Gaza's on-going Palestinian civilians Killing

[Damon Lynch]

All religions I'm aware of–except for Buddhism-are bigoted and exclusionary...radical Islam takes that to the degree that Muslims are "required" to kill infidels.

Jeff you make two claims. The first is implicit and claims that there is a "Muslim world" in which there is some kind of common Islamic consciousness that directs the thoughts of Muslims. Second, that "radical Muslims" are required to kill infidels.

By all means explain how the Indonesian soldiers securing transnational capital’s access to the Grasberg mine in Papua share a common Islamic outlook with a Shia Iranian naval captain who has under his command Persian Jews and Iranian Armenian Christians.

I mentioned earlier the Islamic group the Khudai Khidmatgars, or "Servants of God" in English. By any standard, they practiced a radical form of nonviolence with something roughly akin to a "nonviolent army" that was close to perhaps 100,000 strong at its peak. These radical Muslims never killed anybody, despite being cut down in significant numbers themselves. In fact in March 1949 10-20,000 Khudai Khidmatgars entered Peshawar to protect non-Muslims from being slaughtered.

So when you use the term "radical Muslim", what you really mean is "member of a violent extremist group that identifies as Islamic". By definition then, a member of this group is required to kill group outsiders when the group demands it. Which is what happens with pretty much any group that uses violence as its primary means to exert its will. I see nothing unique among Muslim groups in this sense.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Okay! Attached is an image of no oil in the Middle East, or more precisely in an Iranian desert somewhere between Tehran and the Pakistan border, taken in 1962. 

Ray, that is a phenomenal photograph! I do not want to derail this thread, but if you post it in User Critiques forum...

[RSL]

+1. That's a very fine shot. Let's get it over where it belongs and out of this head-rattling contest.

[Ray]

You chose the picture of an Iranian family with a camel in a desert to argue your point. Really? What else do you believe -- that a camel taught Avicenna (Ibn Sina) how to be a polymath?  That Al-Khorezmi, after whose name the term algorithm is derived, flew into the Middle East on a rocket ship? That the Cyrus Cylinder is made of jelly? That the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, in which the U.S. and U.K. overthrew Iran's first democratically elected prime minister, was because Eisenhower and Churchill liked the taste of pistachios?

Sorry! I can't make any sense of your post. It seems completely devoid of any logic or rationality.

Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I'll repeat it. "This is what it would be like for large numbers of people in the Middle East, without the economic benefits flowing from oil". Did you think I meant that this is what it would be like for everyone without exception?

[Ray]

Ray, that is a phenomenal photograph! I do not want to derail this thread, but if you post it in User Critiques forum...

+1. That's a very find shot. Let's get it over where it belongs and out of this head-rattling contest.

Thanks to both of you. It's really just an archival record of my travels. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by placing the image in the Critique section. I don't have any questions regarding cropping or tonality. I just regret that I didn't take more photos in those days. I was travelling on a budget and probably took no more than one shot every few days.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I'm not sure what purpose would be served by placing the image in the Critique section. I don't have any questions regarding cropping or tonality...

I was going to extol its virtues, rather than nitpick. Surprise, surprise, critique can sometimes be used to sing praises too

[Ray]

I was going to extol its virtues, rather than nitpick. Surprise, surprise, critique can sometimes be used to sing praises too

Okay! You've persuaded me, Slobodan. I'll expose myself to criticism. 

[Damon Lynch]

"This is what it would be like for large numbers of people in the Middle East, without the economic benefits flowing from oil". Did you think I meant that this is what it would be like for everyone without exception?

Let's focus on Iran, since your picture is from there. Did you know that Iran has some of the oldest continuously populated cities in the world? That for centuries it's been famous for its literature, philosophy, and scientific knowledge? That cities like Isfahan became famous for their splendid architecture long before oil was discovered?

In 1900, before oil was discovered in Iran, its population was about 10 million. Guess what? Few of them owned camels. Why would they, if they didn't live in Baluchistan or along the border with Iraq? Did you ever see any camels among the nomadic Bakhtiari in the classic 1925 film Grass? Nope. Didn't think so. In any case, most Iranians who didn't live in cities were villagers or small towns folk.

They irony of your hypothesis is that if Iran had had no easily exploitable resource like oil, the U.S. and U.K. would not have installed a dictator like the Shah. Iran would have been more likely to have had the independence to pursue a development policy more beneficial to its own people.

[Ray]

Let's focus on Iran, since your picture is from there. Did you know that Iran has some of the oldest continuously populated cities in the world? That for centuries it's been famous for its literature, philosophy, and scientific knowledge? That cities like Isfahan became famous for their splendid architecture long before oil was discovered?

In 1900, before oil was discovered in Iran, its population was about 10 million. Guess what? Few of them owned camels. Why would they, if they didn't live in Baluchistan or along the border with Iraq? Did you ever see any camels among the nomadic Bakhtiari in the classic 1925 film Grass? Nope. Didn't think so. In any case, most Iranians who didn't live in cities were villagers or small towns folk.

They irony of your hypothesis is that if Iran had had no easily exploitable resource like oil, the U.S. and U.K. would not have installed a dictator like the Shah. Iran would have been more likely to have had the independence to pursue a development policy more beneficial to its own people.

I still get the impression you are misreading my post? Whilst my picture is from Iran, the message I was trying to convey in showing  that image, refers to the Middle East in general. I was merely pointing out that without the revenue from oil there would likely be a greater number of people living at the subsistence level and travelling by camel instead of by 4WD (for example) and living in tents or shacks instead of living in houses.

The fact that Iran's oil resources have been mismanaged in the past and have been the subject of conflict and competing interests, is another issue.

From what I gather, from the internet, the current capital of Iran, Tehran, was once a small village back in the 13th century. This is what ShahAb-od-din Abu AbdollAh had to say about that small village.

"Tehran is one of the villages of Rey with rebellious inhabitants. They not only disregard their governors, but are in constant clashes amongst themselves, to the extent that the inhabitants of its twelve quarters cannot visit one another."      http://www.farsinet.com/tehran/history.html

In the 1920's, around the time of the first oil production in Iran, Tehran was a city of about 210,000. It is now a huge metropolis with a population of around 10 million, about 1/2 the population of Australia.

Would you say that rapid development during the 20th and 21st centuries has nothing to do with oil?

[Jim Pascoe]

Okay! You've persuaded me, Slobodan. I'll expose myself to criticism. 

I wouldn't go that far - the thread will get locked with explicit pictures.......

[PeterAit]

I was talking with my neighbor about the Gaza issue - she is a Jew and very interested in the whole situation. She told me about how many people feel that Israel is just "mowing the lawn" in Gaza. They have no interest in a real peace with freedom and justice for the Palestinians. Rather, their true intent is to keep the people in Gaza bottled up in their open-air prison, with the blockade and other restrictions, and they just go in and kill people and destroy facilities and weapons once in a while - in other words, mow the lawn. I have no idea if this is true, but is a sad thought. Google "mow the lawn israel" if you are interested.

Related is a story I read yesterday about the Gaza fishermen. Given the long Mediterranean coast, fishing has long been a source of income and food for many Gazans. Now, the Israelis limit the fishing boats to 3 miles offshore, where there are precious few fish remaining. In one town, the warehouse where the fishermen stored their supplies, nets, motors, and the like was destroyed by Israel. And they wonder why so many Palestinians hate Israel?

[BernardLanguillier]

For a brief moment I was under the mistaken impression that Russ had written the last post (your avatar icons are a bit similar). It gave me incredible hope that objectivity had regained some of its old moral value... only to find out that it was you Peter.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

Rather, their true intent is to keep the people in Gaza bottled up in their open-air prison, with the blockade and other restrictions, and they just go in and kill people and destroy facilities and weapons once in a while - in other words, mow the lawn. I have no idea if this is true, but is a sad thought.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Israelis go in with the intention of destroying weapons once in a while with the unavoidable consequence of causing some civilian deaths?

Since Hamas is considered by many nations to be a terrorist organisation, and an organisation that refuses to recognise the right of Israel to exist, is it not reasonable to expect that without a blockade and other restrictions, Hamas would gradually build up a formidable force of weaponry which, at some unexpected moment, it would unleash upon the Israeli population, causing far greater loss of life  than has resulted from the current conflict?

The sticking point in the current negotiations appears to be the unwillingness of Hamas to disarm. As I understand the situation, if Hamas were to agree to disarm, Israel would agree to lift the blockade.

[Alan Klein]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Israelis go in with the intention of destroying weapons once in a while with the unavoidable consequence of causing some civilian deaths?

Since Hamas is considered by many nations to be a terrorist organisation, and an organisation that refuses to recognise the right of Israel to exist, is it not reasonable to expect that without a blockade and other restrictions, Hamas would gradually build up a formidable force of weaponry which, at some unexpected moment, it would unleash upon the Israeli population, causing far greater loss of life  than has resulted from the current conflict?

The sticking point in the current negotiations appears to be the unwillingness of Hamas to disarm. As I understand the situation, if Hamas were to agree to disarm, Israel would agree to lift the blockade.

Yes.  Gaza should get rid of their rockets, AK47's and tunnels.  OK, they can keep their slingshots.  What country in the world would disarm?  Would Israel disarm?  The answer is treaties not disarmament.

[kers]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28814555

[PeterAit]

... some civilian deaths?

"Some?" Per a BBC report as of August 6th, 10 days ago, non-combatant Palestinian deaths were 671 men, 219 women, and 414 children.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28666562

This includes children killed while playing on a beach, the shelling of at least one UN school, and the destruction of university buildings. Total Israeli civilian deaths: 3.

[Ray]

 What country in the world would disarm?  Would Israel disarm?  The answer is treaties not disarmament.

Countries that are governed by a terrorist organisation and who deny the right of their neighbour to exist should be forced to disarm through pressure from the world community. Treaties mean nothing to criminals. I place terrorists in the category of criminals. Don't you?

[jjj]

Phew! What a relief! All this time I was afraid to call you a pompous jerk because it would be ad hominem attack. Turns out it is just an astute observation of your behavior.

Missing the point as usual to plough your own unpleasant agenda. Seeing you are even more of an insulting and nasty piece of work than Desperate Dog is, you can join him on the ignore list so I no longer have to see your unpleasant rantings either. Really should have done that after your offensive rape apologist posts, when you showed your true colours.

[DennisWilliams]

The Arabs  in Gaza  hired Hamas to do their wet work.   Spilled back on them. Too bad.   If all that cement and all the money had been used for a university, a harbor , hotels,   a world class library... on and on - instead of lining tunnels  and munitions every one of those children would be alive. Every man and woman as well.

At any time the Arabs in Gaza  can denounce Hamas, deport them, disarm,  certify Israel's right to exist  and create  an oasis on the sea. The investors will fall over themselves with cash in hand.

In America if you hire someone  you are equally guilty of every crime they commit.   No one labeled the Germans who elected Hitler and died  during WWII as innocent non-combatants.   The Arabs in  Gaza just have better press secretaries. Nothing that has happened to the Gasan people  is their responsibility. Not their choice for a  government, not their poverty and not their dead children.

If killing Jews is really so damn important,  owe up to it and stop whining about the  inconvenient consequences.

[martin archer-shee]

One can only think that religion sure is a good crutch to use to excuse killing your foes. Seems to be no different in the middle east or any other part of this planet. Add to that any time period. Where have we gone wrong? It seems to me most wars/disputes are based on religion or money. come to think of it there is little difference. all comes down to power.