Suicide bombers only go to heaven under one condition - if they are mentally lacking to the point where they can't, for themselves, conclude that what they're doing is wrong. In this case, they don't go to heaven, they are simply forgiven for what they did.
Originally posted by Sane - Sure I'll get disagreement, but that doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't make your opinion better than mine, it just makes it more accepteable in today's society. You're being dishonest if you propose that a system that allows representation for all inidividuals' wants and dreams is somehow inferior or even equivalent to a system that is ultimately only concerned with one person's desires at the expense of all others. - Wacko is not the President. But you didn't refer to Araft as the president, you reffered to him as the most famous Palestinian. ... No I didn't, you did. Then you inferred that 'famous' should not be considered representative of the rest of the people, which is true. But 'elected' or 'chosen' leaders, in many respects, can be considered somewhat representative of the people. Where were Israelis living before they invaded Palestine? Invaded? They moved-back there after many generation away. In fact, many Arabs sold land to them before the partition. What's your point? You're comparing soviet support from God knows when, to the support from Americans that is still happening today? It's not compareable and you know it. It's certainly not the same, but it is comparable. Depends partly want your original intent was by asking: 'America is the only reason Israel is where it is today'. Again, what did you mean to imply? That it would not exist because all of the Arab nations were supplied arms by the Soviet Union and they would have killed all of the Jews?
- It has its disadvantages. Ofcourse, it has its advantages as well. Israel is a democracy. However, according to you, most of the people are in favor of peace. How is this "democracy" working? - You're right, StupidMoniker said it. But still, Arafat is not representative of the Palestinian people, just like Micheal Jackson or George Bush isn't the representative of every single American person. That's a problem with democracy. You have George Bush sitting up there when he, like Arafat, cannot represent a whole country. "Dictatoships" are better in this respect, because these leaders always originate from the roots of their country. - Can Iraq move back into Kuwait after many generations away? Can Iranians take over its surrounding countries seeing as they occupied this land before? It's called invasion. My point was directed at whoever was saying Palestinians should just live anywhere in the Middle East or in Jordan and everythign would be fine. If this was a practical solution, why didn't Israelis do it by staying wherever they were? - Arab Countries REACTED to Israel. If they planned on killing all the Jews, as you put it, then it was because Isral began invading neighbouring countries. As for the support, it's not even close to compareable. What I was trying to imply was that Israel wouldn't be sitting on invaded Palestine had they not been supported by the U.S. . Maybe parts of it, maybe a lot of it, maybe not much of it. But the U.S. contributed to the invasion of Palestine.
The people elected Barak and he was a peace maker. Then Arafat spit on the deal, didn't bother making a counter-offer, and the Intifada began. After people started being killed by terrorists, the people wanted someone to fight the terrorists, so they started electing more hawkish leaders. That is exactly how a representative democracy works. I don't know why you keep talking about Michael Jackson. Arafat is the leader of his country. He makes policy. Michael Jackson is a celebrity. He used to be famous for making music, and now he is famous for being a creepy weirdo. They have nothing to do with each other. I cannot believe that you said dictatorships represent the people better than a democracy. That is nonsensical. Dictatorships represent the will of one person. Democracies represent the will of a plurality of the people. Since the will of every person is not the same, no government can represent the will of all of the people, but of any type of government democracy represents the will of the most people.
Just like the rest of the world, no one has a roadmap to solve the problem. Anyway: - bamaslammer: The area was called Palestine, so residents of the region can be called Palestinians. You don't have to annoyingly use quotes. Also, I thought WorldNetDaily was considered a joke. Is that not true? - Sane: Where do you get Islam (the religion) claiming a right to Israeli lands? I have never ever heard that. If anything, I believe the religion would support the Jewish right to the land as it was indeed part of the original Covenant acknowledged in the Quran. Do you have a Quranic reference, or are you basing it on history? - Gene Peterson: The Nazis came to power in Germany through democratic processes. They became a dictatorship, but the process was voted on by the public and Reichstag until Hitler had full control of the country. - DaDakota: I feel icky for saying this, but I think I agree with some things you've been saying. However, I don't know about "Israel won lands in war. Too bad." If you say this, then it looks like the world can be a free-for-all and no one should intervene. Not the UN. Not the USA. Is this true? Isn't this just asking for some sort of re-alignment along Cold War lines except with someone else as the USSR (like China?)? Philip Greenspun has what I think is a nice article summarizing the Israel question and surrounding problems: http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/israel/index.html. I highly recommend reading it to understand all sides and the historical context.
Sorry, a few more things. If you read the Greenspun article mentioned above, you'll see the unfair way Jewish people have been treated throughout history... and that they do practice a form of apartheid in Israel now. Different ID cards, identifying marks, etc., are standard practice for non-Jewish people in Israel. Jobs are always menial, and because of things like the security fence/wall, some Palestinians can't get to work as a result. ----- I'm also surprised no one has brought up the other reason for the existence of Israel: fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and the desire to bring about the end times. I think Adeel is the one who said it's "only the Jewish religion" which asks for Israel. This is untrue. One of the prerequisites for the Jewish arrival of the Messiah AND the Christian return of Jesus is the establishment of the Jewish state, right? Not being a Quranic expert, I'll defer to someone else... but I think this may also be true in the Quran for the coming of the Messiah. ----- Deji - Why is dhimmitude so bad? I don't know a ton about it, but from my readings it was a more fair system than anything else in existence at the time. Non-believers in a society get rights but have to pay tax. Seems like a better option than the "Convert or die" choice offered during the Reconquista in Spain.
Originally posted by Sane - It has its disadvantages. Ofcourse, it has its advantages as well. Israel is a democracy. However, according to you, most of the people are in favor of peace. How is this "democracy" working? They want peace. They also don't want to be blown up. At times, these 2 goals will create a conflict in voters: they want short-term security sometimes at the expense of long-term security. The Democracy appears to be working just fine. - You're right, StupidMoniker said it. But still, Arafat is not representative of the Palestinian people, just like Micheal Jackson or George Bush isn't the representative of every single American person. That's a problem with democracy. You have George Bush sitting up there when he, like Arafat, cannot represent a whole country. "Dictatoships" are better in this respect, because these leaders always originate from the roots of their country. That's the most tenuous, reaching logic you've ever used here, Sane. You should just let that issue retire. - Can Iraq move back into Kuwait after many generations away? Can Iranians take over its surrounding countries seeing as they occupied this land before? It's called invasion. So if the Palesitinian who left Israel many decades ago, returned ...it would be an invasion? And you're starting to intentionally ignore logic in the posts, such as the issue regarding Arabs seeling property to the Jewish immigrants during their 'invasion'. My point was directed at whoever was saying Palestinians should just live anywhere in the Middle East or in Jordan and everythign would be fine. If this was a practical solution, why didn't Israelis do it by staying wherever they were? Ok (and I didn't say that). - Arab Countries REACTED to Israel. If they planned on killing all the Jews, as you put it, then it was because Isral began invading neighbouring countries. Whic of these neighboring countries did they attack? As for the support, it's not even close to compareable. What I was trying to imply was that Israel wouldn't be sitting on invaded Palestine had they not been supported by the U.S. . Maybe parts of it, maybe a lot of it, maybe not much of it. But the U.S. contributed to the invasion of Palestine. Which part do you consider 'inaded Palestine'? 1) All of Israel 2) Land beyond the Partition 3) Land captured in '67
Sane, I'm all for Palestinian Statehood. I believe that the Palestinians are treated unjustly by the Israelis. I believe they are oppressed, and and kept in horrible conditions. They aren't allowed to make a decent living, or earn enough money to get out of horrible conditions. Of course suicide bombings are horrible, and no treatment justifies attacking civilians. But, Arafat is a crook who steals money that could help the Palestinians. Arafat would have been a fool to accept the Oslow accord as is, but he was also a fool not to come back with a counter-offer. I have to disagree and say that dictatorships are incredibly wrong, it doesn't matter what kind they are. That being said Arafat was elected twice in democratic elections. The first was definitely fair, and the second was questionable. But the fact that there were elections is a promising occurance. Palestinian statehood might run well as a democracy. Anyway the guy was elected and does represent some percentage of the people. I don't know, it seems that when those that want Palestinian statehood begin defending dictatorship as a reasonable form of govt. the cause isnt' helped, it's hurt.
Don't have Qura'anic reference, I can look it up for you. However, it's common knowledge that Jerusalem is Islamic Holy Land, tehre are tons of Holy sites there. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so that's Holy Land too. The thing is, according to Islam, Jews and Christians do have a claim to the land. Jesus and Moses were sent by Allah, according to Islam, which makes them a part of our religion. Jewish anscestry and Palestinians anscestry traces back to two brothers, from the same father. If we're talking religiously, Jews have as much a right to the land as Muslims. The difference is, Muslims think Jews strayed from the correct path, and Jews think Muslims... well, you know.
- I agree with you on one thing. Arafat is a crook, and has done a horrible job. He's a crook, and he's not helping the peace process. However, it doesn't matter, there won't be peace, reagardless of who is at the top. Personally, I just hope things stay as civil as possible. - You know exactly why I was talking about Micheal Jackson. You picked the "most famous" Palestinian in the world to represent Palestinians, so I showed you that the most popoular person in a country doesn't represent that country. It's an example. Ofcourse I frikkin' know that MJ doesn't represent all Americans, just like Arafat doesn't represent what Palestinians want. - Whatever. In theory, democracies are better. But that's just in theory. Democracies get corrupted just as often, if not more often, than dictatorships. Look at the Islamic Republic of Iran. People vote in Iran too. Who would've known? Fact of the matter remains that if 50.1% vote for one person, and 49.9% vote for another, the one with .02% more votes wins. So how is the other half of the country being represented? It's a testing process. America is trying to force everyoen into a democracy. I live in a region packed with dictatorships, and things are good here. There are the occasional attacks in Saudi, but no one flies planes into our buildings. BTW, why do u think dictatorships are based on one person's desires? making it sound like every dictator is Saddam Hussein? A true dictator does what he thinks is best for his country, and has tons of advisors btw. He has much more power, but if he abuses that power.... then we're talking about corrupted dictatorships. In which case, I would have top bring up corrupted democracies.
- Speak for yourself. I disagree that the israeli Gov't as a whole wants peace. It's arguable whether or not the people want to live in peace with Palestinians after all this. What Sharon is doing will not equal short-term or long-term peace. Why should there be a trade-off? If they think peace is an option, why not go for peace long-term and short-term? So don't tell me they voted for Sharon to bring them short-term security inexchange for long-term security. If that's true, what's the point delaying the inevitable? You think palestinians will become more willing to negotiate or more willing to blow themselves up? If the people want peace, they'd elect a peacemaker, not someone to do patchwork. - Yes, it would be an invasion. Oh, and please refrain from making accusations like "you intentionally..." There's no need for pointing fingers, were havign an adult conversation. I simply don't know if what you're saying is true, which is why I didn't comment on it. I also fail to see why it's important that Arabs sold land to the Jews? Wouldn't that mean the Jews didn't have to occupy anyone, they could just buy land and live there? - Lebanon. - Land captured in '67.
Sane, You are correct that democracies can be laced with corruption. I'm not denying that. I also believe that many dictators do what they feel is best for the country. If Bamma were the leader of the U.S. he wouldn't just do what he wanted, he would do what he felt was best for the country. That doesn't mean that anything Bamma would do actually would be best for the country, but he wouldn't be corrupted, and he would be doing what he felt was best. Yes, the country can be divided with a democracy. But that isn't so bad. The thing with a democracy is that ideally there will be another chance to change things with the next election. It's also true that people voting for various offices will most likely be supportive of at least some winners, regardless of wether the top person was their choice or not. In theory the good thing about democracy is that people have more of a say in their lives. In dictatorships someone else tells people what's good for their lives. The idea that Americans are forcing democracy on everyone is, for the most part, new with this administration and it's a bad thing. That's not the way to spread democracy.
How much closer to peace would we be if a dictator who wanted peace was appointed to lead Palestine? If he had all the power to end terrorism from Palestine, the type of power that Arafat DOES NOT have right now? You're thinking "what if that's not what Palestinians want?" Well, if what Palestinians want is to blow civilians up, then they're wrong and simply shouldn't get what they want. You don't always need to use force. But when you have that power, then people will do what you say without you having to use that power. I agree that some people abuse this power (Saddam Hussein for example), but as you mentioned, Democracy is not exactly working in Palestine.. Arafat can't do anything. He has no power to do anything. He couldn't end terrorism in Palestine if he WANTED to, and aside from that, he doesn't WANT to. I don't think Palestinians would re-elect Arafat at this point. I think the terrorists would, however, love to have him re-elected.
As I mentioned, in theory, democracies are ideal. They keep people happy. The problem with a democracy is that, you guys put Iraq and Afghanistan in shambles, and next year when there's a new president, he may abandon these plans and focus on homeland issues. Where does that leave everyone? People don't become dictators the way you think. Dictators have lived in a family of leaders their whole lives, and are appointed among all the children, and if none of the children are suited to it, they look for nephews, cousins, etc... This way, the vision of the original leader can be maintained. The country moves forward, in one direction. Then the new leader raises a bunch of children and has brothers, all of whom have grown up around leaders and such, and someone else is appointed. I'm afraid the problem you have with dictatorships is that you can't get Saddam Hussein and Hitler out of your mind when the word coems up. Is that true? If it is, then that's not what dictatorships are about. A dictator doesn't use his force unless absolutely necessary. It rarely becomes necessary. A dictator has consultants, has brothers, has people ruling below him, has an advisor, etc... It's not as simplistic as you make it sound.
Iraq and Afghanistan are problems, but not because of Democracy. If you say that people's ideas of dictators are lopsided based on Saddam and Hitler, then surely your idea of democracy is lopsided if you use Afghanistan and Iraq as examples. The problems there are caused by U.S. policy under our current President, and not by democracy. The problem I have with dictatorships isn't because of Saddam or Hitler, it's one based on the theory of dictatorships. The leader is not truly accountable to the people.
I would definitely like to see if a Quranic quote refers to the need to take Jerusalem and/or Israel. Just because something is a "Holy Land" doesn't deem it necessary for occupation. Going back to the topic for this thread, I can't imagine a government having control of Jerusalem as part of any settlement. I see the need for some sort of world-wide peacekeeping force that maintains the ability for all to enter Jerusalem and all to exit. Peacefully. Without bombs. I've always thought that one side (likely Israel) would need to take the moral high ground, lay things out, and do exactly what's planned for true peace. That includes treating the other side as humans and equals.
Holy land.....what a FRICKEN JOKE !!!!! Ignorant religion strikes again...let's kill more people all in the name of god, and the holy land. When will people use their noggins???? DD
Sane, from your recitation of a party line my guess is that you are somehow associated with a ruling family. Yes, democracies are messy and their policies are changeable, and yes dictatorships can make the trains run on time but by definition there is no such thing as a benevolent autocracy. Democracies derive their legitimacy through the will of the people governed. Autocracies impose their own will upon the people, no matter how well intentioned they may appear. In your youth your father may dictate your life to you in an effort to keep you 'happy' but once you become a man you make your own choices. They might be good choices or bad choices but the real joy in living is charting out the course of your own free will. Rocket 104, The nazis came to power by subverting the democratic system in Germany. True they used the popular messages of restoring German dignity lost after WW1 and the restoring the economy after the great depression to legitimize their party; however they did not leave their ascension to power up to the vagaries of free elections. They murdered opposition canditates, intimidated the press with violence and orchestrated a propaganda campaign to make it appear that they were chosen by the German people. It was quite an ingenious and insidious plot but not a democratic process. I believe it can be said that in 1949 the Jews did invade the Holy Land. I believe the Britsh occupiers considered Ben Gurion and his followers to be terrorist that killed British soldiers in an effort to establish a Jewish State. They ought to take all those religious structures in old Jerusalem and make them into a religous theme park with Jewland and Christianland and Moslemland. You could put it under the rule of a joint council frm all the religions or you could just let Disney have it so they could turn it into the happiest place int the world.
Or just blow them all up and let the whiners complain for a while before they realize that they are old delapitated buildings. Put up a few condos there with some Starbucks and McDonalds and watch the problems go away. DD
