If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But Zionism is still intended for Jews. Jews are followers of a specific religions, Judaism. Therefore I said it was based on a certain religion, while not being religious.
Fuck yes, I am.
In all honesty, do I have a reason not to be? When my grandparents where not once, but twice forced to leave their country cause of their religion (second time, they had even cut all connections with anything religious whatsoever. Still it didn't make them good enough to be regarded as a part of their former country) then I'd be a fool not to believe that Jews need a Jewish state, where they can be welcome.
Good, then you're probably not as anti-zionist as you make yourself out to be.
Zionism in it's pure and original form is the wish for Jews to have a homeland.
To begin with Herzel didn't think of Israel, but rather Argentina or Uganda.
The discussion of borders is another issue.
As is militant Islam, and the concept of the holy war. Your point is?
if the rest of the world did that can you imagine the chaos?
"What's your point, Jacq?" day, eh?
Point is, that when stating "lets make a war against religious extremism" he included Zionism under that, when it doesn't belong there. Simply corrected him.
So what's your point of questioning me?
Now there is a difference between Zionism and militant Islam. Militant Islamism is a branch of islam, while Zionism has it's root in Judaism, but is not based on religious beliefs.
And what's your point of bring this up, in this specific thread, instead of the other?
Borders have nothing to do with Zionism in pure form.
With current Zionism it does.
we can talk and deal with islam and the jewish people ...there seems to be nothing to discuss with the extreme ones ...they want what they want as a god given right. different gods different rights ...can only lead to death and destruction.
So what will you do? Move all Jews to Uganda?
What makes you say that modern Zionism breeds anti-semitism?
the jewish people of all people should have more understanding and compassion toward a people wanting statehood than anyone ...alas ...it doesn't seem to be the case.
Most Jews (even Sharon) would know that a peace with the Palestinians would not only serve the Palestinians but also the Israelis best.
But at the moment it isn't a disagreemeant about land only, it's a fight for life.
You won't find anyone budging off anything when being threatened.
History has shown us Brits that terrorism in Northern ireland was not defeated by force, incidents like Bloody Sunday and mass interternment were the best thing for IRA/Loyalist recruitment.
Both our Conservative and Labour governments have proved in the past it is possible to bring terrorists to the negotiating table and achieved success with the help of your true selves at times.
We even negotiated with groups like the Stern Gang in Palestine in the 40s even after our servicemen had been murdered by them.
So now you are comparing the British treatment of Ireland to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians? :eek:
Never thought I would witness that concession, here...
I am making a point about that some of us also have experiences we can draw on, not every lesson can be learned in books.
I speak as someone who has grown up with domestic terrorism.
You on the other hand seem to think you are the only with experience of war or terrorism and the rest of us have just buy the papers.
Just the suggestion of this is offensive to anyone who is British or Irish no matter what their beliefs.
nothin like a bit of american rhetoric to get the pulse racing, have u ever heard of the Bush regime, although i don't know the exact figues but something like 15% of americans have lived in terrible poverty at some stage in their lives, unemployment is high, 10% of americas richest own 90% of all the wealth in america, hmm, slight gap there, wen was the last time u lost sleep over the fact that 400,000 iraqi children died of malnutrition, did u wake up and say "lets go to iraq and fight for those dying children", i doubt it very much, more like "oh our country is under siege, let me see, iraq, sadam, yea theres a target, and even better, they have large resouces of oil, what a coincidence, and even better, if they do have WMD, they'll never reach us with them," what a pack of cowardly fucks you all are, and again, is life in Iraq under Bush brilliant now, no water, no electricty, fuel, the country's worse now than it was before the invasion, and if america really were so concerned about sadam his Father wuldn've finished the job 10 years ago, not encourage the shiites to revolt only to run away, paratrooper, the patrioism doesn't work anymore, face it.
Please child, enlighten me with your knowledge gained from firsthand experiences as to how the world "really" operates.
I suggest you reread the post, and take note of where some of the information originally came from.
2001 Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001
And don't try and preach to me about the deaths of Iraqi children.
I've seen firsthand of what Iraqis do not only to their own children, but to Kuwaiti kids too.
Cut and pasted from another site:
Agreed but Palestine & Israel is a whole different ball game.
The culture & religion differences are more vast in this situation than N.I & UK which makes negotiating more difficult.
Even if Sharon and Arafat (or whoever it is that is the leader now)
stopped being so pigheaded and actually properly negotiated, you may still get individuals/groups carrying out attacks, like we have with the real IRA, but on a more extreme level.
First off, I see that some here have chosen to speak of Saddam Hussein in a thread devoted to terrorism. I am very pleased that they have finally agreed that heads of state, 'official' armies and governments can be guilty of terrorism just as much as others.
Therefore in the future when Ariel 'Fat Murdering Bastard' Sharon and his Death Squads (a.k.a. the IDF) are branded 'terrorists', I trust we will never have to hear claims from certain people that the government, Army and Prime Minister of Israel cannot be called 'terrorists'.
With regard to fighting terrorism, like others have said it never has and never will be defeated by force alone. I know this might be beyond the simplistic, gun-ho approach of some, but it is as important to tackle the causes of terrorism, i.e. what is prompting this people with lives and families to kill themselves and others, as fighting the terrorists themselves.
The Israelis (to name an example) can build walls, uproot olive trees and continue oppressing the Palestinian population all they like. But all the walls, army checkpoints and F-16 attacks in the world will not stop the attacks. Because for as long as the Palestinians are deprived of life, land and dignity there will always be volunteers to blow themselves up. The attacks will stop with the devolution of land in full and a stop to the daily atrocities. Not with bulldozer, the concrete wall and the Apache gunship. It's about fucking time the government of Israel understood this.
And yet you still have Jack Straw saying the other day that the Turkey blasts against British interests had nothing to do with British involvement in the war on Iraq. What fucking patronising, clueless hypocrites that lot are :mad:
Mc Donalds anyone?
Lets re-phrase. The ideology is based for the people of a certain religion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religions beliefs, and doesn't betray principle of the religion, by wishing for it's followers to have their own country.
So yes, I will be the first to say that Sharon and the IDF are not terrorists.
Deed done.
Appalling double standards, and yet not surprising...
Jacq, the label of terrorist, the way it has come to be used as the banner justification for disproportional militarism by we in the West, is all a matter of what end of the violence you happen to stand.
Today's definition has more to do with separating those who bow to the Bush administration political agenda as opposed to those who refuse than it does any consistent and internationally accepted definition.
Even OBL was Washington's darling so long as he was killing Soviets.
I agree that there would still be dissidents or rogue elements outside of any sort of negotiations in any conflict, past and present. My point is there comes a time when you have to say the present strategy is not working.
I'm not talking about an overnight cure in one touch-feely session, the divisions there are literally biblical. But, there are issues which need to be looked at and addressed . Apologies if I'm not getting my point across, here's a link which sums up my opinion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3270491.stm