Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The word "Jerusalem" is literally the cue for the root cause of all the problems.

By founding the nation Israel in a region populated by Arabs which goes along with the oppression of the Palestinians the terrorism we are facing now was created.

The islamic terrorism has its roots in this happening. The native palestinian population had been dispelled from their homes and the reasoning that this has been the land of the Jews 2000 years ago is outright ridiculous.

Following this reasoning the people in my area are in danger that some day the descendants of the Celts will come and demand we have to leave because its their land.

The founding of the nation Israel is the thorn in the flesh of the arabs and the support of the U.S. made things worse.

And, when after decades of hatred and war the first glimmer of peace and a solution for the problems was visible on the horizon Sharon marched to the Temple Hill in order to provoke the arabs and thus initiated the second intifada. This was when peace died finally.

In my opinion we would face no terrorism if Israel would have been founded on another place or if a solution that included the agreement of the arabs would have been found then.

The war on Iraq is just another escalation which raises the peril several notches upwards.

In my opinion we don't have to be astonished that the arabs are hating us. The western countries agreed to the founding of Israel and partly supported it. This makes us to accomplices.

How would you feel when in several hundred years the Indians would dispel you from your home supported by many other countries because it used to be Apache land?

Food for thoughts....

Shalu Shalom Jerusalem (sounds hypocritical to me)

To follow the arguement to it's fullest....The "Native Americans" came from Asia so we should kick them out with everybody else and create a national park!

As for Germany....Which Celtic people would you prefer? Saxons, Goths, Teutons, Jutes...etc.

I agree that the giving of the land that created Isreal was not the brightest move. Taking away somebodies land to return a land to people who lost it 2,000 years ago was dumb (even if well intended).

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"Well intended is the opposite of well"

We agree.

my point. Your true self showing through. Who would have thought a German stickler for pure breeding would be a bigot would hates Israel and what it stands for. Still clinging to old "policies" Hermann. How pathetic, blaming first the U.S. and now Israel for the terrorists resorting to murder. I guess in this modern society it couldnt possibly be the fault of those that perform the acts. Not as long as it is aimed at Jews, right Hermann. You've been accused of being anti Semitic but this post showed your true nature once and for all. I am now through with you and will not respond to your posts again.

Tom

If someone criticizes Israel he/she will hurriedly declared as a nazi and anti-semite by interested circles.

Well done, this spares you the inconvenience of finding valid arguments against the points in my post.

It would have been a heavy duty anyway because things are too obvious. Or would you honestly state that the palestinians should have said "Thank you" for being dispelled from their homes?

If you think that Israel is sacrosanct because of what has happened to the Jews in Germany 60 years ago then you have an odd sense of justice...

It is not anti semetic or for that matter bigotry to tell the truth.

What the Allies thought was a good solution for the Jewish "problem" (the lack of a country of their own)was born of the guilt the world felt over the atrocities of WW2.

That they installed a new country on Palistinian land is a matter of history.

That the Arab nations rose against this new country and were defeated is also fact.

That the establishment of Isreal has resulted in almost 60 years of war and terrorism is also a fact.

That the USA has supported Isreal since its creation is why the Arabs see us as interferrors and thus the enemy.

That the Jewish people should have a country is a good thing.
That the Palistinian people should lose their country to create Isreal was wrong.

That's the rub when two sides both see themselves as right and neither will give an inch.

It is not anti-semetic to speak the truth. That's just how it is.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

...

Maybe Israel is just an excuse for their terrorism and war.

Do you really think that Islamic fundamentalists weren't a problem for the world, before Israel existed? (remember how the crusades were a response to Muslim invasion) Do you really think if Israel was gone today, they wouldn't then be a threat to everyone else?

How many other religions want to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do? How many other religions have leaders that tell them they will get to paradise, heaven, or whatever, if they die in an attack on others? Can you say this about Christianity, Catholicism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc.? Nope.

How many wars/uprisings are going on right now across the world involving Muslims, in places that have nothing to do with Israel. You know, Sudan, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. Where millions are expected to die, by their hand, this year alone.

Rodney

>>>How many other religions want to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do? How many other religions have leaders that tell them they will get to paradise, heaven, or whatever, if they die in an attack on others? Can you say this about Christianity, Catholicism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc.? Nope.

Yep! Yep! YEp!

Rodney your going to tell me, that in the name of christ, people have not been KILLED? Since they were considered savages, and worshiped pagan gods? What about missionaries refusing food and aid to other, unless they convert to Christianity?

I smell that double standard. You need to do your home work a bit better before suggesting such lies as truth.

Historically yes, today no.

Rodney

So today christians are immune to barbaric behavior? I doubt it. Any fundamentalist group, especially one that feels their very culture - their people, are directly threatened, will attack. Arabs in the Middle East, but also SE Asia, West Africa and the Phillipines feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have been persecuted for many years.

Christians, rodney, are killing muslems daily in Africa and elsewhere. Did you forget about Rwanda? Are you aware of teh brutality of christians in that genocide? Or do they not count because they are not "true" christians, ie, white people? Your attempt to blame the world's ills on a specific religion is reckless and simplistic. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the world we live in.

But your radical right wing talk show heroes probably don't know that, and so niether do you....

NO? Are you slow? What about that GOOD CHRISTAN GUY IN WACO? lolol Rodney Rodney Life must be so easy, when you can do no wrong

Word of the day: Homework!

Please tell me you aren't referring to David Koresh (spelling?! If so, you have completely missed that year in school. You are the one who needs to do your homework. There was NOTHING Christian about that fruitcake. Do you believe as he did?

David Koresh was a Christian albeit a relegious zealot. He was a Christian extremist just as Mulim fundamentalist terrorists are Muslim extremists. There is a segment of US society that thinks there was nothing wrong with what Koresh believed. There is a sefgment of Islamic society that believes there is nothing wrong with what the terrorists are doing. So whats thwe difference between the two. Not that much.

please save your bs. Dont chime in, spoutin such silly thangs.

I DID MY HOMEWORK, not that I can say the same for yourself.

That guy in waco, WAS A CHIRSTAN.. To bad for you!!

(please save your bs. Dont chime in, spoutin such silly thangs.

I DID MY HOMEWORK, not that I can say the same for yourself.

That guy in waco, WAS A CHIRSTAN.. To bad for you!!)

I believe the correct term is "Christian", "Sobek". Not "CHIRSTAN".

David Koresh, "eventually `married' as many as 19 cult women and fathered at least 10 of their children" although he has denied claims that he has had sex with girls as young as 12 (People, 15 March 1993, p. 41). Former members reported Koresh prophesying for himself 60 wives and 80 concubines and "virgins without number" (Dallas Morning News, 1 March 1993, p. 13-A, Ft. Worth Star Telegram, 3 March 1993 p. A-19).

I personally don't refer to gun-toting, polygamists as "Christians" these days, but to each his own, yes?

>>I believe the correct term is "Christian", "Sobek". Not "CHIRSTAN".

What a sad last ditch effort of those who cannot defend themselves, to nit pick spelling..

>>I personally don't refer to gun-toting, polygamists as "Christians" these days, but to each his own, yes?

Well To bad the world is not ran how you think huh? I noticed u added the phrase "These Days" in that joke of a reply.

Meaning that At one time "in the not to far past" Being Armed, or a Polygamist, was acceptable?? How quick we forget.

That guy in waco believed just as much in the christian religion, then any other devout follower.
But in no way can you distance him from Christianity for not being a "christian" as you see it. Just as the Muslim extremest, are still seen as Muslim.

~SoBeK~

Guys....Just to inflict a bit of querry here,

When you speak about gun toting polygamists......How about the Mormons?

They Do claim to be Christians.....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

>>When you speak about gun toting polygamists......How about the Mormons?

They Do claim to be Christians.....

Thanks for the fuel Franky boy

But REMEMBER

Not in the eyes of Greyhound their not..

The first crusade was initiated by pope Urban II in 1096 to free Palestine from the heathens.

There was no such thing like a muslim invasion before.

Urban II promised those crusaders who would die in the crusade forgiveness for their sins and the immediate eternal life in paradise.

1099 the crusaders conquerred Jerusalem and initiated an appalling carnage in this city. The entire city was spangled with bleeding dead bodies:

(http://www.ikg.rt.bw.schule.de/virkla/names/schuels/deutsch/kreuzz/1kreuz.html)

So as a matter of fact pope Urban II was the first leader who told his soldiers that they will go to paradise immediately if they would die in an attack on others.

Be aware that history of the Catholic Church has so many dark spots that you better not use it for your arguments.

Things seem to have improved meanwhile, but I would dare to state that some day the Catholic Church was worse than the Islam.

By the way, I am a member of the Catholic Church and in contrast to tommyboy I can see things I belong to also from a critical point of view.

But thank you anyway for delivering ammunition. It was a pleasure to reply

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades

This is exactly what I was tought in school, but it must not be true, since it is history that also agrees with the catholic church.

www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

Rodney

You're kidding right. Thats a rag that supports the Catholic churches view of world events. This is their mission statement.

"The mission of CRISIS Magazine is to interpret and shape the direction of contemporary culture from a standpoint of Catholic tradition. We are dedicated to the proposition that the crisis of modernity can be answered by a Christian humanism rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Church. We bring the wisdom of the Catholic tradition into direct dialogue with contemporary politics and culture"

Hardly good, unbiased scholarship. Trey coming up with a more reputable source.

By the way, I am reading an interesting novel right now.

It's the "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown.

He offers some interesting thoughts in novel form. The author is very knowledgable when it comes to the history of the Cath. Church.

One can say that God is good and great, but his ground staff is faulty...

I wouldn't waste too much time on the DaVinci code - its hogwash from what I've read. Lots of facts strung together to create a story that never took place. It sounds like a clever document, but not one that presents any truth.

I just did a quick internet search on the crusades (after reading H+E Stoeckl's post on the crusades-that completely disagreed with what I believe to be true) , and guess what? The very first site I found stated exactly what I was taught in public school about 25 years ago. I am not familiar at all with this publication that you denounce, or their mission, I was just posting that what they are saying is exactly what public schools were teaching before all this political correctness and revisionist history garbage hit our educational system. Since they are a rag, in your opinion, does that mean that everything in this publication must be false? (I am an atheist, and I never read religious sites, except when I see something posted that I believe to be false.)

So this "view" of history agrees with what history classes taught me years ago. And that makes it necessarily false because it happens to agree with what the Catholics and this publication say?

Sounds to me like we have some people that so distrust religion, that any view opposite to theirs (Christians, Catholics, etc.) must be the truth.

I did another quick internet search of the origins of the crusades, and guess what? They all say the same thing! I looked at about 20 separate sites, and they all agree! I didn't run across a single one that stated anything different.

The origin of the crusades was a result of the expanding Turks(muslims) in the middle east. These Turkish forces invaded Byzantium, a Christian empire.

The pope ordered the first crusade, like Stoeckl said, but he never mentioned that this was a response that was ordered after the invasion of the Christian empire by the Turks. This invasion, and the expanding Muslims, made them very nervous. (just like I said)

Rodney

Christianity has been responsible for as much pain and suffering as any religion you can name. The Crusades, the spanish inquisition, it's respobnse to the natives in the New World.The message of Christianity may be admirable, but the various churches have been far from noble in their practices.

I agree with your statement "historically", but this is not true today. Western religions have evolved, but Islamic fundamentalists have not. Although I am an athiest, I know of no one who is religous that doesn't believe that other religions have a right to exist, or other races for that matter (like Jews). (Many think the other religions are wrong in their beliefs, but they don't believe in killing them just because of their beliefs, or that the act of killing them will get them to heaven.)

Rodney

You can't paint the entire Islamic religion with the same brush.Just as within the Christian religion there are those that are more militant(people that adhere to the notion of white supremacy claim to be ardent christians) so too are there radical elements within the Islamic community. There are a very large percentage of Arabs who want nothing more than peace with the west. They just don't make great sound bites on the 6:00 o'clock news. The people doing most of the damage in Iraq right now are a bunch of thugs who want the US out so they can take the reigns of power that Saddam vacated. They may clothe themselves in the veil of religion, but they're just strongmen who want to be in charge, no matter the cost. We've seen it before in places like Somalia and Jamaica. Criminal elements trying to highjack the country. I don't advocate the US leaving. I think they should stay.Leaving now would just open up the country to the most powerful thiug that came along. But they need to play by the rules while they're there, even if the opposition doesn't. Otherwise they're the same evil cloaked in different clothes

Again, I agree. That is why I keep trying to state Islamic fundamentalists when I refer to them. It is the fundamentalists that don't condone the existance of any other state that isn't under islamic rule. (Though historically, they will tolerate other religions that are controlled by a country under their rule).

Rodney

Actually you seem to lump them all in together.

"How many other religions want to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do? How many other religions have leaders that tell them they will get to paradise, heaven, or whatever, if they die in an attack on others? Can you say this about Christianity, Catholicism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc.? Nope.

How many wars/uprisings are going on right now across the world involving Muslims, in places that have nothing to do with Israel. You know, Sudan, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. Where millions are expected to die, by their hand, this year alone"

You refer to the religion and muslims and make no distinction between them in general and terrorist fundamentalists. If you want a good example of christian fundamentalists who are just as bad take a look at northern Ireland. Catholic vs Protestant. And that ones been going on for centuries. Let me ask you this, do you really believe that there can be peace in the mideast without a Palestinian homeland? I'm not saying I condone what they've done in the name of there cause, but realistically do you see paeace in the mideast if things go on as they are between Israel and the Palestinians.

Well, I didn't mean too.

I have typed "Islamic fundamentalists" so many times, in so many posts, that I may have gotten lazy in this last one.

Maybe we need to refer to them as IFs in the future.

Rodney

Here we are again. Defending the murderous acts of muslims with "the Christians did it a THOUSAND years ago" excuse. Here is the question...can you change something that happened one thousand years ago or even a hundred years ago? No!!! But you CAN change what happens in the world today! I would like nothing better than to have world peace but this can only be done by eradicating the parties that threaten it. It is not my fault muslim terrorists are the way they are. Its their fault! I dont see Buddhists threatening to use "dirty bombs" because they dont get their way. I dont see Catholics blowing up school buses because they dont get their way. Its one group of "people" from one area of the world. Its only a matter of time before someone else doesnt do what they see as right and they bomb them in an equally devastating manner as the 9/11 attacks. I guess it will take another cowardly attack costing thousands of lives before the world wakes up and decides to take care of our common problem. But then again its not the terrorists fault so we'll have no one to blame except ourselves.

Shalu Shalom Jerusalem

Tom

Well, you can blame some of us for not wanting to fighting terrorism, but not me!

Rodney

So what would you have us do, kill all Arabs? Is that good enough for you?

Have to agree with Tommyboy here. The Moslems as a group today are responsible for more terror and bloodshed than any other religion.

That being said...It still boils down to how do you solve the problem when you are fighting a collection of religiously fanatical gangs rather than a country. We can bog ourselves down in 10,15 who knows how many conventional wars to fight them nation by nation and they just take refuge elsewhere.

Eradicate all Arabs? Good luck getting anyone to justify that.
Its what makes them such a problem....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

... the muslem fundamentalists are the major problem of the 21th century for western nations and that we have to do something about it.

But we should also be aware that many western countries have to put them blame on them that this problem has increased to such an extent.

This is what I tried to explain in my postings. We created the terror first that we have to fight now.

I don't know as much about the historical roots of Israel as I wish I did. Here are some assumptions: which are incorrect?

Israel believes it has a biblically ordained "right" to the land it occupies.

Israel has taken much more land from the Palestinians then initially provided by the Balfour (sp?) Declaration in 1948 (?)

Israel agrees that the settlements are illegal but they do nothing to stop their development.

Israel has claimed that land won in wars are now theirs?

Israel is the single largest recepient of US Foreign Aid - amounting to billions annually.

I wonder what people on earth, when presented with the same situation the Arabs have been presented with, would not have fought back? Historically, Americans have been pretty fiesty - I bet they would have fought against those who tried to take their land.

In my experience humans are pretty much the same. When I see the behavior of Palestinian militants, or the US Military Police in Iraq I might at first think its pretty appalling, but then I wonder if I can be sure I wouldn't act the same under the same circumstances. I don't see any thing so special in me that would lead me to believe I would be exempt from the very typical reactions we see every day by people under stress in the middle east.

Yet when it comes to our "enemies" we seem to attribute their very understandable actions to "evil" and then proceed to attempt to destroy them. I wonder why it is so much harder to try to understand them?