freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 9:57pm:


well of course it does - now.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 9:57pm:


simplistic as always FD. I doubt you know much at all about the history, but if we go back to the time of the first arab-Israeli war in 1947-48, we're talking about an arab world which was far more united than it is today. Pan-arabism was very strong at that time, encouraged as it was by the British who sought to use it against the Germans during WWII. The arab league was formed in 1945, and at the time solidarity with the Palestinians and opposition to the zionist project was near the top of the agenda. It is no coincidence then, that the arab league's attack on Israel happened almost immediately after the zionists started attacking and ethnically cleansing arab areas of Palestine.

Thus to say the arab league's attack in 1948 had nothing to do with nationalist ties with the Palestinian arabs is to basically misunderstand the entire purpose of the arab league and the pan-arabic principles that it was founded on.

Also worth pointing out the fact that in that era most arab populations - and in particular the Palestinian arabs - had significant non-muslim populations, particularly christian. In fact the christians were particularly strong in the Palestinian resistance. However as Israel started asserting her destructive authority, the christians, who had the best contacts in the outside world, left the region in the largest numbers. Thats why you might notice that in the Palestinian diaspora, christians are heavilly over-represented.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 9:57pm:


After 1948, the arab nations had their own pragmatic reasons to want to go to war with Israel, and as usual, your simplistic assertion that it all boiled down to blind irrational religious zealotry is way off the mark. The two main belligerents during this time were Syria and Egypt - both of whom coincidentally had/have long-standing territorial disputes with Israel. For Syria its the Golan Heights - a highly desirable piece of fertile land - and for Egypt it was the Sinai. Israel annexed these two territories, and the wars that followed were primarily related to Egypt and Syria attempting to take back what was originally theirs.

After the 1973 war, Israel and their ever-reliable sponsor the US finally understood that Israel couldn't survive long term by continual aggression and recalcitrance. So they started forging treaties and agreements with all the major arab countries. The one hold-out has been Syria - since the Golan dispute has never been resolved. Overall though, Israel to this day enjoys cordial relations with all relevant arab nations, and in return for their subservience to Israel, these arab nations receive significant aid from the US. Its basically a sell-out - these arab nations have chosen to abandon their Palestinian brethren in return for US patronage. Thus, it can be seen here that the arabs willingness to resort to realpolitik over religious principle makes further mockery of your claim that the arabs are simply blinded by their desire to throw the jews into the sea.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 10:19pm:


Um yes Baron, and thats precisely the point - which once again you so spectacularly miss. The Israelis absolutely will continue relying on further US handouts - as you say - longer than just about anyone else in the region. So to rephrase one of your more particularly stupid statements,

Typical handout mentality from Israelis there in asking for more handouts

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 7:23pm:


Arabs are Muslims & Christians. Both have always fought against the Zionist invasion. On the other hand, many Zionists are not even religious Jews, but are secular or atheist Zionists, and even Christians.

It's not as obvious today, as the Zionists have almost completely ethnically cleansed all the Christians from Palestine, but in the first 30-40 years of the resistance, some of the top resistance fighters were Christian Palestinians. For instance one of the leading Palestinian resistance movements (PFLP) was founded by a Palestinian Christian, George Habash. Wadie Haddad was one of the PFLP's top hijackers.  Another more recent one is Chris Bandak, a member of al-Aqsa Martyrs Bridage, who is serving multiple life sentences in a Zionist dungeon for resisting the Zionist squatters. The assassin of Robert Kennedy was a Palestinian Christian too called Sirhan Sirhan.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 7:39pm:




Yes of course, the Arab / Israeli conflict is definitely over land.

Yes of course, religion has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict in the Middle East.
/sarc off







Hmmmm, now where could all those moslem Pal's possibly go, if they didn't have 'Palestine' ???

Hmmmm, the solution to that problem eludes me.
/sarc off


IMAGE







Koran 9.123





"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85


"And fight with them until.....religion should be only for Allah,..."
Koran 2.193


"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
hadithsunnah/bukhari #004.052.196

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2012 at 5:56am:





Abu,

Define 'war-mongering dogs', without being compelled to include all moslems in that definition;

How are moslems not; 'war-mongering dogs' ???

Is it because moslem 'war-mongering' [...so as to subjugate all of mankind to ISLAM], has been made 'lawful' and 'righteous', by Allah ?





Abu,

Isn't it true [i.e. isn't it what you are want to believe, and to promote], that it is only non-moslems who cause wars ?


Quote:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels.html








"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85


"And fight with them until.....religion should be only for Allah,..."
Koran 2.193


"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
hadithsunnah/bukhari #004.052.196


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of [i.e. for] those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76







+++







http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2012 at 8:51am:


This entire statement is completely false and you know it.

You know full well worship of Muhammad (pbuh) would be an ex-communicable sin according to Islam, and I think you know full well Muhammad (pbuh) was not a war monger. He brought an end to the war mongering the Arab tribes had been caught up in since history had been recorded for them, and united them into a single nation. Yes that involved being tough, but calling it war mongering is nothing but pure ignorance. I know you have not read a single Islamic history book, instead you just parrot the crap you get from jihadwatch.

Please do yourself a favour and seek knowledge before you speak, as it's only you who ends up looking like an ignorant buffoon.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2012 at 8:51am:


He slaughtered those Jews who assisted invading armies. No nation on earth at any point in history has ever permitted those who assist invading armies to continue to do so.

I don't know why on earth you're insinuating Muhammad (pbuh) should've, other than the fact you have no actual argument to make.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2012 at 8:51am:


In which respect? When the Makkans besieged him and attempted to assassinate him, yes he was a civilian. When he went to war against them, then he was a combatant I guess. The former was the norm though, not the latter. Contrary to your delusions above, Muhammad (pbuh) did not usually instigate hostilities, and when he did, like with the conquest of Makkah, it was almost completely bloodless. Please read some history.

If you are not that good at reading, then I think I've suggested it before, watch something like:

Empire of faith:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

It's made by non-Muslims, so should meet your bizarre criteria for only taking information about Islam from non-Muslims.

Or alternatively, since Hollywood-style sensationalism is your favourite..

The Message


It's made by Muslims, but is probably more of the kind of thing you'd get your history from, being a hollywood film and all.

Or maybe something more on your level, a cartoon:



By Muslims though, so I'm sure you consider it tainted.

Quote:


The Palestinians assisted invading armies. Israel let them live. That's a far higher standard than Muhammed set. And before you get started, it is not magically 'different' because you disagree on whether Israel has a right to exist. I am sure the people trying to undermine Muhammed thought the same way about the Caliphate.

If Israel chose to follow the Islamic standard, they would slaughter all the men and take the women as sex slaves. That is why you are a hypocrite for criticising them and for making militants out to be innocent civilians.

Muhammed was a war monger. Dreaming up a silly excuse for every single war he engaged in and every person he slaughtered and blaming everyone but Muhammed does not change this fact. It merely highlights your eagerness to apply a completely different set of standards to Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Muslims armies both past and present were as blood thirsty and horrible as any others. They even had a slave trade which rivalled any empire. Shall I post the details for you abu?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 24^th, 2012 at 10:22am:


your problem is that the utterly useless arab armies get smashed everytime they go to war. Apart from digging up oil and abusing women, arab nations dont have a lot of credits to their name in the last 3000 years. Certianly not in battle.