No matter how many tyrants the US bribes or how many fake ass treaties Israel signs, there'll never be peace without justice for the land that's been stolen. It's a truism no amount of might makes right can escape.
Honestly I don't really give a damn what the Arabs will accept. There's a difference between politics and what is right. The existence of a religious state runs contrary to basic American values. It's something I don't support as a matter of principle. The Arabs have acquiesced to Israel under the threat of force and occupation, not because they have some new respect for Zionism.
I'm not sure if you noted this, but some of the people arguing for it are simply claiming that they support Zionism as it was first defined in history. That means it doesn't include expansion/invasion, instigation via military force, terrorism, and displacement of Palestinians. I think that's fair enough, and no different than Sudan splitting in two, Kashmiris wanting their own country, or as a matter of fact the US coming into existence. I think what they're claiming is that Zionism was hijacked and given new meaning and for the most part, they don't support Zionism as it is defined today. Then there are the pro-semitic nutjobs.
Matters of principle get a lot of children killed, and give a new generation new principles to kill someone's children for. Even better if someone else can do the killing AND dying for those principles. It's clear where some people in this discussion stand.
If everyone decides to stick to their guns, everyone ends up with a hole in their head. And it's a LOT easier to stand by those principles when it's someone else that gets to suffer for them.
Ask yourself why it is your principle that an eviction of tenants makes you much angrier than a suicide bombing in which 40 people get killed. You stated yourself that you had to overcome the thinking that the life of a Muslim is worth more to you than the life of a non-Muslim. The reality is that while your intellect has overcome this sort of thinking, the chip is still implanted in your head, and you have an instinctive bias. Muslims getting evicted makes you much angrier than non-Muslims getting killed in a bombing committed by Muslims. At least your posting indicates that. Same with some of the other islamist-leaning posters.
"God likes my meta-narrative better than your meta-narrative" should not be the basis for an argument in a real-estate dispute. If I was left to MY principles there wouldn't be any religion. Or nationalities. Or tribal loyalties or private property or landmines or reality television or bad food or unfair bosses or American Idol or people with gambling addictions and no health care or poorly written scripts greenlit into multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbusters...but I live in the same world everyone else has to and I unless I want to impose MY will upon people at gunpoint (and be no different than the people I hate) I have to live with fair, good governance and being a good neighbor as the next best thing to aspire for.
Having principles doesn't necessarily include the imposition of principles. You work towards your principles, plain and simple. My personal philosophy consists of two things: - Work towards your principles. - Constantly consume knowledge/information that develops your principles. You've basically said that you HAVE principles, but deny them. That's your choice. That's actually another principle. But there can't be people with no principles. Because even having no principles is a principle. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your choice of words. I don't understand how anyone can have a moral/ethical vacuum and no principles.
lol Sure dude. My principle, like Deji, is no borders. So where I feel there is not enough awareness to support that principle, I fill in the gaps using that principle. It's not like I go to Islamist maniacs and charge them up about evictions in Jerusalem if I know that this guy hates all Jews. It's not like I go to Israeli activists who are protesting the evictions and scream "WHY DONT YOU CARE ABOUT 9/11!!!!" lol What's telling is your belief that I can't care about both things, and dedicate my attention to an area where I feel I can add value. I think it's best you ask yourself why you are so intent on classifying Muslims and maintaining control of that classification. You've already made an ass clown of yourself by saying that my apology for the cartoonist was perhaps tactical, and now calling me an Islamist. While I take comfort in the fact that I lead my life in a very open way, and there are people on this board who I agree and disagree with, I don't hate anyone. Ask yourself if I'm the Islamist and you're the realist, why are there so many freaking people who consider you Islamophobic? Why you're always on the same side of issues? Why you bunch people who make occasional supportive comments of Muslims into the same group as Islamists? Why a widely agreed subject like suicide bombing requires more detailed analysis and discussion than the prime time it already gets on tv? Why you would believe that such a thing as a left leaning Islamist even exists? Why you wonder how I can come up with pearls of wisdom only when I let my frustration get the better of me and say negative things about anything Islamic? But like I said, it's just the same generic stuff from you now. I'm just wondering which one of the following it will be: - "I'm too drunk" - Post a picture - Complain about the length of the post. The best question you can ask yourself is how you are accusing me of being Islamist biased, when I'd venture to say over 70% of threads you've started (if not total posts) is negative towards Islam. But oh no, that can't be right, the more rational reasoning is that I'm an Islamist that attacks the existance of scholars, rejects hadith, questions the Quran, and don't hate Israel. Because all you see is: "HE SAID PBUH!! HE IS SHOWING RESPECT FOR THAT RELIGION!!" Seriously, grow up.
Yeah. Trying to make something complicated always means you have the real truth. Trying to make something complicated is frequently used as a tactic in negotiations or politics. How about. We (Jews) realize you have always lived here. We realize that we ethnically cleansed you mainly though some of you were bought out by our wealth from Europe. We horribly wronged you. You have overreacted horribly at times, but we understand as we started it. How do we make it right? I suggest a state for us all with no religion privileged. We owe you some big time reparations. Let's have religious freedom for all. Imagine how great a state we can have once we stop spending a huge proportion of our wealth oppressing you and preventing you from advancing. BTW religious extremism of a type that privileges one religion over others is not widely admired --espcecially when there are large numbers of the minority religionists. BTW Zionism is not racism. It is colonialism, which is also not widely admired or accepted in the last 100 years or so Jews and the Palestinians share the same DNA. If they descend from the origional area, they look the same. They look the same, but have a different religion and the overwhelming percentage of the Jews ancestors for say 1500 years lived in far off lands before they displaced the folks who always lived there.
What value do you add? I educate people on the dangers of islamist extremism. I "dedicate my attention to this area"...yet, you and others whine about it and demand more balance and less attention to this topic. Yet, when I ask for the same from you, you say you would rather "dedicate your attention to an area where you feel you can add value". That's good for you. I am glad for you that you, too, managed to have your coming out, like adeelsiddiqui. How do people in your country react? Isn't this considered illegal there? Me neither. So many freaking people? It's usually the same few clowns who pull the "islamophobic" card. Plus, there aren't even many freaking people in this subforum to begin with. You prefer to be on different sides of the same issue? Provide examples for this untrue statement. Is it really widely agreed? In which sense do you mean? Do you mean in the sense that a vast majority of the Muslim population in certain countries supports them and agrees with them? A left leaning Islamist? When did I ever speak of anything like that? What? Are they negative towards Islam or negative towards Islamists, and Islamist violence? Why do you equate the two? What is negative if I report an adultery stoning or a blasphemy death sentence? My thread, or what I report? Am I really reporting something negative on Islam, or on Islamism? We can go through the list of my threads and then you tell me whether the thread is negative towards Islam, or towards Islamism, and if it is negative towards Islamism, why you would contest that what I talk about is actually something positive (like stoning or suicide bombings or forced marriages, etc.). Correct.
Reports: Mubarak May Step Down (CBS/AP) Commanders of Egypt's armed forces were meeting Thursday amid numerous reports that President Hosni Mubarak was planning to take another step in conceding to massive protests and giving up power. Al-Arabiya television reported that an announcement would come shortly - possibly from the military or possibly from Mubarak himself - announcing plans to "respond to people's demands."
I hope that is true but I will believe it when I see it. My guess is that if a report comes out it will be something along the lines of that Mubarak will step down when a transition government is in place, one that is decided on by Mubarak and the ruling party. I suspect this to be another stalling tactic but we'll see.
