and frustration will recede.
They will become normal. (Again this is for 99% of them.)
But those who are opposing this frustration, are not angry and frustrated.
They are biased.
They are not seeing facts from both sides of the prism.
I am just trying to make them see the other side of the reality.
I hope I have been able to explain my view the way you will understand.

While I firmly believe that humans must have something in their life that is worth defending to the death, I look forward to the day when no one considers their own or anyone's religion worthy of such sacrafice.

Perhaps one day people will study ancient religions the way we study Greek or Roman or Norse mythology, finding it sometimes amusing, sometimes poetic, but none of it believable.

If you must look for God, religion is the last place you should be looking.

I forgot to give example of Muslims against other religion.
How many Good Muslims really came out and condemned the Bali bombings or the London attacks or the Madrid Train bombings, etc.
I am not considering Palestine/Israel or Iraq or Afghanistan as I know it will lead to dirty Politics talk again.
But this is something which was really troubling.

And if you meant to ask what I meant by this "Hope that sparks some acceptance of truth into you."
Then all I meant was, you are not ready to see the other side of the prism.
You just see one side of it and start making judgments.
or in other words, you make judgments without understanding the whole truth.

"I hope I have been able to explain my view the way you will understand."
Not really. As for "Good Muslims": I've been attacking bias in media for ages. Even if there were a whole lot of priminent Muslims speaking out, do you think that Fox, etc., would say anything about it? Or insist that that still wasn't enough, that they should do more? That's the whole point of the cartoon above, which suggests to me that you yourself are "not ready to see the other side of the prism" (which I don't understand: a prism is triangular in cross-section, so there are 3 sides…?).
In Germany people complain that Turks and Vietnamese aren't integrating enough into German society. On the one hand, no one ever seems to complain that Chinese in San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto, etc., aren't integrated enough: their "Chinatowns" are tourist attractions. On the other, Jews had converted to Christianity, joined and served in the German military, but still weren't "German" enough to the Nazis: you have to meet people halfway and not keep moving the goalposts everytime they make some progress.
So I'm sure a lot of Muslims could turn to you and ask why more prominent Christians don't come out and protest the bombing of women and children during the "shock & awe" phase of the Iraq war (it was censored out of the US news; even CNN had to show reality to the rest of the world in its "International" version, though); continuing support for corrupt regimes in places like Saudi Arabia and Dubai and Egypt (and before that the Shah of Iran and Musharef in Pakistan); turning a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinians, etc. Or even playing variations on what Kipling called the "Great Game" in Afghanistan for the past 150 or so years and using Afghanis as pawns.
Why have so many Christians been silent on these issues?

Just another vet: "If you must look for God, religion is the last place you should be looking."
In a way, yes. I think Joseph Campbell (or was it Freud?) wrote something about how organised religions is intended to keep man separate from divinity; leave that for the experts (shamans and the like; otherwise all those myths told what happens: people burned up from getting too close). So the Catholic mass was performed in Latin, even though few churchgoers understood, etc.
And if you remember, Jesus said "I am the way;" he didn't say "read it all in the Bible and pray to me to be your saviour."
There's also John Lennon's line about "above us only sky," which I always think about when I hear Springsteen's "Empty Sky."
Interesting point.

Geoff,
"Even if there were a whole lot of priminent Muslims speaking out, do you think that Fox, etc., would say anything about it?"
Why do you want Fox to do it? Do you not see it enough in the other news media? Lets see, CNN, MSNBC, etc all do as you wish. So if one does not, what is the problem? This news media focuses on showing something that the other media probably missed.
Your problem should not be what Fox is doing. Your problem should be, how you are analyzing?
Are you considering the views of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Fox, etc. Analyze them all by finding the common points and not so common points?
Are you making sure all the sources provided by these media is authentic or not?
Are you verifying the content?
Have you done it Geoff? This Geoff is called Individual Responsibility.

"That’s the whole point of the cartoon above, which suggests to me that you yourself are “not ready to see the other side of the prism” (which I don’t understand: a prism is triangular in cross-section, so there are 3 sides…?)."
That's what I mean by prism.
There will always be views for and against.
That makes it 2 sides.
The Third side is the Truth, which you have to find using these views as your source.
That's what is meant by the other side of the prism. Because nobody talks about it.
Everybody talk about their own view and again 99.999% of the times it is either for or against.
I am sorry, I assumed that you would understand it.
My mistake. I over estimated you.

"In Germany people complain that Turks and Vietnamese aren’t integrating enough into German society."
Why complain?
It is their Choice.
Why do you want to force them?
If you force them then how do you claim to protect their freedom?

"On the one hand, no one ever seems to complain that Chinese in San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto, etc., aren’t integrated enough: their “Chinatowns” are tourist attractions."
Again the same above Questions apply here.

"So I’m sure a lot of Muslims could turn to you and ask why more prominent Christians don’t come out and protest the bombing of women and children during the “shock & awe” phase of the Iraq war"
Again they did, but the media chose to not highlight them.
Why do I get the impression that you depend too much on TV and media to make your decisions?

"continuing support for corrupt regimes in places like Saudi Arabia and Dubai and Egypt (and before that the Shah of Iran and Musharef in Pakistan); "

Remember, there are a lot many local people as well who support these regimes.
Geoff, you do not know the entire truth about the locals.
I will give you an example.
I was in the UK when we attacked Iraq. I was in a net cafe, the owner of which was a good muslim from somalia.
I was against the attack.
This fellow, introduced me to a group of Iraqis who fled Iraq to go away from Saddam.
I was discussing with them how this war was wrong and how Oil was the main motto.
One of the Iraq's removed his shirt and showed me his back.
I saw deep cuts in there, all burnt.
I could clearly see that the muscle and skin in those cuts would never grow again naturally.
He said, "Go ahead put your finger in there" and I did.
A chill ran down my spine. 1/2 my finger went in there. A fear of pain developed in me.
I could feel how it must have hurt when such a deep cut was created.
He said Saddam's men did it because he participated in a protest. He was in Jail for 3 years before he was let out.
I had no argument.
He said, Saddam is evil, and everybody in Iraq believes so.
I had no argument to that either.
I was turned from a anti-war to a pro-war in 5 minutes.
This is a real event that happened to me.
I was expecting Iraqi people to really support this war and lead to a peaceful end to it.
But what really happened?
Later, Iraqi people rose against US intrusion. and I did not understand why.
This, not because I didn't want to know.
But, because I did not analyze fully. I saw one side of it, and believed it completely.
It was my fault.
And that is the reason, I now am not against the war, and not supporting the extended stay there.

"turning a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinians, etc"

Nobody has turned a blind eye to them Geoff. The Palestinians are not helping themselves by resorting to blind violence.
First they need to stop this bloodshed.
Once the bloodshed stops, everyone (Palestinians and Israelis) will become free to think of ideas to resolve this issue.
But is this happening?
You are highlighting one side of the issue that Palestinians are suffering.
Again the other side of it is, All that region belonged to the Jews in ancient times.
Later, the Jews were driven away from that region, by the Muslims.
For centuries, the Jews lived all around the world, without a land, that could be called their country.
Then WWII happened and it was decided that Israel would be created.
So who is to be blamed?
The Jews who trusted the world leaders, who promised to give them a country of their own?
The Palestinians, who were betrayed by false promises of the world leaders?
Or the world leaders, and that includes all of Europe too Geoff, who lied to the Palestinians, dumped the Jews in Israel and now, do not want to protect either of them.
Make a decision Geoff.

"Why have so many Christians been silent on these issues?"

Christians are not silent geoff. A lot of them have moved into these troubled areas and are doing some of the greatest works for humanity.

Its you and me, who are sitting in front of our computers and waging a war of words, rather than go there and do something that would either resolve the issue or reduce the suffering of whatever few humans that we can.
And the fact is, none of us can claim to know the 100% facts.
Neither can the source of information, from where we learnt all this, claim that it has documented the whole truth.
Every article that has been written, has been written based on the writers assumption, or his version of the truth. Nobody can claim that his version is the ultimate truth.
But are we ready, that the truth that we believe in can be wrong?

You make it look like the media is trying to make muslims jump up and down to condemn this, like it's some sort of foregone conclusion. You will have trouble finding a lot of condemnation. A jerk started a facebook group to pray for this jihadist. A mohammedan at the Killeen muslim center refused to condemn it.
The media is not looking for condemnation. They are falling all over themselves to prove it wasn't islam. Even Geraldo, who relates his poor me "let it not be puerto-ricans" when a crime was committed in his neighborhood. 1 Difference Geraldo–being Puerto Rican does not teach Puerto Ricans to terrorize non believers where they find them.
the media has every reason why this loser is just a loser. His business card said SoA which means Soldier of Allah. He yelled "Allahu Akbar" allegedly as he began his attack. He tried to contact al qaeda via email. Any questions? The guy is a jihadist. And you won't get a heck of a lot of condemnation from the many followers of the "religion of peace."

So it's common knowledge that we have some Christian bozoes who kill abortion doctors, bomb abortion clinics, and perform other atrocities. The difference between Christianity and Islam is that generally Christian leaders including the pope and protestant leaders condemn and distance themselves from such acts.

And Glen, the Boston Archbishop in JFK's time was not the same Archbishop who you refer to.

Stoccado,

So what message do you have for the families of all the British soldiers killed in Northern Ireland, or the families of all the civilians killed in Northern Ireland. Or the families of the two Australian tourists killed in the Netherlands by the IRA when mistaken for British soldiers?

Or the families of McVeigh's victims? Or the families of Aum Shinriko's victims? Or the families of Andreas Baader's victims? Do you even know who the last two are?

It's all because Islam is a violent religion, huh? Suggest you do some actual scholarship and learn what the fuck you're talking about, you wanker.

Fakegeoff: "Lets see, CNN, MSNBC, etc all do as you wish." No. I no longer live in the US so I am not bombarded with their distortions daily. I did experience the strong discord, first-hand, of the difference between what the US media was showing of the invasion of Iraq and what was being shown by international sources by monitoring Canadian, British, German, and other media. Otherwise I analyse themes, memes, tropes within discourse: the form (a la Marshall McLuhan) of the message, rather than the content. I still only look at the NYTimes for editorials to get a grasp of what some Americans are thinking, but get my news from elsewhere (Globe and Mail, Independent, Guardian, El Pais, Die Zeit, FAZ, etc.).
And I have never claimed to know the entire truth about anything. As a historian, I know that's not possible. You look at and examine sources, weigh their validity, make comparisons, etc. But you can never be 100% sure.
But I did know that Saddam was gassing Kurds and that people like Rumsfeld and Reagan were turning a blind eye, and we protested against it at the time. I knew that the Shah of Iran was torturing Iranians, and we protested. With hindsight, it seems pretty obvious what would happen: eventually the dictator would be overthrown and some sort of reaction set in. I also knew that there is a strong discord between professed American ideals and the reality of some of the company the US keeps (the Saudis, for example, are not particularly the best defenders of democratic values, are they?), and that such contradictions inevitably lead to conflicts of one sort or another: basic Freud and Hegel.
Here there are a lot of Iranians who fled the Shah and could probably repeat your Iraqi story. They're no friends of the present Iranian regime, either, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't fight to defend their country against invasion by some self-proclaimed "liberators." You have to remember that the Soviets claim to have "liberated" East Germany the way the US claims to have "liberated" Iraq. The difference being that the Germans, tired of war, didn't fight back. Otherwise, given the historical precedents (Resistance movements in France, Norway, Denmark, etc.), there was no excuse for not expecting Iraqis to fight back against invasion.
I disagree with your analysis of the Palestinians. Partly because roots go even further back, including the days of the Ottoman Turks and the start of Jewish "colonies" (kibbutzim and the early stages of the Zionist movement). And yes, the Great Powers played the Jews & Arabs off each other in their Great Game (just like in India, and in Afghanistan, etc.: divide and conquer and all that).
The trouble is, it's easy to blame the Palestinians all the time, and for the same reasons that I suggested were the meaning behind the cartoon: even if they were to renounce bloodshed today, and do whatever they could to stop it, there would still be something more that the Israelis would demand them to do. If you care to remember the early days of the intifada, when it was just kids in the streets throwing rocks, the Israelis said they wouldn't negotiate with terrorists. When those kids got older and started shooting rockets and setting off bombs in Tel Aviv, the Israelis wouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Arafat made a whole lot of very unpopular promises, that undermined his support among the Palestinians, and the Israelis still wanted more and accused the Palestinians of not making compromises. And in the course of realpolitik, even "moderate" elements were voted out because it was pretty obvious that the "high road" of Arafat-style compromise was costing a lot (the settlements in the West Bank are still expanding) but wasn't bringing anything in return, so extremists like Hamas have come to power, and see that the only way forward is, unfortunately, through violence. Which suits some Israelis just fine, given that they really don't want to negotiate seriously anyway: they want to expand settlements in the West Bank, take over more of Jerusalem, etc., and all these delays under the pretense of negotiations lets them get their work done.
And the Jews were actually driven out of the province of Palestina by the Romans, after they destroyed the second temple. In contrast to the Crusaders, the Muslims were relatively tolerant.
And if you care to remember, the oldest question in philosophy is "what is truth?"
And Aaron: yes. You could have also mentioned the Inquisition, 30-Years' War, Crusades, all those pogroms that occured wherever Jews tried to settle in Europe with a pretty horrific regularity, etc. Either some people are deliberately blind, have no memory, or never learned history.

Geoff –
I am wondering if you are the same Geoff that has posted on the Fray.
You have rebutted the rather hysterical postings here nicely. The enemy du jour is Islam, which is just the most recent in a long line of enemies the U.S. has concocted, not that radical Islamists are not guilty of crimes, but, after all, those crimes were being dealt with, just as radicals of other religions and criminals in general were being sorted out and removed.

I have learned much from your writings, but also fakegeoff. Those who automatically condemn Islam without considering the big picture of continuing violence world wide, or just who is the most dominant and well armed use pretty much the same wornout insults and arguments, excusing the the obvious crimes of their side. Once in a great while a new diversionary argument will pop up for all of us to consider, but the activities of death and destruction go on unabated, regardless.

The world of war, politics, etc., is being viewed as a football game by too many Americans. Us against them. Rah rah. This attitude was encouraged by the last administration far more than any in the past, rendering understanding and a clear perspective moot.

Muslims are not victims in America! The press continues to excuse muslim extremists killing our kids by turning the killers into victims – why? We need to deport ALL non-citizen muslims from the US – along with all the other illegal riff-raff in our country. Three presidents had the courage to deport all illegals so the returning veterans had jobs so they could support themselves & their families – this Obama has no moral courage – and he is, as a minimum, a Muslim sympathizer if not a closet Muslim. Nothing against Muslims per se – just those of their ilk who want to kill us & take over the world. It's time to start the nut-cutting: before anymore of America's families are hurt by these murderers that our spineless congress, leaders and media support with our tax $ and let loose to rampage in our home! The PC Doctrine is alive and well in our government, our military (if you listened to the Army chief of staff with his spineless, leaderless comments on CNN two days ago concerning the Ft Hood massacre, you would see that he is a 4-star wimp and no leader – but then he got there by blowing smoke up Rumsfelt's armpits!! And of course he is surrounded by others like him because where he goes, his minions of other sycophants also go (u know, follow your star principle so you too can be a wimpy general…! Or is it the Peter principle?!) TIME TO GET REAL, CLEAN UP OUR ACT, ELECT A NEW CONGRESS & NATIONAL LEVEL LEADERS & SELECT MILITARY LEADERS WITH COURAGE, LEADERSHIP ABILITY AND INTEGRITY, KICK ALL NON-CITIZENS OUT OF OUR HOME BEFORE THEY DESTROY IT! TIME FOR CLEANING HOUSE!!

AMERICA NEEDS LEADERS IN WASHINGTON, THE MILITARY, BUSINESS, AND IN ALL FIELDS OF ENDEAVOR WHO HAVE STRENGTH, MORAL COURAGE, INTEGRITY AND THE WISDOM TO MAKE THE DECISIONS NEEDED TO KEEP THE US STRONG, HEALTHY, GROWING, SAFE AND VIBRANT. SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE NOW!!!

But TG: you know that the American economy needs illegal labourers to do all the low-wage, dangerous and hard work Americans won't do. And if you looked back in history, you'd find your arguments directed against Jews, East Europeans, Chinese, Irish, Italians, etc.

"No. I no longer live in the US so I am not bombarded with their distortions daily. I did experience the strong discord, first-hand, of the difference between what the US media was showing of the invasion of Iraq and what was being shown by international sources by monitoring Canadian, British, German, and other media. Otherwise I analyse themes, memes, tropes within discourse: the form (a la Marshall McLuhan) of the message, rather than the content. I still only look at the NYTimes for editorials to get a grasp of what some Americans are thinking, but get my news from elsewhere (Globe and Mail, Independent, Guardian, El Pais, Die Zeit, FAZ, etc.)."

You chose to follow these media out of your choice. You had the freedom to do so and you used your freedom to do so.
Then why Geoff, do you want to take away other peoples freedom to choose their choice of news media?
What you think as discord with US and other news media, can also work the other way round with a lot of them. So you mean to say they are wrong to believe in what they think is right?
In that case, can you be wrong in what you think is right?

"But I did know that Saddam was gassing Kurds and that people like Rumsfeld and Reagan were turning a blind eye,…………………….Shah of Iran was torturing Iranians, and we protested."

OK, lets accept for once (arguments sake) that, Rumsfeld and Reagan completely supported Saddam.
So what was the rest of the world including, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc doing?
Was it not their responsibility as well, to protest against the atrocities committed by Saddam. (and the indirectly by USA in your opinion)
Do you mean to say, that the USA would have gone against the whole world just to support a tyrant of a tiny country?
Why only blame the USA?
If you have an answer to why you blame only the US then, please also provide a good explanation for why the rest of the world cannot be blamed.

"there was no excuse for not expecting Iraqis to fight back against invasion."
Geoff, you have my explanation and my truth about it.
And that is the reason, I do not say people are wrong because everybody will first support and believe their own truth. Later, will people, try and understand others point of view or other peoples truth.
If you cannot accept this circumstantial truth, I really do not know, if you have any real world experience.
I did not give an excuse for my belief. I accepted my lack of understanding at that time and moved on.
So what more do you think I could have done to be more accurate?
If you think you have an answer, please try applying it by thinking you are me and in the same situation and experience of the time.
If I have understood you correctly, then I know you will come up with some answer that you think is the right one. 🙂
But, Please give me a detailed explanation of how I could have applied your possible answer in the same conditions that I have gone through.

"Partly because roots go even further back, including the days of the Ottoman Turks and the start of Jewish “colonies”

Agreed.

"If you care to remember the early days of the intifada, when it was just kids in the streets throwing rocks, the Israelis said they wouldn’t negotiate with terrorists."

Geoff, again you chose to pick only a part of history to put your point forward. The first Intifada took place between 1987 and 2003. And being a historian, you know that it is too recent in terms of historical events. Did you consider the timeline between 1948 and 1986 and the events that took place in this time line?
Did you even consider that the Israeli actions could have been a direct result of the actions of the Palestine people, in this time period.
Why did you ignore the fact that in 1948, when 5 Arab countries attacked Israel, the Israelis tried to resolve the issue by peaceful means.
Between December 1947 and the January 1948 there were nearly 1000 people killed and more than 2000 injured. This increased to 2000 dead and 4000 injured by March 1948. Then the War of Independence broke out. and since then, there has been no peace in that country.
Every time peace was brokered, something or the other disrupted it. Now between 1949 and 1987, 4 more wars were fought and all in the quest of peace.
Do you really think, that the Israelis are stupid to continuously keep on fighting when surrounded by so many enemy countries?
Do you really think, that they are so stupid to commit such a mistake over and over again?
Or it was convenient to choose an event of your choice to just prove your point?
If that was the case, then what right have you got to point fingers at the American news media, when you yourself follow the same path.
What is the difference between you and the media that you say is biased?
Again, as a historian you know that the US in 1947 chose to oppose the partition of Palestine because of the above human casualties. It was the British on 7th February 1948 who supported the addition of the Arab part of Palestine into Jordan.
Then why is it US, who is at fault now?

"Arafat made a whole lot of very unpopular promises, that undermined his support among the Palestinians, and the Israelis still wanted more and accused the Palestinians of not making compromises"

Could you please give the sequence of events with time line as I have provided above, to prove your claims? I would definitely like to learn about it.

"And in the course of realpolitik, even “moderate” elements were voted out because it was pretty obvious that the “high road” of Arafat-style compromise was costing a lot (the settlements in the West Bank are still expanding) but wasn’t bringing anything in return, so extremists like Hamas have come to power, and see that the only way forward is, unfortunately, through violence."

I hope you remember, that Yasser Arafat, engineered several violent operations in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. between 1959 and 1988. Even before 1959
Even before that, he was engaged in war against Israel since the War of Independence. So do you really think that when he changed his stance in 1988, it was because he was peaceful?
Many historians believe that, he changed his views because he was getting old and, was losing control over the PLO. Also, many younger leaders of the PLO did not support his views and actions at the time, but they did not have another leader of similar stature.

"And the Jews were actually driven out of the province of Palestina by the Romans, after they destroyed the second temple."
Agreed.

"In contrast to the Crusaders, the Muslims were relatively tolerant."

Is that an excuse? Both were equally monstrous and inhumane.
So why this comparison between 2 tyrannies that happened centuries ago?
And how does it justify the current environment in Israel?

"And if you care to remember, the oldest question in philosophy is “what is truth?”"

I think that is a irresponsible and careless comment by a HISTORIAN.
You are historian geoff, so I am sure you have know what 'Whigs Interpretation of History' is.
Just to explain to other readers- 'It is the representation of history as a means to present the past, as the inexorable march of progress toward enlightenment.' or we can also say in layman's language as interpreting history considering the present as a direct result of the actions of the past (historical events).
There are 2 lines in that thesis (book), by Herbert Butterfield.
1) The emphasis on the inevitability of progress leads to the mistaken belief that the progressive sequence of events becomes "a line of causation," tempting the historian to go no further to investigate the causes of historical change.
2) The focus on the present as the goal of historical change leads the historian to a special kind of abridgment, selecting only those events that seem important from the present point of view.

I think you have not understood these 2 lines thoroughly. You need to be a bit more rational and unbiased in your analysis. Otherwise what the difference between you being a Historian (as you claim) and the common politician who manipulates events and historical information for his personal gain?

"you know that the American economy needs illegal labourers to do all the low-wage, dangerous and hard work Americans won’t do."

Are you sure of this? I think you underestimate the pride and sense of freedom of the American Citizen.
You have been spending too much time, analyzing the common media's analysis.

=======
=======
Glenda,

Thank you for your appreciation.
I would still request you to do your own research and make your own decisions rather than just depending on my comments or Geoff's comments.
There are many people here, who are spot on with their understanding.
The only difference is, being historians, we are a bit better at writing.
And the unfortunate part is even my grammar is not that good.
Writing is our bread and butter.

This is not the case with many others here and hence they have a small problem with explaining their thoughts.
But I respect them because they spend their time out in the fields to produce real food for people like me to buy.

Good Luck.

fakegeoff: I do not "want to take away other peoples freedom to choose their choice of news media." I don't know how you came up with that. I have, however, commented upon the lack of choice in America: that, when I was there, I could have ordered German, Dutch, Chinese, even Arab channels through cable or satellite packages, but not Canadian. Canadian news and TV shows had basically been censored. And the news corporations in America seem to work as a cartel: people don't have a real choice, but corporations have a choice of what they're going to let people know. There is a big difference. It's like 7-11 claiming to give people "freedom of choice": fine, unlike many fast-food chains, you can choose between Coke & Pepsi, but if you think cola tastes like battery acid you're out of luck.
Belief is also slippery: too many people used to believe slavery was OK, that women were inferior to men, that only people who owned "real property" should be able to vote, it's OK to put children to death if they so much as steal a loaf of bread. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's right.
Your dating on the first intifada is a bit off. It's generally seen to have ended by 1993, around the time of the Oslo Peace Accords. And yes, I do think there are elements both within the Israeli & Palestinian sides which would rather see war than peace. Someone in Israel gave us a talk on how he thought the solution to the "Palestinian problem" was Apartheid. Given that he was lecturing to an audience that was mostly South Africans before Mandella had been released from prison, this was not a mild slip of the tongue. There are other Jews who don't believe that Israel should exist (because the Messiah has not yet returned), and there are some who think the borders should be extended to the Tigris & Euphretes. There are some Palestinians who think Israel should be wiped off the map. And there are a lot on both sides who think the whole thing should be forgotten, who want to be left in peace, so they can get on with their lives and not have to fear sending their kids off to kill or be killed, but their voices are drowned out by extremists. And there are those who like to stir things up because they profit just by selling arms and/or maintaining power (one of the reasons for the perpetual state of war Orwell described in 1984).
And yes, people and gov'ts did protest the gassing of the Kurds, just as they protest a whole lot of other things America does. It doesn't always help if the gov'ts don't go along, or even if they try to pass a motion in the UN (because the UN can always use its veto); we can't take the US to the World Court because the US refuses to recognise that, etc., so: we're fairly limited in what we can do, just as millions of people protesting around the world against the US invasion of Iraq was… well: virtually ignored in the US media and equally ignored by US politicians. It was even ignored by many other national leaders who were, in some cases, bribed or pressured into joining the so-called "Coalition of the Willing." Most of these leaders were subsequently voted out of office.
And yes, companies from other countries are also involved in the sale of weapons to horrible regimes, sales of chemical technologies, etc. So it's not as though the US is the only one at fault, but so long as the US goes ahead and does it, the rest of the world tends to feel justified in following along for fear of damaging their own economies. And this is one reason why it's so important to get the US to sign & ratify things like the Kyoto treaty, to get Reagan & Thatcher to impose economic sanctions on the South African apartheid regime, etc.
Whig history is old hat. So are debates over relativism, structuralism, post-structuralism, hermeneutics, etc. I don't see the relevance of your comment because I don't necessarily think we're progressing, I keep seeing the same old mistakes being made over and over again. After supporting a dictator like the Shah of Iran, the US went and supported Saddam; then Musharaf and now Karzai. That does not seem like the "progress" predicated by the Whigs.
I always figure that the "what is truth?" thing is such a cliche people will recognise it, if only from the Bible: John 18:38. Otherwise, it was a standard question in a whole lot of Greek philosophy (and elsewhere, if you care to look, and realise that it might not be phrased quite so clearly).
The comment about "Crusader cruelty" was not an excuse. It was an attempt to correct your mistaken statement to the effect that Muslims had driven the Jews out of the Middle East. The Romans did that. And I still don't recall anything to support your assertion that "Both were equally monstrous and inhumane." I recall a whole lot of European pograms, Jews being driven from various countries, but a whole lot of Talmudic scholars in Muslim Spain, Baghdad, Cairo, etc. For a long time Islam respected Judaism as the elder religion, respect for Jewish learning, and there seems to have been a strong backlash largely since the beginning of the Zionist movement. So I would not say "Both were equally monstrous and inhumane."
There is no sense in dragging in all the politics between 1948 and the beginning of the Initifada: we all know Arafat & the PLO commited a lot of attrocities. For whatever reasons (age, the Intifada have been cited as possible and not contradictory reasons: the PLO had been too long in exile, had become corrupt, was losing touch in the occupied territories, especially among the young, etc.), Arafat eventually came to the bargaining table, and gave up a lot and, as far as the Palestinians were concerned, did not get a whole lot in return. The Israelis complain he never accepted Israel's "right to exist," but that seems to be the last card he had to play: he had bargained everything else away.
It would help to follow your "argument" if you stayed on topic and not throw in too many irrelevant questions.
The difference between historians and politicians? Historians document their sources: you can look up my references by following the footnotes and see whether my interpretation is justified or not. Just like reproducibility or verifiability in natural sciences: don't take someone's word for it, run the experiment or analyse the data yourself. Politicians just assert (Max Weber did a whole lot of good studies on the modes of discourse).
And yes, I am sure about illegal immigrants: they would not be in the US (or in Europe either, for that matter) if there was not a demand for them on farms, cleaning hotel rooms, sweeping streets, frying hamburgers, etc.

"Your dating on the first intifada is a bit off. It’s generally seen to have ended by 1993, around the time of the Oslo Peace Accords."

Yes it was a typing mistake. I really meant the Intifada rather than the first Intifada.

"And I still don’t recall anything to support your assertion that "Both were equally monstrous and inhumane."

Oh well, you want me to educate you :(.
Here you go.
1066 Granada slaughter,
1172 onwards Almohad dynasty's treatment of the dhimmi's,
1400 Aleppo synagogue massacre by Tamerlane
1465 Fez slaughter and the subsequent wave of hatred and murder across morocco,
1492 Askia Mohammad regime of Timbuktu (Mali)
1656 expulsion of jews from isfahan, confinement to mellahs, etc
The list is long geoff.

"There is no sense in dragging in all the politics between 1948 and the beginning of the Initifada:"

Sorry geoff, your reasoning is not strong enough to ignore important milestones of this time line.

"It would help to follow your "argument" if you stayed on topic and not throw in too many irrelevant questions."

Examples of irrelevant questions please.

"And yes, I am sure about illegal immigrants: they would not be in the US (or in Europe either, for that matter) if there was not a demand for them on farms, cleaning hotel rooms, sweeping streets, frying hamburgers, etc."

In that case, can you explain, the presence of so many illegal immigrants in these countries you listed, who are jobless and living on government aid?
These governments have something called a humanitarian aids, which protect these illegals immigrants. Many of which take advantage of it and abuse the system.
Yes, they get government aid, and if you do not know, please check with the local immigration offices.
These countries are better run than the countries of their origin.
They are safer to live. More chances to survive than their own countries.
You ignore the mis-management by the governments of the countries from where these illegals migrate.
geoff, again I repeat, check the other side of the prism.

fakegeoff: "it was a typing mistake. I really meant the Intifada rather than the first Intifada."
I was referring just to the first intifada.
"your reasoning is not strong enough to ignore important milestones of this time line." You have failed to explain/show/prove how this is relevent to the original point, relating to the first intifada as an example where the Israelis chose not to defuse a dangerous situation when it was still small enough to be manageable. Which relates back to the cartoon way above: excuses will always be made to ask for "more," that what has already been given is still not enough. If you want to complicate matters and discuss all the problems with Arafat's leadership that seems to be a separate issue. The intifada itself was and is not the central point of this debate. Why you want to insist on picking apart details of an example put forward as a useful analogy is beyond me.
Examples of irrelevant questions:
"why do you want to take away other peoples freedom to choose their choice of news media?
"you mean to say they are wrong to believe in what they think is right?
"can you be wrong in what you think is right?
"Is that an excuse?
"So why this comparison between 2 tyrannies that happened centuries ago?
"And how does it justify the current environment in Israel?
"So what was the rest of the doing?
"Was it not their responsibility as well, to protest against the atrocities committed by Saddam”
"Do you mean to say, that the USA would have gone against the whole world just to support a tyrant of a tiny country?
"Why only blame the USA?
"what more do you think I could have done to be more accurate?
"Did you consider the timeline between 1948 and 1986 and the events that took place in this time line?
"What is the difference between you and the media that you say is biased?
"Then why is it US, who is at fault now?"
Do you honestly expect an answer for each and every one of them? As a rhetorical device, they lose their punch with constant repetition. So I fail to see the relevence. Before that you had "do you know Jainism? Do you know Buddhism?" etc.
"Can you explain, the presence of so many illegal immigrants in these countries you listed, who are jobless and living on government aid?" No, because I don't believe they exist. Can you prove that they do? Can you provide a link to some reputable source which might provide me with useful statistics? I know how difficult it is for citizens to get gov't aid and I know of refugees who are living on gov't aid because they are not allowed to work, and I know of a whole lot of illegal immigrants working "under the table." And of course I know that they leave corrupt and broken regimes to get here: but they wouldn't be coming if there wasn't work for them to do, either. Spain and Italy depend on illegal farm workers, just like California. if they had somewhere to go home to, they probably would. If there wasn't any work for them to do, they would end up commiting crimes and get arrested fairly quickly, and then sent back home anyway. So: it's up to you: can you prove to me that "they" (and your sense of vagueness is also somewhat annoying: "these illegals," "their own countries," "local immigration offices," etc.) exist? Why should I do your homework for you if you're trying to convince me of something?

And fakegeoff (from wikipedia, just because I'm lazy, & getting bored of this whole thing)"
"Massive violent attacks against Jews date back at least to the Crusades such as the Pogrom of 1096 in France and Germany (the first to be officially recorded), as well as the massacres of Jews at London and York in 1189–1190.
"During the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, beginning in the ninth century, Islamic Spain was very welcoming towards Jews. The eleventh century, however, saw several Muslim pogroms against Jews; those that occurred in Cordoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066.[6] In the 1066 Granada massacre, a Muslim mob crucified the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred about 4,000 Jews. In 1033 about 6,000 Jews were killed in Fez, Morocco by Muslim mobs. Mobs in Fez murdered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, in 1465.
"In 1348, because of the hysteria surrounding the Black Plague, Jews were massacred in Chillon, Basle, Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, Dresden, Strasbourg, and Mainz. By 1351, 60 major and 150 smaller Jewish communities had been destroyed. A large number of the surviving Jews fled to Poland, which was very welcoming to Jews at the time.
"In 1543, Martin Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, a treatise in which he advocated harsh persecution of the Jewish people, up to what are now called pogroms. He advocated that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated.
"Jews and Poles were also massacred during the Khmelnytsky Uprising of Ukrainian Cossacks in 1648–1654, as well as in the following century during the Koliyivshchyna."
Add expulsion from Spain and, at one time or another, from just about every other country in Europe (except, as someone notes in "Ulysses," from Ireland, for a very good reason), plus laws which forced Jews to wear distinctive signs and prohibited them from owning land or following certain professions (thank Napoleon for ending that). So: generally, considering the evidence, overall, I still stand by my original statement.

Sorry forgot to comment about the illegal immigrants webpage from wikipedia.
Also you made some interesting comments there, but then nowhere does it prove that illegals thrive in america only because nobody else does the job they do.
Thats false.
I can discuss about it as well geoff.
It will be a loooooooooong discussion.
Are you ready?

fakegeoff: "you better not bring on such a topic." Which topic are we now speaking about?
From what I can gather from trying to find my way through your convoluted posts, your first mention of Palestine had something to do with your suggestion that I "Just do one thing, go to Iran or Iraq or Palestine or Pakistan or Afghanistan. Say you are a Christian or a Hindu or a Sikh or any other religion of your liking. Then see the change in attitude." I have been to Palestine (West Bank). I did not see any change of attitude. Palestinians and Druze were very friendly, more friendly than many Israelis (who tend to be stressed).
Then you tried to tell me that "Least you forget, the current Palestine Issue has been a creation of the British." Which I know. You asked me "Remember the promise to the Muslims in WWII?" and I reminded you of the Balfour Agreement of World War I (promises made to the Jews by the British gov't) and Sykes-Picot (and the promises TE Lawrence made to the Arabs then).
You accused prominent Muslims of not speaking out against attacks, and I asked you why prominent Christians do not speak out against the bombing of women and children at the beginning of the Iraq war, or against Palestinians, etc., because it seemed you were trying to make some point that was very biased and I was trying to get you to see things from another angle (something you seem intent on trying to accuse me of not being able to do).
Somewhere in there you also ask "What right have you got to call them illiterates, or lunatics" (this time without a question mark), yet also asked me "What more proof do you need, blind lunatic dumb german?"
So should I ask you what right you have to ask me such a question?
Somewhere in there I also corrected you when you claimed the Jews were driven out of the Middle East by Muslims (it was the Romans), which you seem to have tried to suggest was the reason why (and/or justified) Palestinians are now suffering, and shouldn't fight back; and that once the bloodshed stops, everything will be fine and there will be peace and everyone will live happily ever after, la la la.
Which I have argued is not likely to happen soon. Netanyahu does not want peace, he does not want a single country with apartheid and he does not want a "two-nation" solution: he is happy with things the way they are.
This is why I specifically mentioned the first intifada, because of all things it actually brought the Israelis to the bargaining table. If you would be so kind as to look at history, Egypt got to negotiate after the Yom Kippur War. Yasir Arafat and his boys were making no headway, and the people in the occupied territories took matters in their own hands, and started throwing stones against Israeli tanks and soldiers. Not quite as peaceful as Gandhi, but not particularly violent (at first), and it did the trick: it brought Israel to the negotiating table, and we got the Oslo Accords. And I was in J'salem at the time and caught up in the same sort of optimism that had spread through Eastern Europe 20 years ago this week.
And since then, the Palestinians have been disappointed: Oslo didn't give them as much as they had hoped for, and they felt they had given up too much. And if moderates couldn't get the job done, they would vote for extremists. So Hamas was elected. But even if Hamas didn't get elected, the Israelis could always find an excuse to continue expanding settlements, etc., because no one since Rabin really had the vision or strength to see what could be done.
So I stand by my statement: ”You have failed to explain/show/prove how this is relevent to the original point.” I was not talking about the period before the Intifada, or during the Middle Ages, or bakc in the days of Solomon. I was speaking about a specific example. Period. You tried to drag in the entire history of the Middle East, and it feels kind of pointless debating something like that when you evidently don't know what you're talking about (the corrections I have already noted; then you accuse me of lacking knowledge… why should anyone take you seriously?).
I post links to wikipedia because I know everyone can access them. When I post links to select reference materials, a lot of the time they are available only through very expensive subscriptions. And I don't really feel like providing a long reading list on a blog: if you were one of my students I might consider it, but I don't expect you to go out and read all the titles I give you and expect you to come back with a response. I know wikipedia is not 100% accurate, but it suits present purposes. Even if I did go to my "local immigration office," what would it matter if you didn't believe me? Would you then expect me to go out and ask the "local offices" of all the other immigration offices in countries where there is illegal immigration? That is why I say: give a link, get some data, and we can discuss it. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.
"This does not prove that illegal immigrants are necessary for the local businesses to thrive." No, it doesn't. But at the same time there seem to be a lot of people working illegally, and it isn't because local businesses are charities. Companies are making money, hiring illegal workers and earning profits. Supply and demand. Basic, simple economics. Think for once. There are people there, they must be doing something to be sending back large portions of national economies of countries like Columbia and El Salvador. Begging in the streets and petty theft isn't going to get that done. Prostitution, maybe? Either way: they are providing a service for which there is a demand.
"Or do you mean to say that some murders are better than some others?" No. That's uncalled for. That is why I protest against killing Iraqi civilians with "shock and awe." That is why I fight racism and war. That is why I protest when you seem to suggest Palestinians deserve whatever they get because they kicked the Jews out of Palestine.
And if I sound like a "teenager," then maybe it's due to the fact that trying to discuss anything with you is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. You ask a lot of pointless questions that lead nowhere. You don't really say anything. You claim to be an historian but don't seem to know much history. You try to insult me while accusing me of calling people " illiterates, or lunatics."
And I must be really stupid to bother with this.

This is very interesting and we all need to read it
from start to Finish and send it on to anyone who will read
it. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and
not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be
a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend
who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is
his reply:

Theologically – no . . . Because his allegiance is
to Allah, The moon God of Arabia

Religiously – no. . . Because no other religion is
accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally – no. . . Because his allegiance is to
the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically – no . Because his allegiance is to
Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially – no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam
forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews

Politically – no. . . Because he must submit to the
mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of
Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically – no. . Because he is instructed to
marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she
disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually – no. . Because he cannot accept the
American Constitution since it is based on Biblical
principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically – no. . . Because Islam, Muhammad,
and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and
expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every
Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually – no. . . Because when we declare
'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is
loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The
Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation….

Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS
in this country. – – – They obviously cannot be both
'good' Muslims and good Americans.

Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You
had better believe it. The more who understand this, the
better it will be for our country and our future. The
religious war is bigger than we know or understand .. .

can a muslims be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, open fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 12

He is a good Muslim!!!
And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, is now are President? You have GOT to be kidding! Wake up America !

Obama even says, he will be sworn in on the Quran—not a Bible!

Footnote: He was sworn in on the Quran for his
current office and he refuses to pledge allegiance to the
United States or put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played! The Muslims have said they will
destroy us from within. Hello! Having a Muslim president
would seem to fit the bill! Will you trust this man with
our national secrets?

Ok,
Lets start with this.

——“Somewhere in there you also ask "What right have you got to call them illiterates, or lunatics" (this time without a question mark),
This was asked in this posting to Dale
Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 10:02 am

Which was because of Dales comment as below

Comment from dale
Time November 9, 2009 at 2:12 am

Steps to understand this.
1) Read Dales post
2) Read my post
3) Analyze my response and you will get your answer. Its explained in my comment.

——“ yet also asked me "What more proof do you need, blind lunatic dumb german?"

You can read the answer to this in the below two posts.

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 4:16 pm

The response to this was

Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Steps to understand this post.
1) Read your post
2) Read my post
3) Yes, my reaction was a little bit over the top. And I really wanted to apologize at some point. But I see that you are a bit arrogant and really not the kind to accept your mistake. So I will wait a bit longer before I do that.

——“ From what I can gather from trying to find my way through your convoluted posts, your first mention of Palestine had something to do with your suggestion that I "Just do one thing, go to Iran or Iraq or Palestine or Pakistan or Afghanistan. Say you are a Christian or a Hindu or a Sikh or any other religion of your liking. Then see the change in attitude."

🙂 Actually you answered something that was asked in this comment of mine
Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 10:02 am

So do it one more time. Read it again and check the context.
If you remember correctly, this question was not asked to you but to Dale and the reason you can find in this post.

Comment from dale
Time November 9, 2009 at 2:12 am

It was your choice to answer to a question that was not meant for you.
So when it was your choice to answer, how was I wrong to ask when none of your comments were not in the context at all?
When I answered to a question you asked somebody else, I did not say, you were wrong to ask that question. Did I?

——“ I have been to Palestine (West Bank). I did not see any change of attitude. Palestinians and Druze were very friendly, more friendly than many Israelis (who tend to be stressed).”

Ok. So now you are saying that only geoff’s experience counts in this world?
Are there no other people other than you, and the one’s you met in west bank that exist?
Your comment looks like, you insist that only you are truthful and everybody else who says, they had problems in the regions I mentioned, are lying.
Is that what you mean? Hope that is not a boring and irrelevant question geoff.

—— Then you tried to tell me that "Least you forget, the current Palestine Issue has been a creation of the British." Which I know. You asked me "Remember the promise to the Muslims in WWII?" and I reminded you of the Balfour Agreement of World War I (promises made to the Jews by the British gov’t) and Sykes-Picot (and the promises TE Lawrence made to the Arabs then).”

🙂 well this was in this post
Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm
and
Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Which was in response to this post of yours.

Comment from geoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 3:48 pm

What will you say about YOU starting this topic with the mention of Sykes-Picot? Hmm, or is it somebody else who added it later in your post?
And I thought you accepted it in this post.
Comment from geoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 4:53 pm

——“ You accused prominent Muslims of not speaking out against attacks, and I asked you why prominent Christians do not speak out against the bombing of women and children at the beginning of the Iraq war, or against Palestinians, etc.,”

Read this comment to understand my accusation
Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Yes and I answered your question in the below post in the last part.
I think you did not read the content properly.
Read it now 🙂
Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 7:28 pm

——“ because it seemed you were trying to make some point that was very biased and I was trying to get you to see things from another angle (something you seem intent on trying to accuse me of not being able to do).”

🙂 This geoff has been explained in the same post as above in the second paragraph.
And it was in response to a specific question of yours asked in this post at the end of the first paragraph.
Comment from geoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 5:47 pm

——“ So should I ask you what right you have to ask me such a question?”

The same right geoff, that you have using which you try to refute other peoples logic and understanding. Its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
And it does not ban anybody from questioning somebody’s rights, when that somebody is trying to suppress others rights.
You geoff I think will not understand this. I think, you do not believe in it.

——“ Somewhere in there I also corrected you when you claimed the Jews were driven out of the Middle East by Muslims (it was the Romans), which you seem to have tried to suggest was the reason why (and/or justified) Palestinians are now suffering, and shouldn’t fight back; and that once the bloodshed stops, everything will be fine and there will be peace and everyone will live happily ever after, la la la.”

🙂 nice distortion geoff. Check out the below comment for yourself and correct your interpretation. You geoff, can be a very good politician. I definitely doubt if you are a historian, because historians rarely distort facts, but politician, yes no doubt.
The second last explanation of this posting Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 7:28 pm

——“ Which I have argued is not likely to happen soon. Netanyahu does not want peace, he does not want a single country with apartheid and he does not want a "two-nation" solution: he is happy with things the way they are.”

Let uss see what the future has in hold. Me and a lot of people do not think this is the case. Again read the above mentioned part of my explanation. 🙂

——“ This is why I specifically mentioned the first intifada, because of all things it actually brought the Israelis to the bargaining table. If you would be so kind as to look at history, Egypt got to negotiate after the Yom Kippur War. Yasir Arafat and his boys were making no headway, and the people in the occupied territories took matters in their own hands, and started throwing stones against Israeli tanks and soldiers. Not quite as peaceful as Gandhi, but not particularly violent (at first), and it did the trick: it brought Israel to the negotiating table, and we got the Oslo Accords.”

Hmmm The Yom Kippur War was fought in between October 6 and October 26 of 1973.
How does it relate to the Intifada which started in 1987?
🙂 also, now you are getting hilarious geoff.
You are distorting the events that actually made a big, big difference along with the violence of the Intifada. Let me note them down so that the historian in you will do his homework (not mine, but your own) before writing such a childish comment
1) End of the cold war
2) Collapse of the USSR
3) Gulf war 1
4) The partial success of the Madrid Conference of 1991
Check it all up geoff, as I have mentioned before, you have a lot more to learn.

——“And since then, the Palestinians have been disappointed: Oslo didn’t give them as much as they had hoped for, and they felt they had given up too much.And if moderates couldn’t get the job done, they would vote for extremists. So Hamas was elected. But even if Hamas didn’t get elected, the Israelis could always find an excuse to continue expanding settlements, etc., because no one since Rabin really had the vision or strength to see what could be done.”

Geoff, the Oslo Accord took place in 1993 while the Hamas got elected to power in 2006.
And in between hamas and other similar terrorist groups have only unsettled the peace process by violence. In fact you fail to mention that their violent ways actually undid all the peaceful efforts of Mahmoud Abbas all these years.
🙂 you have no sense of history and historical events geoff. Sorry, but the more you are arguing on this, the more radical and illogical you seem to be.

——“ You have failed to explain/show/prove how this is relevent to the original point.”
🙂 Again, you shifted the original point. The original point was to prove why the Palestinians are to be blamed. And I think I did that again and again. If this is not your original point then could you please point out in your previous comments what the original point was, the one to which you are sticking to?

——“ I was not talking about the period before the Intifada, or during the Middle Ages, or bakc in the days of Solomon. I was speaking about a specific example. Period. You tried to drag in the entire history of the Middle East, and it feels kind of pointless debating something like that when you evidently don’t know what you’re talking about (the corrections I have already noted; then you accuse me of lacking knowledge… why should anyone take you seriously?).”

Well I have already pointed above where you started the talks to the Intifada and to the Middle ages, and also to the days of Solomon. Check my previous comments, I have not used the reference to Solomon in any of my comments. Solomon just was not typed in any of my previous comments. So if you were not talking about all this then who was? I think you put your period at the wrong place geoff.
You asked why should anyone take me seriously . Check for yourself geoff. Check where you have shifted the goal posts and still I have been able to talk to you. And now you have completed a full circle. blaming me for all that you started.
I repeat geoff. Check all your comments again.

——“ I post links to wikipedia because I know everyone can access them. When I post links to select reference materials, a lot of the time they are available only through very expensive subscriptions. And I don’t really feel like providing a long reading list on a blog: if you were one of my students I might consider it, but I don’t expect you to go out and read all the titles I give you and expect you to come back with a response. I know wikipedia is not 100% accurate, but it suits present purposes.”

That’s an excuse. Again refer to my comment. I said. Do not depend only on the web. If you refer to a book we have some very good books in our libraries geoff. And a surprise for you, a lot of us go to the library very often, so we can definitely verify your source.

——“ Even if I did go to my "local immigration office," what would it matter if you didn’t believe me? Would you then expect me to go out and ask the "local offices" of all the other immigration offices in countries where there is illegal immigration? That is why I say: give a link, get some data, and we can discuss it. Otherwise you’re just making stuff up.”

Geoff, do you even realize how stupid you look when you write stuff like that?
All you have to do is go to your local immigration office and ask them to explain to you, the laws related to illegal immigration, and the laws and procedures involved in humanitarian aid that is managed through their office.
Now how difficult would that be for a historian like you?
Isnt it laughable that a historian like you believes in a web link more than your local government office to discuss about a law and the functioning of that department?

——“"This does not prove that illegal immigrants are necessary for the local businesses to thrive." No, it doesn’t. But at the same time there seem to be a lot of people working illegally, and it isn’t because local businesses are charities. Companies are making money, hiring illegal workers and earning profits. Supply and demand. Basic, simple economics. Think for once. There are people there, they must be doing something to be sending back large portions of national economies of countries like Columbia and El Salvador. Begging in the streets and petty theft isn’t going to get that done. Prostitution, maybe? Either way: they are providing a service for which there is a demand.”

🙂 This explanation of yours does not answer my questions asked here
Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 11, 2009 at 3:13 pm

——“"Or do you mean to say that some murders are better than some others?" No. That’s uncalled for. That is why I protest against killing Iraqi civilians with "shock and awe." That is why I fight racism and war. That is why I protest when you seem to suggest Palestinians deserve whatever they get because they kicked the Jews out of Palestine.”

Well well, I have explained a lot for the Palestinians. Now lets come to Iraq.
Yes, we all accept that Iraq was a mistake, but such mistakes happen in the circumstances when this decision was made.
The government accepted that it took action based on faulty evidence provided to it and accepted its role in the blunder.
But now that the action was taken, what do you think they could have done next?
Just say sorry, wrong evidence and leave?
Geoff, you are just talking about the mistake, you are not talking about the heavy price the US government is paying to correct it.
It accepted that it unstabilized the country, and hence they are trying to stabilize it before they leave.
What more do you want the government to do?
What more do you expect?
The government has the guilty feeling and hence it is quietly bearing the scorn of the people opposing the war.
And they are right according to me.
There is no point wasting time trying to run around justifying yourself over and over again.
Just focus on stabilizing the country and leave once that goal is achieved.
That’s it. This pointing finger on this mistake all the time is nothing but childish.
Its time we grow up.

——“ You ask a lot of pointless questions that lead nowhere. You don’t really say anything. You claim to be an historian but don’t seem to know much history. You try to insult me while accusing me of calling people " illiterates, or lunatics."
And I must be really stupid to bother with this.”

Again, if you read all comments, yours and mine, you will realize where you are wrong. Well all the details of history I provided can be verified, and if you are a historian, I am sure you must be kicking yourself for writing that I do not seem to know much history. In fact let me invite everybody who is reading these comments to actually verify all that I have written with respect to history and write back.
I request all of you to confirm to geoff, if my provided historical events are right or wrong.
Geoff, is that ok? This will prove, if my knowledge.
🙂 I think you are finally right about yourself. but just, needs a bit more refining in that analysis of yourself.

——“ And if I sound like a "teenager," then maybe it’s due to the fact that trying to discuss anything with you is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.”

Do I need to answer this or you know the answer?

Ok now that I have answered each and every line of yours, please prove which of my questions are irrelevant in all my posts. 🙂 deal?

Geoff, forgot to mention, you skillfully omitted to discuss the content and the context of the questions that I asked.
Could you please kindly now go through all my comments from the very beginning and answer the relevant questions that I have asked? Or are you going to jump up and down like a kid, trying to prove that you are right and I am wrong?

What happened geoff?
Are you still verifying the above or, are you trying to find where else you can lie?
It took me only 30 minutes to verify all of the above. Whats taking you so long?

Chrissy: who cares? life's too short.
As an example: fake said : "Just do one thing, go to Iran or Iraq or Palestine or Pakistan or Afghanistan."
I said I had been to Palestine. So he asks "Ok. So now you are saying that only geoff’s experience counts in this world?"
I never said or asserted any such thing. If he can't read or express what he means then it's not my problem.
So I will agree with dale that fake is "Wrong and arrogant—a toxic brew." If he wants to waste his time trying to play schoolyard games, that's his problem. Some of us have more important things to do.
But then, what do I know, right? As he noted, I'm just a "blind lunatic dumb german."

"Hmmm The Yom Kippur War was fought in between October 6 and October 26 of 1973."
"How does it relate to the Intifada which started in 1987?"
Hint: think Camp David Accords.

As if anyone has the time to go back and look at five or ten postings to see who is correct.!! Most people just blog their opinions…for better or worse and hopefully on the subject. Not spend the day trying to one-up some other blogger. What a waste of everyones time.

This just in…..the United States has just filed suit to seize properties, including Mosques, belonging to groups with alleged ties to Iran.
I bet there is some shredding going on right this minute.!!!

hahahahaha…
like when you cannot lie any more, try finding fault with grammar?
This makes the other person defend and geoff (or love my country) comes out screaming victory.
The topic of discussion is on the back burner and personal attacks start.
Lol.

You are right lmc.
Sadly, geoff, was stupid to try blaming fake.
fake is just too informed, for geoff to handle.

Well, the 2007 Pew poll of American Muslims revealed that only 40% of them believe Arabs were responsible for 9-11. 19% of them were not concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism throughout the globe. Only 78% of them felt suicide bombings of civilians is never justifiable. Plug the percentages into the various estimates of how many Muslims are in America, and you come up with alarming numbers of ignoramuses. Our numbers may be better than the poll results in places like Nigeria, but, hey…

Gary Katz: just a question: how many Americans felt the "shock & awe" deaths of Iraqi civilians was justified?
Or here's another: a few years ago, an American pilot bombed some Canadian soldiers on a training exercise in Afghanistan.; The pilot violated direct orders from ground control, and 4 of your allies died. An accident. But when a US Board of Inquiry was convened, Americans protested on the ground that it was OK because they were only Canadians.
Polls of the uninformed & ignorant aren't really all that useful. I think someone has shown that they can always get at least 30% of respondents to claim Elvis lives.

Looks like a fake dale, too: I don't think the real dale would make that mistake with a comma in the last line. Looks more like Sunita, or the faked me.

Well geoff, bad grammar is better than lying.
Much better than the twisted historical knowledge you have been spreading around?

Geoff,
I doubt many Americans would approve deliberate targeting of civilians, which is the issue I addressed. Anything else is apples vs. oranges.
As far as that Canadian analogy, I don't know what the hell you're talking about (beyond the initial tragedy).
Polls are not exact, but when you compare results country to country, you do see recognizable patterns. American Muslims tend to score more moderately than, say, Jordanian Muslims, but not nearly as well as the politically correct would lead us to believe. Of course, this is further born out by the undeniable fact that the vast majority of suicide bombings across the globe are committed by Muslims. Why is that, Goeff?

Rob, regarding your 11-11 post, I'm no great fan of Pres. Obama, but the allegation he was sworn in on a Koran is false. That rumor got started probably because Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison got sworn in on a Koran. Moreover, Obama has no reticence against the Pledge of Allegiance or putting his hand on his heart during the National Anthem. I've seen him do so on CNN. There was one photo that circulated that started this rumor, but one photo doesn't establish a pattern of behavior. If we're going to criticize Obama, let's use real stuff (no shortage there).
Also, if you're going to criticize Muslims, stick with the strong arguments and jettison the weak arguments. So a Muslim prays facing Mecca? Big deal. A Jew prays facing Jerusalem. What are Americans supposed to do, pray facing Washington, D.C.? Let's not ignore trends of Muslim society and culture, but let's not pigeonhole all Muslims into those trends. A typical Moroccan Muslim is probably quite different from an Egyptian Muslim, who is different still from an Iranian Muslim. People are not entirely defined by their religions, you know.

Read your discussion with fake above.
Why is it always difficult for you to follow what you advice others to do?

Gary Katz: after the "Tarnak Farms incident" Canadians were a tad angry that charges were dropped from "manslaughter" to "dereliction of duty," then apparently "issued [a] reprimand and fined $5,672." In the meantime, we were also angered by photos of protestors outside the courtroom arguing that the pilot had done nothing wrong and should be released. The feeling was, that if the victims had been Americans, the reaction would have been much different.
You're right that many, perhaps even most Americans would not approve of deliberately targetting civilians, and that only extremists like Ann Coulter would publicly say something like "bomb them all." But the images from the beginning of Bush's invasion shown on American news sources of Baghdad being bombed were so sanitised that few probably knew that kids were dying, or realise the extent of civilian casualties either during or since the invasion.
And suicide bombings: yes, now they are mostly by Muslims; previously the only major incidence of suicide attacks seem to have been the Japanese Kamikaze and some by German "rocket fighter" pilots, there was also some suggestion that the USS Intrepid's attack on Tripoli was, too. You could also turn your argument around and point out that most drone and cruise missile attacks are carried out by the US: people fight with the weapons they have available. Terrorism is primarily a psychological weapon: it is meant to terrorise people and gain publicity. What is scarier than the idea of someone willing to die for their cause? The fear of Kamikaze was probably also greater than their worth from a purely military perspective.

And Chrissy: life is too short. There is no point reading my "discussion" with "fake": "fake" is a fake. A whole lot of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
And "advice," by the way, is the noun; "advise" is the verb (or are you really "fake," too?).

hahahahahahaha…
bleeding geoff?
use bandaid.
Very good for open wounds.
Are you so stupid?
I think the oxford dictionary has the words 'typing' and 'mistake'.
go learn your meanings.
Also geoff stop showing your grammar stupidity.
Accept that grammar is meant for consistency in written communication.
some choose to deviate.
This is no essay writing test.
write your point of view and read others point of view.
I find your point of view absurd, pointless and biased.
fake was able to prove it and I was not.
But you are too boneheaded to accept it.
On top of it, you try to deviate from the topic too often.
Pointless and stupid.

hahahahahaha….
dreaming again geoff?
I think you are going senile.
trying to divert the conversation again?
yes I will confess, I do not like you.
This is the reason:-
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

So Mr. Historian, search on the internet and find out who phrased it.

Ironic ain't it. Christians hire the US and British army to kill thousands of Muslims that never attacked the west and their leading priesthood cheer. A Muslim that isn't even associated, as far as we know, with any organization kills a few soldiers and the Christians blame the entire Islam religion. Then they sit back and wonder why Muslims blame Christians for the thousands of deaths that the armies they hired killed.

A mad circle only perpetuated by both "christians?" that don't know their own scriptures yet claim to be the epitome of "christianity" and the "muslims?" that don't know their own scriptures yet claim to be the epitome of "islalm".

When "christian?" "conservatives" begin to take responsibility for their killing, then "muslim?" "conservatives" can be blamed for every member of Islam. He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

GoodLife: amen to that.
There was also Nietzsche's comment about how everyone who claimed to believe in the policy of "love thy neighbour" usually didn't. Among other things, anyone coming to my door and trying to get me to convert my beliefs doesn't respect let alone "love" me.

Comments are closed.