So it seems that you've linked me to a page of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014.
If you recall, I asked for you to point out Hamas' aggression. According to the link you provided, July 7 was the first time Hamas fired any rockets at Israel in 2014. According to my calendar, July 7 falls after July 2, which is when Israeli Jews kidnapped and burned alive the Palestinian teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir.
Perhaps you pasted the wrong URL? From your own link:
In terms of hardware, there’s nothing really special about a Mac aside from elegant designs, be it a Mac Pro or MacBook Pro, that makes it incredibly more worthwhile than the PC equivalent. And there’s no doubt that you can get an equally equipped PC, or build one yourself, for less money.
Emphasis mine.
I don't doubt that your past employers were willing to buy a *gasp* $10k system. I work in the defense industry, so we throw away that much on test hardware that never even ends up getting plugged in. However, we're talking about consumer hardware. $10k, or $7.142k, is a truly absurd amount for an ordinary individual (or even an exceedingly nerdy individual) to spend on a computer.
And yet somehow they cannot make the connection that the rockets that Hamas shoots into Israel by the hundreds brings that Israeli destruction to them.
Indeed, this is amusing. As amusing as the fact that Israel cannot make the connection that the destruction Israel brings to Gaza (along with the blockade, along with the refusal to recognize sovereignty, etc) is the reason (are the reasons?) Hamas shoots rockets into Israel.
I find it odd that Anti-Israel propagandists seem to expect that being under constant fire should not bring any reprisal.
I find it odd that Anti-Arab propagandists seem to expect that continued flaunting of international law and marginalization of a powerless people should not bring any reprisal. Face the facts. Israelis are a bloodthirsty lot. Just look at the frequency with which they initiate armed conflict with nearly any neighboring state. I'd compare numbers with your ISIS stats, but I'm afraid that Gaza is a tiny fraction of the size of the territory ISIS is operating in. If we looked at number of dead per day per square mile, you wouldn't be quite so quick to encourage these comparisons.
Also, thank you for appointing me an Anti-Israel propagandist. I hear dismissing people outright is a great way of winning them over in rational debate.
If you believe quoting Mohammed is equivalent to inciting genocide, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you and people like you are the problem.
1/4 of the world's population lives by the teachings of Mohammed. In other words, you're an idiot.
Disclaimer: I'm an white male atheist. I don't know that much about Mohammed, but I'm fairly confident that I know infinitely more about him than ericloewe.
Like in this past situation, where individuals independent of Hamas murdered three Israeli teens, and Israel unleashed a wave of collective punishment that not only burned a Palestinian teen to death but also killed over a thousand innocent civilians. Can you point out Hamas' aggression here?
I appreciate your link, but I don't have a subscription to your preferred right-wing media outlet. Let me guess.... the article you link to details how every tunnel they've found contains a strictly audited log of past use which conclusively demonstrates your point? No? Oh. It mentions that one of the many uses of some of these tunnels was to aid in the resistance against the Israeli onslaught? Well then, sure, "terror".
Here's a link for you, to Rush Limbaugh's site. Oh wait my bad, I mean a link to the New York Times. That's a notorious right-wing propaganda site, right?
You jest, but the commie pinko hippie liberal rag known as the New York Times just came out in support of legalization of cannabis. After a few states already legalized. After a majority of the country has come out in favor of legalization. Forgive me for considering the NYT to be a right-wing medium.
It all comes back round to Hamas.
Or, conversely, it all comes back round to Israel. It's Israel that's enforcing the blockade. It's Israel that's killing Palestinian civilians. Yes, it sucks to be a Jew in southern Israel, and the rocket attacks make it worse, but the rocket attacks are because of the attacks from Israel. It sucks to have rockets raining down on civilians, but those are because Israel prevents Hamas from acquiring more sophisticated weaponry capable of being targeted.
Sometimes I wonder why Israel doesn't just bomb everything in Gaza flat and kill everyone.
Sometimes I too wonder why Israel doesn't take a page out of the Nazi playbook and just go full-out holocaust on the Palestinians. Then I remember what happened to Hitler.
But let me return to something you said that I found interesting...
That tunnel is there to kidnap Israelis, and the purpose of the kidnapping is terror.
Perhaps. Much like the purpose of the IDF is to kill Palestinians, and the purpose of the killing is terror. Or perhaps we can be reasonable people and acknowledge that these tunnels have been being used to smuggle essential supplies ever since the Israeli-Egyptian blockade was put into place, and that the IDF actions are intended to stop, prevent, or deter Hamas' violent ambitions.
Nah, that wouldn't fit in with your "we're right, they're wrong" mindset. Worse still, such dangerously reasonable lines of thought might lead to a peaceful agreement between the two warring parties. The horror.
Believe it or not, there are actually more than a handful of Arabs in Israel, many of who sympathize with the Palestinians in Gaza. Israel is not some homogeneous Jewish society.
I've been buying computers since I was a kid saving up for a 386DX33. The most I've ever spent on a computer was maybe a quarter of that sum. This further confirms, to me, that Apple gear is immensely overpriced.
If you can't see the difference between opposing a political entity and genocide, then I suppose you would say that Israel is engaging in genocide regarding the current conflict? No? Oh, how impartial of you.
I have no horse in this race and feel that the world would be better off if the entire Arabian tectonic plate were to be rapidly subducted.
However, posts like yours illustrate how cheerleaders on both sides, incapable of even an attempt at objectivity, are the main obstacle to achieving a lasting peace in the area. I quote directly from the source material in an attempt to open your eyes with facts, and you dismiss me as an idiotic fool. That's a strong logical argument there, buddy. I'm sure you'll win over lots of Hamas sympathizers with it.
Perhaps, if voting were the only way to establish whether or not popular support exists. Thankfully enough, some geniuses back in the day thought up this crazy idea called a non-binding "poll". Think of it as an election, but the results aren't used for anything other than publication.
Of course, even simple polls won't accurately gauge popular support for Hamas. Many external factors are at play here. For example, Hamas' popularity recently plummeted in a very serious way. Why? Because they stopped paying their employees (civil servants, military, etc.). Why did they stop paying them? Well, it's complicated, and I concede that I myself don't understand all the details. However, it seems that it has something to do with the recent formation of a Hamas-Fatah unity government and Israel's feelings towards Hamas. Let's just say that Fatah government workers are still getting paid, but Hamas workers' pay is suspended until they are vetted. Of course, people don't like when their paychecks stop coming it, so I'm not surprised to see a significant dive in their popularity ratings. However, it can be argued that this is the direct result of Israeli meddling in Palestinian affairs, specifically with the intent of weakening Hamas' popularity. In that context, it's not clear that Hamas is any less loved today than before the paychecks stopped.
Anyway, anyone with even cursory familiarity with Gaza agrees. Even Palestinians who oppose the brand of violent resistance espoused by Hamas sympathize with the movement. Israel's manipulation of the situation may cost Hamas some popularity, but it has no meaningful effect on popular support for violence against the state of Israel, which is at the core of Hamas philosophy.
It doesn't help that the language is absurdly ambiguous. Who is a Jew? Is it someone who practices Judaism? Is it someone who has a Jewish mother? Is it something else entirely? Does "Jew" refer to one's religion, race, or ethnicity? Of course, it depends on context. Context which is rarely available. People use the word "Jew" and then yell "That's not how I meant it" when their statement is challenged. Jews: either get some unambiguous words or accept that ambiguity necessarily leads to misunderstandings.
That being said, if we can't hold Israelis responsible for the reprehensible actions of Israel, who can we hold responsible?
in exchange for a cease fire and removing the language in the charter to kill all jew
You can't remove that which doesn't exist. Hamas' charter includes language that identifies the dismantlement of the state of Israel as a goal, but nothing about killing all Jews. In fact, let's take a look at the text of the charter, and more specifically any instance of the word "kill":
From Article Seven: The Universality of Hamas:
The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).
A quote from Mohammed. No value judgement made. On its own, a statement of fact (assuming Mohammed did actually say these things). No incitating to kill Jews, let alone all Jews.
From Article Fifteen: The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Obligation:
We must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims that the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to be dealt with on this premise. It includes Islamic holy sites such as the Aqsa Mosque, which is inexorably linked to the Holy Mosque as long as the Heaven and earth will exist, to the journey of the Messenger of Allah, be Allah’s peace and blessing upon him, to it, and to his ascension from it. “Dwelling one day in the Path of Allah is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it. The place of the whip of one among you in Paradise is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it. [God’s] worshiper’s going and coming in the Path of Allah is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it.” (Told by Bukhari, Muslim Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja) I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill (told by Bukhari and Muslim).
A call to regain control of Muslim holy sites by violent means. While I personally am no fan of holy wars, one would have to be rather obtuse to mistake this for a call for genocide.
From Article Twenty: Social Solidarity:
The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people’s livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor. In their horrible actions they mistreat people like the most horrendous war criminals. Exiling people from their country is another way of killing them. As we face this misconduct, we have no escape from establishing social solidarity among the people, from confronting the enemy as one solid body, so that if one organ is hurt the rest of the body will respond with alertness and fervor.
A denouncement of Jews and their treatment of their Arab neighbors. No call for violence here either.
So it seems that Israel has offered legitimacy to the Palestinian government in exchange for removal from the Hamas charter language which doesn't exist. Should we be surprised that this "offer" hasn't led to any meaningful reconciliation or normalization of relations?
Now, once you understand that there is no language that calls for the killing of all Jews, you can focus on less inflamatory (but more productive) objections to the charter. Perhaps the part "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors" bothers you. Indeed, this too is a call to violence, a call to destroy the state of Israel. However, this is no different than Israel's stated aim of destroying Hamas. It's a violent political goal, but that's not the same thing as genocide. If Israel is justified in calling for the destruction of Hamas, Hamas is equally justified in calling for the destruction of Israel (which, I feel compelled to remind you, is not the same as calling for the killing of all Jews, any more than calling for the destruction of Hamas is the same as calling for the killing of all Palestinians).
Also, I should point out that they (the people of Gaza) don't have voting rights. They used to. They voted in Hamas in free and fair elections. Of course, after Hamas consolidated power, they suspended further elections indefinitely. Hamas still enjoys widespread popular support in Gaza, but they'd be in power regardless, since elections are no longer held and there is no longer any democratic means of removing them from power.
They see Israel as an outside force that periodically comes through town to kill everyone. They see Hamas as the only party willing and able to answer Israel's violence with some Palestinian violence. Whether or not that view of the situation accurately corresponds to reality is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is, the people of Gaza feel that in the current climate, Hamas represents their interests better than any of the other options.
Until the Israeli administration can find a way to change that perception (hint: continuation of the violence, marginalization, and blockage is unlikely to accomplish that goal), I expect continued support of Hamas and a continuation of desperate rocket attacks on Israel.
So it sounds like you're agreeing with my original statement: "Genital mutilation is common to all Abrahamic religions. It is nearly universal for males in Judaism and Islam, though highly dependent on geographic location for males in Christianity." You concede that it is nearly universal for males in Judaism and Islam, and you also agree that Christian males are also circumcised in some geographic locations, for example in the United States, where this website is was founded and is hosted.
The female clitoris is no more a sexual organ than is the male foreskin. So without foreskin you/a male can no longer achieve orgasm?
That's actually an interesting point you bring up. Studies have suggested that an intact foreskin preserves a greater level of sensitivity in the glans. In a sense, yes, without a foreskin you can no longer derive the same level of pleasure from sex. Furthermore, we could also mention that a non-negligible percentage of male circumcisions suffer complications which result in a deformed penis or in some cases even gender reassignment surgery. Of course, this is all rather immaterial to my original point: Neither the female clitoris nor the male foreskin is materially relevant to reproduction. If you cut off the male penis, a male can't reproduce by having sexual intercourse. If you cut off the female clitoris, a female can still reproduce by having sexual intercourse albeit with reduced pleasure, much like a male without a foreskin.
As an example: However, we casually accept male genital mutilation (sorry, "circumcision") as great. I never said or implied that.
I said we, as a society. A perfect example is your concern for the girls in Africa while not offering a peep regarding the majority of the boys in the Abrahamic faiths.
So your claim that "Christians do circumcise their children due to religious reasons like all Abrahamic religions, is wrong.
I never claimed that it was universal among Christians. I did say it was "highly dependent on geographic location for males in Christianity", which is factually correct. I understand that this may come as a surprise to many Europeans, as I myself am European.
I never indicated in any way that it is fine for me, or that I have any opinion about it anyway.
No, but you did imply that one form of genital mutilation (female circumcision) is wrong, and indeed referring to it as mutilation, while failing to make any comments on another (more common)form of genital mutilation (male circumcision), and indeed refusing to refer to it as mutilation (instead insisting on the term circumcision). I brought up this topic to highlight your inconsistency in concern for genital mutilation, as you specifically mention genital mutilation in an African context (female circumcision) while failing to mention that it is quite common across all Abrahamic religions in general (a majority of adherents of Abrahamic faiths engage in ritual genital mutilation of male offspring) and universal across some sects (such as Judaism and Islam).
As I said above: you perhaps clicked reply to the wrong person.
In case it wasn't clear, no, I intended to reply to your post, angel'o'sphere. You brought up "genital mutilation" as though it was an African thing, not something that happens right in your own backyard, and all across the United States.
Hi here, me again. This thread caught my eye, and I wish I could say I was surprised to see that you were involved. I'm no doctor, but you seem to either be suffering from some autism-spectrum disorder or well on your way to becoming a master troll. In any case, carry on.
I have no horse in this race, but I'll just chime in here. You do come across as smug. Your tea contains caffeine, so mentioning that you don't drink coffee was disingenuous at best. In the end, you're a caffeine addict either way.
Television is not addictive. It's habit-forming. You suck at English.
I don't have any believes regarding this, nor did I say male 'mutilation' - if you want to call it like that - is fine.
I think you're missing my point. You refer to male genital mutilation as "circumcision", a euphemism, while insisting on referring to female circumcision as "gentical mutilation". This betrays your biases. Both are, literally, gentical mutilation.
You believe cutting off the female sexual organs is fine?
The female clitoris is no more a sexual organ than is the male foreskin. Neither is essential or even materially relevant to sexual reproduction. Both are capable of sensation when intact. Or, to respond to your question with a question: You believe cutting off the male sexual organs is fine?
I agree with your sentiment that parents should not have the right to surgically modify their children [for non-medical reasons]. However, I'm merely inviting you to inspect your own prejudices and how your own upbringing has affected your perception of this issue. In the west, we are generally [rightfully, in my opinion] horrified by stories of female genital mutilation. However, we casually accept male genital mutilation (sorry, "circumcision") as great. I'm just trying to bring to your attention this cognitive dissonance by pointing out how there is no rational explanation for this distinction, for how we oppose it in the case of females but support it in the case of males.
Slashdot Mirror
So it seems that you've linked me to a page of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014.
If you recall, I asked for you to point out Hamas' aggression. According to the link you provided, July 7 was the first time Hamas fired any rockets at Israel in 2014. According to my calendar, July 7 falls after July 2, which is when Israeli Jews kidnapped and burned alive the Palestinian teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir.
Your turn.
In terms of hardware, there’s nothing really special about a Mac aside from elegant designs, be it a Mac Pro or MacBook Pro, that makes it incredibly more worthwhile than the PC equivalent. And there’s no doubt that you can get an equally equipped PC, or build one yourself, for less money.
Emphasis mine.
I don't doubt that your past employers were willing to buy a *gasp* $10k system. I work in the defense industry, so we throw away that much on test hardware that never even ends up getting plugged in. However, we're talking about consumer hardware. $10k, or $7.142k, is a truly absurd amount for an ordinary individual (or even an exceedingly nerdy individual) to spend on a computer.
And yet somehow they cannot make the connection that the rockets that Hamas shoots into Israel by the hundreds brings that Israeli destruction to them.
Indeed, this is amusing. As amusing as the fact that Israel cannot make the connection that the destruction Israel brings to Gaza (along with the blockade, along with the refusal to recognize sovereignty, etc) is the reason (are the reasons?) Hamas shoots rockets into Israel.
I find it odd that Anti-Israel propagandists seem to expect that being under constant fire should not bring any reprisal.
I find it odd that Anti-Arab propagandists seem to expect that continued flaunting of international law and marginalization of a powerless people should not bring any reprisal. Face the facts. Israelis are a bloodthirsty lot. Just look at the frequency with which they initiate armed conflict with nearly any neighboring state. I'd compare numbers with your ISIS stats, but I'm afraid that Gaza is a tiny fraction of the size of the territory ISIS is operating in. If we looked at number of dead per day per square mile, you wouldn't be quite so quick to encourage these comparisons.
Also, thank you for appointing me an Anti-Israel propagandist. I hear dismissing people outright is a great way of winning them over in rational debate.
If you believe quoting Mohammed is equivalent to inciting genocide, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you and people like you are the problem.
1/4 of the world's population lives by the teachings of Mohammed. In other words, you're an idiot.
Disclaimer: I'm an white male atheist. I don't know that much about Mohammed, but I'm fairly confident that I know infinitely more about him than ericloewe.
Hamas is the aggressor here...constantly.
Like in this past situation, where individuals independent of Hamas murdered three Israeli teens, and Israel unleashed a wave of collective punishment that not only burned a Palestinian teen to death but also killed over a thousand innocent civilians. Can you point out Hamas' aggression here?
Here's a link for you, to Rush Limbaugh's site. Oh wait my bad, I mean a link to the New York Times. That's a notorious right-wing propaganda site, right?
You jest, but the commie pinko hippie liberal rag known as the New York Times just came out in support of legalization of cannabis. After a few states already legalized. After a majority of the country has come out in favor of legalization. Forgive me for considering the NYT to be a right-wing medium.
It all comes back round to Hamas.
Or, conversely, it all comes back round to Israel. It's Israel that's enforcing the blockade. It's Israel that's killing Palestinian civilians. Yes, it sucks to be a Jew in southern Israel, and the rocket attacks make it worse, but the rocket attacks are because of the attacks from Israel. It sucks to have rockets raining down on civilians, but those are because Israel prevents Hamas from acquiring more sophisticated weaponry capable of being targeted.
Sometimes I wonder why Israel doesn't just bomb everything in Gaza flat and kill everyone.
Sometimes I too wonder why Israel doesn't take a page out of the Nazi playbook and just go full-out holocaust on the Palestinians. Then I remember what happened to Hitler.
But let me return to something you said that I found interesting...
That tunnel is there to kidnap Israelis, and the purpose of the kidnapping is terror.
Perhaps. Much like the purpose of the IDF is to kill Palestinians, and the purpose of the killing is terror. Or perhaps we can be reasonable people and acknowledge that these tunnels have been being used to smuggle essential supplies ever since the Israeli-Egyptian blockade was put into place, and that the IDF actions are intended to stop, prevent, or deter Hamas' violent ambitions.
Nah, that wouldn't fit in with your "we're right, they're wrong" mindset. Worse still, such dangerously reasonable lines of thought might lead to a peaceful agreement between the two warring parties. The horror.
Believe it or not, there are actually more than a handful of Arabs in Israel, many of who sympathize with the Palestinians in Gaza. Israel is not some homogeneous Jewish society.
I've been buying computers since I was a kid saving up for a 386DX33. The most I've ever spent on a computer was maybe a quarter of that sum. This further confirms, to me, that Apple gear is immensely overpriced.
Say what you want about Apple, they make great hardware.
Thank you for granting me permission to speak freely.
Apple doesn't make hardware. They buy it and assemble it into consumer products. Overpriced consumer products.
Unless by "hardware" you meant shiny plastic enclosures, not integrated circuits. In which case, yes, Apple does make great hardware.
... Apple ... ideal server ...
*head asplodes*
That's over $7142.85 per "scam". How the fuck do you spend that much money at a fucking Apple store?!
If you can't see the difference between opposing a political entity and genocide, then I suppose you would say that Israel is engaging in genocide regarding the current conflict? No? Oh, how impartial of you.
I have no horse in this race and feel that the world would be better off if the entire Arabian tectonic plate were to be rapidly subducted.
However, posts like yours illustrate how cheerleaders on both sides, incapable of even an attempt at objectivity, are the main obstacle to achieving a lasting peace in the area. I quote directly from the source material in an attempt to open your eyes with facts, and you dismiss me as an idiotic fool. That's a strong logical argument there, buddy. I'm sure you'll win over lots of Hamas sympathizers with it.
Perhaps, if voting were the only way to establish whether or not popular support exists. Thankfully enough, some geniuses back in the day thought up this crazy idea called a non-binding "poll". Think of it as an election, but the results aren't used for anything other than publication.
Of course, even simple polls won't accurately gauge popular support for Hamas. Many external factors are at play here. For example, Hamas' popularity recently plummeted in a very serious way. Why? Because they stopped paying their employees (civil servants, military, etc.). Why did they stop paying them? Well, it's complicated, and I concede that I myself don't understand all the details. However, it seems that it has something to do with the recent formation of a Hamas-Fatah unity government and Israel's feelings towards Hamas. Let's just say that Fatah government workers are still getting paid, but Hamas workers' pay is suspended until they are vetted. Of course, people don't like when their paychecks stop coming it, so I'm not surprised to see a significant dive in their popularity ratings. However, it can be argued that this is the direct result of Israeli meddling in Palestinian affairs, specifically with the intent of weakening Hamas' popularity. In that context, it's not clear that Hamas is any less loved today than before the paychecks stopped.
Anyway, anyone with even cursory familiarity with Gaza agrees. Even Palestinians who oppose the brand of violent resistance espoused by Hamas sympathize with the movement. Israel's manipulation of the situation may cost Hamas some popularity, but it has no meaningful effect on popular support for violence against the state of Israel, which is at the core of Hamas philosophy.
terror tunnels
Rush, is that you?
How do you distinguish a "terror tunnel" from the many tunnels used to smuggle food, clothing, potable water, and basic construction materials?
It doesn't help that the language is absurdly ambiguous. Who is a Jew? Is it someone who practices Judaism? Is it someone who has a Jewish mother? Is it something else entirely? Does "Jew" refer to one's religion, race, or ethnicity? Of course, it depends on context. Context which is rarely available. People use the word "Jew" and then yell "That's not how I meant it" when their statement is challenged. Jews: either get some unambiguous words or accept that ambiguity necessarily leads to misunderstandings.
That being said, if we can't hold Israelis responsible for the reprehensible actions of Israel, who can we hold responsible?
in exchange for a cease fire and removing the language in the charter to kill all jew
You can't remove that which doesn't exist. Hamas' charter includes language that identifies the dismantlement of the state of Israel as a goal, but nothing about killing all Jews. In fact, let's take a look at the text of the charter, and more specifically any instance of the word "kill":
From Article Seven: The Universality of Hamas:
The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).
A quote from Mohammed. No value judgement made. On its own, a statement of fact (assuming Mohammed did actually say these things). No incitating to kill Jews, let alone all Jews.
From Article Fifteen: The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Obligation:
We must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims that the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to be dealt with on this premise. It includes Islamic holy sites such as the Aqsa Mosque, which is inexorably linked to the Holy Mosque as long as the Heaven and earth will exist, to the journey of the Messenger of Allah, be Allah’s peace and blessing upon him, to it, and to his ascension from it. “Dwelling one day in the Path of Allah is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it. The place of the whip of one among you in Paradise is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it. [God’s] worshiper’s going and coming in the Path of Allah is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it.” (Told by Bukhari, Muslim Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja) I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill (told by Bukhari and Muslim).
A call to regain control of Muslim holy sites by violent means. While I personally am no fan of holy wars, one would have to be rather obtuse to mistake this for a call for genocide.
From Article Twenty: Social Solidarity:
The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people’s livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor. In their horrible actions they mistreat people like the most horrendous war criminals. Exiling people from their country is another way of killing them. As we face this misconduct, we have no escape from establishing social solidarity among the people, from confronting the enemy as one solid body, so that if one organ is hurt the rest of the body will respond with alertness and fervor.
A denouncement of Jews and their treatment of their Arab neighbors. No call for violence here either.
So it seems that Israel has offered legitimacy to the Palestinian government in exchange for removal from the Hamas charter language which doesn't exist. Should we be surprised that this "offer" hasn't led to any meaningful reconciliation or normalization of relations?
Now, once you understand that there is no language that calls for the killing of all Jews, you can focus on less inflamatory (but more productive) objections to the charter. Perhaps the part "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors" bothers you. Indeed, this too is a call to violence, a call to destroy the state of Israel. However, this is no different than Israel's stated aim of destroying Hamas. It's a violent political goal, but that's not the same thing as genocide. If Israel is justified in calling for the destruction of Hamas, Hamas is equally justified in calling for the destruction of Israel (which, I feel compelled to remind you, is not the same as calling for the killing of all Jews, any more than calling for the destruction of Hamas is the same as calling for the killing of all Palestinians).
Also, I should point out that they (the people of Gaza) don't have voting rights. They used to. They voted in Hamas in free and fair elections. Of course, after Hamas consolidated power, they suspended further elections indefinitely. Hamas still enjoys widespread popular support in Gaza, but they'd be in power regardless, since elections are no longer held and there is no longer any democratic means of removing them from power.
I can see how the people of Gaza could think so.
They see Israel as an outside force that periodically comes through town to kill everyone. They see Hamas as the only party willing and able to answer Israel's violence with some Palestinian violence. Whether or not that view of the situation accurately corresponds to reality is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is, the people of Gaza feel that in the current climate, Hamas represents their interests better than any of the other options.
Until the Israeli administration can find a way to change that perception (hint: continuation of the violence, marginalization, and blockage is unlikely to accomplish that goal), I expect continued support of Hamas and a continuation of desperate rocket attacks on Israel.
The female clitoris is no more a sexual organ than is the male foreskin. So without foreskin you /a male can no longer achieve orgasm?
That's actually an interesting point you bring up. Studies have suggested that an intact foreskin preserves a greater level of sensitivity in the glans. In a sense, yes, without a foreskin you can no longer derive the same level of pleasure from sex. Furthermore, we could also mention that a non-negligible percentage of male circumcisions suffer complications which result in a deformed penis or in some cases even gender reassignment surgery. Of course, this is all rather immaterial to my original point: Neither the female clitoris nor the male foreskin is materially relevant to reproduction. If you cut off the male penis, a male can't reproduce by having sexual intercourse. If you cut off the female clitoris, a female can still reproduce by having sexual intercourse albeit with reduced pleasure, much like a male without a foreskin.
As an example: However, we casually accept male genital mutilation (sorry, "circumcision") as great. I never said or implied that.
I said we, as a society. A perfect example is your concern for the girls in Africa while not offering a peep regarding the majority of the boys in the Abrahamic faiths.
So your claim that "Christians do circumcise their children due to religious reasons like all Abrahamic religions, is wrong.
I never claimed that it was universal among Christians. I did say it was "highly dependent on geographic location for males in Christianity", which is factually correct. I understand that this may come as a surprise to many Europeans, as I myself am European.
I never indicated in any way that it is fine for me, or that I have any opinion about it anyway.
No, but you did imply that one form of genital mutilation (female circumcision) is wrong, and indeed referring to it as mutilation, while failing to make any comments on another (more common)form of genital mutilation (male circumcision), and indeed refusing to refer to it as mutilation (instead insisting on the term circumcision). I brought up this topic to highlight your inconsistency in concern for genital mutilation, as you specifically mention genital mutilation in an African context (female circumcision) while failing to mention that it is quite common across all Abrahamic religions in general (a majority of adherents of Abrahamic faiths engage in ritual genital mutilation of male offspring) and universal across some sects (such as Judaism and Islam).
As I said above: you perhaps clicked reply to the wrong person.
In case it wasn't clear, no, I intended to reply to your post, angel'o'sphere. You brought up "genital mutilation" as though it was an African thing, not something that happens right in your own backyard, and all across the United States.
For the record, I'm Polish. Perhaps that'll blow your mind.
Hey. Rock on, man. It ain't easy, but god damn. Well fucking done, and keep at it.
Hi here, me again. This thread caught my eye, and I wish I could say I was surprised to see that you were involved. I'm no doctor, but you seem to either be suffering from some autism-spectrum disorder or well on your way to becoming a master troll. In any case, carry on.
I have no horse in this race, but I'll just chime in here. You do come across as smug. Your tea contains caffeine, so mentioning that you don't drink coffee was disingenuous at best. In the end, you're a caffeine addict either way.
Television is not addictive. It's habit-forming. You suck at English.
Observation: It seems that my limited vulgarity has upset you more than your denial of the world's largest genocide has upset me.
I don't have any believes regarding this, nor did I say male 'mutilation' - if you want to call it like that - is fine.
I think you're missing my point. You refer to male genital mutilation as "circumcision", a euphemism, while insisting on referring to female circumcision as "gentical mutilation". This betrays your biases. Both are, literally, gentical mutilation.
You believe cutting off the female sexual organs is fine?
The female clitoris is no more a sexual organ than is the male foreskin. Neither is essential or even materially relevant to sexual reproduction. Both are capable of sensation when intact. Or, to respond to your question with a question: You believe cutting off the male sexual organs is fine?
I agree with your sentiment that parents should not have the right to surgically modify their children [for non-medical reasons]. However, I'm merely inviting you to inspect your own prejudices and how your own upbringing has affected your perception of this issue. In the west, we are generally [rightfully, in my opinion] horrified by stories of female genital mutilation. However, we casually accept male genital mutilation (sorry, "circumcision") as great. I'm just trying to bring to your attention this cognitive dissonance by pointing out how there is no rational explanation for this distinction, for how we oppose it in the case of females but support it in the case of males.