This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
People only cry Islomophobia to intimidate you out of the debate, same thing with bigotry in religious debates, and homophobia in homosexuality debates. It's all about intimidation, and not honest debate. Don't let it bother you, and certainly don't back down from it.
Post by
MyTie
I wonder if you know which branch of islam the bombers subscribed to?) I don't. I'd love to know. Was it a branch of Islam? Was it Chechen nationalism? Was it something in between? My suspicion is that it wasn't a "branch of Islam", but some self styled "Islamists" cooking up their own agenda, but marching to the orders of somebody with millions at their disposal, maybe Jihadist, maybe anti- Putin, but who is called by Allah to stay at home and "mastermind". I don't know. Just my suspicions.
Not sure, actually. I'd also like to know.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
1115158
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I wonder if you know which branch of islam the bombers subscribed to?) I don't. I'd love to know. Was it a branch of Islam? Was it Chechen nationalism? Was it something in between? My suspicion is that it wasn't a "branch of Islam", but some self styled "Islamists" cooking up their own agenda, but marching to the orders of somebody with millions at their disposal, maybe Jihadist, maybe anti- Putin, but who is called by Allah to stay at home and "mastermind". I don't know. Just my suspicions.
Apparently there wasn't one; the survivor claims he and his brother were not tied to any of the radical groups out there, and this was done off their own extremist views; heard that on the news this morning while getting ready for work.
Post by
MyTie
I wonder if you know which branch of islam the bombers subscribed to?) I don't. I'd love to know. Was it a branch of Islam? Was it Chechen nationalism? Was it something in between? My suspicion is that it wasn't a "branch of Islam", but some self styled "Islamists" cooking up their own agenda, but marching to the orders of somebody with millions at their disposal, maybe Jihadist, maybe anti- Putin, but who is called by Allah to stay at home and "mastermind". I don't know. Just my suspicions.
Apparently there wasn't one; the survivor claims he and his brother were not tied to any of the radical groups out there, and this was done off their own extremist views; heard that on the news this morning while getting ready for work.
There may have been no "group", but they were probably associated with a sect of Islam, Sunni, Shia, etc. I'd like to know which sects they were. I'd really like to know more about them in general.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not trying to link anything to anything. Just expressing curiosity about their lives. It's that aspect of psychology that intrigues me. What was a person's background, and why did they do what they did. I spent months reading about Ted Bundy for this very reason.
Post by
1115158
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
People like you are the problem, regardless of religion. You'll happily and instantly blame an opposing idealism to further your agenda and blindly ignore the fact your own group are guilty of the exact same thing.
You'll happily and instantly blame an opposing idealism to further your agenda and blindly ignore the fact your own group are guilty of the exact same thing.
Which ideal did I blame? Could you quote where I did so please?
I think you are arguing against what you imagine I said, instead of what I actually said. So, go back, reread what I said, and demonstrate where I said anything like this.
I said people like you.I've been thinking about the above exchange for 4 hours now. There is something about it that bothers me, but I can't quite put it into words. Does anyone notice anything about this conversation that bothers you at all?
Post by
MyTie
Now the UN monitor from Palestine has come out and
blamed the US
for the Boston bombings. Very nice. Same "country" with those few
minority
people in the street celebrating the bombing. Nothing is mainstream. Nothing is anyone's fault. It's just a few radical minorities. Unless, of course, the group in question is the white heterosexual male Christian American group. That group is at fault for everything, and if they don't realize they are, then it's just because of their privilege.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Now the UN monitor from Palestine has come out and
blamed the US
for the Boston bombings. Very nice. Same "country" with those few
minority
people in the street celebrating the bombing. Nothing is mainstream. Nothing is anyone's fault. It's just a few radical minorities. Unless, of course, the group in question is the white heterosexual male Christian American group. That group is at fault for everything, and if they don't realize they are, then it's just because of their privilege.
Except
Richard Falk
is not the UN monitor from Palestine. He is an American law professor who was appointed by the UN to "examine, monitor, advise and publicly report" on the situation of Palestine. He also happens to be Jewish. The person in question is not a representative of Palestine, but an academic who has a job at the UN investigating them. And, since he was reprimanded by the Secretary General the last time he made statements like this, I imagine he won't have that position much longer. Just dropping this correction here before the thread heads off in the wrong direction.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Correction accepted. I read incorrectly. First mistake I've ever made.
Edit: It's still reprehensible.
Post by
Patty
This really is absolutely awful.
Post by
MyTie
This really is absolutely awful.
Bureaucracy at it's best. Unfortunately, it is an expedient answer to a difficult question, and it hurts people. Until there is a more effective and permanent resolution to the conflict there, which I believe is cultural, and in the heart of almost all of the people living there, there are always going to be these problems.
Post by
Magician22773
Last I checked, Palestinian and Israeli were not 'races', they were nationalities.
But, I guess that "RACIST" just looks better in a headline.
Post by
Patty
This really is absolutely awful.
Bureaucracy at it's best. Unfortunately, it is an expedient answer to a difficult question, and it hurts people. Until there is a more effective and permanent resolution to the conflict there, which I believe is cultural, and in the heart of almost all of the people living there, there are always going to be these problems.
Except all it's doing is further other-izing and segregating Israelis for Palestinians, and vice-versa, therefore fostering further resentment to the Israelis? As well as cutting them off from pretty crucial medical care, among other things. I mean... you'd think the people of Israel would remember the foundations their country was built on.
Post by
MyTie
all it's doing
Yeah, it's doing that. But what
isn't
it doing? That's what is probably important here. It
isn't
handing a free pass into the country for every terrorist who marries an Israeli. You have to admit, it would be pretty stupid to just hand over the country to anyone based on a marriage. The security risk would be unacceptable. That's what I said, this kind of awful situation will only be resolved when the culture of violence ends, and the only way that will end is with the people themselves. Until then, you'll have these harsh and tough bureaucratic measures. Awful? Yes. But, what alternative is there? Culturally sensitivity trumping common sense? I see your side of it, but come on... you have to be able to see my side of this. Even you.
Post by
Patty
all it's doing
Yeah, it's doing that. But what
isn't
it doing? That's what is probably important here. It
isn't
handing a free pass into the country for every terrorist who marries an Israeli. You have to admit, it would be pretty stupid to just hand over the country to anyone based on a marriage. The security risk would be unacceptable. That's what I said, this kind of awful situation will only be resolved when the culture of violence ends, and the only way that will end is with the people themselves. Until then, you'll have these harsh and tough bureaucratic measures. Awful? Yes. But, what alternative is there? Culturally sensitivity trumping common sense? I see your side of it, but come on... you have to be able to see my side of this. Even you.
I'm sorry, but that's bull!@#$. I'll ignore your flamebait, yes I see the possible practical application that would be viewed from an Israeli pov. However, it's a very short-sighted change that is not only wrong on legal fronts (yeah... you can't even get married to enter these lands that are legally yours, anyway) and humanitarian fronts, but it also just fosters even more hatred. This will incense anti-Israeli sentiment in Palestinian areas even more and probably lead to more attacks in future, along with contributing to killing off hopes for peace in our lifetime. It's impractical, reeks of marginalization and imposing different standards on you based on nationality (from a predominately
Jewish
population, of all things), and from a moral standpoint completely wrong, too. It simply can't be defended, even on practical grounds.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.