Israel

[Thracian]

I was going to mention her but thought better of it!

She still sends shivers down my spine.

..........or is that the acid

I always thought Mrs Thatcher with her "right to buy" policy was the one politician who ever gave the working man the chance to have some real money!i

Her War in The Falklands was a result of a direct attack on British territory and there was cross-Party support for it at the time as I recall.

Nor do I much remember the conflict involving the bombing of innocents or the mistreatment of prisoners etc though I'm sure there were incidents.

There was of course the supposedly dreadful Poll Tax and now we have the Council Tax and God knows how many stealth taxes (and a lot longer to work before we put any money in our own pockets) but, ah well, that's progress.

Here's to the next 10 years of Mr Grin and Blair It and hopefully the Presidency and finally, a place on God's right hand.

[Daggers]

I always thought Mrs Thatcher with her "right to buy" policy was the one politician who ever gave the working man the chance to have some real money!i

Her War in The Falklands was a result of a direct attack on British territory and there was cross-Party support for it at the time as I recall.

Nor do I much remember the conflict involving the bombing of innocents or the mistreatment of prisoners etc though I'm sure there were incidents.

Yup, you're right...her middle name was compassion

[Head Honcho]

I always thought Mrs Thatcher with her "right to buy" policy was the one politician who ever gave the working man the chance to have some real money!i

Her War in The Falklands was a result of a direct attack on British territory and there was cross-Party support for it at the time as I recall.

Nor do I much remember the conflict involving the bombing of innocents or the mistreatment of prisoners etc though I'm sure there were incidents.

There was of course the supposedly dreadful Poll Tax and now we have the Council Tax and God knows how many stealth taxes (and a lot longer to work before we put any money in our own pockets) but, ah well, that's progress.

Here's to the next 10 years of Mr Grin and Blair It and hopefully the Presidency and finally, a place on God's right hand.

I was in the Falklands myself so I won't argue with you there, it was just everything else.

Oh yeh I remember she let the ordinary man in the street buy his council house then stuck the interest rates up to 15% and half of them got repossessed.

[Cobbo]

When something's out of order don't you just replace it with a better, improved model?

[Katy]

When something's out of order don't you just replace it with a better, improved model?

Only if there's no other way of it being fixed, for example a washing machine or microwave.

[Cobbo]

Only if there's no other way of it being fixed, for example a washing machine or microwave.

So in this case, replace yeah?

[Katy]

So in this case, replace yeah?

Yeah, YEAH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

[Daggers]

So in this case, replace yeah?

Well, one could always use another one instead.

[Steven]

Israeli raids kill 828, injure 3,200 in Lebanon in three weeks - official. A proportionate response? <_<

Source

[Ultra]

It even set me wondering whether the World would be beter run by women leaders, more particularly women who are mothers.

My wife consistently weeps at the endless slaughter she sees on television and when I asked her to explain her feelings she said it was basically because she was a mother.

If men had to go through nine months of children growing in their bellies and then go through the pain of giving birth and the commitment of feeding/changing those kids then they wouldn't be so keen to wipe life out in her view.

Golda Meir was a mother, and the Israeli PM who seized the West Bank, Sinai and Gaza in 1967.

Margaret Thatcher was a mother, fought the Falklands War with Argentina, and backed the US in plans for the first Gulf War.

Indira Gandhi was a mother, who as Indian PM launched a clampdown on Sikh "extremism" killing hundreds (and was eventually murdered in retaliation).

Not much evidence of female "pacifism" there!

[Ultra]

Not quite true, PLO accepted Israel but what about Hamas.....it was a very good tactical ploy, the political front accepts Israel and it's temporal\armed force Hamas carries on as usual!!! As we know PLo and Hamas are very well linked!!!

I'm not saying Israel is a saint it also has alot to answer to, but it cannot trust it's neighbours, the enemy it has does not play by rules, or morals.................

Complete nonsense. The PLO were the dominant force, but Israel considered it was too extreme, and sought to undermine and humiliate it at every opportunity, thus weakening its popular support.

It succeeded in this, but the Palestinian people turned to the most readily available alternative - which was Hamas.

Not quite the result Israel was looking for.

[Ultra]

Don't quote me selectively.

You're lucky. He called me an anti-Semite a few pages back.

[Daggers]

STOP THE MASSACRES! IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE NOW!

[Daggers]

You're lucky. He called me an anti-Semite a few pages back.

That's you and Mel Gibson then

[DanTheFoxBhoy]

I always thought Mrs Thatcher with her "right to buy" policy was the one politician who ever gave the working man the chance to have some real money!i

Her War in The Falklands was a result of a direct attack on British territory and there was cross-Party support for it at the time as I recall.

Nor do I much remember the conflict involving the bombing of innocents or the mistreatment of prisoners etc though I'm sure there were incidents.

It's dangerous to forget the things that matter in favour of having a lot of money in your pocket - though dosh does help to some extent! Thatcher's government oversaw the H blocks, and what's worse is she defended her actions. If it weren't for the steely resolve of those inside she might actually have suceeded in her aim as well.

While I'm a centre leftist I must say I can't stand hard left chardonnay-swilling upmarket bar lounging trotskyites either. It's no secret that the hard left are anti-semetic - their student unions and university groups have no shame in raising their red banners to bag out Israel, and they rave on about belligerent attacks by Israel without acknowledging the cause or even that there are two sides to the conflict.

It's all about their support of 'Palestine over Israel,' which is clearly the approach of some posters in this thread who first and foremost hold their sympathies to Islamic jihad before really taking an impartial look at the situation, and this kind of approach will obviously not help in understanding the situation.

[moseeds]

Right, hello all. I've been away and noticed you lot have been mightily busy in the meantime. I'm having to reply to messages back from page 11-ish, so bear with me while I take over the next page or two. Thanks!

[moseeds]

Moseeds, I should have been clearer, what i'm saying is that Izlamisation (ie radicalisation) of your faith is spreading, there are those that are moderates and then there are those that are moderate and become more radical. Yes, I do say that there is a underlying jihad of conversion, and there always has been, it's a part of Islam, (just like christain missionaries), to teach the infedils of there ways and ensure they understand mohammed is the prophet of god....I do apologise Moseeds if I have got this wrong, I have read alot about Islam and the quran and hadiths but alot is interpretable.

I do not know of this “underlying Jihad of conversion” as you put it. Where is it? Yes Muslims are becoming more radical and extreme, and in reality are therefore deviating from their own religion.

I no nothing on Moghul EMpire and it's history only it's relation to Sikhism, and many were forced to convert or die a death. Moghul's were tyrants, they would enslave women for there concubines, enslave non muslims and death penalty to infedils was common. If you were a muslims however, a decent paid job and feeedom was on offer. They turned a saintly religion of Sikhism into one of saint soldiers, one which kicked there ass under exceptional circumstamces and booted them out from India, once and forever!!!!

The Mughal empire and the Sikh history is intermingled. I was in the British Museum in London on the weekend and interestingly they too admit there were no mass forced conversions as some historians like to believe. Think about it logically – it would not work in their favour. Successive Mughal emperors deviated from Islam and ended up creating their own religions – most famously the emperor Akbar. In relation to the Sikh religion, as you can appreciate, the Sikh people were a threat as a nation to the Mughal empire. If you read about Sikh history, you will see it becomes more revolutionary and militant as time progressed under the Mughal rule, hence stories about Sikh martyrdom etc becoming commonplace, culminating in the creation of the Khalsa.

Power and land may well be the driving force of a conquest but it's always in the name of religion, those soldiers do not see the money they see themselves as fighting for there faith!!!! The Sikhs wer no exception, they conquered all the way to Afghan, the King did for revenue, the soldiers were all saint soldeirs!!!

Fighting for land is never in the name of religion only greed. Only fighting against oppression and hence for God is justified.

The devious means are those used by those cowards that preace hate and want to commit people for suicide missions and dare not themselves, perfect example is Omar Bakri. There are those not all that manipulate the weak ie Alijah Mohammed, manipulated Islam, in stating white people are pigs in relation to Islam( even though mohammed was white in complextion), and as we know converted many black people using such misconceptions. HUT\HT are evil c*nts, I know from first hand, there methods as I know are very covert, majority of there supporters are underground ie will not openly admit.

Elijah Mohammed is not a Muslim, nor was he ever a Muslim. He proclaimed himself a prophet and made his own Quran. Read about Malcolm X, why he realised the Nation of Islam was wrong and why Islam was right for him. Hizb ut Tahrir (HT) is not liked by the majority of Muslims and rightly so. I am not surprised you have hatred for them. The same goes for al-Mouhajiroun and any of these other dodgy groups the press seem to keep asking questions to with regards to Islam. It is like asking the National Front about the governments immigration policy and then proclaiming that as the nations mood.

How can anyone condone Sharia Law, in part or full??? There are muslims that want to implement it, for eg, the many muslim parties in Pakistan for example. Like I say, If religion is the basis for your life, it will only isolate you and any one else from outside that religion will be seen with distrust and fear. You lose all clarity and independant thought as the 'book' does all the thinking for you!!!

Why? Well I can give you the really long explanation or the really short one. The short one is it protects society and will lead the believing communities to paradise. I don’t think FoxesTalk is the correct place to talk theology. With regards to what you dislike about certain aspects about Shariah I will try and answer that later because Thracian has big issues with it too!

Don't get me wrong, I do not agree with US foriegn policy etc, but even the Israeli's are protesting against the current campaign against there own.

Yes, there are many Israelis and many Jews around the world that can’t believe what the state of Israel is doing.

[moseeds]

Unlike the Palestinians/Israelis the English have seriously tried to sort out and overcome the problems in Northern Ireland instead of continually harking back into history to make solutions even harder...and that comes from someone who's daughter in law's father's carpet business in Belfast was blown up by the IRA because of refusal to pay protection money (so I understand).

Yes the English did try and sort it out. Only after a hell of a lot of killing. You talk as if the Ireland situation is relatively new. The Irish were revolting ever since they were conquered, culminating in the creation of Ireland and now with the small matter of N.Ireland left. People hark back to history because they remember it. Sometimes it is hard to forget, it is human nature. It is easier said than done to “forgive and forget”.

And what you say simply seems to deflect responsibiity for Muslim actions by pointing to the flaws of others when, really, the voices of reason should set standards for their own societies.

I repeat my assertion that your argument goes as follows:

Muslims are worse than Israelis, therefore they deserve it (in Palestine and Lebanon). I have not deflected away from the argument. This thread was titled “Israel” and I assumed it was regarding the Israeli campaign in Lebanon. I have tried to stick to that topic but did not believe I was going to have to defend over a billion Muslims. But so be it, it’s interesting so I will continue to do so.

So much shit is written about slavery - for a start black Africans were perfectly happy to round up fellow blacks, transport them and sell them, while treating them barbarously every step of the way just to fill their pathetic purses. They often keep women as sex slaves now as do people of many races but the one doesn't justify the other.

I don’t know how you know that many African men keep women as sex-slaves. I don’t think the number of black Africans involved was as many as the number of White people involved. And, do you seriously believe if there were no Black people to help the White people the slave trade would have stopped?!! Of course not, the White guys would have just done the dirty work themselves if they needed to! So to say the black people should be blamed just as much is a weak argument.

[moseeds]

Nobody comes out of slave trading with any credit but there were whites treated as slaves by white families and white "masters" just the same and, besides, how the hell can we anyone take responsibity for events so long past?.

I don’t recall an era of history where millions upon millions of white people were transported from Europe or elsewhere and then forced into labour. How can you take responsibility? Easy – let everyone see how you have learned from the past.

I don't know enough about the Crusades or Apartheid (SA still seems to be a mess) but I think every decent thinking Englishman believes that the Inquisition, the Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in various places were all actions which were a disgrace to the human race. Utterly vile and indefensible.

I have said that although I essentially try to follow the Commandments of the Bible I believe that all religion has in many ways had a negative and self-serving influence on mankind instead of what should have been a n influence for good and the betterment of all peoples in the world.

I can say the same about Capitalism, Feudalism, Communism, etc, etc. In the end, the greed of man does not adhere to any religious doctrine.

But what you say deflects not one iota from the horrors of Islamic society. The Kurdish slaughter, Saddam Hussein's catalogue of crime against fellow Iraqi's the Taliban's medieval attitudes to meting out justice, the indefensible treatment of women with honour killings, stonings and so on just because of some man made enforcement of some man-made ideals.

And never a word of criticism - always a simple comparative deflection.

Yes there are horrors of Islamic society. But I ask again – How in the world does this justify Israeli bombing of Lebanon? I fail to comprehend. The Kurdish slaughter was nothing to do with Islam, they too are Muslims, it’s a matter of land. Which parts of Taliban’s justice did you disagree with? Honour killings have nothing to do with Islam. Go to India and Pakistan and every community – Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc has this problem, not just Pakistanis. You only hear about it from Pakistani families in this country and so equate it with Islam. Stoning are for adultery or homosexuality – the issue is obviously with Capital Punishment – or is it you agree with Capital Punishment but not with stones but rather the chair or injection?

I have no misgivings about voicing my shame at some of the "western" atrocities mentioned. Right up to date I think Tony Blair has blackened our nation's name with his, to my mind, illegal actions. I never voted for such a smug, lying, hypocritical and self-satisfied arsehole to run this country and I cannot stand his loathsome face. He certainly doesn't represent me in any shape or form.

Ditto that. I wish sometimes he was mistakenly run over by a bus.

[moseeds]

I welcome Moseeds replies which, to a non Muslim, are enlightening whether I agree or not but might take a while to absorb.

I’ll try my best to answer your questions, but I’m no expert scholar on Islam or the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Perhaps Moseeds or anyone else would enlighten me further because there are three other questions about the Muslim faith I have always wanted to be clear on and I have always felt the interpretation of Muslim doctrine seems so contradictory and inconsistent.

There are over 1 billion Muslims on planet earth. There are 2 major sects, Sunni (90% majority) and Shia (the other 10% mostly). Sunnis do not like Shias and in many cases do not regard Shias as Muslims, and vice versa. Many Sunni Muslims hate Shias more than G.W. Bush, I think that tells you a lot. Why this schism exists is a long story. The Sunnis are further divided into 4 “schools of thought” but there is no hatred or anything as such – just different interpretations of certain aspects of religion and daily life, hence why you may find different “Fatwas” (jurisprudence rulings) pertaining to certain issues depending on which school you follow. The Shias are also divided into schools of thought, based mainly esoteric lines.

For instance I still don't know whether the Koran essentially champions peace and abhors violence or whether it encourages violence and in fact champions the sort of apparently mortal sins which those who claim to represent its words commit. Perhaps someone would help on that one too.

I suggest you read the Quran and determine for yourself. After a few short verses all your questions will be answered. If you want to know where to find a translation, send me a private message. In my opinion, after reading a page or 2 you will realise the simple message in the Quran is 1)There is no god but Allah 2) He has no partners 3) Follow the life of righteousness so you can be assured heaven 4) Allah is the most merciful and forgiving. That is pretty much it! Also, suicide condemns the one who commits it to hell.

[moseeds]

Anyway, the questions (which are asked of people who obviously know and out of genuine interest):

a) Can a Muslim reject his/her religion and move in another direction freely?

b) Can the children of Muslims or of Muslim/non Muslim parentage be brought up to follow any or no religion?

c) Can a Muslim sell his house to a non Muslim?

d) Are non-Muslims welcome to live in "Muslim" lands?

PS: What with wars already ongoing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, etc I see there's now a Holy War been declared by the Muslims in Somalia. Where next I wonder.

A - In short, no – but there are different opinions regarding this.

B – A muslim woman cannot marry a non-muslim. A muslim man can marry a Christian or Jew. Therefore the children must also be brought up as Muslims.

C – Yes and vice-versa. Otherwise most of us lot would be homeless.

D – Yes. If any “Muslim” countries are not allowing it then it is their own idea and not one taken from religion.

[moseeds]

the goalposts keep being moved on this thread.........any criticism of islam is countered by another reference to an atrocity by israel........but i suppose that is what the thread is all about;

Yes the goalposts keep on moving. Away from what Israel is doing in Lebanon and towards condemning the entire Muslim population and therefore somehow justifying Israel’s unjustifiable terror campaign.

we haven't experienced the incidious long term terror inflicted on the citizens of israel and i think it is hard to imagine how we would react to the years of instability in an area where all sides seem intransigent

We haven't experienced the insidious long term terror inflicted on the citizens of Palestine and i think it is hard to imagine how we would react to the years of instability in an area where all sides seem intransigent.

There is no high ground to be had here, everyone involved is losing...especially the innocent civilian men, women and children on both sides.

I think this comment should be put across banners and waved to the world.

I am not going to defend any religion. The world would be a nicer place without them.

What, like with Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? Pinochet? Franco? Mussolini? These guys are responsible for more deaths than all religions put together.

The thread has degenerated into a 'my belief system kicks your belief systems ass', full of 'have you stopped beating your wife' style questions.

There seems to be a lack of empathy for alternate points of view if you ask me...

Yep, you speak sense mate.

[moseeds]

Moseeds, why do you try to justify everything Muslims do wrong by referring to what the West or others do wrong?

Many of us have shouted long and hard against things that Bush, Blair, the CIA, MI5 and whoever else have done wrong but that doesn't help sort your fanatics out, does it?

Do you agree with beheadings?

Do you agree with honour killings?

Do you believe in stonings for erring women?

Do you believe charity workers should have their throats slit or whatever?

As long as the fanatics have a cause then they will exist.

Beheadings – are you talking about gripping people off the street in Iraq and then chopping their heads off for the TV? No that is not allowed nor do I agree with it.

Honour killings are not Islamic.

Stonings are for married men or women who commit adultery. Someone can only be charged with adultery if there are FOUR witnesses – so you imagine how often this law *SHOULD* be used – like I said in a previous post, much of what we hear as “Shariah” is in fact personal whims and vendettas.

No, charity workers should not have their throats slit.

If you went to University then presumably you have a good brain as, I imagine does Ultra. That being the case, don't you ever want to work out life and your opinions for yourself instead of being dictated to via someone else's interpretation of the Holy Koran?

That touches on why I asked previously whether Islam was a religion which fostered peace or hatred because I have heard such conflicting opinions and I cannot see how both could be right.

The Brain Game keeps saying my brain is 66 years old, so I don’t know about the good brain bit. I have contemplated the meaning of life like everyone else and I just don’t see how there cannot be a creator. Regarding interpretations, what you say about working out what it means for yourself is exactly where the radicalism comes from – people become free to interpret as they wish, to the extent of making suicide bombing “halal” (permissible). That is not to say you should not read and understand the Quran yourself, unlike early Christianity there is no clergy in (Sunni) Islam to monopolise the knowledge. However, the Quran must be understood in the context of the Prophet Mohammed’s lifetime to understand the implications of its message, This is where the radicalists go wrong because they do not have thorough knowledge.

[moseeds]

I can with the Bible. It was compiled from stories told long ago, in different times, with different values and utterly contradicts itself in places.

The Muslims also believe what you just said and therefore do not recognise its authority as a law any longer.

Consequently I follow my own convictions, my own rules although, as stated before, they are broadly centred around the Commandments which seem to appear in other religions anyway in various forms.

So, in effect, your morals are guided by religion – the commandments appear in other religions because it is our belief that these are morals with which to live by, as accorded to us by God - over time (like as you say with the Bible) the religions deviated from this original message.

Apologies in advanced if this is turning bit theological for your viewing pleasure!

[moseeds]

I sympathise for those (palestinains) and I think the general public do, but suicide bombers and killing of civilians and it's failure to condemn such killings gloss's over there plight. I feel sorry for those who have no want for violence and want to get on with there lives, not those that want to kill innocent women and children in the name of jihad\Islam. Like I have said in previous post it's the few\minoirty that cause the most destruction..........but for those majority to sit there and do nothing about there minority kin and kind is also unjust....................just because it is thought to be in the name of Islam or against Islamic opppression is not justification.

Suicide bombing is condemned. Fighting against oppression is justified. You refer to the Sikhs fighting against the Mughals and called them martyrs/saints. What do you think the Palestinians are doing?

I would like to ask you a question, if the tables were turned and the Muslims nations had nuclear and superior weaponry and Isreal was seamingly defenseless, how long do you think Israel would last???? Answer: 1 second, the muslim nations would destroy it without any consequences at all, UN or anyone....mass murder of infedils is not punishable by there law!!! Yes, Israel is no saint but it has a great enemy that will not rest until it's end, if sides want peace once as said by many on this site, one must respect one's right to exist is fundamental!!!

You are asking me hypothetical questions which are pointless. I don’t know what would have happened. Israel is in a position at this moment in time to completely obliterate all surrounding nations through nuclear weapons and one of the world’s strongest and most advanced military. But they haven’t.