First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Deutscher Herbst
Posted 11/17/09 , edited 11/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Ryutai-Desk wrote: There's not much we can talk about Deutschland Herbst actually. I knew this thread when nobody have posted yet. This was merely history lesson. And you're already stated it was wasting time. I post here because you associated this with Muslims being terrorist in your edit. Well, yeah. I know about your method in most of your thread. Let's talk it again.


I’d like to start by apologizing for my late reply. I’ve been a bit under the weather lately. I am also sorry to say that I’m having a little trouble understanding you again. English is such a slippery language. Misplacing or forgetting a single comma can completely change the meaning of a sentence. I know this is your second language, and I’ll do my best, but I highly recommend that you copy and paste your posts into a spelling and grammar checker. That’s what I do, it’s very handy.

Anyway, I think that there’s a lot to discuss. There’s plenty to investigate and muse upon concerning German Autumn. The initial post certainly was part history lesson; I don’t see anything wrong with that. But, there’s still plenty that hasn’t been touched upon. We could, for example, discuss radicalism in general. We could discuss anti-capitalism. Somebody asked why the terrorists abducted German citizens to negotiate for Palestinian prisoners in Turkey! We can talk about it a lot. There just seems to be a lack of interest.

I don’t think I associated being a Muslim with terrorism. Maybe I should go back and read my edit. It has been a long time since I looked at it. I went back and looked at my edit, and you clearly didn’t read what I had to say. I was actually defending conservatives and Muslims in that statement by pointing out that, contrary to the stereotype, many terrorists are actually non-religious/non-Muslim liberals. The media often portrays terrorists as right-wing fundamentalists or as Muslims radicals. Apparently this isn’t true.

Actually, I think she's doing that because she's been trying to differentiate today's so-called terrorists as portrait by the mainstream medias, as her only form of built-in defense mechanism for so long. She misled herself into thinking that you were attacking Islamic faith using terrorism as a scapegoat.

In fact, I think she missed the whole point because of her bias opinion about you, plus her religious self-interest in the first place. Which I clearly stated that "terrorist factions are extremists all the same, while the only distinction is their supporters and benefactors are pro-conservative or pro-liberal". Because "they have no distinction on any personal boundary such as nationality or individuality. As long as it serves their objectives, anything that they do is just a prelude to that final objective".

So based on my definition of terrorists, let's have another look at the Taliban insurgents' last attack conducted both in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. And while we're at it, let us also consider the fate of local anti-Taliban organizers. And finally, the Taliban's reply to all those events as of late:

"These are religiously legitimate targets," Azam Tariq, the spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), said in a videotaped statement released over the Internet this weekend.

"The targets of the Tehrik-i-Taliban have always been clear: those state organizations who at the behest of the Americans target the Tehrik-i-Taliban and have the blood of our martyrs on their hands."

He went on to deny responsibility for the twin suicide bombings at the International Islamic University in Islamabad and for the October 28 car bombing of a crowded Peshawar market, which killed more then 100 people.

"I want to make it clear to the Muslim world, especially Pakistan, that the bomb blasts targeting civilians are not the work of the mujahedeen," Tariq said. "Instead, it is the work of Pakistan's sinister secret organizations and Blackwater."
All these death threats, violence, agendas, and claims made by the Taliban have a single result: to create confusions among Pakistan, Afghanistan, as well as the rest of the world. And even then, that's still not their final objective. When "The Afghan Taliban have always had a close relationship with Pakistani intelligence agencies, Mr. Barrett said recently. 'They don’t like the way that the Pakistan Taliban has been fighting the Pakistan government and causing a whole load of problems there,' he said"(citation).
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/20/09
Sorry, gone for awhile. I thought the forums were dead, lol~.


DomFortress wrote:

What is the Taliban insurgents but a terrorist group that's exploiting the Afghan government; a rather weak democratic government with a corrupted president according to you here. And if so, do you think that such as it is, the current Afghan government can stabilize its country without the help of US foreign aid policy to Afghanistan? Which created and funded these expensive yet necessary programs.

Can all these programs stay active at the hands of the current Afghan government administration? When the Taliban insurgents are targeting these programs as well as the Afghan democratic movement.

Therefore what exactly is your decision after considering all those facts? When the US troops are now in Afghanistan for security reason, such as countering the attacks conducted by the Taliban insurgents on the US foreign aid programs as well as the Afghan democratic movement.

"Borrowed strengths don't last." -by yours truly-


❀=✿

Firstly, we have to make it clear of the differences of Terrorist and Insurgency groups. According to Terrorist Research, The ultimate goal of an insurgency is to challenge the existing government in order to control of all or a portion of its territory, or force political concessions in sharing political power. Insurgencies require the active or tacit support of some portion of the population involved. External support, recognition or approval from other countries or political entities can be useful to insurgents, but is not required.

A terror group does not require and rarely has the active support or even the sympathy of a large fraction of the population. While insurgents will frequently describe themselves as "insurgents" or "guerillas", terrorists will not refer to themselves as "terrorists" but describe themselves using military or political terminology ("freedom fighters", "soldiers", "activists", Militants). Terrorism relies on public impact, and is therefore conscious of the advantage of avoiding the negative connotations of the term "terrorists" in identifying themselves.

However, in Taliban's case, I think they are defined as both. Using terror as its method, and used political movement towards their government to cease the Afghan's government. By using terrorism, they seek support from Afghans people to support them by putting government in weak position within a country. Therefore, their goal is to challenge the existing government not the people.

Robert R. Tomes spoke of four requisites: in a 2004 article, identifies four elements that "typically encompass an insurgency":
1. cell-networks that maintain secrecy.
2. terrorism used to foster insecurity among the population and drive them to the movement for protection
3. multifaceted attempts to cultivate support in the general population, often by undermining the new regime
4. attacks against the government.

❀=✿

Of course, current Afghan government is miserable as other third world countries. Therefore, we shouldn't limit the solutions and relies on foreign aids. Any aids and helps from anyone would not improve their conditions, if there's no coalescence, confraternity and collaboration that leads to unity within all layer of its people. By treating their own people as terrorist and attempts to exterminate them, would only cause distrust and hate to their own people, that leads to result which we can see today.

Foreign aid should be distributed equally and accurately to government which has authority to execute programs to improving its people. That's foreign aid's purpose. However, in actual practice, US foreign aid being given as political movement to gain support of Afghan's government and pressuring Afghans gov to eliminate their own people, which they like to described as terrorist. It would be better if US foreign aid be given by International - Non Organization Government that merely help poor people in third world countries like Afghanistan, not for political motives.

❀=✿

I would believe it, if by placing US troops can reduces more violent attacks from Military Movement such as Taliban. But in reality, does it helps to reducing victims? As according to Associated Press , Since 2007, more than 70,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury — more than 20,000 of them this year, according to the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. And it leads to mental disability to US soldiers according to TimesOnline



TimesOnline

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

Vince Short, 42, a former Army specialist who suffered brain injuries in a 2003 roadside bomb attack in Iraq, said he can't help but feel for the soldiers coming home from Afghanistan with similar wounds.

"I cry out for them. It's tough. It's hard to put it in words," Short, who served with the District of Columbia Army National Guard, said in an interview at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, where he receives weekly physical and mental therapy.

"At that point, there was still a lot of panicking going on inside of me because it's like, 'What's going to happen to me?'" said Short. "I used to have a career. I used to have a good solid marriage. I was doing really good, and now look at me."

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”


Do you see how depressed and miserable the soldiers condition, risking their lives day by day for something unclear and doesn't have slight hope to see the end of this inappropriate war? By adding more US troops, US citizens, soldier's families, troops and anyone who understand how tragic the situation is in battlefield would see this additional troops as torture by US government, especially Obama.

That's why solving violent by violent would not works. It has been proven in human's history when there's no consideration of reconciliation from involved sides. After all, it's a war between its own countrymen. By putting the fact that Afghans people has been lived together since 300 years ago and their harmony between military and religion country before 9/11 and US invasion that causing dispute between those 2 are very close, it's not futile to start discussing and sit together to solve solutions between 2 faction.

Is this the method that would solve problem? In Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Korea, Sri Lanka and many other countries, it's clear this is the worst method ever that only causing destruction from both sides. Isn't this the very same method US using in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan? By making them killing their own people, make a 'legitimate' government versus resistance movement opposing foreign invasion and make them grow tired and weak, US gained most control in those nations. Making such chaos and dispute resulting in children have to hold weapons and killing their own childhood friends are absolutely violation of international humanitarian law.

In Indonesia, we had resistance groups that seeks independence in northern region of Aceh in Sumatera Island that we had been in fight for decades. However, since our government look them as human beings that also have right to live. We began to approach them by diplomacy, by humble and by hope there will be a way for both sides. And know what, it's been solved entirely no more than 5 years. Aceh Peace Process Negotiations went smoothly than we expected.

The Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement, or GAM, signed a peace agreement today in Helsinki that brings to a close nearly thirty years of armed conflict on the island. You could read their conversation between 2 sides and journalist in warmth and friendly atmosphere after they signed the peace deal on Democracy now. This is what I believe would bring peace and prosperity to both sides by fully understand other side, respect them and negotiating with them for one purpose, Peace.

"That's why you can't understand them, because you don't have enough love" (Izumi Konata, 2007)




SeraphAlford wrote:

I’d like to start by apologizing for my late reply. I’ve been a bit under the weather lately. I am also sorry to say that I’m having a little trouble understanding you again. English is such a slippery language. Misplacing or forgetting a single comma can completely change the meaning of a sentence. I know this is your second language, and I’ll do my best, but I highly recommend that you copy and paste your posts into a spelling and grammar checker. That’s what I do, it’s very handy.

Anyway, I think that there’s a lot to discuss. There’s plenty to investigate and muse upon concerning German Autumn. The initial post certainly was part history lesson; I don’t see anything wrong with that. But, there’s still plenty that hasn’t been touched upon. We could, for example, discuss radicalism in general. We could discuss anti-capitalism. Somebody asked why the terrorists abducted German citizens to negotiate for Palestinian prisoners in Turkey! We can talk about it a lot. There just seems to be a lack of interest.

I don’t think I associated being a Muslim with terrorism. Maybe I should go back and read my edit. It has been a long time since I looked at it. I went back and looked at my edit, and you clearly didn’t read what I had to say. I was actually defending conservatives and Muslims in that statement by pointing out that, contrary to the stereotype, many terrorists are actually non-religious/non-Muslim liberals. The media often portrays terrorists as right-wing fundamentalists or as Muslims radicals. Apparently this isn’t true.


Sorry for that, it just my engrrish can't be helped. I tried to find spelling and grammar check online, but I couldn't find the good one. If you have better reference, please do tell me. In my last post, I forgot to put one dot., yeah it became confusing whenever I read it again.

It has connection to Black September, whereas Palestinians militant demand Palestinian prisoners to be released from Israel's prisons. It's all political move. The question is their demand, by using violent, they wanted to release their people which is being captive by Israel. Then, it leads to the reasons why Israel captured Palestinian people? I'm sure not all of them are Hamas or suicide bombers. Many are just civilian. How about 11,000 Palestinian prisoners? Do you wanted to compare it with a single prisoner of Israel SOLDIER, Gilad Shalit?

I didn't refer to your actual statement, but referred to your 'under' statement from your sentence.
I was referring to : Isn’t liberal-terrorist supposed to be an oxy-moron? This historical event was pretty recent and seems to show that not only conservatives and Muslims can be terrorists and murderers The left has its radicals, its extremists as well.

I quoted your 2nd statement which is underlined "Not only", so anyone might assume you've generalize Conservatives and Muslims as terrorist and murderers. Well, I can't tell if that your true intentions in this sentence or maybe I interpret it wrongly. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. It can't be helped, I guess I learned something new on world level from big nations called "Baseless Allegation and False Accusation" =p


SeraphAlford wrote:

I’m sorry. This is one of the places where I’m having trouble understanding you. Are you asking me what the Arab involvement with the Nazis then has to do with the Palestinians of today? Well, it’s a relevant historical fact crucial to understanding the nature of Israel’s birth. It is also important to put the nakba in context. It’s also very difficult to argue that the Palestinian Arabs were the victims whenever they were attempting to eradicate an entire culture, whenever they allied themselves with history’s most hated dictator, and whenever they were campaigning for genocide. What does the ethnic cleansing of Israel in 1948 have to do with the Israelis of today? It’s relevant to looking at the conflict as a whole.

Looking at the quoted section, it occurs to me that you may be asking what the Palestinians of today have to do with the Nazis. Well, they’re still organized under the offspring of the Arab Nazi forces and their government is still proliferating the same Palestinian-nationalist/Arab-Nazi ideology. They’re also fighting with the same goals, the eradication of Israel and extermination of ethnic Jews from historical Palestine.

On an individual level, of course, many are completely innocent. But their suffering is brought on them by their government. There would’ve been peace; they would have Gaza and the Westbank, had they not elected Hamas. Israel gave them Gaza and was in the process of giving them Westbank and then they elected Hamas and illegally abducted Gilad.


❀=✿

I know about Mufti's attempts to expel Jews from Palestine. But until what extend, the Mufti's cooperation to Nazis? Nazis tried to expel Jews from Germany, possibly Europe. That's why Nazis was supporting Zionist in order to transmigrate Jews from Germany to another land, in this case, Palestine through their Transfer Agreement. And of course, No Palestinians were happy about this.

In The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany --1933-1941 by Klaus Polkehn and serialized in the Journal of Palestine Studies confirms what Edwin Black had revealed, that on February 28 1937, Feivel Polkes, head of the Haganah had told Adolf Eichmann that he was interested most of all in "accelerating Jewish migration to Palestine so that the Jews would obtain a majority over the Arabs in his country." Polkehn revealed that collaboration between the Zionists and the Third Reich was cemented by the "Mossad Aliyah Beth" which had been created by Haganah as an illegal immigration organization. Pina Ginsburg and Moshe Auerbach, with the blessings of the Reich, set up offices in Berlin to carry out their immigration activities in 1938.

❀=✿

Clearly, not only Arabs, but also tradional Jews are opposing Zionist. The real Jews are not Zionist. So, Palestinians can't elect Hamas, can't chose their real voice? Even though Hamas was being considered as candidate who gained majority of Palestinian in 2006 election? If they can't, why put Hamas in election from begin with? Where's the democracy? You always saying about illegally kidnap of Gilad. Remember: Gilad was a soldier, this is war zone, it's common things, it's better than dead, right? How about 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, that's not illegal?


SeraphAlford wrote:

The Jews and the Muslims had lived together in relative peace for a very long time, but years before the British arrived in the region there was already a mutual, racial animosity between the Jews and the Arabs.



The British appeased the Arab extremists by discriminating against the Jews because that was their method of keeping peace. If they met everybody’s demands then nobody could be angry, right? Wrong, it didn’t work quite they way they’d hoped.


Arabs were the one who freed Palestine from Ottoman Empire because they wanted to govern themselves without under occupation by anyone in Arab Revolt. The Arab revolt, led by T. E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") and Husayn's son Faysal, was successful in defeating the Ottomans, and Britain took control over much of this area during World War I.

But Britain made other promises during the war that conflicted with the Husayn-McMahon understandings. In 1917, the British Foreign Minister, Lord Arthur Balfour, issued a declaration (the Balfour Declaration) announcing his government's support for the establishment of "a Jewish national home in Palestine."

Arabs were angered by Britain's failure to fulfill its promise to create an independent Arab state, and many opposed British and French control as a violation of their right to self-determination. In Palestine, the situation was more complicated because of the British promise to support the creation of a Jewish national home. The rising tide of European Jewish immigration, land purchases and settlement in Palestine generated increasing resistance by Palestinian Arab peasants, journalists and political figures.

They feared that this would lead eventually to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Palestinian Arabs opposed the British Mandate because it thwarted their aspirations for self-rule, and opposed massive Jewish immigration because it threatened their position in the country.

European Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically after Hitler's rise to power in 1933, leading to new land purchases and Jewish settlements. Palestinian resistance to British control and Zionist settlement climaxed with the Arab revolt of 1936-39, which Britain suppressed with the help of Zionist militias and the complicity of neighboring Arab regimes.

After crushing the Arab revolt, the British reconsidered their governing policies in an effort to maintain order in an increasingly tense environment. They issued a White Paper (a statement of political policy) limiting future Jewish immigration and land purchases. The Zionists regarded this as a betrayal of the Balfour Declaration and a particularly egregious act in light of the desperate situation of the Jews in Europe, who were facing extermination.

The 1939 White Paper marked the end of the British-Zionist alliance. At the same time, the defeat of the Arab revolt and the exile of the Palestinian political leadership meant that the Palestinian Arabs were politically disorganized during the crucial decade in which the future of Palestine was decided. This is when British passed Palestine matter to UN which came up with UN GA Resolution 181 and UN Partition Plan.


SeraphAlford wrote:

Who says that they’re the ones who cannot interpret the Qur’an? It seems very arrogant of you to say that your perspective is the only right perspective and that anybody who disagrees with it is simply incapable of comprehending something. Maybe the Qur’an does call for violence and it is you peaceful Muslims who have it wrong? That’s what the violent Muslims say.


Of course, I won't dare to saying something that really accusing someone can't interpret Qur'an, after all they can speak Arabc, the Qur'an language and clearly many of them had gone to Mecca for pilgrimage. They are wayyy better than mine in religion. However, rather than calling me arrogant, how if you read deeper about Qur'an perspective of Jews in many verses. Clearly, it's not very friendly.http://www.pakistanlink.com/religion/2002/0104.html But of course, it's only focused on Jews who killed prophets, including Jews and abandoned God's promises.

That's why the verses quite harsh, that's where I assume the conservatives and extremist referring to this kind of verses that made their hatred against Jews until now. Just look at Iran, they don't have any problem with Jews, as they are 2nd biggest population of Jews in middle-east. It's pretty clear, it's not because of holy book, but rather to the people who read and interpret it differently.

Again, you said Qur'an does call for violence without further knowledge. I can't helped but looked you as anti-islam. =(


SeraphAlford wrote:

You’re only saying that because the past events in question were Arab crimes. You’re completely happy whenever we’re talking about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine or when you’re accusing the Jews of having stolen their land.

Ryu, you brought up the peace in an attempt to absolve the Arabs/Muslims of guilt and instead blame their crimes on a conspiracy of foreigners to turn the Jews and Arabs against one another. You did not bring it up to argue that peace can be attained in the future and you know it, I know it, anyone who read your post knows it.

You were the one who brought up the past. You’re only backing out now because I’m better informed than you are and because the historical facts aren’t in your favor.


What kind happiness I have, when humans were being massacred? Either from Arabs or Jews, they're both human beings. A normal person shouldn't say happiness whenever massacre or war occur, that's clear morality, I dunno about some, though. However, maybe you right about me when I talked in convenient way to avoid contradiction in my post. But I didn't say something irrelevant without any resources support what I'm saying, I'm saying the truth even that's not made you happy.

I didn't brought the past. I posted the link about Israel violation because you started saying how miserable Jews when they were being expelled by Arabs countries, I won't deny the past because what you said is right, although I prefer you could post the link to support it, maybe next time. That's why, I posted the link about how miserable are Palestinian at CURRENT situation which is being oppressed in front of our eyes and International world at the moment.

I know you're well-informed better than me. I heard your subject is political science, is it? Does it teach you about political events in the past too? That's good to know, so we can share information. However, I think political science education is to teach students how to know about politic problems and how to solve the problems, right? I prefer that side of political science, not only condemning certain side for personal benefit. I've been offered and asked about, how we can solve Israel-Palestine conflict. It's sad, you haven't suggest any solution from your point of view.


SeraphAlford wrote:

Actually, I agree with you. I think a lot of international laws are silly. There have been plenty of times in which I have discovered something is illegal and found it amusing. For example, leaving the lights on through the night in a prison full of captured enemy combatants is illegal. It’s a violation of international law.

Your above statement contains a straw-man tactic. To avoid facing and admitting that what Hamas did was wrong you change the topic and start trying to focus on unrelated Israeli crimes. You keep saying that I’m reverting to history. I’m not reverting to anything. I’m simply following the conversation. You asked why the Palestinians are suffering and I showed you the historical source of their agony.

That the kidnapping of Gilad and the conditions he is being kept in violate international law is not in question. That you don’t realize this demonstrates you haven’t even done surface level research. Just take a look at the Wikipedia page on the topic. Even there they point out that:


Hamas has refused requests from the Red Cross (ICRC) to allow visits by the ICRC. Several human rights organizations have stated that the terms and conditions of Shalit's detention are contrary to international humanitarian law


In a little bit I’m going to post some links from international humanitarian rights organizations. Read them and you will see that the abduction and conditions of Gilad and his captivity respectively are contrary to international law. This is a fact. Even in that goldstone report you cited the United Nations demanded Gilad’s release, as seen here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/15/un-gaza-war-israel-hamas

Yes, Israel has violated many international laws on many occasions. I never said that they did not. Why’re you spouting off past sins? Well, because once again you’re trying to distract people from seeing the clear truth.


Yes, it is. And that international laws has been taken from granted by big nations that control UN several times against weak nations. Pretty unreliable in my opinion, well it's been proven too. I asked when Hamas did wrong? What I was trying to say is, where's the proof Hamas killed their own people, Palestinians? I'm not changed the topic, and I posted Israel's crimes when because you did it too, but it's in COMPLETELY different quote.
So your answer why Palestinians are suffering because of what they did in the past? If you put it that way, then Palestinians are facing 'karma' from God now. Ok, that's fair, not an answer I was expecting, though. Now, have any solutions to end this?

You keep saying Gilad this, Gilad that because the fact he was a SOLDIER in BATTLEFIELD, WAR-ZONE being kidnapped NOT killed by enemy's army and being kept for years WITHOUT any injury and with RESPECT by enemy they've been called as terrorist. Now, how about the fact of more than 10,000 Palestinians prisoners being captived without trial?


Yes, Palestinian kidnapped Israel soldier and so Israel kidnapped thousands of Palestinian civilians. I never said that they did not. Why are you only talking about Gilad, not Palestinians prisoners as well? Well, because for many times, you're trying to taking advantages of it by not seeing the clear truth.


SeraphAlford wrote:

Ryu, many of our sources are actually the same. The fact finding mission to Gaza demanded the release of Gilad and described his confinement as contrary to international law. The videos being posted on youtube come from Palestinians trying to speak out and defend themselves. They’re the truth. Remember when I said I would post some links demonstrating the illegality of Gilad’s confinement? Well this document is the report filed from a Human Rights Watch investigation into the mistreatment of Palestinians.

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/62090/section/3


Hamas forcefully seized control in Gaza

it has conducted arbitrary arrests of political opponents, tortured detainees, clamped down on freedom of expression and assembly, and violated due process rights enshrined in Palestinian law

In general, abuses in Gaza by Hamas forces tend to be…more intense: arbitrary detentions accompanied by severe beatings and, as in two cases documented by Human Rights Watch, gunshots to the legs. In at least three cases, detainees have died…from torture.


It says that Hamas has made no efforts to prosecute any of its own forces for the:


serious abuses committed during the heavy fighting in Gaza in June 2007, including summary executions, maiming and torture




Gilad again.... How many Gilads we have? Does he have any brothers? lol~
Now I understand what're you talking about Hamas attacking Palestinians. It's obvious when you talked about Fatah as Palestinian. They're opponent in Palestine that has been trying to gain control over the regions in Westbank and Gaza Strip. I guess this is the result of west method to make people in their own country killed each other, killed thier own brother to make them weak, same method like in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, right?

Hamas always hate Fatah as they described them as Puppet Government that always obedient to Israel and US. That's why many disputes between them. Then how about abuses against Fatah and Hamas?
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/62090/section/5
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/62090/section/6


SeraphAlford wrote:

You just don’t want to believe. You only accept what you want to be true. The guy has no reason to lie. He’s certainly not pro-Israel, and in fact Arafat made public statements confirming it. Arafat did not pursue peace; it’s well known that he didn’t pursue peace. He engineered the massacre of Israel’s Olympic athletes. Look at all the quotes I presented you with where he himself boasts that he had no real intention of peace!

Anyone who knows anything about guerilla warfare knows that strategic diplomacy like the Oslo Accords for the Palestinians is a crucial aspect of this method.


I just want to end this war. I only wanted to know possible solutions that could bring peace in this land.
Yasser Arafar has died a long time ago. End of story. There's no value talk about him. Please tell me, we could bring peace to Israel-Palestine conflict. If we talk about dead person.

How about we talk related things about Israel-Palestine in appropriate thread?
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-377801/the-nation-of-israel-and-palestine/?pg=19
Posted 11/20/09 , edited 11/20/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

Sorry, gone for awhile. I thought the forums were dead, lol~.


DomFortress wrote:

What is the Taliban insurgents but a terrorist group that's exploiting the Afghan government; a rather weak democratic government with a corrupted president according to you here. And if so, do you think that such as it is, the current Afghan government can stabilize its country without the help of US foreign aid policy to Afghanistan? Which created and funded these expensive yet necessary programs.

Can all these programs stay active at the hands of the current Afghan government administration? When the Taliban insurgents are targeting these programs as well as the Afghan democratic movement.

Therefore what exactly is your decision after considering all those facts? When the US troops are now in Afghanistan for security reason, such as countering the attacks conducted by the Taliban insurgents on the US foreign aid programs as well as the Afghan democratic movement.

"Borrowed strengths don't last." -by yours truly-


❀=✿

Firstly, we have to make it clear of the differences of Terrorist and Insurgency groups. According to Terrorist Research, The ultimate goal of an insurgency is to challenge the existing government in order to control of all or a portion of its territory, or force political concessions in sharing political power. Insurgencies require the active or tacit support of some portion of the population involved. External support, recognition or approval from other countries or political entities can be useful to insurgents, but is not required.

A terror group does not require and rarely has the active support or even the sympathy of a large fraction of the population. While insurgents will frequently describe themselves as "insurgents" or "guerillas", terrorists will not refer to themselves as "terrorists" but describe themselves using military or political terminology ("freedom fighters", "soldiers", "activists", Militants). Terrorism relies on public impact, and is therefore conscious of the advantage of avoiding the negative connotations of the term "terrorists" in identifying themselves.

However, in Taliban's case, I think they are defined as both. Using terror as its method, and used political movement towards their government to cease the Afghan's government. By using terrorism, they seek support from Afghans people to support them by putting government in weak position within a country. Therefore, their goal is to challenge the existing government not the people.

Robert R. Tomes spoke of four requisites: in a 2004 article, identifies four elements that "typically encompass an insurgency":
1. cell-networks that maintain secrecy.
2. terrorism used to foster insecurity among the population and drive them to the movement for protection
3. multifaceted attempts to cultivate support in the general population, often by undermining the new regime
4. attacks against the government.

❀=✿

Of course, current Afghan government is miserable as other third world countries. Therefore, we shouldn't limit the solutions and relies on foreign aids. Any aids and helps from anyone would not improve their conditions, if there's no coalescence, confraternity and collaboration that leads to unity within all layer of its people. By treating their own people as terrorist and attempts to exterminate them, would only cause distrust and hate to their own people, that leads to result which we can see today.

Foreign aid should be distributed equally and accurately to government which has authority to execute programs to improving its people. That's foreign aid's purpose. However, in actual practice, US foreign aid being given as political movement to gain support of Afghan's government and pressuring Afghans gov to eliminate their own people, which they like to described as terrorist. It would be better if US foreign aid be given by International - Non Organization Government that merely help poor people in third world countries like Afghanistan, not for political motives.

❀=✿

I would believe it, if by placing US troops can reduces more violent attacks from Military Movement such as Taliban. But in reality, does it helps to reducing victims? As according to Associated Press , Since 2007, more than 70,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury — more than 20,000 of them this year, according to the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. And it leads to mental disability to US soldiers according to TimesOnline



TimesOnline

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

Vince Short, 42, a former Army specialist who suffered brain injuries in a 2003 roadside bomb attack in Iraq, said he can't help but feel for the soldiers coming home from Afghanistan with similar wounds.

"I cry out for them. It's tough. It's hard to put it in words," Short, who served with the District of Columbia Army National Guard, said in an interview at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, where he receives weekly physical and mental therapy.

"At that point, there was still a lot of panicking going on inside of me because it's like, 'What's going to happen to me?'" said Short. "I used to have a career. I used to have a good solid marriage. I was doing really good, and now look at me."

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”


Do you see how depressed and miserable the soldiers condition, risking their lives day by day for something unclear and doesn't have slight hope to see the end of this inappropriate war? By adding more US troops, US citizens, soldier's families, troops and anyone who understand how tragic the situation is in battlefield would see this additional troops as torture by US government, especially Obama.

That's why solving violent by violent would not works. It has been proven in human's history when there's no consideration of reconciliation from involved sides. After all, it's a war between its own countrymen. By putting the fact that Afghans people has been lived together since 300 years ago and their harmony between military and religion country before 9/11 and US invasion that causing dispute between those 2 are very close, it's not futile to start discussing and sit together to solve solutions between 2 faction.

Is this the method that would solve problem? In Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Korea, Sri Lanka and many other countries, it's clear this is the worst method ever that only causing destruction from both sides. Isn't this the very same method US using in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan? By making them killing their own people, make a 'legitimate' government versus resistance movement opposing foreign invasion and make them grow tired and weak, US gained most control in those nations. Making such chaos and dispute resulting in children have to hold weapons and killing their own childhood friends are absolutely violation of international humanitarian law.

In Indonesia, we had resistance groups that seeks independence in northern region of Aceh in Sumatera Island that we had been in fight for decades. However, since our government look them as human beings that also have right to live. We began to approach them by diplomacy, by humble and by hope there will be a way for both sides. And know what, it's been solved entirely no more than 5 years. Aceh Peace Process Negotiations went smoothly than we expected.

The Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement, or GAM, signed a peace agreement today in Helsinki that brings to a close nearly thirty years of armed conflict on the island. You could read their conversation between 2 sides and journalist in warmth and friendly atmosphere after they signed the peace deal on Democracy now. This is what I believe would bring peace and prosperity to both sides by fully understand other side, respect them and negotiating with them for one purpose, Peace.

"That's why you can't understand them, because you don't have enough love" (Izumi Konata, 2007)

Jut exactly who do you think that caused those not just unclear but rather, confusing situations in the Middle East? That's making the US troops stationed in the middle east "depressed and miserable" by them only protecting foreign aids programs and personnel. If you agree with me that the Afghan Taliban are exploiting their own government, then why are they only targeting foreign aids programs and personnel that's designed and built to sustain and stabilize the democratic Afghan society? Something that their own democratic Afghan government administration that's supposed to be elected to do; a process that the very same Afghan Taliban is exploiting by them disrupting the sustainability and stability of their own people's democracy. In other words, the Afghan Taliban want to disrupt their own people's democratic movement, by conducting and targeting their terrorist attacks only on "foreign aids programs and personnel that's designed and built to sustain and stabilize the Afghan society". When the fact is the Afghan Taliban had always wanted their old regiment power over their own people, and this time they'll do so by disrupting their own people's democratic movement using any means necessary.

Now you tell me, just how and why should a weak and not to mention corrupted Afghan government, with an otherwise unsustainable and unstable democratic Afghan society relying on foreign aids programs and personnel, must come to term with the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents by handing over to them what they want; a power regime consisted of Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan and former mujaheddin ruling over their people, not the support of their own people through democracy. With love?
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/20/09

DomFortress wrote:

Jut exactly who do you think that caused those not just unclear but rather, confusing situations in the Middle East? That's making the US troops stationed in the middle east "depressed and miserable" by them only protecting foreign aids programs and personnel.

If you agree with me that the Afghan Taliban are exploiting their own government, then why are they only targeting foreign aids programs and personnel that's designed and built to sustain and stabilize the democratic Afghan society?


Yes, just exactly do you think that caused confusing situations in the Middle East since 2001? We have to make clear who started this ruckus. Or do you really unsure about that, about who made invasion by false accusation and baseless allegation without permission from UN and the rest of the world, killing and bombing a weak country without mercy? Who started this?

Who's the one targeting aid programs? Trying to make advantages of aid programs and living in luxury houses with corruption in government?


DomFortress wrote

Something that their own democratic Afghan government administration that's supposed to be elected to do; a process that the very same Afghan Taliban is exploiting in order to disrupt the sustainability and stability of their own democracy. In other words, the Afghan Taliban want to disrupt their own people's democratic movement, by conducting and targeting their terrorist attacks only on "foreign aids programs and personnel that's designed and built to sustain and stabilize the Afghan society". When the fact is the Afghan Taliban had always wanted their old regiment power over their own people, and this time they'll do so by disrupting their own people's democratic movement by any means necessary.

Now you tell me, just how and why should a weak and not to mention corrupted Afghan government, with an otherwise unsustainable and unstable democratic Afghan nation relying on foreign aids programs and personnel, must come to term with the Afghan Taliban by handing over to them what they want; a power regime consisted of Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan and former mujaheddin ruling over their people, not the support of their own people through democracy. With love?


Supposed to be elected? Are you sure, while Karzai cheated the election illegally to gain government power?

Karzai's share of the vote is expected to drop to below 50% as a result of the inquiry, forcing a run-off with his main rival, Abdullah Abdullah. However, Karzai remains convinced that the level of vote-rigging has been greatly exaggerated.

As my example above, with proper diplomacy and not treat them as terrorist, but as fellow brother in country that wanted to seek greater prosperity together and build strong nation, Afghan government should believe Taliban in cooperation to handle violent act between them. As their own people, Afghans believe in Taliban more than government.

As an Afghans spoke:
"If things remain the same," he says, "in two years the Taliban will have control of 80% of the people. This is due to corruption in the government — and a lack of trust." Many Afghans in the southern provinces are now increasingly trusting of the old religious warriors, who ensure peace and safety from bandits in places where the police and the Afghan army are ineffective. Says Meerza: "Now the Taliban have a good relationship with the people. They no longer take food and water by force." Rahmatullah says,

"What we want are posts in [President Hamid] Karzai's government. As soon as we are part of the government and as soon as all foreigners leave, we will stop fighting." Until then, he says, the Taliban will continue taking over the country. "People simply recognize who is the most powerful," he explains; "they want whoever has the most power."

Or do you prefer violence acts to solve the problem, whereas it has been proven it's not effective? As US military are causing more chaos rather peace.
Like in the aftermath of the May 2009 drone bombing in the Farah province that killed almost 100 civilians:

"The U.S. military tried desperately to spin the story, initially denying that any significant civilian casualties had resulted from the air strikes. Carefully placed leaks in the media suggested that the Taliban themselves had killed dozens of innocent people with grenades to make it appear that they had been killed by U.S. bombs.That "message" failed to gain traction, and was quietly abandoned.

When doctors and public health officials began to speculate on the reasons for the horrendous burns suffered by the Farah victims, the U.S. military circulated reports that the Taliban had been known to use white phosphorous. That, too, was not substantiated.

Or do you unaware of Taliban support rising in Afghanistan due to lack of government effort that only causing more dispute and chaos to their villager?

"Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to admit their support for the Taliban, and the belief that the government and the international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is widespread in the southern provinces," the report concludes.

Only 19 per cent of Afghan civilians felt that international troops were helping them personally -- with only 6.5 per cent in regions where U.S. soldiers were in control. "The widespread perception of locals is that the international community is not helping to improve their lives," says the report.

Now you tell me, just how and why should a weak and not to mention corrupted Afghan government, with an otherwise unsustainable and unstable democratic Afghan nation relying on foreign aids programs and personnel, must come to term with the Afghan Taliban by handing over to them what they want; as Afghanistan representative living in poor conditions while their government in luxury office and has gained support over 80 % of their people, with violent?

Posted 11/20/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:



Now you tell me, just how and why should a weak and not to mention corrupted Afghan government, with an otherwise unsustainable and unstable democratic Afghan nation relying on foreign aids programs and personnel, must come to term with the Afghan Taliban by handing over to them what they want; as Afghanistan representative living in poor conditions while their government in luxury office and has gained support over 80 % of their people, with violent?

Why should I be the one to answer you back? When the Afghan Taliban already did so with their latest attack.

If the Afghan people as a whole choose not to rely on foreign aids programs and personnel to provide sustainability and stability democratically, then they would've done so through introducing their own Afghan Taliban supporters as their own political representatives. However, don't you find the Afghan Taliban's terrorist attacks to be oxymoron? When they're the ones representing the true thoughts and feelings of the Afghan people as according to you, with a history of violence conducted by Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan and former mujaheddin(citation).

Just exactly who's misrepresenting the Afghan people? The weak and corrupted Afghan government with its democratically elected administration, the Afghan Taliban insurgents with their terrorist attacks on Afghan democracy, or the Afghan citizens themselves with their otherwise unsustainable and unstable democratic Afghan society relying on foreign aids programs and personnel. Just what's making them so moronic? When the sooner that the Afghan democracy become sustainable and stable on its own, the quicker that the US can call back their foreign aids programs and personnel. Is it love? Or a lack of real individual character strengths and virtues, when they've been relying on their religious teaching for their lack of self-discipline and self-regulation.

"Borrowed strengths don't last." -by yours truly-
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/21/09

DomFortress wrote:

Why should I be the one to answer you back?
When the Afghan Taliban already did so with their latest attack.

If the Afghan people as a whole choose not to rely on foreign aids programs and personnel to provide sustainability and stability democratically, then they would've done so through introducing their own Afghan Taliban supporters as their own political representatives. However, don't you find the Afghan Taliban's terrorist attacks to be oxymoron? When they're the ones representing the true thoughts and feelings of the Afghan peoplea s according to you, with a history of violence conducted by Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan and former mujaheddin(citation).

Just exactly who's misrepresenting the Afghan people? The weak and corrupted Afghan government with its democratically elected administration, the Afghan Taliban insurgents with their terrorist attacks on Afghan democracy, or the Afghan citizens themselves with their otherwise unsustainable and unstable democratic Afghan society relying on foreign aids programs and personnel. Just what's making them so moronic?

When the sooner that the Afghan democracy become sustainable and stable on its own, the quicker that the US can call back their foreign aids programs and personnel. Is it love? Or a lack of real individual character strengths and virtues, when they've been relying on their religious teaching for their lack of self-discipline and self-regulation.

"Borrowed strengths don't last." -by yours truly-


Because you don't have any answer at all and afraid to let me know about your false method? While I already explained my way in above example that had been proven in my own country. That's not fair, or maybe that's your way to run away from facts like whenever you divert the topic?

When Afghan people chose not to rely or accept aid programs? The people wants it, as it's common in third world countries. But the government is the one who took it for their own benefit.

Afghan people currently believe in Taliban more, however does Taliban has been given permission from Afghan gov to cooperating, while they've been called terrorist without any intention to talk. That's why Taliban using power to prove their existence as counter attack to Afghan gov because they don't want to accept Taliban as their people

I didn't stated Taliban is the one that representing the true thoughts and feelings of the Afghan people. I merely wrote it according to Afghan people itself, or did you even read or checked the link? The radical ideology of Taliban is the one which can't be accepted by Afghan people as its neighbor countries denied its extreme ideology and called them 'medieval' instead. Therefore, they are wrong in that concept, but currently they're the ones who can be trusted by Afghan people to govern Afghan people, not Hamid Karzai. They're the one who can understand their own situations, thus made decisions according their situations. However, moronic people from first world country who has been lived luxuriously without any effort to understand are the ones who truly being ignorant.

Who's the one who made Afghanistan became so unstable? So, they're not responsible for their own acts and passing their mistake to the country they've been invading? As they're the ones who make Afghan people suffered there.

It has nothing to do with religion. According to your link, Peterson and Seligman (The Authors) are self-proclaimed agnostics who specifically deny any faith in the divine. To accommodate the prominent role of faith in the happy life, they recognize it as an alternative to hope on the path to their overarching concept of transcendence. However, empirical findings show that the character traits that measure faith, hope, and charity are all interdependent and synergistic in making a person feel good.

Is it because US soldiers lack of faith, so they mercilessly killed Afghan people in their prisons? While violent can't solve anything without trust, hope and love in any single individual that trying to make everything better as every faiths told them to do so. Or is it because they have to many individualism that made them unable to understand others and keep killing others as long as it doesn't hurt their individualism?
Posted 11/21/09 , edited 11/21/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Why should I be the one to answer you back?
When the Afghan Taliban already did so with their latest attack.

If the Afghan people as a whole choose not to rely on foreign aids programs and personnel to provide sustainability and stability democratically, then they would've done so through introducing their own Afghan Taliban supporters as their own political representatives. However, don't you find the Afghan Taliban's terrorist attacks to be oxymoron? When they're the ones representing the true thoughts and feelings of the Afghan peoplea s according to you, with a history of violence conducted by Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan and former mujaheddin(citation).

Just exactly who's misrepresenting the Afghan people? The weak and corrupted Afghan government with its democratically elected administration, the Afghan Taliban insurgents with their terrorist attacks on Afghan democracy, or the Afghan citizens themselves with their otherwise unsustainable and unstable democratic Afghan society relying on foreign aids programs and personnel. Just what's making them so moronic?

When the sooner that the Afghan democracy become sustainable and stable on its own, the quicker that the US can call back their foreign aids programs and personnel. Is it love? Or a lack of real individual character strengths and virtues, when they've been relying on their religious teaching for their lack of self-discipline and self-regulation.

"Borrowed strengths don't last." -by yours truly-


Because you don't have any answer at all and afraid to let me know about your false method? While I already explained my way in above example that had been proven in my own country. That's not fair, or maybe that's your way to run away from facts like whenever you divert the topic?

When Afghan people chose not to rely or accept aid programs? The people wants it, as it's common in third world countries. But the government is the one who took it for their own benefit.

Afghan people currently believe in Taliban more, however does Taliban has been given permission from Afghan gov to cooperating, while they've been called terrorist without any intention to talk. That's why Taliban using power to prove their existence as counter attack to Afghan gov because they don't want to accept Taliban as their people

I didn't stated Taliban is the one that representing the true thoughts and feelings of the Afghan people. I merely wrote it according to Afghan people itself, or did you even read or checked the link? The radical ideology of Taliban is the one which can't be accepted by Afghan people as its neighbor countries denied its extreme ideology and called them 'medieval' instead. Therefore, they are wrong in that concept, but currently they're the ones who can be trusted by Afghan people to govern Afghan people, not Hamid Karzai. They're the one who can understand their own situations, thus made decisions according their situations.
However, moronic people from first world country who has been lived luxuriously without any effort to understand are the ones who truly being ignorant.

Who's the one who made Afghanistan became so unstable? So, they're not responsible for their own acts and passing their mistake to the country they've been invading? As they're the ones who make Afghan people suffered there.

It has nothing to do with religion. According to your link, Peterson and Seligman (The Authors) are self-proclaimed agnostics who specifically deny any faith in the divine. To accommodate the prominent role of faith in the happy life, they recognize it as an alternative to hope on the path to their overarching concept of transcendence. However, empirical findings show that the character traits that measure faith, hope, and charity are all interdependent and synergistic in making a person feel good.

Is it because US soldiers lack of faith, so they mercilessly killed Afghan people in their prisons? While violent can't solve anything without trust, hope and love in any single individual that trying to make everything better as every faiths told them to do so. Or is it because they have to many individualism that made them unable to understand others and keep killing others as long as it doesn't hurt their individualism?

Before we begin, I'll have to warn you not to take anything I've said out of content. Unless you did so because you think that you are a weak and helpless individual, thus you are acting like a fool with your passive aggressiveness. As a matter of fact, I encourage you to challenge me with every true thoughts and feelings that you've got. Until you realize it that the answer lies within you for yourself, while all I did was just showing you the way to obtain it. When I refuse to do your thinking for you, thereby I challenge your intellect with questions in order for me to empower your individuality, like so.

Why should the Afghan people believe in the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents? When as a developing nation, the majority of the Afghan people do want the "foreign aids programs and personnel" just like you claimed. While the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents are conducting terrorist attacks that's targeting the exact "foreign aids programs and personnel".

Does this mean that the "majority of the Afghan people" want the "foreign aids programs and personnel" in order to sustain and stabilize their democracy? Or they are simply too stupid to know what democracy is and how it works. When the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents are conducting terrorist attacks that's targeting the exact "foreign aids programs and personnel" that's there "in order to sustain and stabilize their democracy"; a political system that the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents don't accept because of their radical ideology based on the Muslim faith, which they somehow completely twisted it in order to denounce the foundation of western democratic movement; humanitarianism.

If you think that the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents are misrepresenting the majority of the Afghan people because of their "radical ideology based on the Muslim faith", then why didn't you say so in the first place? Just because you share the same faith as they do, does that somehow made you one of them? When what makes you so different than them as an individual, is exactly where the answer to your question lies.

Because while individually we all have the capacity and capability for "character traits that measure faith, hope, and charity are all interdependent and synergistic in making a person feel good", when such as they are the human natures that humanitarianism is based on. Thereby none of us need to rely on religious doctrines in order for us to justify, constitute, or even to experience our actions upon as a collective.

"Borrowed strengths don't last." -by yours truly-
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/21/09

DomFortress wrote:

Before we begin, I'll have to warn you not to take anything I've said out of content. Unless you did so because you think that you are a weak and helpless individual, thus you are acting like a fool with your passive aggressiveness. As a matter of fact, I encourage you to challenge me with every true thoughts and feelings that you've got. Until you realize it that the answer lies within you for yourself, while all I did was just showing you the way to obtain it. When I refuse to do your thinking for you, thereby I challenge your intellect with questions in order for me to empower your individuality, like so.

Why should the Afghan people believe in the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents? When as a developing nation, the majority of the Afghan people do want the "foreign aids programs and personnel" just like you claimed. While the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents are conducting terrorist attacks that's targeting the exact "foreign aids programs and personnel".

Does this mean that the "majority of the Afghan people" want the "foreign aids programs and personnel" in order to sustain and stabilize their democracy? Or they are simply too stupid to know what democracy is and how it works. When the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents are conducting terrorist attacks that's targeting the exact "foreign aids programs and personnel" that's there "in order to sustain and stabilize their democracy"; a political system that the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents don't accept because of their radical ideology based on the Muslim faith, which they somehow completely twisted it in order to denounce the foundation of western democratic movement; humanitarianism.

If you think that the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents are misrepresenting the majority of the Afghan people because of their "radical ideology based on the Muslim faith", then why didn't you say so in the first place? Just because you share the same faith as they do, does that somehow made you one of them? When what makes you so different than them as an individual, is exactly where the answer to your question lies.

Because while individually we all have the capacity and capability for "character traits that measure faith, hope, and charity are all interdependent and synergistic in making a person feel good", when such as they are the human natures that humanitarianism is based on. Thereby none of us need to rely on religious doctrines in order for us to justify, constitute, or even to experience our actions upon as a collective.

"Borrowed strengths don't last." -by yours truly-


❀=✿
I've already accepted your challenge by explained my way to solve it, with understanding each other and communicating through love. you didn't explain it to me, how you can solve it with adding more troops, thus via violence. While in fact, it's not been effective method as people's lives lost every day. I can see why you refuse my challenge by do not want to explain how your method can solve this war. Thereby I challenge your intellect with questions in order for me to empower your individuality, like so. Unless you realize it that your answer is not correct, in theory and practice.

❀=✿
Why they can't believe in their own people? While Taliban is part of Afghanistan people that oppose foreign troops to be deployed in their land while Afghan government unable to do so, merely bowing to big nations govern as 'puppet government' and made distrust through country by cheated in election.

❀=✿
Let me tell you this:
Foreign Aid Programs are not a method to stabilize democracy or any ideology. It feeds poor people, that's all. Unless there is political moves behind it. Personnel or troops are not foreign aids programs and does not help to stabilize democracy and abstract things like that. Who's the one targeting exact foreign aid programs? In corrupted government?
Afghan people doesn't care abstract thing like democracy that causes destruction within country. They only need food, that's all, and that democracy prevent them to receive it due its brutality of foreign troops.

Many political system exists and has been implemented around the world, like Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, and they're doing well. Because they believe their system are best for their people and to sustain their stability across the country. It's depend how you do it. Any system will fail if the humans can't implement it correctly, that's why we should Afghan people choose their own political system that suits them best. Not forcing them to implement west political system, that has been described as Tyranny of Majority.

❀=✿
I didn't said, Taliban misinterpreting the majority of Afghan people, did you even read carefully by not skimming and check the link as well? Or is it too difficult to understand it? that's my challenge for you

It is when I accept new ideas as modern technology has been evolving until today. And their faith is the one who is even being described by Iran, the most conservatives Islamic country, as 'medieval blind faith'. What makes you don't understand it, simply because you don't care as you've been said in our talks before? Is exactly where you unable to meet my challenge.

❀=✿
Does how humanitarianism based on? Aren't religion and faith that teach how humans to behave, as we've been shown throughout history when children of first human being committed murder to his own brother? Do you think humanitarianism can be practiced by humans without being taught in the first place?
If so, then I ask question what kind of humanitarianism humans has been shown without religion that keep occurring in university of Virginia Tech in US and some German's universities where the students practiced their humanitarianism by shooting and killing their own fellow students? Not to mention, humanitarianism based on self interest as white supremacist when they threatening to kill Obama.

"That's why you don't understand, because you don't have enough love." (Izumi Konata, 2007)
Posted 11/22/09 , edited 11/22/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:



❀=✿
I've already accepted your challenge by explained my way to solve it, with understanding each other and communicating through love. you didn't explain it to me, how you can solve it with adding more troops, thus via violence. While in fact, it's not been effective method as people's lives lost every day. I can see why you refuse my challenge by do not want to explain how your method can solve this war. Thereby I challenge your intellect with questions in order for me to empower your individuality, like so. Unless you realize it that your answer is not correct, in theory and practice.

❀=✿
Why they can't believe in their own people? While Taliban is part of Afghanistan people that oppose foreign troops to be deployed in their land while Afghan government unable to do so, merely bowing to big nations govern as 'puppet government' and made distrust through country by cheated in election.

❀=✿
Let me tell you this:
Foreign Aid Programs are not a method to stabilize democracy or any ideology. It feeds poor people, that's all. Unless there is political moves behind it. Personnel or troops are not foreign aids programs and does not help to stabilize democracy and abstract things like that. Who's the one targeting exact foreign aid programs? In corrupted government?
Afghan people doesn't care abstract thing like democracy that causes destruction within country. They only need food, that's all, and that democracy prevent them to receive it due its brutality of foreign troops.


Many political system exists and has been implemented around the world, like Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, and they're doing well. Because they believe their system are best for their people and to sustain their stability across the country. It's depend how you do it. Any system will fail if the humans can't implement it correctly, that's why we should Afghan people choose their own political system that suits them best. Not forcing them to implement west political system, that has been described as Tyranny of Majority.

❀=✿
I didn't said, Taliban misinterpreting the majority of Afghan people, did you even read carefully by not skimming and check the link as well? Or is it too difficult to understand it? that's my challenge for you

It is when I accept new ideas as modern technology has been evolving until today. And their faith is the one who is even being described by Iran, the most conservatives Islamic country, as 'medieval blind faith'. What makes you don't understand it, simply because you don't care as you've been said in our talks before? Is exactly where you unable to meet my challenge.

❀=✿
Does how humanitarianism based on? Aren't religion and faith that teach how humans to behave, as we've been shown throughout history when children of first human being committed murder to his own brother? Do you think humanitarianism can be practiced by humans without being taught in the first place?
If so, then I ask question what kind of humanitarianism humans has been shown without religion that keep occurring in university of Virginia Tech in US and some German's universities where the students practiced their humanitarianism by shooting and killing their own fellow students? Not to mention, humanitarianism based on self interest as white supremacist when they threatening to kill Obama.

"That's why you don't understand, because you don't have enough love." (Izumi Konata, 2007)

You stupid, stupid girl.

When and where did I ever said that I support bringing more US troops into Afghan? While it was all your bias opinion about me not as an individual, but rather as someone subjective to your Muslim faith by you twisting my thoughts and feelings.

Why are the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents conducting terrorist attacks that's targeting foreign aids programs and personnel? While you claimed that they only "oppose foreign troops":

Dozens of aid workers have been killed, kidnapped and threatened over the past few years and attacks on aid convoys and facilities have risen steadily. The south, southwest, east and central areas of the country are no-go areas for many international organizations.

Attacks on aid workers can be politically motivated - meant to send a message to the aid community as a whole, the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) said in a briefing paper in April.

Afghanistan: Humanitarianism under Threat, a report by the Feinstein International Center, argues: “There is no humanitarian consensus in Afghanistan and very little humanitarian space. Both have been trampled by political expediency and by the disregard by all parties to the conflict for the plight of civilians.”(citation)

And you've got a lot of nerve to downplay on foreign aids programs and personnel efforts in Afghan:

Economic Growth
Reliable infrastructure and energy networks are essential for economic growth. Viable and secure roads are already paving the way to deliver farmers’ products to market, providing access to health and education services, and facilitating regional trade. USAID’s rehabilitation of more than 1,677 kilometers of roads has increased mobility and strengthened trade and security. As a result, approximately 80 percent of Afghans now live within 50 kilometers of the newly constructed Ring Road.

Access to reliable, affordable power is also critical to a sustaining private sector. However, fewer than 15 percent of Afghans currently have access to electricity. By allocating financial support and expertise for the North-East Power System, USAID joins in the multi-donor initiative to expand access to reliable, low-cost electricity to more than 20 percent of the population by the end of 2009. It is also building and rehabilitating facilities including the Kabul Power Plant, which will provide power to 600,000 Afghans, and the Kajaki Dam, the principal source of electricity in southern Afghanistan.

Revitalizing Afghanistan’s rural economy is also critical to the country’s long-term economic growth. By offering new alternatives and cash-for-work incentives, USAID is working to significantly decrease the country’s poppy production. In addition, improved access to water for the 80 percent of Afghans who farm has enriched irrigation systems for nearly 15 percent of arable land and improved the health of millions of livestock. Afghan farmers now also have access to improved technologies and financial services.

Afghanistan also receives direct assistance to increase revenue collection, improve the legal and regulatory framework to increase private sector investment, and build the government’s skills to manage the economy. These improvements have helped to boost Afghanistan’s economy, which has grown at approximately 12 percent per year over the past six years.

Governing Justly and Democratically
Afghanistan’s new constitution was tested in 2009 with the first-ever Afghan-led election. Despite significant terrorist threats, Afghans elected a President and members of Provincial Councils. USAID supports local governments, providing training in management of human and financial resources and ethics in government. To encourage a balanced government, USAID programs trained 50 percent of the members of the judiciary, as well as 4,100 journalists.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) coordinate U.S. and international assistance at the grassroots level. PRTs – small, joint civilian-military teams – extend the reach of the Afghan government to improve security and facilitate reconstruction and development in key provinces.

Investing In People: Health and Education
Under the Taliban, only 900,000 boys and no girls were enrolled in schools. Today, as a result of efforts by the Afghan government, the U.S., and other donors, more than six million children are in school. A third of them are girls. With 80 percent of schools severely damaged or destroyed by the Taliban, USAID constructed or repaired more than 680 schools and printed 60 million textbooks. Beyond its accelerated learning program that enrolled over 170,000 students – more than half of them girls – USAID support to government has translated into a significant increase in female enrollment at secondary and university levels.

The health status of Afghans is among the worst in the world. One out of every five Afghan children dies before the age of five. To this end, USAID and other donors have worked so that now more than 85 percent of the population has access to some form of health care, up from nine percent in 2002. In addition, the infant mortality rate has dropped by 22 percent, partially due to USAID’s support of midwife training, which has increased the number of midwives from 404 to nearly 1,700 in six years. Finally, Afghanistan, one of only four countries in the world where polio remains endemic, has seen over 90 percent of children under five years old vaccinated against the disease since 2002, partially due to USAID support.(citation)
And those are just the sustainability and stability that the US foreign aid policy to Afghanistan had been providing for the past 8 years and counting. As you can see, it goes simply beyond feeding the Afghan populace, while such simple act of humanitarianism is constantly being threaten by the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents.

BTW, were all these statements here, here, here, here, and here, your opinions on just how well China's doing with their policy?

I didn't read any of your links based on Islamic faith because of my individual interest in social science, which undermines any and all localized religious doctrines with its new intellectual and philosophical tendencies:

It is important also to identify three other powerful tendencies of thought that influenced all of the social sciences. The first is a positivism that was not merely an appeal to science but almost reverence for science; the second, humanitarianism; the third, the philosophy of evolution.

The Positivist appeal of science was to be seen everywhere. The rise of the ideal of science in the Age of Reason was noted above. The 19th century saw the virtual institutionalization of this ideal—possibly even canonization. The great aim was that of dealing with moral values, institutions, and all social phenomena through the same fundamental methods that could be seen so luminously in such areas as physics and biology. Prior to the 19th century, no very clear distinction had been made between philosophy and science, and the term philosophy was even preferred by those working directly with physical materials, seeking laws and principles in the fashion of a Newton or Harvey—that is, by persons whom one would now call scientists.

In the 19th century, in contrast, the distinction between philosophy and science became an overwhelming one. Virtually every area of man’s thought and behaviour was thought by a rising number of persons to be amenable to scientific investigation in precisely the same degree that physical data were. More than anyone else, it was Comte who heralded the idea of the scientific treatment of social behaviour. His Cours de philosophie positive, published in six volumes between 1830 and 1842, sought to demonstrate irrefutably not merely the possibility but the inevitability of a science of man, one for which Comte coined the word “sociology” and that would do for man the social being exactly what biology had already done for man the biological animal. But Comte was far from alone. There were many in the century to join in his celebration of science for the study of society.

Humanitarianism, though a very distinguishable current of thought in the century, was closely related to the idea of a science of society. For the ultimate purpose of social science was thought by almost everyone to be the welfare of society, the improvement of its moral and social condition. Humanitarianism, strictly defined, is the institutionalization of compassion; it is the extension of welfare and succour from the limited areas in which these had historically been found, chiefly family and village, to society at large. One of the most notable and also distinctive aspects of the 19th century was the constantly rising number of persons, almost wholly from the middle class, who worked directly for the betterment of society. In the many projects and proposals for relief of the destitute, improvement of slums, amelioration of the plight of the insane, the indigent, and imprisoned, and other afflicted minorities could be seen the spirit of humanitarianism at work. All kinds of associations were formed, including temperance associations, groups and societies for the abolition of slavery and of poverty and for the improvement of literacy, among other objectives. Nothing like the 19th-century spirit of humanitarianism had ever been seen before in western Europe—not even in France during the Enlightenment, where interest in mankind’s salvation tended to be more intellectual than humanitarian in the strict sense. Humanitarianism and social science were reciprocally related in their purposes. All that helped the cause of the one could be seen as helpful to the other.

The third of the intellectual influences is that of evolution. It affected every one of the social sciences, each of which was as much concerned with the development of things as with their structures. An interest in development was to be found in the 18th century, as noted earlier. But this interest was small and specialized compared with 19th-century theories of social evolution. The impact of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, published in 1859, was of course great and further enhanced the appeal of the evolutionary view of things. But it is very important to recognize that ideas of social evolution had their own origins and contexts. The evolutionary works of such social scientists as Comte, Herbert Spencer, and Marx had been completed, or well begun, before publication of Darwin’s work. The important point, in any event, is that the idea or the philosophy of evolution was in the air throughout the century, as profoundly contributory to the establishment of sociology as a systematic discipline in the 1830s as to such fields as geology, astronomy, and biology. Evolution was as permeative an idea as the Trinity had been in medieval Europe.(citation)

Therefore to me, until the Afghan Taliban terrorist insurgents themselves can support any and all of those new intellectual and philosophical tendencies that social science is based on, they are as primitive and moronic as they're impulsive and volatile with their actions. When they would only justify, constitute, and express their actions with extremist ideology based on their Muslim faith and Islamic doctrines. Kinda like what you're doing with that stupid anime quote of yours.

And finally, your bias opinion about the western society had once again twisted the very essence of humanitarianism. Just like you did with my thoughts and feelings in all of my posts. And just like you tried to attack individualism:

Ryutai-Desk wrote:



Is it because US soldiers lack of faith, so they mercilessly killed Afghan people in their prisons? While violent can't solve anything without trust, hope and love in any single individual that trying to make everything better as every faiths told them to do so. Or is it because they have to many individualism that made them unable to understand others and keep killing others as long as it doesn't hurt their individualism?
And just like that, you turned down the opportunity and possibility of new intellectual and philosophical tendencies based on individualism known as Human Phenotype Ontology and Literary Darwinism.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/22/09
However, if there is one man who came the closest to being the leader of the Zionist movement during this time period it was without a doubt Ben-Gurion. He set the standard for the mainstream Zionist relation with the Nazis when he said:


We shall fight the war against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, and we shall fight the White Paper as if there were no war.


In general terms, most Zionists and Zionist organizations followed this philosophy. For example:

Haganah, the Zionist organization that later became the IDF, is known to have conducted terrorist operations against British installations in historical Palestine. Yet, they also supplied literally tens of thousands of troops to the fight against Hitler. They were battling the White Paper as if there was no war and battling Hitler as if there was no white paper.

Imi Lichtenfeld, a Czechoslovakian Jew and prominent Zionist, is famous for developing the fighting style Krav Maga for the purpose of combating Nazi and fascists gangs in his home town. After fleeing Nazi occupation he went to Palestine and began teaching the fighting style to Haganah. Krav Maga is still the official method of close quarters combat for the Israeli Defence Force.

Yitzhak Rabin, who of course won the noble prize with Arafat for their work on Oslo, was also a member of Haganah and another major Zionist leader.

Following the outbreak of war, Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the New Zionist Organization voiced their support for Britain and France.

Even Irgun members began enlisting in the British army and halting operations against the British. David Raziel, another prominent Zionist leader and member of Irgun, actually died during a joint British-Irgun intelligence operation.


I'll have to get to the rest later.
Posted 11/22/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

However, if there is one man who came the closest to being the leader of the Zionist movement during this time period it was without a doubt Ben-Gurion. He set the standard for the mainstream Zionist relation with the Nazis when he said:


We shall fight the war against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, and we shall fight the White Paper as if there were no war.


In general terms, most Zionists and Zionist organizations followed this philosophy. For example:

Haganah, the Zionist organization that later became the IDF, is known to have conducted terrorist operations against British installations in historical Palestine. Yet, they also supplied literally tens of thousands of troops to the fight against Hitler. They were battling the White Paper as if there was no war and battling Hitler as if there was no white paper.

Imi Lichtenfeld, a Czechoslovakian Jew and prominent Zionist, is famous for developing the fighting style Krav Maga for the purpose of combating Nazi and fascists gangs in his home town. After fleeing Nazi occupation he went to Palestine and began teaching the fighting style to Haganah. Krav Maga is still the official method of close quarters combat for the Israeli Defence Force.

Yitzhak Rabin, who of course won the noble prize with Arafat for their work on Oslo, was also a member of Haganah and another major Zionist leader.

Following the outbreak of war, Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the New Zionist Organization voiced their support for Britain and France.

Even Irgun members began enlisting in the British army and halting operations against the British. David Raziel, another prominent Zionist leader and member of Irgun, actually died during a joint British-Irgun intelligence operation.


I'll have to get to the rest later.

What was the McDonald White Paper of 1939(citation).

How about explaining to us the significance of that government document, before you demonstrate the effect of just how extreme that philosophy became? I'm a bit lost here.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/23/09

DomFortress wrote:



❀=✿
Unless you being ignorant, denying your own statement or running from my challenge, anyone can assume you agreed in Obama's consideration to brings more troops to Afghanistan when you said troops are for security reasons and able to sustain and stabilize Afghanistan which is really contra-productive as I've already explained based from fact not faith. Or maybe you don't have proper thoughts and feeling by twisting fact?

❀=✿
I didn't downplaying foreign aid or underestimate them as they bring assistance to any poor country. I questioning its armed-personnel which is troops who've been killing Afghan people for past 8 years, not personnel like doctors or teachers. Maybe it can't be understood by people who never experienced war. Talk when you know how it's feel being shot by metal. I didn't know what kind of humanitarianism you have when you agreed to add more personnel to kill more people.

❀=✿
If you can't understanding my ideology, I will explain it to you again. It is like Light and Darkness. From economist's perspective, they're doing great, as their growth still increasing despite downturn. This is their Light side. However, from humanitarian's perspective, China unable to stabilize their country by forcing and oppress minority and Independence groups like Uighur, Tibet and Taiwan. They're killing people who don't agree to government. This is their Dark side. Btw, were we talking about their economy or stabilization? Or is that you running away again?

❀=✿
You didn't read my links because they supporting my statement? Another attempt to run away from fact? Do you think those links are religious site? I never knew Yahoo! News, TimesOnline, Democracy Now, New York Times, Guardian, CTVnews are islamic sites. Something wrong with you. Maybe you have some absurd doctrines to denying all media that support my statements.

❀=✿
I've been said, their faith are different from real Islam. Read again. I guess you have develop your own humanitarianism, by not being considerate, understanding them fully and insulting them mercilessly. What kind of humanitarian you are? I don't think societu need this kind of humanitarianism.

Watch your mouth, moron!
I am tolerant to those who show respect, but I am cruel to those who doesn't.
(Beatrice, 2009)

Posted 11/23/09 , edited 11/23/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:



Watch your mouth, moron!
I am tolerant to those who show respect, but I am cruel to those who doesn't.
(Beatrice, 2009)


What you need is a timeout. So until you realize my stance is based on the ever evolving and universal teaching of social science, and not just some localized old doctrines. You'll be hearing nothing from me, unless you're readily and willingly to challenge the very nurturing nature of humanity being humane.

"One who thinks of others being small and insignificant, is distancing oneself from what one thinks as a small and insignificant existence. That's only as big and vast as the world where people live." -by yours truly-

And this one is on the house by yours truly: "Only those who have real discipline can express true appreciation for those that are dignified. When self-dignity is earned through self-confidence based on self-discipline."
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/23/09 , edited 11/23/09

DomFortress wrote:

What you need is a timeout. So until you realize my stance is based on the ever evolving and universal teaching of social science, and not just some localized old doctrines. You'll be hearing nothing from me, unless you're readily and willingly to challenge the very nurturing nature of humanity being humane.

"One who thinks of others being small and insignificant, is distancing oneself from what one thinks as a small and insignificant existence. That's only as big and vast as the world where people live." -by yours truly-

And this one is on the house by yours truly: "Only those who have real discipline can express true appreciation for those that are dignified. When self-dignity is earned through self-confidence based on self-discipline."


What you need is respect. So until you realize my stance is based on people's thought and their feelings, not just blind faith. I will assume you are just running away from reality and fact, enjoying your individualism without concern about others, unless you can explain of how your method could solve this war.

If you trying to show you are superior, actually you make yourself much lower Holo, the Wise Sage of Wolf (2008-2009)

How many times you've been called Afghan people as moron and idiot? How many times you've been called me, your buddy, stupid? I don't think your attitude match your 'wise' words.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/23/09 , edited 11/23/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

However, if there is one man who came the closest to being the leader of the Zionist movement during this time period it was without a doubt Ben-Gurion. He set the standard for the mainstream Zionist relation with the Nazis when he said:


We shall fight the war against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, and we shall fight the White Paper as if there were no war.


In general terms, most Zionists and Zionist organizations followed this philosophy. For example:

Haganah, the Zionist organization that later became the IDF, is known to have conducted terrorist operations against British installations in historical Palestine. Yet, they also supplied literally tens of thousands of troops to the fight against Hitler. They were battling the White Paper as if there was no war and battling Hitler as if there was no white paper.

Imi Lichtenfeld, a Czechoslovakian Jew and prominent Zionist, is famous for developing the fighting style Krav Maga for the purpose of combating Nazi and fascists gangs in his home town. After fleeing Nazi occupation he went to Palestine and began teaching the fighting style to Haganah. Krav Maga is still the official method of close quarters combat for the Israeli Defence Force.

Yitzhak Rabin, who of course won the noble prize with Arafat for their work on Oslo, was also a member of Haganah and another major Zionist leader.

Following the outbreak of war, Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the New Zionist Organization voiced their support for Britain and France.

Even Irgun members began enlisting in the British army and halting operations against the British. David Raziel, another prominent Zionist leader and member of Irgun, actually died during a joint British-Irgun intelligence operation.


I'll have to get to the rest later.


What's the definition of Zionism?

From what I heard, Zionism created because of the desire of people from the Lands to freed it from occupation and build its own government without intervention from foreign troops, like Ottoman or British. Therefore, not only Jews who are Zionist, but also Arabs also support Zionist. All people of the Lands were Zionist when they were under Ottoman occupation and early British army came there.

However, as British, like you said, can't maintain the balance between two sides and was only supporting Arabs because they were majority ethnic there. British wanted to gain control of the Lands, especially the holy sites, Jerusalem. After hundred of years being under Ottoman, Arabs and Jews can't stand being under another occupation. They were opposing British at early they came after Ottoman fled. As we know, there was unbalance and discrimination between Arabs and Jews and the dispute gotten bigger and bigger. Until the extend to eradicate Jews from the Lands. Arab revolt, Six Days War, etc...

What I found silly from Arabs were, they got nerve to claim the Lands without tolerance to Jews and wanted to kick Jews from Lands. They got help from Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc... to fight against Jews. But, they were PWND in 6 Days War by a single Israel, lol~. I guess that's kinda a judgment from their, our God to not disturb another religion in the Lands. After all, Jews and Islam share some similarity in religion. Like praying 5 times a day, no pork, one God, etc... We were closer to Jews than any other religion, actually. Maybe because they interpret Qur'an from radical view?

What's the definition of Semitic?
Not only Jews, but also ancient Arab were put in this category. So, it's wrong to said anti-Semitic because they hate Jews, many ethnic were put in this definition. Check wiki to know more.


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.