Given nobody learns the lessons of history, I fear this endless, mindless slaughter will continue, at least until all the warring factions have earned a martyr's place in paradise, with all those vestal virgins!
Sorry guys, I guess they never ever did tell you?
Spirit beings never get to have sex! Let alone with numerous partners! Just passing through!
Ha, Ha, he, he, ho, ho, oh my aching ribs!
What shall we do with the vestal virgin, what shall we do with the vestal virgin, early in the morning?
Put her in the scuppers put her till she rises, put her in the scuppers, till she rises, put her in the scuppers till she rises, early in the morning!
You can see, and indeed, remain endlessly aroused; but, Ha, ha, he, he, you can't ever touch!
Oh eternal hell!
Ha, ha, ha, he, he, ho, ho! Stop it!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty,

Yeah, who said Allah didn't have a wicked sense of humour ?

Question: would jihadis want to martyr themselves, in spite of knowing that there are no virgins at all waiting for it up there just for him, only eternal, unremitting praise for Allah ?

Would he do it just for Allah ?

Joe

The addition of this article to OLO is a welcome sight and gives the OLO Readership a refreshing change from the never-ending, silly, one-eyed, bigoted Singer propaganda.

Onya, Graham!

Now guys I guess you will laugh just as hard at the notion god allocates land titles and maintains women and children are chattels and are not to be stolen.

Hey now that I find really stupid.

Pressure is mounting on Israel.
This looks like it will continue to increase
as world opinion becomes more vocal -
including from Holocaust survivors:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/08/25/300-holocaust-families-sign-letter-protest-israels-war-gaza

Foxy darling;
Your points are very well made!
However, Israel is only half the problem.
It still takes two to tango/disagree or have a fight honey.
The peace process, is simply not assisted by daily rockets and the inevitable reprisals.
Personally, I rather see those reprisals limited to the sort of sharp surgical operations against senior Hamas officials, like that that eliminated Bin Laden; and with the least possible "collateral" damage!
At the end of the day, war only ever produces losers!
And if you wanted to create a hell right here on earth, it would be hard to conceive anything more hellish than a Hamas controlled Gaza! No ifs, buts or maybes!
What sort of kids will be created/damaged by that environment?
Poor little buggers!
Rhrosty.

Dear Rhrosty,

Here is your 'precision strikes' at work. Yes I know you will defend this latest carnage, deflect blame from your heroes, call it justified but I do wonder at what point do you stop and reconsidered your position?

“GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israel bombed two Gaza City high-rises with dozens of homes and shops Tuesday, collapsing one building and severely damaging the other in a further escalation of seven weeks of cross-border fighting with Hamas.”

“In the past, the military has hit targets in high-rises in pinpoint strikes, but left the buildings standing. Since Saturday, it has toppled or destroyed five towers and shopping complexes in an apparent new tactic aimed at increasing pressure on Hamas.”

http://mashable.com/2014/08/26/israel-destroys-2-gaza-high-rises-as-fighting-intensifies/

This article is baloney. Of course HAMAS wants an end to the blockade, that would give them free scope to import as much weaponry as they want. The starting point is the recognition of Israel's right to exist. That is not negotiable from the Israeli side, nor should it be.

There are two civilisations at war over the same territory and only one can win. Choose sides. I prefer the Jews to the Arabs. The whole thing would never have occurred if the Arabs had agreed to partition in 1949 when Palestine was a mandated territory. They wanted it all and lost. They can't cry about it now.

Hey liar

Seems Israel has capitulated on your demands.
Last night the borders to Gaza were opened to aid and supplies, including building materials and the restrictions imposed on Gaza fisheries lifted.

The peace has now been extended indefinitely on the understanding negotiations for a port and airport for Gaza will proceed.

Wow seems the propagandists are not up with the game or are they bashful because Hamas has gained far more than even they imagined.

Watch the effect that has on the Palestinian's on the West Bank.

Everybody now knows Israel even with its attack forces and atomic bombs is absolutely impotent against the truth and resistance.

And the truth about Israel and it's persecution of the Palestinians is becoming more and more evident by the day.

I always thought the aggressive and militaristic nature of Netanyahu would lead to the curtailing of Israel expansionism in the longer term. I think now Israel might think it wise to return to the 67 borders before the overwhelming passive aggressive nature of the Palestinian's resistance overpowers Israel just as that of Ghandi and the Indians suceeded against the British Empire.

That plus actually wanting peace with its neighbours is Israel's only real hope for survival over the longer term.

Otherwise it will be completely overwhelmed and peacefully wiped off the map.

That is where both logic and numbers work with time against Israel.

@Nutter,

<< before the overwhelming passive aggressive nature of the Palestinian's resistance >>

ROFLMAO

What a joke!

tell me sp

What do you see as the possible future for Israel if it doesn't seek to achieve a just peace in the region? Assess such elements of weight of numbers, logic, time and the rest of the world deciding to look seriously at the plight of the Palestinians.

How much impact on todays settlement do you attribute to Obama and the Americans putting their foot down?

Haven't thought about those things? No? Why not?

Being just plain dumb, indoctrinated, blinded by the trinity of a love of genocide, hate and propaganda couldn't help.

Nutter,

Thanks for that tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

There is now far more at play in the region than some hermetically-sealed Israel-Palestine dynamic. ISIL, for example, and the reluctant need for enemies to co-ordinate against it, even Israel and Iran, eventually. The growing role of Egypt for another: its involvement in combatting Islamism in Libya to its west, and in controlling fundamentalists in the Sinai and Hamas to its east.

Question (perhaps off-topic): can the US (or the world, for that matter) afford to envisage an all-out war between Sunni and Shia ? Seriously. Between Saudi Arabia/Pakistan and Iran, to put it in nuclear terms ? Is the US condemned to have to be the armed referee between these two major players, with Iraq, Syria and - dare I say it - Palestine, being preliminary bouts ?

Yes, it could be a long, hard century.

Joe

Nutter,
<<What do you see as the possible future for Israel if it doesn't seek to achieve a just peace in the region?>>

Apparently you are under the delusion that if Israel returned to its 1967 borders all would be just lovey-dovey. Even if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow your mates would still not be satisfied. They have a list of gripes as long as your tall-tales. Starting with Israel then moving on to India, Thailand, the Philippines, South Sudan… to the Islamic enclaves in Paris, London …and yes, Sydney & Melbourne

<<How much impact on todays settlement do you attribute to Obama and the Americans putting their foot down?>>

Whatever settlement is agreed on today or tomorrow Hamas or Hezbollah or one of their franchises will break it.

<<Haven't thought about those things? >>
You mates are leading you along by the nose Nutter ~.I asked your mate NC over on that other thread what represented “occupied territory” and he refused to answer it every time –and he was billing himself as a moderate!

Wake up and see your allies for what they really are.

Joe

The Sunni/Shia war gas been going on for centuries. It was settled under the rule by the moderate Persian's and recently by the moderate Turks. Once the US stop supporting the Saudis and the Israelis, the two wrmongering cultures of the mid east, it is likely either a moderate Iran or Egypt will dominate and peace will reign.
It is not our fight.
It is a fight being led by the extremist Sunni. The same Sunni whose minority once dominated Iraq but who have been held in check in most other Muslim countries in the region.
Note Palestinians, Iranians, Jordanians, Egyptian, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah are all Shia dominated

Saudi is Sunni dominated and Wahabbism the fundamental dominating extremism. The terrorist funds come from Saudi.
Hamas and Hezbollah are funded by Iran. The only war the Iranians have fought was against the Sunni dominated Iraq of Saddam.

Look with the peace agreement today there is a real hope for peace if the Israelis consider returning to the '67 borders.

The analysts, realists and pragmatists, on all sides, are starting to discuss that possibility.

That was an impossibility 8 weeks ago.

Netanyahu's support for the extremism of some Israeli Jews has lead to his demise. Watch. He will be dumped. The experiment with violence and ethnic cleansing is nearly at an end.The majority of Jews of Israel will be pragmatic and now seek peaceful leaders and genuinely work for peace.

Why is this position unrealistic?

It is forgiving and peace seeking a d has worked in the west for generations.

Nutter,

<< the moderate Turks>>

ROFLMAO

Nutter you ought to be a stand-up comedian --because you sure as hell aint a historian .

Did you ask any of the peoples of the Balkans and Greece about the moderate Ottomans?

Nutter,

"Palestinians, Iranians, Jordanians, Egyptian, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah are all Shia dominated."

Well no, Iran and Lebanon, yes, but certainly not Palestine, Jordan or Egypt. Hamas, as an extremist Sunni organisation, has 'an uneasy relation ship' with Iran, since it is a thorn in Israel's side. That may not last much longer.

On the other hand, the Gulf States, Yemen, Pakistan and even Turkey have either Shia majorities or large minorities.

So, if fighting on the current front-line between Sunni and Shia in Iraq becomes much more vicious, and moves closer to the Iranian border, Iran may intervene. If it does, the Saudis won't sit quietly by. But if they intervene on behalf of the Islamic State (what am I saying ?! A Sunni fundamentalist kingdom supporting IS ?! I'll wash my mouth out), then its large Shia minority along the Gulf will revolt, along with the Shias in the Emirates. Then it will be on for young and old. Pakistan will be drawn in, if only to give the populace an excuse to indignantly burn various flags. Egypt, under its military, will stay out and put pressure on Hamas to do the same. But it might get dragged into the one in Libya.

So we could see a series of vicious wars from Libya (and down into West Africa) across to Pakistan and up into Afghanistan. And Iran would then put pressure on India, as its ally, to get involved: under Modi, that is possible. And then Sunni Bangla Desh at India's back.

With nuclear weapons in the mix, there may not be much peace and quiet in that neighbourhood for some time. Or perhaps in ours.

Joe

more 'progressive'nonsense and the rewriting of history exposed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHpMhAzj-Tk

The only way Israel can meet a "just peace" that would suite the Muslims Julianutter, is for the entire population if Israel to become Muslim.

Gaza is a nice, small target, and Israel is a lot bigger. If it comes to making one side or the other unliveable, my money is on the Jews.

Onya, SPQR. Sic'em, Fang.

Joe

if what you suggest occurs then the mid east is headed for the cataclysm of an apocalypse. It would not spread to much of the West.

So logically then good will triumph over evil.
And that mate is the prophecy.

The only religion from the region left with any credibility and viability would be the forgiving and peace loving Western Christianity.

That my friend would indeed be a triumph of good over evil. And something we would all welcome.

Nutter,

I hope that it doesn't happen, but if it does, it will hit all of us, one way or another.

For what it's worth, here's my take on the versions of Islam:

(a) Islam is a religion of submission to a god, and a religion of peace: the early sections of the Koran, pre-Medina, when Islam was weak and needed to compromise with the other religions of the Book, with Muslims needing to live alongside others;

(b) Islam is a religion of conquest: post-Medina, once the Kureishi and the Jews and Christians had been driven out of the region: the later sections of the Koran, when Islam suddenly had power over weak neighbours, and in the position to give them the option of conversion or to force the special tax and subordinate status on non-believers;

(c) Islam is a religion of brutality and extermination, in its truly fascist-Utopian version, a post-Koranic version: all non-Muslims to be wiped from the earth, so their choice is to convert or be killed; in the present context, never mind about taxes, the Islamic State doesn't need dhimmis, it has captured banks, towns, oil fields. It is highly geared militarily, with ex-Iraqi army bases, a Syrian air-base, masses of materiel.

But the useful idiots will find excuses for it - somehow, it's all the fault of the US. And they'll go on finding excuses, until it's their turn on the edge of the pit.

Joe

That is interesting Joe.

It is somewhat different to mine.

How does Indonesia sit in your interpretation? Since it is the most populous Muslim country in the world, logically it would exemplify and underline your view.

And out of interest what are your takes on Christianity and Judaism Joe?

Jo
Just to put things onto perspective.
Stalin used the term 'useful idiots' about people in the west who defended or promoted ideologies that undermined the western traditions of democracy and openness.

Now you have to ask yourself who in the current climate is defending ideologies or faiths that undermine the western Christian liberal democracies.

To help you assess that Joe you need acknowledge the Christian beliefs of forgiveness and peacefulness are paramount to and fundamental in western liberal democracies.

Now are they fundamental to the religions that are in conflict in the mid east.

No both religions have conflicting passages between peacefulness/forgiving and violence/vengeance.

So my take logically is anyone who expresses open support for either side in this current crisis would have to be viewed as a 'useful idiot'.

Both sides violence and vengeance undermine the western liberal democracy and openness.

Logic can be a bugger Joe.

Cheers mate.

Hi Nutter,

It was Lenin actually.

As for genuine mercy etc., look in the Koran for any trace of any story like the Good Samaritan story, i.e. about coming to the aid of an 'Other', someone NOT like you, and let me know how you go.

As an atheist, I support the rights of everybody to freely believe whatever they like in peace, as long as they aren't imposing themselves on anybody else - Yazidi, Christians, Shia, Sunni who are NOT involved in beheadings, Turcomans, Turkmens, Nuris, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

Maybe your point about equivalence (have I got that right?) would be a bit stronger if Yazidis burst out off Mount Sinjar and started butchering Sunnis, peace-loving Islamic state people. Or Assyrian or Chaldean Christians, whose ancestors have been across the Middle East long before Muhammed stopped sh!tting his nappies.

Just give me the URL of a photo of a Yazidi's kid holding up a severed Sunni head and I'll give your notion of equivalence the time of day.

Otherwise, my useful idiot friend, don't bother me.

Joe

Yes Jo, well said.

Nutter & cos alibi that they are against all violence looks pretty threadbare when you tally up the number of lines they have written condemning Israel and "Zionism" vis-à-vis the number of lines they have written condemning violence by Arabs and Islam --especially when you consider the latter are by far the biggest offenders.

liar

The same logic can be applied to you.

Except is shows you as a bigot, apartheid loving supporter of genocide and the murder of innocent women and kids.

Nutter,

Except for two small problems:
1) The Arabs/ Muslims are " by far the biggest offenders",and
2) Most attempts to examine Arab/ Muslim crimes usually gets derailed by apologists who want to make it an anti-Christian or anti-Israel thing instead.The end result is that few Muslims have any real idea of their cruel history (witness your mate NC on that other thread discounting any talk of Islamic slavery as "hate" speech).

Sp

So volumes determine guilt?

That is what logic indicates when applied to your comment.

Well that is rational. If I only kill a little I'm innocent.

Is that it?

Nutter,

You (& Steele) have been doing a pretty good impersonation of radio Hamas for a long time now. You both have severed any connections you might have had to rationality.

Hi SPQR,

There is STILL slavery in Muslim countries: in Mauretania, there are still tens of thousands of slaves. They were allowed to vote in the last elections, six or seven years ago. Slaves are still rumoured to be trafficked from Sudan to Saudi Arabia.

Zanzibar's main purpose for existence was as a slave-trading centre. .

In Muslim Spain, the emirs employed some fifty thousand slaves, called "sagaliva", who built those beautiful palaces and mosques (why do totalitarians love architecture ?) and worked on plantations, according to Vives, 'An Economic History of Spain', 1969, p. 105. Of course, the slaves weren't Muslims.

And what was Livingstone doing in central Africa ?

Cheers,

Joe

Yes Joe,

And regrettably many don't know about --and don't even want to hear about it. The Muslim chappy I debated on the other thread had no idea that slavery was ever part of Arab/Ottoman culture and any attempt to bring him up to speed was met with charges of "hate speech"--and people like Nutter and Steele nurture that ignorance.

Israel will never return to the pre 1967 border. The Muslim war machine has gone a long way since 1967, and to return to the 1967 borders would make Israel completely indefensible. It is insanity to even contemplate it, as it ignores the two reasons why the Muslims want to crush Israel.

The first being, that Mohammad absolutely hated the Jews for refusing to convert to his new religion and his peppered his Koran and Hadiths with numerous passages instructing his follower to hate the Jews. The second is, that Islam defeated the hated Jews on their own homeland, built a mosque on the hated Jews most holy site, which is their way of saying "we have crushed you, and this is now Muslim land forever."

The Muslims quite plainly do not want just a part of Israel/Palestine, they want it all. If you can't figure that out, then it is useless even debating with you because you have lost touch with reality.

Juliantter's religiously inspired theory that there is war in the Middle East because the two protagonists are Muslims and Jews, who have no sense of love and forgiveness like Christians, is more worthy of hilarity than serious consideration. It can only be believed by people who think that their particular religion, or their particular version of a religion, is the only valid one. Which, I might point out, is exactly the sort of thinking which is the cause of the all of problems in the Middle East in the first place.

Loudmouth's point that most Muslims are unaware of their own park past is absolutely valid. Like SPQR, I have debated against Muslims on other sites who were completely unaware of how Islam spread throughout the Mediterranean in the period 700-800 AD. Only recently, a former Muslim woman (now Christian) claimed in her book (Cruel and Usual Punishment) that most Muslims were even unaware of the "sword" passages in the Koran. Many Muslims are shocked at the Muslim on Muslim violence in the Middle East and how both sides justify their murderous behaviour by quoting the Koran.

No Lego
I never said Jews and Muslims had no sense of forgiveness and peace.

You say that.

I say both Islam and Judaism have passages in their books which present peace and forgiveness as well as passages preaching vengeance and violence. At times those who put reliance on violence and vengeance rise to lead or influence both religions. Such is the case today with the state of Israel and Islamic terrorism.

You either completely misunderstood this or you deliberately deny this. Either way you are not presenting my view truthfully.
You should withdraw and apologize for your misrepresentation.

But you won't do that because you are already a proven liar.

Lego
We who are Christians on the other hand preach only peace and forgiveness.

We like the founder of Christianity rejected the Torah and much of its teachings.
He tried to reform Judaism. He was crucified for trying to do so.
And while you go on and on about The violence of some Muslims, and portray all Muslims as violent you overlook the violence perpetrated against others by the leadership of Jewish people, notably that against innocent people who challenge their views. Christ and the Palestinians are notable among them.

What was that Moses commandments said about lying?

Julianutter, you said that forgiveness and peace were fundamental to Christianity, but not to Islam or the Jews. Your position can easily be discerned as therefore saying that these virtues exist only in Christianity and not in the two other religions. I think that your charge of me "lying" is therefore wrong and un Christian of you.

The Muslim world is a violent world, and the reason for that is because unlike every other major religion, Mohammad advocated violence to spread Islam. And he advocated extreme violence towards those who were not Muslims, those who would not accept Islam, those that were women, and those that criticised Islam in any way.

Let us examine Christianity and Islam.

Christianity was started by a Jewish pacifist who advocated pacifism, tolerance, forgiveness, and respect for people of other religions. For 1600 years the Christian religion was a very violent one, because the ordinary people were forbidden to read the words of the pacifist Jesus Christ. Since the Reformation, the pacifist principles of Jesus Christ have done a lot to moderate violence among practicing Christians. Any person who is totally intolerant, unforgiving, or who advocates extreme violence can be termed "un Christian." But that does not mean that most Christians are pacifists. Most Christians do not believe in pacifism, but they understand that controlling and moderating violence is a virtue to be aspired to.

This is the opposite of Islam.

Islam was began by a Bedouin warlord who wanted to make his warriors invincible in battle. The guy was an intolerant psychopath who killed anybody who opposed him. His holy book justifies violence to spread his religion, and justifies extreme violence over anybody who criticises it. His laws based upon his religion are misogynistic, intolerant, barbarous and cruel. Islam has shaped the violent mindsets of Muslims in the same way that Christianity has done the opposite. Many Muslims do not want to be violent. But they can not criticise those who are violent in the name of Allah. To do so would be blasphemy, and blasphemy is punishable in Sharia law by death.

'Julianutter, you said that forgiveness and peace were fundamental to Christianity, but not to Islam or the Jews. Your position can easily be discerned as therefore saying that these virtues exist only in Christianity and not in the two other religions. I think that your charge of me "lying" is therefore wrong and un Christian of you.'

Absolutely wrong ... again.

I said

'... both Islam and Judaism have passages in their books which present peace and forgiveness as well as passages preaching vengeance and violence.'

and

'We who are Christians on the other hand preach only peace and forgiveness.'

Lego besides lies you spread of hate.

'The Muslim world is a violent world,...'

That is an example of stereotyping hate speech. But keep it up it shows us all the extent of your tribalism.

It is outlawed in our Christian world. It isn't in your world and therein lies a huge part of the problem the mid east. It is with the beliefs and practises from the dark age.

It is not unchristian to challenge liars' behaviours. It is the behaviour that is judged. You can change to be truthful. Your lie cannot change.

Christians don't agree with your view about Christ. To them He is the Son of God, not just a Jewish pacifist ... of which there are evidentially still quite a few round today.

I think your lack of logic, comprehension, lying, hatred and bigotry proven.

Your behaviour makes you an illogical, hateful, bigoted and lying nitwit.

Those one would expect to be prime characteristics of a avowed and vocal supporter of ethnic cleansing and the current State of Israel's attitude to Palestinians.

Now that mate is how to pour scorn on the helpless.

loudmouth

'Just give me the URL of a photo of a Yazidi's kid holding up a severed Sunni head and I'll give your notion of equivalence the time of day.'

Would photos of a bunch of Israelis sitting in plastic chairs cheering on the slaughter of kids and women in Palestine substitute

To Julainutter.

Your position now (correct me if I am wrong) is that you are IMPLYING that it is wrong to stereotype an entire group of people as being a violent threat. That is just idealistic malarky.

I am sure that you do not like any members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Mafia, the Hells Angels, or the Nazi Party. The reason why you dislike them, is because you understand their values, attitudes and behaviours, you consider their violent attitudes to be utterly wrong, and those who advocate those values as dangerous. You do not go around saying that there are good Ku Klux Klansmen and bad Ku Klux Klansmen, nor do you do the same for Nazis, Mafioso, narcotrafficantes, and Hells Angels. Then by some application of doublethink, you then act outraged at me doing to Muslims, what you do yourself to people who are members of groups that you do not like.

Muslims have an ideology that considers killing non Muslims a holy thing approved by their God. I know that most Muslims would not personally kill me, just like most Ku Klux Klansmen who despise negroes do not want to personally kill Negros. But both groups have nutters within them that would do just that, and those who would not kill themselves would heartily approve of their more activist members killing the people their ideology despises. Some would help, some would look the other way, and some would never betray those who did kill. All members of violent social organisations that have ideologies that sanction violence towards particular out groups approve of the violence towards those out groups, to one degree or another. That is what makes all Ku Klux Klan members dangerous to African Negros, all Nazis dangerous to Jews, and all Muslims dangerous to non Muslims.

There is nothing wrong with stereotyping because it is the way people think. People think by forming generalised concepts, and those generalised concepts are stereotypes. All you need is for the stereotype to be reasonably accurate and it is a valid concept.

Nutter,

No. Maybe if you could find, in nearly a hundred years now, a picture of an Israeli kid holding up a severed Palestinian head. But such a photo doesn't exist, does it ?

When will you get it through your head that the Islamic State people are continually, and deliberately, pushing the boundaries of what is humanly acceptable, i.e. by what is seen by wimpy non-jihadis as acceptable ? I recall Waffen SS troops pushing the same limits, between what is human, and what is beyond humanly acceptable. And US troops holding up ears of Vietnamese who they had killed. Vile behaviour, beyond the limits of humanity, and deliberately so.

Deliberately beyond human - I suspect that is how IS thugs see themselves, and thereby closer to Allah. It's as if they have decided to leave this world of low, base ordinary humans, and put themselves on a rapid path to Paradise where humans can't exist - that they are in a sort of non-human zone between base-human Earth and supra-human Paradise. In that zone, the most vile slaughter of people is perfectly permissible, required by Allah, as they depict him. The more brutal, the more holy, in their cock-eyed view.

If this is so, and if he exists, then Allah is a vile turd. Pass it on, usefuls.

BTT: Hamas refrains from firing rockets into Israel, Israel has no reason to launch attacks on Gaza. Truce. If Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, and demilitarises, then the process of forming two states can begin.

And maybe, just maybe, Islam can take a tentative step towards the modern world.

Loudmouth
Killing women and kids by remote control, and cheering on such brutality doesn't rate with you as barbaric?

Why not loudmouth? Self defense and proportionate you'll plead as have all those others supporting Israels actions and alongside those who endorse ethnic cleansing.

You Know loudmouth you really should stop abusing me.

I can portray your rants here as absolutely hapless, and you as helpless as the nitwit, if you persist.

Hi Nutter,

Not really - fire rockets at random into another country and you cop the consequences, including retaliatory missile strikes.

After all, HAMAS has raised the stakes over the years in this on-off war of calibrated brutality, feeding off the numbers of the bodies of those women and children and calculatingly using them as propaganda tools, especially aimed towards naïve foreigners such as yourself, with respect.

Stop firing rockets and the strikes and bombardments will cease - as indeed they have (at time of writing). If the rockets start again, the bombardments and missile strikes will start again. So it will go. No surprises.

I'm not an Islamist so I don't support ethnic cleansing. Or beheading children. Or selling women into sex-slavery. Or machine-gunning prisoners. Or crucifying non-believers. Or shooting smokers.

I apologise, Nutter, if I seem to be condemning your friends by pointing all this out :)

Stay useful :)

Joe

well here is your problem Joe.

You ignore anything that puts the Israelis in a bad light.

firstly,
the rockets stopped because Israel was forced to open Gaza's borders, extend the fishing zones and negotiate a port and airport for Gaza.

That was a major setback considering it wasn't linked to the demilitarisation of Gaza nor the rewrite of the Hamas charter.

you cannot accept that fact.

secondly,
while you only condemn the violence of hamas and other Islamic terrorists you cannot show me pictures of everyday Muslims cheering on the barbarism.
I can show you pictures of everyday Jews cheering on the barbarism of killing women and kids by remote control. I can also show pictures of the consequences of massively disproportionate use of violence by Israel against people of a different religion.

you cannot accept those facts.

I condemn all violence from both sides.

You condemn only 'ethnic cleansing. Or beheading children. Or selling women into sex-slavery. Or machine-gunning prisoners. Or crucifying non-believers. Or shooting smokers.'

but you won't condemn the killing of innocent women and kids or Israel's actions as disproportionate or ethnic cleansing.

You are in absolute denial about those facts.

'I apologise, Nutter, if I seem to be condemning your friends by pointing all this out :)'

Yes you do seem to be condemning my friends but, from all the evidence, my friends are fellow pacifists who condemn all violence on both sides. We don't excuse or ignore any of it.

See how hapless you make yourself appear when you align yourself with the likes of ethnic cleansing supporters like helpless.

but wait there is more.

In the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's forces fired 50 SCUD missiles at Israel, and the Palestinians stood on their rooftops and cheered as the missiles struck home into Israeli population centres.

According to Julainutter's bizarre pacifist, Christian logic, it is OK for Palestinians to cheer on Iraqi missiles aimed at Israel, but completely, totally, and utterly wrong for Israelis to do the same thing.

Another lie Lego.

Show me exactly where I said I supported the cheering of Saddam's rockets or indeed the firing of any rockets at Israel.

Even show me where I have defended such actions.

You cannot. You really are clutching at inane straws.

Laughable really.

Joe,

‘25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”'

Now for ‘tin tacks’ Joe

1. Luke 10:25-37New International Version (NIV) ... The much revised Christian New Testament, not the Hebrew dark age version.

Hi Nutter,

I think LEGO was trying to get through to you that Palestinians cheered Saddam's missiles, on the one hand, and Israelis watched jets and artillery striking Palestinian targets, on the other. Probably didn't work :(

My point about the Good Samaritan fable was that the mythical Jesus praised a person who helped someone who was not of his ethnic group, and that I don't expect that you could find anything comparable in the Koran. OF COURSE, within-group assistance is as old as humanity, perhaps much, much older - but assistance for an Other, and assistance without expectation of reciprocity as in the story, is much, much rarer, and is perhaps a post-Graeco-Roman phenomenon, maybe an outcome of a long period of urban multi-ethnic societies across the Roman Empire, not Christian per se - a precursor to genuinely progressive Enlightenment thinking.

And certainly something foreign to traditional Islamic ethics as represented by the Koran - unless you have other evidence ?

Cheers,

Joe

No hapless

It was not Hebrew. Nor Roman. Nor Greek.
The Hebrews were as self centered as the Muslims.
The Romans were barbaric, despots with little compassion or philosophy. They were economic and territorial Imperialists like the Muslims and Jews.
The Greek focus, though more civilised, was still inward as well.

The Christian outward focus was instituted by Christ and when merged with the Greek philosophies lead to the peaceful forgiving civilisation we in the west cherish.

Your haplessness is to the fore again it shows you've read little and understand even less

Have no idea why Palestinians feel disenfranchised...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/world/middleeast/israel-claims-nearly-1000-acres-of-west-bank-land-near-bethlehem.html

"JERUSALEM — Israel laid claim on Sunday to nearly 1,000 acres of West Bank land in a Jewish settlement bloc near Bethlehem — a step that could herald significant Israeli construction in the area — defying Palestinian demands for a halt in settlement expansion.

Peace Now, an Israeli group that opposes the construction of settlements in the West Bank, said that the action on Sunday might be the largest single appropriation of West Bank land in decades and that it could “dramatically change the reality” in the area."

"Israeli officials said the political directive to expedite a survey of the status of the land came after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and killed in June while hitchhiking in that area. In July, the Israeli authorities arrested a Palestinian who was accused of being the prime mover in the kidnapping and killing of the teenagers. The timing of the land appropriation suggested that it was meant as a kind of compensation for the settlers and punishment for the Palestinians.

The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there."

Hapless Loudmouth let's continue the lesson

1. Samaritan.
Old English, "inhabitant of Samaria," a district of Palestine, from Late Latin Samaritanus, from Greek Samareia (see Samaria ). A non-Hebrew race was settled in its cities by the king of Assyria after the removal of the Israelites from the country. They later adopted some Jewish ways, but largely remained apart. Figurative use with reference to the good Samaritan is first recorded 1630s, from Luke x:33. Related: Samaritanism

2. Levite
[lee-vahyt] Spell Syllables
• Word Origin
noun
1. a member of the tribe of Levi.
2. a descendant of Levi, especially one appointed to assist the priests in the temple or tabernacle.

3. Priest? Would that be a rabbi Joe?

These facts challenge your view on quite a few levels Hapless Loudmouth?

You see Hapless Loudmouth your focus was that there is no similar merciful story in the Koran. In the Hebrew Bible there is a similar story.
But it does not have the merciful bit about Christ.

‘ 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”'’

The story of the Samaritan, without this, in the Hebrew bible has a completely different interpretation and it is not at all about mercy.

That aligns the Hebrew bible with your claims about the Koran.
To put it in simple terms for you Hapless Loudmouth: The only people with such a merciful story in their book are the Christians.
That supports my overall view.

Logic Hapless Loudmouth: your attempts at equivalence makes you look hapless.

Too much logic with which to bother Hapless Loudmouth?

But let's go on:

Christ wasn’t mythical. Even the Jews accept he was a prophet.

You are unlike the other supporters of Israel. You through ignorance, are simply ignorant of your own bias and are so limited in intellect to even recognise that fact.

Thanks for these opportunities... Hapless Loudmouth

lol as a propagandist you are useless.

You really are stupid. All of you.

You say all Muslims are violent.
When I say some Jews and some Muslims are violent you attack and abuse me.

You say the Koran is violent.

When I say both the Koran and Hebrew bible contain both peacefulness and forgiveness as well as violence and vengeance you attack and abuse me.

You say Muslims are intent on a genocide of Jews.
When I say some Muslims and some Jews are intent on genocides you attack and abuse me.

When you say all Muslims or the 'Muslim World' are violent.

You attack and abuse me when I point out peaceful Islamic secular countries like Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia.

When you say I support or are friendly with Islamists because I overwhelmingly make statements that are anti Jewish or Israel.

I laugh at you.

There are no Muslims in here supporting the violence of other Muslims. If they were I'd debate with them as I have you lot.

There are in here Jews and non Jews supporting the violence of the Jews of Israel.

Doesn't that say something.

The fact Muslims haven't entered this debate supporting the violence of some Muslims tends to suggest to me Muslims in Australia overwhelmingly don't support violence and vengeance.

You disgraceful lot are evidence a few Jews outside Israel, if you are, and a few non Jews overwhelmingly support violence and vengeance.

If any of you are under the illusion I was doing anything other than stringing you all along until you had completely exposed yourselves ...well don't be so stupid.

Graham asked me once if he should not allow any discussion of the mid east.

I said no. This is why.

Hi Nutter,

Thank for the spray. Actually, you extend my point about Christian compassion for the Other - in my view, the Koran is based very much, if in a very garbled way, on the books of the pre-Christian, pre-Graeco-Roman, Jews, and in that sense, represent a reactionary throw-back to a view of the world, which even many Jews would eschew.

So my question remains: can you find the slightest trace of - post-Medina - passages in the Koran which in any way show compassion for 'Others', non-Muslims ?

This is a vital question: fascists generally consider Others to be less human or entirely non-human - look at the attitude of the Islamic State to the Yazidis, who they have been slaughtering, enslaving their women, beheading their children. Maybe all Utopian theories - theories which posit a perfect society 'if only if weren't for x group or y group, who thereby must be exterminated' - degenerate into fascism. I would be interested in your views on this subject.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Julianutter. You got it all wrong again, but don't worry, I am not going to accuse you of being a "liar", just a person who can't think past his ideological blinkers.

Nobody said that all Muslims were violent. But they are devotees of a violent religion that sanctions the use of extreme violence towards non Muslims in order to force them to convert to their religion. These religiously mandated violent attitudes have helped shape the violent Muslim mindsets in the same way that pacifist Christianity shaped the more pacifist Christian mindsets.

I say that the Muslims are the world's leading exponents on genocide as they are proving right now in Iraq and Syria, and that it is not wrong for the Jews to ethnically cleanse the ethnic cleansers who are trying to ethnically cleanse them.

That some Muslim countries are less violent than others is true. Turkey was once considered the most socially advanced Muslim country despite the genocide of Christian Assyrians and Armenians, plus the odd murder of a Catholic archbishop and a priest or two, but it is now in the iron grip of committed Muslims who want to turn back the clock on all of Kamal Attaturks western oriented social reforms.

The Christian world rocketed ahead of the others when we had our Reformation and told our priests to bug out of our governments. The Muslim world is now undergoing a Reformation too. But the stupid buggers think that the reason why they are so poor is that they are not religious enough. THAT is why violence in the Muslim world is increasing. They are going back to their original scriptures and doing exactly what Mohammad told them to do.

My main criticism of you is that you are a religious bigot who thinks that his particular religion is the only true religion (where have I heard that one before?) and you can only see the world through that distorting lens. To you, the behaviour of Jews and Muslims is equally bad and is caused entirely through their worship of false religions.