>>"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."<<

He really said that? Then why does he raise money for Hamas?  They took Israelis hostsage to demand the release of a Muslim "warrior" who stormed an unarmed beach and brained a father of 4 in front of his kids with a rock, because he was a Jew.  They fire rockets into cities in the hopes it kills some Jew somewhere.  Why do I only hear about the beautiful myth of Islamic chivalry when I'm supposed to feel ashamed?  Why isn't he refusing to support Hamas because it won't fight Islamicly?

Do you think we're stupid? We must have done something to make you think we're stupid.

Please let me know what percentage of Israel is not a military target. Surely some percentage of Israel is civilian and cannot be killed by Muslims waging an Islamic war.  What is it? 1%? 2%?  That way we know what percent will not be slaughtered if the Palestinians win.

how about no Haasidic synagogue there either then?

And btw, Rauf has never said he supported Hamas. He just didn't want to call Hamas a terrorist organization.

"Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

Another case of "you're not with us, so you're against us". Except now it is, "you're not against them, so you must be with them".
This kind of faulty argumenting is called... over-generalisation right? just like saying "some Israelians are taking our land, so all Israelians must be bad" right?

how is hamas comparable to the nazi's. hamas actually has a reason for treating (israeli) jews like shit. *not saying everything hamas does is good*
they just tend to overgeneralise... like many others. however, hamas only fights for pakistan, a nation that existed before the UN had started shipping jews to that part of the middle east. however, the nazi's were actively pursueing/hunting down jews and conquering other countries.
so hamas & nazi's would be patriotism vs imperialism.

some a-hole groups have an actual purpose, an actual understandable purpose when you look at them closely.
BiefstukFriet i suggest you check out the nrc link i posted some time ago and then rethink if hamas is comparable to the nazi's.

and tbh, i'd say almost none of the a-hole groups are comparable to the nazi's...

added the link to the main page of the article.

http://www.nrc.nl/achterpagina/article2484476.ece/Het_conflict_verplaatst_Frisia-Nederland

http://www.nrc.nl/redactie/foto/frisia.html

>>And it's just an example of some of the things the US has done in the past, that are even remember nowadays, and that have shaped the way the world views the US.
In that way it is very relevant, even if hiroshima/dresden was 65 years ago.<<

You're still arguing that it's relevant because 2 wrongs make a right, or that most of the world is barbaric enough to believe so. Repeating past wrongs is not a recipe for avoiding them in the future.

>>Provide universally known facts or quotes if facts aren't universally known.<<

If you don't have any interest in learning basic facts on public record or listening to or reading statements made by the Imam, I'm not interested in taking additional time to make up for you not wanting to take 5 minutes to learn about what you post about. It's bad enough to bother posting in response to people making absolutely ridiculous claims which directly contradict what the imam has said directly. I'm not going to spend more time looking for audio on the internet I've seen on the news a dozen times because you choose not to be aware of what's going on. Nothing I've pointed to is obscure.

A quick google search shows me how painful looking for real sources are now. A number of Arabic sites have removed interviews with Feisal Abdul Rauf, and there are countless pseudo news sources cluttering searches. Until I choose to spend a few hours pouring over garbage to find the interviews I've listened to with my own ears before, you just keep pretending he loves America. His views on spreading Sharia and implementing an Islamic state (there's no set framework) in a democracy or any other state aren't hard to find.

>>Wouldn't you be pissed off at those damn countries trying to, in fact, conquer your country and give some to other people, who came from elsewhere. I know I would. I know I would hate the people taking my country's land. I know I'd try to fight them off.
Now what happened in Palestina's case? This exact thing happened.<<

No, it's not. I guess you hold the position that there are no penalties for losing wars.

>>What happened next? 6-day war maybe in which Israel even took land that was designated as Palestinian and even from country's trying to aid Palestina/help them.<<

I think you meant to say, "from those who attacked them." Because "[t]his exact thing happened."

>>So, what did Palestina do? They recognized they wouldn't win an all-out war so they started a guerilla war, against all of the people who took their land, using rockets and suicide bombing.<<

The Israelis didn't take their land. It was given to them. Primarily by the USA. After it took part in pwning the land's former owners. A long, long time ago. Maybe I should start with a history of the creation of Israel. Or go years earlier, when its former owners sided with the wrong blokes and got pwned.

Suicide bombing civilians isn't a guerrilla tactic. Guerrilla warfare is tactical. Demonstrating a lack of respect for human life by sending in young men and women to blow up themselves and as many civilians as possible doesn't win wars. It shows your democratic enemy that your population contains significant numbers of murderous barbarians.

>>Would you call that Justified?
I would.<<

So you support eye-for-an-eye justice, revisionist history, and condone murdering civilians when you're upset. I'd take up arms against a foreign invader, but it'd be their soldiers and military infrastructure, not their civilians shopping at a mall for new clothes for their growing kids. I wouldn't rationalist that was just. But you do.

>>And to be honest, some of the Israelian civilians really are an active part of Israel's land grab, actively colonizing Palestinian land.<<

I don't agree with all of Israel or the USA's actions. But when you repeatedly defend suicide bombing and rocket attacks all on civilians you leave room for Israelis to argue that they need a buffer zone for the safety of their people. Murderous barbarians leave no room to argue that they're being victimized. They intentionally murder civilians. Nobody cares about the concerns of murderous barbarians. Nobody is doing Palestinians a favor by murdering Israeli civilians. Those calling the shots are just securing their power by encouraging hatred of Israel and deflecting blame for the state of the Palestinian people, who are as fearful of their terrorist leaders as they are of Israelis. (I'm not seeking to argue over the exact rate of fear here, as that would obviously be difficult to ascertain--I'm pointing to the brutality of the Palestinian authority, something I would take issue with if I had to live under. And be harmed for it.)

>>So what would you do as a Palestinian? Bomb the civilians.<<

Wrong. If China invaded the USA and started moving in Chinese, I wouldn't rationalize that murdering the relocated civilians was just. That's the sort of thing an idiot without values would do to vent his juvenile frustration. It wouldn't solve anything. It would make things worse, because the Chinese who had conquered my home would surely take action to protect its civilians from future attacks of the sort. And it wouldn't be right, regardless of being counterproductive.

Thank you for your honest contribution to the discussion. Honestly, your post has been the most refreshing in many days. I think that your rationalizing of civilian murder is morally deplorable, but I respect your honesty.

This is why I do not hesitate to condemn Rauf as such a barbarian. He too rationalizes the murder of civilians. If he cannot even share our value that human life is sacred and murdering civilians is wrong, then he supports terrorism by sharing its barbaric, murderous [lack of] values. If he cannot agree that civilian murder is NOT the way forward, then he cannot contribute anything of value in the fight to be rid of it. In the fight to be rid of civilian murder, the man who doesn't even share it as his goal isn't any help in winning the fight. I'm with you on condemning numerous actions by Israel and the USA--a lot more than are evident from the course of this thread, certainly--but I do not believe that murdering civilians is just. And it's not productive, because nobody who agrees with me that civilian murder is wrong gains respect for anyone who engages in it--Quite the opposite.

>>and tbh, i'd say almost none of the a-hole groups are comparable to the nazi's...<<

I don't know about Hamas and Palestinians in particular, but Hitler is idolized by many in the middle-east. There might be more valid comparisons than "almost none."

Edit: Personally, I believe that the US ought to have put its foot down and set Israel straight. We empowered Israel to protect itself, and so I believe we ought to have kept them from annexing Palestinian territory. Then they'd have moral ground to stand on if suicide bombings and rocket attacks continued, and I wouldn't hesitate to support whatever means they deemed necessarily to protect themselves. As long as they weren't doing anything morally questionable to contribute to the problem. That's why the Israel situation is so messy. It's not like either side is a saint and victim. Just as Palestinians aren't doing themselves any favor by not stopping all suicide and rocket attacks on Israel, Israel isn't gaining my support by continuing to take land years after they should have been clear about their limits and kept to them. Obviously, the US's leaders are by-and-large progressive pansies too busy ruining our country to justify a power-grab when it all goes to crap, and they've grossly failed in their obligation to keep in check an Israel which they had a primary part in creating and empowering.

Thought I'd throw that in there for understanding's sake. I think Palestinians are as much of victims as Israeli civilian victims of attacks. Whether out of fear or ignorance that has Hamas in power, it's terrorism I object to. If Palestinians engaged in peaceful protests demanding that Israel stick to its original borders and Palestinians be left to theirs, I would be 100% behind Palestinians and against Israel taking more land than its original borders.

>>You're still arguing that it's relevant because 2 wrongs make a right, or that most of the world is barbaric enough to believe so. Repeating past wrongs is not a recipe for avoiding them in the future. <<

I am not argueing 2 wrongs make a right, i'm argueing one wrong caused another wrong, but that other wrong is relevant to the discussion.

and btw, every time i said I would, it was judged from the position of a patriotic party being conquered. Think of it as your country being conquered. You wouldn't like that right. That's the way i was thinking.

>>No, it's not. I guess you hold the position that there are no penalties for losing wars. <<

war only commenced after the land grab had started.

>>I think you meant to say, "from those who attacked them." Because "[t]his exact thing happened."<<

Yes i do mean that. Yes, those surrounding countries did attack Israel, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a reason to attack. Maybe just trying to help out fellow muslims? maybe thinking they could grab some land for themselves? I don't know.
However, Israel didn't do anything against them either. Palestinian refugees who had fled to those countries had been targeted by Israel, thus Israel making attacks on the territory of those surrounding countries. Now i don't know what was first, i'll have to research that.

>>The Israelis didn't take their land. It was given to them. Primarily by the USA. After it took part in pwning the land's former owners. A long, long time ago. Maybe I should start with a history of the creation of Israel. Or go years earlier, when its former owners sided with the wrong blokes and got pwned.<<

I know the Israelis didn't take the land at first and that it was given to them by the USA (through the UN). Still, land was taken from the inhabitents, and those inhabitents saw the newcomers as their enemies. overgeneralisation happens, a lot (already stated before by myself).
Direct cause of the 6-day war was indeed the land the USA had given to the Israelis.

On a sidenote however, after the 6-day war Israel occupied more land than it was initially given, and in recent times the Israelis have been taking more land through colonisation.

>>Suicide bombing civilians isn't a guerrilla tactic. [...] numbers of murderous barbarians.<<
Guerilla warfare is indeed tactical warfare, but the tactic is to raid the opponent when they don't expect it, and to retreat to live another day, thus avoiding getting killed. While the actual suicide bombers do not survive, the organization does and does live on to raid (a suicide bombing) another day. So yeah it isn't really Guerilla warfare, i made a mistake there. But it is comparable in my opinion.

>>Wrong. If China invaded the USA and started moving in Chinese, I wouldn't rationalize that murdering the relocated civilians was just. That's the sort of thing an idiot without values would do to vent his juvenile frustration. It wouldn't solve anything. It would make things worse, because the Chinese who had conquered my home would surely take action to protect its civilians from future attacks of the sort. And it wouldn't be right, regardless of being counterproductive.<<

very very true, except history has told us the initial and most favoured response is to rebel. Palestinian rebellion in this case.
Of course it is stupid to do such things, but think of how scared/angry you are at that exact moment and all the other emotions involved in initial responses. Then there's patriotism, widely spread amongst the less intelectual.
When i said I would i was actually referring to the general response i'd expect from most of the population. I wouldn't know how i'd act in such situations as i've never been in any....

>>This is why I do not hesitate to condemn Rauf as such a barbarian. He too rationalizes the murder of civilians. If he cannot even share our value that human life is sacred and murdering civilians is wrong, then he supports terrorism by sharing its barbaric, murderous [lack of] values. If he cannot agree that civilian murder is NOT the way forward, then he cannot contribute anything of value in the fight to be rid of it. In the fight to be rid of civilian murder, the man who doesn't even share it as his goal isn't any help in winning the fight. I'm with you on condemning numerous actions by Israel and the USA--a lot more than are evident from the course of this thread, certainly--but I do not believe that murdering civilians is just. And it's not productive, because nobody who agrees with me that civilian murder is wrong gains respect for anyone who engages in it--Quite the opposite.<<

Human life may be important but for many the nation/religion is more important. This may seem barbaric to you, but to others it may seem bad to be too emotional and the way the science of what's good or bad (forgot the word) obstructing scientific development seems ignorant and idiotic.
In Hamas's case it's probably the nation/religion part though. Imam Rauf only states he won't call it a terrorist organisation. He does not state he is in favour of Hamas. He just thinks it is not a terrorist organisation, as Hamas does not bomb just any country but are/might be trying to wage a war for their independence/more land. This could lead him to calling it a different kind of organisation, such as a patriotic political organisation fighting for independence, rather than an organisation just trying to cause fear. This still does not mean he sympathises with Hamas.

>> If Palestinians engaged in peaceful protests demanding that Israel stick to its original borders and Palestinians be left to theirs, I would be 100% behind Palestinians and against Israel taking more land than its original borders.<<
Of course peaceful demonstration would have a far less negative feedback, but peaceful demonstration doesn't reach the newspapers as shooting rockets does and requires a lot more patience.

>Human life may be important but for many the nation/religion is more important. This may seem barbaric to you, but to others it may seem bad to be too emotional and the way the science of what's good or bad (forgot the word) obstructing scientific development seems ignorant and idiotic.
In Hamas's case it's probably the nation/religion part though. <

I am not trying to win the Nobel Peace Prize for globally respected absence of bias and willingness to see all sides.

If you're right about what Hamas wants, i say kill them.  We should help Israel by using our Navy to help the bombardment.

>Imam Rauf only states he won't call it a terrorist organisation. He does not state he is in favour of Hamas. He just thinks it is not a terrorist organisation, as Hamas does not bomb just any country but are/might be trying to wage a war for their independence/more land. This could lead him to calling it a different kind of organisation, such as a patriotic political organisation fighting for independence, rather than an organisation just trying to cause fear. This still does not mean he sympathises with Hamas.<

There is no middle ground possible.  "Oh I don't support them or sympathize, I just want to find positive terms to describe them so they will get along with me".

Then he is a terrorist supporter, and he should be frustrated in an attempt to sell donuts, let alone build his mosque at Ground Zero.  He should be expelled from the United States.  He is our enemy.

>> >Imam Rauf only states he won't call it a terrorist organisation. He does not state he is in favour of Hamas. He just thinks it is not a terrorist organisation, as Hamas does not bomb just any country but are/might be trying to wage a war for their independence/more land. This could lead him to calling it a different kind of organisation, such as a patriotic political organisation fighting for independence, rather than an organisation just trying to cause fear. This still does not mean he sympathises with Hamas.<

There is no middle ground possible.  "Oh I don't support them or sympathize, I just want to find positive terms to describe them so they will get along with me".

Then he is a terrorist supporter, and he should be frustrated in an attempt to sell donuts, let alone build his mosque at Ground Zero.  He should be expelled from the United States.  He is our enemy.<<

Now this is exactly what people mean when they say you are using a "you're not with us, so you must be against us" arguement. Those arguements are faulty and even highschool freshmen should be able to see the flaw in such reasoning. Sucks to hear from you you don't. Except if you're just kidding around which i've seen you do before so i'm not sure... D:

>>>Human life may be important but for many the nation/religion is more important. This may seem barbaric to you, but to others it may seem bad to be too emotional and the way the science of what's good or bad (forgot the word) obstructing scientific development seems ignorant and idiotic.
In Hamas's case it's probably the nation/religion part though. <

I am not trying to win the Nobel Peace Prize for globally respected absence of bias and willingness to see all sides.

If you're right about what Hamas wants, i say kill them.  We should help Israel by using our Navy to help the bombardment.<<

So from this i understand that you think every organisation that fights for their nation/religion should deserve to be killed? Once again i don't know if you're kidding but if you're not, then i take it you oppose every organisation fighting for independence or the freedom of religion? Like the US revolutionaries, almost any old colony and even more?

lol.

+ israel got nukes, and they're probably idiotic enough to use them. Maybe even on their allies.

Iran and North Korea getting nukes are today's biggest threat to world peace? No way, Israel, with a bigger amount of Nukes than China is a far bigger threat to world peace.