Yes, history is irrelevant. Islam clearly no longer seeks to spread. Carry on.

Is there any point at which history becomes relevant to you?

The original Islamic expansion was not caused by some "cycle of violence" type logic. From its inception, Islam has simply been a religion that seeks to continuously expand. Has its nature fumdanentally changed since then?

It’s unspeakably awful and deserves condemnation. — Mikie

I agree that 9/11 was unspeakably awful and deserves condemnation. We should say the same of 10/7.

then acts like that largely wouldn’t be committed. — Mikie

I'm sure you know that Arab massacres of Jews in Palestine occurred in the 1920s and 1930s before Israel existed. Before there was an Israel to blame things on.

The victims of 10/7 didn't commit atrocities. The attempted bus bomber a few days ago did not target people who committed atrocities.

What would you say if a terrorist bomber from Afghanistan or Iraq blew up your neighborhood? Justified blowback, perhaps? America is no angel.

I’m American, therefore I defend Vietnam and Iraq? I’m Catholic, therefore I defend priests molesting children? — Mikie

What if it were your immediate family? Or what if your tribe/group had a history of persecution by another group and it's once again at your doorstep?

Every country has its sins of course; no country is perfect. So I'll certainly agree with you that America is flawed.

No I meant I'm Jewish.

And you're a state apologist as well given you supported the American Revolution and the creation of a new state from England and you seem to think it's been a force for good overall.

Oh wait— right, you’re just rooting for your team and everyone else is antisemitic. — Mikie

I've discussed this issue with many TPF users and I've only accused one of anti-semitism and it's not you. But yes, I'm situated. I was born to a certain culture, and I'm pretty open about that.

I’m also mostly in favor of slave revolts— like the one seen on October 7th. — Mikie

The Palestinians were slaves... that's a new one. So what did their Zionist taskmasters assign them?

What are your thoughts on the decision to fight the revolutionary war and declare independence from Great Britain? Justified or no?

I have not claimed that all wars that a nation engages in are good or necessary.

Civilizations must win wars/be able to defend themselves to be civilizations. They must sometimes use lethal force against criminal or terrorist elements, but I suppose all that is just "murder" to you.

You may not care whether a death was intended or not, but civilized nations do.

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not. — Tzeentch

Until I hear an explanation for the Bucha massacre this sounds like Putin apologetics.

Israel has never went into Gaza or the West Bank and hog-tied hundreds of civilians before executing them.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, it is not morally grey at all. It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years — Tzeentch

Like when several Arab nations immediately attacked Israel from all sides and Israel didn't just roll over and die. What a travesty! :lol:

But yes, clearly black and white. We can all see the group that abducts civilian hostages and murders a mother and her little children in captivity are clearly the good guys. The issue couldn't be any clearer. All the human rights organization agree. No need to look at the footage or draw our own conclusions; just trust the organizations. The internationalist organizations always hold the truth and cannot be compromised.

Jews in Gaza are dead or hostages. Palestinians in Israel serve in Parliament. By all means, continue listening to your internationalist sources flush with Qatari money.

1) Is intention morally relevant to you?

2) You do realize intention isn't purely internal, correct?

ISIS doesn't have an air force either.

You can condemn airpower as inhumane, but without it you jeopardize allied victory and ensure a much more deadly ground war. Now I wonder whether naval bombardment is ok with you or if that's off limits.

EDIT: WIthout air and naval bombardments we surely lose, so our best course of action would just be to surrender.

True, there is no moral equivalence. Bombing from the air is morally worse. But I’m glad you can see into people’s souls now. When they kill, it’s because of race and evil intentions — when we do it, it’s accidental and unintended. — Mikie

Ok, so an allied bomber who strikes a weapons factory where the debris ends up hitting a nursery in the area and killing 10 babies is equivalent (if not worse, since you say bombers are worse) to a Nazi who intentionally executes 10 gypsy babies.

Both are the same morally. Ten dead babies. Accidental, intentional... doesn't matter. Maybe the pilot did intend to kill those babies. Maybe the Nazi's motives/intentions aren't so clear. Maybe he really wasn't trying to shoot those 10 romani babies he lined up and shot.

You presented an idea - a universal rule of thumb - and then rejected my historical application of that principle. :up:

What other wars/time periods are we not allowed to use as historical examples? Just for future reference.

EDIT: And yes, when pilots bomb military bases (where do babies live) that is not the same as shooting a baby at point blank range because it belongs to a certain race and to draw a moral equivalency between the two is deranged.

The US did kill many more Japanese babies than Japan killed US babies.

Additionally, we should note the difference between the intentional murder of babies (as occurred on 10/7 and to 10/7 hostages in captivity) and babies dying as a byproduct of a strike on a legitimate target.

So whichever side kills more babies is the bad side? Is that how we see history?

So the two Bibas brothers (4 and 10 months) were brutally murdered by Palestinian civilians a month after being captured with their bare hands via strangulation. But who cares? Thousands of Palestinian children have died. Why should two even matter?

Remember guys, as long as a non-state actor is fighting a state, the non-state is virtually always in the right because there's no way that small terrorist organization/non-state actor/battered population has caused more deaths (rightfully or wrongfully) than the state has over its long history.

So kill as many Israeli or American babies as you like; you are always the good one as long as your opponent is that state. :up:

Had this situation happened the other way around, we would say that Israel killed them, but on this occasion, it is simply a few Palestinian civilians -- certainly not representative of Palestinians in general -- who did the deed. Palestinians commit crimes individually, Israel as a collective. That's how the game works.

If the LBGT community called upon its members to burn copies of Paul's letter to the Roman's, I don't see how that could be seen as not offensive to the millions of Christians who might cherish that scripture, and have no ill regard for LGBT community; and I don't see how burning Romans would advance their cause. — ENOAH

Let me ask you something:

If a group of LGBT people did burn Paul's letters, and then a group of Christians arrived and began attempting to murder them by stabbing them which would be closer to your response?

a) How dare they burn that Scripture! They deserve what's coming to them for their transgression!

Or

b) These Christians is batshit insane and we must arrest these people and investigate what is being taught in their churches.

I'm thankful to live in a society where violence is not considered an acceptable response to provocative, non-violent behavior.

Let's think about this from another angle. So you've been with someone for many decades and find that actually, you want some space, need to go alone for a while and be on your own. Now what do you call it? I guess the term usually used would be 'brake up'. Fine, these things happen. Yet, do you really think that it won't have an effect on your relationship with this someone? Everything will be just fine and dandy like this. Or if you would need this someone, she or he will be there to continue as if nothing happened. — ssu

Sorry about the break up. I hope the US and Europe can still be friends.

Anyway, in the event that a broader scale war in the Middle East does break out I would prefer not to have Russia as a vehement enemy. I would prefer that the US has a dialogue with them; a rapport as opposed to just trading insults and giving sanctions which Biden did.

The EU has a combined GDP of $22bn and Russia has around $4bn so I don't see why the countries of Europe can't band together to deter Russia.

Fair point. I'm thinking though that the EU should be able to contain Russia. It can fund Ukraine as appropriate. It might actually be beneficial if the US can ease off pressure and be seen as a more neutral partner who can eventually broker a deal between the two. I couldn't have seen Russia brokering a deal with Biden given some of the things that he said.

Also as another poster mentioned we don't want to draw Russia any closer to China.

Yes. It is the reason why there is a conflict. More states were suppose to become Muslim, not less.

Yes, consequences for sure. I suggested it would go away if the Arab countries choose to accept them and integrate them into their populations. And all this after many decades. They would start a new life and other affairs would occupy their minds.

Or if they were dispersed to other countries.

Zero apologies offered. The Muslims come in and take by the sword, but then cry foul when they are defeated by the sword by that land's previous owners and indigenous inhabitants. Cry me a river. And this was after many centuries of Jews being treated as second class citizens.

Israel's very existence is considered "ethnic cleansing" so excuse me if that charge doesn't exactly arouse my sympathies.

History story is continuous, and you're omitting the reality that over time, the area became predominantly Arab. Jews were a tiny minority until the Zionist movement took off in the 19th century. It was falsely advertised as "a land without people for a people without a land. Still, Arabs welcomed them at the time. — Relativist

Yes, it became Arab because Arabs conquered it in the 7th century under one of their caliphates. Just as they conquered many cities and regions at that time. It's funny how people compare them to native americans given they came to control the land as a way to expand their empire. Imperialism would be the better term.

Anyway, yes initially they were welcoming but mostly jews under muslim rule were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizya (extra taxation for non-muslims.) It was hard to move there because of the political climate and very high taxation and oppression for non-muslims.

I'll tell you what you don't do: You don't go on a multi-decade terror spree and deepen enmity with an enemy who is stronger than you.

It would be like native americans choosing to go around murdering and kidnapping random white people.

Ancient history does not trump current reality. There were few Jews in Palestine before the 19th century Zionist movement. — Relativist

Ancient history determines current reality. Jews have lived continuously in the land since antiquity. Jewish identity was formed in the land. I understand that Arabs have lived in in the land for many years, but Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula. They come from places like Lebanon and Syria and settle in Israel and adopt the name "Palestinian" as did anyone who lived in Israel/Palestine/Canaan etc. So Jews were "Palestinian" too in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s.

This all changed in the 1960s when it suddenly became an explicitly non-Jewish name for an ethnicity rather just a geographical descriptor as it had always been. But it is lies. Many of these "Palestinians" settled in the land in the 19th century when the Ottomans imported Arab workers.

Yet there was no "free Palestine" movement during the Ottoman empire. There was no need for it. The land was already Muslim -- which is what it's always been about. It is humiliating for them that land that was once Muslim has reverted back to being Jewish.

Some of them fled because Arab leaders told them to. Some of them fled for fear of the Israeli army coming to their towns. Some of them fled because attacks were being launched from their towns. Some of them fled expecting a quick victory. It's common for civilians to flee in wartime for a variety of reasons.

It's more similar to tribes fighting among each other and boundaries shifting. This problem would have been resolved had the Arab states integrated their own or had the Palestinians not chosen violence towards civilians as a way to avenge their loss.

Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. They lost a war.

EDIT: Jews are indigenous to the land. You can tell this because of various ancient festivals that speak to their connection to the land. The "Palestinians" - a 60 year old identity - have no festivals.

The original UN plan had the territory divided between Jewish and Muslim land. The Arab Muslims rejected any independent Jewish state, so the moment one was declared the Arabs attacked from all sides. Had the Arabs won, it would have been a second holocaust. Yet since they were fought off and the Jews counterattacked and saved themselves from annihilation some of the Arabs living in Palestine fled and cry foul. Their own failure to annihilate the Jews in the region and secure the land as another Islamic territory is their "Nakba."

The other Arab nations should have taken them in and integrate them but they would rather just leave this as a perpetual problem for Israel and treat the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank as front line soldiers for Islamic expansion which has always been the aim of their religion from the very beginnings.

The Philistines were likely from Crete or somewhere in the Aegean. They were not Arabs.

One hundred years ago "Palestinianism" wasn't a thing, and hopefully it won't be a thing in another hundred. Meanwhile, the Jews continue 3000+ years of their connection to their actual homeland as it is even stated in the Quran.

I think if they were exiled they would lose their culture fairly quickly. "Palestinian" as an ethnic identity is only around 60-70 years old and it will fade in due time.

What's perhaps a more divisive question is, are there good reasons to burn a Quran? — flannel jesus

The first one that comes to mind is that the practice is a way of preserving/testing the outer limits of free speech and free expression in a society. It tests those enlightenment-era values against older religious values involving inviolable divine directives or the sanctity of the holy book.

If wishing for the destruction of a culture where e.g. powerful men routinely abuse young boys or human sacrifice is a constant make me a Nazi then so be it.

In Nazism, it was a perpetual war between races. One's blood made one the enemy. Jews who abandoned their own culture and adopted German culture were not spared. Such an evil could only emerge in modernity.

Ideally the wicked group is destroyed by God/nature/its own internal dynamics. As we see with Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm not typically one to support military intervention against a group simply because it is wicked. However, if that group is being both wicked and violent towards its neighbors it likely needs both a decisive military defeat and wholescale culture reform. It will surely lose its self-determination after the defeat. It must be purged of certain practices by its new rulers, like the Spanish did with human sacrifice in the New World.

I apply this to my own group as well. Our texts do describe one of our ancient exiles as punishment for our own practice of child sacrifice (among others) in the first temple period. So my hope is, in the end, that wickedness is vanquished from all cultures. Some cultures are just more egregious and aggressive in their wickedness than others, and bad cultures poison all within it. May we one day see a day where it is all gone.

And that's not the only young Palestinian teenager dying in a manner like that. Not too long ago a 14 year old Palestinian boy was blown up when the explosives he was transporting detonated.

I've been mostly pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia, but I'm now quite relieved that Trump seems to be de-escalating and relations appear to be slightly warming with Russia. Russia has released 1 or 2 American prisoners. I have no issue with Ukraine defending their borders, but it was getting quite expensive for us here in the US. I don't mind if Europe picks up the slack on the funding. The conflict seems fairly far removed from us here in the US.

If Mexico or Canada were to join an anti-US alliance or if Russia were to station its troops in either of those two border countries it would be alarming so their concern is understandable. Europe should be able to hand this one.

Just because I'm uncomfortable with something doesn't mean that I oppose it. We ethnically cleansed Germans from territories like Alsace-Lorraine and I've never heard of anyone complain about that. Jews have been ethnically cleansed 3x from Gaza since 1929 and no one could care less. Perhaps we ought to work to reinstate their presence there.

Best PR would be to describe it as a temporary migration while Gaza is rebuilt.

Usually in war it's the combatants that one fights. — ssu

I wish we could take all the Hamas members and all the IDF and place them on an island where they could duke it out among themselves, but that's not realistic. Also consider that many of those who kept hostages as slaves were not Hamas, but civilians. Many of those who attacked Israel on 10/7 were civilians also. So when Israel hits back, the Palestinians get to turn their deaths into evidence of Israel's unimaginable cruelty.

Just recently Hamas killed a 14 year old Palestinian boy when one of their rockets crashed in Gaza. You know that's going on the "killed by Israel" list.