[quote]jumper wrote:
Maybe some of you can help me out here. I am interested in this topic, I noticed in my time in the Middle East there was an extreme hatred of the Jewish people. This was also evident in WWII with the Hitler and the Nazi’s. How can people grow up with the extreme hatred of wanting to exterminate someone because of their religon or race? [/quote]
Galloway seems to have strong opinions about Israel.
There used to be a video, about 1 hour 20 minutes long, of the illegal occupation and the US media portrayal of the occupation, but it seems the video is no longer there.
Galloway seems to have strong opinions about Israel.
[/quote]
That was a hilarious interview. “What a preposterous question! What a silly person you are!”
I don’t agree with the bulk of Galloway’s politics, but I do have to respect him for being so outspoken in his defence of such an unpopular position. And on the British equivalent of CNN, no less!
Show me one American congressman who has the balls to denounce Israel on CNN. Just one.
"The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion. Behind England stands Israel, and behind France, and behind the United States. Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy.
Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 234
Well, I’m glad to know that Israel runs the world.
Indeed: perhaps the fox is hunted for being sly, but certainly he is sly from being often hunted.[/quote]
While I agree that both causal directions are possible (and probably present), one of them is significantly weaker. To be fair, I do recall my dad saying that he studied considerably harder to secure his university entrance because he was a Jew and that he had to publish some extra papers to get into grad school. But can’t really imagine the net outcome to be positive (for a group).
Compare Jews and Gypsies in Europe. Both were rather closed off groups. Both were hated/discriminated against. Very different outcomes. Name any other ethnic group that prospered thanks to hatred rather than against it.
The author of the book you quoted is not even a historian - Israel Shahak is professor of chemistry. The whole part about killing a Gentile not being a sin directly contradicts Torah’s commandments for Jews and even laws for Gentiles.
Well, I’m glad to know that Israel runs the world.
LMAO!!
[/quote]
Let us first define our terms. First, inasmuch as Israel was not yet a geopolitical entity at the time of that quote, I believe Hitler was using the term to apply to Jewry in general.
Second, how does one define “running the world”?
Financially? Jews make up a significant percentage of the world’s financial and banking leadership. Imagine the power of men like Alan Greenspan, George Soros, the Lehman brothers and the Rothschild family.
Politically? Again, Jews are highly represented in positions of power throughout the Western world. Surely you have noticed, Headhunter, how liberal agendas seem to coincide nicely with Jewish agendas. And of course, Jewish representation in the media (which is of course one of the most powerful political tools available) is overwhelming.
Militarily? Now let us talk about Israel. The nation does have a relatively small but excellent military, in large part courtesy of their powerful benefactors in the United States, the Jewish lobby (isn’t it convenient that Israel’s enemies are usually also our enemies? Whether they would still be our enemies if we did not have such a cozy relationship with Israel is an open question). This military is adequate for the uses to which it is employed, namely fending off the odd invader, making land-grabbing forays into neighboring Muslim nations, and keeping down those uppity Palestinians.
But if Israel were ever seriously attacked (and I don’t mean by a bunch of barefoot Egyptians and Syrians in rusty, overheating T-55 tanks, but by a modern, well-equipped and trained army mounting a unified offensive), I guarantee you that the most powerful armies in the world would come rushing to her aid within forty-eight hours.
If that ain’t running the world, I don’t know what is.
Compare Jews and Gypsies in Europe. Both were rather closed off groups. Both were hated/discriminated against. Very different outcomes. Name any other ethnic group that prospered thanks to hatred rather than against it.[/quote]
Your implication being, I imagine, that the Gypsies are doing poorly in comparison with the Jews. Fine. Name me one period in history when the Gypsies were a united ethnic group. The Mongols, like the Gypsies (and the ancient Hebrews, for that matter), are a scattered, nomadic lot, but even they were able to get their act together every couple of hundred years and nearly conquer the world. The Gypsies never were.
Tell me: what is the difference between prospering “thanks to” hatred and prospering “against” hatred? Let us replace the word “hatred” with “disease”, and the word “Jews” with “Europeans”.
The Europeans, because of their exposure over the centuries to infectious disease, had developed immunity to influenza and smallpox (natural selection at work here again: only those strong enough to withstand the disease survived), the germs of which they and their livestock carried into the New World, wiping out millions of Indians and clearing the continent for European settlement.
Did these conquerors prosper in spite of their experience with plague and pestilence, or because of it? You may say the former, I say the latter. The result is the same.
Anyway, to address your question, I will name you one ethnic minority that has prospered in the midst of (there is a nice neutral term) intense hatred: the Chinese, as I have already mentioned way up at the beginning of the thread. They were, and are, hated throughout Southeast
Asia for the same reasons as the Jews in Europe (namely, that they wield financial and political power way out of proportion to their numbers), and have been the object of numerous attempts at eradication and eviction. Yet they are still prospering.
Henry Kissinger (a Jew himself) puts it very eloquently: “a people who have been persecuted for 2000 years must be doing something wrong.”
Quoted in: Walter Isaacson, Kissinger - A Biography, p. 561
Now, if you are really serious about knowing more about the origin of the hatred against the Jews in the middle-east, I’d urge you to read the following.
It is a bit lengthy, was written by Jews and presents some very interesting insights.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Henry Kissinger (a Jew himself) puts it very eloquently: “a people who have been persecuted for 2000 years must be doing something wrong.”
Quoted in: Walter Isaacson, Kissinger - A Biography, p. 561
Now, if you are really serious about knowing more about the origin of the hatred against the Jews in the middle-east, I’d urge you to read the following.
It is a bit lengthy, was written by Jews and presents some very interesting insights.[/quote]
why do you concern yourself with Israel and Jews so much? You spend a lot of time on the subject. What are your fears and suspicions? What causes you to believe what you do?
Maybe his answer will offer insight to the original question
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
For reference, I have two Jewish friends, neither one of them all that involved with their religion/ethnicity – just enough to make their parents happy. Their parents aren’t Zionists either – they’re happy to practice their religion and live their lives in the US and don’t consider Israel their native “homeland”.
[/quote]
The truth of the modern Jewish culture is that few of us are actually religious. This goes back, but I honestly believe it started becoming a majority feeling amongst Jews during and after the Holocaust.
Faith is not something you hold onto after your people are slaughtered mercilessly, while the successor of Saint Peter, the vicar of Christ is well aware and does nothing and the other superpowers in the world only respond when they feel militarily threatened.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ashkenazi intelligence
[/quote]
As an Ashkenazi, that’s news to me.
[quote]skor wrote:
I really doubt Antisemitism has anything to do with Jews doing well. There are a lot of oppressed minorities who don’t do very well.[/quote]
All cultures have fractures. Hispanics have more than most, Africans have more than almost anyone. The greatest strength of the Jewish people was not intelligence but efficiency in creating an insulated culture that was almost Socialist in nature. Not the state owning the land, of course, but a cohesiveness that is almost unheard of.
I’d argue it’s the only reason most of us are still alive. You become shrewd when you’re viewed differently and you’re a minority. If the culture in which you exist is cohesive, there’s much more of that passed down by the community as a whole.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Main Directory:
Better start reading. There is lots of material to cover.[/quote]
For a group of people that have been enslaved and killed throughout history it’s pretty laughable that you give us so much credit as to have a master plan and some great power. Self-sufficiency is clearly not something most people who hold your views are well accustomed with.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote: “It is fortunate for the Jews generally that the Jewish Press does not Circulate very widely among Gentiles, for it is probably the one established agency in the United States which, without altering its program in the least, could stir up anti-Jewish sentiment by the very simple expedient of a general reading among non-Jews. Jewish writers writing for Jewish-readers present unusual material for the study of race consciousness and its accompaniment of contempt for other races…”
–Henry Ford, 1921[/quote]
In other news, if you’re Muslim it’s cool to stone women to death and kill any non-Muslim, and if you’re Christian you can basically go ahead and purge the planet of anyone but yourself.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Financially? Jews make up a significant percentage of the world’s financial and banking leadership. Imagine the power of men like Alan Greenspan, George Soros, the Lehman brothers and the Rothschild family.[/quote]
A historic connection to the banking industry is a result of heritage. Many oil ‘tycoons’ are similar in that they trace back to white, Christian men. There are a few nations that have a predisposition to shipping as a result of heritage. Most American politicians are old, white and Christian.
The media, again, is a result of heritage. It wasn’t a heavily Jewish medium in the early 1900s, but more Jews moved into it. The disenfranchised used to speak through the press, you know.
As far as liberal agendas being similar to Jewish agendas, well uh, you know, liberalism tends to kind of be focused on the whole liberty thing. Most Jews are liberals. Jews were denied liberty for an extremely long time, and in some instances still are. There’s not so much malicious about 1+1=2. I’d think it’s generally worse that many conservatives seem to support Israel because they want their war so Jesus will pop out of a bunnyhole for them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Militarily? Now let us talk about Israel. The nation does have a relatively small but excellent military, in large part courtesy of their powerful benefactors in the United States, the Jewish lobby (isn’t it convenient that Israel’s enemies are usually also our enemies? Whether they would still be our enemies if we did not have such a cozy relationship with Israel is an open question). This military is adequate for the uses to which it is employed, namely fending off the odd invader, making land-grabbing forays into neighboring Muslim nations, and keeping down those uppity Palestinians.[/quote]
In large part the Western world is responsible for the arming of the Israeli army because they recreated Israel and had to give the state the capability of installing a military force. As for the question of coziness and Israel, Israel is a pretty major asset for American (and Britain).
And it’s worth mention that the people who we’re generally having issues with are the ones in the Muslim world who believe they have a missive from their God to purge the world of non-Muslims and moderate Muslims. Israel, you know, is kind of around there. A lot easier to have that be the flashpoint.
If we want to discuss ‘land grabbing forays’, the most relevant to modern times is the Six Day War, which was not prompted by Israel. Just because you pull out a gun when four guys block your car in and start walking towards you in a dark parking lot doesn’t mean you were wrong in assuming they were not intending to ask you for directions and invite you to go bowling with them.
Although the rest of your post is very solid, this is laughable. The “most powerful armies”, as far as I’m concerned, are defined by the permanent UNSC members. There are five. Three of them would never assist Israel in an atypical conflict, two of them would never assist Israel in a conflict where they were undoubtedly in the right, three of them would denounce Israel if the conflict was questionable and one would waffle. I don’t know what else needs to be said about that.
Although the rest of your post is very solid, this is laughable. The “most powerful armies”, as far as I’m concerned, are defined by the permanent UNSC members. There are five. Three of them would never assist Israel in an atypical conflict, two of them would never assist Israel in a conflict where they were undoubtedly in the right, three of them would denounce Israel if the conflict was questionable and one would waffle. I don’t know what else needs to be said about that.[/quote]
All right, then, I amend my post. Two of the world’s most powerful armies would come rushing to her aid. I stand by my assertion that the United States and Britain, inasmuch as they have a vested interest in Israel’s survival (as well as powerful and noisy domestic lobbies) would be coerced into going to war to defend the nation, right or wrong.
why do you concern yourself with Israel and Jews so much? You spend a lot of time on the subject. What are your fears and suspicions? What causes you to believe what you do?
Maybe his answer will offer insight to the original question[/quote]
Perhaps he just doesn’t like Jews.
There are people, after all, who despite hearing again and again how good they are for you, simply don’t care for certain vegetables. Can’t a guy dislike broccoli without being accused of vicious anti-brassicism?
I like broccoli, myself, and I have nothing against Jews in particular. I do think that Britain made a grave error in judgement in 1947, and that we are still paying for that error in American blood, but short of airlifting every Jew out of Israel (perhaps settling them in the Northern Territory of Australia, where they’d feel right at home climatically, and they could act as a buffer against Indonesian invasion), and partitioning the land among the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Palestinians, the conflict in the Middle East will never be resolved.
As for JTF, I think a brief perusal of his posts (or rather, his links) should give you some idea of what his fears and suspicions (some justified, others not so justified, some clearly out of the Twilight Zone) are.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
In other news, if you’re Muslim it’s cool to stone women to death and kill any non-Muslim, and if you’re Christian you can basically go ahead and purge the planet of anyone but yourself.[/quote]
The stoning of women (or men for that matter) is something is alien to the Quran. As you already might know, the Quran is the ultimate reference for Muslims. Just because Saudi Arabia, the UAEs or Nigeria stone people to death doesn’t mean the people living there condone it. Not surprisingly, those same governments happen to be unequivocally the most corrupt and pro-Western among the Arabs.
The validity of the Hadeeths referring to the stoning is arguable, and one of the precepts of Islam is to refer to the Quran in case of doubt (then to common-sense).
Now contrast with the old testament that plainly puts it: “You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You shall stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt out of the land or slavery.”?Deuteronomy(13:9-10)
It is also preposterous to say that the killing of non-Muslims is OK in Islam. The killing of a non-Muslim (or Muslim for that matter) is among the things that bring you eternal damnation. It is clearly stated in the Quran. So, grab a copy and study it before you accuse Islam of something it never preached.
As for Christians, it you’re referring to something that happened centuries ago known as the inquisition or the crusades, let me tell you that those had as little to do with the teachings of Jesus as what the Brits, Belgians, French and others did in their colonies or Bush is doing right now.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
Although the rest of your post is very solid, this is laughable. The “most powerful armies”, as far as I’m concerned, are defined by the permanent UNSC members.[/quote]
Wrong! The only one that matters is the US. Need I go into the US military expenditure making up for almost half of the armament expenses in the whole world? I didn’t think so.
When was the last time an American president has been critical of Israel?
That said, the premise of Israel being vulnerable to the Arabs is indeed laughable. Israel has nukes and the world’s most powerful country as protector. No Arab country has the bomb. The fact that you think otherwise shows how effective the propaganda you were subjected to has been. Israel is here to stay! Now, if only those Islamist jerks (Ben Laden & co) learned to live with that instead of blowing people up …
[quote]lixy wrote:
The stoning of women (or men for that matter) is something is alien to the Quran. As you already might know, the Quran is the ultimate reference for Muslims. Just because Saudi Arabia, the UAEs or Nigeria stone people to death doesn’t mean the people living there condone it. Not surprisingly, those same governments happen to be unequivocally the most corrupt and pro-Western among the Arabs.
The validity of the Hadeeths referring to the stoning is arguable, and one of the precepts of Islam is to refer to the Quran in case of doubt (then to common-sense).[/quote]
002.228
YUSUFALI: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
004.034
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Although you’re right about the stoning, Sharia is not the Qur’an. As for your claim that the governments that do this are generally pro-Western, the two most prolific are Saudi Arabia and Iran. That’s a pretty even split as far as pro-Western goes.
Surah An-Noor (24:2) “The woman and the man guilty of adultery, inflict on each of them one hundred lashes. Let not compassion move you in their case because it has been prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the life Hereafter and let a party of the believers witness their punishment.”
I also fail to understand how this is arguable:
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 815:
While we were with the Prophet , a man stood up and said (to the Prophet ), “I beseech you by Allah, that you should judge us according to Allah’s Laws.” Then the man’s opponent who was wiser than him, got up saying (to Allah’s Apostle) “Judge us according to Allah’s Law and kindly allow me (to speak).” The Prophet said, “'Speak.” He said, “My son was a laborer working for this man and he committed an illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and I gave one-hundred sheep and a slave as a ransom for my son’s sin. Then I asked a learned man about this case and he informed me that my son should receive one hundred lashes and be exiled for one year, and the man’s wife should be stoned to death.” The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to the Laws of Allah. Your one-hundred sheep and the slave are to be returned to you, and your son has to receive one-hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. O Unais! Go to the wife of this man, and if she confesses, then stone her to death.” Unais went to her and she confessed. He then stoned her to death.
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 826:
Two men had a dispute in the presence of Allah’s Apostle. One of them said, “Judge us according to Allah’s Laws.” The other who was more wise said, “Yes, Allah’s Apostle, judge us according to Allah’s Laws and allow me to speak (first)” The Prophet said to him, 'Speak " He said, "My son was a laborer for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and the people told me that my son should be stoned to death, but I have given one-hundred sheep and a slave girl as a ransom (expiation) for my son’s sin. Then I asked the religious learned people (about It), and they told me that my son should he flogged one-hundred stripes and should be exiled for one year, and only the wife of this man should be stoned to death " Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to Allah’s Laws: O man, as for your sheep and slave girl, they are to be returned to you.” Then the Prophet had the man’s son flogged one hundred stripes and exiled for one year, and ordered Unais Al-Aslami to go to the wife of the other man, and if she confessed, stone her to death. She confessed and was stoned to death.
While you can argue the validity of the Hadith (and I don’t know why you would, this strikes me as pretty straight forward) the Qur’an still prescribes 100 lashes as punishment.
[quote]Now contrast with the old testament that plainly puts it: “You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You shall stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt out of the land or slavery.”?Deuteronomy(13:9-10)
It is also preposterous to say that the killing of non-Muslims is OK in Islam. The killing of a non-Muslim (or Muslim for that matter) is among the things that bring you eternal damnation. It is clearly stated in the Quran. So, grab a copy and study it before you accuse Islam of something it never preached.
[/quote]
Quran-5:51- O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other
Quran-3:85, If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost.
Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book*, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued
People of the Book = Christians and Jews, as far as I know.
Is the Pope not the vicar of Christ? Ah, well, most people who are well educated should know of the atrocities the Catholic Church is responsible for. Still, though, the Pope is supposed to be a conduit to big J.
Revelation to John and The Old Testament has some pretty fucking tough shit in it, though. I’m not going to go around quoting, but if you’ve even read bits and pieces of it you should know how violent it is. My generalization with regards to the whole wiping out everyone who isn’t Christian thing was more the thought of manifest destiny amongst many Christian religious leaders yesterday (before manifest destiny even was coined as a phrase) and today.
[quote]Wrong! The only one that matters is the US. Need I go into the US military expenditure making up for almost half of the armament expenses in the whole world? I didn’t think so.
When was the last time an American president has been critical of Israel?[/quote]
The dominance of the United States in all things is relegated to the Navy. While I hate to turn this into some military armchair general circlejerk, our Navy is really the only thing that is just so far ahead of everyone else as to make us invincible in that regard. Air superiority is questionable without NATO, our ground troops are well trained but the prevailing attitude of recent minds at the Pentagon was to downsize and make it a tactical force which has hurt overall numbers.
China has a billion soldiers. While they could never land them on the Americas, that’s a pretty god damn effective army. We spend a lot of money because we’re generally spearheading new research, not because all that money is going directly into recruiting.
If Iran got the bomb, it would be significantly less laughable. Hopefully Israel will not allow that to happen. While the UN may want to constrict Israel, and every country in the world (I recognize that Israel has done some pretty terrible things, but countries in the middle of genocides have been treated better than Israel) may be against them, I doubt they’re gun shy enough to let Iran get far enough along without attacking. And they’re justified in doing that, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t even see how anyone could argue otherwise with the constant posturing of the Iranians that they want to completely annihilate Israel.
Israel has nukes, but it’s doubtful they’d ever be used. They have American support, but America would only dedicate troops in an extreme instance. As long as Israel doesn’t explode into all out war with all Arab neighbors, everyone knows that Israel is kept on a tight leash and they can be constantly attacked so long as you don’t engage them at a state level. Israel is here to stay, except they’re pulling out of areas to give to the Palestinians. As soon as they do, terrorists funded by various Arab countries (who couldn’t care less about Palestinians, by the way) start moving into those areas and continue to lob rockets into Israel.
I’m not a big Israel supporter, I’m just taking up their side because I think the constant posturing against them is getting old. The world reaction to the war in Lebanon was endlessly hilarious to me. Israel was being attacked multiple times a day by a force in a neighboring country with political power using Iranian made missiles and hiding behind civilian shields, after that force invaded Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers.
Israel shouldn’t have attacked. Their response wasn’t proportional. They jumped the gun. What the fuck was Israel supposed to do? Mail them gift baskets? The response was proportional if you’re willing to accumulate the constant bombardment they were under, as opposed to looking at one day in the life of Israel.
And Israel was badly beaten in Lebanon for the same reason Western countries are finding it difficult to win this war. We are fighting non-state actors in a time where the world is in a state of hypersensitivity about everything and coverage is unprecedented. Israel got caught on the fence between force and restraint, just like America did. Israel couldn’t take the constant bombardment without responding, but they couldn’t respond fully. The UN was doing nothing. Well, they were watching. They do appear to enjoy that.
Weinberger Doctrine. It’s right, and it always has been. War is disgusting and vile and it’s even worse when the enemies are non-state actors because you have to kill civilians. There is no bomb that only kills bad guys, and there is no force on this Earth, no matter how competent, that can go into a hostile foreign environment that is sympathetic to the enemy and only find and kill the enemy on the ground. You win against non-state actors by reaching a political compromise or completely annihilating the area in which they are operating.
While Israel may not be at risk of being destroyed in a full scale war, they’re surrounded on 3 sides with 300 million+ people that hate them and 100 million people that would probably be willing to take up arms and engage in guerilla warfare with them. Israel is being slowly destroyed, don’t doubt it. As the saying goes, the universe will end not with a bang, but a whimper.
Liberalism today means that government is looked to in order to right all wrongs and secure justice. If history teaches us anything, governments are the worst abusers of human rights and justice.
Jews, being way above average in intellect, should be MORE in favor of very limited government. The experiences of the 20th century at minimum should cause that to happen. Yet, we see Jews vote overwhelming for Democrats, the party of tax-and-spend, run from your enemies, and ‘Let’s start a new program!!’
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
While you can argue the validity of the Hadith (and I don’t know why you would, this strikes me as pretty straight forward) the Qur’an still prescribes 100 lashes as punishment. [/quote]
Yes, I would argue it for the simple reason that it just isn’t something that passes my common-sense test. i.e: I don’t see how society might benefit from it.
The quran prescribing the 100 lashes is another issues…
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
Quran-5:51- O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other.
Quran-3:85, If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost.
Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book*, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued
People of the Book = Christians and Jews, as far as I know.
[/quote]
The two first verses don’t have much connection with the killing of non-Muslims. The first one was revealed in a very particular context. After the Battle of Uhud, Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, “I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah.” And another person said, “I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah.” So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)
The last one is pretty straight forward to me. Your government fights you when you don’t pay taxes, and this verse is nothing more than that. Why are Muslims exempt from the Jizya? Because they already have the Zakat tax and the Saddaqa that are both supposed to alleviate disparities between the rich and poor!
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
Is the Pope not the vicar of Christ? Ah, well, most people who are well educated should know of the atrocities the Catholic Church is responsible for. Still, though, the Pope is supposed to be a conduit to big J.[/quote]
No! The pope isn’t more the vicar of Christ than the Saudi king is “commander of the believers” or me the queen of England. Those institutions were established not to serve God but some special interests.
I believe in the holy origin of the testaments but also believe that the versions that we know aren’t the originals and that they’ve been altered to serve some dark particular interests. Else, why would one need the Quran and Mohammed?
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
our Navy is really the only thing that is just so far ahead of everyone else as to make us invincible in that regard. Air superiority is questionable without NATO. [/quote]
Who effectively controls NATO? I know for sure that Spain is not. When a couple of million people took the streets in demonstrations, the Spanish government still went with Bush on the war with the consequences that we all know: the Madrid bombings. The US has control over NATO!
Seriously, look at the US’s nuclear arsenal, sophistication of weapons, military budget and tell me honestly that there’s a country that can match it.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
If Iran got the bomb, it would be significantly less laughable[…]
Israel has nukes, but it’s doubtful they’d ever be used.[/quote]
If that’s not blatant bias, I don’t know what is! Why on Earth would you assume the Iran is inherently evil and Israel inherently well-intentioned. Who’s got a history of waging wars? Let me remind you that the Iranian revolution would have not happened if it wasn’t for the US putting the Shah in power.
To top that off, I clearly referred to “Arabs” in my post. Dunno where you got Iran from.
Now you’re assuming Arab countries have an inherent hatred of the Jews. If they don’t care about Palestians, why would they fund the terrorists? Let me again remind you that in all Arab countries (besides Saudi Arabia), Jewish communities live peacefully alongside Arabs ad have done so for centuries.
Hezbollah made a mistake by kidnapping the Israelis, but it turned out to be a pretty stategic win for them after the war. I don’t see however what’s hilarious about kids being slaughtered and hundreds of thousands of people displaced (be they Lebanese or Israelis). Israel violates Lebanese airspace on a regular basis terrorizing the population. What were the locals supposed to do? Wave to the jets and send them their blessings? That’s what actually triggered the Hezbollah response.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
The response was proportional if you’re willing to accumulate the constant bombardment they were under, as opposed to looking at one day in the life of Israel.[/quote]
They used cluster bombs for heaven’s sake!!!
Wrong! It’s because people will always naturally oppose oppresion. No amount of violence will ever get a human to submit to a bully.
Again, as we speak American-made Israeli cluster bombs are still killing and amputing Lebanese kids.
Israel is indeed doomed in the same way the apartheid regime was doomed. Because its foundations are shaky. Also, demographics show that it’s a matter of time before Arabs become majority (the demographic bomb to quote Natanyahu). I was talking to a Jordanian friend yesterday and was astounded when he said that Palestinians in Jordan represent 4,2 millions while Jordanians themselves are only 4 millions. They’re rabbits!
We’re obviously on the opposite sides of the spectrum regarding this issue and you’re assuming Arabs have a gutural hatred of Israeli Jews that has nothing to do with the Zionist actions. A piece of advice: watch/read/browse less mainstream and rely more on independent media for your info.
The dominance of the United States in all things is relegated to the Navy. While I hate to turn this into some military armchair general circlejerk, our Navy is really the only thing that is just so far ahead of everyone else as to make us invincible in that regard. [/quote]
When you say “Navy”, I assume you are including the Marine Corps. The ability to pound inland cities with cruise missiles and naval artillery, while certainly impressive, is pretty pointless without the grunts to secure the territory afterwards. And our Marines pretty much lead the world in that arena.
More like 1.6 million active, 2.3 million counting reserve personnel.
I don’t know about the universe, but yeah, that’s probably how Israel will end: with a whimper…after an innumerable series of very loud bangs.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Many world powers would defend Israel because it is a democratic nation in a sea of communism and facism, not to mention religious zealotry.[/quote]
Israel is a model fascist state. I’ve been there twice. 18 year old girls walk around toting assault rifles. It’s economy operates on collectivist principles.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why are Jews so liberal?
Liberalism today means that government is looked to in order to right all wrongs and secure justice. If history teaches us anything, governments are the worst abusers of human rights and justice.
Jews, being way above average in intellect, should be MORE in favor of very limited government. The experiences of the 20th century at minimum should cause that to happen. Yet, we see Jews vote overwhelming for Democrats, the party of tax-and-spend, run from your enemies, and ‘Let’s start a new program!!’[/quote]
Why are academics overwhelmingly liberal? As a teacher, give us your take.
Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism - Ludwig Von Mises Institute
Some interesting statistics from that article on predominant political affiliations in various fields of academia:
[quote]A 1989 study for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching used the categories “liberal” and “conservative.” It found that 70 percent of the professors in the major liberal arts colleges and research universities considered themselves liberal or moderately liberal, with less than 20 percent identifying themselves as conservative or moderately conservative.
…
Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein have recently examined academics’ political affiliations using voter-registration records for tenure-track faculty at 11 California universities. They find an average Democrat:Republican ratio of 5:1, ranging from 9:1 at Berkeley to 1:1 at Pepperdine. The humanities average 10:1, while business schools are at only 1.3:1.
…
Now here’s a surprise: Even in my own discipline, economics, 63 percent of the faculty in the Carnegie study identified themselves as liberal, compared with 72 percent in anthropology, political science, and sociology, 76 percent in ethnic studies, history, and philosophy, and 88 percent in public affairs. The Cardiff and Klein study finds an average D:R ratio in economics departments of 2.8:1 - lower than the sociologists’ 44:1, to be sure, but higher than that of biological and chemical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, management, marketing, accounting, and finance.[/quote]
How repulsive to see so many socialists involved with economics. On the positive side, though, it’s good to see the highest proportion of conservatives belonging to the hard sciences – those are my fields.
Give us your take, HH, as I’d be interested in hearing it. Surely the majority of your coworkers are and have been of liberal persuasion?
