Leading Cause of Terrorism

[lixy]

[quote]derek wrote:
I understand your many points but you know damn well that when they attack in Sweden, it’ll turn very quickly into “your” war on terrorism.

It’s got to be easy to analyze this whole mess from a country not yet impacted by terrorist’s actions.

I’m sure you’ll get your chance to experience it sooner or later. Then we can talk.
[/quote]

Unlikely. Sweden didn’t join the “coalition of the coerced, bribed and intimidated”. If you followed closely the subsequent attacks revendicated by Al-Qaeda after 9/11, you’ll find the countries which went along with Bush’s craze.

And even in the unlikely event that such thing happen, Sweden isn’t going to declare a crusade on a billion an a half of people as the US apparently did. It would be insane on every level.

In case you missed it, I witnessed first hand a terrorist attack in Casablanca on 2003. I was taking a cab in front of a hotel when the lobby blew up along with five other targets across the town. The spectacle wasn’t easy on the eye.
I found a larynx a few blocks away from one of the targeted spots…

And a friend lost his brother who was in the WTC on 9/11.

[hedo]

[quote]lixy wrote:
derek wrote:
Yes, I totally agree. However, you do not let mosquitoes bite you and let them breed when you can take steps to eradicate the ones that already exist.

If you have something that kills mosquitoes, I totally support your decision. I even supported the war on Afghanistan because the good that came out of it outweighs the bad. But declaring a crusade (Bush’s own words) against the whole Muslim world is downright madness. Which reminds me about a mosquito and indiscriminate killings story…

Back in the fifties, people in a region of Borneo were having trouble with malaria. In an effort to save lives, the World Health Organization decided to intervene by drastically reducing the mosquito population (mosquitoes being carriers of malaria). To do so, they sprayed the insecticide DDT all over the area, killing many mosquitoes and significantly reducing the incidence of malaria.

However, the World Health Organization failed to appreciate the full scope of their actions. DDT not only successfully killed mosquitoes - it also attacked a parasitic wasp population. These wasps, it turned out, had kept in check a population of thatch-eating caterpillars. So with the accidental removal of the wasps, the caterpillars flourished, and soon building roofs started falling in all over the place.

As if that was not enough the insects, poisoned by DDT, were consumed by geckoes. The biological half-life of DDT is around 8-years, so animals like geckoes do not metabolize it very fast, and it stays in their system for a long time. Those geckoes, carrying the DDT poison, were in turn hunted and eaten by the cat population. With far less cats, rats took over and multiplied, and this in turn led to outbreaks of typhus and sylvatic plague (which are passed on by rats).

By now the cure had become worse than the initial disease, so the World Health Organization did what any self-respecting world health organization would do: they parachuted 14,000 live cats into Borneo. The event was known as Operation Cat Drop.

The WHO had failed to consider the full implications of their actions on the delicate ecology of the region. Because they lacked understanding of the basic effects of DDT (now banned in the United States), such as a long half-life that allows spreading through levels of consumption, and the relationships among the animals of the area, they ended up making things worse rather than better - and a high cost was paid for this mistake.

By considering only the straightforward, first-level relationship between mosquitoes as carriers of malaria and humans as recipients of malaria, the WHO unrealistically assumed that this relationship could be investigated or acted upon independently of any other variables or relationships. They considered one tiny aspect of the system, rather than the entire thing (the entire ecology).

The results of their actions demonstrate the incredible importance of whole-systems thinking. In the real world, as opposed to the drawing boards at a WHO meeting, one relationship strand (e.g. mosquito-human) cannot be separated from the rest of the system. All of the parts are intricately tied together in a complex fabric of inter-relatedness, and tugging on one string of that fabric can pull at other parts which may not at first glance appear at all connected to the point of action. While the WHO was certainly doing their best to help people in a crisis, and things worked themselves back into balance in the end, the drastic counter-measures necessary to re-achieve basic stability demonstrate the necessity of viewing our world in its own holistic terms rather than simplistic theorizing that tries to separate easily manipulated variables in tweakable relationships.

The same idea can be applied to all areas of life. Everything is inter-related, and changes which are seemingly narrow in scope can set off a domino effect that reaches much wider than ever anticipated. A butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world could set off a chain-reaction that eventually effects the weather patterns across the entire Earth.

The same applies for your “war on terror”. You ended up with more terrorists due to your indiscriminate reaction that amalgamated fanatics with secular Arabs and peaceful Muslims.[/quote]

The war on terror is also the leading cause of death among terrorists. Standing idly by and hoping for the best doesn’t work and never has. Let the European psuedo-intellectuals debate it…I’m sure they’ll issue a strongly worded condemnation eventually.

As to DDT…where do you kids come up with this stuff. The lack of DDT has killed millions. You said you lived in Africa, how could you not see that?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Again, you’re making the dangerous amalgam between Islamists like Ben-Laden - which I totally support action against - and Secular Arabs and peaceful Muslims which you attacked. The latter have nothing against you but will sooner or latter see you as enemies if you continue invading their countries and wrecking their lives.[/quote]

But I ask - where is the condemnation? Where is the Arab League stepping in to save the African Christians and animists? Where are the Islamic nations, regardless of their ethnicity? Where are the secular Arabs?

You tell me there is a sharp distinction between Islamists and the other Muslims - fine, why is there so little proof of the distinction in one of the greatest tragedies carried out in the name of Islam?

[derek]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But I ask - where is the condemnation? Where is the Arab League stepping in to save the African Christians and animists? Where are the Islamic nations, regardless of their ethnicity? Where are the secular Arabs?

You tell me there is a sharp distinction between Islamists and the other Muslims - fine, why is there so little proof of the distinction in one of the greatest tragedies carried out in the name of Islam?[/quote]

And if fundamental Christians were killing people all over the world and swore to kill anyone who would not convert to Christianity, it would be our DUTY as Christians to put an end to it. And we would for certain.

Hell, I get all riled up when someone misunderstands a post in T-Nation let alone perverts my religion into a cause for mass murder.

Where’s the outrage?

And you wonder why Muslims are getting a bad reputation?

[derek]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Just lay off the innocent victims which you slaughter on a daily basis. For every Islamist, you end up killing a few hundred innocents. This was bound to blow back in your face and turn even moderates into radicals.[/quote]

You actually believe there is a 1:300 ratio?

That’s as crazy as Kim Jong Il!

The term “indoctrination” comes to mind.

[Gkhan]

Lixy wrote:

“If you attack somebody, you must expect retaliation.”

They attacked the United States on 9-11,then they should have expected some retaliation. If they did not want us in Afghanistan or Iraq what business did they have attacking the United States.

And to say the 9-11 attacks were because we backed Israel…here’s what Nasrallah, head Hezbollah has to say about it:

Hassan Nasrallah

On 9/11
“What do the people who worked in those two World Trade Center towers, along with thousands of employees, women and men, have to do with war that is taking place in the Middle East? Or the war that Mr. George Bush may wage on people in the Islamic world? … Therefore we condemned this act – and any similar act we condemn. … I said nothing about the Pentagon, meaning we remain silent. We neither favored nor opposed that act … Well, of course, the method of Osama bin Laden, and the fashion of bin Laden, we do not endorse them. And many of the operations that they have carried out, we condemned them very clearly.”[19]

[lixy]

[quote]derek wrote:
You actually believe there is a 1:300 ratio?

That’s as crazy as Kim Jong Il!

The term “indoctrination” comes to mind.[/quote]

You people don’t even keep no body count 'cause you learned the lesson from 'nam.

When you ignite a civil war in a country, blow up the whole infrastructure, that’s a pretty reasonable ratio IMHO. As of October 2006, you apparently were responsible for the death of 655000 Iraqis? How many fanatics do you think there were in Iraq?

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

What would be a treshhold ratio past which you start questioning the validity of the “war on terror”? 1:1? 1:10? 1:100?

Just curious.

[lixy]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
They attacked the United States on 9-11,then they should have expected some retaliation. If they did not want us in Afghanistan or Iraq what business did they have attacking the United States.[/quote]

Dear Genghis,

I’m afraid you misunderstood my statement. I was talking about the Iraqi women who blow themselves up because it’s their only way to resist the occupation army (i.e: The US troops).

It seems to me also that you have been very much misinformed about the connection between Iraq and the people who attacked you on 9/11. Just like the non-existent WMD scam, Bush lied about the connection between AlQaeda and Saddam. The attack on Iraq was evidently decided days after 9/11.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1478306
Afghanistan is another story because the Taliban clearly harbored some key figures of the organization. You were right in running them down.

Repeat after me: Iraqis had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

If you chose to attack Saudi Arabia, I wouldn’t budge 'cause the absolute majority of the 9/11 crew was Saudi. But, as we all know, somehow, your oil got under their sands and the Al-Sauds there to protect it for you.

To summarize, you were attacked by some whackos - that the CIA gathered, trained and armed back in the late 70’s to help you take down the Soviets - and decided to take your revenge on the Irakis.

Sincerely,

Your friend lixy

[Wreckless]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The only thing that creates the aforementioned terrorists is the pathological mindset of Islamism.

Casting them as ‘victims’ is pathetic, and brazenly political - after all, if they are nothing but honest-to-Allah victims, why do Islamists continue to slaughter African Christians and animists in the name of spreading their ‘ism’? More Africans are killed in a day than in a month in Palestine - why would we default to thinking the Islamists are the ones being picked on and would just mind their own business if only we hadn’t ‘occupied’ their world?

If you believe that, go visit Africa.

Islamists wanted a war, and they got one - why now pretend that they are innocent victims?[/quote]

This is exactly the line of thinking that Osama follows.

The US had troops in the holly land of the Arabs, so lets attack any American anywhere.

The Islamists didn’t want war. There’s no such thing as the Islamists. They are people. Some wanted a confrontation. Most were simply minding there own business.

But you paint them all with the same brush, just like Osama did when he tried to justify the 9/11 attacks.

The real struggle is not between “the west” and “the Arabs”. It’s between the fundamentalist and the rationalists. You’re a fundamentalist. So is Osama. You both act like victims. Neither of you are.

[lixy]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
The Islamists didn’t want war. There’s no such thing as the Islamists. They are people. Some wanted a confrontation. Most were simply minding there own business.[/quote]

Not really. The Islamists are real and have traditionally been supported by the West to counter Arab nationalism, communism… The most notorious examples being the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Hamas in Palestine. The former was set up by the CIA and the latter would have never took off without the help of Israel.

The CIA picked the most fundamentalist whacko they could lay their hands on, armed and trained them six months before the Soviets ever set foot in Afghanistan. After the collapse of the USSR, those experienced fighters with too much time on their hands turned to the US.

Al-Qaeda translates as the base in Arabic, and most likely referred to the database of the Mujahideens maintained by the CIA. Al-Qaeda never hid their objectives which are to fight the enemies of Islam.

Hamas virtually started as an Israeli attempt to undermine Arafat’s secural movement popularity: the PLO. It worked in the sense that it divided the Palestinians but of course blew right back in Tel-Aviv’s face.

With the current world order, I don’t see any Islamist movement minding its own business. Some are working politically to overthrow the dictators in the Arab world. That puts them in a confrontation with the West, because the dictatorships are supported by it. Others like Osama, took a utopic global Jihad which does nothing but shed more blood and give the US pretexts to invade entire countries.

It is worth noting that most Arab countries banned the most radical Islamist movements and the few that are legal don’t stand a chance given the unfairness of elections that take place in those countries. I, along with most analysts, believe that if a transparent election took place in any Arab country, the Islamist would win by a large margin. Case in point: Palestine and Lebanon.

Islamism might be a neologism but it is real and is the only way any Arab country will ever get rid of the dictatorships in place and achieve its independance from the West.

Islamism

The real struggle is not between “the west” and “the Arabs”. It’s between the fundamentalist and the rationalists. You’re a fundamentalist. So is Osama. You both act like victims. Neither of you are.

Probably the most insightful post in this thread.

I bow to your superior mind!

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

This is exactly the line of thinking that Osama follows.

The US had troops in the holly land of the Arabs, so lets attack any American anywhere.[/quote]

Just dumb.

I repeat, Africa is not the holy land of the Muslims, but Islamists continue to slaughter non-Muslim Africans in the name of dominance. How come?

And, not surprisingly, your comparison is foolish - who is advocating attacking and killing Muslims “anywhere they are” as a result of 9/11?

The Islamists didn’t want war. There’s no such thing as the Islamists. They are people. Some wanted a confrontation. Most were simply minding there own business.

Absolute garbage, refuted by even Muslims. If there be moderate Muslims - argued that there are on this very thread - the basis of that argument is that there is a separate kind of manic Muslim acting under their own ideology: Islamists.

If you are right, then the Muslims advocating that moderate Muslims are wrong, because they believe there is a difference between Muslims and Islamists as well.

You say you favor rationalism - bit of a stretch.

But you paint them all with the same brush, just like Osama did when he tried to justify the 9/11 attacks.

Laughable - Islamists define themselves without the West’s help. Go read their literature.

The real struggle is not between “the west” and “the Arabs”. It’s between the fundamentalist and the rationalists. You’re a fundamentalist. So is Osama. You both act like victims. Neither of you are.

I realize you desperately try to bait Americans in these forums with such things as trying to compare us with Osama, hoping to get under our skin, but alas, it doesn’t work. Sorry to inform.

As is, one thing you stumbled on is right - this is exactly a divide between rationalism and fundamentalism. You just have the boundaries wrong - but then, when have Europeans ever been good at boundaries?

“Rationalism” doesn’t support gender apartheid, tribalism, a rejection of modernity, and the economics of keeping your people uneducated, and illiberal government.

So, show me a long list of Muslim countries that can claim to be vanguards of “rationalism”. It should take about as long a time to compile this list as it would take Belgium to become relevant in the world, or even Europe.

[haney1]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

The real struggle is not between “the west” and “the Arabs”. It’s between the fundamentalist and the rationalists. You’re a fundamentalist. So is Osama. You both act like victims. Neither of you are.[/quote]

no the real struggle is the muslim’s with the everyone including the muslim’s.

Just look at palestine. Hamas and the Fatah party can barely get along. If everyone in the world were muslim do you think there would be peace?

The problem is you have a culture that has yet to come into the 21st century. Specifically that of Arab/muslim descent.

Is that to say that they are the only ones doing such things? I doubt it, but they are a big enough group that the media exposure puts a huge spot light on them. The way they handle things for the most part doesn’t help either.

If you were to rewind history back a few hundred years you would have the scottish fighting the english, and their own clans, and they weren’t doing it in the name of God either.

[lixy]

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Just look at palestine. Hamas and the Fatah party can barely get along. If everyone in the world were muslim do you think there would be peace?
[/quote]

Don’t be stupid! (That’s from somebody who never uses that kind of language but, you sir, just deserved it.)

Palestinians barely have food, live in the most densely populated area of the planet, and have been under occupation for a long long time. Tensions were bound to arise. Put castrated Buddhists under those conditions and see what happens.

By your logic, the state of Ireland a few decades back suffices to prove that Christians and people of Irish descents are inherently bad people.

Just so you know, according to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hamas was virtually a creation of the Mossad to counter the rise in popularity of Arafat’s PLO and weaken the Palestinians by dividing them.

The problem is you have a culture that has yet to come into the 21st century. Specifically that of Arab/muslim descent.

Sure. Let’s blow the whole lot into oblivion.

You are a disgrace to mankind.

[Malevolence]

[quote]
Don’t be stupid! (That’s from somebody who never uses that kind of language but, you sir, just deserved it.)[/quote]

I would just like to point out, as someone who has been reading but not posting. Lixy, while I do not agree with everything you write, you have near-always been respectful, coherent, reasonable, tempered and fair of the points you support. I have rarely seen such courteous and level-headed posting in any political forum.

Especially when faced with the expected contempt and vitriol posted in retaliation by those who disagree with your points or what they assume your points are.

Though my word may not mean much, I maintain that the entire forum could learn a lot from your example. Heck, the internet, and even the world.

[haney1]

[quote]lixy wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Just look at palestine. Hamas and the Fatah party can barely get along. If everyone in the world were muslim do you think there would be peace?

Don’t be stupid! (That’s from somebody who never uses that kind of language but, you sir, just deserved it.)
[/quote]
Please you didn’t even understand the point of my post.

Palestinians barely have food, live in the most densely populated area of the planet, and have been under occupation for a long long time. Tensions were bound to arise. Put castrated Buddhists under those conditions and see what happens.

That doesn’t explain why they fight each other, nor does that explain the civil war that has raged in iraq for centuries.

By your logic, the state of Ireland a few decades back suffices to prove that Christians and people of Irish descents are inherently bad people.

No. It points out that arab muslims think like Irish/Christians a few decades back, who think like people a few centuries back… I guess that point was lost on you. I would assume the fact that I was trying to avoid casting blame on their religion was lost on you as well. The problem isn’t me holding them to a civilized society standard, it is you holding them to that standard that is the problem.

Just so you know, according to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hamas was virtually a creation of the Mossad to counter the rise in popularity of Arafat’s PLO and weaken the Palestinians by dividing them.

All this does is beg the question… So what is their excuse for fighting each other now? If I remember correctly don’t muslims have a haith that they stand together. Why the division now? It isn’t the religion that is the problem it is the world view that is on a collision course with modern society.

[quote]
The problem is you have a culture that has yet to come into the 21st century. Specifically that of Arab/muslim descent.

Sure. Let’s blow the whole lot into oblivion.

You are a disgrace to mankind.[/quote]

Did I say blow them up? Did I even imply that? No! you didn’t even try to understand my point instead you started throwing out red herrings and ad hom’s.

Your tone speaks volumes about your character.

My refusal to stoop to such a level shows my integrity.

[haney1]

[quote]Malevolence wrote:

Don’t be stupid! (That’s from somebody who never uses that kind of language but, you sir, just deserved it.)

I would just like to point out, as someone who has been reading but not posting. Lixy, while I do not agree with everything you write, you have near-always been respectful, coherent, reasonable, tempered and fair of the points you support. I have rarely seen such courteous and level-headed posting in any political forum.

Especially when faced with the expected contempt and vitriol posted in retaliation by those who disagree with your points or what they assume your points are.

Though my word may not mean much, I maintain that the entire forum could learn a lot from your example. Heck, the internet, and even the world. [/quote]

Yes and what a beautiful example she just displayed in her response to me…

[orion]

[quote]hedo wrote:

As to DDT…where do you kids come up with this stuff. The lack of DDT has killed millions. You said you lived in Africa, how could you not see that?

[/quote]

Yup, now they are dropping like flies from Malaria…

You can use DDT though, in American and European airplanes…

Because otherwise this eco-BS might cost some of our lives and not theirs.

And we`re not THAT serious about it…

[lixy]

First, I want to apologize for having lost my temper and withdraw any personal attack or offensive language that I’ve used in the earlier post.

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Please you didn’t even understand the point of my post. [/quote]

Fair enough.

You evoke the Hamas/Fatah schism then you say “If everyone in the world were muslim do you think there would be peace?”.

For me, it implied something along the lines of Muslims being inherently belligerent. Correct me if I’m wrong.

That doesn’t explain why they fight each other, nor does that explain the civil war that has raged in iraq for centuries.

Yes it does. As long as resolution 242 is blocked by the US, the conflict has no chance of ending. The Palestinians are kept in an open-air prison and under such conditions, clashes are bound to happen. Add to that the well-documented role of the Israeli agent provocateurs and you end up with a recipe for disaster.

Here’s a Jewish perspective on the issue you might find worth reading;
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

No. It points out that arab muslims think like Irish/Christians a few decades back, who think like people a few centuries back… I guess that point was lost on you. I would assume the fact that I was trying to avoid casting blame on their religion was lost on you as well. The problem isn’t me holding them to a civilized society standard, it is you holding them to that standard that is the problem.

Here we go again. You depict a whole people based on a violent handful and then amalgamate the struggle of people against occupying forces with the gratuitous violent acts of some fanatics.

All this does is beg the question… So what is their excuse for fighting each other now? If I remember correctly don’t muslims have a haith that they stand together. Why the division now? It isn’t the religion that is the problem it is the world view that is on a collision course with modern society.

Why do you have ANC in South Africa? Why do you have ETA in Spain? Why do you have FARC/ELN in Colombia?

Did I say blow them up? Did I even imply that? No! you didn’t even try to understand my point instead you started throwing out red herrings and ad hom’s.

I did indeed. Again, please accept my most sincere apologies.

You said that they refuse to come into the 21st century. Yes, some Muslims are longing for turning the clocks back a few centuries. Ben-Laden & co are one good example. In fact, some are doing it as we speak. Ever been to Saudi Arabia?
But that doesn’t give you the right to generalize and say that ALL Muslims share those views.

[haney1]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Fair enough.

You evoke the Hamas/Fatah schism then you say “If everyone in the world were muslim do you think there would be peace?”.

For me, it implied something along the lines of Muslims being inherently belligerent. Correct me if I’m wrong.

[/quote]
It is wrong my point was that you are dealing with a group of people that in many ways are only interested in getting their way, and their view point is the only one they see as worth while. It is tough to come to a fair deal, or even acceptance when someone takes that stance.

That doesn’t explain why they fight each other, nor does that explain the civil war that has raged in iraq for centuries.

Yes it does. As long as resolution 242 is blocked by the US, the conflict has no chance of ending. The Palestinians are kept in an open-air prison and under such conditions, clashes are bound to happen. Add to that the well-documented role of the Israeli agent provocateurs and you end up with a recipe for disaster.

I understand your point, but I still think it lacks an explination. They remind me of the scottish clans that fought each other over who would rule all of scottland when they defeated england. The problem was they had to defeat england. Now you have two groups fighting in palestine, and when they aren’t fighting each other they are after Israel.

[quote]
Here’s a Jewish perspective on the issue you might find worth reading;
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
[/quote] I will have to read this later, but I will say ahead of time…
for everyone of these perspecives I could find one that counters it from a Israeli Jew who thinks the land belongs to them. (don’t take that as I am in support of israel, or against.)

No. It points out that arab muslims think like Irish/Christians a few decades back, who think like people a few centuries back… I guess that point was lost on you. I would assume the fact that I was trying to avoid casting blame on their religion was lost on you as well. The problem isn’t me holding them to a civilized society standard, it is you holding them to that standard that is the problem.

Here we go again. You depict a whole people based on a violent handful and then amalgamate the struggle of people against occupying forces with the gratuitous violent acts of some fanatics.

I depict what appears to be the majority of people in that area. Do I think there are many muslim arabs that don’t support all of this. Yes. Do I think this generalization represents the majority. Yes.
So for breviety sake I chose to use a generalization.

All this does is beg the question… So what is their excuse for fighting each other now? If I remember correctly don’t muslims have a haith that they stand together. Why the division now? It isn’t the religion that is the problem it is the world view that is on a collision course with modern society.

Why do you have ANC in South Africa? Why do you have ETA in Spain? Why do you have FARC/ELN in Colombia?

a simple I don’t have an answer would have worked. I don’t plan on having a conversation where I ask a question and instead of receiving an answer I get another question.

Did I say blow them up? Did I even imply that? No! you didn’t even try to understand my point instead you started throwing out red herrings and ad hom’s.

I did indeed. Again, please accept my most sincere apologies.

accepted. many things get lost in translation…

You said that they refuse to come into the 21st century. Yes, some Muslims are longing for turning the clocks back a few centuries. Ben-Laden & co are one good example. In fact, some are doing it as we speak. Ever been to Saudi Arabia?
But that doesn’t give you the right to generalize and say that ALL Muslims share those views.[/quote]

I thought I made it clear that I was refering specifically to arab/muslims.

I would like to point out though that generaliztions are a common discourse for describing large amounts of people.

For instance if we say America is a rich county does that mean all american’s are rich? There are thousands like that. I think you are taking my terms a little too literal.

[lixy]

[quote]haney1 wrote:
my point was that you are dealing with a group of people that in many ways are only interested in getting their way, and their view point is the only one they see as worth while. It is tough to come to a fair deal, or even acceptance when someone takes that stance.[/quote]

Absolutely. Georges W. Bush took such a stance.

[quote]I will have to read this later, but I will say ahead of time…
for everyone of these perspecives I could find one that counters it from a Israeli Jew who thinks the land belongs to them. (don’t take that as I am in support of israel, or against.)[/quote]

It’s quite lengthy indeed, but would highly recommend you to read it as it’s comprehensive and well-written. The conflict is not going to end in our lifetimes, so we might as well know what’s its origins and what it’s about from as many viewpoints as possible.

[quote]I depict what appears to be the majority of people in that area. Do I think there are many muslim arabs that don’t support all of this. Yes. Do I think this generalization represents the majority. Yes.
So for breviety sake I chose to use a generalization.[/quote]

Alright. What makes you think that it’s the majority of people? I have actually been pretty much around the whole Arab/Muslim world and talked to people from all walks of life. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the category you’re referring to is a tiny minority. They just happen to make the news more often because of the sensational nature of their acts.

a simple I don’t have an answer would have worked. I don’t plan on having a conversation where I ask a question and instead of receiving an answer I get another question.

I thought you could draw the answer from the examples I gave you. I’ll spell it out then: You can’t oppress people indefinitely and get away with it. It’s bound to blow back in your face.