Carl Carl...... you said:

"The origins of this problem"...... are..... "Dispossession of the Palestinian People".....

You also said.... "The origin of terrorism is HISTORY"....

You might take a moment to respond to 'which' point in history are you referring to ?

You clearly have 1948 in mind re Israel... WHY don't you have AD 70 and 135 in mind when the ROMANS exiled them from their land and destroyed both their temple and Jerusalem ?

1948 was simply a just historic response to a previously unjust act in AD70/135 Why not look up Josephus on those events ?

If it were not for THAT exile and disposession, there would not be millions of Jews dispersed around the world experiencing persecution from the rest of us....

So, if you want to blame someone, please blame the correct source. i.e. Rome/Italy

I find it fascinating also, that you fail to identify the various invasions of the Eqyptian Marmeluks and Ottoman Turks as 'disposessions'... yep..increasingly suspect is your position.

You choice of historical starting point is very dodgy, and demonstrative of an unfair and possibly malevolant anti semitic bias.
You view seems to be:

1/ Jews exiled from Israel..."who cares it was long ago".
2/ Jews (previously exiled) persecuted, slaughtered en masse in Germany.. "who cares -they don't matter"
3/ Jews re-claiming their traditional land using the SAME METHODS AS produced every other border in the world including YOURS.... "they are evil."

DID GOD GIVE THEM the land ? or not. If you say "not" then, you are still faced with the dual problem of the evil in the nations dispossessed..cult prostitution and child sacrifice was rife, etc.
and whether you support such evil or a community based on the Law of Moses.

So... denying Israels historical claim to the land means

Supporting barbaric child killers or..denying the Word of God or both and/or denying the bigger historical picture. In each case your position is in bigggg trouble, coming across as increasingly irrational with each post.

Ah Alchemist. You continue to mislead. Have you bothered to provide any actual numbers or evidence of that 'Two thousand years of constant cultural genocide and war throughout every place monotheism invades, is surely more significant that 50 years of localised communism, supported by local monotheists'

The answer of course is no. You have said nothing. In addition you make the dubious assertion that local monotheists supported the communists as if this somehow makes them responsible for the atheist death toll.

In addition, you ignore the fact that when atheists did have power, they caused death at a rate that was worse than any monotheistic culture. So when you try and say that we need to get rid of monotheism, this ignorance is, well, moronic or dishonest. Considering your pattern of discourse, I'd say the later is more likely.

You said 'You don't have to be right, I know I'm not, as no one is. The only thing coming to close to being right is change, the true art of perfection. Evolutionary change is the true nature of the universe, not a violent, unchanging, historically repeating delusion.'
Is that right? Obviously your statement is self-refuting nonsense. If you aren't right, why should I or anyone else bother to listen to you or change our ideas based on what you say?

No. You think you are right, you are just being intellectually dishonest. Otherwise, why do you argue with others? You obviously think you are right in thinking they are wrong to think they are right.

David,

I do suspect that most people on this forum would agree that your posts are more irrational than anyone else’s, but I’m not here to trade petty insults with you.

You accuse me of malevolent anti-Semitism, pretty rich coming from an overtly racist person like you Boaz, but I am not anti-Semitic, I think all you religious wacko’s are as counter productive to human progress as each other, I don’t think this of religion in general, just of fundamentalists like yourself.

I am not going to get in a debate about the history of Judaism and Islam with you David, I have never claimed to be an expert on Middle Eastern history. I was merely making the point to Bigmal that I do not believe terrorism is ‘Islamic in origin’. Their Religious beliefs may motivate them, but they are not responsible for them. Are you to argue that terrorism in Ireland is ‘Catholic in Origin?, of course not, I don’t recall Jesus telling people to put bombs in London bins, its about land and power and self-determination.

For the record I do believe that the Israelis have a right to their own State, but while Israel has become a well developed nation, its neighbours have not, and this is due in part because Western nations have supported despotic regimes during the post-colonial period.

Finally David, I think you will find the Israeli army has killed many children in this conflict also, as well as leaving 800,000 people homeless in 14 days, disgraceful figures regardless of history

Well Boaz, it kind of surprised me, but by and large I agree with you.
Labelling your enemies terrorists is basically the same exercise that has been conducted throughout history.
It used to be that the enemies were heathens. Then they were nazis, then communists, now terrorists.

Never people. It's easier to shoot terrorists.

That being said, terrorists attack civilian targets. Women and children. Reprehensible in any language.

The problem is, we haven't defined terrorism. And the western governments are killing far more civilians through their bombing campaigns.

They may target the military, but the fact is, civilians are dying. If you're going to define terrorism, you need to throw intent out the window. There's too much perspective there, and too much potential for abuse. We're seeing this in guantanamo now.

Problem there, is if killing civilians is terrorism, then the US is a chief perpetrator, so that's not going to happen.

Boaz, your repatriation idea is reasonable, but ignores the religous element. The palestinians don't necessarily want to be moved.

Israel is the holy land for pretty much all the big world religions. (Okay, not hindus, buddhists or shinto, but hey, they're not the ones making problems now are they?).

Christians, Muslims and Jews represent the three most aggressive world religions. I know many of you won't want to hear that, but it's true. Yeah, of course, they all have their moderate majority. But again, they ain't the ones making problems.

As long as these groups are willing to sacrifice everything for Israel, they're going to argue over it.

Though repatriation may at least be the better option, but not without more concessions from the Israelis.

Dear Carl
I totally agree that "Terrorism is not Islamic in origin".
But I was hasten to add, that "most" world conflicts today have Islam somewhere in the mix. Feel free to disagree.

TERRORISM- The term is (as I've mentioned in other places) a politically loaded word of convenience for the Bush/Blair coalition, and is a pseudonym for "Islamists/Jihadists". They don't use the real term for domestic political reasons.

Most of what you said is quite true in that last post. Its all about resources/land etc..no argument there.

Regarding a debate with me on history, well you have access to the same sources I do, and it's quite a worthwhile study. I would be quite happy if my major points were challenged :)

IRA violence was purely historical. When Cromwell invaded Ireland (under English rule at that time) he was an unwitting participant with the Machievellians in the historical process, in the sense that he did not realize how cruel the vested English interests could be, in that they took control of pretty much ALL Irish land (Anglican protestants) making the Irish serfs on their own territory. Speaking from a Scottish/English brackground, I have to come down on the Irish side in all that.

I appreciate your posts even though I don't think some of the things you say stand up to historical scrutiny, an ongoing debate :)

Me irrational ? :) no way.. 'harsh, brutal, ruthless' yes x3 but all in the cause of a greater good. Not irrational though. Irrational is 2+2=5

My theories have been well tested in life and I refer to empires who have the runs on the board to back me up.

My references to issues of faith are not at all irrational. I base my views on the resurrection of Christ, an event for which there is ample evidence. But as with all contentious things, one mans good evidence is another's 'irrationality' :)

BOAZ You don't agree with anything Rancitas’ said and you know it. Just one of your tactics.

You dishonestly misrepresented the passage I used from the Bible. All you’ve done is draw out the hypocrisy of a Bible basher, like you Boaz, by supporting attacks on civilians, including Australians, and the infrastructure of Lebanon.

The passage I presented read.:
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (from King James version)

I remind you that in the context of my post there is no way one could think Rancitas agreed with Boaz position. It is your spin.

Boaz misrepresentation of a Biblical passage to further his own view follows:.

"1/ You mention 'we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spritual powers"... YES YES YES.. u get it at last :)

My reading was very different to Boaz.’s.

Boaz you left out half the passage. It clearly states what Christians must rile against: “…against PRINCIPALIITIES, against POWERS, against RULERS OF DARKNESS, against spiritual WICKEDNESS”? Now Boaz you left all this out. There was no ellipsis inside your quote to indicate an omission from the passage. Moreover, you have left so much out that it changed the meaning of the passage. That was blatantly dishonest. And to boot, it was perfectly clear from my post that I regard the powers, principalities, rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness to be the main enemy – NOT this “corner’ or that “corner”. We must stop thinking this way. I am more concerned with the innocent victims, with justice than the positions of warmongers.