Town to Behead People Who Don't Pray 5 Times a Day

[skippy3481]

Faith is a tough thing we want things on our time not god's. Selfish creatures we are.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Rupert, just because some muslim people misinterpret doesn't mean the whole religion wants to off everyone thats not muslim. Look at westboro baptist in the kansas. They would love to kill gays, that doesnt mean all christians do. You can't selectively slice out parts and apply them overall its not fair.

Skippy, I have never said that all Muslims are bad or anything like that. This thread is about what is going on in Somalia. I am simply saying that you can't compare the Religious Right to the wackos in Somalia, Afghanistan, or any of the other places where they will kill you if you don't do what they say.

[repent]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Somer, I was totally kidding when I agreed with Repent and it is obvios that he was totally kidding.

sorry Richi,
I was not kidding.
I admire the Sheik.
sounds like a cool dude.


Repent

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Any Christians that would kill non-believers are just as bad as Muslims who would kill non-believers. I'm not denying that.

I don't know what Christians or Muslims did hundreds of years ago. All I know is what I see in the world right now. I don't see Christians killing non-believers.

Ever hear of a little spot called Bosnia, Rupert? Christians killing Muslems. Oh, but that was such a long time ago, right? All the way back in the 1990's.

And Rupert, if you want to sound like you understand anything about this situation, you should take time to learn what happened hundreds of years ago, because I promise you, Moslems in the Middle East know and in some cases, are still mad about it. Remember Bush referring to the initial attacks as a "crusade?" Remember how upset the Moslem world got?

But thanks for agreeing one religious fanatic who would kill in the name of the religion is as bad as another, regardless of the religion. I knew there was common ground somewhere in this discussion.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: spot on with the genesis(small g) of the problem! This the result of Abraham not trusting God to make him the father of Isreals' generations to follow. It was the wifes' idea to sleep with servant! SECOND time woman put the Kibbosh on Gods' Plan(Garden of Eden ring a bell) But...WE love you ladies!

OYE VEY!!! Timm,
Think of the problems that could've been avoided if Abraham had taken a cold shower or watched the football game instead.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Ever hear of a little spot called Bosnia, Rupert? Christians killing Muslems. Oh, but that was such a long time ago, right? All the way back in the 1990's.

And Rupert, if you want to sound like you understand anything about this situation, you should take time to learn what happened hundreds of years ago, because I promise you, Moslems in the Middle East know and in some cases, are still mad about it. Remember Bush referring to the initial attacks as a "crusade?" Remember how upset the Moslem world got?

But thanks for agreeing one religious fanatic who would kill in the name of the religion is as bad as another, regardless of the religion. I knew there was common ground somewhere in this discussion.

In Yugoslavia(Bosnia, Croatia, etc.),that was a totally different situation. You had a situation there with three different groups that had been historic rivals and bitter enemies for years. You had the Serbs(Orthodox Christians), the Croats(Catholics), and the ethnic Albanians(Muslims).

In World War II, Serbs had been massacred by the tens of thousands in concentration camps. Then in 1991, the new Croat government was reviving fascism and enacting discriminatory laws targeting Orthodox Serbs. There was a civil war and the minority Serbs ended up fighting back and outgunning the Croats and the Albanians. There ended up being mass executions of Croats and Albanians at the hands of the Serbs.

I'm not excusing what happened there. You had a civil war there with a history of each side massacaring the other side. If there was no outside intereference, I think that whichever side had the most firepower would have massacred the other side. That is often times the case in wars. You have atrocities committed by both sides. In Vietnam, there were plenty of atrocities committed by our troops. There's no excuse for it, but it continuously seems to happen in wars.

Anyway, I don't think part of the theology of the Christians there was that all non-Christians in the world should be killed. It was just a case of bitter enemies who had a history of killing each other that wanted to continue to kill each other.

I want to make sure you understand that I'm not condoning what happened in Bosnia. It was murder. Murder is murder. I'm simply saying that I don't think theology was the reason for the murders. It was just a case of enemies killing each other. I think that is different from someone saying that you will be beheaded if you don't follow their religion.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In Yugoslavia(Bosnia, Croatia, etc.),that was a totally different situation. You had a situation there with three different groups that had been historic rivals and bitter enemies for years. You had the Serbs(Orthodox Christians), the Croats(Catholics), and the ethnic Albanians(Muslims).

In World War II, Serbs had been massacred by the tens of thousands in concentration camps. Then in 1991, the new Croat government was reviving fascism and enacting discriminatory laws targeting Orthodox Serbs. There was a civil war and the minority Serbs ended up fighting back and outgunning the Croats and the Albanians. There ended up being mass executions of Croats and Albanians at the hands of the Serbs.

I'm not excusing what happened there. You had a civil war there with a history of each side massacaring the other side. If there was no outside intereference, I think that whichever side had the most firepower would have massacred the other side. That is often times the case in wars. You have atrocities committed by both sides. In Vietnam, there were plenty of atrocities committed by our troops. There's no excuse for it, but it continuously seems to happen in wars.

Anyway, I don't think part of the theology of the Christians there was that all non-Christians in the world should be killed. It was just a case of bitter enemies who had a history of killing each other that wanted to continue to kill each other.

I want to make sure you understand that I'm not condoning what happened in Bosnia. It was murder. Murder is murder. I'm simply saying that I don't think theology was the reason for the murders. It was just a case of enemies killing each other. I think that is different from someone saying that you will be beheaded if you don't follow their religion.

And Rupert, a lot of the angry feuds waged by Moslems today also go back generations-- Osama turned anti-American as a result of how we handled the Soviets and Afghanistan. We trained him, for heaven's sake.

I agree with you that the tensions in Bosnia were ethnically based, but you still had Christians killing, which implies that they feel they have a right to kill "other." Which of course, is not very Christian as we understand Christianity. My point was, I felt you were grossly generalizing Islam as a "We kill nonbelievers" faith, when in fact members of all faiths do terrible things, many of those things allegedly in the name of the faith (though I tend to think, at its essence, most war is about who has the stuff. I'm with George Carlin on that). This law in Somalia is barbaric, to those of us looking from the outside. But barbarism happens in many faiths and to say basically, "What do you expect from Islam?" is not helpful nor fair.

But here's the thing-- your posts really started me mulling over the "They're attacking us because their faith is crazy and they hate our freedom" mentality that is not all that uncommon here in the US (i'm not saying you have that mentality, though you may; I don't know). And I thought, it's obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that that's a ridiculous position. Most nations with a majority population of Moslems live pretty peacefully, and what in the world is, "hate our freedom?" And here's the thing I started mulling, and I thought of it in part thanks to Cajun's smart observation about people wanting to do what's easy-- if one can convince oneself that we were attacked on 9/11, and before (the USS Cole, etc) because a religion is "crazy" then we can absolve ourselves of any responsibility and be the innocent victim (as a nation-- the people killed on 9/11 were certainly innocent victims themselves). We can retaliate in any we want because hey, they're crazy out there and we didn't do anything wrong. BUT-- if we take away the "crazy" position, we have to ask ourselves why in that case we were attacked, and that starts to open up an uncomfortable can of worms about US foreign policy over the last 50 years in regards to the Middle East and oil. Where maybe we aren't always the stellar perfect good guy we imagine the US to be. Because most of us don't pay much attention to the rest of the world. We have our cheap food, our cheap oil, our prosperity and what the costs of that are to the rest of the world, we don't really know or care. Until we get attacked, and then we stand, amazed. How could anyone want to attack us? We're nice! We're the good guys!

The good guys, that is, who are less than 5 percent of the world's population, yet consume 25 percent of the world's energy. The good guys who pushed for NAFTA, touting it as a chance to open up free trade, then continued to subsidize our own farmers, condemnng farmers from other countries bound by the agreement to poverty. The good guys who turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's human rights violations, as long as we get a supply of oil. In fact, Bush elder once ranted to Queen Noor about Hussein that he thought it completely unfair that "that madman" controlled a quarter of the "civilized world's" supply of oil. Huh? Madman or not, that's not "the civilized world's" oil, it's Iraq's oil. You want it, pay for it. But we don't want to. We want it cheap or free and we're big and rich and powerful and we can bully our way into lots of things. And you and I, the average citizen, happily ignore the rest of the world until the results of our policies hit our shores, killing people who also had nothing to do with the hatred aimed at our government.

Al Franken said something about differences between conservatives and liberals-- amusing (to a liberal), but there's a nugget there, though maybe not in the way he put it. He said conservatives tend to love their country the way a four-year-old loves his mommy-- mommy is perfect and anyone who would say anything against mommy is bad. Liberals love their country the way an adult loves his mom-- the love is just as strong, but tempered by an awareness that his mom is not infallible. Now, I think he's not right-- I know plenty of conservatives with a very clear-eyed view of the US, but I think there is something to how you love your country-- it's not fun to think we do some sh*tty things to the rest of the world, because we want to think we're always the good, nice guy. But to really grasp what starts things like these attacks, we have to be willing to look at our own actions, as well as the other nation(s)' and decide was our government, in any way, culpable? And we have to be willing to look back 50 years or more to things that happened then and see what the outcome has been. Because it's only then we can really start to find solutions that will, in the end, keep the innocent men and women just trying to go to work safe. It's funny-- dissenters get branded as terrorist-lovers and traitors, yet, by trying to really understand WHY a human being would take up arms and bombs against other nation, by being willing to step into a jihadist's shoes for a moment, and try to see things from his perspective, they maybe are the only ones who will find the root causes and so help find solutions.

As Danzig said, I'm grateful to live here, with at least more chances as a female than I'd have in Islamic nations. But that freedom is not due to the Christianity; it's due to secularism. A secularism that says that I'm my own person, not a creation from a man's rib, that I'm an equal partner in a marriage, not the junior one, and that the male of the species is perfectly capable of controlling his sexual urges without my having to cover my ankles (one of the reasons I'm against the Islamic head-scarf-- whatever else women insist it symbolizes, it also symbolizes an attitude that women have to cover themselves because men can't be held responsible for their actions otherwise and that's insulting to men and demeaning to women. In my opinion, anyway). And that means freedom for me and my fellow women. But again, that's due to people being willing to say religion should be off the table when it comes to governing. Any religion.

Apologies, Rupert-- I'm sure I've bored you to tears by now. If you're even still reading at this point.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And Rupert, a lot of the angry feuds waged by Moslems today also go back generations-- Osama turned anti-American as a result of how we handled the Soviets and Afghanistan. We trained him, for heaven's sake.

I agree with you that the tensions in Bosnia were ethnically based, but you still had Christians killing, which implies that they feel they have a right to kill "other." Which of course, is not very Christian as we understand Christianity. My point was, I felt you were grossly generalizing Islam as a "We kill nonbelievers" faith, when in fact members of all faiths do terrible things, many of those things allegedly in the name of the faith (though I tend to think, at its essence, most war is about who has the stuff. I'm with George Carlin on that). This law in Somalia is barbaric, to those of us looking from the outside. But barbarism happens in many faiths and to say basically, "What do you expect from Islam?" is not helpful nor fair.

But here's the thing-- your posts really started me mulling over the "They're attacking us because their faith is crazy and they hate our freedom" mentality that is not all that uncommon here in the US (i'm not saying you have that mentality, though you may; I don't know). And I thought, it's obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that that's a ridiculous position. Most nations with a majority population of Moslems live pretty peacefully, and what in the world is, "hate our freedom?" And here's the thing I started mulling, and I thought of it in part thanks to Cajun's smart observation about people wanting to do what's easy-- if one can convince oneself that we were attacked on 9/11, and before (the USS Cole, etc) because a religion is "crazy" then we can absolve ourselves of any responsibility and be the innocent victim (as a nation-- the people killed on 9/11 were certainly innocent victims themselves). We can retaliate in any we want because hey, they're crazy out there and we didn't do anything wrong. BUT-- if we take away the "crazy" position, we have to ask ourselves why in that case we were attacked, and that starts to open up an uncomfortable can of worms about US foreign policy over the last 50 years in regards to the Middle East and oil. Where maybe we aren't always the stellar perfect good guy we imagine the US to be. Because most of us don't pay much attention to the rest of the world. We have our cheap food, our cheap oil, our prosperity and what the costs of that are to the rest of the world, we don't really know or care. Until we get attacked, and then we stand, amazed. How could anyone want to attack us? We're nice! We're the good guys!

The good guys, that is, who are less than 5 percent of the world's population, yet consume 25 percent of the world's energy. The good guys who pushed for NAFTA, touting it as a chance to open up free trade, then continued to subsidize our own farmers, condemnng farmers from other countries bound by the agreement to poverty. The good guys who turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's human rights violations, as long as we get a supply of oil. In fact, Bush elder once ranted to Queen Noor about Hussein that he thought it completely unfair that "that madman" controlled a quarter of the "civilized world's" supply of oil. Huh? Madman or not, that's not "the civilized world's" oil, it's Iraq's oil. You want it, pay for it. But we don't want to. We want it cheap or free and we're big and rich and powerful and we can bully our way into lots of things. And you and I, the average citizen, happily ignore the rest of the world until the results of our policies hit our shores, killing people who also had nothing to do with the hatred aimed at our government.

Al Franken said something about differences between conservatives and liberals-- amusing (to a liberal), but there's a nugget there, though maybe not in the way he put it. He said conservatives tend to love their country the way a four-year-old loves his mommy-- mommy is perfect and anyone who would say anything against mommy is bad. Liberals love their country the way an adult loves his mom-- the love is just as strong, but tempered by an awareness that his mom is not infallible. Now, I think he's not right-- I know plenty of conservatives with a very clear-eyed view of the US, but I think there is something to how you love your country-- it's not fun to think we do some sh*tty things to the rest of the world, because we want to think we're always the good, nice guy. But to really grasp what starts things like these attacks, we have to be willing to look at our own actions, as well as the other nation(s)' and decide was our government, in any way, culpable? And we have to be willing to look back 50 years or more to things that happened then and see what the outcome has been. Because it's only then we can really start to find solutions that will, in the end, keep the innocent men and women just trying to go to work safe. It's funny-- dissenters get branded as terrorist-lovers and traitors, yet, by trying to really understand WHY a human being would take up arms and bombs against other nation, by being willing to step into a jihadist's shoes for a moment, and try to see things from his perspective, they maybe are the only ones who will find the root causes and so help find solutions.

As Danzig said, I'm grateful to live here, with at least more chances as a female than I'd have in Islamic nations. But that freedom is not due to the Christianity; it's due to secularism. A secularism that says that I'm my own person, not a creation from a man's rib, that I'm an equal partner in a marriage, not the junior one, and that the male of the species is perfectly capable of controlling his sexual urges without my having to cover my ankles (one of the reasons I'm against the Islamic head-scarf-- whatever else women insist it symbolizes, it also symbolizes an attitude that women have to cover themselves because men can't be held responsible for their actions otherwise and that's insulting to men and demeaning to women. In my opinion, anyway). And that means freedom for me and my fellow women. But again, that's due to people being willing to say religion should be off the table when it comes to governing. Any religion.

Apologies, Rupert-- I'm sure I've bored you to tears by now. If you're even still reading at this point.

It's amazing you can type that much about the Middle East and never mention Israel......

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dr. fager

It's amazing you can type that much about the Middle East and never mention Israel......

You're absolutely right, especially since I think Palestine/Israel should remain on the top of every US President's foreign policy agenda until something gets sorted out or the world comes to an end. I think if it's possible to resolve that conflict, a lot of the drive goes out of the radical Islam movement.

Mea culpa; thanks for calling me on it.

Clinton, in an interview post-presidency, had a brilliantly simple, absolutely impossible solution-- Israel goes back to the original boundaries, Palestinians give up right of return, and the UN takes over control of the holy cities. He said it was what needs to happen, and what will never happen.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You're absolutely right, especially since I think Palestine/Israel should remain on the top of every US President's foreign policy agenda until something gets sorted out or the world comes to an end. I think if it's possible to resolve that conflict, a lot of the drive goes out of the radical Islam movement.

Mea culpa; thanks for calling me on it.

Clinton, in an interview post-presidency, had a brilliantly simple, absolutely impossible solution-- Israel goes back to the original boundaries, Palestinians give up right of return, and the UN takes over control of the holy cities. He said it was what needs to happen, and what will never happen.

I took a class called the Modern Middle East, who would have known it's probably the most pertinent thing I walked away with from my college career considering a graduated with considering now I'm an IT guy at a law firm.

I really wish more people would have their eyes opened like I did.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dr. fager

I took a class called the Modern Middle East, who would have known it's probably the most pertinent thing I walked away with from my college career considering a graduated with considering now I'm an IT guy at a law firm.

I really wish more people would have their eyes opened like I did.

What are your thoughts on the Middle East?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And Rupert, a lot of the angry feuds waged by Moslems today also go back generations-- Osama turned anti-American as a result of how we handled the Soviets and Afghanistan. We trained him, for heaven's sake.

But here's the thing-- your posts really started me mulling over the "They're attacking us because their faith is crazy and they hate our freedom" mentality that is not all that uncommon here in the US (i'm not saying you have that mentality, though you may; I don't know). And I thought, it's obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that that's a ridiculous position. Most nations with a majority population of Moslems live pretty peacefully, and what in the world is, "hate our freedom?" And here's the thing I started mulling, and I thought of it in part thanks to Cajun's smart observation about people wanting to do what's easy-- if one can convince oneself that we were attacked on 9/11, and before (the USS Cole, etc) because a religion is "crazy" then we can absolve ourselves of any responsibility and be the innocent victim (as a nation-- the people killed on 9/11 were certainly innocent victims themselves). We can retaliate in any we want because hey, they're crazy out there and we didn't do anything wrong. BUT-- if we take away the "crazy" position, we have to ask ourselves why in that case we were attacked, and that starts to open up an uncomfortable can of worms about US foreign policy over the last 50 years in regards to the Middle East and oil. Where maybe we aren't always the stellar perfect good guy we imagine the US to be. Because most of us don't pay much attention to the rest of the world. We have our cheap food, our cheap oil, our prosperity and what the costs of that are to the rest of the world, we don't really know or care. Until we get attacked, and then we stand, amazed. How could anyone want to attack us? We're nice! We're the good guys!

Apologies, Rupert-- I'm sure I've bored you to tears by now. If you're even still reading at this point.

I partially agree with you and I partially disagree with you. Ther are times that a country or people may have an issue with us over policy. But other times, I think it has very little to do with policy.

For example, let's take the shoe-bomber. I think his name is Richard Reid. This guy was a simple criminal. He wasn't a Muslim. He wasn't even religious. He was just a criminal who kept getting arresting. He had no grievance against the US.

Anyway, while he was in jail just a few years ago, he converted to Islam. When he got out of jail, he was still bent on being a criminal and breaking the law. He joined a mosque and he ended up leaving because they weren't radical enough. They didn't encorage him to do anything bad. He didn't like that. He wanted a mosque that would encourage him to contiue his criminal behavior. Then he found a mosque that was radical where they encouraged him to be violent and go on jihad. They encouraged him to try to blow up an American plane. So the religion was just an excuse for him to continue his anti-social behavior. He had no grievance against the US. His attempt to try to blow up the plane had nothing to do with US policy. It was just a continuation of his criminal behavior.

In some ways, Bin Laden is a similar story. He may have had a legitimate grievance at one time, but that was against the Soviets. We helped him and the Afghans in their fight against the Soviets. They were victorious. The Soviets ended up leaving Afghanistan.

Do you think Bin Laden was going to retire after that? Of course not. He's a terrorist. He's going to find someone else to go after. So he decided he would go after us. He was mad at us(infidels) for being in Saudi Arabia. He thinks that foreign infidels should not be on the sacred ground of Saudi Arabia. But why should it be up to him? The Saudi government wants us there.

If you are a terrorist, you can always find a justification for attacking people. Just because a terrorist has a justification, it doesn't make it legitimate. Let's say that I don't like Korean people because I don't like them being on the sacred ground of the United States. So I go to South Korean and bomb some building. My justification is that I am mad at their country because I don't like Koreans being in my country(the US). If that happened, would you say that South Korea needs to look at their policy and that they are partly at fault for me bombing them? That is ridiculous.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I partially agree with you and I partially disagree with you. Ther are times that a country or people may have an issue with us over policy. But other times, I think it has very little to do with policy.

For example, let's take the shoe-bomber. I think his name is Richard Reid. This guy was a simple criminal. He wasn't a Muslim. He wasn't even religious. He was just a criminal who kept getting arresting. He had no grievance against the US.

Anyway, while he was in jail just a few years ago, he converted to Islam. When he got out of jail, he was still bent on being a criminal and breaking the law. He joined a mosque and he ended up leaving because they weren't radical enough. They didn't encorage him to do anything bad. He didn't like that. He wanted a mosque that would encourage him to contiue his criminal behavior. Then he found a mosque that was radical where they encouraged him to be violent and go on jihad. They encouraged him to try to blow up an American plane. So the religion was just an excuse for him to continue his anti-social behavior. He had no grievance against the US. His attempt to try to blow up the plane had nothing to do with US policy. It was just a continuation of his criminal behavior.

In some ways, Bin Laden is a similar story. He may have had a legitimate grievance at one time, but that was against the Soviets. We helped him and the Afghans in their fight against the Soviets. They were victorious. The Soviets ended up leaving Afghanistan.

Do you think Bin Laden was going to retire after that? Of course not. He's a terrorist. He's going to find someone else to go after. So he decided he would go after us. He was mad at us(infidels) for being in Saudi Arabia. He thinks that foreign infidels should not be on the sacred ground of Saudi Arabia. But why should it be up to him? The Saudi government wants us there.

If you are a terrorist, you can always find a justification for attacking people. Just because a terrorist has a justification, it doesn't make it legitimate. Let's say that I don't like Korean people because I don't like them being on the sacred ground of the United States. So I go to South Korean and bomb some building. My justification is that I am mad at their country because I don't like Koreans being in my country(the US). If that happened, would you say that South Korea needs to look at their policy and that they are partly at fault for me bombing them? That is ridiculous.

Rupert, interesting stuff and I'll get back to it- but I have to go to work (bleah) and then to "Evil Dead, the Musical" (yay!). I'll check in tomorrow. Hey, go watch my short film, would you, please, if you have the time? (Link on the esoteric board)

Just didn't want you to think I was blowing off your post.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, interesting stuff and I'll get back to it- but I have to go to work (bleah) and then to "Evil Dead, the Musical" (yay!). I'll check in tomorrow. Hey, go watch my short film, would you, please, if you have the time? (Link on the esoteric board)

Just didn't want you to think I was blowing off your post.

Let's just pretend that tomorrow we gave in to Bin Laden. We said, "Osama, we don't want to fight with you any more. We don't want any more terrorist attacks, so just tell us what you want us to do and we will do it."

He'd probably tell us to get out of Saudi Arabia and probably tell us to get out of the Middle East entirely. He'd tell us to stop supporting Israel. So let's just say that we did everything that he wanted. Do you think that he would retire from being a terrorist? I don't think so. He'd probably leave us alone for now and he would find another target. He'd probably try to overthrow the Saudi government. He'd be blowing things up all over the place in Saudi Arabia. He'd probably try to do the same thing in Egypt. Let's say that he was successful and he overthrew those governments. Do you think he would stop there? I don't think there is any chance that he would stop there. Even if he conqured the entire Middle East, I don't think he would stop there. He'd find someone else to wage jihad on. The West would probably be his next target.

Anyway, none of that is going to happen. But the point is that a terrorist like Bin Laden is going to keep being a terrorist. He will always have a new target to go after. And if you are his target, you need to do what he says or else he will terrorize you.

Bin Laden is an individual citizen with a group of followers. He is not a country. His group carries out bombings in all different countries. He has no right to try to impose his will through violence on all different countries. If I got a group of a few thousand followers, I would have no right to start bombing targets here or any other country.

I think it is a mistake to want to blame the victims in any way. I am not saying that it is not important to figure out why the terrorists are mad at us. It is important to know why they are attacking us. But just because they have what they believe is a reason to attack us, it doesn't mean that the attack is justified in any way.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, interesting stuff and I'll get back to it- but I have to go to work (bleah) and then to "Evil Dead, the Musical" (yay!). I'll check in tomorrow. Hey, go watch my short film, would you, please, if you have the time? (Link on the esoteric board)

Just didn't want you to think I was blowing off your post.

I will watch your film when I get a chance. I probably won't have time today.

[skippy3481]

The israeli palestinian conflict will never end. They have been fighting for thousands of years and will continue fighting until one is gone. No amount of presidental visits or talks are ever going to get them to stop hating one another.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

The israeli palestinian conflict will never end. They have been fighting for thousands of years and will continue fighting until one is gone. No amount of presidental visits or talks are ever going to get them to stop hating one another.

has nothing to do with getting them to quit hating each other, has everything to do with them not killing each other and keeping the whole region on 'simmer' constantly.

also, it's only been since israel got their own homeland in the 20th century that things really got out of control. but that's what happens when one group give another group a third groups land. not really going to go over well.

the holy city is claimed as the homeland by islam, christianity and judaism. maybe if it was separated from israel, and controlled by a neutral party, that would help the situation.

interesting tho that a thread about a zealot turns into talk about israel.

[skippy3481]

No zig it has everything to do with them to quit hating each other. In case you forgot palestine is run by a terrorist group whose soul mission is to destory israel . That is going to spawn massive conflict. Hard to eradicate someone without killing. Israel is the power in the middle east and everyone knows that.

[Danzig]

i just don't think you have to like each other to live next to each other. yep, israel has a lot of military power. they have to, or risk being destroyed.
no easy fixes there i'm afraid.
and it isn't just palestine that wants them destroyed. hell, sometimes i think much of the world does.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

OYE VEY!!! Timm,
Think of the problems that could've been avoided if Abraham had taken a cold shower or watched the football game instead.

Or read a scroll!