If the government can only do what citizens grant it to do, we wouldn't have taxation nor would we have a treasury.
You jest, right? taxation is accepted by the citizens as a mean for providing communal welfare that everyone benefits from. One would have to be completely ignorant or rather backward to argue against taxes. What people do is argue about the level of taxation and what ought to be taxed and what should not. Although really taxation levels are a little bit of a 'red herring' (misdirection). When people protest against taxation usually they are talking about the wrong thing - they are opposed to government *wastage* of the collected revenue, rather than against taxes collect for communal benefit.
So the fact of the matter is that they have these powers, there isn't a problem tracking people on school grounds.
They do not have those powers. The government has no powers except those granted by legislation. Even if the government does something routinely, and the citizens don't mind, it still does not mean the government has a particular power to do anything. The first successful legal challenge to the government against an action the government is not legislated to perform restricts that action. This is what the girl is attempting to do.
There is a material difference between a camera (which produces an image of people on said toilets) and an RFID which simply makes a computer take a note: "Student X is in restroom Y. Is Permitted?
I doubt there is legislation in the US that permits US citizens to be tracked by RFID or any other technology except for appointed agencies who have judicial oversight (eg. the FBI must often get court orders - although there are blanket laws that are starting to come into effect, but they are not relevant for a case of students tracked by their school).
I fail to see the issue here.
Well, I'm trying to give you insight into what the problem was. I cannot help if you personally cannot grok the arguments against the actions of the school (fortunately outfits like the EFF and US Supreme Court can). It's ok if you lack the imagination to follow the particulars of the objections of others, just please understand that others understand the many issues very well - and are opposed to the action of the school (which is why there is this stink about it on Slashdot). Fortunately the high school girl also understands the issue at hand better then you. We need more courageous people prepared to make a stand over *existing* rights.
This isn't to say that all uses of implied powers are good.
What is the legal basis for the "implied powers" you describe? the government either has a power granted to it by law, or it does not. The government can take any action it wishes, but if there is not legislation to back it up then the government is in the wrong and has to make amends and stop doing it in the future. If you are suggesting that because the government does something, even frequently, that is not permitted by law then it somehow has gained an "implicit" power then you are mistaken - it has gained nothing and a successful court challenge will show the government to be wrong, no matter how many times the government has taken the action against an acquiescing population.
I understand the point you are trying to make. However, the important part of my argument boils down to this: roll calls are accepted by the citizenry, RFID is not. Now there will be a court case to determine whether the use of RFID for tracking students can be mandated. The court may or may not determine that RFID is permitted. However, the fact that the citizen can challenge it is the basis of my argument - the US government (or school) cannot simply take powers (even if a mildly similar thing has been permitted in this past). Because it cannot simply take powers the courts are able to prevent the government from doing such things - based on the government is unable to create new powers for itself. That some other system has been allowed elsewhere does not automatically mean the government (or a school) can do as it pleases.
The fact there are limitations on the US government in this way is the real strength of the US (nb: I'm not a US citizen, just callin' it how I see it). It is not merely democracy that brings strength to the US, plenty of other countries have elections but have no power to challenge the government (which means those government, eg, Russia, China, Iran can do as they please, and citizens have little *effective* recourse). In the US the government tries to do as it pleases (as the school does in this case) but two facts keep the government in check. The first is the government can be legally challenged (and must obey the courts), and the second is that the government acknowledges that it gets its legitimacy from the people (unlike some other countries).
It is not an 'ideal world' (implying some kind of fantasy land, yes?) that I'm talking about. I'm talking about how the actual US system of governance, power structure (from the people, not a strongman or clique) and 'checks and balances' were constructed. Yes, the US government does overstep its power. It gets away with it because either the people acquiesce, or they don't care (too busy following mindless celebrities tweeting inane bullshit over irrelevant subjects/bitchfights). But the significant thing is, just because the government gets away with it does not mean that the government is doing it legally or cannot be challenged about it - as this girl is attempting to do. Don't be defeatist and talk as if just because the US government oversteps existing bounds that the situation is hopeless. The creators of the system knew that the government would do this (and sometimes should do this, for efficiency reasons as the government adapts to situations), but they also put in place a balance against this. This girl is part of the balance. My posts were about the poster who could not understand why the girl (or anyone) would attempt to maintain their privacy. It is all part of the way the system was designed (and not only in an 'ideal' sense, but in compensating for the messy and complicated 'real' world).
In your ideal world, could I live my life at the same time as a productive member of society and yet completely anonymous to everybody else?
Please re-phrase. Your intent is unclear. I'll take a guess though. If you mean that it is impossible to be completely anonymous in a practical level while still integrating into society then you are somewhat right. However that doesn't mean you don't have a right to privacy, or to limit the information collected about you, or to try be anonymous if you so choose. All of those principles held up by US courts and legislators (for the most part). This is why there is such a stink that they are being eroded. This is why many of us are amazed that folks like you seek to justify the government stripping them away - which is essentially what you are doing, even if you don't think you are (implying those that to uphold those rights are ideologues that only understand idealized models of reality when it is not so).
I understand that government is by us and for us I also understand that there are implied powers that the government can take. Location tracking for public schools and emergency response seem like appropriate use of implied powers.
I'll say it again in case I wasn't clear. The government can only do what the citizens grant it to do. It cannot decide what it will and won't do itself. The citizens have not granted the government the power to track citizens. The citizens have not granted a school the power to track students and schools cannot usurp this power for themselves. They cannot and should not use coercion to gain this power (as they do in this case).
All the other arguments about technical ranges of RFIDs and the other possibly good uses (that you point out, eg emergencies) are spurious. These outfits (school and government) simply cannot force people to be tracked against their will (even on their own premises) - which is what is happening here, and which the girl is making a case against. The technical arguments about short range etc are irrelevant. Just because she goes to school does not mean she surrenders her right to privacy at the gate eg. does the school have rights to place cameras in the toilets? for the good cause of preventing illegal drug smoking for example, or for her safety? no! it is clear this is not the case and she has a right to privacy. Whether it is cameras or RFID it is no different, the school simply has no right to mandate this if someone objects, as I'm sure a court will eventually rule.
It is not the government's business what you do - provided you are not committing terrorism etc. This is a fundamental principle. It has nothing to do with whether you have done anything it is simply that the government has *no business* looking into your private life without certain exceptions that citizens have acquiesced to for the common good (eg. certain government agencies may carry out investigations but this requires checks and balances to prevent it being misused [eg. judicial oversight]).
It is sad that you don't get it. Unfortunately many many people just don't grok the concept that the government is by us and for us, we are not servants of it (yet). It simply has no justification to probe our private affairs - that is not what governments were created for.
In this case the school has taken a leaf out of the government's book and is completely mistaken in it should be doing. Yes, reducing truancy is a good thing. However, *enforcing* invasive tracking is completely wrong. It shows how detached from reality the school governance is - they simply don't understand they down 'own' their students. Although this is by no means unusual, many in the teaching profession are using to ordering their wards around exactly as they see fit (I've seen it for myself).
Unfortunately, there are too many people who don't get the desire for privacy and use the "don't worry if you have nothing to hide" and "you are too small for the government to worry about" fallacies. The truth is that the government is usurping powers that it has not been granted and we should not go along with it - citizens have not granted the government these powers. Notice how that works, the legitimate authority flows from the citizens to the government, not the other way around. By usurping these powers the government (or school, in this case) is overstepping its permitted authority (that is, committing what would be a crime if a citizen did it). This must be pointed out and resisted (as the student so courageously did, despite probable peer pressure from mistaken sheep).
Can you at least get that? She has the right to defend her rights. The government and school have no business *forcing* her to provide her whereabouts with RFID. If she is absent from school then that can be noted and action taken - this does not mean they have carte blanche to force tracking on her or anyone else. It should be unacceptable to even suggest this, yet the sheeple even support the illegitimate demand against someone standing up for their right not to be tracked. Surely you can understand that, yes?
Great post! I'm not from the US and from my point of view it is the individualism and protected free speech (including the right to offend - a critical freedom) that are one of the greatest features of that country, and set it ahead of many of its critics (including the pussies, ignoramuses and bleeding hearts in my own country, New Zealand).
I think the Europeans recognize that a move to the ITU regulating the Net would result in a situation where all sorts of shennanigans could happen. Yes, the ITU has done a fine job up to now, but that is because they set technical specs and didn't have much power. If they got power then companies and countries would almost certainly corrupt this body to the detriment of ordinary citizens (who have no way of opposing or correcting the regulations that are produced - at least in the US you can take organizations to court, and the EFF often does).
The EU has seen the dangers and has done well to prevent possible problems in the future - such as the ITU being subverted. Just think of the Microsoft orchestrated voted stuffing of ISO in the Open XML fiasco a few years back; we don't want similar things to break the freedom of the Internet. For example, think of the move to ban criticism of religion, which is exactly opposed to free speech principles of the important freedom to criticize and even offend.
Commissioner Nellie Kroes is particularly good and has stood up for the rights of users (against pressure from Big Business). Let's recognize and applaud the people that are on 'our' side (I'm from New Zealand, and the decisions she makes as EU Commissioner on digital rights influence countries around the World): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes
If anyone is interested, not all theater 'ballistic' missiles follow a simple ballistic path. The SS-26 Iskander fielded by Russia is able to maneuver to defeat. The US proposed placing anti-ballistic missile defences in Poland (so that Iran can't blackmail Europe once the Iranians finally attain a nuclear weapon, since Iranian missiles now reach Europe). The Russian response had Dmitri Medvedev in November 2008 issuing orders to deploy Iskander to Kaliningrad so they could be used in a first (nuclear) strike on the US missile site. The Russians clearly believe it is evasive enough to beat anti-ballistic missile defences. It is unknown whether the US or Israel systems can cope with this technology (and would probably be classified if it could). The SS-26 would not be stopped by the Iron Dome system and probably not the Patriot. The Israeli Arrow 3 has thrust vectoring so probably could stop it, and the US THAAD system could also possibly handle a maneuvering target.
Please note I'm not trying to make any political judgements here. I'm just pointing out that the SS-26 is a very capable missile that the builders have a lot of confidence in.
That's exactly your problem, because I do know what I'm talking about. And of course smearing Muslims based on the Korean is a farce since Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God with the same Old Testament, only under different names
Again. You do not know what *you* are talking about. The *theory* is that the same god is worshipped by all of those religions. This is the limit of your knowledge. However if you actually knew the *practice* of how religion is taught to Muslims you would know that the majority are not told it is the same god, and in fact many are explicitly told it is a different god because the Christians and Jews do not know Allah. You have scratched the surface but need to go beyond the theory to see *how it is used in practice*. This is why you don't have the level of understanding required.
As if your charter would be any different if it was your family and people ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homelands by a bunch of immigrants. And if that wasn't enough, then spend the next four and half decades living under an apartheid regime that kills who it wants, bomb who it wants, whenever it wants.
You do know that Ehud Barak famously said that if he'd been born a Palestinian he would have joined a resistance group. You know this right? The Israelis grok the Palestinian situation. Also, by using the emotional word "apartheid" it shows you have both a poor grasp of what apartheid in South Africa actually was, and a poor grasp of the *reality* of life in Israel. Would an apartheid state result in Israeli Arabs (full citizens with full rights and elected Members of the Knesset) taking the Israeli Government to court and winning? well, it happens quite often that Israeli Arabs appeal to the Supreme Court (since they have the same rights as an Israeli of any other flavour) and win against the Israeli government.
Lol. Still stuck on the 1967 war. Why no mention of the 1973 war, which supercedes it as far as territorial claims go? Face it. You cherry pick facts because you want to hate Israelis. You want them to leave the Middle East and then you'll feel self-satisfied. You don't want the Two State Solution the Israel proposes *provided* both states sign a permanent peace treaty, there are mutually agreed land swaps, both states recognize each other and some other sticking points are resolved by negotiation. You are a hater and opposed to peace on any terms except those dictated by the Palestinians. I get that. Fortunately the civilized world agrees with my goal for peace and not your One State Solution (no unbelievers in the Middle East).
Another problem for the people running around bleating "The Hamas Charter!" "The Hamas Chaaaarter!" is....the Likud Charter. Which lays claim to all of the West Bank, which Israel has zero right to as they seized it in a war they started in 1967. And it doesn't stop there. Israeli officials have openly talked of starving the population of Gaza, I'm sorry, "putting them on a diet". And now "leveling" the Gaza strip and returning the area back to the "middle ages". Again. And that's not even touching the outright racist garbage thrown around by the likes of Avigdor Lieberman. [truthdig.com]
I am as disgusted by these statements as you are. Such things happen in a democracy. However, just because some vote-whoring politicians are making some sound bites does not make it government policy. However, when Hamas says it wants to get rid of every last unbeliever from the Middle East they do really mean it. The Salafis mean it not only it not only for Israel, but also the whole world. I'm sure a sycophantic apologist as yourself you can come up with some excuses for why they should be allowed to do this.
And unlike Hamas, Israel not only has the power to make good on their threats to bomb, level, and starve the population of Gaza - they're actively doing it right now.
Look, I'm not bigoted against muslims. However, you are dismissive of what I have to say assuming it is based in bigotry. That is not the case. Rather than simply dismiss what I have to say based on your incorrect assessment how about you actually check the references I provide in previous posts. If you don't like these then how about you google the following terms and form your own opinion about what you find when you Google "Hamas Charter", "Quran commands to kill" (resulting in pages like http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm), or "Salafism" or any of the numerous terms I've mentioned. I also suggest you check out some excellent YouTube videos, try searching for "Christopher Hitchens Iran" and similar terms - you will almost certainly learn many things you currently don't know.
So I suggest rather than calling everyone around you bigots because you don't want to listen to what they are saying how about checking out the references I've given or googling the terms for yourself. Your post appears unable to distinguish genuine bigotry with an argument that is attempted to be created based on reason and factual references. That means your post is unreasonable and, well, kinda knee-jerk bigoted against anyone who tries to make a reasoned case for why Islam behaves as we observe it. Please do your research. Then come back and disprove my facts, if you can. Until then you need to realise that it is your reaction that is unsupported by facts/references and is therefore the actual bigotry:)
You seem to be a thoughtful guy. I like your style. I do think that you have been lead 'down the wrong path' somewhat. This is exactly what the skillful Palestinian propagandists intended for you - to make honest people come to incorrect conclusions based on a selective presentation of facts. I'll make some points that I hope you will consider with an open mind. If you feel I am wrong then that is ok, but I hope that my statements go one step further 'down the rabbit hole' for you and help to gain further insight onto this extremely complicated situation.
The current view of the Israeli Government is this one [guardian.co.uk]. If the Palestinian seek to be recognised as a State by the UN, Israel will topple their government. If they quit that pretense, they could be granted authority over 40% of the land they claim.
Ah, the Guardian. Bastion of slanted bias! That article sounds like the Israelis are unreasonable ogres. However the situation is more complicated. My original statement still stands. The Israelis would recognize a Palestinian State instantly if their was mutual recognition and a permanent peace treaty. What the Palestinians want to do is an 'end run' around these requirements and go to the UN and get a state recognized without having to recognize Israel and without having to sign a permanent peace treaty. Now the Palestinians have a right to try this, but now you understand the situation can you blame the Israelis for trying to stop this. The Israelis want permanent peace and secure borders first and foremost. They are trying to negotiate the following: you agree peace with us and recognize our state and we'll recognize yours - but if you don't want to do these things then we'll stymie you until you do. The Israelis don't have much other leverage (contrary to popular belief, they don't want to impose their will on the Palestinians by force; force is used to neutralize threats to its existence and citizens).
With regard to the "40%" land claim. This is incorrect. The Israelis propose a 97% return of West Bank land with mutually agreed areas of Israel to be swapped to make up the difference. The 3% or so are existing settlements the Israelis don't want to move - and offering to enlarge Gaza by a third was one way of doing it.
See how the Western media distorts its reporting so that reasonable folks like yourself will end up following their New-Left agenda (that is, always see Israel as an aggressor with imperial ambitions - that may have been somewhat true in the past but it is certainly not true today).
Here's a video that I believe covers many relevant facts and I think you'll find very informative. If you have the time please watch it, it talks about many of the issues in a factual way (without the selection bias that The Guardian etc apply to their reporting): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
Well, if I try to put myself in the shoes of a Palestinian, I think that it would be hard for me to accept a peace treaty involving the loss of 60% of my country, especially if my country was tiny to begin with.
You can't deny that the Palestinian are second-class citizens somehow; whether this is because of the trust the Israeli have of them or not, it must not be easy for the honest Palestinian to withstand this (I mean those who would never do a terrorist attack; there must be some!).
You do realise that if a Slashdot signature like yourself was ever pointed out to a Salafi you would most likely be killed. Brutally.
You are correct the situation with Fatah and the PLO is different than the overt religious madness of Hamas. However to me it appears you want to make the case that Fatah and the PLO are 'legitimate terrorists' because they are fighting the occupation. Now I agree that Israel should get out of the West Bank and retreat to the post 1973 battle lines with no settlements on the Palestinian side whatsoever. We can agree on this yeah?
Now this is where you might be confused. To Fatah mind (and Hamas) the 'occupied territory' includes what we would call the 1948 areas of Israel. This is why Hamas uses the terms 'occupation' when they talk about Israel. They are not talking about the West Bank settlements that we would agree as occupied. They are talking about all of Israel as occupied. Fatah agree with this notion. Also note that in english Fatah will agree to all sorts of things but the key is *in arabic* they do not recognize Israel at all. Their maps in Arabic do not show Israel. This dissimilitude (that is, deliberate lying) is permitted and proscribed by Islam (called taqiyya). However, the fact that it was revealed that Mahmoud Abbas had been negotiating a secret peace deal with Israel against his constituencies wishes produced howls of outrage and threats of even more violence against him.
You can be dismissive with calls of "hysteria". I am not hysterical at all. It is just I have done more research than you and want to bring the actual statements and motivations into the public arena (ya know, like Christopher Hitchens did). I suggest you actually get closer and check the facts. Try and obtain information about what the Palestinians say *in arabic to each other* (remember, their english statements are taqiyya so cannot be trusted as true intentions). Please also read the Qur'an and hadiths concerning the commandments to all muslims to kill or expel unbelievers; please read the Hamas Charter; please read the statements of the Salafi movement; please read
In fact, the entire PLO which excludes Hamas is pretty much various left wing organisations with strong secularism.
It is a chameleon. It did this to get arms and assistance from the Soviets and Soviet clients. The organization (and the Baaths) may be constitutionally secular but that does not mean they are above exploiting the religious sentiments of the general populace to achieve their aims. If you haven't been hearing Allahu Akhbars in videos from the West Bank then you haven't been paying attention. Even without this, they still use the term 'occupation' to mean all of the region to the sea, not just the areas the UN recognizes for Palestinian authority. Again, if you haven't noticed this then you haven't been paying attention. So don't invoke hysterically invoke the word "hysteria" - because of taqiyya you need to look more closely than you appear to do at the present.
All I ask is that you read the hadiths and Qur'an for yourself. This is not propaganda it is their teachings in their unalterable and unquestionable scriptures. Now most muslims are good people that don't want to kill anyone - and it is this precisely this fact that makes them 'bad' muslims. This is something the Salafi movement is challenging - which is why we are seeing a global upsurge in muslim initiated violence, not just against Israelis but against Thai Buddhists, secularists everywhere, little girls in Pakistan, citizens in the US (eg. the sniper incidents a few years back), Al Qaeda etc etc. Again I will say it because you hear but want to deny it. Please read documents like the Hamas Charter, Qur'an and hadiths yourself. That is the only way you'll gain understanding of the agenda of the Caliphate movements. It is not anti-muslim propaganda to point this out (I wish it was as simple as that) - it is the writings and doctrines of their own religion. I can only try and open your eyes to the truth of what muslims themselves say to each other behind closed doors. This is not anti-Muslim at all, it is trying to get the reality of the situation through to thinking people like yourself who have been blinded both by the cowed and inaccurate western media and the taqiyya produced by muslims themselves (look up the principle of taqiyya, it is lies they tell in English to lull us into a false sense of security when in Arabic they make the complete opposite statements - that is why I say there will be no permanent peace until they recognize Israel *in arabic*).
Again, your knee jerk reaction of "anti-Muslim propaganda" is incorrect. Please go check their scriptures and statements and you will find what I have said is factual - it is just something that Westerners want to remain in a willful state of denial about. Get informed and make your own mind up is all I ask:) Do these people share Enlightenment values? is 'true' Islam as promoted by the increasing number of Salafis compatible with the Enlightenment civilizations in any way shape or form? you decide, but do it based on your actual reading and understanding of their point of view (hint, I think you will come to the same conclusion as Christopher Hitchens - Islam and Enlightenment values cannot coexist; only by being a 'bad' muslim can you embrace modernity and progressive society).
But what is happening now (in facts, not in declarations) is that it's the Palestinian state that doesn't exist, and its people are de facto "dhimmi" in their own land.
The Israelis Government would *instantly* recognize a Palestinian State. They thing is the recognition must be mutual and must be accompanied by a perpetual peace treaty. You must ask yourself why it so hard for the Palestinian people to recognize this - and to do so in Arabic (they often do taqiyya and do it in English, but never in Arabic). The Palestinians are not dhimmi at all, because the Israelis don't think they own the Palestinians. The Israelis have zero trust of the Palestinians because of the terrorism in the past. To stop patrolling the borders would invite calamity on the Israeli people - and it would simply be so dumb that no rational person should even propose it.
But we can find religious fanatics in Israel too, and they're calling for the flattening of Palestine as well.
Absolutely true. Israel the Government is influenced by these people (it is a proportional democracy so even these crazies have some seats in the Knesset, just as Israeli Arabs have two seats) . However in Israel the government is not controlled by those people - and that makes all the difference in the world compared to Hamas. Israel is a modern democracy. Hamas is militant and millennial theocracy that no longer allows elections (and tended to throw Fatah supporters off buildings when they got into power - check YouTube for this nastiness).
We just have learnt not to follow religious texts to the letter.
This is the fundamental difference between Islam and the other two Abrahamic religions. In Islam it is absolutely prohibited to question the Prophet or Islam. To do so invites a death sentence. Salafis are particularly strict in this regard (and the Salafis are gaining influence very very rapidly in the Muslim world). Once upon a time Islam was very progressive but the Caliphs in Baghdad became worried and shut all free enquiry down and Islam has been stuck in this very rigid and unquestioning mindset ever since. Christianity and Judaism for the most part have moved past that (although there are some tiny fringe sects that think differently), and anyone in a Christian or Jewish country can ridicule the clergy or government without fear of death (although in Putin's Russia there is a worrying regression where the State and Church are being somewhat fused into a greater means of control, as Pussy Riot found out).
So you see, even the contemporary version of Islam is very different to contemporary Christianity and Judaism in terms of outlook and (especially) in terms of the value and purpose of human life. Once you understand this you will understand what is the common element that binds and motivates Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, Salafis, Wahhabis etc etc. It is not all Muslims that think this way, but the proportion is so significant, and increasing that you cannot ignore the fact that Islamic religious commandments are bringing strife to many parts of the World (eg. Israel, North Africa, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan/India, the Darfur genocide etc etc).
The point I'm about to make is super important and most Westerners don't get it. While Hamas is outraged by Israelis actions in the past (eg the terrible settlers etc) there is nothing Israel has done or will do that can appease or conceded enough to Hamas. Hamas is primarily religiously motivated and will not be satisfied until every last unbeliever (especially the Jews) has been evicted from the Palestine region. Their Charter states this explicitly. Again I will repeat it so you understand Hamas' clear motivations (Hamas say it often, but Westerners simply don't want to parse this truth), there is nothing Israel has done or will do that will enable them to satisfy Hamas - the goal of Hamas is simply to remove all unbelievers from Palestine. This is why war breaks out so often - Ha
You are correct they worship the same god. I actually have no problem with that. My problem is that they try and enforce their beliefs on others - often by violence/coercion (and almost always by violence if they ever have control of a country). However, these three religions are not the only ones that impose on others (Hindus in the past have also done this, and pretty much every other religion with the sole exception of Jainism).
Your clarification comment is appreciated, but I actually meant to include the other religions as well - that's why I was vague. Also, despite the fact that Allah/YHWH/God are the same many Muslims are taught that Allah is different as the other religions incorrectly understand the nature the deity (so so the line goes).
With that statement it is clear you don't know wtf you are talking about. Read the Hamas Charter, ffs! No seriously, do it. Then read all about the Salafis. It is you that is talking bullshit - you think you know better yet you haven't even checked the facts. Here's a reference for you since Googling the Qur'an seems to be beyond your capabilities or inclination before you hurl insults you don't understand: http://www.letusreason.org/islam12.htm http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimkillcommands.htm
You use the word "islamophobic" thinking that people who criticize Islam are bigots of some kind. That is completely incorrect. I criticize Islam (as do others, such as the great Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins) because I'm much better informed than you are. I urge you to check the links I have provided in this response and others in this thread. I like my muslim friends as human beings but not islam itself (or any religion, they are all misguided compared to the truth of the scientific method and related philosophies). Westerners need to understand what the Qur'an and hadiths actually command, and the fact that there are nice muslims is because they don't obey their commandments. The ones that do obey the commandments tend to fly aircraft full of innocents into buildings to kill more innocents (or rocket innocents, or shoot little girls in the face for wanting an education as was done recently in Pakistan, etc etc). So no, I'm not an Islamophobe, just a shitload better informed that you appear to be.
So next time, instead of slinging around "islamophobia" how about you do some proper research? You'll do us both a favour, and won't spread your incorrect speculation in a public forum (which incidentally, indirectly supports the terrorist agenda). Oh, and why you are at it please look up the 'Caliphate'. The idea makes no sense to rational people but it is a common idea that unites Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, Salafis and Wahabbis (if you don't understand those terms then perhaps you are not remotely qualified to make the judgement as to whether someone is an islamophobe or not). Do the research, please.
No, the reason Hamas wants the Israelis out is because it is commanded in the Qur'an. Any lands lost to muslims must be reclaimed (by force if necessary). Also there are many hadiths that command muslims to kill Jews and unbelievers.
Probably because they forced these people to live in walled off Areas and took long from farmers to build those walls.
This quote shows you don't actually understand the motivations of Hamas at all. The New Left comes up with the ideas like you have mentioned due to their lingering anti-imperial bent. This is wrong. I urge you to read the Hamas Charter and Google for Qur'anic quotes about killing Jews, Christians and unbelievers. Hamas intend for the Jews tol be killed, exiled, or enslaved as dhimmis. IMPORTANT: This has nothing to do with anything Israel has done or can do eg. no amount of concessions or appeasement by Israel will work - fortunately the Israelis understand this even if you don't.
It is a religious *commandment* of Muslims to kill all Jews. All muslims agree on this as necessary to bring about Judgement Day (they just won't say it to your face in English). Some muslims are more actively at trying to bring this about (eg. Iran building a nuclear weapon; Hamas' terrorism against Israel; the general muslim 'stealth' war on the West and Western values). The muslims you think are 'moderate' are simply waiting until Allah decides to bring Sharia to the whole World (and the Caliphate) - including whereever you are. The Israelis understand the muslims much much better than you do, and so are resisting this terror. They are not going to be slaughtered without a fight against the true imperialism (note: Zionism isn't imperialist it just wants a secure home for the Jewish people; in fact it is the Caliphate that is globally imperialist, but the believers are quiet about this when talking to westerners). Unfortunately it appears many Westerners will give up without a fight or even waking up to reality (eg. doing research on what is really motivating Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran, Salafis, Wahhabis, the Taliban, jihadis in Europe etc):(
The Qur'an and hadiths are terribly inconsistent on the matter (after all, it was written by humans - there is zero evidence that it came from a divine source [eg. it is limited in content to that what a poorly educated man of the time knew; no talk about how the stars are the same as our sun, or how it looks like Opportunity is about to announce microbial life on Mars - or anything that a divine agent would know that a man of that time didn't]).
But your statement is actually completely untrue. The fact that the Qur'an commands muslims to kill or evict all unbelievers from their lands is mentioned many times. Mohammed himself commanded many such slaughters that are recorded in the Qur'an.
Here is an example for you (even more explicit and unambiguous than Mein Kampf, if you ask me):
Mohammad taught Muslims to murder Jews.
Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'" Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Narrated by Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
There are more at plenty of sites like the following. All good Muslims *must* carry the following out (just as all good Christians and Jews must stone idolators and adulterers - not to do so makes them good humans but very very bad in the eyes of their religion; defying God/YHWH/Allah, after all):
http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimkillcommands.htm
The real problem is not just Islam (although it is the worst). All of the monotheistic religions command such barbarism. If you consider yourself a true Jew/Muslim/Christian you are supposed to do the sick, evil and wicked things demanded by your deity. This is what makes these religions (and others) so bad - they make otherwise morally good people do terrible, terrible things.
I'm not a Muslim or a Jew, I don't have a dog in this fight, except as a human being who doesn't view either side as the embodiment of evil or of good.
Actually you do have a 'dog in this fight' - everyone does! If you believe in freedom and the values of the Enlightenment then you *must* oppose the evil preachments of religion and the fact that any religion that wants to impose itself on your life or the life of anyone who doesn't want it must be resisted by all moral, civilized and rational people.
So don't be a pussy. Don't appease. Oppose all these evil people and their evil preachments - it is the rational thing to do:)
You are right, Israel should not become a monster. Fortunately they are not becoming a monster. They have been subjected to over 12,000 rocket and mortar attacks over the last decade (we're not including the shootings, stabbings, running over by busses, homicide bombers, anti-tank missiles etc that have been used on their soldiers and civilians *in Israeli territory* as well). No civilized society could take that without doing something to protect its citizens. Israel is now responding but is trying to do so in a manner that protects its civilians *and* Palestinian citizens (despite the utterly cynical and disgusting tactic of Hamas using many of its own citizens as 'human shields').
Israel now has the opinion that the Palestinian region should have a Two State Solution (Palestine and Israel) and hope for a permanent peace treaty.
Hamas (and many of its supporting countries; Iran, Sudan etc) wants a One State Solution - where every non-Muslim inhabitant of the Palestine region is either slaughtered, exiled or enslaved as a 'dhimmi'. The Hamas Charter states this as a goal (please go read it). In fact, according to the Qur'an and hadiths it is the duty of every Muslim to carry this out. Only the 'bad' muslims who are 'good people' don't do this. Hamas would sacrifice its own people and suffer appalingly because it thinks it is inevitable that they'll be able to kill or evict every last Jew (because it is written in many places in the Qur'an and hadiths as this is what has to happen to bring on Judgement Day).
So I ask you now, do you think Israel is a monster when faced with such a philosophy?
should it passively allow its citizens to be slaughtered?
should it continually concede temporary ceasefires it knows will not last to an opponent who never wants a permanent peace (according to its Charter)?
now you know this, who do you think could in fact be monstrous?
Finally, I'll leave you with a wonderful quote which explains why there is never peace in the region (or world):
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (a physicist:) ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
For a long time Islamic civilization was well ahead of the barbarous West. The principle of 'ijtihad' allowed all sorts of interesting questions to be debated and examined. However, the Caliphs at that time in Baghdad perceived this as a threat to their rule and squashed all inquiry by force. That unquestioning of Islam continues to this day, and Muslims also attempt to extend this political decision to Westerners too (eg. the moves in the UN to prohibit Free Speech by not being able to question any religion). It is this suppression of Free Speech and enquiry that allowed the West to leapfrog ahead of the more advanced Islamic cultures.
It is interesting to note that a similar situation occurred with China. China was far ahead of the West but an emperor decided that all the strange things and ideas his fleets were bringing back were a bad idea and China turned inward. Meanwhile, the chaotic factions of the West strove to out-compete each other and made massive progress in all areas (ideological, social, technical, medical, scientific, political).
The ability to question and overturn orthodoxy is incredibly important for progress. This is why Free Speech must be protected. Especially speech that challenges conventional views. Ideas that make 'normal' people uncomfortable should not be suppressed (only overt hate speech should be suppressed, but this is very a narrow area). Progress is not possible without it - so watch out America and Europe, your 'Political Correctness' could well get you eclipsed just as the Muslim and Chinese cultures were at one point. As long as a society has Free Speech and a Free Press then it has a considerable competitive advantage over those that don't. eg. until China opens up its thinking it will *always* lag behind the West in innovation, no matter how much tech it steals; the Muslim world will remain stuck at that point in time in which the Caliph closed free speech as long as violence and coercion are used to prevent new ideas that approach blasphemy.
You don't think their population would distance themselves from the crazies for a chance at a good life?
Let's take Iran as an example. Most Iranians would like an excellent life. They defy their government and install satellite dishes and understand what global (secular) civilization has to offer. They would like a piece of that. Unfortunately due to the 'velyat a faqir' the Iranian Government treats its citizens as wards of the state (that is, everyone is treated as if they were an orphan or mentally insane) and the government strictly controls what they can wear, what they can say, where they can do, who they meet. Besides the security services (nb: you never want to go to Evin prison, ever) the government enlists radical thugs called Basiji to brutalize anyone not following the government line. The people of Iran wanted to install democracy in 2009 after fraudulent elections and protested despite the brutality of the Basiji, but the government ruthlessly put down the protests and, shamefully, the West did absolutely nothing to support the large democracy movement. Iran wants to export this Shia-based system worldwide, whether you want it or not.
Now in Gaza the situation is similar, but not exactly the same. Most Palestinian just want a decent life - although they are prepared to forego one in order to destroy Israel (since it is commanded to kill Jews, Christians and unbelievers in many many places in the Qur'an and Hadiths; so they are just being good Muslims and obeying their scriptures; the 'bad' muslims are the one who refuse Allah's commandments to kill unbelievers [fortunately, many muslims are good people and defy their faith in this way]). Hamas used to be buddies with Iran but they fell out over Syria. Hama follows the Sunni branch of Islam so is opposed to the Shia branch of Iran (usually that would mean they would be mortal enemies; but they put this aside temporarily to eliminate Israel before spreading the 'Caliphate' to the rest of the World).
The Israelis are exactly as you describe. They already have McDonalds, TVs and a very very modern society. Their government is influenced by, but not controlled by the crazies (Hasidim) that cause much of the 'settler' issues in the West Bank. Otherwise, Israel is a normal 'Western' society and responds in what most Slashdotters would consider a rational manner to irrational circumstances. That is, people who will make temporary truces but don't recognize the UN resolution that recognizes Israel in the western Palestine region of the former Ottoman Empire (the eastern part is now called 'Jordan' and can be considered the true 'Palestinians'). Note: Palestine has never (yet) been an actual country, it was a Roman name for a region of their empire which has remained as a region/province in additional empires throughout history. Note also the bulk of what are reported by the media as 'Palestinians' actually are relatively recent immigrants from Egypt or Sudan (within a couple of generations). Curiously: when tracing family history back many Israelis have more generations born in Palestine than 'Palestinians' - this is an 'open secret' (eg. Yasser Arafat was actually of Egyptian decent; and Gaza was Egyptian in antiquity before it passed to the Ottoman Empire).
See, this is all pretty complicated. They may want McDonalds and new stuff but there is so much history of the area that just about anyone can make any claim. Only those who are prepared to look forward will make progress (eg. the Israelis) and those who get hung up on history (Hamas & Iran) will resist progress and modernity and instead cling (with force) to obsolescent ideas.
It is true the death of every innocent is a tragedy - not only children. All of these deaths were 100% preventable if the jihadis would drop the fiction of a One State Solution and accept a Two State Solution in the former Ottoman Territory. Unfortunately the Qur'an commands them to kill anyone on former Muslim lands (watch out Spain and the Balkans in the future!). The jihadis will never accept peace, only temporary ceasefires ('hudna') to build up strength.
Since 2005 the Israelis have given up their mistaken belief in Eretz Israel and no longer seek all of the traditional biblical lands (apart from a few crazies that the government doesn't listen to).
So we both agree that the historical deaths of all innocents are tragic, yes? Now, do you have a proposal to prevent future deaths? There seems to be two options:
a) The One State Solution: favoured by Hamas, Fatah, Iran and the Qur'an. Every kaffir is slaughtered, evicted from Palestine or becomes a dhimmi, or
b) A Two State Solution: favoured by Israel and the civilized world. The real sticking point here is the majority of Palestinian factions must agree of Israel's right to exist in its current location. The reason Israel prevents a Palestinian State from being declared at the UN is that the Palestinian State must formally recognize the Israeli State *in Arabic* (it is done in English but not in Arabic - we're not too stupid to notice this taqiyya).
I favour option (b).
So how do you propose that future innocent deaths be prevented?
Israel is taking great pains to avoiding killing children,
This was my statement. You posted a link showing a child that was hurt. A single child getting hurt does not disprove my claim. Statistically if the Israelis didn't care about civilian casualties you would expect their 1000 airstrikes to have produced several thousand casualties. Your post was factual, but the fact you posted it showed you were trying to dispute my statement (don't be disingenuous and try deny it). You post did nothing except show you will cherry-pick facts out of context.
With regard to the relative civilian casualties. You indeed posted factual figures but again these prove nothing. The reason the Israeli civilian figures are low are because: a) the Israeli government spends a great deal of effort in defending its citizens, b) Hamas intermix military sites with civilian sites.
You're arguing with reality, not with me.
Actually, since you claim to make no statement then that means I'm simply making assertions that the statistics you posted have no actual bearing on. Face it, the statistics and single anectdote you posted has zero relevance to the case I made - because they are isolated and you have not provided context. Therefore I'm surprised you even bothered interjecting into the discussion we were having, so your claim is you are 'claim free'.
While the numbers have been changed (and are higher than I thought over all years) my conclusion does not. All of the 12791 attacks are intended to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. Hamas are not the good guys. Israel are not perfect either, but at least they are trying to avoid civilian casualties in the current conflict.
Why would you say that - unless you are some kind of arrogant racist. You think all New Zealanders lack critical analysis facilities? You think just because we kiwis sucker you Aussies into paying for our defence that we don't believe in the right of UN recognised states to defend themselves against daily rocket attacks? You think all New Zealanders promote the evil genocidal position of Hamas (read their charter goddamit, you would learn a think or two - you are backing the evil side dude). However, if you are truly from Australia then as a kiwi I would say this to you. Stop being an apologist for a regime who charter explicitly lays out their plan for genocide and ethnic cleansing; whose moral code is evil toward unbelievers, women and gays; and who instal a dictatorship that cannot be questioned. How can a moral human being back their genocidal agenda? Also, if you think Israel has no right to exist (common among the misguided) then similarly you Australians should piss off back to Wales and England and Ireland and Italy and China and leave the Aborigines their land - you've committed enough genocide against the Abbos. At least in New Zealand we've massively compensated our natives for the wrongdoings of our ancestors, and it is accepted we can stay. The Israelis offered to compensate Arabs originally displaced in 48 but is was rejected since the Arabs only want a genocidal One State Solution. And hypocrites like you support such evil. Stop emoting about the issue and start thinking, ffs. Kia Kaha Yisrael is that kiwi enough for you, racist idiot?
Slashdot Mirror
If the government can only do what citizens grant it to do, we wouldn't have taxation nor would we have a treasury.
You jest, right? taxation is accepted by the citizens as a mean for providing communal welfare that everyone benefits from. One would have to be completely ignorant or rather backward to argue against taxes. What people do is argue about the level of taxation and what ought to be taxed and what should not. Although really taxation levels are a little bit of a 'red herring' (misdirection). When people protest against taxation usually they are talking about the wrong thing - they are opposed to government *wastage* of the collected revenue, rather than against taxes collect for communal benefit.
So the fact of the matter is that they have these powers, there isn't a problem tracking people on school grounds.
They do not have those powers. The government has no powers except those granted by legislation. Even if the government does something routinely, and the citizens don't mind, it still does not mean the government has a particular power to do anything. The first successful legal challenge to the government against an action the government is not legislated to perform restricts that action. This is what the girl is attempting to do.
There is a material difference between a camera (which produces an image of people on said toilets) and an RFID which simply makes a computer take a note: "Student X is in restroom Y. Is Permitted?
I doubt there is legislation in the US that permits US citizens to be tracked by RFID or any other technology except for appointed agencies who have judicial oversight (eg. the FBI must often get court orders - although there are blanket laws that are starting to come into effect, but they are not relevant for a case of students tracked by their school).
I fail to see the issue here.
Well, I'm trying to give you insight into what the problem was. I cannot help if you personally cannot grok the arguments against the actions of the school (fortunately outfits like the EFF and US Supreme Court can). It's ok if you lack the imagination to follow the particulars of the objections of others, just please understand that others understand the many issues very well - and are opposed to the action of the school (which is why there is this stink about it on Slashdot). Fortunately the high school girl also understands the issue at hand better then you. We need more courageous people prepared to make a stand over *existing* rights.
This isn't to say that all uses of implied powers are good.
What is the legal basis for the "implied powers" you describe? the government either has a power granted to it by law, or it does not. The government can take any action it wishes, but if there is not legislation to back it up then the government is in the wrong and has to make amends and stop doing it in the future. If you are suggesting that because the government does something, even frequently, that is not permitted by law then it somehow has gained an "implicit" power then you are mistaken - it has gained nothing and a successful court challenge will show the government to be wrong, no matter how many times the government has taken the action against an acquiescing population.
I understand the point you are trying to make. However, the important part of my argument boils down to this: roll calls are accepted by the citizenry, RFID is not. Now there will be a court case to determine whether the use of RFID for tracking students can be mandated. The court may or may not determine that RFID is permitted. However, the fact that the citizen can challenge it is the basis of my argument - the US government (or school) cannot simply take powers (even if a mildly similar thing has been permitted in this past). Because it cannot simply take powers the courts are able to prevent the government from doing such things - based on the government is unable to create new powers for itself. That some other system has been allowed elsewhere does not automatically mean the government (or a school) can do as it pleases.
The fact there are limitations on the US government in this way is the real strength of the US (nb: I'm not a US citizen, just callin' it how I see it). It is not merely democracy that brings strength to the US, plenty of other countries have elections but have no power to challenge the government (which means those government, eg, Russia, China, Iran can do as they please, and citizens have little *effective* recourse). In the US the government tries to do as it pleases (as the school does in this case) but two facts keep the government in check. The first is the government can be legally challenged (and must obey the courts), and the second is that the government acknowledges that it gets its legitimacy from the people (unlike some other countries).
It is not an 'ideal world' (implying some kind of fantasy land, yes?) that I'm talking about. I'm talking about how the actual US system of governance, power structure (from the people, not a strongman or clique) and 'checks and balances' were constructed. Yes, the US government does overstep its power. It gets away with it because either the people acquiesce, or they don't care (too busy following mindless celebrities tweeting inane bullshit over irrelevant subjects/bitchfights). But the significant thing is, just because the government gets away with it does not mean that the government is doing it legally or cannot be challenged about it - as this girl is attempting to do. Don't be defeatist and talk as if just because the US government oversteps existing bounds that the situation is hopeless. The creators of the system knew that the government would do this (and sometimes should do this, for efficiency reasons as the government adapts to situations), but they also put in place a balance against this. This girl is part of the balance. My posts were about the poster who could not understand why the girl (or anyone) would attempt to maintain their privacy. It is all part of the way the system was designed (and not only in an 'ideal' sense, but in compensating for the messy and complicated 'real' world).
In your ideal world, could I live my life at the same time as a productive member of society and yet completely anonymous to everybody else?
Please re-phrase. Your intent is unclear. I'll take a guess though. If you mean that it is impossible to be completely anonymous in a practical level while still integrating into society then you are somewhat right. However that doesn't mean you don't have a right to privacy, or to limit the information collected about you, or to try be anonymous if you so choose. All of those principles held up by US courts and legislators (for the most part). This is why there is such a stink that they are being eroded. This is why many of us are amazed that folks like you seek to justify the government stripping them away - which is essentially what you are doing, even if you don't think you are (implying those that to uphold those rights are ideologues that only understand idealized models of reality when it is not so).
I understand that government is by us and for us I also understand that there are implied powers that the government can take. Location tracking for public schools and emergency response seem like appropriate use of implied powers.
I'll say it again in case I wasn't clear. The government can only do what the citizens grant it to do. It cannot decide what it will and won't do itself. The citizens have not granted the government the power to track citizens. The citizens have not granted a school the power to track students and schools cannot usurp this power for themselves. They cannot and should not use coercion to gain this power (as they do in this case).
All the other arguments about technical ranges of RFIDs and the other possibly good uses (that you point out, eg emergencies) are spurious. These outfits (school and government) simply cannot force people to be tracked against their will (even on their own premises) - which is what is happening here, and which the girl is making a case against. The technical arguments about short range etc are irrelevant. Just because she goes to school does not mean she surrenders her right to privacy at the gate eg. does the school have rights to place cameras in the toilets? for the good cause of preventing illegal drug smoking for example, or for her safety? no! it is clear this is not the case and she has a right to privacy. Whether it is cameras or RFID it is no different, the school simply has no right to mandate this if someone objects, as I'm sure a court will eventually rule.
I don't get this ultimate desire for privacy.
It is not the government's business what you do - provided you are not committing terrorism etc. This is a fundamental principle. It has nothing to do with whether you have done anything it is simply that the government has *no business* looking into your private life without certain exceptions that citizens have acquiesced to for the common good (eg. certain government agencies may carry out investigations but this requires checks and balances to prevent it being misused [eg. judicial oversight]).
It is sad that you don't get it. Unfortunately many many people just don't grok the concept that the government is by us and for us, we are not servants of it (yet). It simply has no justification to probe our private affairs - that is not what governments were created for.
In this case the school has taken a leaf out of the government's book and is completely mistaken in it should be doing. Yes, reducing truancy is a good thing. However, *enforcing* invasive tracking is completely wrong. It shows how detached from reality the school governance is - they simply don't understand they down 'own' their students. Although this is by no means unusual, many in the teaching profession are using to ordering their wards around exactly as they see fit (I've seen it for myself).
Unfortunately, there are too many people who don't get the desire for privacy and use the "don't worry if you have nothing to hide" and "you are too small for the government to worry about" fallacies. The truth is that the government is usurping powers that it has not been granted and we should not go along with it - citizens have not granted the government these powers. Notice how that works, the legitimate authority flows from the citizens to the government, not the other way around. By usurping these powers the government (or school, in this case) is overstepping its permitted authority (that is, committing what would be a crime if a citizen did it). This must be pointed out and resisted (as the student so courageously did, despite probable peer pressure from mistaken sheep).
Can you at least get that? She has the right to defend her rights. The government and school have no business *forcing* her to provide her whereabouts with RFID. If she is absent from school then that can be noted and action taken - this does not mean they have carte blanche to force tracking on her or anyone else. It should be unacceptable to even suggest this, yet the sheeple even support the illegitimate demand against someone standing up for their right not to be tracked. Surely you can understand that, yes?
Great post! I'm not from the US and from my point of view it is the individualism and protected free speech (including the right to offend - a critical freedom) that are one of the greatest features of that country, and set it ahead of many of its critics (including the pussies, ignoramuses and bleeding hearts in my own country, New Zealand).
I think the Europeans recognize that a move to the ITU regulating the Net would result in a situation where all sorts of shennanigans could happen. Yes, the ITU has done a fine job up to now, but that is because they set technical specs and didn't have much power. If they got power then companies and countries would almost certainly corrupt this body to the detriment of ordinary citizens (who have no way of opposing or correcting the regulations that are produced - at least in the US you can take organizations to court, and the EFF often does).
The EU has seen the dangers and has done well to prevent possible problems in the future - such as the ITU being subverted. Just think of the Microsoft orchestrated voted stuffing of ISO in the Open XML fiasco a few years back; we don't want similar things to break the freedom of the Internet. For example, think of the move to ban criticism of religion, which is exactly opposed to free speech principles of the important freedom to criticize and even offend.
Commissioner Nellie Kroes is particularly good and has stood up for the rights of users (against pressure from Big Business). Let's recognize and applaud the people that are on 'our' side (I'm from New Zealand, and the decisions she makes as EU Commissioner on digital rights influence countries around the World):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes
If anyone is interested, not all theater 'ballistic' missiles follow a simple ballistic path. The SS-26 Iskander fielded by Russia is able to maneuver to defeat. The US proposed placing anti-ballistic missile defences in Poland (so that Iran can't blackmail Europe once the Iranians finally attain a nuclear weapon, since Iranian missiles now reach Europe). The Russian response had Dmitri Medvedev in November 2008 issuing orders to deploy Iskander to Kaliningrad so they could be used in a first (nuclear) strike on the US missile site. The Russians clearly believe it is evasive enough to beat anti-ballistic missile defences. It is unknown whether the US or Israel systems can cope with this technology (and would probably be classified if it could). The SS-26 would not be stopped by the Iron Dome system and probably not the Patriot. The Israeli Arrow 3 has thrust vectoring so probably could stop it, and the US THAAD system could also possibly handle a maneuvering target.
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)#Arrow_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD
Please note I'm not trying to make any political judgements here. I'm just pointing out that the SS-26 is a very capable missile that the builders have a lot of confidence in.
That's exactly your problem, because I do know what I'm talking about. And of course smearing Muslims based on the Korean is a farce since Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God with the same Old Testament, only under different names
Again. You do not know what *you* are talking about. The *theory* is that the same god is worshipped by all of those religions. This is the limit of your knowledge. However if you actually knew the *practice* of how religion is taught to Muslims you would know that the majority are not told it is the same god, and in fact many are explicitly told it is a different god because the Christians and Jews do not know Allah. You have scratched the surface but need to go beyond the theory to see *how it is used in practice*. This is why you don't have the level of understanding required.
As if your charter would be any different if it was your family and people ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homelands by a bunch of immigrants. And if that wasn't enough, then spend the next four and half decades living under an apartheid regime that kills who it wants, bomb who it wants, whenever it wants.
You do know that Ehud Barak famously said that if he'd been born a Palestinian he would have joined a resistance group. You know this right? The Israelis grok the Palestinian situation. Also, by using the emotional word "apartheid" it shows you have both a poor grasp of what apartheid in South Africa actually was, and a poor grasp of the *reality* of life in Israel. Would an apartheid state result in Israeli Arabs (full citizens with full rights and elected Members of the Knesset) taking the Israeli Government to court and winning? well, it happens quite often that Israeli Arabs appeal to the Supreme Court (since they have the same rights as an Israeli of any other flavour) and win against the Israeli government.
Lol. Still stuck on the 1967 war. Why no mention of the 1973 war, which supercedes it as far as territorial claims go? Face it. You cherry pick facts because you want to hate Israelis. You want them to leave the Middle East and then you'll feel self-satisfied. You don't want the Two State Solution the Israel proposes *provided* both states sign a permanent peace treaty, there are mutually agreed land swaps, both states recognize each other and some other sticking points are resolved by negotiation. You are a hater and opposed to peace on any terms except those dictated by the Palestinians. I get that. Fortunately the civilized world agrees with my goal for peace and not your One State Solution (no unbelievers in the Middle East).
Another problem for the people running around bleating "The Hamas Charter!" "The Hamas Chaaaarter!" is....the Likud Charter. Which lays claim to all of the West Bank, which Israel has zero right to as they seized it in a war they started in 1967. And it doesn't stop there. Israeli officials have openly talked of starving the population of Gaza, I'm sorry, "putting them on a diet". And now "leveling" the Gaza strip and returning the area back to the "middle ages". Again. And that's not even touching the outright racist garbage thrown around by the likes of Avigdor Lieberman. [truthdig.com]
I am as disgusted by these statements as you are. Such things happen in a democracy. However, just because some vote-whoring politicians are making some sound bites does not make it government policy. However, when Hamas says it wants to get rid of every last unbeliever from the Middle East they do really mean it. The Salafis mean it not only it not only for Israel, but also the whole world. I'm sure a sycophantic apologist as yourself you can come up with some excuses for why they should be allowed to do this.
And unlike Hamas, Israel not only has the power to make good on their threats to bomb, level, and starve the population of Gaza - they're actively doing it right now.
You really don't know what yo
Look, I'm not bigoted against muslims. However, you are dismissive of what I have to say assuming it is based in bigotry. That is not the case. Rather than simply dismiss what I have to say based on your incorrect assessment how about you actually check the references I provide in previous posts. If you don't like these then how about you google the following terms and form your own opinion about what you find when you Google "Hamas Charter", "Quran commands to kill" (resulting in pages like http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm), or "Salafism" or any of the numerous terms I've mentioned. I also suggest you check out some excellent YouTube videos, try searching for "Christopher Hitchens Iran" and similar terms - you will almost certainly learn many things you currently don't know.
So I suggest rather than calling everyone around you bigots because you don't want to listen to what they are saying how about checking out the references I've given or googling the terms for yourself. Your post appears unable to distinguish genuine bigotry with an argument that is attempted to be created based on reason and factual references. That means your post is unreasonable and, well, kinda knee-jerk bigoted against anyone who tries to make a reasoned case for why Islam behaves as we observe it. Please do your research. Then come back and disprove my facts, if you can. Until then you need to realise that it is your reaction that is unsupported by facts/references and is therefore the actual bigotry :)
You seem to be a thoughtful guy. I like your style. I do think that you have been lead 'down the wrong path' somewhat. This is exactly what the skillful Palestinian propagandists intended for you - to make honest people come to incorrect conclusions based on a selective presentation of facts. I'll make some points that I hope you will consider with an open mind. If you feel I am wrong then that is ok, but I hope that my statements go one step further 'down the rabbit hole' for you and help to gain further insight onto this extremely complicated situation.
The current view of the Israeli Government is this one [guardian.co.uk]. If the Palestinian seek to be recognised as a State by the UN, Israel will topple their government. If they quit that pretense, they could be granted authority over 40% of the land they claim.
Ah, the Guardian. Bastion of slanted bias! That article sounds like the Israelis are unreasonable ogres. However the situation is more complicated. My original statement still stands. The Israelis would recognize a Palestinian State instantly if their was mutual recognition and a permanent peace treaty. What the Palestinians want to do is an 'end run' around these requirements and go to the UN and get a state recognized without having to recognize Israel and without having to sign a permanent peace treaty. Now the Palestinians have a right to try this, but now you understand the situation can you blame the Israelis for trying to stop this. The Israelis want permanent peace and secure borders first and foremost. They are trying to negotiate the following: you agree peace with us and recognize our state and we'll recognize yours - but if you don't want to do these things then we'll stymie you until you do. The Israelis don't have much other leverage (contrary to popular belief, they don't want to impose their will on the Palestinians by force; force is used to neutralize threats to its existence and citizens).
With regard to the "40%" land claim. This is incorrect. The Israelis propose a 97% return of West Bank land with mutually agreed areas of Israel to be swapped to make up the difference. The 3% or so are existing settlements the Israelis don't want to move - and offering to enlarge Gaza by a third was one way of doing it.
See how the Western media distorts its reporting so that reasonable folks like yourself will end up following their New-Left agenda (that is, always see Israel as an aggressor with imperial ambitions - that may have been somewhat true in the past but it is certainly not true today).
Here's a video that I believe covers many relevant facts and I think you'll find very informative. If you have the time please watch it, it talks about many of the issues in a factual way (without the selection bias that The Guardian etc apply to their reporting):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
Well, if I try to put myself in the shoes of a Palestinian, I think that it would be hard for me to accept a peace treaty involving the loss of 60% of my country, especially if my country was tiny to begin with.
Again, that territory figure has been reported inaccurately. Actually, why don't you see what Ehud Barak actually offered in the negotiations at Camp David:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
Here is a good analysis (admittedly from a jewish-interested source, but I believe it has factual merit):
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=101041
You can't deny that the Palestinian are second-class citizens somehow; whether this is because of the trust the Israeli have of them or not, it must not be easy for the honest Palestinian to withstand this (I mean those who would never do a terrorist attack; there must be some!).
Actua
You do realise that if a Slashdot signature like yourself was ever pointed out to a Salafi you would most likely be killed. Brutally.
You are correct the situation with Fatah and the PLO is different than the overt religious madness of Hamas. However to me it appears you want to make the case that Fatah and the PLO are 'legitimate terrorists' because they are fighting the occupation. Now I agree that Israel should get out of the West Bank and retreat to the post 1973 battle lines with no settlements on the Palestinian side whatsoever. We can agree on this yeah?
Now this is where you might be confused. To Fatah mind (and Hamas) the 'occupied territory' includes what we would call the 1948 areas of Israel. This is why Hamas uses the terms 'occupation' when they talk about Israel. They are not talking about the West Bank settlements that we would agree as occupied. They are talking about all of Israel as occupied. Fatah agree with this notion. Also note that in english Fatah will agree to all sorts of things but the key is *in arabic* they do not recognize Israel at all. Their maps in Arabic do not show Israel. This dissimilitude (that is, deliberate lying) is permitted and proscribed by Islam (called taqiyya). However, the fact that it was revealed that Mahmoud Abbas had been negotiating a secret peace deal with Israel against his constituencies wishes produced howls of outrage and threats of even more violence against him.
You can be dismissive with calls of "hysteria". I am not hysterical at all. It is just I have done more research than you and want to bring the actual statements and motivations into the public arena (ya know, like Christopher Hitchens did). I suggest you actually get closer and check the facts. Try and obtain information about what the Palestinians say *in arabic to each other* (remember, their english statements are taqiyya so cannot be trusted as true intentions). Please also read the Qur'an and hadiths concerning the commandments to all muslims to kill or expel unbelievers; please read the Hamas Charter; please read the statements of the Salafi movement; please read
In fact, the entire PLO which excludes Hamas is pretty much various left wing organisations with strong secularism.
It is a chameleon. It did this to get arms and assistance from the Soviets and Soviet clients. The organization (and the Baaths) may be constitutionally secular but that does not mean they are above exploiting the religious sentiments of the general populace to achieve their aims. If you haven't been hearing Allahu Akhbars in videos from the West Bank then you haven't been paying attention. Even without this, they still use the term 'occupation' to mean all of the region to the sea, not just the areas the UN recognizes for Palestinian authority. Again, if you haven't noticed this then you haven't been paying attention. So don't invoke hysterically invoke the word "hysteria" - because of taqiyya you need to look more closely than you appear to do at the present.
All I ask is that you read the hadiths and Qur'an for yourself. This is not propaganda it is their teachings in their unalterable and unquestionable scriptures. Now most muslims are good people that don't want to kill anyone - and it is this precisely this fact that makes them 'bad' muslims. This is something the Salafi movement is challenging - which is why we are seeing a global upsurge in muslim initiated violence, not just against Israelis but against Thai Buddhists, secularists everywhere, little girls in Pakistan, citizens in the US (eg. the sniper incidents a few years back), Al Qaeda etc etc. Again I will say it because you hear but want to deny it. Please read documents like the Hamas Charter, Qur'an and hadiths yourself. That is the only way you'll gain understanding of the agenda of the Caliphate movements. It is not anti-muslim propaganda to point this out (I wish it was as simple as that) - it is the writings and doctrines of their own religion. I can only try and open your eyes to the truth of what muslims themselves say to each other behind closed doors. This is not anti-Muslim at all, it is trying to get the reality of the situation through to thinking people like yourself who have been blinded both by the cowed and inaccurate western media and the taqiyya produced by muslims themselves (look up the principle of taqiyya, it is lies they tell in English to lull us into a false sense of security when in Arabic they make the complete opposite statements - that is why I say there will be no permanent peace until they recognize Israel *in arabic*).
Again, your knee jerk reaction of "anti-Muslim propaganda" is incorrect. Please go check their scriptures and statements and you will find what I have said is factual - it is just something that Westerners want to remain in a willful state of denial about. Get informed and make your own mind up is all I ask :) Do these people share Enlightenment values? is 'true' Islam as promoted by the increasing number of Salafis compatible with the Enlightenment civilizations in any way shape or form? you decide, but do it based on your actual reading and understanding of their point of view (hint, I think you will come to the same conclusion as Christopher Hitchens - Islam and Enlightenment values cannot coexist; only by being a 'bad' muslim can you embrace modernity and progressive society).
But what is happening now (in facts, not in declarations) is that it's the Palestinian state that doesn't exist, and its people are de facto "dhimmi" in their own land.
The Israelis Government would *instantly* recognize a Palestinian State. They thing is the recognition must be mutual and must be accompanied by a perpetual peace treaty. You must ask yourself why it so hard for the Palestinian people to recognize this - and to do so in Arabic (they often do taqiyya and do it in English, but never in Arabic). The Palestinians are not dhimmi at all, because the Israelis don't think they own the Palestinians. The Israelis have zero trust of the Palestinians because of the terrorism in the past. To stop patrolling the borders would invite calamity on the Israeli people - and it would simply be so dumb that no rational person should even propose it.
But we can find religious fanatics in Israel too, and they're calling for the flattening of Palestine as well.
Absolutely true. Israel the Government is influenced by these people (it is a proportional democracy so even these crazies have some seats in the Knesset, just as Israeli Arabs have two seats) . However in Israel the government is not controlled by those people - and that makes all the difference in the world compared to Hamas. Israel is a modern democracy. Hamas is militant and millennial theocracy that no longer allows elections (and tended to throw Fatah supporters off buildings when they got into power - check YouTube for this nastiness).
We just have learnt not to follow religious texts to the letter.
This is the fundamental difference between Islam and the other two Abrahamic religions. In Islam it is absolutely prohibited to question the Prophet or Islam. To do so invites a death sentence. Salafis are particularly strict in this regard (and the Salafis are gaining influence very very rapidly in the Muslim world). Once upon a time Islam was very progressive but the Caliphs in Baghdad became worried and shut all free enquiry down and Islam has been stuck in this very rigid and unquestioning mindset ever since. Christianity and Judaism for the most part have moved past that (although there are some tiny fringe sects that think differently), and anyone in a Christian or Jewish country can ridicule the clergy or government without fear of death (although in Putin's Russia there is a worrying regression where the State and Church are being somewhat fused into a greater means of control, as Pussy Riot found out).
So you see, even the contemporary version of Islam is very different to contemporary Christianity and Judaism in terms of outlook and (especially) in terms of the value and purpose of human life. Once you understand this you will understand what is the common element that binds and motivates Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, Salafis, Wahhabis etc etc. It is not all Muslims that think this way, but the proportion is so significant, and increasing that you cannot ignore the fact that Islamic religious commandments are bringing strife to many parts of the World (eg. Israel, North Africa, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan/India, the Darfur genocide etc etc).
The point I'm about to make is super important and most Westerners don't get it. While Hamas is outraged by Israelis actions in the past (eg the terrible settlers etc) there is nothing Israel has done or will do that can appease or conceded enough to Hamas. Hamas is primarily religiously motivated and will not be satisfied until every last unbeliever (especially the Jews) has been evicted from the Palestine region. Their Charter states this explicitly. Again I will repeat it so you understand Hamas' clear motivations (Hamas say it often, but Westerners simply don't want to parse this truth), there is nothing Israel has done or will do that will enable them to satisfy Hamas - the goal of Hamas is simply to remove all unbelievers from Palestine. This is why war breaks out so often - Ha
You are correct they worship the same god. I actually have no problem with that. My problem is that they try and enforce their beliefs on others - often by violence/coercion (and almost always by violence if they ever have control of a country). However, these three religions are not the only ones that impose on others (Hindus in the past have also done this, and pretty much every other religion with the sole exception of Jainism).
Your clarification comment is appreciated, but I actually meant to include the other religions as well - that's why I was vague. Also, despite the fact that Allah/YHWH/God are the same many Muslims are taught that Allah is different as the other religions incorrectly understand the nature the deity (so so the line goes).
With that statement it is clear you don't know wtf you are talking about. Read the Hamas Charter, ffs! No seriously, do it. Then read all about the Salafis. It is you that is talking bullshit - you think you know better yet you haven't even checked the facts. Here's a reference for you since Googling the Qur'an seems to be beyond your capabilities or inclination before you hurl insults you don't understand:
http://www.letusreason.org/islam12.htm
http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimkillcommands.htm
You use the word "islamophobic" thinking that people who criticize Islam are bigots of some kind. That is completely incorrect. I criticize Islam (as do others, such as the great Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins) because I'm much better informed than you are. I urge you to check the links I have provided in this response and others in this thread. I like my muslim friends as human beings but not islam itself (or any religion, they are all misguided compared to the truth of the scientific method and related philosophies). Westerners need to understand what the Qur'an and hadiths actually command, and the fact that there are nice muslims is because they don't obey their commandments. The ones that do obey the commandments tend to fly aircraft full of innocents into buildings to kill more innocents (or rocket innocents, or shoot little girls in the face for wanting an education as was done recently in Pakistan, etc etc). So no, I'm not an Islamophobe, just a shitload better informed that you appear to be.
So next time, instead of slinging around "islamophobia" how about you do some proper research? You'll do us both a favour, and won't spread your incorrect speculation in a public forum (which incidentally, indirectly supports the terrorist agenda). Oh, and why you are at it please look up the 'Caliphate'. The idea makes no sense to rational people but it is a common idea that unites Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, Salafis and Wahabbis (if you don't understand those terms then perhaps you are not remotely qualified to make the judgement as to whether someone is an islamophobe or not). Do the research, please.
No, the reason Hamas wants the Israelis out is because it is commanded in the Qur'an. Any lands lost to muslims must be reclaimed (by force if necessary). Also there are many hadiths that command muslims to kill Jews and unbelievers.
Probably because they forced these people to live in walled off Areas and took long from farmers to build those walls.
This quote shows you don't actually understand the motivations of Hamas at all. The New Left comes up with the ideas like you have mentioned due to their lingering anti-imperial bent. This is wrong. I urge you to read the Hamas Charter and Google for Qur'anic quotes about killing Jews, Christians and unbelievers. Hamas intend for the Jews tol be killed, exiled, or enslaved as dhimmis. IMPORTANT: This has nothing to do with anything Israel has done or can do eg. no amount of concessions or appeasement by Israel will work - fortunately the Israelis understand this even if you don't.
It is a religious *commandment* of Muslims to kill all Jews. All muslims agree on this as necessary to bring about Judgement Day (they just won't say it to your face in English). Some muslims are more actively at trying to bring this about (eg. Iran building a nuclear weapon; Hamas' terrorism against Israel; the general muslim 'stealth' war on the West and Western values). The muslims you think are 'moderate' are simply waiting until Allah decides to bring Sharia to the whole World (and the Caliphate) - including whereever you are. The Israelis understand the muslims much much better than you do, and so are resisting this terror. They are not going to be slaughtered without a fight against the true imperialism (note: Zionism isn't imperialist it just wants a secure home for the Jewish people; in fact it is the Caliphate that is globally imperialist, but the believers are quiet about this when talking to westerners). Unfortunately it appears many Westerners will give up without a fight or even waking up to reality (eg. doing research on what is really motivating Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran, Salafis, Wahhabis, the Taliban, jihadis in Europe etc) :(
The Qur'an and hadiths are terribly inconsistent on the matter (after all, it was written by humans - there is zero evidence that it came from a divine source [eg. it is limited in content to that what a poorly educated man of the time knew; no talk about how the stars are the same as our sun, or how it looks like Opportunity is about to announce microbial life on Mars - or anything that a divine agent would know that a man of that time didn't]).
But your statement is actually completely untrue. The fact that the Qur'an commands muslims to kill or evict all unbelievers from their lands is mentioned many times. Mohammed himself commanded many such slaughters that are recorded in the Qur'an.
Here is an example for you (even more explicit and unambiguous than Mein Kampf, if you ask me):
Mohammad taught Muslims to murder Jews.
Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'" Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Narrated by Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
There are more at plenty of sites like the following. All good Muslims *must* carry the following out (just as all good Christians and Jews must stone idolators and adulterers - not to do so makes them good humans but very very bad in the eyes of their religion; defying God/YHWH/Allah, after all): http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimkillcommands.htm
The real problem is not just Islam (although it is the worst). All of the monotheistic religions command such barbarism. If you consider yourself a true Jew/Muslim/Christian you are supposed to do the sick, evil and wicked things demanded by your deity. This is what makes these religions (and others) so bad - they make otherwise morally good people do terrible, terrible things.
I'm not a Muslim or a Jew, I don't have a dog in this fight, except as a human being who doesn't view either side as the embodiment of evil or of good.
Actually you do have a 'dog in this fight' - everyone does! If you believe in freedom and the values of the Enlightenment then you *must* oppose the evil preachments of religion and the fact that any religion that wants to impose itself on your life or the life of anyone who doesn't want it must be resisted by all moral, civilized and rational people.
So don't be a pussy. Don't appease. Oppose all these evil people and their evil preachments - it is the rational thing to do :)
You are right, Israel should not become a monster. Fortunately they are not becoming a monster. They have been subjected to over 12,000 rocket and mortar attacks over the last decade (we're not including the shootings, stabbings, running over by busses, homicide bombers, anti-tank missiles etc that have been used on their soldiers and civilians *in Israeli territory* as well). No civilized society could take that without doing something to protect its citizens. Israel is now responding but is trying to do so in a manner that protects its civilians *and* Palestinian citizens (despite the utterly cynical and disgusting tactic of Hamas using many of its own citizens as 'human shields').
Israel now has the opinion that the Palestinian region should have a Two State Solution (Palestine and Israel) and hope for a permanent peace treaty.
Hamas (and many of its supporting countries; Iran, Sudan etc) wants a One State Solution - where every non-Muslim inhabitant of the Palestine region is either slaughtered, exiled or enslaved as a 'dhimmi'. The Hamas Charter states this as a goal (please go read it). In fact, according to the Qur'an and hadiths it is the duty of every Muslim to carry this out. Only the 'bad' muslims who are 'good people' don't do this. Hamas would sacrifice its own people and suffer appalingly because it thinks it is inevitable that they'll be able to kill or evict every last Jew (because it is written in many places in the Qur'an and hadiths as this is what has to happen to bring on Judgement Day).
So I ask you now, do you think Israel is a monster when faced with such a philosophy?
should it passively allow its citizens to be slaughtered?
should it continually concede temporary ceasefires it knows will not last to an opponent who never wants a permanent peace (according to its Charter)?
now you know this, who do you think could in fact be monstrous?
Finally, I'll leave you with a wonderful quote which explains why there is never peace in the region (or world):
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (a physicist :) ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
Peace - but not at any price :)
For a long time Islamic civilization was well ahead of the barbarous West. The principle of 'ijtihad' allowed all sorts of interesting questions to be debated and examined. However, the Caliphs at that time in Baghdad perceived this as a threat to their rule and squashed all inquiry by force. That unquestioning of Islam continues to this day, and Muslims also attempt to extend this political decision to Westerners too (eg. the moves in the UN to prohibit Free Speech by not being able to question any religion). It is this suppression of Free Speech and enquiry that allowed the West to leapfrog ahead of the more advanced Islamic cultures.
It is interesting to note that a similar situation occurred with China. China was far ahead of the West but an emperor decided that all the strange things and ideas his fleets were bringing back were a bad idea and China turned inward. Meanwhile, the chaotic factions of the West strove to out-compete each other and made massive progress in all areas (ideological, social, technical, medical, scientific, political).
The ability to question and overturn orthodoxy is incredibly important for progress. This is why Free Speech must be protected. Especially speech that challenges conventional views. Ideas that make 'normal' people uncomfortable should not be suppressed (only overt hate speech should be suppressed, but this is very a narrow area). Progress is not possible without it - so watch out America and Europe, your 'Political Correctness' could well get you eclipsed just as the Muslim and Chinese cultures were at one point. As long as a society has Free Speech and a Free Press then it has a considerable competitive advantage over those that don't. eg. until China opens up its thinking it will *always* lag behind the West in innovation, no matter how much tech it steals; the Muslim world will remain stuck at that point in time in which the Caliph closed free speech as long as violence and coercion are used to prevent new ideas that approach blasphemy.
You don't think their population would distance themselves from the crazies for a chance at a good life?
Let's take Iran as an example. Most Iranians would like an excellent life. They defy their government and install satellite dishes and understand what global (secular) civilization has to offer. They would like a piece of that. Unfortunately due to the 'velyat a faqir' the Iranian Government treats its citizens as wards of the state (that is, everyone is treated as if they were an orphan or mentally insane) and the government strictly controls what they can wear, what they can say, where they can do, who they meet. Besides the security services (nb: you never want to go to Evin prison, ever) the government enlists radical thugs called Basiji to brutalize anyone not following the government line. The people of Iran wanted to install democracy in 2009 after fraudulent elections and protested despite the brutality of the Basiji, but the government ruthlessly put down the protests and, shamefully, the West did absolutely nothing to support the large democracy movement. Iran wants to export this Shia-based system worldwide, whether you want it or not.
Now in Gaza the situation is similar, but not exactly the same. Most Palestinian just want a decent life - although they are prepared to forego one in order to destroy Israel (since it is commanded to kill Jews, Christians and unbelievers in many many places in the Qur'an and Hadiths; so they are just being good Muslims and obeying their scriptures; the 'bad' muslims are the one who refuse Allah's commandments to kill unbelievers [fortunately, many muslims are good people and defy their faith in this way]). Hamas used to be buddies with Iran but they fell out over Syria. Hama follows the Sunni branch of Islam so is opposed to the Shia branch of Iran (usually that would mean they would be mortal enemies; but they put this aside temporarily to eliminate Israel before spreading the 'Caliphate' to the rest of the World).
The Israelis are exactly as you describe. They already have McDonalds, TVs and a very very modern society. Their government is influenced by, but not controlled by the crazies (Hasidim) that cause much of the 'settler' issues in the West Bank. Otherwise, Israel is a normal 'Western' society and responds in what most Slashdotters would consider a rational manner to irrational circumstances. That is, people who will make temporary truces but don't recognize the UN resolution that recognizes Israel in the western Palestine region of the former Ottoman Empire (the eastern part is now called 'Jordan' and can be considered the true 'Palestinians'). Note: Palestine has never (yet) been an actual country, it was a Roman name for a region of their empire which has remained as a region/province in additional empires throughout history. Note also the bulk of what are reported by the media as 'Palestinians' actually are relatively recent immigrants from Egypt or Sudan (within a couple of generations). Curiously: when tracing family history back many Israelis have more generations born in Palestine than 'Palestinians' - this is an 'open secret' (eg. Yasser Arafat was actually of Egyptian decent; and Gaza was Egyptian in antiquity before it passed to the Ottoman Empire).
See, this is all pretty complicated. They may want McDonalds and new stuff but there is so much history of the area that just about anyone can make any claim. Only those who are prepared to look forward will make progress (eg. the Israelis) and those who get hung up on history (Hamas & Iran) will resist progress and modernity and instead cling (with force) to obsolescent ideas.
It is true the death of every innocent is a tragedy - not only children. All of these deaths were 100% preventable if the jihadis would drop the fiction of a One State Solution and accept a Two State Solution in the former Ottoman Territory. Unfortunately the Qur'an commands them to kill anyone on former Muslim lands (watch out Spain and the Balkans in the future!). The jihadis will never accept peace, only temporary ceasefires ('hudna') to build up strength.
Since 2005 the Israelis have given up their mistaken belief in Eretz Israel and no longer seek all of the traditional biblical lands (apart from a few crazies that the government doesn't listen to).
So we both agree that the historical deaths of all innocents are tragic, yes? Now, do you have a proposal to prevent future deaths? There seems to be two options:
I favour option (b).
So how do you propose that future innocent deaths be prevented?
Israel is taking great pains to avoiding killing children,
This was my statement. You posted a link showing a child that was hurt. A single child getting hurt does not disprove my claim. Statistically if the Israelis didn't care about civilian casualties you would expect their 1000 airstrikes to have produced several thousand casualties. Your post was factual, but the fact you posted it showed you were trying to dispute my statement (don't be disingenuous and try deny it). You post did nothing except show you will cherry-pick facts out of context.
With regard to the relative civilian casualties. You indeed posted factual figures but again these prove nothing. The reason the Israeli civilian figures are low are because: a) the Israeli government spends a great deal of effort in defending its citizens, b) Hamas intermix military sites with civilian sites.
You're arguing with reality, not with me.
Actually, since you claim to make no statement then that means I'm simply making assertions that the statistics you posted have no actual bearing on. Face it, the statistics and single anectdote you posted has zero relevance to the case I made - because they are isolated and you have not provided context. Therefore I'm surprised you even bothered interjecting into the discussion we were having, so your claim is you are 'claim free'.
I've checked by facts and have found I have made an error in fact. I reported 7000 rockets fired this year. The correct number is 882 rocket attacks plus 17 mortar attacks so far (and increasing rapidly). The number of rocket attacks over all years is 7882 plus 4890 mortar attacks for a grand total of 12791 attacks. You can reference the data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel and the specifics of the 2012 attacks here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012
While the numbers have been changed (and are higher than I thought over all years) my conclusion does not. All of the 12791 attacks are intended to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. Hamas are not the good guys. Israel are not perfect either, but at least they are trying to avoid civilian casualties in the current conflict.
Why would you say that - unless you are some kind of arrogant racist. You think all New Zealanders lack critical analysis facilities? You think just because we kiwis sucker you Aussies into paying for our defence that we don't believe in the right of UN recognised states to defend themselves against daily rocket attacks? You think all New Zealanders promote the evil genocidal position of Hamas (read their charter goddamit, you would learn a think or two - you are backing the evil side dude). However, if you are truly from Australia then as a kiwi I would say this to you. Stop being an apologist for a regime who charter explicitly lays out their plan for genocide and ethnic cleansing; whose moral code is evil toward unbelievers, women and gays; and who instal a dictatorship that cannot be questioned. How can a moral human being back their genocidal agenda? Also, if you think Israel has no right to exist (common among the misguided) then similarly you Australians should piss off back to Wales and England and Ireland and Italy and China and leave the Aborigines their land - you've committed enough genocide against the Abbos. At least in New Zealand we've massively compensated our natives for the wrongdoings of our ancestors, and it is accepted we can stay. The Israelis offered to compensate Arabs originally displaced in 48 but is was rejected since the Arabs only want a genocidal One State Solution. And hypocrites like you support such evil. Stop emoting about the issue and start thinking, ffs. Kia Kaha Yisrael is that kiwi enough for you, racist idiot?