Longer comments will be shown in part in this pop-up window and are available fully at the permalink of this entry. Please Read our comment policy for a complete list of rules!

Comments on ‘Sad Day for the Palestinians’
heydarbaba at January 29, 2006 12:02 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Shahram Kholdi at January 29, 2006 03:15 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
An Iranian Student (AIS) at January 30, 2006 07:07 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Craig at January 30, 2006 02:18 PM:
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:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
at January 31, 2006 10:51 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Craig at January 31, 2006 03:39 PM:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
heydarbaba at February 1, 2006 12:01 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
heydarbaba at February 1, 2006 12:05 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ron at February 1, 2006 01:35 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ron at February 1, 2006 01:35 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Shahram Kholdi at February 1, 2006 05:10 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ron at February 1, 2006 11:39 AM:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ron at February 1, 2006 06:43 PM:
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:
Ron, I am not calling you a liar.
Ben at February 1, 2006 07:04 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 1, 2006 07:11 PM:
And a half truth is a lie.
Ben at February 1, 2006 07:45 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 1, 2006 07:55 PM:
Please forgive me for this awful typo. Religion of 1.2 billion.
Ron at February 1, 2006 08:01 PM:
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:
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,... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Bandeh at February 1, 2006 08:32 PM:
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,... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 1, 2006 08:35 PM:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Shahram Kholdi at February 1, 2006 09:55 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 1, 2006 10:07 PM:
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:
Ben, Ever read Old Testament?
Bandeh at February 1, 2006 11:54 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 2, 2006 05:58 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
N at February 2, 2006 06:00 AM:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
AIS at February 2, 2006 06:13 AM:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Bandeh at February 2, 2006 07:34 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 2, 2006 10:48 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 2, 2006 11:00 AM:
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:
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:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 11:27 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ron at February 2, 2006 11:39 AM:
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:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
An Iranian Student (AIS) at February 2, 2006 05:30 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Bandeh at February 2, 2006 05:44 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
An Iranian Student (AIS) at February 2, 2006 05:52 PM:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ron at February 2, 2006 07:08 PM:
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:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 09:51 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
heydarbaba at February 2, 2006 09:56 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ron at February 2, 2006 11:14 PM:
Hydarbaba, Please review the Comment Policy section
Ron at February 2, 2006 11:15 PM:
Hydarbaba, Please review the Comment Policy section
Bandeh at February 2, 2006 11:20 PM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 3, 2006 09:50 AM:
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... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ben at February 3, 2006 10:01 AM:
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:
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:
heydarbaba, I believe theres an open position for a diplomat/politician at the nearest embassy. Go apply. Bullfighting would look good on your resume.