UN Warned Israel SEVENTEEN TIMES That School Was a Refugee Camp - 16 People Murdered

a reply to: Stuyvesant

So let's discuss the information in the link and cut the banter. Yes, the Wikipedia link that references Islamic Terrorism. In particular, the part (2/3 down this rather large Wikipedia entry) which is headed as "Examples of Attacks." They provide a long list (but by no means a complete list) of recent examples of Islamic terrorism.

Do you think they were justified? Can you excuse them? Do you still believe, after reading the link and examining the data, that the one underlying link to all of those attacks was not Islam?

I'm really rooting for you to do well, here. Make your case.

I took umbrage with the Wikipedia link because as I mentioned it smacks of laziness. It doesn't take much effort to just throw in a link from Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia sparingly and when I do I usually cite the articles and links they've used in the article themselves.

You stated:

Look at the history of Islamic conquest since its inception. Islam has 1400 years of solid bloodshed and attempts at conquering other lands and spreading it's diseased, psychotic religious notions.

Spare me the "coexistence" baloney. Islam doesn't co-exist. It conquers.

As I already previously mentioned - in your post above you did not refer to terrorism, but then suddenly tried to change what you were saying. Your posts are quite clearly there to see.

The section you have mentioned in this Wikipedia article of examples of Islamic terrorist attacks only starts in 1983 which is only 31 years ago.

Do you think they were justified? Can you excuse them? Do you still believe, after reading the link and examining the data, that the one underlying link to all of those attacks was not Islam?

It lists 45 separate attacks and I don't have nearly enough knowledge or time to go through them all - but I will try, which is more than you have done. And remember I'm merely quoting from the source you provided. I in no way excuse them or condone them. They took place in many different countries under many different circumstances and contexts and to just suggest that they are somehow all the same merely because the perpetrators were Muslim is shallow and narrow minded.

1993 World Trade Centre Bombing

From the article:

According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'.[8] These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a pledge by the United States to end interference "with any of the Middle East countries' interior affairs." He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but this was justified because "the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one."

Interesting and timely. So that was apparently their reasons. Not just because they were Muslims.

1983 United States Embassay Bombing

Again, from the article:

The attack came in the wake of the intervention of a Multinational Force, made up of Western countries, including the U.S., in the Lebanese Civil War, to try to restore order and central government authority.

A pro-Iranian group calling itself the Islamic Jihad Organization took responsibility for the bombing in a telephone call to a news office immediately after the blast. The anonymous caller said, "This is part of the Iranian revolution's campaign against imperialist targets throughout the world. We shall keep striking at any imperialist presence in Lebanon, including the international force."

Again, yes they are Muslims but I don't see anything to suggest they were doing it because their religion decreed that they should do so...

Khobar Towers Bombing

Days after the attack, military commanders briefed soldiers and airmen at Khobar that the U.S. had received anonymous communications from an organization claiming to have carried out the Riyadh attack. The attackers claimed their goal was to get the United States' military to leave the country, and that Khobar Towers would be attacked next if troop withdrawal did not begin immediately.

2002 Bali Bombings

An audio-cassette purportedly carrying a recorded voice message from Osama Bin Laden stated that the Bali bombings were in direct retaliation for support of the United States' war on terror and Australia's role in the liberation of East Timor.[4]

I'm seeing a sad pattern here...


A particularly tragic, abhorrent one now:

Beslan School Hostage Crisis

The hostage-takers were the Riyadus-Salikhin Battalion, sent by the Chechen separatist warlord Shamil Basayev, who demanded recognition of the independence of Chechnya at the UN and Russian withdrawal from Chechnya.

Westgate Shopping Mall Attack

The Islamist group al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for the incident, which it characterised as retribution for the Kenyan military's deployment in Somalia.

All terrible, tragic, shameful attacks. But all with very different motives and different circumstances. To suggest that the bombings in Bali or the hijacking of Air France Flight 8969 or the Beslan School Siege are exactly the same is just ridiculous and absurd. I picked that selection purely at random but they all seem to share a common theme beyond that of them being perpetrated by Muslims. They all resented interference in or occupation of their countries by foreign forces.

Such violence is repulsive and solves absolutely nothing and merely engenders more violence and hatred. But think for a moment...if your country was invaded and occupied by another, would you sit back and do nothing? How would many Americans feel in such circumstances? Would they resort to violence? Would they also try to rationalise attacks on innocent civilians to further their cause?

When clicking on the link in the same article to this page of list of Islamic terrorist attacks it only begins in 1993.

The link you provided therefore does not substantiate your claim that "Islam has 1400 years of solid bloodshed and attempts at conquering other lands and spreading it's diseased, psychotic religious notions." If it does please provide evidence - unless conquering a land itself now counts as terrorism in which case almost every country in the world including your own is guilty of terrorism.

So there...I rest my case.

THANK YOU for confirming and agreeing that all of those attacks were perpetrated by adherents to Islam (Muslims). And I am glad you don't excuse them or condone them.

Yes, I AGREE with you, they are all *different* attacks, *different* circumstances, *different* motivations, all of that. But there is an inderlying Islamic (religious) foundation it is supported on. Wait for it.... Wait for it....

Again, yes they are Muslims but I don't see anything to suggest they were doing it because their religion decreed that they should do so...

Finally. We get there.

The religion does decree it - and if you have studied it as you claim, then you know it. It is the Islamic theological concept of Jihad. I'm too lazy to post a wiki link.

...they all seem to share a common theme beyond that of them being perpetrated by Muslims. They all resented interference in or occupation of their countries by foreign forces.

Wait, I thought you said you were not going to excuse them or condone them. But now you bring up the interference and occupation of foreign forces - as if to imply that these Islamic terrorist incidents were justified by that.

Let me put it to you straight. Islam commands Jihad. Many Muslims [enough to make it a very serious world-wide problem] define Jihad as armed resistance against whatver those Muslims consider to be persecution & resistance.

It's a self-referencing disease.

Hey - maybe 75% of the Muslim poulation define Jihad differently. Maybe they view it as an internal struggle for praxis, obedience, holiness, or whatver. I'm just fine with that. Maybe they view it as a social struggle, building the perfect Islamic society, etc. I'm okay with that, too (as long as it's within the confines of their borders, and not the historical bloodthirsty conquest/expansion Islam is known for).

But there is a seriously large contingent (20%? 25%? 10%?) of West-hating, death-dealing Muslims out there. I'm talking about 160 million Muslims, and that's if you take the low number of 10% - who are pro-violent and want nothing more than the absolute destruction of the Jews, the destruction of the West, and heck, half of the destruction of the East.

It is those people who need to surrender or be destroyed. Maybe if the larger population of "peace-loving" Muslims fixed this, the West wouldn't have to.

If the big threat was Christianity, I'd be beating the drum. But it isn't. It's Islam.

It needs to be exposed and discredited. The believers and unbelievers who refer to it as a "religion of peace" need to be refuted and stood-up to. It's believers who are pro-violence need to be crushed.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

The religion does decree it

No it doesn't. Can you quote me all the relevant passages in the Koran to back up this claim?

and if you have studied it as you claim

I haven't made that claim.

I'm too lazy to post a wiki link.

No surprise there...

Wait, I thought you said you were not going to excuse them or condone them. But now you bring up the interference and occupation of foreign forces - as if to imply that these Islamic terrorist incidents were justified by that.

I haven't excused or condoned them. I was merely trying to show a more rounded view. But you've completely chosen to ignore the comments I made to expand upon that. In fact I said:

All terrible, tragic, shameful attacks.

and

Such violence is repulsive and solves absolutely nothing and merely engenders more violence and hatred.

It is those people who need to surrender or be destroyed.

So thanks for proving my point above. Your answer to their violence is yet more violence? How does that make you any different from them? Their violence is bad but yours is good? That hasn't really worked out so far has it? If people don't stop to look at why this is happening, how will there ever be peace?

maybe 75% of the Muslim poulation define Jihad differently.

But there is a seriously large contingent (20%? 25%? 10%?) of West-hating, death-dealing Muslims out there. I'm talking about 160 million Muslims, and that's if you take the low number of 10%

A lot of random statistics and numbers here which you have obviously just made up, but I see what you're saying. However you are correct in that there are a number of Muslims out there that condone violence and will use terrorism but not all Muslims feel that way. Perhaps we can agree on that at least.

It needs to be exposed and discredited. It's believers who teach it is a religion of peace need to be refuted and stood-up to.

Agreed on that at least.


How many Muslims do you know personally? How many have you ever known? You mentioned the incident with the person handing out strange leaflets...but beyond that?

a reply to: Kram09

Kram, the "religion" is more than the Koran.

Orthodox Jews adhere to (and teach, and follow) the oral teachings and traditions of Judaism as they are passed down. So do Orthodox Christians - scripture is not the only or final authority - that's a Protestant view of Christianity made popular by M. Luther. Both Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity ascribe authority to the Church and to the writings of the Holy Fathers.

Likewise with Orthodox (Sunni) Islam. However, Jihad is mentioned many times in the Koran. Look it up yourself, I'm too lazy.

I will post this link, for the interested: Muslim Statistics (Terrorism)

Hamas’ Military Headquarters Are Located Underneath a Hospital.

Hamas Shoots Peace Protesters.

Hamas Built Its Terror Tunnels Thanks to dual aid brokered by hillary clinton

And, by the way, Israel ended the so-called “occupation” of Gaza in 2005. It forcibly removed thousands of Jews from their homes in order to do so. It handed over their greenhouses to the Palestinians. Who promptly burned them.


Hamas Uses Women, Children, and the Mentally Ill as Human Shields.

Hamas’ Goal Is The Total Destruction of Israel and The Murder of Jews Everywhere.

youngcons.com...

a reply to: Stuyvesant

Kram, the "religion" is more than the Koran.

Oh, okay. But you're the one whose been mentioning the Koran, so I thought you would be able to expand on that.

Likewise with Orthodox (Sunni) Islam. However, Jihad is mentioned many times in the Koran. Look it up yourself, I'm too lazy.

So again you make claims and expect the other person to look up the facts? If you profess to know so much about this why don't you share it with us? Which sections in the Koran are you referring to? You say it's mentioned many times so I can assume you've read it.

What do you think this one means? I'm sure you're probably familiar with it already though. Maybe you can discuss it? Again this is just from the source you provided.

The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong, and they forbid the right, and they withhold their hands (from spending for the cause of Allah). They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them. Lo! the hypocrites, they are the transgressors. Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them, and theirs is lasting torment.

Interesting source, but I'm not entirely convinced of it's veracity. They say this:

What is the purpose of WikiIslam?

The purpose of WikiIslam is to provide an accurate and comprehensive resource on Islam.

But then go on to say:

How is WikiIslam different from Wikipedia?

WikiIslam's primary focus is on the criticism of Islam while Wikipedia is a compendium of general knowledge.

It seems to me that if that wiki was merely devoted to Judaism then there would be cries of antisemitism.

Likewise with Orthodox (Sunni) Islam.

Also, what about Shia Islam? What are their views on Jihad as compared with Sunni Islam?

a reply to: Stuyvesant

How many Muslims do you know personally? How many have you ever known? You mentioned the incident with the person handing out strange leaflets...but beyond that?

Also you have conveniently ignored this question (as well the vast majority of my previous post incidentally).

a reply to: Kram09

No, actually - I don't think I mentioned the Koran once.

I'm not your lackey, look up your own info if you're interested in how many times (and where, and in what context) Jihad is mentioned in the Koran. Do your own research on Shia & Sunni Islam. I consider it (this discussion with you) a waste of my time. I've provided the answers to your questions, only to be asked the same questions over again, or to be dismissed, or to be contradicted. I know the tactics and understand what you're doing. I've seen it before.

You win, Kram. I'm 100% off my rocker. What's more, I'm lazy and evasive. Everything you have said is right, and I am a hate-filled Islamophobe spouting nonsense on the internet. Islam is a religion of peace. Muslims are peace-loving people and terrorism and Islam have no connection.

Happy now?

Have a great Friday, all.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

No, actually - I don't think I mentioned the Koran once.

That's strange...these are your posts on this very page:

Kram, the "religion" is more than the Koran.

However, Jihad is mentioned many times in the Koran.

Also on page 24 you stated:

I have studied their history and their political and religious writings.

If you weren't alluding to the Koran in this statement what were you referring to? What have you studied if not the Koran? It's a little like saying you've studied Christianity in depth but never read the Bible.

Jihad is mentioned in the Koran.

Again which parts? You said in your previous comments you had studied their political and religious writings so you should be able to share some with us.

Do your own research on Shia & Sunni Islam. I consider it (this discussion with you) a waste of my time.

That's not really how this site works when having a discussion with people. All you've done is posted a link to Wikipedia, which I took the time to look at, as well as a link to WikiIslam, which I have discussed above.

Imagine a Presidential debate where one of the candidates makes a load of statements for example about the economy and then just says - oh do your own research folks, this discussion is just a waste of my time! Do you think people would take his points seriously?

I've provided the answers to your questions, only to be asked the same questions over again, or to be dismissed, or to be contradicted.

You haven't provided any answers to my questions. Such as:

if your country was invaded and occupied by another, would you sit back and do nothing? How would many Americans feel in such circumstances? Would they resort to violence? Would they also try to rationalise attacks on innocent civilians to further their cause?

This could have been construed as a rhetorical question, but you just failed to acknowledge it at all.

And this:

Can you quote me all the relevant passages in the Koran to back up this claim?

And this, which I am now having to post for the third time:

How many Muslims do you know personally? How many have you ever known? You mentioned the incident with the person handing out strange leaflets...but beyond that?

I said this:

The link you provided therefore does not substantiate your claim that "Islam has 1400 years of solid bloodshed and attempts at conquering other lands and spreading it's diseased, psychotic religious notions." If it does please provide evidence - unless conquering a land itself now counts as terrorism in which case almost every country in the world including your own is guilty of terrorism.

But again, all you did was post two links and provided nothing from them and just told me to do my own research.

You win, Kram. I'm 100% off my rocker. What's more, I'm lazy and evasive. Everything you have said is right, and I am a hate-filled Islamophobe spouting nonsense on the internet.

I didn't realise this was some sort of competition. You say you know the "tactics" and understand what I'm doing yet you're the one who posts that? I said you were lazy which I stand by and which is proven by your own posts where you've consistently failed to provide the information or knowledge that you claim to possess or to share or discuss any excerpts from the two links you provided.

However it speaks volumes about yourself that you try to imply that I've suggested you're crazy or spouting nonsense. I did admittedly say that you were racist on a previous page and my comment was rightly removed. My post was in response to your own comments on page 18 such as:

I prefer to hang out with people who think (and act) in similar ways to myself. I make no apology for being ethnocentric. I realize the term has (in these "multiculturalist" and "diversity" saturated times) a negative connotation, but... whatever. I'm ethnocentric.

On page 18 you admitted yourself that you don't know any Muslims:

No, as a matter of fact, I do not know any Muslims.

and to be honest I don't think you ever have. I personally do not know any Jews but you don't see me lambasting all Jews due to Israel's actions in Gaza. It seems as if you've just read a few dubious articles on WikiIslam and you now claim to know about this subject, yet you've comprehensively failed to share any of your knowledge, even though you yourself - as evidenced by your posts that I have quoted above - claimed to have studied Islam.

Have a great Friday, all.

Yeah have a great Friday

Israel is practicing self defense.

Palestine is not a real country anyway.

When was Palestine founded?

What form of government did/does it have?

What is/was its currency?

What language was the national language of Palestine??

I will hear nothing but crickets chirping because no one can answer these questions.

It's a mystery why so many in the media accept as gospel Hamas-supplied figures on the number of civilians killed in the recent war. Hamas claims that of the more than 1800 Palestinians killed close to 90% were civilians. Israel, on the other hand, says that close to half of them were combatants. The objective facts support a number much closer to Israel's than to Hamas'.

Even human rights group antagonistic to Israel acknowledge, according to a New York Times report, that Hamas probably counts among the "civilians killed by Israel" the following groups: Palestinians killed by Hamas as collaborators; Palestinians killed through domestic violence; Palestinians killed by errant Hamas rockets or mortars; and Palestinians who died naturally during the conflict. I wonder


www.gatestoneinstitute.org...


honestreporting.com...

WOW can you believe this--the Hamas is lying about the civilian deaths and exaggerating their numbers?
WOW can you believe that the anti Israel progressive liberals believed these lies?
WOW can you believe that the anti Israel group will find some other implausible rationale to condemn Israel?

originally posted by: spirited75
Israel is practicing self defense.

Palestine is not a real country anyway.

When was Palestine founded?

What form of government did/does it have?

What is/was its currency?

What language was the national language of Palestine??

I will hear nothing but crickets chirping because no one can answer these questions.

I am not sure what is more ridiculous, your post or someone giving it a star...

And for your last post, just stop reading Israel media, try BBC or some other unbiased sources.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: spirited75
Israel is practicing self defense.

Palestine is not a real country anyway.

When was Palestine founded?

What form of government did/does it have?

What is/was its currency?

What language was the national language of Palestine??

I will hear nothing but crickets chirping because no one can answer these questions.

I am not sure what is more ridiculous, your post or someone giving it a star...

And for your last post, just stop reading Israel media, try BBC or some other unbiased sources.

all i am hearing from you is the crickets chirping!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have any honest answers for the questions
i asked or are you just going to try to make a personal attack to me???

a reply to: SuperFrog

BBC admitted the numbers were a lie.
read the link i provided or just pass on commenting.

i refuse to get in a discussion with an unarmed man.

read the link.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: SuperFrog

BBC admitted the numbers were a lie.
read the link i provided or just pass on commenting.

i refuse to get in a discussion with an unarmed man.

read the link.

You are just some sick dude....

"At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71% of the population and 33% of the known-age casualties."

Let's say if there was only 1000 casualties (even we know numbers are far worse) it means there are 333 kids and women that were killed.

You heart-less post makes it appear like civilian are not being killed.

You really should check your self up...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: SuperFrog

BBC admitted the numbers were a lie.
read the link i provided or just pass on commenting.

i refuse to get in a discussion with an unarmed man.

read the link.

You are just some sick dude....

"At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71% of the population and 33% of the known-age casualties."

Let's say if there was only 1000 casualties (even we know numbers are far worse) it means there are 333 kids and women that were killed.

You heart-less post makes it appear like civilian are not being killed.

You really should check your self up...

are you too lazy to read the link??

BBC admitted the numbers were false.

So any number originating from and
source close to Hamas is from the poisoned tree.

Why is it that the progressive liberals
are all the time drinking someone's
kool aid???

and become angry when the truth is pointed out.

Hamas is using children as shields, and women and old people.

will some of them be shot wounded and even killed?

yes.

children were used by the Viet Kong in that war and
some of them got killed there as well.


when you fight a urban asymmetric warfare, civilians will get killed.

ask yourself this question:
Who is putting the women children and old people in harms way?

You are aware it is not Hamas who provides numbers, but ICC??

Read your links again.

And given quote is from your link, and NO ONE is thinking that number is less then 15 hundreds, just what number of them are civilians and what sex/age... numbers seems proportionate compared to statistics of population.

Again, deep breath and think what are you discussing here and trying to justify...

a reply to: SuperFrog

superfrog, thank you for counseling me about thinking.

I think Israel is 100% right in this situation.

I think that all the arab countries should face the truth and agree that Israel has won this fifty year war with them.
As losers the arabs should have to repay repatriation for the next fifty years.

edit to add,

i usually do not consider advice from communicating frogs or toads either for that matter.

Hamas is using innocents for shields.

The innocent deaths are on their score card, not Israels.

Children were used in Vietnam and unfortunately died.