NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess the question is: who fucked first?...USA or the Islamists.

(Disclaimer: im talking about the fighting Islamist AKA terrorists AKA freedom figthers)

Hmm:

• 1983 April 18 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63
• 1983 September 23 Gulf Air Flight 771 is bombed, killing all 117 people on board
• 1983 October 23 Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut kills 241 U.S. Marines. 58 French troops from the multinational force are also killed in a separate attack.
• 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacking
• 1985 October 7 - October 10 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking by Palestinian Liberation Front, during which passenger Leon Klinghoffer is shot dead.
• 1985 EgyptAir Flight 648 hijacked by Abu Nidal group, flown to Malta, where Egyptian commandos storm plane; 60 are killed by gunfire and explosions.
• 1986 TWA Flight 840 bombed on approach to Athens airport; 4 Americans, including an infant, are killed.
• 1986 April 6 the La Belle discotheque in Berlin, a known hangout for U.S. soldiers, was bombed, killing 3 and injuring 230 people, for which Libya is held responsible. In retaliation, the US bombs Libya in Operation El Dorado Canyon and tries to kill dictator Qaddafi.
• 1986 Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan.
• 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing (Lockerbie). The worst act of terrorism against the United States prior to September 11, 2001.
• 1989 Avianca Flight 203 bombed over Colombia
• 1993 February 26 World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people
• 1993 Failed New York City landmark bomb plot
• 1993 Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters. Two died.
• 1994 December 11 A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack.
• 1995 Operation Bojinka is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after an apartment fire occurred in the apartment.
• 1995 Bombing of military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• 1996 June 25 Khobar Towers bombing
• 1997 A terrorist opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".
• 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.
• 1999 Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States-Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
• 1999 Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb US and Israeli tourists in Jordan and pick up 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
• 2000 The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks
• 2000 October 12 USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors
• 2001 September 11, 2001 attacks kill almost 3,000 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
• 2001 Paris embassy attack plot foiled
• 2001 Richard Reid, attempting to destroy American Airlines Flight 63, is subdued by passengers and flight attendants before he could detonate his shoe bomb
• 2002 Singapore embassies attack plot foiled
• 2002 June 14 attack outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi
• 2002 Kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl
• 2002 October 12 Bali car bombing of holidaymakers kills 202
• 2003 Riyadh Compound Bombings - bombings of United States expat housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160. Al-Qaeda blamed
• 2003 Casablanca Attacks in Casablanca, Morocco leaves 41 dead. The attack involved 12 bombers and 5 targets. The targets were "Western and Jewish". Attack attributed to a Moroccan al-Qaeda-linked group
• 2003 Canal Hotel Bombing in Baghdad, Iraq kills 22 people including the top UN representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello
• 2003-2004 In response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency in that country stage dozens of suicide bombings, kidnappings and several beheadings targeting Iraqi, Coalition and humanitarian targets. Attacks on some coalition forces may not be terrorist attacks under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions which gives lawful combatant status to non-uniformed guerrillas resisting foreign occupation if they display arms openly. As neither the US or Iraq have signed this protocol it is not applicable to attacks on US forces.
• 2003 October 15 - A bomb is detonated by Palestinians against a US diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip killing three Americans
• 2004 May 29 Al-Khobar massacres--Islamic terrorists kill 22 people at an oil compound in Saudi Arabia.
• 2004 December 6 Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 local employees.

...can you tell me what the US had done against the Arabic world?

How long does one sit before one strikes back? :rolleyes:

I've heard somewhere that it really all started with the Tripoli incident long ago.

I guess you could go all the way back to the Barbary Pirates. That was the first notable confrontation between America and Muslims. But between Israel and Islam? Let's see...right after Muhammed ascended I think.

I've heard somewhere that it really all started with the Tripoli incident long ago.
what tripoli incident?

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Tripoli+incident%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

excellent chronology Oceandrive

Apparently the Radical Moslems blame us for Israel (which they call a Crusader State) and don't like our cultural influences, and just generally consider us all a bunch of unbelievers who deserve to die...

in other words, its not so much our policies (although there is some of that) but simply because we exist.

Kind of hard to find common ground in that kind of situation.

Well all I can say is that from Many Russians point of view Israel has the right to be there.

Radical islamists are much like radical christians; of which there are plenty in the West, particularly in America.

These are the people who believe that all faiths bar-christianity are wrong and will be wiped out. Fortunately (or not) they believe their saviour will do it in the Second Coming. Israel could be regarded as a crusader state in that the state of Israel is intrinsic to the Apocylapse described in the book of Revelations.

Same sides of different coins.

Similar story could describe the extreme no-holds-barred Israeli settlers.

As for the first transgression in the War on Terror (are we still on chapter one?) it is impossible to say. I'd say Islamic terrorists have championed a cause of economic disbalance like Marxists (Castro?), anti-Imperialist rebels (at least the Founding Fathers knew why they were fighting a war: evil tax-imposing English Kings), democratic freedom fighters (IRA?), ethnic separatists (Kurds?) ...

democratic freedom fighters (IRA?)
im always amused at people still calling the IRA "freedom fighters"

Well all I can say is that from Many Russians point of view Israel has the right to be there.

Why has Russia a favoured view (in your perception)? Anti-Nazi feelings? Jewish Bolshevism? Democracy?

im always amused at people still calling the IRA "freedom fighters"

I think more about the IRA that freed Ireland, and initially carried that same cause across to the Northern Provinces.

Underworld corruption is perhaps unfortunately inevitable in any underground movement. Look at the CIA.

what tripoli incident?

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Tripoli+incident%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt
*From the Marines Hymn*
From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli

Way back when, during the Jefferson Presidency, pirates attacking from Tripoli were demanding money the US couldn't afford to allow ships into the Meditteranean. So, the US sent troops and ships, and laid siege to the port. A ship got captured, and some sort of deal was reached.

Americans and Israelis have done just as much to the Arab world as they have done to us. Ariel Sharon's past history of genocide and human rights abuses are more than enough to justify anything Arabs have done in retribution.

Americans and Israelis have done just as much to the Arab world as they have done to us. Ariel Sharon's past history of genocide and human rights abuses are more than enough to justify anything Arabs have done in retribution.

So your saying that instead of going with a peaceful solution its alright instead to suicide bomb malls and kill kids. "An eye for an eye will leave the world blind"-gandhi

im always amused at people still calling the IRA "freedom fighters"
As am i, i have never considered them freedom figthers, they are basic terrorists who have switched to crime (bank raid anyone?)

Americans and Israelis have done just as much to the Arab world as they have done to us. Ariel Sharon's past history of genocide and human rights abuses are more than enough to justify anything Arabs have done in retribution.
Genocide? Isn't that being extreme just a bit?

What people forget to mention i feel is that the Jews were there first, it was there homeland before the Arabs (was it the Ottomans?) drove them out.

Americans and Israelis have done just as much to the Arab world as they have done to us. Ariel Sharon's past history of genocide and human rights abuses are more than enough to justify anything Arabs have done in retribution.
Oooh, oooh, I get it!

So when peace came to Rwanda, the Tutsis would have been justified in massacring the Hutus?

The Kosovars the Serbs?

The Jews the Germans?

The American Indians the American Colonists?

That issue aside, your history is more than a little spotty. Charges of genocide in Israel have been investigated by impartial human rights NGOs and found to be patently false, the Jenin investigation in 2002 being the most recent example.

The Israeli military has never targeted civilian populations as a manner of waging war. Israel is a party to the Geneva convention. Statistical analyses of the casualties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have shown Palestinian casualties to be well over majority combat aged males. The majority of Israeli casualties have been seniors, women, and children.

Israel has never invaded a nation with the intent of destroying its populace. Arab nations have done so to Israel three times.

As am i, i have never considered them freedom figthers, they are basic terrorists who have switched to crime (bank raid anyone?)

Are you now including the Founding Fathers of the USA?

Terrorists to the British Crown circa. 1776. How dare they rebel at overseas rule by a "divinely born" Mad King!!!

And what did Spartacus try to prove - that he was nothing but a Terrorist who threatened the Roman Empire's imperial law?

Americans and Israelis have done just as much to the Arab world as they have done to us. Ariel Sharon's past history of genocide and human rights abuses are more than enough to justify anything Arabs have done in retribution.

Arel Sharon is an Israeli.... so how does his acts reflect on the United States again? His only action that could be considered genocide would more correctly be called a war crime when troops under his command let Lebanonese militia slaughter Palestians (a few dozen I might add) in 1982. No Israeli troops were directly involved and the US helped broker the cease fire that allowed the PLO and Arafat to evacuate to Tunisia when they were pretty much bottled up and under seige in Beriut.

Radical islamists are much like radical christians; of which there are plenty in the West, particularly in America.

These are the people who believe that all faiths bar-christianity are wrong and will be wiped out. Fortunately (or not) they believe their saviour will do it in the Second Coming. Israel could be regarded as a crusader state in that the state of Israel is intrinsic to the Apocylapse described in the book of Revelations.

Same sides of different coins.

Similar story could describe the extreme no-holds-barred Israeli settlers.

As for the first transgression in the War on Terror (are we still on chapter one?) it is impossible to say. I'd say Islamic terrorists have championed a cause of economic disbalance like Marxists (Castro?), anti-Imperialist rebels (at least the Founding Fathers knew why they were fighting a war: evil tax-imposing English Kings), democratic freedom fighters (IRA?), ethnic separatists (Kurds?) ...

aside from blowing up abortion clinics and slaughtering themselves and their followers (David Koresh, Jim Jones) I can't think of any terrorist actions carried out by Christians since the 30 Years War in the 17th Century. After that it was simply Imperialism or Colonization, not religious based really (the Spanish conquered the New World prior to the 30 Years War by the way).

The American Rebels in the Revolution and the Southern Rebels during the Civil War were entirely Middle, Upper Middle or Ruling class... hardly a class struggle at all (although there were substantial economic undertones involved)

The American Rebels in the Revolution and the Southern Rebels during the Civil War were entirely Middle, Upper Middle or Ruling class... hardly a class struggle at all (although there were substantial economic undertones involved)
Factually incorrect.

The majority of the leaders of both movements were patrician, but that's very nearly a historical universal (even in supposedly egalitarian Marxist movements).

The majority of soldiers were lower class. Many on both sides believed in their side's message.

The economic interests were arguably at the heart of the Civil War, depending on whether you thought the South wanted slavery more for social or economic reasons.

Ditto for the American Revolution - it depends on how you interpret the evidence (Common Sense, Declaration of Independence).

Factually incorrect.

The majority of the leaders of both movements were patrician, but that's very nearly a historical universal (even in supposedly egalitarian Marxist movements).

The majority of soldiers were lower class. Many on both sides believed in their side's message.

The economic interests were arguably at the heart of the Civil War, depending on whether you thought the South wanted slavery more for social or economic reasons.

Ditto for the American Revolution - it depends on how you interpret the evidence (Common Sense, Declaration of Independence).

by European standards, all but the very poorest English Colonists had a standard of living that compared as well or better with nearly all Europeans... death rates were lower, diet was better, nearly all owned land..
so by 18th Century standards they were equiv to Yeoman or Middle class burgers in nearly all of Europe.

want to try again?

as far as the Civil War goes, Slavery was both a social and an economic institution and the overwhelming majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but their sense of social position was very much bound up in the institution of slavery.

Ariel Sharon's past history of genocide and human rights abuses are more than enough to justify anything Arabs have done in retribution.
First of all, two wrongs don't make a right.

Second of all, I'm getting an image of Ariel Sharon as a soldier, running round killing all the tens of millions of Arabs in the area. Genocide is killing an entire race/religion/nation. Sharon may have killed some arabs yes, that does not mean he commited genocide. :rolleyes:

what tripoli incident?

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Tripoli+incident%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt


Sorry, but time for a little Marine Corps pride here. Our Hymn starts out
"From the halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli"

Yep, we've been kickin Middle East ass for more than 200 years!

So history began on April 18, 1983, eh?

Neat!

Are you now including the Founding Fathers of the USA?

Terrorists to the British Crown circa. 1776. How dare they rebel at overseas rule by a "divinely born" Mad King!!!

And what did Spartacus try to prove - that he was nothing but a Terrorist who threatened the Roman Empire's imperial law?


But your quotes both stuck to purely military targets. The IRA have in the vast majority of the cases hit civilian targets. That is the difference.

European imperial powers were messing about constantly in The Middle East, right up to the 50's, when the US emerged as the superpower, and set about supporting Egypt's President Nasser against 'Islamists'. The CIA did a wonderful job of showing the Egyptian military and police how to to torture your political opponents, and Nasser was all the more pleased to have American aid.

In the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis, why do you think the US told the UK, France and Israel to get out of Egypt? Because the US Foreign Policy's interests was threatened if Nasser fell.

The US could not stop him from attacking Israel, they chose having Nasser over Islamists.

Next was Iran, where a brief revolution to overthrow an american backed leader was crushed with the aid of America, leading to the Iranians to harbour bad feeling, and the US-backed Shah took power, running a horrific regime until 1979, when he was overthrown in The Islamic Revolution, the Iranians, remembering the last failed revolution, which the US had a hand in putting a stop to, and the US Support for the Shah, storm the US embassy, and take hostages, which lead to a botched rescue mission.

So of course, America could not have these silly muslims telling them they wanted to run their own country and being humiliated in the botched rescue mission, Oh no! Revenge had to be enacted!

So it was the US funded that rather nice chap by the name of Saddam Hussein (Anyone heard of him by any chance) in his declaration of war against Iran, which lasted from 1980 to 1989, killing 1 million people in WW1 trench warfare.

At one point Iran looked like they would win the war, well the US could not have two Shia Islamic republics, could they? Bad for business, so naturally, the US gave Saddam satellite intelligence of Iranian troop positions, and that loveable rogue Saddam gassed the Iranian troops in what Saddam said was like 'spraying flies'.

And the US only gave Iran aid in return for the release of the US embassy hostages and money from Nicruagua arms sales.

All the while, the US are also supporting the Saud Family dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, which has a dire human rights record rarely commented on.

When the US landed troops there to defend it from Saddam, as Iraq invaded Kuwait because historically Kuwait was part of Iraq before European powers saw to it that it was seperated, A certain Osama Bin Laden, supported by the CIA in fighting and defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan, and who had offered to fight Saddam in Kuwait in the same manner, was angered by seeing foreigners on holy Arabian soil, turns against America after using it as a means to an end (Defeat of Soviet troops in Afghanistan).

Let's not forget the Israel invasion of Lebanon, in which Sharon personally allowed Christian Militia to go around killing Muslim men, women and childiren.

The Palestine issue...in which Israel is continously supported by the US financially and militarily to enable it to kill stone throwing Palestinian kids with Tanks, or just bulldoze Palestinian houses to make way for Israeli settlements...

Continuing support for Egypt with it's repressive regime, second or third most US financially funded nation, paying ransom to stop it from attacking Israel and to stop the 'Islamic Brotherhood' taking over...

And the complete abandonment by the world of Chechnya, leaving to Putin to butcher it and make the resistance there turn into animals in their strike back methods (taking schools hostage in revenge for seeing Russian Special Forces slaughtering Chechnyan Families)

and now, the US invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and US support of the tyrant in Tajikistan as he boils opposition alive, or send his soldiers to slaughter 500 anti government protestors, really makes some muslims more than a little upset.

History begins before 1983.

So history began on April 18, 1983, eh?

Neat!

Nope. That was just me posting every terrorist attack on the US in the past 20 years. I could have gone further back, but it took me over an hour to make that list... ;)

excellent chronology Oceandrive

Apparently the Radical Moslems blame us for Israel (which they call a Crusader State) and don't like our cultural influences, and just generally consider us all a bunch of unbelievers who deserve to die...

in other words, its not so much our policies (although there is some of that) but simply because we exist.

Kind of hard to find common ground in that kind of situation.

Thank you. (No, I'm not O, I am whom he quoted. ;) ).

True.

<snip>
And the complete abandonment by the world of Chechnya, leaving to Putin to butcher it and make the resistance there turn into animals in their strike back methods (taking schools hostage in revenge for seeing Russian Special Forces slaughtering Chechnyan Families)

<snip>
Chechnya is traditionally a secular state that is currently under assault from Islamic fundamentalists funded & trained by the Pakistani ISI, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
A lot of Chechnyans, probably the majority, would prefer Russia to the foreign lunatics currently trying to take power, simply because they would be better off. Read about Afghanistan under the Taliban.
The resistance are animals because they have chosen to forsake their humanity in pursuit of their beliefs. They tortured and murdered those children so as they would have the right to torture and murder Chechnyan children. Example here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm)

Well all I can say is that from Many Russians point of view Israel has the right to be there.What does Russia have to do with anything?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Genocide? Isn't that being extreme just a bit?

What people forget to mention i feel is that the Jews were there first, it was there homeland before the Arabs(was it the Ottomans?) drove them out.

Do not share your point of view in a subject of massive proportions such as the history of the Middle East when you are ignorant of the most basic facts surrounding that history. Learn about the subject matter, then barge into this topic to discuss it. If you do not wish to do that, "GO BACK TO THE SHADOWS", as Gandalf the Grey would say.

The Israeli military has never targeted civilian populations as a manner of waging war.

Yeah, and I'm Jesus Christ. :rolleyes:

Israel is a party to the Geneva convention.

Boo-fucking hoo. And so is America, what's your point? Being a member of the Geneva convention means they don't violate it? You don't seem to accept that EXTREMELY FLAWED logic when it comes to Iran and the NPT.

Statistical analyses of the casualties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have shown Palestinian casualties to be well over majority combat aged males. The majority of Israeli casualties have been seniors, women, and children.

Please, refer me to these statistical analyses. I knew the Israeli government was cunning, but I wonder how they managed to list the women and children who died in Jenin and Sabra and Shatila as "combat aged males".

Americans and Israelis have done just as much to the Arab world as they have done to us. Ariel Sharon's past history of genocide and human rights abuses are more than enough to justify anything Arabs have done in retribution.
Ahh yes, you are sooooooo right :rolleyes: We just have to forget some of those inconvenient little facts. Like that fact that the first Arab suicide bombing against a bus full of Jews was BEFORE the creation of Israel, in 1947. And the fact that the Arab violence against Jews in Palestine dates back as far as the bloody pogroms following the Damascus blood libel of 1840, BEFORE the Zionist immigration. And the fact that the Arabs have allied themselves with the Nazis during World war II and provided more soldiers for the Wehrmacht than did his other, "official" allies like Spain, Romania or Bulgaria (even off the top of my head, without reviewing my collection of books on the subject, I can name several divisions of SS soldiers recruited by the national hero of the Palestinians, Haj Amin Al-Husseini- the Handschar division, the Skanderberg division, Arabische Freiheitkorps and others). And the fact that these Muslim soldiers have played an important part in the Nazi genocide of Jews, Gypsies and Serbs in Yugoslavia. And the massacres of Jews by the Arabs in 1929 and 1936. And the fact that entire Jewish towns were razed to the ground during the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948 (most Jewish settlements of the Gaza strip, like Nitzanim and Kfar Darom, stand in place of these towns and are named after them). And a huge list of other facts that I simply can't be bothered to type down right now. When we forget all that- yes, then the Arab crimes record might become somewhat comparable to that of Israel or the US- but even then the Arab list will be a bit longer.

Nope. That was just me posting every terrorist attack on the US in the past 20 years. I could have gone further back, but it took me over an hour to make that list... ;)

Well this one goes back to 1920 ...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

Though it is fascinating that the Islamic groups didn't start attacking the US until 1979. Wonder what the US did prior to 1979 ............

Hrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I'd also like to point out this chart:

http://i.infoplease.com/images/04alm_totalterror.gif

Look at how the numbers have been on a strong decline since 1990. Good for Clinton. :D But then we elect Bush in 2000 and *BOOM* ... bad year.

Please, refer me to these statistical analyses. I knew the Israeli government was cunning, but I wonder how they managed to list the women and children who died in Jenin and Sabra and Shatila as "combat aged males".
http://www.ict.org.il/

Go to "Databases", then "Arab-Israeli conflict". For details of the research methodology, click on the link titled "An Engineered Tragedy: Statistical Analysis of Fatalities".

This is the only statistical analysis out there that doesn't leave you with a raw number of fatalities without distinction, but provides a breakdown into the categories such as combatants and non-combatants. Pretty damn important, if you ask me. And it shows some interesting tendencies- such as the fact that over 10% of the Palestinian fatalities are people killed by the own side, or that three times more Israeli women were killed by the Palestinians than there were Palestinian women killed by Israel.

I'm actually studying the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in my conclusion

Drumroll...

It's all the Jews' fault.
Not sounding racist. I'm sorry if I did. But the principle of the Zionists that created the country of Israel were so exclusive and undemocratic to the Arabs that the entire conflict can be reasonably blamed on the Israelis. The Arabs at least tried to work with the Israelis. The Israelis wouldn't have any of it. It was either a Jewish state, or a shitload of dead Arabs to get a Jewish state. This has been shown in their military and exclusionary politics in the region, especially under the Ben-Gurion government. They refused diplomacy, refused international intervention, refused to take responsibility for their creation of 800,000 Palestinian refugees, this refugee problem being the cause of the current terrorism in the region, and the use of Muslim terrorism worldwide.

It really all started with a bunch of whiny Zionists who stomped and kicked around, screaming "no you fucking Arabs! This is our state! Who cares if you've been living here for the past 2,000 years! :upyours: This is the ancesteral home of Judaism! No compromises! :upyours:

I'm actually studying the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in my conclusion

Drumroll...

It's all the Jews' fault.
Not sounding racist. I'm sorry if I did. But the principle of the Zionists that created the country of Israel were so exclusive and undemocratic to the Arabs that the entire conflict can be reasonably blamed on the Israelis. The Arabs at least tried to work with the Israelis. The Israelis wouldn't have any of it. It was either a Jewish state, or a shitload of dead Arabs to get a Jewish state. This has been shown in their military and exclusionary politics in the region, especially under the Ben-Gurion government. They refused diplomacy, refused international intervention, refused to take responsibility for their creation of 800,000 Palestinian refugees, this refugee problem being the cause of the current terrorism in the region, and the use of Muslim terrorism worldwide.

It really all started with a bunch of whiny Zionists who stomped and kicked around, screaming "no you fucking Arabs! This is our state! Who cares if you've been living here for the past 2,000 years! :upyours: This is the ancesteral home of Judaism! No compromises! :upyours:Switch around the words "Jews" and "Arabs" and you'll be a little closer to the truth. At least that's how I see it.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

P.S. The :upyours: smiley will not make you the most popular player on NS...

Ahh yes, you are sooooooo right :rolleyes: We just have to forget some of those inconvenient little facts. Like that fact that the first Arab suicide bombing against a bus full of Jews was BEFORE the creation of Israel, in 1947. And the fact that the Arab violence against Jews in Palestine dates back as far as the bloody pogroms following the Damascus blood libel of 1840, BEFORE the Zionist immigration. And the fact that the Arabs have allied themselves with the Nazis during World war II and provided more soldiers for the Wehrmacht than did his other, "official" allies like Spain, Romania or Bulgaria (even off the top of my head, without reviewing my collection of books on the subject, I can name several divisions of SS soldiers recruited by the national hero of the Palestinians, Haj Amin Al-Husseini- the Handschar division, the Skanderberg division, Arabische Freiheitkorps and others). And the fact that these Muslim soldiers have played an important part in the Nazi genocide of Jews, Gypsies and Serbs in Yugoslavia. And the massacres of Jews by the Arabs in 1929 and 1936. And the fact that entire Jewish towns were razed to the ground during the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948 (most Jewish settlements of the Gaza strip, like Nitzanim and Kfar Darom, stand in place of these towns and are named after them). And a huge list of other facts that I simply can't be bothered to type down right now. When we forget all that- yes, then the Arab crimes record might become somewhat comparable to that of Israel or the US- but even then the Arab list will be a bit longer.


Fuck off! The Ottomans treated your religion great! Quit complaining, you were treated better by the Muslims than us Christians, the Muslims at least tolerated your existence.

Not advocating the crap you guys had to go through, note, just stating that the Ottomans would let you practice your religion in peace. They regarded you as people of the book, not quite right about religion, but still sons of Abraham, and thus tolerated.

The Jewish settlers and the governement of Ben-Gurion razed to the ground all of the Palestinian villages in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Don't think for a second your Zionist bretheren were innocent. The Zionists callously demanded a country from the British, then started practicing terrorism to force out the Palestinians, refused to partition Palestine, despite the fact that the majority of people in Palestine were Arab, by a 3-1 ratio. Then Ben-Gurion's government forced the eviction of 800,000 Palestinians, causing a refugee problem that still exists today.

Out of these refugee camps came the support for the PLO, and all the Arab terrorism that ensued. Your side is not the one in the right. Your military is just the most effective.

Read the book located at this link. It provides the most unbiased information (with documents) regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm reading it for my Poli Sci class on the same subject.

http://www.bookbyte.com/product.aspx?isbn=0312404085&referrer=froogle

Switch around the words "Jews" and "Arabs" and you'll be a little closer to the truth. At least that's how I see it.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

P.S. The :upyours: smiley will not make you the most popular player on NS...


Have you actually looked into this? I'm taking classes on this very issue. I'm just simulating the finger raised by the Zionists to everyone else. The Arabs, in the beginning of the creation of the modern Israeli State were at least open to letting the Jews partition Palestine. The Zionists openly refused to share the country with the Arabs, despite the latter having lived there for hundreds of years.

After the creation of Israel, the Israeli military began border clashes with neighboring countries, including the razing to the ground of many Palestinian villages. 800,000 refugees fled Israel after having their homes bulldozed and the Israelis forcibly relocating them.

I'm taking classes on this very issue.

I would find that hard to believe...

Well this one goes back to 1920 ...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html.

It goes back to 1975. One 1920 date isn't going back to 1920. :D
This one is a bit more complete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents


Though it is fascinating that the Islamic groups didn't start attacking the US until 1979. Wonder what the US did prior to 1979 ............

Hrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Do tell! Do you mean the Shah falling in Iran?
Also, you're a bit off:
8 September 1974: TWA Flight 841: Bomb kills 88 on jetliner.

I'd also like to point out this chart:

http://i.infoplease.com/images/04alm_totalterror.gif

Look at how the numbers have been on a strong decline since 1990. Good for Clinton. :D But then we elect Bush in 2000 and *BOOM* ... bad year.

Um... by the rest of the planet's calendar, Clinton was in office until Bush was sworn into office on January 20, 2001...

Also, by the rest of the planet's math, 426 (2000) to 355 (2001) to 199 (2002) is a DECLINING series. That means LESS attacks since Bush took office. :rolleyes:

aside from blowing up abortion clinics and slaughtering themselves and their followers (David Koresh, Jim Jones) I can't think of any terrorist actions carried out by Christians since the 30 Years War in the 17th Century. After that it was simply Imperialism or Colonization, not religious based really (the Spanish conquered the New World prior to the 30 Years War by the way).

The American Rebels in the Revolution and the Southern Rebels during the Civil War were entirely Middle, Upper Middle or Ruling class... hardly a class struggle at all (although there were substantial economic undertones involved)

If terrorism is political/military strategy aimed at civilian population, then if that is committed by Christians it can be called Chrsitian Terrorism (Nagasaki? Dresden? Mutually Assured Destruction).

What is the difference between Christianity and Islam? Christianity is the faith of the currently dominant world powers and the people who effectively determine if we call antagonists liberators/freedom fighters/terrorists.

Who invented theories and practices of strategic bombing? Christians?

Religions simply provide justification for your actions regardless of how powerful you are; nation-state or freedom fighter.

As for the American Rebels they were the rich Americans, but they were constantly being undermined by the richer, and more powerful, British lords. The cause of the war was because these people wanted economic freedom (all the other freedoms were already there...). A struggle of wealth and power just like every other human conflict.

If terrorism is political/military strategy aimed at civilian population, then if that is committed by Christians it can be called Chrsitian Terrorism (Nagasaki? Dresden? Mutually Assured Destruction).

What is the difference between Christianity and Islam? Christianity is the faith of the currently dominant world powers and the people who effectively determine if we call antagonists liberators/freedom fighters/terrorists.

Who invented theories and practices of strategic bombing? Christians?

Religions simply provide justification for your actions regardless of how powerful you are; nation-state or freedom fighter.

As for the American Rebels they were the rich Americans, but they were constantly being undermined by the richer, and more powerful, British lords. The cause of the war was because these people wanted economic freedom (all the other freedoms were already there...). A struggle of wealth and power just like every other human conflict.

For one thing, Westerner stopped killing themselves in the name of God after the 30 Years War. They then started killing each other in the name of democracy, or the revolution, or the state, or the party, or racial superiority etc. Strategic bombing was carried during time of war, with the goal of terrorizing civilians into ending that war. That is true. It also never worked that way. It did however do much to speed Allied victory in World War II.
But it was never considered "Christian". Nobody believed they were going to heaven because they were smiting the infidel.

Actually the signers of the Declaration of Independence were most of the wealthiest men in th 13 Colonies. Granted they didn't have titles, but many of them had as much wealth or more than most members of Parliament. The foot soldiers of the conflict were a little different. The average American foot soldier was either a land owning farmer or a tradesmen, while the average British foot soldier was from a tenant farmer family or unskilled labor family from the cities.

It wasn't just about economics. The Americans had local self government from the founding of each colony onwards. British practice during the colonial period was either benign neglect (during peace) or hurried reinforcement during war and generally did not tax the colonists heavily.

Until after the 7 Years War, when suddenly the British government decided it wanted some money and in the process essentially killed the goose that laid the golden egg (lost the American colonies) and failed to realize the the British Empire was a lot stronger with North America and a light tax load (and a few political gestures like a few American MPs).

Barbara Tuchman's book "March of Folly" goes into this at length, as do many others.

I guess you could go all the way back to the Barbary Pirates. That was the first notable confrontation between America and Muslims. But between Israel and Islam? Let's see...right after Muhammed ascended I think.

I believe it was just a little bit before.

Barbara Tuchman's book "March of Folly" goes into this at length, as do many others.

Excellent book. :cool:

After the creation of Israel, the Israeli military began border clashes with neighboring countries, including the razing to the ground of many Palestinian villages. 800,000 refugees fled Israel after having their homes bulldozed and the Israelis forcibly relocating them.

You're talking about the Israeli Independence War? If you are, then I must insist that's a whole lot of bullshit.
Shortly after the establishment of Israel- a few hours after it declared its independence, actually- the neighbouring countries attacked it, as the arabs completely disagreed to the UN's plan to split the land between the two nations. Israel barely had an army then, what it did have was little seperated units who did their best to fight off the attacking armies- and yes, they also scared a lot palestinians away from their homes. Some of the homes were bulldozed only a lot after the war, others weren't at all.

You guys know that Israel was attacked by it's boardering countries before it was fully formed?

Fuck off!
Who is Off and why should I find them attractive?


The Ottomans treated your religion great! Quit complaining, you were treated better by the Muslims than us Christians, the Muslims at least tolerated your existence.
Aww, I am supposed to feel all warm and cuddly from it, right? "At least tolerated your existence".


Not advocating the crap you guys had to go through, note, just stating that the Ottomans would let you practice your religion in peace. They regarded you as people of the book, not quite right about religion, but still sons of Abraham, and thus tolerated.
Have you missed the mention of the 1840 Damascus blood libel and pogroms? Or should I dig out some more examples?
Muslim tolerance is largely a myth. The Muslim civilization only demonstrated examples of true religious tolerance twice- during the "golden age" in Spain and during the rule of Salah ad-Din. Christianity had similar moments of tolerance here and there.


The Jewish settlers and the governement of Ben-Gurion razed to the ground all of the Palestinian villages in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Don't think for a second your Zionist bretheren were innocent. The Zionists callously demanded a country from the British, then started practicing terrorism to force out the Palestinians, refused to partition Palestine, despite the fact that the majority of people in Palestine were Arab, by a 3-1 ratio. Then Ben-Gurion's government forced the eviction of 800,000 Palestinians, causing a refugee problem that still exists today.
Not sure if I should even dignify this with a reply. The levels of historical ignorance you are displaying make any discussion useless.



Read the book located at this link. It provides the most unbiased information (with documents) regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm reading it for my Poli Sci class on the same subject.

http://www.bookbyte.com/product.aspx?isbn=0312404085&referrer=froogle
Trust me, little one, you have A LOT of books- and not just books- to read to even begin to approach my level of knowlege on the subject (I don't normally boast, but in your case this is simple truth). Until you realize the simple fact that no book will give you an adequate perspective on this issue, you haven't read enough.

Shortly after the establishment of Israel- a few hours after it declared its independence, actually- the neighbouring countries attacked it.
Shortly after? Make it THE SAME DAY. During the Independence day activities here, I've seen a page of The Times from back then. It had "Israel is established" and "Egypt bombs Tel-Aviv" in the same front page headline.

Shortly after? Make it THE SAME DAY. During the Independence day activities here, I've seen a page of The Times from back then. It had "Israel is established" and "Egypt bombs Tel-Aviv" in the same front page headline.doesnt really matter...the bottom line being proposed is:

"they took land from the Palestineans to create Israel"

true or false?

was that the rigth thing to do?

It didn't begin with Tripoli. Tripoli was regarding a bunch of damned pirates causing HARM to Americans. The treaty of Tripoli is famous for resolving that the American nation is NOT a christian nation as stated by the Founders in the treaty.

It began with Truman. When FDR died, Truman didn't have the same talks with the Arab leaders who were our FRIENDS and admired America at that point. Because of it, instead of making a Israeli nation in GERMANY who committed the atrocities, we supported making it in Palestine which caused ALL this mess to us later.

We've been buds with Israel for 30 years, but they have hurt America BIG time. (not jewish people. Jewish people like Mel Brooks, Adam Sandler, Natalie Portman are DA BOMB. I am talking about the STATE of israel and zionists are what cause ALL of America's problems right next to Islam and the American religious right.)

doesnt really matter...the bottom line being proposed is:

"they took land from the Palestineans to create Israel"

true or false?

was that the rigth thing to do?

Yes. And guess what- it was actually agreed upon (http://www.desert-voice.net/faisal__wizmann.htm) with the Arabs.

Yes. And guess what- it was actually agreed upon (http://www.desert-voice.net/faisal__wizmann.htm) with the Arabs.
and signed by the president of what country?
or by the representative leader of what country?

i hope is not someone like the Shah...cos the paper would be whortless.

For one thing, Westerner stopped killing themselves in the name of God after the 30 Years War. They then started killing each other in the name of democracy, or the revolution, or the state, or the party, or racial superiority etc. Strategic bombing was carried during time of war, with the goal of terrorizing civilians into ending that war. That is true. It also never worked that way. It did however do much to speed Allied victory in World War II.
But it was never considered "Christian". Nobody believed they were going to heaven because they were smiting the infidel.

Actually the signers of the Declaration of Independence were most of the wealthiest men in th 13 Colonies. Granted they didn't have titles, but many of them had as much wealth or more than most members of Parliament. The foot soldiers of the conflict were a little different. The average American foot soldier was either a land owning farmer or a tradesmen, while the average British foot soldier was from a tenant farmer family or unskilled labor family from the cities.

It wasn't just about economics. The Americans had local self government from the founding of each colony onwards. British practice during the colonial period was either benign neglect (during peace) or hurried reinforcement during war and generally did not tax the colonists heavily.

Until after the 7 Years War, when suddenly the British government decided it wanted some money and in the process essentially killed the goose that laid the golden egg (lost the American colonies) and failed to realize the the British Empire was a lot stronger with North America and a light tax load (and a few political gestures like a few American MPs).

Barbara Tuchman's book "March of Folly" goes into this at length, as do many others.


Granted the American Revolution is not as simple as portrayed (and the British were foolish though some evidence points to a descion over whether to subdue the rebels or protect the Canadian fisheries... but that could be bull).

My point remains though that the conflict was a struggle for wealth, or the protection of it. Footsoldiers are always the economic 'servants' of the ruling rich/powerful element that makes all political descions. The colonial leaders rebelled to keep their money.

As for my points about christian 'terrorism' one should mention the massive event that was the Treaty of Westphalia which essentially removed God from points of legality. After this Europe essentally began to phase out God from their terms of technicality... before they would have said "God is on our side" afterwards they said "National Interest is on our side".

Regardless the religion of the people who ran the European and early-American policies were invariably Christians, and the christian ethos shaped the institutions, laws and policies of these countries.

If Truman claimed to be a christian then we know that a christian authorised the Nuclear bombing against Japan, with the specific intent of terrorising the Japanese government into surrender. Christianity shaped his moral codes, his ethics and therefore his descions.

The only real difference is that Islamic terrorists are a) fighting a war they cannot win, and b) repeatedly justifying their actions before God. And amongst all the references to God we can see that the economic issue underlies... Osama Bin Laden claims that the war is over when foreign (read: European and American, and possibly Chinese and Indian) elements are out of the Muslim world...thus allowing Muslims to control the markets, and so increase the 'Muslim world's" share of global capital.

(Though the two differences are not actually any different from the situation George W. is in. A war he cannot win (bar martial law over the entire Muslim population of the world) and where he repeatedly justifies himself with the word 'God' - America apparently has God on its side...tell that to the Iraqi insurgents).

For one thing, Westerner stopped killing themselves in the name of God after the 30 Years War. They then started killing each other in the name of democracy, or the revolution, or the state, or the party, or racial superiority etc. Strategic bombing was carried during time of war, with the goal of terrorizing civilians into ending that war. That is true. It also never worked that way. It did however do much to speed Allied victory in World War II.
But it was never considered "Christian". Nobody believed they were going to heaven because they were smiting the infidel.

Actually the signers of the Declaration of Independence were most of the wealthiest men in th 13 Colonies. Granted they didn't have titles, but many of them had as much wealth or more than most members of Parliament. The foot soldiers of the conflict were a little different. The average American foot soldier was either a land owning farmer or a tradesmen, while the average British foot soldier was from a tenant farmer family or unskilled labor family from the cities.

It wasn't just about economics. The Americans had local self government from the founding of each colony onwards. British practice during the colonial period was either benign neglect (during peace) or hurried reinforcement during war and generally did not tax the colonists heavily.

Until after the 7 Years War, when suddenly the British government decided it wanted some money and in the process essentially killed the goose that laid the golden egg (lost the American colonies) and failed to realize the the British Empire was a lot stronger with North America and a light tax load (and a few political gestures like a few American MPs).

Barbara Tuchman's book "March of Folly" goes into this at length, as do many others.
true that...lots of it.

and signed by the president of what country?
or by the representative leader of what country?

i hope is not someone like the Shah...cos the paper would be whortless.
Signed by emir Feisal Ibn Hussein, ruler of Hejaz, keeper of Mecca and Medina, king of Syria (not the modern Syria, back then the Syrian vilayet included Syria, "Palestine" and part of what is now Lebanon), and later also king of Iraq. He was the undisputed leader of the Arab nation at the time, and represented it in all relations with the West- at the Paris peace conference that put an end to World war I for example. Not to mention that he was the first and only democratically elected leader in the Arab nation's history. He was elected by the popular vote to both the Syrian and the Iraqi throne.

Get a history book, OceanDrive.

I'd also like to point out this chart:

http://i.infoplease.com/images/04alm_totalterror.gif

Look at how the numbers have been on a strong decline since 1990. Good for Clinton. :D But then we elect Bush in 2000 and *BOOM* ... bad year.


first of all, how can you compare the number of terrorist attacks in the world to presidents in the US...where is the correlation?

Second of all, even if you wanted to, Clinton is the reason why there have been recent findings of terrorist camps being found now. The 8 years that Clinton was president, is the same 8 years that allowed terrorsists in the world to have a recess, where they get to plan, and where they aren't under constant surveillance from US and other world antiterror organizations. This (and i know its a stretch) is one of the reasons for the ability for Al Quaida to plan the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as all the 300 someodd other number of attacks worldwide during the Bush admin.

There are more attacks on govts. now b/c more nations are siding with the US. Islamic fundamentalists are feeling threatened in Europe, so they in turn threaten to attack, and do attack governments who do no comply with their orders (to not side along with the US). Europe in general has to grow some balls, and stop yielding to these terrorists, there will be more attacks, but at least we can identify a clear enemy. Attacks everyday... heh, maybe they will realise what israelis deal with every day from the crazy plaestinians

It goes all the way back to the Crusades. They're still angry at the West for invading the Middle East during that. And I am sure the history of the Ottoman invasion over Europe plays into it as well.

the true problem is:

Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and all the other arab nations in the area say to the palestinians "Go destroy the Israeli infadel who took your homeland and your pride" while at the same time, those same arab nations dont want to allow the palestinians into their own country. Think of it, more than 6 arab nations surrounding a jewish nation.... and they want the jewish nation too?!?! is that not madness? basically, no one wants the palestinians, so the poverty-stricken brainwashed fundamentalists are willing to die for a cause that they dont even know about- they only are taught to hate and kill jews to go to heaven-. Such blind stupidity is what the israelis are forced to deal with... along with this, is the pressure from Europe and the rest of the world. Everytime israelis kill a terrorist head or someone dangerous, the european media goes on rants of how israel is barbaric and how they aren't treating palestinians right. Also, when a group of palestinians line their children up in front of them, and shoot @ israeli soldiers, and the soldiers shoot back and kill a kid or two, the europeans go nuts ..."how can they do that to innocent children" and that bullshit. ITs a lose-lose situation....either they are hated by the world, or they defend themselves.... atleast they have america backing them.

doesnt really matter...the bottom line being proposed is:

"they took land from the Palestineans to create Israel"

true or false?

was that the rigth thing to do?

well, in truth, you can blame the UN for that one.... the 1947 Partition of Palestine was however supposed to have sufficient room for both a Palestinian and a Jewish State. Unsatisfied with that, all neighboring Arab countries promptly declared war, Iraqi/Syrian/Jordanian forces occupied what is now called the West Bank (which was supposed to go to the Palestinians), the Egyptians grabbed the Gaza Strip (also supposed to be Palestinian) and the Israelis defeated all of the invading Arab armies that reached the areas that were supposed to be Jewish, and grabbed some Arab land was well including Haifa.

The Arab leaders told the Palestinians to flee to get out of the way, and a lot did. The Israelis told a lot of Palestinians to do the same and once again a lot of them did. A lot of them also chose to stay (about 1/3 of the population of Israel is Druze or Arab).

Lots of blame to go around don't you think?

Signed by emir Feisal Ibn Hussein, ruler of Hejaz, keeper of Mecca and Medina, king of Syria (not the modern Syria, back then the Syrian vilayet included Syria, "Palestine" and part of what is now Lebanon), and later also king of Iraq. He was the undisputed leader of the Arab nation...

Get a history book, OceanDrive.you are really making him look good...you should get a job in politics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Weizmann_Agreement

you are really making him look good...you should get a job in politics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Weizmann_Agreement
This Wikipedia link is slanted to the point of being downright silly. They are painting Feisal as this silly savage without a clue, who has never met a Jew in his life and believed all the fairy tales about Jews being "all-powerful". Typical colonial patronizing bullshit. There were plenty of Jews in the Arab world, and Feisal was well familiar with them and had no need for anti-Semitic advisors to tell him what the Jews were and what they were not. Moreover, the Hashemite dynasty was traditionally very tolerant religiously and quite sympathetic to the Jews. Here is what Feisal's father, Sharif al-Hussein Ibn Ali al-Husseini, had written in 1918:

The resources of the country [Western Palestine] are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1,000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had the gift of a deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons [abna'ihi-l-asliyin], for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles [jaliya] to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades, and in all things connected with toil and labour.

Do you see any disdain for the Palestinian Arabs here? None whatsoever, but he does admire the work the Jews had done in the Land of Israel, and their love for the country. Of course, it demolishes all the traditional stereotypes about Jew hating, intolerant Muslims frothing at the mouth at the mere sight of Zionism- but this is a historical fact. This is the way it was. This is the way it should have been today if the Brits didn't screw it up.

Oh and the claim that Feisal "was contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs" is just plain funny. Suuuuuuuuure, the guy who has basically founded the Arab national movement as a phenomena of any real significance, the guy who was found fit to represent the entire Arab nation at the Paris peace conference, the guy who pissed off the entire Western world by demanding Arab independence from the colonial powers "here and now", was SUCH an Arab hater. How stupid should one be to buy into that???

The TRUTH was that Feisal was far smarter than the Westerners expected him to be. He saw Arab and Jewish national movements as allies rather than enemies, and saw that they can benefit from each other rather than obstruct each other. Let me quote his own words:

I want to take this opportunity of my first contact with American Zionists to tell you what I have often been able to say to Dr. Weizmann is Arabia and Europe.

We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.

And this part talks directly about YOU and the likes of you, OceanDrive :P

People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital out of what they call our differences.

I wish to give you my firm conviction that these differences are not on questions of principle, but on matters of detail such as must inevitably occur in every contact of neighbouring peoples, and as are easily adjusted by mutual good will. Indeed nearly all of them will disappear with fuller knowledge.

I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of civilised peoples of the world.

http://amislam.com/feisal.htm (That's a MUSLIM source, mind you).

Wonderful, isn't it? This is that moderate Muslim we are now so eagerly looking for. He was right there, on the Arab throne, promoting peace and mutual gain and actually achieving results. If the Wiezmann-Feisal accord was implemented, Israel and a Palestinian state could be created some 20 years before the 1947 UN partition plan, by a mutual agreement and without war. Blame the damned Brits for sabotaging the plan. :mad:

Wiki's article on Feisal himself is a bit more adequate, btw, and confirms everything I've said in my previous post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq