Seriously disagree on your take on Iraq being better off with Saddam. Remember they put him on trial and executed him??? I know, you will say we strongly encouraged it and that was the only reason they did it.

That was the point I was making to start with. We are fighting a religion not a country.

We will never get anywhere in defending ourselves or effectively fighting our enemy until we actually identify who our enemy is.

Oh, msHarmony, I just thought of something. When one country goes to war against another, there is only a small percentage of the population that actually engages in battle.

As in WWII, we were not enemies with the populous of the country that was going to war, we were enemies with the leadership of the country. Same thing applies when I say Islam is the enemy. It is not the majority of Muslims we are fighting, it is a minority same as in fighting another country. The biggest difference is, removing the leadership would not eliminate the problem. The teachings of Muhammad will still exist and there is nothing we can do that will change that. But make no mistake. Islam is at war with us simply because we are not Muslim. Actually, technically, Islam declared war on the entire world while Muhammad walked the earth. That war has never been called off. He wrote a letter to all the leaders of the world demanding they convert or they would be converted by force. Obviously they all thought it was a joke...

Yes you are right.

But what he said implied that if we left Israel, or better yet condemned them, the Muslim nations would have no problem with us. And we could live together in peace. That is what I laughed about...

there was a 'they' who assassinated martin luther king and malcolm too, doesnt mean we are better or were better off without them,,,

the teachings of Mohammed can be as distorted for personal reasons as the teachings of Christ can

If the islamic religion hates freedom, why is it so focused on AMerica,, are we the only place with freedom or democracy? did 9/11 happen JUST because muslims hate freedom, or did they happen because a murderous leader organized other vengeful people to punish us for what he perceived as AMERICAN transgressions against them?

It may be true that some muslims want just to be left to practice their own religion in their own way and to leave others do the same

it may be true that some muslims want to get rid of non muslim influence within their countries and cultures

it may be true that some of those muslims are willing to kill to get that independence

but that does not condemn ISLAM in my opinion nor make it my enemy
anymore than the history of slavery and hangings in america by 'christians' makes christianity my enemy

it is a murderous mindset, that can exist in certain people, and which they can successfully use bits and pieces of religious text to reinforce, that is an enemy

it is ignorance to the humanity in all of us and the worth of each mans life,, that is an enemy

I would never be under such an illusion, we cant even live 'in peace' amongst ourselves, I doubt any nation is a utopia which can manage to do so in any absolute terms

perhaps if we did not 'aid and abet' those that are perceived by many muslims to be terrorizing them, those extremists of the religion would not see us as an enemy,,,,

Any country that violates human rights should be condemed. Unfortunatly since we are a nation of human rights violaters it would be a massive hypocracy for america to condem anyone.

No other country has had more UN resoltuions against it than Israel and no other country has vetoed them more than america.


U.N. rights council passes resolutions condemning Israel
March 25, 2010

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- The United Nations Human Rights Council passed three resolutions that condemn Israel and another seeking reparations for Gaza Palestinians.

The United States opposed the resolutions, which passed by a large margin Wednesday and Thursday.

On Wednesday, the 47-member council passed resolutions that condemn Israel's "grave human rights violations" in the West Bank and Gaza, and call on Israel to pull out of territory claimed by the Palestinians; call on Israel to stop settlement building and evacuate existing settlements; and condemn Israel for the "systematic violation of the rights of the people of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights," according to Reuters.

A resolution passed Thursday called on Israel to compensate Palestinians in Gaza for damage and loss incurred during Operation Cast Lead.

Israel has been censured by the council, which was formed in 2006, more times than any other country.


http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/25/1011370/unhcr-passes-resolutions-condemning-israel

More propaganda from a vicious anti-semite. (Sarcasm intended)

How many times has this self same council passed a condemation resolution censuring PALESTINE for firing rockets into civilian living areas?

Could there possibly be a reason for that? These judgments aren't supposed to be even-handed. The Human Rights Council identifies the instigator of hostilities and condemns them. The Palestinians can't be faulted if the Sharonist-inspired Government always seems to be the trouble-makers. America isn't the only country that has accidentally elected a war-mongering regime.

that is one point of view out of many concerning the 'state of israel'


another is the cliche 'to whom much is given, much is expected'
The UN put a whole lot behind creating a 'state of israel' to the point of uprooting a whole lot of people from their homes and putting them into camps to make room for jewish immigrants

I can imagine, a little appreciation, is being expected,,,

Not sure of any of the details as to why the resolution was passed, but I do know how the Palestinians fight.

They will fire artillery into civilian areas of Israel. Obviously Israel doesn't care for this.

The problem Israel has is, the Palestinians will have their artillery surrounded by women and children. So if Israel attacks the one that fired, there are women and children killed. If they want to avoid killing civilians, they must send troops to take it out. Both actions are condemned by other countries and Israel, this tiny country completely surrounded by other countries that would happily wipe them off the face of the earth, is condemned as the bully.

To give you an idea of how small Israel is:

http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/maine.htm

And people condemn this tiny country mostly because they are trying to defend themselves and remain a viable country.

With today's weaponry, they really don't have the luxury of waiting until they are invaded. If they wait for that, they are pretty much overrun already.

Another map showing how much land they are being told to surrender. If they give this up, there is a strip of land 3 miles wide connecting Northern and Southern Israel.

http://maps-world.cn/israel-map.html

But then again there are a lot of people that feel the world would be better off without Israel. I think the Israelis may disagree with that assessment.

It helps to understand the size of Israel to understand why they defend themselves the way they do.

relatively speaking, israel is still about three times the size of palestine and has MANY more resources,

What I object to could not be called defense. IMO, the current intifada was deliberately provoked by Ariel Sharon with his little field trip to the Temple Mount in 2000. This, combined with the continuing settlement colonization of Gaza has provided the flashpoint for this conflict.

It's hard to see why Israel, a nuclear power with the full backing of the most powerful nation on earth, can be justified in feeling frightened of a 13th century civilization. Because of it's size, every citizen of Isreal lives on th front line of a war that Sharon started himself. It seems reasonable to expect a few bombs lobbed over the border from time to time.

Not sure why you are talking about Malcom and Martin Luther King. They are nothing like Saddam. Neither of them killed anyone. Saddam on the other hand.

I would agree with you. I think we would be better off if Marin Luther King lived a full life and was allowed to continue with and ministry of peace and acceptance. Can't speak for Malcom as I don't know enough about him. Not even sure how or when he died.

Please, Please, Please look at what Muhammad did and taught. It is not twisting his words to go and kill infidels. It is directly following his words. Those words will always exist.

I think the reason they hate America is they see us as the center of Western decay of morality. They - I mean the vocal Muslims - continue to declare America - The Great Satan. Can't speak for the ones that don't declare that publicly.

Islam's stated purpose is to convert the world to Islam and dominate the world. Not like other religions where you can choose or ignore it. You will be Muslim or you will be persecuted or killed (once the Islamic nation controls the world.)

Palestine is only the current country attacking them. EVERY other country that borders Israel has attacked them before. Look at the 70s. There are countries that don't even border them that have attacked them. They are not just looking at Palestine. They are constantly on alert for the other countries to take advantage of a momentary weakness.

WOW!!!!

You just said it is ok for Israel to be attacked and they should expect it and not retaliate. And only because every citizen is considered in the military therefore there are no civilian casualties in Israel. And it is ok to attack them because they are more technologically advanced.

You could just as easily say we should have expected and deserve the twin towers to be destroyed and therefore should not care.

Israel does not count on American support either. They expect us to abandon them when they really need us. If they depended on America they would wait for us to take action on the attacks they receive. How many times has Israel ignored our wishes and done what they wanted to anyway?

Nothing of the kind. Nothing that is happening in the mid-east is OK. Israel expects to maintain current conditions in Gaza without expecting push-back. That just isn't realistic.
{quote] You could just as easily say we should have expected and deserve the twin towers to be destroyed and therefore should not care. America should have expected 9/11. In fact, as I understand it, The President ignored warnings, not only from Osama Bin Laden himself, but from the security briefing ("Bin Laden determined to strike . . .") Apparently, Condi Rice could not envision that anybody would think of using airplanes as missiles, but there were apparently people in clinton's administration who did.They have not needed to. We supply them with enough money and arms to provide for their own defense. Can you imagine?! America launching an all out attack on the residents of Gaza as a result of a few bombs? Preposterous! That would be the kind of stupid move that started WWI.

where in islam does it state this, is it in the quran? or is it a repeated INTERPRETATION someone has made by taking bits and pieces of a religous book,,,?


I have read mohammeds words , as given by both sides, and they seem to be just as complex to me as my own bible and just as easily manipulated for personal agendas...

America should have expected 9/11. In fact, as I understand it, The President ignored warnings, not only from Osama Bin Laden himself, but from the security briefing ("Bin Laden determined to strike . . .") Apparently, Condi Rice could not envision that anybody would think of using airplanes as missiles, but there were apparently people in clinton's administration who did.They have not needed to. We supply them with enough money and arms to provide for their own defense. Can you imagine?! America launching an all out attack on the residents of Gaza as a result of a few bombs? Preposterous! That would be the kind of stupid move that started WWI.


First, my statement regarding the Twin Towers was talking about all American citizens expecting it and being ok with it. That would be the same deal.

As far as Gaza and their attacks, I am not sure, but I believe Israel claimed Gaza and West Bank as their territory from the inception of the country. Who actually is supposed to own it has been fought over ever since.

If you think about it in terms of the US and Mexico it would be like Mexico saying they should own: Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Utah Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana. The UN says Mexico should have them as well. Then when they launch an air strike that kills thousands (relative to size) we should expect it and not retaliate because we are the aggressors. That really isn't too far off the mark as Mexico did own California through Texas until the American / Mexican war which wasn't all that long ago either. (I selected those states to give a similar shape to the US as Israel would have.)

So really, to be fair we should give all that land back to Mexico. That is the same thing happening when the UN says Israel should do the same with West Bank and Gaza. We really had no claim to that land. We fought a war with Mexico and beat them. They turned over the land in a concession to us.

Actually, we should turn over control of the entire country the the Indians that were here before us.

So, unless you are willing to do either of these, we really should not condemn Israel from fighting for this contested land.

Yes they should be expecting attack and they do. That does not mean they cannot and should not retaliate.

Yes it is in the Quran and he did say this and more importantly did it. I am not sure why you are confused about it and can't find it.

The Quran even states how to divide up the spoils of war.

First, my statement regarding the Twin Towers was talking about all American citizens expecting it and being ok with it. That would be the same deal.

As far as Gaza and their attacks, I am not sure, but I believe Israel claimed Gaza and West Bank as their territory from the inception of the country. Who actually is supposed to own it has been fought over ever since.

If you think about it in terms of the US and Mexico it would be like Mexico saying they should own: Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Utah Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana. The UN says Mexico should have them as well. Then when they launch an air strike that kills thousands (relative to size) we should expect it and not retaliate because we are the aggressors. That really isn't too far off the mark as Mexico did own California through Texas until the American / Mexican war which wasn't all that long ago either. (I selected those states to give a similar shape to the US as Israel would have.)

So really, to be fair we should give all that land back to Mexico. That is the same thing happening when the UN says Israel should do the same with West Bank and Gaza. We really had no claim to that land. We fought a war with Mexico and beat them. They turned over the land in a concession to us.

Actually, we should turn over control of the entire country the the Indians that were here before us.

So, unless you are willing to do either of these, we really should not condemn Israel from fighting for this contested land.

Yes they should be expecting attack and they do. That does not mean they cannot and should not retaliate.


About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

The findings emerged after house-to-house interviews conducted by the ICRSS during the third week of November. About 2,000 people from Baghdad (82 percent), Anbar and Najaf (9 percent each) were randomly asked to express their opinion. Twenty-four percent of the respondents were women.

Only five percent of those questioned said Iraq is better today than in 2003. While 89 percent of the people said the political situation had deteriorated, 79 percent saw a decline in the economic situation; 12 percent felt things had improved and 9 percent said there was no change. Predictably, 95 percent felt the security situation was worse than before.

Source: upi


Continue reading at NowPublic.com: 90% of Iraqis say they were better off under Saddam Hussein | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/90_of_iraqis_say_they_were_better_off_under_saddam_hussein#ixzz1JdaOTxPQ