If we keep up the neocon/Likud policies we will be just like Israel.

Ok let me try to do this without messing up too bad. I never brought up the brotherhood thing, but ill take a whiff at it. Its like this, If you attack a fellow Muslim in front of me I will definately feel the pain, but we may also fight in the background but thats none of your business.

Look me and my brother used to fight like we were both about to kill each other. but if another person in the neighborhood laid a hand on either one of us we would definately get up and defend the other no matter how big the attacker was.

Another big problem is the sects that have been created. They give some people a "legit" reason to attack and ridicule another Muslim. They believe that they are the right way and the others that pray a different way are offending god and hence need to be taken care of. Its definately a problem in the Muslim world, and it should be a more focal point in Muslim Governments to stop these types of violences. But again if another group attacks one of them all the others will get up and defend em.

Hope that helps.

 

........but you took a swing at me with the Arabs & Muslims comment. That gets you involved from my viewpoint.

If you go and reread some of the links I provided in the other thread in regards to Sudan such as:
<a HREF="http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/august%202004/rep-darfur-en.htm">
REPORT OF THE OIC MISSION TO ASSESS THE SITUATION IN THE DARFUR REGION OF THE SUDAN</a>

<a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06/11/sudan.un/">Security Council endorses resolution on Sudan</a>

<a HREF="http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/31/31%20icfm-DECLARATION-eng.htm">ISTANBUL DECLARATION ADOPTED BY THE THIRTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS</a>

I see no indication of the <i>pain</i> that you suggest that the Muslim World feels about the situation in Sudan. If there was some <i>pain</i>, then why the lockstep with the Sudanese government on the situation? Have the OIC countries told the UN that they would muster up a peacekeeping force for Sudan and would handle the situation themselves because Muslim - Muslim violence was unacceptable to the Islamic World?

Indonesia
Bangladesh
Pakistan

are OIC members with sizable populations and are not Arab League members. It seems that each of those countries could contribute perhaps 5,000 troops each to form a 15,000 strong peacekeeping force for Sudan.

The intertwining of Islam and the government leads to these type of situations. The dominant religious group leans heavily on the government to favor them and put the smaller sect groups on the defensive. If one looks at what appears to be an endless cycle of Sunni - Shia violence in Pakistan, it goes beyond a <i>defensive</i> posture and into something that hampers the improvement of the society and the country as a whole. All in the name of this branch of Islam being <i>correct</i> and the other <i>sects</i> being wrong.

In regards to sects being created..........that is nothing new because that started in the early years of Islam with the Shia - Sunni division.

You were in the thread I started about Radical Islam:

<a HREF="http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73505">Radical Islam</a>

 

I love that response. We should all just automatically assume that my post is "ridiculous." Don't just call my post "ridiculous." Use facts to show that my post is ridiculous.

The Israelis, namely former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, blew up the King David hotel and ruthlessly murdered British officials and soldiers. Refute that.

In 1982, the Israelis, led by then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, massacred 1500 people in one day in the Lebanese villages of Sabra and Chatila. Israeli tanks surrounded the villages to prevent innocent Palestinians from leaving as the villages were sprayed with bullets. Those were not terrorists. There was no Hezbollah terrorist threat in 1982. Over the course of the Lebanon debacle, over 15000 people were killed by Israel. Refute that.

In 1954, the Israeli government launched "Operation Suzannah", which was an Israeli government operation to murder Americans and blow up American buildings in Egypt and then blame it on the Egyptians. That way, America would side with Israel in a war against Egypt. Luckily for America and Egypt, one of these attempts (an attempt to blow up an MGM Theater in Cairo) was foiled because the bomb went off early and was in official Israeli government possession. The Israeli Foreign Minister at the time, Pinhas Lavon, had to resign over this. Refute that.

During the Six-Day War in 1967, unmarked Israeli planes and torpedo boats launched a 90 minute attack on the USS Liberty. Once again, Israel had intended to have the blame of this attack put on Egypt. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Joint Cheifs Chairman Tom Moorer both concluded that this was not mistaken identity, as Israel had claimed, but rather a deliberate attack on a U.S. ship. Refute that.

I won't elaborate on Jonathan Pollard, who was an Israeli spy hired to obtain American secrets and give them to the Russians in the height of the Cold War.

As you can see, I can substantiate my claim that we have no business being an ally of Israel. Israel gets more American aid than any other country and this is how they repay us. It is quite evident that Israel is no ally of ours, but rather a country that simply uses us.

I hardly think that my post is "ridiculous." Additionally, most mommas should let their kids grow up to be Aggies because this Aggie thinks on his own. He has enough intellect to form his own opinions and not buy in to what people tell him at face value.

 

Actually, according to wikipedia, Lebonese nationals massacred 700-800 Palestinians at Sabra and Chatila.

There are allegations that Sharon allowed or even encouraged the massacre, but they are unproven. The Israelis certainly never sprayed the camps with bullets. He was indicted in a Belgian court, was never tried, and the case was later dropped when the Belgian government decided they had no rights to try non-Belgian suspects for crimes against non-Belgian victims.

 

Yes, I think you are right that it was the Lebanese who conducted the massacre. However, I think I remember reading that the allegations that Sharon allowed/encouraged it were indeed proven in Israeli court, where he was found guilty of war crimes. Perhaps the better read posters here can confirm or elaborate more informatively...

 

This just seems to completely contradict the thesis of Naomi's article. Nothing you read or hear from the US implies we are acting like Israel in their conflict, in Iraq.

 

You are right in that it was Lebanese Phalangists who did the killing. However, the killing was done under the urging of Sharon, the weapons used in the killing were supplied by Israel for that very purpose, and Israeli troops supervised the effort. There is no debate on the validity of that. The Israeli Kahan Commission found Sharon and Israeli troops liable for that attack.

Considering that the Israeli government found its own defense minister and its own troops responsible for the massacre, I do not see how the allegations are unproven. Moreover, just because you did not actually pull the trigger does not relieve you of moral culpability. If I give you a gun, point out who to shoot, and then hold the guy down as you pull the trigger, I am just as responsible for his death as you. Same principle with the Phalangists and Israeli troops.

 

I think you're confusing Pollard with Aldrich Ames. Pollard gave secrets to Israelis, who had been compromised by the Soviets. He did not give secrets to the Soviets.

As for your general point, it should be obvious that there are numerous reasons for the US to have Israel as an ally: they are a democracy - something scarce in the ME, we have a large Jewish lobby, we have guilt over the holocaust, we have an affinity for the underdog - which Israel undoubtably was when formed and attacked by its Arab neighbors; we can't understand suicide bombers blowing up pizza parlors - but we can understand missles into hamas enclaves, Israel was a good ally in the Cold War fight against the Soviets - our interests merged well with the persecution of Jews in the USSR, culturally we are both nations of immigrants....

 

would love to see your sources....especially about the unmarked planes..

 

I don't have "secret sources" or anything for these things. These are well-known facts. If you want to verify the validity of the things I listed, just type in "Operation Suzannah" or "USS Liberty", or "Sabra and Chatila" to Dogpile, Google, or any other search engine on the Web.

 

No offense, AggieRocket, but when referencing specific instances, as you did regarding some Israeli actions in the past that were highly controversial, to say the least (and I'm not saying there isn't some validity to some of what you mention), we are expected to provide links "backing up" what we've posited. Just an FYI. If someone calls you out on it, as someone invaribly will, if the topic is in discussion and "iffy", expect it. Even better, just provide the links.

Of course, few here compare to the Link Master, Mango, who has provided several in this thread, directed at a couple of members, who know who they are, that haven't given a decent response... as far as I can tell.

Then, you have instances of discussion such as HayesStreet and I have had in this thread, where we refer to well known historical events, that really don't call for links, unless someone gets picky.

(I think I nailed your hide to the wall, Hayes. )

 

he Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a grievous error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before. The United States had announced that it had no naval forces within hundreds of miles of the battle front on the floor of the United Nations a few days earlier; however, the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship assigned to monitor the fighting, arrived in the area, 14 miles off the Sinai coast, as a result of a series of United States communication failures, whereby messages directing the ship not to approach within 100 miles were not received by the Liberty. The Israelis mistakenly thought this was the ship doing the shelling and war planes and torpedo boats attacked, killing 34 members of the Liberty's crew and wounding 171.

Numerous mistakes were made by both the United States and Israel. For example, the Liberty was first reported — incorrectly, as it turned out — to be cruising at 30 knots (it was later recalculated to be 28 knots). Under Israeli (and U.S.) naval doctrine at the time, a ship proceeding at that speed was presumed to be a warship. The sea was calm and the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Liberty's flag was very likely drooped and not discernible; moreover, members of the crew, including the Captain, Commander William McGonagle, testified that the flag was knocked down after the first or second assault.

 

I will not refute anything that you state. All of those are valid reasons for us to be allied with Israel. However, in order to be an ally, you must be able to trust your ally and you must have some sense of assurance that your ally will work for you and your best interests. An ally cannot be a true ally on ideology alone. We cannot trust Israel and because of that, I do not feel that we should be their blind ally. In all honesty, had any Arab country done to America what Israel has done over the years, America would have flattened that country and rightfully so. Support Israel, but stick up for America and American interests when Israel threatens those interests. That's all I say.

 

I see you are referencing Mitchell Bard He is a good man. However, Mitchell is of the slim minority that believes that the attack was accidental. The U.S. Government thought that the action was intentional. The crewmen, including McGonagle, called it intentional. Dean Rusk and Tom Moorer also called it intentional. The only people who call it accidental are members of the Israeli government and a very slim minority elsewhere. According to the crew of the ship, there was no way that the ship could have been mistaken.