Does World War Three Approach

"Those quotes come from 1988 so they are out of date with respect to the quotes I produced."

How about this one then?: Abdel Aziz Rantissi (a Hamas leader had the following to say recently). American posters please take note Darkboong claims Hamas has "changed" its spots
Here is what Hamas has to say:

"Blow yourselves up against the American army. Bomb them in Baghdad," Mr Rantissi said.
"We say to the United States that their flag will go down while the Iraqi flag shall fly everywhere," he said."Prepare an army of would-be martyrs and prepare tens of thousands of explosive belts," said Abdel Aziz Rantissi, using the term Hamas favours for suicide bombing.
He was speaking at a pro-Iraq rally in the Gaza Strip attended by about 2,000 people."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2646845.stm

darkboong said:

Those quotes come from 1988 so they are out of date with respect to the quotes I produced.

From "Setting the Record Straight" by Jennifer Loewentein in Counterpunch, published June 12th.

Clearly something that was written 18 years ago at a time when Hamas had quite specifically rejected the political process will not match up with what the Hamas *government* says 18 years later. I am certain that the quotes I produced more accurately reflect the views of the Hamas government.

"The Jewish state of Israel was set up......"

Correction, the State of Israel was re-established. "Set up" implies Israel was a totally fabricated country and had never existed at any other time throughout history.........................
.[/QUOTE]

There was never a State of Israel prior to 1948.

this mention of yours pertaining to extremism "islamic extremists", as concerns being valid by definition, would certainly extend to the us, as, for example,
"judeo-corporate extremists".

just pick any expression of extremism you wish, and it applies to the us and it's assumed roles of invasion and support of warring states of a region in the name of exerting control in these "judeo-corporate extremist" interests.

[quote="Carrera"]It seems to me that Islamic extremists want U.S. infidels out of the Middle East as well as Jews.

Carrera said:

"Those quotes come from 1988 so they are out of date with respect to the quotes I produced."

How about this one then?: Abdel Aziz Rantissi (a Hamas leader had the following to say recently). American posters please take note Darkboong claims Hamas has "changed" its spots
Here is what Hamas has to say:

That quote is out of date too, here is why :

Firstly that quote comes from 10th of January 2003, some 23 months before the Hamas unilateral ceasefire started. On January 26, 2004, Rantissi offered "a 10-year truce in return for withdrawal and the establishment of a state".

Rantissi was assassinated by the IDF just four months after making that offer, on April 17th 2004. He was recognised as the most outspoken member of the Hamas leadership, yet even he made a concrete offer of a truce before Hamas
took part in the elections.

Carrera said:

"The Jewish state of Israel was set up......"

Correction, the State of Israel was re-established. "Set up" implies Israel was a totally fabricated country and had never existed at any other time throughout history. :o

Set up is a reasonable term, given the situation at the time. The place was called Palestine (not Israel), and it was governed in a colonial fashion. 🙁

Carrera said:

The other term "Jewish State" is also incorrect.

It is entirely correct. Golda Meir carries more authority on the subject than you do, and here is what she said on 2nd January 1948 :

"We always had faith that in the end we would win, that everything we were doing in the country led to the independence of the Jewish people and to a Jewish state."

Interestingly she goes on to refer to the land as "Palestine", not Israel.

Carrera said:

I guess I just don't buy your argument that Moslems are hard done by.

We're not talking about "Muslims" in general, we're talking about a particular bunch of people (not all of whom are Muslims as it happens).

Carrera said:

Moslems are as you stated "a majority".

They were a Majority in Palestine, that does not excuse (much less justify) the ethnic cleansing of millions of innocent people from their land.

Carrera said:

That is the point I'm making since in the quotation I provided you accused Israel of being a Jewish State in a Moslem majority land which implies they ought to leave on the basis of being non-Moslem.

It implies no such thing. In my view the State of Israel does not the right to be a "Jewish State", but I don't see any reason for Jews to move out of the area. They lived there before, they can carry on living there as far as I am concerned, however by the same token they don't have the right to ethnically cleanse the land either.

I should point out that I recognise and accept that Israelis live in existential fear of their neighbours. They have every reason to fear the millions of people that they have killed, maimed and displaced, those people are hurt and angry, there could well be a backlash were they to achieve equal terms with Israel.

Carrera said:

Alongside this, you accuse the entire conception of Israel as being somehow 'intolerant" as if Iran, for its part, was a paragon of tolerance

I make no such comparison with Iran.

Darkboong, pull the other one. It might have bells on it. 🙄
Are you seriously expecting us to believe Hamas is no longer a terrorist organization on the basis of the fact it got itself elected? I mean, what do you think the Palestinians are going to tell the U.N. after an election victory, when what they seek is money and support? Again, if you take a look at [censored]'s Party in the Thirties the Party activists had to whitewash their ideology to try and pacify the rest of Europe.
Both of these documents I provided demonstrate the "mentality" of the people we're dealing with. They were talking about Allah, Jihad, suicide-bombings and martyrs back then and they're progressed to acting it all out at the present time, which is why they're now under attack.
I suppose you're going to tell us next that the occupation of the U.N. Headquarters in Gaza and atacks on the British Embassy are also "out of date"? 😕 And the kidnapping of Kate Burton who was trying to help the Palestinian cause?

darkboong said:

That quote is out of date too, here is why :

Firstly that quote comes from 10th of January 2003, some 23 months before the Hamas unilateral ceasefire started. On January 26, 2004, Rantissi offered "a 10-year truce in return for withdrawal and the establishment of a state".

Rantissi was assassinated by the IDF just four months after making that offer, on April 17th 2004. He was recognised as the most outspoken member of the Hamas leadership, yet even he made a concrete offer of a truce before Hamas
took part in the elections.

There was never a Palestinian State featured on ancient maps..................

Yes, there was a country called Palestine.
I provided those maps for you months ago.

There was no concept in the Roman World of Palestine as it's used by modern Palestinians.
There are volumes of writing in Latin and Greek that relate to Israel as a Jewish State and the Jews themselves were referred to as "Iudaici" just as Christians were called "Christiani".
There was no Latin or Greek word for Islam which is curious as Palestinian extremists (and recently George Galloway) claim history supports a totally Islamic Jerusalem.
I see this as important as this is a religious conflict and, therefore, you have to delve into the history of religion in order to understand what the whole dispute is about.
Here is how the Romans referred to Judaism , "Iudaeorum et Samaritanorum religiones" the beliefs of the Jews and Samaritans".
"We always had faith that in the end we would win, that everything we were doing in the country led to the independence of the Jewish people and to a Jewish state."
Israel was historically a Jewish State although other religions flourished. So, the above quotation isn't so problematic. The Romans allowed both Jews and Greeks to continue their customary religion and run their own show, so long as they paid their taxes.
There was never any concept of a Palestinian State.

darkboong said:

Set up is a reasonable term, given the situation at the time. The place was called Palestine (not Israel), and it was governed in a colonial fashion. 🙁

It is entirely correct. Golda Meir carries more authority on the subject than you do, and here is what she said on 2nd January 1948 :

"We always had faith that in the end we would win, that everything we were doing in the country led to the independence of the Jewish people and to a Jewish state."

Interestingly she goes on to refer to the land as "Palestine", not Israel.

In my view the State of Israel does not the right to be a "Jewish State", but I don't see any reason for Jews to move out of the area."

In my view of the State of Iran doesn't have the right to be an Islamic State. 🙂 I think Christians and Jews should have the same rights in Iran as Iranian Moslems have. Why not?
The best way for all of us to overcome out supposed intolerance is for Iran to "show us the way".
Who knows, the Mullahas might even go in for political correctness too. 😄

darkboong said:

We're not talking about "Muslims" in general, we're talking about a particular bunch of people (not all of whom are Muslims as it happens).

They were a Majority in Palestine, that does not excuse (much less justify) the ethnic cleansing of millions of innocent people from their land.

It implies no such thing. In my view the State of Israel does not the right to be a "Jewish State", but I don't see any reason for Jews to move out of the area. They lived there before, they can carry on living there as far as I am concerned, however by the same token they don't have the right to ethnically cleanse the land either.

I should point out that I recognise and accept that Israelis live in existential fear of their neighbours. They have every reason to fear the millions of people that they have killed, maimed and displaced, those people are hurt and angry, there could well be a backlash were they to achieve equal terms with Israel.

I make no such comparison with Iran.

According to James Lewis of the American Thinker, the IDF is gearing up to attack Bushehr and Natanz in Iran and to do this, it needs to clear out the last remaining Iranian influence in its own back-yard. Here is what he writes:

"So far, there are two signs for the world to see: Israeli freedom to act as it wants, and the impotence of Syria and Iran to protect their proxies on the borders of Israel.
The IDF is attacking at a time and place of its choosing. If a country the size of Israel is going to tackle Iran, with ten times its population, it must first protect its own rear. The IDF cannot afford to have more than 10 thousand short-range rockets aimed at Israel’s population, all in the hands of Iran’s terror proxy, Hezbollah. For strategic reasons alone, therefore, it is imperative to clean out the threat to the rear before making any direct move again Tehran.That does not mean the IDF is now committed to attack Bushehr and Natanz, the two most likely nuclear targets in Iran. But if it can cripple the threat from Hezbollah and Hamas for some time to come, it is clearing a strategic space to strike at Iran itself."

Carrera said:

Darkboong, pull the other one. It might have bells on it. 🙄
Are you seriously expecting us to believe Hamas is no longer a terrorist organization on the basis of the fact it got itself elected?

Nope.

I am expecting you to believe that Hamas is capable and willing to negotiate a truce because they have not only observed a unilateral truce, but they have asked for negotiations to begin. So far this year the IDF has killed over 10 civillians per day, as far as I know Hamas has killed zero civillians per day.

Carrera said:

I suppose you're going to tell us next that the occupation of the U.N. Headquarters in Gaza and atacks on the British Embassy are also "out of date"? 😕 And the kidnapping of Kate Burton who was trying to help the Palestinian cause?

Kate Burton was kidnapped by the "Mujahadeen Brigades", not Hamas. Hamas assisted in securing her and her parent's release which occurred after just two and a half days. Hardly fair to blame Hamas for something that they had nothing to do with.

While we're on the subject of the UN being attacked in Gaza, the IDF attacked UN offices in 2002, according to Terje Roed-Larsen (the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process at the time) it was the THIRD time that his offices had been attacked by the IDF. The IDF also like to shell UN compounds in Lebanon too, in April 1996 : "the IDF deliberately shelled a U.N. compound in the southern Lebanon village of Qana. The attack claimed the lives of over 100 civilians and wounded hundreds, including U.N. personnel"

Oh and while we're at it how about this from the BBC website (19 June, 2004) that you love so much :

"British MPs 'fired at' in Gaza

Crispin Blunt MP
Crispin Blunt said UN officers advised them to leave the area
A group of British politicians were shot at by Israeli soldiers during a UN-supervised fact-finding mission, they have claimed.

The cross-party group, including MPs Huw Irranca-Davies and Crispin Blunt, was on a visit to Rafah in Gaza, where UK student Tom Hurndall was killed.

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Northover said one bullet hit a wall about 10ft above her head. "

By the standard you apply to Palestinians that makes the IDF a terrorist organisation par excellence.

"So far this year the IDF has killed over 10 civillians per day, as far as I know Hamas has killed zero civillians per day."

That's not what I saw on the news today. There have been a number of civilians killed in Israel, in fact.

"I am expecting you to believe that Hamas is capable and willing to negotiate a truce because they have not only observed a unilateral truce, but they have asked for negotiations to begin."

I'll bet they want a truce. They probably want a truce because the IDF is blowing Hamas into the proverbial next century and won't stop the bombardment till they get the message, stop the rocket fire and return those kidnapped soldiers. The only regret is innocent people are caught up in it all and that I agree is sad.

"Kate Burton was kidnapped by the "Mujahadeen Brigades", not Hamas."

I was aware of that. Still, there's not a lot of difference between the two factions so far as I can see. 😉

"A group of British politicians were shot at by Israeli soldiers during a UN-supervised fact-finding mission, they have claimed."

The coldness of Israelis towards the British is apparent on occasions. On the surface, Blair appears to back Israel on this occasion but the truth is his Party backbenchers don't share that view. There have been scores of Britons who travel to Gaza with the attitude the Palestinians are the fall-guys and total innocents. Kate Burton was just one of these and I was stunned to discover she actually fled to Israel for refuge after having been kidnapped in Gaza.
I suppose the Israelis have become irritated by all the hand-wringing and support for terrorists you tend to get in this country. You know, even Putin actually jokes about the Londonistan situation and it's quite a scandal.

darkboong said:

Nope.

I am expecting you to believe that Hamas is capable and willing to negotiate a truce because they have not only observed a unilateral truce, but they have asked for negotiations to begin. So far this year the IDF has killed over 10 civillians per day, as far as I know Hamas has killed zero civillians per day.

Kate Burton was kidnapped by the "Mujahadeen Brigades", not Hamas. Hamas assisted in securing her and her parent's release which occurred after just two and a half days. Hardly fair to blame Hamas for something that they had nothing to do with.

While we're on the subject of the UN being attacked in Gaza, the IDF attacked UN offices in 2002, according to Terje Roed-Larsen (the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process at the time) it was the THIRD time that his offices had been attacked by the IDF. The IDF also like to shell UN compounds in Lebanon too, in April 1996 : "the IDF deliberately shelled a U.N. compound in the southern Lebanon village of Qana. The attack claimed the lives of over 100 civilians and wounded hundreds, including U.N. personnel"

Oh and while we're at it how about this from the BBC website (19 June, 2004) that you love so much :

"British MPs 'fired at' in Gaza

Crispin Blunt MP
Crispin Blunt said UN officers advised them to leave the area
A group of British politicians were shot at by Israeli soldiers during a UN-supervised fact-finding mission, they have claimed.

The cross-party group, including MPs Huw Irranca-Davies and Crispin Blunt, was on a visit to Rafah in Gaza, where UK student Tom Hurndall was killed.

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Northover said one bullet hit a wall about 10ft above her head. "

By the standard you apply to Palestinians that makes the IDF a terrorist organisation par excellence.

"So far this year the IDF has killed over 10 civillians per day, as far as I know Hamas has killed zero civillians per day."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5193662.stm

"Three people have been killed by rockets in the Israeli city of Nazareth, in the first attack on Israel's largest exclusively Arab city."

Well, I guess I'll now take a break and give some bandwidth to other posters who may have something to say.
The only thought I'll leave you with today is I think Iran should grant equal status to other religious groups and embrace Jews and Christians in its borders. :p

darkboong said:

Nope.

I am expecting you to believe that Hamas is capable and willing to negotiate a truce because they have not only observed a unilateral truce, but they have asked for negotiations to begin. So far this year the IDF has killed over 10 civillians per day, as far as I know Hamas has killed zero civillians per day.

Kate Burton was kidnapped by the "Mujahadeen Brigades", not Hamas. Hamas assisted in securing her and her parent's release which occurred after just two and a half days. Hardly fair to blame Hamas for something that they had nothing to do with.

While we're on the subject of the UN being attacked in Gaza, the IDF attacked UN offices in 2002, according to Terje Roed-Larsen (the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process at the time) it was the THIRD time that his offices had been attacked by the IDF. The IDF also like to shell UN compounds in Lebanon too, in April 1996 : "the IDF deliberately shelled a U.N. compound in the southern Lebanon village of Qana. The attack claimed the lives of over 100 civilians and wounded hundreds, including U.N. personnel"

Oh and while we're at it how about this from the BBC website (19 June, 2004) that you love so much :

"British MPs 'fired at' in Gaza

Crispin Blunt MP
Crispin Blunt said UN officers advised them to leave the area
A group of British politicians were shot at by Israeli soldiers during a UN-supervised fact-finding mission, they have claimed.

The cross-party group, including MPs Huw Irranca-Davies and Crispin Blunt, was on a visit to Rafah in Gaza, where UK student Tom Hurndall was killed.

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Northover said one bullet hit a wall about 10ft above her head. "

By the standard you apply to Palestinians that makes the IDF a terrorist organisation par excellence.

Carrera said:

"So far this year the IDF has killed over 10 civillians per day, as far as I know Hamas has killed zero civillians per day."

That's not what I saw on the news today. There have been a number of civilians killed in Israel, in fact.

The only reports I have seen so far today indicate that civillians died in Gaza and Lebanon. The IDF has killed nearly 300 Lebanese civillians. There are no reports of Hamas killing civillians today.

"I am expecting you to believe that Hamas is capable and willing to negotiate a truce because they have not only observed a unilateral truce, but they have asked for negotiations to begin."

Carrera said:

I'll bet they want a truce. They probably want a truce because the IDF is blowing Hamas into the proverbial next century and won't stop the bombardment till they get the message, stop the rocket fire and return those kidnapped soldiers. The only regret is innocent people are caught up in it all and that I agree is sad.

They were getting killed when they did maintain a cease fire over 16 months Crappy. Israel has categorically stated that it intends to destroy all form of Palestinian government and representation regardless of whether they quit shooting or not. If the Palestinian people don't defend themselves, who will defend them ?

"Kate Burton was kidnapped by the "Mujahadeen Brigades", not Hamas."

Carrera said:

I was aware of that. Still, there's not a lot of difference between the two factions so far as I can see. 😉

Why can't you tell the difference between the hostage takers and the rescuers ?

Carrera said:

"A group of British politicians were shot at by Israeli soldiers during a UN-supervised fact-finding mission, they have claimed."

The coldness of Israelis towards the British is apparent on occasions.

The fact remains that the IDF is a terrorist organisation by your own standards Carrera. The fact also remains that you can't point to a single Hamas attack during their 16 month ceasefire either. My point stands, they have demonstrated that they are willing and able to maintain a truce, the ball is very much in Israel's court.

Carrera said:

"So far this year the IDF has killed over 10 civillians per day, as far as I know Hamas has killed zero civillians per day."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5193662.stm

"Three people have been killed by rockets in the Israeli city of Nazareth, in the first attack on Israel's largest exclusively Arab city."

Hamas didn't fire those rockets. Even if they did they would still be well behind the IDF in terms of terrorist attacks on civillians.

Carrera said:

Well, I guess I'll now take a break and give some bandwidth to other posters who may have something to say.
The only thought I'll leave you with today is I think Iran should grant equal status to other religious groups and embrace Jews and Christians in its borders. :p

Sure I'm all in favour. How about Israel doing the same ?

darkboong said:

Firstly Hezbollah are the folks who drove Israel *out* of Lebanon (how quickly that has been swept under the carpet), and let's be brutally honest about it : Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon was a *very* bloody era of Lebanese history.

To this day Lebanon doesn't actually have much in the way of a standing army, so it is very doubtful that the Lebanese government would have the power to force Hezbollah to disarm and disband. If Hezbollah did roll over and die there is a *very* good chance that Israel would simply roll over Lebanon again as they did in the 80s and you don't need to be *that* old to remember the daily item about how many hundreds of people died in Lebanon on the News. Much like the situation in Iraq.

That said I can't see Hezbollah making many friends right now, but then again if they met all of Israel's demands tomorrow there is no evidence and absolutely no precedent that indicates Israel will cease attacking Lebanon, in fact they've said they're going to carry on shelling whatever.

Was not Lebannon doing fine after Syrian operatives were recently tossed out until the guerilla's starting lobbing katyusha rockets at Israel 😕

[quote="Carrera"]I may be totally wrong but my only guess is that all the anti-semitism originates from the three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
There was no such thing as anti-semitism prior to Christianity when the Judaic religion split into an offshoot where the original Jewish messiah was adopted by the gentiles. Anti-semitism then appeared amongst the Greek-speaking peoples of the Roman Empire and there were real conflicts between Greeks and Jews.
However, the most terrible persecutions went on to affect Christians, not Jews.
Now, I'm really clutching at straws here but my theory is human beings ultimately fear death and cling to religion as the only hope. Seeing as Jesus is Jewish and apparently offers salvation to all men, this may be the key to anti-semitism. [Quote]



There has always been anti- semitism. Read the old Testament which is basically the book that is common to both Jews and Christians. I don't keep up with all the middle eastern conflicts, but at the root is the fact that God originally gave certain lands to the Jews, like it or not, His chosen people. The heritage of the Arab nations is also in this book and their rivalry with the Jews which God said would always be!

The God of the Jews is the same God as that of the Christians. It is people's own selfishness and lack of obedience to God that causes many of the problems.

Jesus never came to have people replace the Jewish faith, he came as the ultimate perfect sacrifice to make men right with God. Before the Jews used to have to sacrifice unblemished animals to take away their sins. He wants people to live by faith in God not faith in religious rituals. Most of the early believers were Jews. He is the fufilment of the Old Testament which is really a book about Him.

[quote="Little Jackie"][quote="Carrera"]I may be totally wrong but my only guess is that all the anti-semitism originates from the three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
There was no such thing as anti-semitism prior to Christianity when the Judaic religion split into an offshoot where the original Jewish messiah was adopted by the gentiles. Anti-semitism then appeared amongst the Greek-speaking peoples of the Roman Empire and there were real conflicts between Greeks and Jews.
However, the most terrible persecutions went on to affect Christians, not Jews.
Now, I'm really clutching at straws here but my theory is human beings ultimately fear death and cling to religion as the only hope. Seeing as Jesus is Jewish and apparently offers salvation to all men, this may be the key to anti-semitism.

Quoted post said:

There has always been anti- semitism. Read the old Testament which is basically the book that is common to both Jews and Christians. I don't keep up with all the middle eastern conflicts, but at the root is the fact that God originally gave certain lands to the Jews, like it or not, His chosen people. The heritage of the Arab nations is also in this book and their rivalry with the Jews which God said would always be!

The God of the Jews is the same God as that of the Christians. It is people's own selfishness and lack of obedience to God that causes many of the problems.

Jesus never came to have people replace the Jewish faith, he came as the ultimate perfect sacrifice to make men right with God. Before the Jews used to have to sacrifice unblemished animals to take away their sins. He wants people to live by faith in God not faith in religious rituals. Most of the early believers were Jews. He is the fufilment of the Old Testament which is really a book about Him.

davidmc said:

Was not Lebannon doing fine after Syrian operatives were recently tossed out until the guerilla's starting lobbing katyusha rockets at Israel 😕

Syria was largely responsible for getting Lebanon back on it's feet in the first place. I suspect that Lebanon would have ended up being a battlefield for the last 20 years if Syria hadn't have taken control. I think it's a good thing that Syria backed off, it's a pity that Hezbollah are still fighting, but people forget that Israel & Hezbollah have been exchanging punches continually since Israel was kicked out of Lebanon. The word "Escalation" is entirely appropriate for the current situation, Israel has decided to attack civillian population centers, Hezbollah have responded in kind (although they are not capable of causing anything like the carnage that the IDF has wreaked upon Lebanon - so they are not much of a deterrent to Israel).

I would be much happier if Hezbollah weren't around, but realistically I believe that Israel *needs* to be contained along that border. The Lebanese army is incapable of continaing Israel. Syria doesn't even have the capability of destroying IDF warplanes that buzz Damascus. Israel's invasions and occupations have killed and displaced millions of innocent people in living memory, Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank, and Lebanon (in the 80s) are stark examples of Israel's manifest desire to destroy it's neighbours.

It's all very well saying that the opposition have to quit shooting and/or be disbanded, but if that happens what is going to happen ? History shows us that Israel will simply roll into the land that is not be defended, kill and displace the inhabitants. For my part I don't wish to see a few million more refugees and dead people, I would rather that Israel's expansionist ambitions were curbed and Israel contained. If that requires a UN force because the surrounding nations are disarmed or incapable of containing Israel, then so be it.