Well, i'd rather have a world without nukes, but the fact is that they're here to stay. Now, would I think Iran getting the bomb is a good thing? It depends. If they were the only ones getting it, no. But considering Israel has a nuclear arsenal since some time ago, I think a little equilibrium wouldn't hurt. India and Pakistan are also nuclear, and they're involved in an open conflict, and no nuclear attack occurred. It is naive to think Iran would use the bomb anyway different from any other country* - as a deterrent. Israel knows that once Iran gets nuclear, Iran will become untouchable. Which means Israel will have to rethink its strategy of aggressiveness and complete disregard for the Middle Eastern neighbors, putting Israelis in a very delicate position: no regional allies and one untouchable enemy, which in turn will step up the Israeli lobby in Washington - which, by the way, acts independently of and often against the very Israeli national interest - which, in turn, will drag the US into new embarrassments and hostility in, but not limited to, the Muslim world.
*except the US, which remains the only country ever to have detonated such weapons on the battlefield (if we can even call Hiroshima and Nagasaki that)
And you, troll, are S-A-D. I'm only posting because someone might read this and think it's true. Nobody in Iran ever talked about "wiping Israel off the map". What the president of Iran said was that, one day, Israel would disappear from the map.
The talk about wiping was originated by a botched translation by MEMRI, which poses as an independent Middle East translation agency, but even the slightest investigation reveals they have nothing but Israeli connections and staff, so, hardly independent and unbiased.
It's the extremist government of Israel that is the war-monger. Even against the will of the people it represents. And they don't even hide it no more.
Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.
I would additionally suggest that it might have been at least as much a making of the government as it was a making lobbied for by the legal drugs industry - tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals. I can't provide a reference at this point but I remember seeing on documentary about the Iran-Contra affair a claim that the biggest funders for the War on Drugs were tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries.
We don't even give our outlying territories the ability to vote
And yet you invade a country on the grounds of freeing it's people and delivering democracy? Perhaps you should look into your own backyard.
It was intended to be a representative of the states
And what are the states that compose the union then? Are they not the people? Take the people off the states, and what do you have left?
Laugh all you will, but be careful not to cry later. You think the rest of the world is really going to sit idly watching the US wreaking havoc wherever its corrupt foreign policy makers decide? The Muslims are just the initial reaction. US bowing to the Israeli lobby has already done serious damage to your freedoms. Expect more to come. The Wikileaks cables are bound to have some serious fallout as well. Expect more to come. Then there's China owning the majority of your debt. How's it going to be when it's time to pay? More trouble. So, if you think you can keep oblivious to the rest of the world and just whistle to the side for a lot longer, don't. Like I said before, there was a world before the US, and there will be one after. My country has had stable borders for more than 800 years, we've seen a lot of empires come and go, including ours.
Well then, perhaps we - the rest of the world that so depends on the U.S. of A. - should be allowed to vote on who's the right person to govern us all then. Wouldn't that be the ultimate action of Democracy? You people suddenly realizing that, being the whole world so dependent on who runs the USA, it should be allowed to have a say on who runs it?
I bet this doesn't sound so good to you now, does it? Think about this, before talking about democracy
And FYI, the world has been tearing itself apart - and stitching itself up again - for thousands of years before the existence of the US, and has continued to do so afterwards as well (and, in my opinion, the US teared a whole lot more than what it stitched). My guess is it will continue to do so, with or without America. So, don't get so cocky about it. Your country might be more irrelevant than you think, not to mention the fact that it is de facto controlled by a minority that considers world peace and prosperity the least of its concerns...
So do us all a favor, and pay attention on what you see in the news (and search for more news sources), and do your best to get that minority out of your government, and restitute power to your people.
Your argument doesn't hold. That society has reached a consensus is something you'll have to prove. I have never seen or heard about even one public rally or manifestation for the banning of swastikas.
I have never seen one politician making the ban of swastikas a campaigning issue.
What I've seen is groups of politicians pushing for such bans. Proposing and passing ban laws after they're in power. More often than not, those same politicians are the ones that support and promote unjust and unfair, misery bringing, pain inflicting wars upon their own and foreign peoples. Even when large parts of society cry out in disagreement in massive rallies with thousands of people. So much for the value of consensus.
So it seems that the self-righteous douches that think they are worth and know better than everyone else is you and all those that support such politicians. Hiding and banning shit out, even on the grounds that some people find it offensive is still censorship. And a symbol is just something that's there. Nigger is something you call someone else, and only in a subset of all the possible combinations of people calling others nigger is such act interpreted as offensive and disrespectful. And in an ironic twist, that word that was a symbol of racism against blacks became a symbol of resistance against that very same racism that coined it, and you can hear it almost every day on television. As the blacks so eloquently have shown, there are much better ways of dealing with offensive symbols than banning them.
So, you get out of your own little world where you can hide all the baddy things that make you shiver and tremble of fear at night, and accept the fact that you live in a global world, and that what offends you might be what delights others, not because they mean any harm, but because they are different from yourself and have different experiences.
I agree with last part. It's indeed a non-issue, except for the part where Microsoft starts passing judgements on why people would like to do something that happens to violate ToS and on those same folks. That's what matters. Although I'd like to see if you'd say the same were they ever decide to only allow users to use hate symbols... It would still be their ToS but somehow I have the feeling a lot of people wouldn't take it lightly. And yet your argument would apply.
Also, for the record, killing everyone that wasn't blonde and blue-eyed was hardly a Nazi ideal. They had plenty of volunteers in their ranks that didn't fit those characteristics, including blacks, muslims, spanish, french, you name it. It's that very exaggeration and disregard for historical accuracy, specially encouraged and kindled by some interest groups that originated and perpetuates this foolish taboo about what is just a symbol with multiple and diverse connotations. In fact, and going yet another bit off topic, the Jew question is pretty much the only thing that distinguishes Nazi Germany from roughly any other war-waging nation in history. But that's a different issue.
Going back on topic and to conclude, let me give an example of how foolish this symbol taboo can or could be. I happen to play Rome: Total War, with the Europa Barbarorum mod, which strives for realism. Now it's well known that Roman legions displayed swastikas among other symbols in their standarts. This taboo would prevent, in Germany for instance, from people to learn and experience how Roman legions really looked like, instead having a light shallow innocuous version of those same legions. It doesn't amount to much, but it's just a simple example. People should be given the chance to see what things really are and what they mean. Only afterwards can they choose to hate them or love them. To say a symbol is banned is just an eufemism for censorship.
True. But since XBox Live != political speech, I really don't see why any symbol should be banned. If someone gets offended by it, that someone has to deal with it. I can be offended by a lot of things, and so can you and everybody else. If we start banning everything that offends anything, we'll rapidly turn our world into an iconoclast one...
Anyway, I believe the swastika is pretty much alone on this one, except for maybe a few obscure racist symbology, that most people don't know of anyway.
More to the actual point, I think the proper answer would be what AC wrote below.
Well, since you mentioned it, as far as I'm concerned, the US engagements in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq have about the same - if not even less (Germany was actually at an extremely disadvantageous position and was being robbed of her money, while enduring the effects of a financial global catastrophe) - legitimacy as the German engagements that eventually led to World War 2. Both used a lame excuse to start a conflict with worldwide repercussions, although in different scales.
But that wasn't my point. My point was - and is - that much of the same people that get all worked up about a symbol, don't seem to oppose actual unprovoked wars that bring actual (not symbolic) devastation and misery to all envolved parties. The fact that you replied the way you did is a strong indicator that my point is probably quite in perspective.
I don't know where you're from, but I'm from a Latin country. Not Latin as in what Americans understand as Latin America, but Latin as of Roman cultural heritage. And the swastika use dates back, at least, to the Etruscan civilization, and was commonly used in the Roman Empire.
So for most intents and purposes throughout the history of my country and continent, it's not a Nazi symbol: It is a symbol used by the Nazis, among others. There's a reason for why they picked it, you know? I do have something to stand on for: 3000 years of history.
Plus if a swastika should be banned and nobody can stand for it, then the same applies for the fasces, picked by the, well, fascists. But that's a bummer eh? It happens to be a symbol used by the federal government of the USA, among others. That must mean that the USA is fascist government! Guess what? It's been in Europe since Rome as well, probably even before.
So if you and your country have no fucking history, that's your problem. But don't you dare say what I have or have not to stand on for.
Well, you can't change the perception of the image, precisely because it is banned almost everywhere! And to be honest, I don't really grasp why. The argument "oh it was used by the evil evil evil nazis" is bull to me. So what? If we start banning things away like that, we'll run out of symbols pretty fast... If it was the portrait of AH we were talking about, I would maybe remotely start to understand... But that doesn't seem to be banned anywhere... And who are you to say what is bad taste and what is not? If it's a free world then it's got to be all free. No exceptions. What's bad taste next? Pedobear? Islamic symbols and lettering?
Truly, I'm amazed at the stupidity surrounding such phenomenon. A lot of people seems to get shocked at one symbol, yet a lot less are shocked at two stupid wars that cause real suffering and death and solve nothing. Even less seem to care about unjust and unlawful occupation of territories and nations around the world. And I'm not talking about Americans. Europeans tend to fit much more in this description. They face the swastika with the horror of facing the son of Satan or whatever, but then they go happily supporting the war on Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq (although to a lesser extent)... Yeah, the swastika is the real evil here, that's what we should worry about... Fucking imbeciles.
By lobbying in Washington it has a tight grip over US foreign policy.
That is only half true and you know it.
I thought I knew it. But now and after reading an insightful book I realized something different. These guys present a wide array of references to support their theory that the Israel lobby's effectiveness in the US is hurting both countries by stopping the US from using it's leverage on Israel and at the same time keep US aid flowing in. This hurts American strategic interests like the relations with Arab oil states and hurts Israeli interests in the long run by incitement of terrorism against Israeli and American interests. They refer to situations where the lobby's hard-line is even harder than the Israeli official position. They also successfully demonstrate that critics of Israel have a harder time in the US than in Israel itself, as the Israeli press is very aware and often critic of the government actions. They actually rely mostly on Israeli press articles and references throughout the whole book. The same cannot be said of the US. I totally recommend it.
You'll have to excuse me but I can't really see why would men that have no problem in blowing themselves up hide behind their women or their children. They don't use shields - that's probably their most blatant war signature. it's pretty clear by now that they are not afraid to die. Besides, considering the figures, each terrorist would have to use his entire family as shields in order to get the #non-combatants/#combatants dead ratio that you get now.
And you do not have the right to kill innocents even if it is to protect yourself. You can do it, as your troops admittedly do, but it's wrong. That's a moral standard of the western civilization. Police can't just shoot an hostage out of the way no matter how many people a kidnapper is threatening. So that is disproportionate force.
And the founding fathers of your country sure thought is was a good idea to engage in terrorist activity against British and Arab interests.They too murdered innocent people, Jews and Arabs alike. And they managed to get a country. Some of them even got Nobel prizes for peace. So why would Arabs think differently? Why could you do it then and they can't now? That's bullshit.
No one i denying the historical tie to anything. But the fact that you have it doesn't give you the right to go about doing whatever you want and killing whoever you want wherever you want...
You people behave externally like arrogant spoiled brats with an influent father of which you have no scruples of extorting to pay for your dangerous deadly toys that you use irresponsibly.
I've read this one and this one and none of it shows that as clearly as you claim. In fact, they show the exact opposite. But hey, maybe they are anti-semites! Maybe everyone that criticizes Jews and Israel is an anti-semite! Maybe the whole world is!
You really see no difference between Jews in the Jewish homeland and Europeans colonizing nations that are not their own?
I'm sorry but Palestine is the Jewish homeland as much as Greece or Rome are the homeland of all of Europe including many Jews that live in it.
What I see is an ambiguous nation-religion colonizing a territory that is not theirs and happens to be home for another nation, just because its culture originated there a thousand years ago although they haven't been there for almost all that time. So, no, I really don't see a difference. Wait, maybe I do: I see a lame excuse.
Well well well... And so they pop up. The champions of Israel.
And, like Israel herself they charge with devastating and disproportionate force
Funny that in a reply to GP that I just wrote I mentioned the anti-semite label. It was just like I could see you coming...
First of all, moderate your tongue fool. Your rhetoric does not impress me. Neither do your wikipedia references.
But let me clear up some of your distorted quotes. From your dear wikipedia, the sum of victims in the events the GP mentioned is really 105. Go and check. Don't take me for a fool. I never implied that that was the total number of Jewish victims since you people started colonizing Palestine.
It is also interesting you mention that the number of victims since Sep. 2000 is
1,184 Israelis killed in the Arab terrorist acts.
and you couldn't find a more impartial source than a Jewish website. But I can.
The Associated Press estimated the figure at 1,035
and
However, it has been widely reported that the majority of the Lebanese killed were civilians, and UNICEF estimated that 30% of Lebanese killed were children under the age of 13.
while
Hezbollah casualty figures are difficult to ascertain, with claims and estimates by different groups and individuals ranging from 184 to 1,000.
also
Hezbollah rockets killed 43 Israeli civilians during the conflict,[19] including four who died of heart attacks from rocket attacks.
and
In addition, 4,262 civilians were injured–33 seriously wounded, 68 moderately, 1,388 lightly, and 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety.
LEBANON
* CASUALTIES - Nearly 1,200 dead and 4,400 wounded, mostly civilians. The dead include about 270 Hezbollah fighters and 50 Lebanese soldiers and police, as well as five U.N. peacekeepers.
ISRAEL
* CASUALTIES - 158 dead, most of them soldiers killed in Lebanon and including 43 civilians killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks. About 1,500 people were wounded in rocket attacks in Israel, and 450 soldiers were hurt in the fighting in Lebanon.
So, in a 34-day conflict, your defense forces almost managed to topple your victims number with the Lebanese. I made the math for you and it gives 23 dead Lebanese civilians per 1 Israeli civilian casualty. Of which 30% are estimated children under 13.
B'Tselem estimate: 773 of which 107 are women and 320 are children
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights estimate: 926 of which 116 are women and 313 are children
Israeli non-combatants
B'Tselem estimate: 3
IDF estimate: 1
Taking the estimates, and doing the math, that gives 257 dead Palestinian civilians per dead Israeli civilian. And that's taking the estimate from a Jewish NGO. And I'm not even going into the Goldstone report issue. I'm just going to remind people that Goldstone is a Jewish South African judge, still that didn't stop you from labeling him an anti-semite!
So, and to finish, while there are 1184 Israeli victims since 2000, you managed to kill around 2000 civilians in two conflicts since 2006!
You'd do better in keeping the insults to yourself and your compatriots. I am no ignorant. It is you that is a deceiving zealot that claims death for those
I agree with you, but I feel that Arabs have helped put themselves in that position. Since the founding of Israel, Palestinians have sought military action and terrorism against Israel.
The thing is, wouldn't you take military action or, if you can't, take terrorist action if you were in their shoes? Let me remind you that Hamas never organized any terrorist attack outside Palestine/Israel. In fact, and being so, I can't really see how that is much different from the French resistance against Germany in occupied France. Or, to put it in another way, like the colonizing of the west of the US. That's what Israel is precisely trying to do, I would say.
The Jewish settlers didn't let their conscience stop them from applying their own terrorist attacks on British and Arab interests to good effect. Why would the Arabs think otherwise? If Israel doesn't resort to terrorism it's because she doesn't need it. Although they do really walk on a thin line with the selective assassinations and whatnot (like the incident on topic).
Only a naive person would think that Jews (or Arabs for that matter) wouldn't apply disproportionate force in their actions. And only a naive person will think that the Palestinian conflict will not end in complete occupation and annexation of the West Bank by Israel. In fact, it's not really going to end, it's actually going to evolve to a different problem, and that is the one of displaced Palestinians and refugee migration. the Palestinians will become a displaced nation; a nation without country. The Jews replaced themselves by the Palestinians. So we still have a problem, we just changed a rich victim for a poor one. They will become a nation like the Kurds - and guess what, the Kurds also resort to terrorism.
All of this wouldn't be news except for the fact that Israel has the unconditional support of the US by working on two fronts. By lobbying in Washington it has a tight grip over US foreign policy. By playing the victim card ad nauseam and acting always as if they were victims of a unique hate. Any critic of Israel is immediately labeled an anti-semite, or at least immediate concerns of anti-semitism raise around that person. No one is really expecting that they'll turn on their consciences and behave correctly but at least they could stop bothering people with their whining like sheep when every one can see they really are the wolf.
Funny you were so apt in finding three massacres by Arabs and yet you didn't find any by Jews. Anyway that amounts to 105 people killed in all events. That's the total of victims in a normal IDF campaign day, like Gaza or Lebanon, for example.
Palestine is very racist? I'm the one not sure of what you mean exactly but I was talking of Israel. That beacon of democracy and human rights... for Jews. Be an Arab-Israeli and you'll be treated differently, pretty much like the Apartheid in South Africa.
As for the fabricating of the past, it's true. The Israeli prime-minister just declared a few more mosques and other Palestinian cultural sites as Jewish heritage sites, meaning those sites will be under Jewish control. There are accounts of prior similar actions that ended in the removal of Arab traces from the sites or even destruction. The Jewish human-rights organization B'Tselem is distributing cameras so that proof remains of these actions
While Palestine resupplies and rearms their militants and terrorists with decrepit and hand-made weapons that, according to the latest Gaza campaign and my calculations, have a kill ratio of 400:1, Israel keeps supplying it's terrorists and militants with state of the art weaponry, from tanks to jet fighters, not to mention nuclear WMDs, all with American tax payer's money.
How do I know that Israel doesn't want peace? Well, every time they talk of peace they threaten someone in the very same sentence. They keep colonizing the West Bank with settlements that the whole world says are illegal. They do not act as a responsible peaceful country. Let me give you an example. The UK didn't storm Northern Ireland with planes and tanks and phosphorus bombs, leveling buildings and killing women and children on the pretext that they needed to eliminate IRA terrorists now did it? But I agree with you when you say the best alternative really is full control of Palestine. But that's for the Jews. Because for the Palestinians, that's really the worst possible alternative. It amounts pretty much to ethnical and cultural obliteration. There is no room in Israel for Arabs. So where to exactly, would the Palestinians go in that best possible alternative of yours? Given the Jews don't want them in their shiny new country, perhaps you would be willing to give a piece of your country to take them in?
Yeah well I used to think that too. But that's not what's happening really.
The Jewish community learned and excelled at playing the lobbying game. I suggest you pay a visit to the AIPAC site. You'll see the face of many familiar politicians there. According to these guys
AIPAC can and will get the signatures of almost all congress representatives and senators on a piece of paper in 24 hours. On several occasions in the Clinton and Bush administrations, they both received letters signed by the large majority of both Houses against, for example, the arms sell to Saudi Arabia or a loosening up on Iran's sanctions. They will actively support candidates that are pro-Israel and they will support rivals of candidates that are critics of Israel. All this is done in a mostly legal way - like any other lobby group in Washington. But ask around and dig a little bit and you will soon realize that these guys and the mother of all lobbies.
The point is that the lobby's grip is so powerful that you can find more critics of Israel in Israel - and there are many - than in the US. Any American candidate that doesn't actively support Israel is starting way back in the race for funds than an AIPAC-supported Israel supporting candidate. This doesn't mean that this influence extends itself to the votes. From my understanding and the book linked above, Americans are not the staunch unconditional supporters of Israel that the media wants people to believe. Many Americans are in favor of cutting aid to Israel or at least use that leverage to press Israel into a peace process. But the lobby acts before the elections so, basically, they got the US by the balls. It's political suicide to not be an Israel supporter...
Well, the Palestinians didn't wipe out Jewish villages, conquered neighboring countries territory, maintain a racist state, try to fabricate a Jewish past in Palestine or fully annex it while pretending to be interested in a peace treaty. And they don't have AIPAC.
The only way Israeli views are valid is considering the fact that to set things straight, a lot of people would have to be moved in/out of the Israeli territory, not to mention the (internationally illegal) settlements.
The fact is that the Israelis are not interested in peace. They want the full of Palestine and that's it. The hold they have on the U.S. Congress and Senate through lobbying organizations like AIPAC and the Counsel of Presidents grants them carte blanche to do whatever they want. It's kinda funny that the world's most powerful superpower is little more than a sock puppet of a little east mediterranean state in what concerns it's foreign policy on the Middle East...
you won't want to learn Spanish ("ellas" is plural feminine, "ellos is plural masculine, but for some reason a group of 200 women with one guy is still "ellos")
It's the same with Portuguese. And the reason for it is that there isn't a neutral gender in either languages. You have either Masculine gender or Feminine gender. Now what I would like explained is why the Feminine gender is better than Masculine when what you really want is neutrality... My personal view is that changing or mixing both is nonsense. Right now, only the plural masculine is ambiguous - it's either a group of men women or both, although in the vast majority of cases, context provides that information or it just doesn't matter. On the other hand, the gender of the noun for "person" is feminine in both languages so that sexism crap is just what it is: useless crap.
RADICAL ISLAM (ahem, notice the exact verbiage here) is playing the nasty neighbor who wants everyone to play their way or else.
So does everybody else to different extents. The US doesn't restrain itself from waging wars when it suits them.
3.
They aren't likely to show up dead in the street as a result.
You're making the straw man argument. I suppose you are talking of the incident in Denmark.
4.
however, no biology teacher or professor will stop their research or close their books because they are afraid.
You are exaggerating. Nevertheless, there are historians that are in jail or have been fined for being revisionists or deniers. But not in the US though.
5.
Some western journalists even tried going to the extremists to hear their story, and probably many more would had not one of them gotten to play a starring role in his own beheading video found on the internet.
Again you are making the straw man argument. I have seen plenty of interviews and reports of Islamic radicals from London to the Swat Valley.
6.
her experience doesn't really count because she's not burning Bush in effigy or spitting on a U.S. flag, or something.
I have nothing against the US. I actually admire the country and the people there. But it's not my fault that the successive administrations mess around wherever they want in the world and that that brings unpleasant consequences.
7. You are the one trying to make me play your way or else - if I'm not part of the solution I'm part of the problem. That's not the way it works. But hey, before you ask, IANAT ->I Am Not A Terrorist.
I'm just concerned about the future of freedom when we're afraid to stand up for it without shame or apology
Who's freedom?
You seem to imply in your statements that Islam is worse, or less tolerant, than other religions. But it isn't. Every other religion has or does repressively act against people that question it. Or do you think Christian radicals in the US or Jewish ultra-orthodox clerics are in someway better than Muslims? As for freedom, I feel my own threatened more throughout Europe for matters related to the Holocaust say, than for religious matters. You can't question the establish historiography of the Holocaust because that will get you in jail in many european countries. You can, however, denounce and criticize all forms of religion. I do not feel my freedom is being threatened by Islam more than it is by copyright associations or drug dealers.
And to make it really clear, so that you don't get to say that I waste a lot of words saying nothing, I'm gonna baby feed you my point: You, and people like you, are extrapolating how an entire community of millions of people think and act from a few negative incidents and individuals. You are spreading fear by distorting facts about these people, and making the straw man argument. You are either consciously doing this, knowing it's wrong, or you just don't see and think about what's around you. The proof is, that you fail to acknowledge the significance of the oil business in the Middle East, which is the only reason the west is even interested in it. You also don't seem to think that unjustifiably invading two muslim countries is relevant. Well the best way to fight propaganda, you know, is make sure it doesn't fit the reality. Finally, you don't even mention the situation in Palestine which as I see it, is the epicenter of the whole problem. While the west keeps supporting the mischiefs of Israel, while they can continue to get away from the Goldstone reports, while they can continue to overtly commit war crimes and target civilian populations, while they can restrain food and water to Palestinians, while they can dismiss every criticism as anti-semitic, then you have absolutely no chance of stopping Islamic terrorism because they actually have a just cause!
As for your Ayaan Ali I confess I ignore who she is. Though I find it more monumental an ignorance your own about critical geo-strategic interests and players directly involved in this question. A book doesn't tell you the whole story. And truly admirable human beings are going down every day because people like you fail to understand the real issue here. Why don't you go preach that to them?
I start to think that you are the one that writes a lot and says nothing like all fear mongering fools.
Hum ok. Let me recommend a couple things to you too.
First get yourself a good book on the history of oil like The Seven Sisters (google it). This will give an account of all the nice business the US and Europe have been doing in the Middle East and how they basically robbed Muslim countries for a long time.
Then you can turn on your TV and, with some luck, you'll see news about another hit that caused American/NATO casualties in either Afghanistan or Iraq - which, you should remember, was invaded on the premises of having some inexistent(!) WMDs. Oh and where exactly is Bin Laden? You know, the guy that was in Afghanistan, for sure...
To keep it short, let me finalize with the Palestine card. For more than 50 years, the west stood immobile and actually supported Israeli war crimes in Palestine, from house demolitions to blatant colonizing, passing through all-out war and even targeting UN buildings.
And maybe you can explain why is Saudi Arabia, a place where Shariah law is enforced in the worst of it's form, not in the crosshairs of people like you?
So, perhaps you could tell me how would these people not resent the west? It looks to me like they're actually fighting back. But no, they're probably just trying to dominate the world... Like they always did. Oh wait, that was the west every time...
One book doesn't cut it. Nor do your claims of Muslims trying to take over England and Holland. Not against history. Muslims aren't saints and I'm not even religious, but I'm not stupid. I'm being threatened because people like you are supporting the assholes that disturb the hornet's nests for bucks. Excuse me if I don't buy their bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, i'd rather have a world without nukes, but the fact is that they're here to stay. Now, would I think Iran getting the bomb is a good thing? It depends. If they were the only ones getting it, no. But considering Israel has a nuclear arsenal since some time ago, I think a little equilibrium wouldn't hurt. India and Pakistan are also nuclear, and they're involved in an open conflict, and no nuclear attack occurred. It is naive to think Iran would use the bomb anyway different from any other country* - as a deterrent. Israel knows that once Iran gets nuclear, Iran will become untouchable. Which means Israel will have to rethink its strategy of aggressiveness and complete disregard for the Middle Eastern neighbors, putting Israelis in a very delicate position: no regional allies and one untouchable enemy, which in turn will step up the Israeli lobby in Washington - which, by the way, acts independently of and often against the very Israeli national interest - which, in turn, will drag the US into new embarrassments and hostility in, but not limited to, the Muslim world.
*except the US, which remains the only country ever to have detonated such weapons on the battlefield (if we can even call Hiroshima and Nagasaki that)
And you, troll, are S-A-D. I'm only posting because someone might read this and think it's true. Nobody in Iran ever talked about "wiping Israel off the map". What the president of Iran said was that, one day, Israel would disappear from the map.
The talk about wiping was originated by a botched translation by MEMRI, which poses as an independent Middle East translation agency, but even the slightest investigation reveals they have nothing but Israeli connections and staff, so, hardly independent and unbiased.
It's the extremist government of Israel that is the war-monger. Even against the will of the people it represents. And they don't even hide it no more.
Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.
I would additionally suggest that it might have been at least as much a making of the government as it was a making lobbied for by the legal drugs industry - tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals. I can't provide a reference at this point but I remember seeing on documentary about the Iran-Contra affair a claim that the biggest funders for the War on Drugs were tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries.
We don't even give our outlying territories the ability to vote
And yet you invade a country on the grounds of freeing it's people and delivering democracy? Perhaps you should look into your own backyard.
It was intended to be a representative of the states
And what are the states that compose the union then? Are they not the people? Take the people off the states, and what do you have left?
Laugh all you will, but be careful not to cry later. You think the rest of the world is really going to sit idly watching the US wreaking havoc wherever its corrupt foreign policy makers decide? The Muslims are just the initial reaction. US bowing to the Israeli lobby has already done serious damage to your freedoms. Expect more to come. The Wikileaks cables are bound to have some serious fallout as well. Expect more to come. Then there's China owning the majority of your debt. How's it going to be when it's time to pay? More trouble. So, if you think you can keep oblivious to the rest of the world and just whistle to the side for a lot longer, don't. Like I said before, there was a world before the US, and there will be one after. My country has had stable borders for more than 800 years, we've seen a lot of empires come and go, including ours.
Well then, perhaps we - the rest of the world that so depends on the U.S. of A. - should be allowed to vote on who's the right person to govern us all then. Wouldn't that be the ultimate action of Democracy? You people suddenly realizing that, being the whole world so dependent on who runs the USA, it should be allowed to have a say on who runs it?
I bet this doesn't sound so good to you now, does it? Think about this, before talking about democracy
And FYI, the world has been tearing itself apart - and stitching itself up again - for thousands of years before the existence of the US, and has continued to do so afterwards as well (and, in my opinion, the US teared a whole lot more than what it stitched). My guess is it will continue to do so, with or without America. So, don't get so cocky about it. Your country might be more irrelevant than you think, not to mention the fact that it is de facto controlled by a minority that considers world peace and prosperity the least of its concerns...
So do us all a favor, and pay attention on what you see in the news (and search for more news sources), and do your best to get that minority out of your government, and restitute power to your people.
Your argument doesn't hold. That society has reached a consensus is something you'll have to prove. I have never seen or heard about even one public rally or manifestation for the banning of swastikas.
I have never seen one politician making the ban of swastikas a campaigning issue.
What I've seen is groups of politicians pushing for such bans. Proposing and passing ban laws after they're in power. More often than not, those same politicians are the ones that support and promote unjust and unfair, misery bringing, pain inflicting wars upon their own and foreign peoples. Even when large parts of society cry out in disagreement in massive rallies with thousands of people. So much for the value of consensus.
So it seems that the self-righteous douches that think they are worth and know better than everyone else is you and all those that support such politicians. Hiding and banning shit out, even on the grounds that some people find it offensive is still censorship. And a symbol is just something that's there. Nigger is something you call someone else, and only in a subset of all the possible combinations of people calling others nigger is such act interpreted as offensive and disrespectful. And in an ironic twist, that word that was a symbol of racism against blacks became a symbol of resistance against that very same racism that coined it, and you can hear it almost every day on television. As the blacks so eloquently have shown, there are much better ways of dealing with offensive symbols than banning them.
So, you get out of your own little world where you can hide all the baddy things that make you shiver and tremble of fear at night, and accept the fact that you live in a global world, and that what offends you might be what delights others, not because they mean any harm, but because they are different from yourself and have different experiences.
I agree with last part. It's indeed a non-issue, except for the part where Microsoft starts passing judgements on why people would like to do something that happens to violate ToS and on those same folks. That's what matters. Although I'd like to see if you'd say the same were they ever decide to only allow users to use hate symbols... It would still be their ToS but somehow I have the feeling a lot of people wouldn't take it lightly. And yet your argument would apply.
Also, for the record, killing everyone that wasn't blonde and blue-eyed was hardly a Nazi ideal. They had plenty of volunteers in their ranks that didn't fit those characteristics, including blacks, muslims, spanish, french, you name it. It's that very exaggeration and disregard for historical accuracy, specially encouraged and kindled by some interest groups that originated and perpetuates this foolish taboo about what is just a symbol with multiple and diverse connotations. In fact, and going yet another bit off topic, the Jew question is pretty much the only thing that distinguishes Nazi Germany from roughly any other war-waging nation in history. But that's a different issue.
Going back on topic and to conclude, let me give an example of how foolish this symbol taboo can or could be. I happen to play Rome: Total War, with the Europa Barbarorum mod, which strives for realism. Now it's well known that Roman legions displayed swastikas among other symbols in their standarts. This taboo would prevent, in Germany for instance, from people to learn and experience how Roman legions really looked like, instead having a light shallow innocuous version of those same legions. It doesn't amount to much, but it's just a simple example. People should be given the chance to see what things really are and what they mean. Only afterwards can they choose to hate them or love them. To say a symbol is banned is just an eufemism for censorship.
True. But since XBox Live != political speech, I really don't see why any symbol should be banned. If someone gets offended by it, that someone has to deal with it. I can be offended by a lot of things, and so can you and everybody else. If we start banning everything that offends anything, we'll rapidly turn our world into an iconoclast one...
Anyway, I believe the swastika is pretty much alone on this one, except for maybe a few obscure racist symbology, that most people don't know of anyway.
More to the actual point, I think the proper answer would be what AC wrote below.
Well, since you mentioned it, as far as I'm concerned, the US engagements in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq have about the same - if not even less (Germany was actually at an extremely disadvantageous position and was being robbed of her money, while enduring the effects of a financial global catastrophe) - legitimacy as the German engagements that eventually led to World War 2. Both used a lame excuse to start a conflict with worldwide repercussions, although in different scales.
But that wasn't my point. My point was - and is - that much of the same people that get all worked up about a symbol, don't seem to oppose actual unprovoked wars that bring actual (not symbolic) devastation and misery to all envolved parties. The fact that you replied the way you did is a strong indicator that my point is probably quite in perspective.
I don't know where you're from, but I'm from a Latin country. Not Latin as in what Americans understand as Latin America, but Latin as of Roman cultural heritage. And the swastika use dates back, at least, to the Etruscan civilization, and was commonly used in the Roman Empire.
So for most intents and purposes throughout the history of my country and continent, it's not a Nazi symbol: It is a symbol used by the Nazis, among others. There's a reason for why they picked it, you know? I do have something to stand on for: 3000 years of history.
Plus if a swastika should be banned and nobody can stand for it, then the same applies for the fasces, picked by the, well, fascists. But that's a bummer eh? It happens to be a symbol used by the federal government of the USA, among others. That must mean that the USA is fascist government! Guess what? It's been in Europe since Rome as well, probably even before.
So if you and your country have no fucking history, that's your problem. But don't you dare say what I have or have not to stand on for.
Well, you can't change the perception of the image, precisely because it is banned almost everywhere! And to be honest, I don't really grasp why. The argument "oh it was used by the evil evil evil nazis" is bull to me. So what? If we start banning things away like that, we'll run out of symbols pretty fast... If it was the portrait of AH we were talking about, I would maybe remotely start to understand... But that doesn't seem to be banned anywhere... And who are you to say what is bad taste and what is not? If it's a free world then it's got to be all free. No exceptions. What's bad taste next? Pedobear? Islamic symbols and lettering?
Truly, I'm amazed at the stupidity surrounding such phenomenon. A lot of people seems to get shocked at one symbol, yet a lot less are shocked at two stupid wars that cause real suffering and death and solve nothing. Even less seem to care about unjust and unlawful occupation of territories and nations around the world. And I'm not talking about Americans. Europeans tend to fit much more in this description. They face the swastika with the horror of facing the son of Satan or whatever, but then they go happily supporting the war on Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq (although to a lesser extent)... Yeah, the swastika is the real evil here, that's what we should worry about... Fucking imbeciles.
By lobbying in Washington it has a tight grip over US foreign policy.
That is only half true and you know it.
I thought I knew it. But now and after reading an insightful book I realized something different. These guys present a wide array of references to support their theory that the Israel lobby's effectiveness in the US is hurting both countries by stopping the US from using it's leverage on Israel and at the same time keep US aid flowing in. This hurts American strategic interests like the relations with Arab oil states and hurts Israeli interests in the long run by incitement of terrorism against Israeli and American interests. They refer to situations where the lobby's hard-line is even harder than the Israeli official position. They also successfully demonstrate that critics of Israel have a harder time in the US than in Israel itself, as the Israeli press is very aware and often critic of the government actions. They actually rely mostly on Israeli press articles and references throughout the whole book. The same cannot be said of the US. I totally recommend it.
I was also seeing that argument coming.
You'll have to excuse me but I can't really see why would men that have no problem in blowing themselves up hide behind their women or their children. They don't use shields - that's probably their most blatant war signature. it's pretty clear by now that they are not afraid to die. Besides, considering the figures, each terrorist would have to use his entire family as shields in order to get the #non-combatants/#combatants dead ratio that you get now.
And you do not have the right to kill innocents even if it is to protect yourself. You can do it, as your troops admittedly do, but it's wrong. That's a moral standard of the western civilization. Police can't just shoot an hostage out of the way no matter how many people a kidnapper is threatening. So that is disproportionate force.
And the founding fathers of your country sure thought is was a good idea to engage in terrorist activity against British and Arab interests.They too murdered innocent people, Jews and Arabs alike. And they managed to get a country. Some of them even got Nobel prizes for peace. So why would Arabs think differently? Why could you do it then and they can't now? That's bullshit.
No one i denying the historical tie to anything. But the fact that you have it doesn't give you the right to go about doing whatever you want and killing whoever you want wherever you want...
You people behave externally like arrogant spoiled brats with an influent father of which you have no scruples of extorting to pay for your dangerous deadly toys that you use irresponsibly.
Perhaps you can point to them then.
I've read this one and this one and none of it shows that as clearly as you claim. In fact, they show the exact opposite. But hey, maybe they are anti-semites! Maybe everyone that criticizes Jews and Israel is an anti-semite! Maybe the whole world is!
You really see no difference between Jews in the Jewish homeland and Europeans colonizing nations that are not their own?
I'm sorry but Palestine is the Jewish homeland as much as Greece or Rome are the homeland of all of Europe including many Jews that live in it.
What I see is an ambiguous nation-religion colonizing a territory that is not theirs and happens to be home for another nation, just because its culture originated there a thousand years ago although they haven't been there for almost all that time. So, no, I really don't see a difference. Wait, maybe I do: I see a lame excuse.
Well well well... And so they pop up. The champions of Israel.
And, like Israel herself they charge with devastating and disproportionate force
Funny that in a reply to GP that I just wrote I mentioned the anti-semite label. It was just like I could see you coming...
First of all, moderate your tongue fool. Your rhetoric does not impress me. Neither do your wikipedia references.
But let me clear up some of your distorted quotes. From your dear wikipedia, the sum of victims in the events the GP mentioned is really 105. Go and check. Don't take me for a fool. I never implied that that was the total number of Jewish victims since you people started colonizing Palestine.
It is also interesting you mention that the number of victims since Sep. 2000 is
1,184 Israelis killed in the Arab terrorist acts.
and you couldn't find a more impartial source than a Jewish website. But I can.
Let's see then:
- Lebanon 2006
from Wikipedia:
The Associated Press estimated the figure at 1,035
and
However, it has been widely reported that the majority of the Lebanese killed were civilians, and UNICEF estimated that 30% of Lebanese killed were children under the age of 13.
while
Hezbollah casualty figures are difficult to ascertain, with claims and estimates by different groups and individuals ranging from 184 to 1,000.
also
Hezbollah rockets killed 43 Israeli civilians during the conflict,[19] including four who died of heart attacks from rocket attacks.
and
In addition, 4,262 civilians were injured–33 seriously wounded, 68 moderately, 1,388 lightly, and 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety.
from Reuters
LEBANON * CASUALTIES - Nearly 1,200 dead and 4,400 wounded, mostly civilians. The dead include about 270 Hezbollah fighters and 50 Lebanese soldiers and police, as well as five U.N. peacekeepers.
ISRAEL * CASUALTIES - 158 dead, most of them soldiers killed in Lebanon and including 43 civilians killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks. About 1,500 people were wounded in rocket attacks in Israel, and 450 soldiers were hurt in the fighting in Lebanon.
So, in a 34-day conflict, your defense forces almost managed to topple your victims number with the Lebanese. I made the math for you and it gives 23 dead Lebanese civilians per 1 Israeli civilian casualty. Of which 30% are estimated children under 13.
Lets turn to Gaza now. From wikipedia, refered by Reuters and BBC
Palestinian non-combatants
B'Tselem estimate: 773 of which 107 are women and 320 are children
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights estimate: 926 of which 116 are women and 313 are children
Israeli non-combatants
B'Tselem estimate: 3
IDF estimate: 1
Taking the estimates, and doing the math, that gives 257 dead Palestinian civilians per dead Israeli civilian. And that's taking the estimate from a Jewish NGO. And I'm not even going into the Goldstone report issue. I'm just going to remind people that Goldstone is a Jewish South African judge, still that didn't stop you from labeling him an anti-semite!
So, and to finish, while there are 1184 Israeli victims since 2000, you managed to kill around 2000 civilians in two conflicts since 2006!
You'd do better in keeping the insults to yourself and your compatriots. I am no ignorant. It is you that is a deceiving zealot that claims death for those
I agree with you, but I feel that Arabs have helped put themselves in that position. Since the founding of Israel, Palestinians have sought military action and terrorism against Israel.
The thing is, wouldn't you take military action or, if you can't, take terrorist action if you were in their shoes? Let me remind you that Hamas never organized any terrorist attack outside Palestine/Israel. In fact, and being so, I can't really see how that is much different from the French resistance against Germany in occupied France. Or, to put it in another way, like the colonizing of the west of the US. That's what Israel is precisely trying to do, I would say.
The Jewish settlers didn't let their conscience stop them from applying their own terrorist attacks on British and Arab interests to good effect. Why would the Arabs think otherwise? If Israel doesn't resort to terrorism it's because she doesn't need it. Although they do really walk on a thin line with the selective assassinations and whatnot (like the incident on topic).
Only a naive person would think that Jews (or Arabs for that matter) wouldn't apply disproportionate force in their actions. And only a naive person will think that the Palestinian conflict will not end in complete occupation and annexation of the West Bank by Israel. In fact, it's not really going to end, it's actually going to evolve to a different problem, and that is the one of displaced Palestinians and refugee migration. the Palestinians will become a displaced nation; a nation without country. The Jews replaced themselves by the Palestinians. So we still have a problem, we just changed a rich victim for a poor one. They will become a nation like the Kurds - and guess what, the Kurds also resort to terrorism.
All of this wouldn't be news except for the fact that Israel has the unconditional support of the US by working on two fronts. By lobbying in Washington it has a tight grip over US foreign policy. By playing the victim card ad nauseam and acting always as if they were victims of a unique hate. Any critic of Israel is immediately labeled an anti-semite, or at least immediate concerns of anti-semitism raise around that person. No one is really expecting that they'll turn on their consciences and behave correctly but at least they could stop bothering people with their whining like sheep when every one can see they really are the wolf.
Funny you were so apt in finding three massacres by Arabs and yet you didn't find any by Jews. Anyway that amounts to 105 people killed in all events. That's the total of victims in a normal IDF campaign day, like Gaza or Lebanon, for example.
Palestine is very racist? I'm the one not sure of what you mean exactly but I was talking of Israel. That beacon of democracy and human rights... for Jews. Be an Arab-Israeli and you'll be treated differently, pretty much like the Apartheid in South Africa.
As for the fabricating of the past, it's true. The Israeli prime-minister just declared a few more mosques and other Palestinian cultural sites as Jewish heritage sites, meaning those sites will be under Jewish control. There are accounts of prior similar actions that ended in the removal of Arab traces from the sites or even destruction. The Jewish human-rights organization B'Tselem is distributing cameras so that proof remains of these actions
While Palestine resupplies and rearms their militants and terrorists with decrepit and hand-made weapons that, according to the latest Gaza campaign and my calculations, have a kill ratio of 400:1, Israel keeps supplying it's terrorists and militants with state of the art weaponry, from tanks to jet fighters, not to mention nuclear WMDs, all with American tax payer's money.
How do I know that Israel doesn't want peace? Well, every time they talk of peace they threaten someone in the very same sentence. They keep colonizing the West Bank with settlements that the whole world says are illegal. They do not act as a responsible peaceful country. Let me give you an example. The UK didn't storm Northern Ireland with planes and tanks and phosphorus bombs, leveling buildings and killing women and children on the pretext that they needed to eliminate IRA terrorists now did it? But I agree with you when you say the best alternative really is full control of Palestine. But that's for the Jews. Because for the Palestinians, that's really the worst possible alternative. It amounts pretty much to ethnical and cultural obliteration. There is no room in Israel for Arabs. So where to exactly, would the Palestinians go in that best possible alternative of yours? Given the Jews don't want them in their shiny new country, perhaps you would be willing to give a piece of your country to take them in?
Yeah well I used to think that too. But that's not what's happening really.
The Jewish community learned and excelled at playing the lobbying game. I suggest you pay a visit to the AIPAC site. You'll see the face of many familiar politicians there. According to these guys AIPAC can and will get the signatures of almost all congress representatives and senators on a piece of paper in 24 hours. On several occasions in the Clinton and Bush administrations, they both received letters signed by the large majority of both Houses against, for example, the arms sell to Saudi Arabia or a loosening up on Iran's sanctions. They will actively support candidates that are pro-Israel and they will support rivals of candidates that are critics of Israel. All this is done in a mostly legal way - like any other lobby group in Washington. But ask around and dig a little bit and you will soon realize that these guys and the mother of all lobbies.
The point is that the lobby's grip is so powerful that you can find more critics of Israel in Israel - and there are many - than in the US. Any American candidate that doesn't actively support Israel is starting way back in the race for funds than an AIPAC-supported Israel supporting candidate. This doesn't mean that this influence extends itself to the votes. From my understanding and the book linked above, Americans are not the staunch unconditional supporters of Israel that the media wants people to believe. Many Americans are in favor of cutting aid to Israel or at least use that leverage to press Israel into a peace process. But the lobby acts before the elections so, basically, they got the US by the balls. It's political suicide to not be an Israel supporter...
Well, the Palestinians didn't wipe out Jewish villages, conquered neighboring countries territory, maintain a racist state, try to fabricate a Jewish past in Palestine or fully annex it while pretending to be interested in a peace treaty. And they don't have AIPAC.
The only way Israeli views are valid is considering the fact that to set things straight, a lot of people would have to be moved in/out of the Israeli territory, not to mention the (internationally illegal) settlements.
The fact is that the Israelis are not interested in peace. They want the full of Palestine and that's it. The hold they have on the U.S. Congress and Senate through lobbying organizations like AIPAC and the Counsel of Presidents grants them carte blanche to do whatever they want. It's kinda funny that the world's most powerful superpower is little more than a sock puppet of a little east mediterranean state in what concerns it's foreign policy on the Middle East...
you won't want to learn Spanish ("ellas" is plural feminine, "ellos is plural masculine, but for some reason a group of 200 women with one guy is still "ellos")
It's the same with Portuguese. And the reason for it is that there isn't a neutral gender in either languages. You have either Masculine gender or Feminine gender. Now what I would like explained is why the Feminine gender is better than Masculine when what you really want is neutrality... My personal view is that changing or mixing both is nonsense. Right now, only the plural masculine is ambiguous - it's either a group of men women or both, although in the vast majority of cases, context provides that information or it just doesn't matter. On the other hand, the gender of the noun for "person" is feminine in both languages so that sexism crap is just what it is: useless crap.
1. I don't refuse to read anything.
2.
RADICAL ISLAM (ahem, notice the exact verbiage here) is playing the nasty neighbor who wants everyone to play their way or else.
So does everybody else to different extents. The US doesn't restrain itself from waging wars when it suits them.
3.
They aren't likely to show up dead in the street as a result.
You're making the straw man argument. I suppose you are talking of the incident in Denmark.
4.
however, no biology teacher or professor will stop their research or close their books because they are afraid.
You are exaggerating. Nevertheless, there are historians that are in jail or have been fined for being revisionists or deniers. But not in the US though.
5.
Some western journalists even tried going to the extremists to hear their story, and probably many more would had not one of them gotten to play a starring role in his own beheading video found on the internet.
Again you are making the straw man argument. I have seen plenty of interviews and reports of Islamic radicals from London to the Swat Valley.
6.
her experience doesn't really count because she's not burning Bush in effigy or spitting on a U.S. flag, or something.
I have nothing against the US. I actually admire the country and the people there. But it's not my fault that the successive administrations mess around wherever they want in the world and that that brings unpleasant consequences.
7. You are the one trying to make me play your way or else - if I'm not part of the solution I'm part of the problem. That's not the way it works. But hey, before you ask, IANAT ->I Am Not A Terrorist.
I live in Portugal. Ironically enough we actually fought the Muslims for 800 years back in the formation of our country back in circa 1000AD...
I'm just concerned about the future of freedom when we're afraid to stand up for it without shame or apology
Who's freedom?
You seem to imply in your statements that Islam is worse, or less tolerant, than other religions. But it isn't. Every other religion has or does repressively act against people that question it. Or do you think Christian radicals in the US or Jewish ultra-orthodox clerics are in someway better than Muslims? As for freedom, I feel my own threatened more throughout Europe for matters related to the Holocaust say, than for religious matters. You can't question the establish historiography of the Holocaust because that will get you in jail in many european countries. You can, however, denounce and criticize all forms of religion. I do not feel my freedom is being threatened by Islam more than it is by copyright associations or drug dealers.
And to make it really clear, so that you don't get to say that I waste a lot of words saying nothing, I'm gonna baby feed you my point: You, and people like you, are extrapolating how an entire community of millions of people think and act from a few negative incidents and individuals. You are spreading fear by distorting facts about these people, and making the straw man argument. You are either consciously doing this, knowing it's wrong, or you just don't see and think about what's around you. The proof is, that you fail to acknowledge the significance of the oil business in the Middle East, which is the only reason the west is even interested in it. You also don't seem to think that unjustifiably invading two muslim countries is relevant. Well the best way to fight propaganda, you know, is make sure it doesn't fit the reality. Finally, you don't even mention the situation in Palestine which as I see it, is the epicenter of the whole problem. While the west keeps supporting the mischiefs of Israel, while they can continue to get away from the Goldstone reports, while they can continue to overtly commit war crimes and target civilian populations, while they can restrain food and water to Palestinians, while they can dismiss every criticism as anti-semitic, then you have absolutely no chance of stopping Islamic terrorism because they actually have a just cause!
As for your Ayaan Ali I confess I ignore who she is. Though I find it more monumental an ignorance your own about critical geo-strategic interests and players directly involved in this question. A book doesn't tell you the whole story. And truly admirable human beings are going down every day because people like you fail to understand the real issue here. Why don't you go preach that to them?
I start to think that you are the one that writes a lot and says nothing like all fear mongering fools.
Hum ok. Let me recommend a couple things to you too.
First get yourself a good book on the history of oil like The Seven Sisters (google it). This will give an account of all the nice business the US and Europe have been doing in the Middle East and how they basically robbed Muslim countries for a long time.
Then you can turn on your TV and, with some luck, you'll see news about another hit that caused American/NATO casualties in either Afghanistan or Iraq - which, you should remember, was invaded on the premises of having some inexistent(!) WMDs. Oh and where exactly is Bin Laden? You know, the guy that was in Afghanistan, for sure...
To keep it short, let me finalize with the Palestine card. For more than 50 years, the west stood immobile and actually supported Israeli war crimes in Palestine, from house demolitions to blatant colonizing, passing through all-out war and even targeting UN buildings.
And maybe you can explain why is Saudi Arabia, a place where Shariah law is enforced in the worst of it's form, not in the crosshairs of people like you?
So, perhaps you could tell me how would these people not resent the west? It looks to me like they're actually fighting back. But no, they're probably just trying to dominate the world... Like they always did. Oh wait, that was the west every time...
One book doesn't cut it. Nor do your claims of Muslims trying to take over England and Holland. Not against history. Muslims aren't saints and I'm not even religious, but I'm not stupid. I'm being threatened because people like you are supporting the assholes that disturb the hornet's nests for bucks. Excuse me if I don't buy their bullshit.