Free Thoughts on Iran
Front Page | About FToI | Authors | Archives | Comment Policy | Disclaimer
e-mail

bra.gif Listen to the Führer! | Main | The War That Need Not Be ket.gif

January 28, 2006

Sad Day for the Palestinians
Ali Mostashari  [info|posts]

Palestinian.bmp

With the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, much of the implicit progress made since Arafat’s death seems to be at danger. It is hard to imagine how a group that blows up ice-cream parlors in Israel and has totally undermined the image of the Palestinian movement towards statehood in the past decade can help improve the future of the Palestinian people.

Not unlike the trends in the recent presidential elections in Iran, the vote for Hamas can be seen more as dissatisfaction with the “reformist” Fatah movement and its inability to bring positive change to the lives of Palestinians who live in one of the most difficult conditions in the world today, rather than a shift back towards Islamic fundamentalism. Hamas shrewdly created social infrastructure and is know to provide extensive social service within Gaza and the West Bank.

What was also disheartening was the violent and disoriented reaction shown by Fatah supporters, who are more worried about losing control than thinking about what they did wrong in the past decades.

With Sharon gone (at least from politics), the balance in the conflict seems to be very delicate. Add to that the Iranian nuclear issue, the instability of the house of Saud, the religous chasm in Iraq and we have the perfect receipe for a time bomb. And given the interconnectedness of all the countries in the region, the risk of triggering a chaotic response in this metastable system is significant.

What can emerge from such an upheaval is either a region that can never again stand on its feet, or a completely new Middle East that is willing to detach itself from the vicious cycles of the past and face the future with new thoughts and new perspectives. Of course whatever happens needs to be of native conception. It is hard to imagine that any country from outside the region can bring in the solutions.

Challenging times ahead…

Comments
heydarbaba at January 29, 2006 12:02 PM [permalink]:
I find it interesting that every time a nation in the region is given a chance to vote and decide their own government friends of Islamic Republic of Iran win. The situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and now Palestinian elections all prove my point. Funny enough these groups were in the U.S. state department list of terrorist organizations. It seems that list tells us more about the list makers than the list. As for the Hamas victory in this election, one can say that Intifadah has won and it is true, those who argued against Intifadah did not get the Palestinian's vote even the two million dollars America spent on their behalf in this election did not seem to work in their favor. As for the main point of the article: "It is hard to imagine how a group that blows up ice-cream parlors in Israel and has totally undermined the image of the Palestinian movement towards statehood in the past decade can help improve the future of the Palestinian people." It is true that Hamas has engaged in terrorist acts in the past and now has won the election but this is not a new phenomenon in politics. A group that had engaged in terrorist acts has now or soon will be the government or in the government. Examples of this are the Lebanon's Hizbullah that did engage in terrorist acts in the 1980s but has transferred itself to a well respected and responsible national entity and an inseparable part of Lebanon that was able to bring out more than a million people to the streets with one call ..not bad in a country of 4 million population. Examples are plenty from IRA in Ireland to Israel itself. However what route should Hamas take now that it has won the election. Example of Arafat and Fatah is not a good one. Arafat could never transfer himself from a guerilla to a statesman. He floated somewhere in the middle. Hizbullah in Lebanon has stayed part of the government and also has its own militias but is contemplating in joining its militia with the Lebanon's national army. Hizbullah model is not a bad model and it is more practical and politically would serve the interest of the Palestinians. As it is Hizbullah is the most credible, popular political and resistance groups in the Arab world and Hamas can be the next. Example of Israel is a horrible one. It is hard to find an Israeli leader who had not been a terrorist before becoming a politician. Among these terrorists turned prime minister are Perez, Robin, Menachem, Sharon, Shamir and the list is long. In fact what is now called Israeli defense forces IDF was the combination of three major Jewish terrorist organizations whose leaders were the founding fathers of the terrorism in the middle east. Jewish terrorist groups used to burn houses, explode bombs in the restaurants and cafes and hotels and where ever they could long before anybody had heard the name of Arafat. Three major Jewish terrorist groups Haganah, Irgun and Stern gang (later called Lehi Group) joined together to form the IDF. It is fun to quote one of these Jewish terrorists groups in their own word, this quote is especially for those who say they won't talk to Hamas because Hamas has not denounced its willingness to take back the stolen lands and occupied land from the land thieves in Israel. The group's name is Stern gang and this is part of what they said : " "Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle. " "...We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefiel ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Shahram Kholdi at January 29, 2006 03:15 PM [permalink]:

I too find the negative reaction funny.

It is indeed the time for all these pretenders of morality and good ethics to come to power. They are like the militant Marxists of the old times in that until they had not come to power and had not been tested yet; they were the saintly leaders of consistency and honesty. When they were given the chance, they created the Soviet Union, and the respective Iron Curtain, and what became of the their Chinese equivalent? They are nothing but a handful of Maoist Oligopoly called the People’s Capitalist, formerly known as Communist, Republic of China. Oh, hold on though, they are/were a godless person; that is why they deviated. The people of god like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Brotherhood will not be like that. Well, were they not saying the same thing about the Islamists? Were they not saying that Ayatollah Khomeini will come from Paris and then will go to Qom to teach? Then, he came and he appointed the government!

I think no one should be alarmed by the fact that people, who show a need to change, are so interested in electing these untested saints of militancy in violence and honesty to power.

Like their counterparts in the Islamic Republic, they will be given the chance to rule and we will see if they will respect the democratic mechanism that brought them to power, or they will use this power to destroy the very democratic mechanisms that have given them the power in the first place.

I really wonder how many of those bus drivers who have just been arrested in hundreds, almost over a thousand of them, in Tehran, are feeling.

Many of them come from the lower middle class background that brought the regime to power in the aftermath of the Shah's fall, fought in the war, and sacrificed much for the regime, to the point of electing the most lunatic His Excellency President Doctor Ahmadinejad.

Now, they taste the bitterness of wanting Justice to be established, just on the even of celebrating the 27th anniversary of the replacement of the Demon with the Angel.

The Palestinians are now to see whether a group of armed militants who will most probably balance their budgets through the coffers of the Iranian people’s budgets, as it is the case about the Hezbollah of Lebanon’s so-called economic success, can govern!

I am so excited to see how these servants of god and people will be or will not be corrupted by power.

It is so interesting that everybody is so interested in rushing to judgement and cannot even wait to see whether these Islamists are capable of governing in transparency and with accountability without turning themselves into yet “Islamic” models of totalitarianism. Oh, sorry, I know what they might say, if they fail, they will blame everything on America and Israel, the same way that their Islamic Republic of Iran’s counterparts do all the time for their shortcomings!

An Iranian Student (AIS) at January 30, 2006 07:07 AM [permalink]:

IMO, What will come of this depends on two things:
1- Will Hamas finally recognize Israel to get the usual flow of all the foreign help? Most probably not-which is a good thing. Because if it did that would have been a temporary "tactic" anyway.
2-Will Hamas manage to bring order in the territories, with the help of Iran and Saudi Arabia? I personally don't think so, which is again good because just like the case in Iran it will drastically undermine its sole reason for popular support-which , contrary to the wishful rantings of the "buddy"*, has nothing to do with intifada, but only with the huge corrpution of Fatah which was in charge. (very much like Iran).
So what is bad? It's combination of IRI's Nukes and general Western deficiency in a response. That could prove catastrophic, but that has been the danger all along. Now at least it is overt, little room for excuses. A wake up call. Will the world listen?

the answer is in Iran, in actions like the recent strike. With proper support from all the players in the side of humanity and civilization any one of these could be the trigger. After all, who could have thought a small strike in the coal industry would eventually bring down the entire soviet empire?


* I advise everyone to read it for refreshments! You'll enjoy it. :)

Craig at January 30, 2006 02:18 PM [permalink]:

heydarbaba,

"Funny enough these groups were in the U.S. state department list of terrorist organizations. It seems that list tells us more about the list makers than the list."

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying groups like Hezbollah are not terrorists? If so, spit it out!

I don't think the election of Hamas tells anyone anything new. I still recall the hundresd (thousands) of Palestinians dancing in the streets and burning American flags, as the twin towers fell. They voted for Hamas because Hamas represents their own beliefs and opinions. Which is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. I think it's good. No more pretense that Palestinians want peace.


Ben at January 30, 2006 07:27 PM [permalink]:

The victory Hamas saw in these elections was the result of a brainwash that the Palestinians get daily.
Hitler was democratically elected.
Democracy isn't fool(s)proof.
It's a magic circle with extremists, they hypnotize you, then you give them more power, and when they are even stronger, they hypnotize you (i.e brainwash) even more.
Fascinating reality.. I wish I had the time to study it in a professional manner.

heydarbaba at January 31, 2006 10:33 AM [permalink]:

Craig,
You asked me if I think if Hizbullah in Lebanon is a terrorist organization or not. If one goes by the state department's list of terrorist organizations, it is , if one goes by the instructions of the "free!!" media it is; but if one puts aside one's political dogma and allows one to reflect freely on the issue I have to say that one sees absolutely nothing to even remotely suggest that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization. I know I am not thinking and talking the way the Fox news instructs its viewers to think and talk ...I know I am not towing the government line when I say Hizbullah is not a terrorist organization but hey...worse things happen in life. There is no "thought crime" law in America like the one they have in EU that prosecutes and imprisons any one who challenges the government version of Jewish holocaust. It is perfectly legal in US to not tow the government line and not consider Hizbullah a terrorist organization , this is not illegal and criminal however since Hizbullah is still in the government's list of terrorist organizations, it would be "illegal" and "criminal" for an American or anyone who lives in America to financially support Hizbullah. That is the difference. You asked me to spit it out I hope I did not spoon feed you.

A Reader at January 31, 2006 10:51 AM [permalink]:
To Whom It May Concern; Having read the posts and the reaction and reactionary responses of some I like to say once again that Hamas has won, Intifadah sent Sharon out of Gaza with his tail between his legs, Intifadah has won the votes, Intifadah opponents have lost and have lost big, neocons have been proven absolutely "foolish" once again so expect some more theories/cries to come out from disinformation guru such as Micahel Ledeen and his cousins and uncles, this is what we have today. According to Neocons Industry Iraq was supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the region, then it would set an example for Iranians to overthrow their government, then other Arab countries would see this and envy and go to the streets and polls and ...it worked out just fine... Iraqis elected their government and in the process accomplished something that Iranians were trying to accomplish it with continuation of Iran/Iraq war which was the elemination of Saddam from the region for good and replacing it with a representative government of Iraq and hopefully freindly to Iran. They could not do it then but this time they did it with finesse. They walked Bush into Baghdad and we have a government in Iraq which , as independent as it is, it is basically the extension of Iranian government. In Iran people did overthrow their government and voted for Ahmadinejad big times, In Egypt Muslim Brotherhood won big in the parliament and the opposition's main presidential candidate called himself "Ahmadinejad of Egypt", in Lebanon Hizbullah has won big and is part of the government and was able to bring out more than a million people to street with just one call, in Palestine, Hamas has won and what is next?..It seems that the message of Islamic revolution of Iran is spreading . This seems to follow the political version of Lenz's law in physics. The less Iran wants to export its message of Islamic Revolution , the more the message spreads among the Muslim nations. I am sure this is not what Neocon Industry had in mind when they were talking about spreading hegemony...oops I meant democracy. They had convinced and purchased!! the services of some of the Iranians turned "sand niggers" who were begging and lobbying US to go and bomb Iran and appoint them as kings and president; the most infamous, poster child of these "sand niggers" was Shah's son who was begging Neocon Industry to convince Bush to go and bomb Iran. Today , more than ever, the Neocon Industry and their Iranian "sand niggers" are in disarray and in disgrace. However the main point of my comment is : Hamas who had engaged in terrorist acts in the past has won the Palestinian votes, considering the fact that it was not the Arab armies that sent Sharon out of Gaza with his tail between his legs but it was Hamas and Intifadah who did it, and now have won the votes, I think it is fair to assume it was more than just political and financial corruption of the Fatah that lead to Hamas victory. Palestinians had seen that Hamas provided them with social services and Hamas's way of dealing with the land worshipping occupiers has impressed them. Palestinians were convinced that Hamas handed a nice, juicy defeat to the biggest dick in Israel, namely Sharon. Fatah was more than just corrupt, they were politically bankrupt. Hamas has to make a decision in which way to go. I argue that the example of Hizbullah in Lebanon is a viable , a practical and a ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Craig at January 31, 2006 03:39 PM [permalink]:

Heydarbaba,

"but if one puts aside one's political dogma and allows one to reflect freely on the issue"

Who is that "one" with the political dogma?

"I have to say that one sees absolutely nothing to even remotely suggest that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization."

Oh, really? Suicide bombings, plane hijackings, hostage taking, murder of the innocent for political gain, assassination of political rivals, assassination of journalists, assassination of diplomats, mass murder of international peacekeepers...

Is there any terrorist act Hezbollah has NOT committed?

That's an interesting definition of "reflection" you've got there. I'd go with "obfuscation of the facts" myself.


Ron at January 31, 2006 04:12 PM [permalink]:

Craig,

Don't forget Hizbullah's blowing up in 1994 of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires; a deliberate and calculated murder of 95 people simply because they were Jewish.

Ron at January 31, 2006 05:34 PM [permalink]:

Hyderbaba,

If one sees absolutely nothing (!) to suggest Hizbullah is a terrorist group, one is either blind or willfully ignorant; both good reasons not to take this individual's opinion seriously.

I know you're not suggesting that we form opinions based solely on taking the opposite view of what the state department and Fox News says, because that would be dumb.

If Hitler ever said that smoking is harmful to one's health, a sensible person would not disagree out of spite.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at January 31, 2006 05:36 PM [permalink]:

To a reader, aka Hydra-baba, aka the "Buddy",

Don't rejoice yet of all the tide turning towards your buddies, after all it is a tide. It wil recede, the stronger it is now, the more thorough would be the recession.
The set is being laid. This is the last breath, it usually causes swelling, shich apparently has been exciting some people!
But look how the little bad guys are being quitely put out of the way not to cause trouble after the showdown while the big ones are given room to show off.

Buddy, I can see you are so hectic you even forget to put your name. I don't balem you really, but grant me that you are funny. What is this? You think some decision makers would read this and sort of be influenced?! or what?! :-D
Enjoy while you can Buddy. Happy times!


heydarbaba at January 31, 2006 11:56 PM [permalink]:

My last comment went under the following name :A Reader at January 31, 2006 10:51 AM
I forgot to include my name and email. No malice was intended. AIS finally did something less negative and pointed it out.

heydarbaba at January 31, 2006 11:58 PM [permalink]:

Craig,
All those terrorist acts you mentioned in your comment do make a group or a person terrorist that is exactly why I refer to Jewish terrorist groups such as Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang who joined up and became what is now known as Israeli Defense Forces IDF, as terrorists. But some of those acts you mentioned were committed by Hizbullah in 1980s and we are in 2006 right now. Today Hizbullah is known as a major political force among Arab nations and many parts of the world. Obviously Hizbullah has not engaged in those acts for a long time that is why international community does not consider Hizbullah as a terrorist organization. Hizbullah has grown from a rag tag terrorist organization to a dynamic political powerhouse in the hearts and minds of millions in Lebanon and outside Labanon. Hizbullah liberated Lebanon from the jaws, paws and claws of Zionist occupiers and this has made them a national hero for Lebanese and for millions of Arabs, Hizbullah did something that many Arab armies had failed to do and that was it handed a nice juicy defeat to Israeli occupiers and sent them home with their tails between their legs. However the many acts of terror that you mentioned and Hizbullah has not committed them for a long time are still being committed by the Jewish terrorist organizations under the umbrella of Israeli Defense Forces IDF, it is being done in a large scale which is the reason I call Israel the most openly barbaric government in the region. And it is for this reason that I say Jewish terrorist organization who became IDF do not serve a s a good role model for Hamas in joining the major leagues and Hizbullah as a dynamic social, political and religious power house is a good viable model. Jewish terrorist groups switched from terrorism to barbarism . I don't consider this a step up. Once again let me quote one of the Jewish terrorist organization's statement who now is part of IDF, The group's name is Stern gang and this is part of what they said : " "Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle. "
"...We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: "Obliterate - until destruction."
"But primarily terror is part of our political battle under present conditions and its role is large and great.."
It makes you feel like Bin Laden is talking, well it is not him. It is a Jewish terrorist organization articulating their own status.

heydarbaba at February 1, 2006 12:01 AM [permalink]:

Ron,
You can read my last comment to Craig, I think it makes it clear where I stand on the issue of Hizbullah. By the way the blowing up in 1994 of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires has been blamed on Hizbullah not proven. Lets just for the sake of argument assume it was done by Hizbullah in 1994, it would be no different than the blowing up of King David hotel by your own ex prime minister Menachem? More people including Jewish people were killed in that blast than in the Buenos Aires blast. So do you consider Menachem a terrorist? That did not stop him from coming to white house and shaking hands with US presidents and collecting the yearly hand out in the form of foreign aid. Why such a double standard?. To be called a terrorist by US or by EU does not necessarily make a person or a group terrorist and in no way is indicative of a higher moral values of the accuser and in no way it is based on some ethical values. If the case of Jewish terrorists turned prime ministers who received and keep receiving favorable coverage from the free!! media and red carpet treatment and billions of dollars from the White House tells us anything is that it is not so much what you do , it is who you blow and that is sad

heydarbaba at February 1, 2006 12:05 AM [permalink]:

Ron,
You can read my last comment to Craig, I think it makes it clear where I stand on the issue of Hizbullah. By the way the blowing up in 1994 of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires has been blamed on Hizbullah not proven. Lets just for the sake of argument assume it was done by Hizbullah in 1994, it would be no different than the blowing up of King David hotel by your own ex prime minister Menachem? More people including Jewish people were killed in that blast than in the Buenos Aires blast. So do you consider Menachem a terrorist? That did not stop him from coming to white house and shaking hands with US presidents and collecting the yearly hand out in the form of foreign aid. Why such a double standard?. To be called a terrorist by US or by EU does not necessarily make a person or a group terrorist and in no way is indicative of a higher moral values of the accuser and in no way it is based on some ethical values. If the case of Jewish terrorists turned prime ministers who received and keep receiving favorable coverage from the free!! media and red carpet treatment and billions of dollars from the White House tells us anything is that it is not so much what you do , it is who you blow and that is sad

Ron at February 1, 2006 01:35 AM [permalink]:

Hyderbaba,

Menachem and the IDF were and are fighting a war for survival, the Arabs are killing just because it makes them feel good. Which by the way is the exact same reason the Nazis killed too.

You know why Menachem went to the White House? Because he helped to save the lives of millions of people. How many people has Hamas and Hizbullah saved by using terror? NONE!

I have read somewhere there is a concept in Islamic thought which is that using terror against enemy civilians is permissible if doing so hastens the end of the war and saves more lives in the end. This is an idea to which Menachem and I can probably find some agreement with.

The problem with modern Islamist terror is that it doesn't use terror to save people who are in danger, or hasten the end of a war. The only effect of its terror is indiscriminate death and destruction.

Ron at February 1, 2006 01:35 AM [permalink]:

Hyderbaba,

Menachem and the IDF were and are fighting a war for survival, the Arabs are killing just because it makes them feel good. Which by the way is the exact same reason the Nazis killed too.

You know why Menachem went to the White House? Because he helped to save the lives of millions of people. How many people has Hamas and Hizbullah saved by using terror? NONE!

I have read somewhere there is a concept in Islamic thought which is that using terror against enemy civilians is permissible if doing so hastens the end of the war and saves more lives in the end. This is an idea to which Menachem and I can probably find some agreement with.

The problem with modern Islamist terror is that it doesn't use terror to save people who are in danger, or hasten the end of a war. The only effect of its terror is indiscriminate death and destruction.

Shahram Kholdi at February 1, 2006 05:10 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

Come on, please! "the Arabs are killing just because it makes them feel good. Which by the way is the exact same reason the Nazis killed too."

What has happened that all the people on either side of the spectrum are using the Nazi analogy to label/characterise the other side?

You guys have to stop thinking of each other as pure evil first. Your statement is not just absure but simply stupid.

How many Arabs do you think are out there who are on a killing spree just because they enjoy it?

So what did you achieve by saying that? Just unloading your anger? These statements are absolutely repugnant. Shame on you!

I really condemn your stance.

I would agree that certain actions of the Palestinian resistance has been suicidal and with them I disagree completely, but that is equally disgusting to say, "Yeah man! they kill because they like it!"

I am really surprised that no side is interested to assume some human responsibilty.

You should be ashmed of what you said, not just as a human, but as an advocate of Israel. The fact that some of the statements of the other side are crazy should not drive you crazy as well.

Stop this irrational way of arguing please!


Another kind of irrational dehumanization that is ongoing, and I had to attack the other side equally taking place here on the Iranian Truth:

http://www.iraniantruth.com/?p=103


Ron at February 1, 2006 11:39 AM [permalink]:

Shahram,

I stick to my statements, and they are spoken without hate and anger, except towards those who do the killing and those who support them. Islamists killing of civilians serves no purpose but to give a feeling of revenge and catharsis. They do not contribute to the cause of anyone's freedom or safety by even a fraction of a percent. They are an entirely negative contribution to humanity. I really and truly don't understand what part of this you disagree so strongly with or think is so crazy.

bandeh at February 1, 2006 12:05 PM [permalink]:

Ron,

It's a vile remark. Same could be said about the Israelis by the Palestinians. But, hey it's a free weblog. Hatemongering is not explicitly forbidden. If you had been born as a German aryan in the 1930s. You would have made a fine SS officer.

bandeh at February 1, 2006 12:05 PM [permalink]:

Ron,

It's a vile remark. Same could be said about the Israelis by the Palestinians. But, hey it's a free weblog. Hatemongering is not explicitly forbidden. If you had been born as a German aryan in the 1930s. You would have made a fine SS officer.

Ben at February 1, 2006 04:35 PM [permalink]:

Rons statement ("Arabs are killing just because it makes them feel good") wasn't politically correct because by saying "Arabs" he presumably implied 'all arabs'. But everyone here knows what the context of the argument was (terrorists) and you can stop hiding behind PC remarks and assume he meant arabs that are involved in terrorism.

There are examples of religious clerks in Islam calling for murder of so called 'infidels' in the name of Islam.
The ones practicing this "Jihad" feel religious excitement and satisfaction.

Islamic terrorists that murder in the name of their religion are indeed killing just because it makes them feel good.

Ron at February 1, 2006 05:19 PM [permalink]:

Thanks Ben, but I don't think your clarification is necessary. The other posters know very well that when I said Arabs I was referring to terrorists because my reply to Hyderbaba was in the context of comparing Jewish and Arab groups who practice violence.

I wouldn't condescend my dear fellow posters by suggesting they couldn't grasp such nuances of discussion as context. I presume their objection to my statements was substantive and not terminological in nature.

Bandeh at February 1, 2006 05:32 PM [permalink]:

So from now on we can simply say "Jews" to talk about those Israeli murderers who immensely enjoy shooting 13 year old girls in the chest http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html repeatedly? Those who say "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."?

No my friends, this is not a nuance. The statement was pure and absolute evil.

Bandeh at February 1, 2006 05:51 PM [permalink]:

In terms of the Palestinian terrorists, I do agree that they probably derive happiness from blowing Israeli civillians up. I think the pleasure/happiness from killing on both sides has its roots at the deep hatered both sides harbor for each other and is sick. Arguing that murderers on one side have higher morality than the other is total B.S.

The difference is in the in the fact that Israel is a democratic state with an institutionalized judicial system (no thanks to ultraorthodox fundamentalists) and a rule of law that can to some level (not always) better control potentially sicko bastards that exist in all human societies (iranian, Arab, Israeli, American etc.). And while the IDF may try to scan out extremist trigger happy murderers (Ron's heroes) as much as possible, there are always those who make it through.

In general, Israel has a far more advanced civil society (again ni thanks to those trying to shove the Halakha down the throat of secular people) than the entire Arab world, as well as Iran. This creates more accountability, but not necessarily higher morality. Same concentration of regressive fascist homophobes who explain away murder as did the Nazis (as evident from the postings here).

Ron at February 1, 2006 06:43 PM [permalink]:

Dear Bandeh,

I said explicitly in my last post that I was referring to Arab terrorists. You still insist I meant otherwise.

So it seems you're calling me a liar. Is that the case? Are you calling me a liar?

Bandeh at February 1, 2006 06:54 PM [permalink]:

Ron,

I am not calling you a liar.

Ben at February 1, 2006 07:04 PM [permalink]:

Ron,
"I don't think your clarification is necessary."
and
"I wouldn't condescend my dear fellow posters by suggesting they couldn't grasp such nuances of discussion as context."
Can you see Bandehs comment from February 1, 2006 05:32 PM?

Bandeh,
I said it was politically incorrect!

And about that Guardian story,
It's a fact that this innocent 13 year old girl was killed.
This story is old and since then, the name of the officer known in the report as 'R' was published.
The investigation exploded when the army police inquiry found that most of the soldiers testimonies about what went on the field was fabricated and was plotted against that officer. They wanted him out of the unit, internal disputes.
They only used the opportunity since he really did shot that girl.
Guardian is a biased media and I'm sure they took a few quotes here and there out of their context.
Palestinians already sent 14 year olds on suicide missions before. They have no respect for human life.
That girl was shot because she walked right into the area of the soldiers outpost, and I mean by that: she went right through the fence (God knows why..shortcut?)
That officer shot her after few shouts asking to stop and shots in the air.
She didn't respond and just started running (I can't blame her).

Bandeh,
It already happened before, several times even, that a far away figure with a bag that did not answer to calls, ran, exploaded and killed people in checkpoints and borders (even killed Palestinians, not just IDF soldiers).

Please don't go on reading what Guardian says with absolute assurance.
Alot of the parts in their article allegedly claim to describe what was said between people in the field.
What can you call this information... 4th hand? 5th?

I assume that they only reported this part of the story without the development I just told you about.

Ben at February 1, 2006 07:11 PM [permalink]:

And a half truth is a lie.

Ben at February 1, 2006 07:45 PM [permalink]:

Bandeh,
"Arguing that murderers on one side have higher morality than the other is total B.S"
-A murderer by definition lacks any morality whatsoever.
But in this conflict, the Palestinian side does have lower morality simply because of the fact that their militant acts are being practiced according to a religion that is violent by nature, violent by origin and violent towards any non-muslims in general and violent towards Jews in specific.
This religion is the real obstacle to the peace in our region. It's what preventing peace from happening, because every time things stabilize by a bit, some Muslim preachers keep the flames from turning down 'in the name of Allah' and 'in the name of muhammad that told us that the Jews are sons of pigs and monkeys'
Bandeh, how does this affect the morality when muslims (and Palestinians) are going on a murder frenzy because it's alright to kill pigs and monkeys?

Please tell me, how do you think the conflict will ever end with so much hate anchored so deeply inside a 'religion' of 2 billion people?

Fist Quote:
"We can’t blame Bin Laden for this; instead, we should blame Islam, the religion of bin Laden, It is because he is simply following his religion to the letter. He is, without doubt, a true Muslim."

Second Quote:
"But on September 11, 2001, I saw the real face of Islam. I saw the happiness on the faces of our people because so many infidels were slaughtered so easily. I was shocked at the gloating of our people for killing innocent kafirs. I saw many people started thanking Allah for this massacre. Our Islamic people said that Allah gave us our wish, and that this was the beginning of the destruction of kafir countries."

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Testimonials/Khaled.htm

Bottom line: Muslim terrorists are killing people because it makes them feel good and they have NO morality.

Do you wish for quotes from the Koran as well to substantiate my claim even more?

Ben at February 1, 2006 07:55 PM [permalink]:

Please forgive me for this awful typo.
Religion of 1.2 billion.

Ron at February 1, 2006 08:01 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

Touché. I always try to give others the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I didn't imagine my doubts would be dispelled so quickly!

I think your explanation of the 'R' incident to Bandeh was off the mark. Why? Because Bandeh is not interested in the facts of this particular case. Bandeh's point was that when Tzahal shoots Arab children it is because they "immensely enjoy" it, and are driven by "deep hatred".

Bandeh,

I'm glad to hear you don't consider me a liar. You will hopefully believe me when I say that an average Israeli does not have a "deep hatred" of Arabs, and an average solder certainly doesn't take joy from mistaking an innocent child for a terrorist. How you formed these false impressions is beyond my comprehension.


Bandeh at February 1, 2006 08:28 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

I agree, Islam is a religion of violence, but so is Judaism in its roots. Christianity is less violent than these two, but has also been used to justify violence. I personally dislike Islam, but what you've out forward is inaccurate (not even half-truths). Mohammad has never said Jews were the sons of pigs. Provide me with evidence if you have direct quotes on that. And please, don't quote right wing weblogs or accurate translations of Hadith (I'll check the arabic to see whether this really is the case).

Inflammatory statements are being circulated by both sides. The Jewish Defense League members write "“Palestinians are scumbag cockroaches descended from the bowel movements of pigs." (Washington Post, 2004), I don't even think of arguing with the lack of understanding of evolution or biology.

I disagree with the morality issue. I think the Nazis last used this superiority of races, and it has no place in our world. If you read the anti-Jewish propaganda by the Nazis (see below link), you'll see many similarities in the language you may be using for Palestinians. Having seen your discourse, this is not like you. So I don't think you should continue on this path.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/angrif03.htm

Bandeh at February 1, 2006 08:32 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

I agree, Islam is a religion of violence, but so is Judaism in its roots. Christianity is less violent than these two, but has also been used to justify violence. I personally dislike Islam, but what you've out forward is inaccurate (not even half-truths). Mohammad has never said Jews were the sons of pigs. Provide me with evidence if you have direct quotes on that. And please, don't quote right wing weblogs or accurate translations of Hadith (I'll check the arabic to see whether this really is the case).

Inflammatory statements are being circulated by both sides. The Jewish Defense League members write "“Palestinians are scumbag cockroaches descended from the bowel movements of pigs." (Washington Post, 2004), I don't even think of arguing with the lack of understanding of evolution or biology.

I disagree with the morality issue. I think the Nazis last used this superiority of races, and it has no place in our world. If you read the anti-Jewish propaganda by the Nazis (see below link), you'll see many similarities in the language you may be using for Palestinians. Having seen your discourse, this is not like you. So I don't think you should continue on this path.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/angrif03.htm

Ben at February 1, 2006 08:35 PM [permalink]:

Ron,

"Bandeh's point was that when Tzahal shoots Arab children it is because they "immensely enjoy" it, and are driven by "deep hatred"."

-In this text form, I couldn't make out if Bandeh was just being cynical.
I still hold some hope someone would be interested in knowing the facts.
The injustice being made in this website (and many others) by some posters toward facts is horrific.
Bandeh is the softest of them.. I can think of other posters here that are much worse.
All is relative..

Bandeh at February 1, 2006 08:42 PM [permalink]:

Ron,

Nobody talked about average Israelis, as we didn't talk about average Arabs (only about terrorists). So that's a non-issue.

I am more interested in solutions than to hear the sides of the conflict exculpate themselves. I have the same issue with many Arab and Palestinian friends whose arguments could have mirrored yours, only to put the blame on Israel and exculpate their side. Since I am on no side (or both sides, whichever you wanna see it), I don't see this as productive. If you want to feel good about yourself, go right ahead, I don't want to ruin your moment.

I am more interested in solutions. And i have to say with the rise of far more important challenges, the Israeli-Palestinian issue is becoming a secondary concern.

I agree with the premise of the main article that it's a sad day for peace.

Baneh at February 1, 2006 08:48 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

Thank you for the honor of "softest" of the injust :) I'll make sure to add that to my resume. I like your usage of the term "facts" to denote everything you say :) That's certainly one way to see the world.

Laila tov to both of you.

Bandeh at February 1, 2006 08:53 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

You misinterpreted my statement about the solidiers (I don't knwo whether intentional or unintentional). Regardless, my point is you cannot generalize things in either way. What goes around comes around.

Ben at February 1, 2006 09:44 PM [permalink]:

Bandeh,

"Mohammad has never said Jews were the sons of pigs. Provide me with evidence if you have direct quotes on that."

-I did not quote. I cynically portrayed what they get in their brainwash and ridiculed it.
A 3 year old girl interviewd in an Egyption television said God told us. This is what they educate her for. This is what she thinks. Does it make any difference if she think Muhammad said that or God? Does it matter whether they really said it?

#924 - 3½-Year-old Egyptian Basmallah: Jews Are Apes and Pigs

Basmallah: They are apes and pigs.
Amer: Because they are apes and pigs. Who said that about them?
Basmallah: Our God.
Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=924
Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=924wmv&ak=null
***Video was deleted from the website since 3 months passed, if you really want the video email them.

#970 - Al-Qaeda's Sheik Abu Yahya Al-Libbi who Escaped from Bagram Prison: America's Nose Will Be Rubbed in the Mud; Palestine Is Occupied by the Offspring of Apes and Pigs
Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=970
Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=970wmv&ak=null

You say Judaism is violent in it's roots.
Where do you see that?

Jewish Defense League are bunch of extremists which I don't dedicate much care for.
They are isolated and irrational. Your use of them as an example is invalid.
Even their words about the Palestinians aren't being said with religious mandate.
What Muslims preachers say about Jews does get religious confirmation just by their own status as Imams.

At the moment, I don't have the will to read the Nazi propaganda link you posted. And I really don't like your comparison of it with my posts.
It's very evil of you to try to delegitimize your opponant by using this example.
What is the connection to morality of Palestinians and radical Muslims in general?
How did you turn the subject towards Nazi propaganda?
Because my point was that Islam lacks morality? Am I a Nazi propagander? Are you living on this planet?
And how did you get to "superiority of races"? I was talking about religion and not about races...

"I'll make sure to add that to my resume."
Isn't it going to hurt your resume?
I'd assume by now that where you present it you actually have to compete for being more inflammatory than soft.


"I like your usage of the term "facts" to denote everything you say :) That's certainly one way to see the world."
When I talk about facts, I mention them to be facts.
After facts come opinions.. Thats my right just as yours.

"Laila tov"
- Unfortunately I won't get to experience a good night for a long time.. I've got lots of work to do that will keep me busy.
Instead of doing it atm, I'm answering your posts.. :)

Shahram Kholdi at February 1, 2006 09:55 PM [permalink]:

Ron and Ben:

Contextualization requires one to survey the feedback effects that reinforce the cycle of violence in a conflict.

Whether one side in the conflict assumes that the other side kills out of joy, whatever the inspiration for that joy, is a crazy overgeneralization if it is extended to every individual.

If you are talking about the Context in Israel and Palestine, as you claim, and not all the Arabs enjoying shooting, then there is a problem of accuracy. In the case that you attempted to justify the overgeneralization of Arabs as joyful shooters, many of these Arabs on the other side have been in the practice of blowing themselves up for quite some time, as the main course of action as opposed to shooting or mortars. They have not been shooting as often anymore. So the respective statement, besides is absurdity, is not even accurate.

The statement should be "those Arabs who blow themselves up enjoy it!"

Do you think such rephrasing makes the statement less absurd? Not it will not! Because, we do not know if many of those who blew themselves up really sought joy, and were not forced to do that, and rather painfully so. Do you know why?

Do you recall the Palestinian teenager who just before approaching a check point let the Israelis know that he was in fact carrying an explosive belt? If there is one, and as there have been indeed a couple of more cases that potential suicide bombers backed away from the job, then it proves that not everyone enjoys blowing oneself up or enjoys shooting!


Such overgeneralizations are not just absurd, they are inhuman, condemnable, and simply irrational.

Ben at February 1, 2006 10:07 PM [permalink]:

Bandeh,
I believe you asked for this (?):
"This article presents a short account of Muhammad’s superstitions regarding various animals"
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/animals.htm
Is this information true?

Shahram Kholdi,
The joy I referred to was the joy derived from religious influence.
I did not refer to anyone that might have been forced to suicide against their will... I don't even think there are more than a few of those.

M at February 1, 2006 11:10 PM [permalink]:

Ben,
Ever read Old Testament?

Bandeh at February 1, 2006 11:54 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

I pointed to the tone of the discussion, which is going in the wrong direction:

"But in this conflict, the Palestinian side does have lower morality simply because of the fact that their militant acts are being practiced according to a religion that is violent by nature, violent by origin and violent towards any non-muslims in general and violent towards Jews in specific...... how does this affect the morality when muslims (and Palestinians) are going on a murder frenzy because it's alright to kill pigs and monkeys?"

Generally, the comment that one nation has lower morality than another logically dictates that the other nation is superior morally. This kind of talk is conducive to racism. Anyway, you can choose whatever terminology you like, but it's going to be undermining the message you are trying to convey. Simplification of the plight if Palestinians into a simple hatered for pigs is a little Goebelsian. And I didn't say you were the same, I objectied to the methodology.

We may have irreconcilable differences in opinion in some aspects, but I do agree with you on some aspects of your discussion. Given there aren't too many places for Israelis and Iranians to exchange opinions, even when they differ I see this all as positive.

Good luck with the backlog. Come back only when you have spare time. This back and forth can be quite addictive.

Ben at February 2, 2006 05:58 AM [permalink]:

Bandeh,
You're going in circles without answering the fundamental question I presented:
How do you think peace is possible with so much hate anchored inside this religion?
IT is the problem.
It is that you don't present all the cards of Islam in this conflict.
You must acknowledge this violent property of Islam before you continue this discussion.

But you also MUST SEE THE CONNECTION between these properties and morality.

It affects the conflict so dearly here and around the world.
You don't agree with the lower morality I pointed to, but I stand fully behind it.

I still can't understand how you streched this issue so far that you arrived to Nazi territory of terminology.
There is nothing wrong with saying one side has lower level of morality especially concerning the circumstances of their actions (suiciders, kidnap of civilians). This is simply the truth.

Sometimes, an attempt of staying balanced/orthodox is causing the thinker to keep his ideas inside the box and not moving forward toward the solution.

You are bound do keep 'grinding air' in this neverending discussion when you don't accept facts that are so essential to understand the conflict.

I work with computers,
Heres my philosophy of life on one foot:
Person is born to the world empty (as in empty Hard Drive Disk).
Religion is the software.
Religion is any system of beliefs (even atheism counts).
Thats it. Thats how simple I see this.
Please don't drag the discussion toward Nazis.
When I think of the arab community here inside Israel, they are divided into 3 groups.
Muslims
Christians
Druze
And although Druze religion is based in Islam It isn't mainstream Islam.
Guess what? We don't have problems with the last 2.
Only ones giving us headache are the Muslims.
At this point it seemed to me that Arabs are ok in general and the real problem is that 'software'.
I only became sure when I realized that non-Arabs in the world that have adopted Islam also became involved in so many wars and disputes (Chechen, Bosnia, Africa Pakistan-India and more and more and more and more..)

Something with the moral system in Islam is wrong.
Can you see that?
Do you agree?

It's a fact that Palestinians are Muslims.
It's also a fact that they mix their conflict related hate toward Jews, with religious context.
This religious context is based on the religion of Islam.
Islam is immoral.
Islamic preaching caused them to send suicide bombers.
The Palestinian have one of the lowest morality levels in the world.


N at February 2, 2006 06:00 AM [permalink]:

M, ever read the Quran?
Hadith?
Old testament naturally contains war stories.
It doesn't call for following generations to persecute fellow human beings.
Ben.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at February 2, 2006 06:06 AM [permalink]:
Here is what I think about the present debate: I think it is fair to say that Ron's remark was in the context of the discussion. I also checked the link Shahram provided (http://www.iraniantruth.com/?p=103) and his comments there and I think I see what his concerns are. In other words I want to put Shahram's comments in the proper context too. If I understand him right he is basically saying that while the other side is constantly waging the propaganda cliche of Israelis as bloodthirsty soulless murderer Nazis with no conscience, it is counterproductive, irresponsible and absurd for the Israeli side to use the language. (Again just read the article in the link above or bandehs' really outragous remarks about an Israeli soldier taking pleasure in killing 13 year olds to see this!) As for myself, although I agree with his intention, if the way I understand them is correct I do not fully agree with his solution of avoiding any such references by both sides to keep the discussion "clean" and "fair". Why? First, I don't agree with the assumption that there is a symmetry in the use of langauge in such cases. Language is a mapping of the reality out there: Nazis were a band of fascit absolutists who pathologically hated the Jews and hated the capitalist decadence, anglosaxons, democracy, humanism and suffered an inferiority-superiority complex. Applying Nazi to Israel or other democracies based on freedom of the individual and respect for human life is not only factually wrong but morally abhorable. Applying the same term for Islamists contains a lot of truth. "Race" for the Nazis was mainly an excuse, a surrogate for the dying age old christian dogma. Islam is minly a christian heresy that is still very much alive in its violent and savage form. The term "Jew" for non-jews is burdened with thousands of years of bias and hateful religous brainwashing, corruption, dirtiness, lack of high humane emotions, materialistic greed, cursed ... both in christianity, Islam as well as more modern religions such as communism, white supremacy, aryanism, Nazism, fascism.... We all know this very well, I mean who are we kidding here?! The term "Arab" has no such connotations, not even among Iranians! So unlike bandeh's comment, there is a huge difference in using the two terms in such sentences. It makes a world of difference when a Jew uses the term Nazi to depict those who have made it their goal in life to eradicate his people, than when an anti-Jew and anti-semite (like the jerk in the post in Iranian Truth) applies it to the Jews themselves or the only Jewish state. These are very different uses of the language. One is hatemongering. The other sometimes a necessary clarification. I think actually that it is important to stress this asymmetry whenever it comes to such points very firmly (but precisely so that the opponenst can't take advantage of it. This is also Shahram's point too). It is important. We are not just rational machines. The constant propaganda of the islamodfascists and theor apologizers leaves their mark even if you do not buy their arguments. We all have seen it. This has to be canclled out to give room for reason to function. Whenever it comes to such points or allusions -that for instance revive the chain of those connotations- it can only be confronted by exposing the real nature of its origins in the most blunt and direct manner. It has to be reminded whenever necessary that there is and ough to be a differe ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
AIS at February 2, 2006 06:13 AM [permalink]:

oops!
"nothing can be farther from the truth"
and sorry for the rest of the usual typos.

Bandeh at February 2, 2006 07:33 AM [permalink]:

Ben,

There are fundamental fallacies in your arguments. Going into them one by one is necessary, but I can't see how it would help. The back and forth could continue without any real resolution. Islam is only one aspect of identity among Palestinians. I acknowledge that Islam is more social and more prone to violent interpretations (there are 1.2 billion Muslims and if all of them were violent suicidal maniacs, Israel would really not be there now). Political Islam is the main problem, I can't see any issues with Grandma's praying in their homes or fasting in Ramadan.

What is driving the conflict is a sense of injustice that gets twisted by a scarred psyche on behalf of the Palestinians. Watch the movie Checkpoint (documentary, facts) and you'll see how hatered can accumulate with occupation. That is why in contrast to you, Sharon has realized that there IS a difference between suffocating Palestinians by occupying all of their lands, rather than withdraw from sufficient lands to enable a basic Palestinian state to take roots. There are people within the Palestinians who may see Israel proper as part of a future Palestine, but there are also people on the Israeli side who see the two rivers as the geographical area of Israel. Both need to face reality. The current reality of occupation is a major root of problems. Unless you acknowledge that (as have Israeli stratgists at many levels), you will continue probing software problems on the other side.

So in short, no I do not accept that Palestinians have lower morality, and I stand by that. I see any rhetoric pointing to the moral superiority of one people over another as absolutely unacceptable.

Bandeh at February 2, 2006 07:34 AM [permalink]:

Ben,

There are fundamental fallacies in your arguments. Going into them one by one is necessary, but I can't see how it would help. The back and forth could continue without any real resolution. Islam is only one aspect of identity among Palestinians. I acknowledge that Islam is more social and more prone to violent interpretations (there are 1.2 billion Muslims and if all of them were violent suicidal maniacs, Israel would really not be there now). Political Islam is the main problem, I can't see any issues with Grandma's praying in their homes or fasting in Ramadan.

What is driving the conflict is a sense of injustice that gets twisted by a scarred psyche on behalf of the Palestinians. Watch the movie Checkpoint (documentary, facts) and you'll see how hatered can accumulate with occupation. That is why in contrast to you, Sharon has realized that there IS a difference between suffocating Palestinians by occupying all of their lands, rather than withdraw from sufficient lands to enable a basic Palestinian state to take roots. There are people within the Palestinians who may see Israel proper as part of a future Palestine, but there are also people on the Israeli side who see the two rivers as the geographical area of Israel. Both need to face reality. The current reality of occupation is a major root of problems. Unless you acknowledge that (as have Israeli stratgists at many levels), you will continue probing software problems on the other side.

So in short, no I do not accept that Palestinians have lower morality, and I stand by that. I see any rhetoric pointing to the moral superiority of one people over another as absolutely unacceptable.

Ben at February 2, 2006 10:48 AM [permalink]:
Bandeh, ["There are fundamental ..... fasting in Ramadan."] *** I think our differences in this issue come from a differences in views over the violent nature of Islam. I see its violent nature grasping all muslims as a collective. You see its violent nature as unique to whoever chooses to follow it. And as example you say: "I can't see any issues with Grandma's praying in their homes or fasting in Ramadan.". Well, maybe out there this muslim grandma exists and really doesnt mean for anything bad to happen to anyone. But in my view I try to step out of the microcosms and see the bigger picture as collective Islam at the macro level of religions and nations vs each other throughout time/history/generations. Both views are correct by their own right and they don't necessarily contradict each other. ["What is driving the conflict ...... you'll see how hatered can accumulate with occupation."] ***Yes you talk real nice cliches about occupation but you forget one thing: This occupation in the forms of checkpoint roadblocks and curfews only happens because of the terror attacks. It is a strategic attemt of an army to stop/reduce the amount of terrorists being exported from the territories to the state of Israel. This so undermines your point that at this moment I should even add that there was Palestinian terrorism EVEN BEFORE any occupation occurred. This correlates with my point from the start which is that Islam is very problematic.. ************************************************** Are you going to argue that they suicide because they had to wait hours at a checkpoint? If that so, I'd ask you this: 19 suiciders that created 9/11, did they do it because they were so bitter of waiting in checkpoints? Where they oppressed by anyone? This is only the tip of the iceberg. Their terrorism has nothing do do with occupation. It has everything to do with being superbrainwashed. Yeah.. And that is a fact. ************************************************** ["there are also people on the Israeli side who see the two rivers as the geographical area of Israel."] ***This is the promised land according to the bible. That is a fact. It's very misleading of you to even count those people on the israeli side who see that as an achievable reality. Why? Well, First of all their movements in Israel were OUTLAWED. Did you know that? Secondly, they are so few that they can't even break the tiniest percentage barrier in population to be elected to the Israeli parliament. They don't have support to even put 1 person in the 120 representatives parliament. So why are you using surreal examples? In contrast, Islam holds extremist and violent ideas toward other religions and nations in it's MAINSTREAM. (see definition: "Palestinians and hate") ["Both need to face reality. The current reality of occupation is a major root of problems. Unless you acknowledge that (as have Israeli stratgists at many levels), you will continue probing software problems on the other side. So in short, no I do not accept that Palestinians have lower morality, and I stand by that. I see any rhetoric pointing to the moral superiority of one people over another as absolutely unacceptable."] ***You can stand by your opinion and I'll stand by mine. Fact is, that you still didn't answer my questions from above. (how is peace...) Bandeh, you choose to ignore the real factor for the violence again and again. You talk about "occupation" on one hand but you can't explain or ignore explanati ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ben at February 2, 2006 11:00 AM [permalink]:

Bandeh, The morality issue here with Palestinians is very fundamental.
Morality of a person coexists with his/hers conscious decision of what is right or wrong. And that is determined gravely by the religion which in definition is a system of beliefs.
When something is seriously F***ed up with the religion, it creates alot of mess..especially in the morality department.

You can't ignore that. None can.

It's your choise if you wish to become a philosopher and ask questions like: "What is morality?", "How can we define it?", "Who are we to judge the morality of others?"..
Now this would really be unproductive.

Ron at February 2, 2006 11:08 AM [permalink]:

Bandeh,

"What is driving the conflict is a sense of injustice that gets twisted by a scarred psyche on behalf of the Palestinians"

Thank you. You just confirmed my earlier post that Palestinian attacks are driven by the desire to avenge percieved injustices. Nothing to do with survival or self-defence. Just feelings. That's all I was trying to say.

Ron at February 2, 2006 11:10 AM [permalink]:

Bandeh,

"What is driving the conflict is a sense of injustice that gets twisted by a scarred psyche on behalf of the Palestinians"

Thank you. You just confirmed my earlier post that Palestinian attacks are driven by the desire to avenge percieved injustices. Nothing to do with survival or self-defence. Just feelings. That's all I was trying to say.

heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 11:14 AM [permalink]:
Ron, I read somewhere that a mouse can't resist cheese. I don't even know why I said it here....anyway.. In my comment I argued that Jewish terrorists were running their horror shops and terror business long before anybody had heard the name of Arafat , Bin Laden or Hamas. I argued that Jewish terrorist organizations Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang who later joined forces and became what is now know as Israeli defense forces IDF will not be a good role model for Hamas to become a major leagues player because these Jewish terrorists went from terrorism to barbarism and as a result Israel is the most openly barbaric government in the Middle East. I gave the example of Menachem's bombing of King David hotel in which more than 90 people died majority of whom were civilians. Your response was that Menachem did it for the survival of Jewish people and he was a good terrorist. I have a hard time connecting the dots here. Can you explain how bombing a hotel in which Jewish people were in it , British soldiers were in it can be related to the survival of millions of Jews? Did I say British? Aren't they the same people that helped bring Jews to Palestine? Aren't they the same people who gave you land there? aren't they the same people who created this mess in Palestine that has plagued the whole region for decades? So how can you possibly relate killing the British soldiers and the 17 Jews who were there to the survival of millions of Jews? In fact the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun went ahead and in October 31 1946, bombed British Embassy in Rome, Italy, did I say British again? Aren't these the same British people who fed you and put bread on your table? You call killing them a big effort in the survival of millions of Jews?.There is an old saying in America that : "You don't bite a feeding hand". Too deep and too philosophical for you? how about this one; it is less complicated and easy to understand and it is not philosophical at all : "you don't shit where you eat". I think there is a lesson in this for Americans who have been financing the genocide of Palestinians for decades, who have been putting bread and butter on Israelis' tables for decades, who have been protecting Israelis for decades, who have been one of the major provider of legitimacy for Israelis for decades...At some point they should expect to receive their due appreciation from Israelis just like British did. It is a scary thought that someone like you with such a care free attitude toward hurting and killing those who helped you when the chips were down lives in Cleveland, Ohio. Of course the signs are there. Israelis are probably some of the most anti Americans in the Middle East. Those interested can go and read the comments of people like Ron in the www.israelinsider.com. Follow it for a couple of weeks you will be scratching your head in shock. Terrorist is a terrorist, Menachem , Sharon, Rabin, Shamir, Ben Gurion, Bin Laden, Zarqavi, Arafat, Yassin, Hamas, Hizbullah, all practiced terrorism, Arafat later gave a lip service but never stopped terrorism, Bin Laden is still sending us his greetings, Zarqavi the same, Hizbullah stopped terrorism and became a well respected, very dynamic social, political and religious power house in the Middle East and among Muslims, Menachem, Sharon , Rabin, Shamir and the long list of their cousins and uncles went from terrorism to barbarism and their policy has all the signs of barbaric conducts. Transition from t ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 11:27 AM [permalink]:
Ben, In your comment you said: "But in this conflict, the Palestinian side does have lower morality simply because of the fact that their militant acts are being practiced according to a religion that is violent by nature, violent by origin and violent towards any non-muslims in general and violent towards Jews in specific" This statement is a loaded one and has been parroted by many Jewish fanatics and extremists Since you did not elaborate on it so let me dig into it and help you a little bit. First of all I find it interesting that a disgruntled land thief calls the victim of his theft "people with lower morality". I find it quite interesting that some one like you who defends a Jewish apartheid , the most openly barbaric government in the region , calls Islam the religion of violence. Of course this line has become quite boring but the other lines and lies are even more boring such as : "Israel was a land with no people for people with no land, ", "the good Arab,it is the dead one","Israeli soldiers do their best not to hurt the civilians..", ..."when Israeli officer pumped more than a dozen bullets into the body of a 13 year old girl it was by mistake:...these boring lines are never ending .. Your diatribe about violence in Islam is as vague as you possibly could get and that is for a good reason because you know you are not about to do truth any favor and to be vague is the best way to go about it . I hope you are not confusing such a vague statement with an intelligent statement. As soon as you elaborate on that and make it clear what you mean by that declaration we can talk about it. For now since you showed interest about religion and violence, let us read a little bit of your Torah, shall we?. Please everybody turn off your TVs and radios, no cell phones please, please keep quite and lets have a moment of solemn, because we are about to read a HOLY book, Torah, did I say HOLY book? yes HOLY book , so lets listen to it , Book of Numbers, chapter 33: :"Now the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho, saying," Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them : 'When you have crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their engraved stones, destroy all their molded images and demolish all their high places; you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land and dwell in it, for I have given you the land to posses.' " This is a clear instruction for ethnic cleansing and there is absolutely no two way of looking at this. To me , a HOLY!! book giving such a clear instructions for ethnic cleansing is the source of this problem not because some Muslim preachers don't like peace or consider Jews as pigs. In fact the Jewish fanatics and land thieves have been using this verse of Torah to sanctify and justify their land theft, and their barbaric treatment of Palestinians , the very people they have dispossessed. After all this barbaric behavior has clear instruction from their HOLY book and it is a religious ritual and duty that should be done by every good GOD fearing, land worshipping Jewish man and woman and if they don't do it then they are committing a sin. In fact if you go to a site such as www.israelinsider.com where many of these disgruntled land thieves gather and spew their HOLY verses, you will see that they believe the reason Sharon had a stroke is because God punished him for giving back the stolen ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ron at February 2, 2006 11:39 AM [permalink]:

hyderbaba,

Your inability to connect the dots is something I can't help you with. Try going back to pre-school.

heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 11:56 AM [permalink]:

Ron,
there is no reason for you to get emotional. I was exposing the lies and holes in your usual boring diatribes. So keep your emotions in check and try to use your intelligence. You are allowed to.

Ben at February 2, 2006 02:27 PM [permalink]:

heydarbaba,
Did you ever think of reciving anger management therapy?
Your comment is so angry and disoriented that you seem to talk alot of nonsense.
This is so funny.. And you called Ron "emotional".
Hilarious! :D

I will not regard it all because the discussion will never end this way. And I don't wish to be doomed to a neverending discussion with someone that grasp reality so differently than me.
For the sake of any sane people that are reading,
I will regard a few points:
A) Theres no such thing as "Jewish apartheid"
Apartheid is seperation between races.
Jewish people are consisted of all races including Arab ethnicity. It is technically impossible for them to create apartheid with Palestinians.
IF you meant that it's separation of religions, the so called Palestinian "right of return" was not accepted by Israel after they ran away from here (most of which without even seeing one soldier), however, those that didn't ran away still live here as citizens with full rights and representatives in the Parliament.
You are the parrot using the "apartheid" word as if it's so cheap. and you call me a parrot?
Where did you see other people discussing Palestinian morality in relation to Islam?
I searched google just now and didn't find.
Maybe someone discussed it before but that doesn't make me a parrot. I was just answering the thread in this discussion.

B) You brought a sentence from the bible that goes like this: "Lord spoke to Moses..".
Now, can you see the difference with Islam?
This is not the prophet calling for all of the followers of all generations to come to do violence. This is God talking to Moses.
How can you even compare?? Do you really need someone to connect the dots for you like Ron suggested?

***
I can bring you multiple quotes of hate from Muslim scriptures (each more vicious than it's fellow) for each single quote of hate you could possibly find in the Bible.
Do you really want to do this competition?
Oh I think you don't.. You know you'll lose..
***


Bandeh,
can you see now what I meant by "softest" ?

Ron,
You are wrong. You CAN help him if you connect the dots for him. Care for a pencil?

An Iranian Student (AIS) at February 2, 2006 05:30 PM [permalink]:

Hydra-Baba,

now you are quoting the Torah? Are you sure you wanna go down this lane, buddy? You sure?

you see, if this was land theft (well I don't know about you but in ancient times this was how any people came to settle in any region. Those previous inhabitants didn't just sprang there out frm under the bushes either. The thing about the Bible is that it gives it a more moral and universal context instead of the usual tribal supremacy over others).
Anyway, if this was land theft made holy by a document afterwards, buddy, your Quran parrots this too. Oh Oh! It says the land was given by ... ehemm, ehemm...Allah...daaadaaaa...to the Israelites coming out of Egypt. Here for instance:

Chapetr 17, Isra:
17:101- And verily We gave unto Moses nine tokens, clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty). Do but ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them, then Pharaoh said unto him: Lo! I deem thee one bewitched, O Moses
17:102- He said: In truth thou knowest that none sent down these (portents) save the Lord of the heavens and the earth as proofs, and lo! (for my part) I deem thee lost, O Pharaoh.
17:103- So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him.
17:104- And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land (of promise); but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.
.
.
.
Indeed how can it be otherwise, since the Quran originated as scattered commentaries on the (Christian) Bible.
As Ben said the real relevant difference is the one time historical event versus a continual, hegemonic decree of slaugher and subjugation until world domination which is the ultimate massage of what became of these sacttered Quran(s)[ie. commentaries] once they began to be regarded as a seperate superior revelation.

But it seems even your own holy book can be ignored if it serves your and your kind's ever growing uncontrollable pathological hatred.
Interesting.

And while we are at it, maybe you should take a look at the previous verse (17:103) too. It sort of reminds me of someone.
hmmm....

Bandeh at February 2, 2006 05:44 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

The difference of opinions among Iranians is as large (if not larger) than that of Israelis. "Softest of them" is an inaccurate and superficial judgement. I also see a difference between you and Ron but wouldn't try to compare you with one another. Given your lack of knowledge of the Iranian spectrum of thought, I'll try to explain it in Israeli political terms. I apologize beforehand if I am mistaken, but this is my perception from the discussions. If we were Israeli, AIS would be closer to Likoud, Armin (abstaining from the current discussions) to NRP/Mafdal, Shahram to Shinui, Heydarbaba to Shas, and I would be closer to the Am-Echad type Labor. Of course we have our own Communists, ultra-nationalists, Herut, Moledet and Tekuma-type leanings. In addition to that we have 23 types of Monarchists, some of whom believe that the current Crown-prince in exile is an Islamic Republic agent. Not to mention Washington and EU's current favorites the Mujahedine Khalgh (MKO) which tyranslates into the "Jihadists for the Masses of Iran", which has now emerged as the "democratic" alternative while still being listed as a terrorist organization by the state department. They have promised to make Iran democratic by killing everyone that teh Islamic Republic has left alive, except for their own ranks, who will then unanimously vote them into power.

Given that Iran is not a democracy, these different political leanings do not have a legal presence in Iran, but the differences do exist. Also, due to the negative impact of ideologies (religous, leftist) in general on Iranian political development, people prefer to stay non-partisan but have more independent perspectives.

In short your softest comment is irrelevant in my view. You are fully entitled to use it as you please however.

At least you can take away a piece of information about the Iranian political landscape from this discussion.

Ron, I hope you have also read this.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at February 2, 2006 05:52 PM [permalink]:

That was a good one bandeh!
(Although I probably will go Kadima!)

As for the MKo, I don't see anyone seriously considering them for anything. The Neocons-as you call tem- are especially against them which is very good. Mko are worsethan the mullahs. Much worse.

Anyway that was nice. :)

Ben at February 2, 2006 07:00 PM [permalink]:

Bandeh,

Your comparison between the different parties here and there is interesting, however, I have no lead on how accurate it is.
Nor any lead on how well you're familiar with Israeli parties.
But I'll give you this... It does make some sense now, I understand why heydarbaba was so angered by the Islam-violence connection.
If he's that kind of religious as you say (Shas) into Islam it also explains the deep hate I sense bursting out of him toward the Jews and the Jewish Bible..

When I compared your views and heydarbabas views over Israel (I refered to him as 'others' in that context because he isn't the only one), I labeled you as "softest" of them.
You obviously did not like this description and was cynical yourself ("resume"). You also refered to this label as: "an inaccurate and superficial judgement"

Why don't you just call it what it really is: simple.

I don't really have the will to share philosophical views that are counterproductive.
So when I see the possibility to describe something in one word rather than a full paragraph, I usually do so.

Make things short and simple. All is relative in this life/universe.
Relative to heydarbaba, you are indeed softer.
Thats it.
The fact that its so simple doesnt make it superficial.

I feel it's my obligation to clarify.
I'm being cynical alot of the time and although I try to restrain it, some people leave me no choice when they create a situation where the stupidity (if really exist or only in my view) leaves me baffled not knowing whether I should laugh or cry.
The first time I said "softest" I was serious.
The second time after the angry heydarbaba comment I was totally cynical.
Does it show? (oops I did it again)
I hope you get used to me with time.

Ron at February 2, 2006 07:08 PM [permalink]:

Bandeh,

I read it! But where am I?! I presume you put me so far to the right the Kahanists won't even sit next to me!

More generally though, I believe your need to draw parallels between the morality of Israeli society and Pal. society is misguided. If such a parallel really exists, so be it. But your only argument seems to be sticking your fingers in your ears and calling the alternative view racist.

Ben,

Connecting the dots for Hyderbaba won't help. The cynicism runs so deep that Hyderbaba and Bandeh feel compelled to attribute malicious motives to our soldiers in order that they won't be any more moral than Hamas and Hizbullah.

So if Tzahal soldiers shoot innocent children on purpose, they're racist. But if they don't shoot innocent children on purpose, then you're a racist for suggesting they're morally superior to arab terrorists. Take your pick!

heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 09:47 PM [permalink]:

To Ron and Ben,
I knew that you would not be able to back up your empty cliches. You two can piss out your brain all you want about Islam as a religion of violence without clarifying what it means but comes along some one like me and grabs you by the horn and now you can only run and hide. I gave you an opportunity to make yourself clear and to add some substance to your hollow statements. Both of you declined and instead attacked me for what?. I did not write your HOLY book , I did not turn your HOLY book into a real estate document; unlike you I did not want to shoot from the hip. I went right to your HOLY book and shed some lights on it. It is so obvious that your HOLY book gives clear instructions for ethnic cleansing, correct me if I am wrong, it is so obvious that somebody took the HOLY out of that book and replaced it with a real estate document for bunch of land thieves and thugs. Who other than a thug would go and do ethnic cleansing of an entire population
in the name of a HOLY book?.To me it sounds like a clever thief was adding some HOLY to his theft. So I am giving you , both of you another chance to go and clear your mind and try to substantiate your anti-Islamic rants. Slogans, cliches, empty hallow statements, will not cut the mustard kid. SO as I said you two can piss out your brain all you want about Muslims, about Palestinians being inferior ..it won't help you.

Bandeh,

I am not sure what that group is and as long as you remember that is your opinion not mine. I don't appreciate being put inside a mold of one type or another. A mold frames you and could close your mind , a good example is these two characters Ron and Ben.
Peace baby...:)

To Whom It May Concern,

To all the others who might be wondering why Ron and Ben are throwing all those personal attacks at me and in a layman's language why they went ape shit over my comments , I will post those comments here again. You read it and you be the judge.

heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 09:51 PM [permalink]:
This is the post that made Ron, who was using moral superiority arguement to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and stealing thier lands mad enough to completely lose his mind and turn into a rant-machine. Ron, I read somewhere that a mouse can't resist cheese. I don't even know why I said it here....anyway.. In my comment I argued that Jewish terrorists were running their horror shops and terror business long before anybody had heard the name of Arafat , Bin Laden or Hamas. I argued that Jewish terrorist organizations Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang who later joined forces and became what is now know as Israeli defense forces IDF will not be a good role model for Hamas to become a major leagues player because these Jewish terrorists went from terrorism to barbarism and as a result Israel is the most openly barbaric government in the Middle East. I gave the example of Menachem's bombing of King David hotel in which more than 90 people died majority of whom were civilians. Your response was that Menachem did it for the survival of Jewish people and he was a good terrorist. I have a hard time connecting the dots here. Can you explain how bombing a hotel in which Jewish people were in it , British soldiers were in it can be related to the survival of millions of Jews? Did I say British? Aren't they the same people that helped bring Jews to Palestine? Aren't they the same people who gave you land there? aren't they the same people who created this mess in Palestine that has plagued the whole region for decades? So how can you possibly relate killing the British soldiers and the 17 Jews who were there to the survival of millions of Jews? In fact the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun went ahead and in October 31 1946, bombed British Embassy in Rome, Italy, did I say British again? Aren't these the same British people who fed you and put bread on your table? You call killing them a big effort in the survival of millions of Jews?.There is an old saying in America that : "You don't bite a feeding hand". Too deep and too philosophical for you? how about this one; it is less complicated and easy to understand and it is not philosophical at all : "you don't shit where you eat". I think there is a lesson in this for Americans who have been financing the genocide of Palestinians for decades, who have been putting bread and butter on Israelis' tables for decades, who have been protecting Israelis for decades, who have been one of the major provider of legitimacy for Israelis for decades...At some point they should expect to receive their due appreciation from Israelis just like British did. It is a scary thought that someone like you with such a care free attitude toward hurting and killing those who helped you when the chips were down lives in Cleveland, Ohio. Of course the signs are there. Israelis are probably some of the most anti Americans in the Middle East. Those interested can go and read the comments of people like Ron in the www.israelinsider.com. Follow it for a couple of weeks you will be scratching your head in shock. Terrorist is a terrorist, Menachem , Sharon, Rabin, Shamir, Ben Gurion, Bin Laden, Zarqavi, Arafat, Yassin, Hamas, Hizbullah, all practiced terrorism, Arafat later gave a lip service but never stopped terrorism, Bin Laden is still sending us his greetings, Zarqavi the same, Hizbullah stopped terrorism and became a well respected, very dynamic social, political and religious power house in the Middle East ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 09:56 PM [permalink]:
and this is the post that made Ben change the subject and instead referred me to an anger management class. By the way every other sentence out of Ben's mouth was some derogatory statement about Islam , here I gave him a chance to add some substance to his hallow statements and instead he mounted personal attacks which are much easier to do than substantiate some nonsense that he has been parroting all along. Ben, In your comment you said: "But in this conflict, the Palestinian side does have lower morality simply because of the fact that their militant acts are being practiced according to a religion that is violent by nature, violent by origin and violent towards any non-muslims in general and violent towards Jews in specific" This statement is a loaded one and has been parroted by many Jewish fanatics and extremists Since you did not elaborate on it so let me dig into it and help you a little bit. First of all I find it interesting that a disgruntled land thief calls the victim of his theft "people with lower morality". I find it quite interesting that some one like you who defends a Jewish apartheid , the most openly barbaric government in the region , calls Islam the religion of violence. Of course this line has become quite boring but the other lines and lies are even more boring such as : "Israel was a land with no people for people with no land, ", "the good Arab,it is the dead one","Israeli soldiers do their best not to hurt the civilians..", ..."when Israeli officer pumped more than a dozen bullets into the body of a 13 year old girl it was by mistake:...these boring lines are never ending .. Your diatribe about violence in Islam is as vague as you possibly could get and that is for a good reason because you know you are not about to do truth any favor and to be vague is the best way to go about it . I hope you are not confusing such a vague statement with an intelligent statement. As soon as you elaborate on that and make it clear what you mean by that declaration we can talk about it. For now since you showed interest about religion and violence, let us read a little bit of your Torah, shall we?. Please everybody turn off your TVs and radios, no cell phones please, please keep quite and lets have a moment of solemn, because we are about to read a HOLY book, Torah, did I say HOLY book? yes HOLY book , so lets listen to it , Book of Numbers, chapter 33: :"Now the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho, saying," Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them : 'When you have crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their engraved stones, destroy all their molded images and demolish all their high places; you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land and dwell in it, for I have given you the land to posses.' " This is a clear instruction for ethnic cleansing and there is absolutely no two way of looking at this. To me , a HOLY!! book giving such a clear instructions for ethnic cleansing is the source of this problem not because some Muslim preachers don't like peace or consider Jews as pigs. In fact the Jewish fanatics and land thieves have been using this verse of Torah to sanctify and justify their land theft, and their barbaric treatment of Palestinians , the very people they have dispossessed. After all this barbaric behavior has clear instruction from their HOLY book and it is a religious ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ron at February 2, 2006 11:14 PM [permalink]:

Hydarbaba,

Please review the Comment Policy section

Ron at February 2, 2006 11:15 PM [permalink]:

Hydarbaba,

Please review the Comment Policy section

Bandeh at February 2, 2006 11:20 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

The only person who needs to get used to you is your wife/girl friend/partner/parents (whichever applies to the people closest to you). I just need to be able to understand what you are saying, and you seem to be expressing yourself quite well in English, so no problems there. Enjoy your evening.

Heydarbaba,

I wasn't trying to make a factual statement about your views, and it would be wrong of me to decide where they fit. That is why I indicated that this would be my perception from the discourse rather than a factual statement. I was also trying to illustrate to our Israeli friends that "us" and "them" is too simple a way to look at the word, with mixed success I guess.

Ron,

It does seem to me (from your discourse) that you are more on the right-wing ultra-orthodox religous side, but you are the final judge of your position on the political spectrum. I generally dislike religous views on life, since I cannot accept arguments that have their roots in the divine rather than human laws and values. I do not have anything against individual religous people, but I am allergic to any religion that interferes with the public sphere. I am allregic to the role of Sharia', Halakhah etc within public institutions, that's all. Peace.

Ben at February 3, 2006 09:50 AM [permalink]:

Bandeh,
I'll make you get used to me.. you can run but you can't hide (lol)

heydarbaba,
I don't understand why you have to repost discussions that are right here in this page for the seond time while every normal person could just scroll the page a bit up. Wheres the logic?
You are the one repeating yourself (literally) so I ask once more, how can you call me the parrot?
Do you think people can't scroll up if they are interested in the beginning of the discussion? Do you think they need to be spoonfed?

What more, you only reposted your own responses.. Talk about brainwash..You are an expert.
If I ever need a good advertiser for some product, I'll think of hiring someone like you.

(I think everyone should read this)
heydarbaba,
You refered to Ron and I as people with horns...
["but comes along some one like me and grabs you by the horn"]
-This reference toward Jews is a classic sign of anti-semitism.
Are you heydarbaba, anti-semitic?
Let me tell you a little story pal..
8 years ago when my friends big sister went to south america for a trip after the army service, she encountered these 3 egyptian tourists that seemed very friendly.
When they saw Hebrew writings on her bag they asked if she was Jewish. She replied with an obvious 'yes'.
Next thing they did was asking for permission to feel her head.
They were seriously trying to feel for horns with their palms.
Naturally, she backed away as soon as she realized what they're trying to do.
You know, I can't tell whats sadder...
The fact that they were so anti-semitic brainwashed poor fellows of the fact that they honestly were looking for horns..Yes they were serious and honest... They didn't try to insult her.
Some north americans are anti-semitic as well..
Here is a very funny example in a cool video you can watch at:
http://www.campchaos.com/show.php?iID=866

Then you might like to check out this:
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/sgp0183m.htm

Ben at February 3, 2006 10:01 AM [permalink]:

And to whomever wonders why I posted this video I'll clarify even more..
One of the catchiest lines in it about Jews is that:
"you must grab him by his horns"
Correlates perfectly with the quote from heydarbaba.

heydarbaba at February 3, 2006 08:52 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

if by anti semetisim you mean someone who is anti Arab or anti Jew, the answer is no I am not an anti semite...that reference of grabing you by the horn was part of an expression that says..."grab the bull by the horn". ...it is an expression and should not be taken literallay...next time i will use another expression so you won't misinterpret it and that would be ....."we locked horns"...and I would hope that you would not interprt it as if I have horns...but I can't use it till we " lock horns" first.... :)

Ben at February 4, 2006 09:57 AM [permalink]:

heydarbaba,
I believe theres an open position for a diplomat/politician at the nearest embassy. Go apply.
Bullfighting would look good on your resume.