This will flag comments for moderators to take action.
Discuss, examine, and rant and rave about the news of the day.
Posted: 10/1/2010 1:05 AM PDT
Dorchadas is right. Do your homework.
Posted: 9/29/2010 4:01 PM PDT
Also, you are overlooking the fact that groups like Hamas prolong the conflict. One of Isreals main demands on ending the siege of Gaza is Hamas accepting the state of Isreal. Since they are too stubbon to do this, they cause more Palestinian deaths than they prevent!
We've all had this conversation before.
JDLee is right, your take in the Levant's history is screwed. First you say Arabs have been there, then you say they haven't, and now you claim that ALL the Jews went to Europe. Actually, not all that many went. They just multiplied outside of the region. Plenty of Jewish groups remained. The Samaritans, for example, have lived in Isreal since biblical times, and still do, albeit in decreased numbers. Ironically partially because of Arab incursion (Although mostly because they didn't have the isolationist, xenophobic qualities of mainstream Judaism back in the day).
Dude, read up and come back. Also, read other threads on this subject right here on Webook.
Posted: 9/29/2010 3:56 PM PDT
Dude, the reason no-one stops Isreal isn't because we (the western nations) like them, (hell we poison gassed six million of them), it's because they have political allies in the West.
Also, having a shit-load of nuclear weapons helps.
Why do you think none of the Arab nations (bar the rather pathetic attempt of Lebanon) have attacked Israel in so long? They would blow their asses off the face of the Earth!
Posted: 9/29/2010 12:12 AM PDT
kittyluver, if history's your best subject, I feel sorry for you. There have been jews in Palestine for the last few thousand years. They didn't all go to Europe. Most of them stayed in Palestine, while others went to where Saudi Arabia is today, as well Iran (Persia), Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Africa, and maybe even India. If you knew history, you'd know that.
Posted: 9/26/2010 3:23 PM PDT
"But consider this. What if you built a house, and you wanted to stay in the house, but you couldn't, because the neigbours were unfriendly, and attacked you, or because you couldn't grow enough food in the garden to feed your family"
the biggest BS I've ever heard, should i repeat they left such a long time ago on their own accord? no one forced them, and don't blame it on their neighbors, back then, arabs werent even around, the jews left isreal even before all that, and they left it to go to europe! If you want to argue with me, chose REAL facts, don't put down made up scenarios
im sorry, but your whole story is all made up, and incredible, because none of it even follows history
"But more and more children of yours arrive, until you need more and more rooms, and eventually the new occupants want to throw you out" actually, its the isrealis that want to throw out the palestinians, you've been watching too much brainwashing.. any history book says so, the palestinians have to voice in anything
over a thousand innocent palestinians died in the war on gaza, the whole strip was blockaded by isreal, they were starving the people off... and during the war, the isrealis bombed UN hosiptials, and other innocent facilities, they shot women and children on the streets, and the whole world condemned isreal to be wrong except the bush administration, how is it even humane to defend isreal? im so TIRED of hearing how isrealis are the victims, they live peacefully, and the palestinians are denied of basic freedoms, anyway you look at it, that's not right... if isreal was "victimized", they why is it doing the terrorizing? i guess the only way america is going to get the truth is after another genocide...
Posted: 9/26/2010 10:48 AM PDT
Ah, I see, you thought I was arguing that the Israeli claim to Palestine was valid. My mistake.
Well, it's not. Your analogy of leaving and returning to a house is sensible. But consider this. What if you built a house, and you wanted to stay in the house, but you couldn't, because the neigbours were unfriendly, and attacked you, or because you couldn't grow enough food in the garden to feed your family. So you lock up the house, and move. In the new place, where you move, you can more easily survive. But all the people there hate you. They blame you for diseases, and famines, they capture your children and burn them alive to stave off the plague, they burn your new homes, and they work you to death in camps like slaves.
Later, your children move back to the old house, with guns. They come to the house, and new people are living in it, so they live in a small room, and share the house with the new people. But more and more children of yours arrive, until you need more and more rooms, and eventually the new occupants want to throw you out. So you say "we had it first", naturally. Your name is on the will, right? But they say you never owned the house. And you take the house off them, and throw them out.
In the simplest of terms, the Israelis were the more powerful party. At the time, the Palestinians had no influence over the powers that be, whereas the Israelis did. Jews own America. It's not denied. They fund political candidates, they own the banks, the hedge funds, even Hollywood! No-one will go against Israel in America.
In fact, think about the people who have crossed Jews in the past. When was the last time you saw Mel Gibson in a film?
Posted: 9/26/2010 10:36 AM PDT
Herod (The first one to appear in the New Testament) was an Arab. In fact, that was partly why he was never really accepted as ruler, even before he was a puppet of Rome.
The Native Americans probably do want their land back. It's just that they haven't a hope in hell of ever getting it. They make up such a tiny minority of the population that they can't. Not that a new state ruled by Native Americans would be economically viable. Too few people for such a large infrastructure.
Posted: 9/26/2010 8:58 AM PDT
I would say it is easier to decide to be an atheist. Being one is not easy, in a country that thinks it was founded on Christian Dogma.
Why are Muslim Americans the focus of the Conservatives? Because having an enemy to point at gets you elected. It's really sick if you ask me. If I was running for a Government office, I wouldn't do it by pointing to Religion. I might run on a platform of Separation of Church and State. Which they would take as the same thing, but you see what I mean. All they have to do is manipulate the argument to their advantage. No one actually has to tell the truth to get elected anymore. We are a nation falling from grace, not from God. And we're falling really hard.
Posted: 9/24/2010 6:03 PM PDT
there's always been atheists, and its easier to be atheist anyhow, you just dont get caught up with supernatural beliefs, its very simple...
Egypt is so interesting tho.... did you kno ancient Egypt had the first female ruler? hatshipsut i think... i better kno how to spell it, ive failed at it long enuff :P
Posted: 9/24/2010 3:16 PM PDT
How can you not know that about Egypt?
Posted: 9/24/2010 12:44 PM PDT
The Arab people were around Palestine when it was called Judea in the time of King David in the Bible. The Jews and the Arabs got along just fine in those days. And the Qu'ran does state that the Moslems, Jews, and Christians are all brothers in the war against Satan, and all will be accepted into Heaven.
And just for those who don't know, aethists were around ancient Egypt, too. It's not a fad or a new thing.
Posted: 9/23/2010 7:11 PM PDT
"Kingdom of Heaven is set during the crusades. Thats a thousand years after the supposed events of even the new testament, and even then most of the Jews had laready begun to move away."
and your point for agreeing with me? i think we have stopped arguing... which is a good thing
"The whole point I have been making is that the Jews owned Palestine first." according to the bible... and thats it... and it was too far back in history to have a legit claim... like what if the natice americans demand all of their land back because they originally owned it? and the native americans were kicked out of their land, the jews left on their own will... and also the jews leaving was hundreds of years b4 the native americans were kicked out... i dont see a valid point for the 'jews owning palestine first', until the native americans should also be qualified to get their lands back....
i think we both are confused... i just want to make this clear, i KNOW what the argument is, that the jews lived in palestine first... but the ridiculous claim of that for getting palestine is wrong and invalid.... is like saying if your super duper great grandfather owned a house... and he left and never came back... back where there wasnt any legal claims on homes and such, then you come back, hundreds of years later claiming that property belongs to you so the residents have no rights over it anymore... and lets just add you've been wronged or had ur house burnt down... it wasnt the fault of the current resident's of your super duper great grandfather's house... do u c my point? mayb not, my wording seems pretty confusing
Posted: 9/23/2010 3:26 PM PDT
I think it was called Prussia back then.
Posted: 9/23/2010 9:52 AM PDT
Actually, now that I think about it, there are instances where Russian armies on their way to the crusades clashed with the Mongol hordes. Hah.
Posted: 9/23/2010 9:49 AM PDT
"t's highly unlikely that the Arabs always lived in Palestine'? have you even taken history class? fine, dont even go that far, have you watched 'Kingdom of Heaven'?
Kingdom of Heaven is set during the crusades. Thats a thousand years after the supposed events of even the new testament, and even then most of the Jews had laready begun to move away.
"the movie is about the crusades... the period of history arabs took control on palestine... which was like, before the Spaniards massacred and enslaved the native americans inhumanely... who originally owned america... (so wat, are you going to tell me now the native americans werent the first people in america)"
Um... your point? The Arabs had been moving into Palestine since before the rise of Islam, over 500 years before the crusades. In fact, the Arabs controlled Palestine long before the crusades, which is why the happened in the first place.
The whole point I have been making is that the Jews owned Palestine first. Not that there were NEVER any Arabs there. Of course there were. I never said there wasn't. If there weren't, who were the Christians fighting in the crusades? Genghis Khan? (THAT IS A JOKE. I DON'T NEED YOU TO TELL ME THAT THEY WEREN'T FIGHTING GENGHIS KHAN).
I think most of the misunderstanding of my points you have been doing is down to you not really getting my sarcasm.
SO let me get this straight, what exactly did you think I was saying? That Arabs never lived in Palestine? I never said that. The Jes owned it first. Before them I guess it would be owned by the Canaanites, although it's pretty hard to say what actual historical tribe that was. The bible is pretty unreliable when it comes to races. Some peopleare still adamant the 'people of the sea' are from Atlantis, for example. (It's more likely that they were Hittites).
Posted: 9/22/2010 6:24 PM PDT
omg, dorch, who said i DIDNT read your "points"? im just so tired of being in an ENDLESS argument with you...
"It's highly unlikely that the Arabs always lived in Palestine, and the Jews never lived there at all. The Jews have lived there for longer than the Palestinians, and it isn't just scripture (which is still valuable evidence regardless of it's religious context), it's obvious. Even the Hebrew language is clearly rooted in Israel. It's closely related to Arabic. Their alphabets are both inthe Semetic group. Besides, if they didn't live in Israel, where did they come from? Space?"
"t's highly unlikely that the Arabs always lived in Palestine'? have you even taken history class? fine, dont even go that far, have you watched 'Kingdom of Heaven'?
the movie is about the crusades... the period of history arabs took control on palestine... which was like, before the Spaniards massacred and enslaved the native americans inhumanely... who originally owned america... (so wat, are you going to tell me now the native americans werent the first people in america)
and in the movie, and in history, the arabs, whom controlled isreal land, but were mercilessly killed and banished, came back to reclaim the land... let the innocent people (christian and jews) living there live, and peacefully leave... and some even stayed... the reason why jews lived peacefully with muslims in palestine for so long was because the government made it possible, it was a fair government... and anyone with a brain knows if there isnt a genocide or rebellion in a country of any kind, there's mutual peace... but right now the isreal government is so extreme and racist (i cant believe my ears when i hear some of these "politicans" campaign and believe in, it's so racist!)...
if you read my paragraph carefully, you would recal how the arabs "reclaim"ed their land... much before the crusades even, a little after christ "died", (which being muslim, we believe he isn't dead yet.. but going to come back to earth to lead his followers) the isrealis left their homeland, not by force, really, just scattered around... some became christians, and some muslims, and when the Islamic empire engulfed that region, it became arab as well (arab is actually a affiliation of the members of the qurashi tribe, the one muhammad was in, in the beginning of islam, so soon all who became muslims, wanted to be 'arabs'... so only the saudis are original arabs)
so yeah, its safe to say arabs have lived in palestine and have rights to that land... considering how mercilessly they've been mistreated and kicked out of their home that they've lived in for generations... imagine if for generations you've lived in this one property, then guests come in and kick you out, claiming its theirs from hundreds of years back... with no documented proof or any logical claim...
keep in mind, the Palestinians didn't commit the holocaust, hitler and the germans did... so its not fair to the arabs
don't want to reply to the other "points", this one is too long for my liking... blah, im so tired! been up since 6.. and its almost 10 pm... btw, ive got nothing against u of the least degree, just in the spirit of a debate lol... one which i really wanna get out of without "chickening out"... cuz i just really am tired of long posts!
Posted: 9/22/2010 11:46 AM PDT
To be honest I'm not to shaby in the whole political feild here buddy but I think you've made a point. America stands up when they should just shut up and mind theirs. But of we're nosy and try to out do everyone else. But We weren't always ontop and in a way we're still not. War is war. men are men. They fight! Blah! That's why theres more programs out there for women and single mothers because somehow in someway it goes back into the whole community. Were as a man would most likely not nourish it at all. It doesn't matter wether america thought it was good or bad to fight! to rage a stupid-stinkin' war. Blah! It's a dumb idea. Forcing ourselves into another land, degrade them swear we're there to help but secretly taking their resources, raping their land of anything that is theirs to suffice troops of our soldiers that don't need to belong there. Are we really about to get down and buggie for WW3. It will happen. We're straddling a really thin line. I mean they turned on us because we said we were helping. /thats probably why our soldiers come back all F'd up! Acting all crazy trying to forget what they know. Something is going on way out of civillians hands. No one innocently would eneter another land offering a hand of help! it's true it's rare that you see someone fight a could for no reason other than to do it. Like if someone in my school got the a** kicked it's cause they owe money, they're talking crap or etc. You know? Then this Obama guy is a little fishy...Idk time will tell. My brothers stationed in the middle of all of that I guess. Well he's my step-brother lol. But still. I don't know him. He was already stationed there when My moms got married to his pops. But w/e. War makes the winner rich and the loser poor. Wether in power or money. It's silly but What'ch gonna do? Nothing. Just talk on these forums instead of taking a stand. Why don't we have a president for each state? I mean it'll still be the U.S. but just so that more focus can be given at home than somewhere else where it isn't wanted. :(
>>>>Dorchada's>>>> VMA's is "video,music,awards" For celebrities. I also just watched Glee. You should too!!! It's so gooood!! eeek!
>>>>Navar crow>>. (I hope i splet that right lol) Pish-posh you know you want to talk about it too, eh?
Posted: 9/22/2010 9:24 AM PDT
I don't know what VMAs are, (awards?) and I don't care.
Look, kittyluver, if you won't even read what I said, you don't have the right to debate with me. If you won't listen, you're only talking to yourself.
I still don't understand why the concept of 'good' and 'right' comes into this. Countries don't act on matters because of moral or eithical reasons. Never have. Probably never will. The UN, or it's predecessor wasn't created because war was bad for people, but because war was bad for business. America is no different. The reason they say they want to help the people of Iraq is because they can't be seen to have made their lives worse. Not because they feel bad about it, or something like that.
Posted: 9/22/2010 4:27 AM PDT
Politics and Current Events: Ground Zero
No VMA's please......
Posted: 9/22/2010 3:00 AM PDT
I hear you...so did anyone catch the VMA's?
Posted: 9/21/2010 7:51 PM PDT
Posted: 9/21/2010 7:05 PM PDT
Everyone knows theres strategic reasons for being in the middle east.. the debate... well what i thought the debate consisted was the MORALITY... and CREDIBILITY of their actions... a thief can have plenty of strategic reasons for his actions, but that doesnt make them right
Posted: 9/21/2010 5:20 PM PDT
Dorchadas pointed the strategic reasons behind interests in the Middle East. I think a more apt comparison would be Eastern Europe.
Posted: 9/21/2010 4:17 PM PDT
I would agree that this debate is not about Africa. I was trying to point out the differences between the 2 problems as well. One is completely different than the other, but both are based on a kind of greed. Personally I don't think America should be fighting wars for anyone else, or in other countries at all. I think that sort of thing should be up to the UN. Not that they are really capable of dealing with it. But you know...
Posted: 9/21/2010 12:47 PM PDT
not even bothering reading all that... but just want to add: the reason i brought up africa in the first place is: if america wanted to help anyone in the first place, thats where they should be helping, not messing around in the middle east... so it discredits any of their arguments for staying in iraq to "help" them... thats a bunch of BS covered in chocolate sprinkles...
Posted: 9/21/2010 11:35 AM PDT
Admiral Buckles is right, this isn't about Africa. The African problem isn't going to be solved overnight, or even over a century. So crying over dead African babies only begets more dead African babies. I'm not American. In fact, I'm pretty anti-American. It's a package deal with being anti-everyone else.
The African problem most certainly did NOT start with Apartheid. It started with the Imperialist movement beginning way back before America even existed beyond a bunch of farmer colonies. Slavery, the ruthless carving up of Africa by European powers and the drive for Empire set the stage for Africa.
It's highly unlikely that the Arabs always lived in Palestine, and the Jews never lived there at all. The Jews have lived there for longer than the Palestinians, and it isn't just scripture (which is still valuable evidence regardless of it's religious context), it's obvious. Even the Hebrew language is clearly rooted in Israel. It's closely related to Arabic. Their alphabets are both inthe Semetic group. Besides, if they didn't live in Israel, where did they come from? Space?
The point I was trying to make is that the Arabs came to be in Israel in a similar way to the Israelis returning. They moved in slowly, gradually taking over more and more land, and often pushing out native populations.
The British didn't give the Jews Palestine. They drew up the mandate for Palestine for two reasons:
1) Jews were arriving anyway, and had been doing so since the 1880s due to gradually increasing anti-semitism across Europe
2) Wanting to appease the Zionists
Basically, the British needed a plan to get the Arabs and the Jews to co-exist, because the Jews were arriving whether the Arabs or the British liked it or not, and Britain had inherited a section of land which was ready to explode into racial violence. Britain basically wanted everyone to quiet down. They were just after a long war, and suddenly empires were dirty things that no-one liked. Woodrow Wilson was setting out fourteen point plans about self-determination, and Britain was sitting at the table nodding their heads. It would look a bit bad if Britain was setting out giving every group in Central Europe it's own country, then crushing nationalist movements in its vast territories.
But the Jews and the Arabs came into conflict anyway. And eventually, the Jews came into conflict with the British too. It all culminated in the 1948 Palestinian war, when the British effectively gave up, and withdrew from the area, and the UN got involved. The Arabs and the Jews began to fight over who claimed ownership of Palestine, until the civil war was cut short by the collapse of the Arab economy.
Not really sure what any of this has to do with the Koran...
Posted: 9/20/2010 3:49 PM PDT
I think the main point in Dorchadas's dismissal of African tribal disputes is that they have no place in this debate. It is a straw man argument. I brought up tribes in Afghanistan because tribal disputes is what keeps them from being united and thus still unstable and suspect to terrorist influence.
Posted: 9/20/2010 3:06 PM PDT
I have nothing against Jews or Israel, but would agree that they are making way too many problems for Palestinians. As to the other countries mentioned, I have been saying that Africa is in far more trouble than the middle east since before America went into Kuwait, with the first Desert Storm. It is sort of all about the oil. In Africa it's about Blood diamonds and weapons for the guerrilla mafia types. But it started shortly before the end of Apartheid, and has only been spreading since. (I am not saying Apartheid was a good thing, because it is an equal to the Nazi atrocities of WW2.)
Saying you don't care about people in other countries is like saying you can live without a sex drive. It is in human nature to care. Sure our internet personalities don't have to admit it. We don't even have to admit it to ourselves. But it is still true.
Posted: 9/20/2010 1:05 PM PDT
"THE BRITISH SEPARATED ISREAL FROM PALESTINE, THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE WHOLE REGION PALESTINE" lol woops, i meant "ISREAL" in the last word...
Posted: 9/20/2010 1:04 PM PDT
"What about them? Boo hoo, African kids die. What's new? Excuse my callousness, but no-one really cares. In fact, it's rather handy for keeping down the population."
that is the exact cold american supremacy point of view... 75% of the world's resources is used by the united states, we have the highest pollution rate, over consumption, and crime rate... so obviously america has a negative impact... do i have to even start of how inhumane that statement is? its just sick and disgusting... goodness, i dont really want to answer to it...
so that statement just destroys any credibility for
" No-one wanted the Jews after the holocaust. So they went to the only place where they have even been safe and welcomed. "
where it shows sympathy for humans besides yourself
"First of all, the way the Palestinians came to be in Israel isn't exactly fair either. They stole it too. Plus the Jews had no-where else to go"
Woow... obviously you don't know history in the first place... the palestinians have lived there for centuries... almost from back to the biblical days... and the only CLAIM the jews have of the "holy land" is through a religious scripture, which not everyone agrees upon... and i think its fine, ok, they have isreal... which they didnt FIGHT for... god, where do you get your info from anyway? after WW2, since the ottomans fell, the brits had control of the region so they GAVE the region to the Jews... THE BRITISH SEPARATED ISREAL FROM PALESTINE, THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE WHOLE REGION PALESTINE... do you need me to repeat that? so the country of palestine was given to the palestinains, but the isrealis want more land, so they've been growing... and dont even start telling me about how the isrealis won more land through war, cuz i already know that... i also know they were backed by the United States, and i also know about how they illegally settled palestinian land.. by a lot... which is a giant dispute today..
and so why couldn't they get part of germany? dont even respond to that... the sentimental ties to it... my point is the whole world felt sympathy for the jews, they could've been accepted anywhere, like america... theres millions of jews here already, and why did they have to have a jewish based country? there isnt christian countries... or bhuddist based countries... but this is just making a point, i personally think its fine for them to have isreal... since the holocaust was a horrible deal... and if you are humane enough to care about the jews dying in it... wat if hitler did "population control"? like it is in africa?
you kno wat... i dont even want to debate in the first place... i didnt even want to answer to your comment... because personally, i think if anyone has a sick view of humanity isn't someone i want to talk to
Posted: 9/20/2010 10:06 AM PDT
"what about the disputes in african tribes?? everyone forget about the violence in AFRICA??? no, the focus seems to just be the middle east because of the oil... everyone forget about north korea?? wat about the tension in south america??? goodness gracious, out of all the places, its so NECESSARY for america to be in the MIDDLE EAST..."
What about them? Boo hoo, African kids die. What's new? Excuse my callousness, but no-one really cares. In fact, it's rather handy for keeping down the population. North Korea will eventually collapse under the weight of its own economic ineptitude. Why do you think no-one has stepped in before? Even China hates North Korea. If anyone is going to sort them out, it would be China. Preferrably before they get nuclear weapons.
America would be involved in South America if it wasn't dominated by anti-American left wing governments. Colombia is the only nation in South America willing to allow US troops into it. Not that that would achieve anything anyway.
The Middle East is a strategic area. It is the centre of Eurasia, in a sense, and would be valuable for all sorts of reasons. A missile shield in the Middle East could defend against China, Russia and other countries with nuclear weapons. It could act as a launching pad for nuclear weapons. A missile launched from Iraq could reach Moscow, Beijing, Islamabad, anywhere you like, really. Plus the oil. And the ability to deal with rougue nations like Iran quickly, and without fuss.
"keep in mind the MAIN anger that drives the "political instability" is the united states... "
Rubbish. The Middle East has always been unstable, since the Ottoman days and before, even while America was pursuing isolationist policies which were the diplomatic equivalent of telling the world to sod off and take their problems with them.
" if america is out, they would feel more respected... like seriously, if you just lost a major war, do you really want your enemy in your country for almost 10 years?? give them a break..."
No, America leaving would be an embarrasment and a victory for those who they were fighting. They haven't lost anything yet. They are slowly being pushed out, but their real task is to make being pushed out look like a withdrawl.
"isreal, if no one notices, is stealing land that doesnt even belong to them, why wouldnt that piss the Palestinians off... they are building an illegal wall blocking out the Palestinians from their side of the land, the land that was theirs when Israel was first made... how is that right? and then people wonder why the arabs hate the isrealis, if the isrealis wanted peace, they would take the initiative, instead of bullying the Palestinians then run behind the US for help when they piss the Arabs off... "
Well, the whole concept of owning that land is a little strange. The Israelis fought for that land, from the British, who stole it from the Arabs, who took it over over a period of centuries after the Jews began to slowly disperse, mostly into Europe. It's difficult to condemn the Jews for taking over Israel. First of all, the way the Palestinians came to be in Israel isn't exactly fair either. They stole it too. Plus the Jews had no-where else to go. We Europeans made it quite clear that it wasn't safe to live in our countries. No-one wanted the Jews after the holocaust. So they went to the only place where they have even been safe and welcomed.
""fox news is right, CNN is left, and Al Jazeera is biased", lol where is "biased" on the spectrum? left and right is a type of bias, you don't know the part where "biased" is at? of course people wont know where al jazeera is at, thats because they've never watched it! "
I've watched it.
Fox has Right bias, CNN left. And Al Jazeera has bias towards anything Arab. Right and left are only useful in the tidy world of western politics, where Religion and ethnicity are not as important.
Posted: 9/19/2010 6:12 PM PDT
I wasn't speaking of any political spectrum. I was just stating my opinion. I have watched Al Jazeera and just like other two news stations I picked on I saw bias. In talking about them all it would have seemed redundant to assign a tag to them.
Posted: 9/19/2010 4:49 PM PDT
what about the disputes in african tribes?? everyone forget about the violence in AFRICA??? no, the focus seems to just be the middle east because of the oil... everyone forget about north korea?? wat about the tension in south america??? goodness gracious, out of all the places, its so NECESSARY for america to be in the MIDDLE EAST...
keep in mind the MAIN anger that drives the "political instability" is the united states... thats wat drives it.. if america is out, they would feel more respected... like seriously, if you just lost a major war, do you really want your enemy in your country for almost 10 years?? give them a break... and wat about isreal? isreal, if no one notices, is stealing land that doesnt even belong to them, why wouldnt that piss the Palestinians off... they are building an illegal wall blocking out the Palestinians from their side of the land, the land that was theirs when Israel was first made... how is that right? and then people wonder why the arabs hate the isrealis, if the isrealis wanted peace, they would take the initiative, instead of bullying the Palestinians then run behind the US for help when they piss the Arabs off...
"fox news is right, CNN is left, and Al Jazeera is biased", lol where is "biased" on the spectrum? left and right is a type of bias, you don't know the part where "biased" is at? of course people wont know where al jazeera is at, thats because they've never watched it!
Posted: 9/19/2010 4:00 PM PDT
They'll stop the violence once America is out. What about Israel? What about the many different tribes in Afghanistan? What about the political instability region now that Saddam is dead?
Its more complicated than America leaving. I think the whole Ground Zero mosque is overblown. Fox News is right, CNN is left, and Al Jazeera is biased. All news today like any entertainment medium caters to their base. Its the only way they can survive in a cluttered field. To say any one of them is better than the other is just opinion.
Posted: 9/19/2010 11:21 AM PDT
i agree with you dorchades... a very good point... but i dont even know wats talliban or al quida... therez so much confusion, im not even sure anyone knows what they're doing in Afghanistan now... i think the smartest thing military wise america has done recently is the withdrawal from iraq... even though its not completely out of iraq, just less than before, which is improvement... i think wat people fail to realize is that... the terrorists there, regardless wat people say, just want america out of their country! they'll probably stop the violence when america is out... they probably feel disgraced and humiliated by america enough, and america is still there dictating them after so many years? sounds like they are just sick and tired of that... once america is out, the iraqi people would find amends on their own... like you cant be out in nature trying to get nature going... you got to get OUT of nature, for nature to work its magic... that and i really think the big secret is the oil like u said... but of course the government nor the media is going to bring that greed in light...
Let me point this out... i am fully american, i can't imagine being anything else... but america and the west are on huge faults that the americans fail to see... when it comes to america's faults, the republicans jump the bandwagon to "patriotism" and "american values" but isnt that how hitler became so popular? it was all about german pride and patriotism... which im beginning to see the parallel more clearly the more republicans open their mouths... america isnt the only country that exists on the world, they should work together with other country and faiths... and thats wat im afraid of if republicans come to power... they are going to be bullies to the rest of the world unfortunately... in bush's idealism, america and the west were the "good" and the rest of the world is "evil"... which is wrong, and a selfish way to see the world... the thing i like about al jazeera is that it doesnt have a western bias like most stations, it sees the world like it really is... if it has any bias, its for the poor and discriminated against... like it gives spotlight to the african wars and mistreatment more than any other newstation in the world, and it stayed with the haiti earthquake at least 2 weeks longer than anyone else...
idk, those are my thoughts...
Posted: 9/19/2010 10:59 AM PDT
Basically, America DID side with Saddam against Iran during their eight year war and also funded the Taliban against Russia after they invaded Afghanistan. Then of course they - or rather, George W didn't like that Saddam had been mean to his Daddy. This is what is so hilarious - or would be if the whole sorry episode wasn't so tragic.
I think though that although they hated Saddam, they realised that Uday would have been worse and decided not to find out by precisely how much.
Posted: 9/19/2010 6:16 AM PDT
Al Jazeera aren't connected to terrorists, obviously, but they are still biased against the West. And no, I didn't hear that from Fox News. We don't even get Fox News. Thankfully.
But it's common knowledge that Faux is total sensensationalist nonsense.
Afghanistan never held more than a hundred Al Quida members. That's pretty well known. The vast majority of the operatives in that region have been across the border in Pakistan, a region that America can't reach because Pakistan are a very dangerous country, and a very valuable ally. As soon as the war began, the few operatives in the region simply moved across. They manipulated the Taliban, who occupy most of the region on both sides of the border to do their fighting for them. Notice how at the beginning of the war the coalition were hunting down Al Quida, but now they are fighting the Taliban? That's because Al Quida (I'm a little worried I'm spelling that wrong) were never there! Never in any large numbers anyway.
Iraq never had any Al Quida members. Al Quida are Shia, and Saddam was Sunni, so they were natural enemies from the start. If America had really only wanted to root out the operatives in Iraq, they would have given Saddam money to do it himself. No, they had very different reasons for invading Iraq.
But yes, most of Al Quida are Saudis. All the top brass, including Osama Bin Laden are of Saudi birth. Most of the schools where these terrorists were trained were not in Afghanistan, and certainly not Iraq, but in northern Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The government of SA could have put a stop to these people pretty easily, being totalitarian, they could have arrested and executed anyone they wanted, but they didn't. Because an attack on America would be beneficial to them. 9/11 drove up the price of oil, which is SA's only export, and they sit on the biggest oil supply in the world.
The reason America didn't invade SA is because they are, ironically, their greatest ally in the Middle East.
I belive the Saudis have been manipulating the entire show. Perhaps the Americans were even involved. 9/11 gave them the perfect excuse to attack Afghanistan, and Iraq. Perhaps, paradoxically, the Americans were goading these fundamentalists, to encourage an attack on themselves, so that they could settle an old score in Iraq, and secure it's oil so that they were no longer dependant on foreign oil set at too-high prices, making themselves invulnerable to the spikes in price that every little probelm in the region caused. Think about it, America's need for oil from the Middle East has been a major thorn in its side for decades. The Iranian hostage situation, the first Gulf War, and all the other headaches caused soaring oil prices. Finally, a secure source of oil controlled by American drilling companies regulated by a government sympathetic to America would be the perfect solution to the problem. Hence, the invasion of Iraq.
Posted: 9/18/2010 7:51 PM PDT
CNN is not politically biased campaigning, they just know who the smarter/better candidates are. And like to report on the dumb asses. Anyone who compares Fox News to CNN or vice versa, should stay out of political commentary. There is no comparison. Fox News is owned by the Republicans (Bush Family).
Posted: 9/18/2010 6:44 PM PDT
Wooow... so now saudi arabia is where al quaida comes from? even though the facts hint afghanistan...or no... some argue its iraq... but it cant be that anymore because iraq is crushed... so it has to be saudis because they are the most powerful in the region next to iran... i love your logic... it sounds like a little cave man freaking out where fire came from... just shooting random conspiracies...
and fine, lets just say its as biased as fox news... a) have you ever watched it or read al jazeera? b) have you ever watched or read al jazeera playing with "name calling"... and c) did you hear that it was biased on fox news? and i know al jazeera is biased, every news channel is biased, but its one of the least biased, thats wat i said... do you know how i kno its one of the least biased? because it ALWAYS presents 2 sides on anything... and both are equally presented...
trust me... ive seen too much of fox news, and all i hear... (my dad listens to sean hannity all the time) is the name calling, the "if you dont agree with my point, you're stupid and wrong"... and the focus points are usually pointless.. like instead of real news, you get political campaigning news... same with CNN... and with most news stations btw
grr, dont wanna rant... but that stuff really pisses me off... its like brain washing...
Posted: 9/18/2010 6:44 PM PDT
For the record I was not stating that I feel that way about Al Jazeera. Just that oppositions have called it such. I think all news orgs have a bit of bias to them. The question is do you trust that bias on a story to story basis. Or do you agree with the story singularly.
I trust CNN, but that's because I have a bit of a brain. They have reported on the nonsense of terrorist connections to Al Jazeera, placing blame on the right wingers. But the article kitty posted was accurate, no matter the bias. Sometimes it's in the subtle interpretations, that you find common details.
Posted: 9/18/2010 6:01 PM PDT
Shit, Saudi Arabia is a US ally, and that's where most of Al Quida come from!
If the US really set out to smash the terrorists, they would be in SA right now. But they have all sorts of other agendas. The whole "war on terror" is a bit of a sham. It was all engineered to slowly allow the Middle East to be crushed. Fundamentalists were cultivated, even poked and prodded, until they struck out, and brought a tidal wave of shit on their heads.
Except it's becoming a bit more of a pain in the ass than it should have been. Instead of the Middle East going down, then getting turned into a nice, peaceful Ohio-lookalike, something unbeliveable has happened. It's turned into Vietnam round 2.
Al Jazeera are as biased as Fox News BTW. Don't trust them any more than anyone else. They are spouting their own (albeit more subtle) propaganda.
Posted: 9/18/2010 5:45 PM PDT
aka: "you are connected to 'terrorist' if you don't have a bias against them".. there is no logical reason to be against al jazeera, except if you're closed minded and never read/watched it... and just because it's based on a kuwait news station... it's a worldwide news station.. it has 3 different roots and views where their news comes from...
and i dont get how anything arab=terrorist... people just refuse to be logical... and btw, kuwait is a US ally
Posted: 9/18/2010 5:39 PM PDT
Conservative Republicans think that Al Jazeera has terrorist connections. Which is ludicrous in my opinion. And somewhat offensive.
Posted: 9/18/2010 5:38 PM PDT
Please note the lol (lots of laughs, laughs out loud) after the Sympathizer comment. No I was not at all saying Obama was/is a Republican. He is firmly a Democrat. I would never insult him like that. I rather like the man.
Posted: 9/18/2010 5:26 PM PDT
wait, are you saying obama is republican? where did you get THAT theory from?? everything obama does and says is democrat to the core... well, more like moderate.. and thats y republicans hate him so much.. im missing the point to your point lol...
and wats wrong with al jazeera?? "sypathizer" is a humane quality which most of america lacks...
Posted: 9/18/2010 5:17 PM PDT
Did you just post a link to Aljazeera? Sympathizer. lol
Yeah I don't see conservatives giving that article the best coverage. But it is completely accurate. It was a conspiracy type story meant to raise the hairs of fear and hatred. To hate Muslims for 9/11 is to hate everything America was meant to stand for. Muslims didn't do it, Terrorists did. Muslims died in the towers too. 40 or so I think. And they were American Muslims. These people should be embraced, not shunned and hated. I am ashamed by the fact that so many politicians don't stand up against this kind of bigotry. Many use it as a tool for re-election. Which I find utterly disgusting.
Newt Gingrich should be water boarded until he converts to the truth. Likening the President of the United States to a tribal figure is un-patriotic to say the least. (and that's being kind) He used to be a Republican that I liked and could even admire. But that just makes my blood boil. I think he's been drinking too much of the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh flavored kool-aid.
I saw the Memorial sketches for the actual Ground Zero site. Pretty cool. But lacking in brilliance. Waterfalls do not make me think of 9/11. But the lush greenery is a nice touch.
Posted: 9/18/2010 1:08 PM PDT
Just to clear air about the mosque and WHY its a controversy in the first place... watch this... its from one the few unbias new stations ever...
and the mosque is built FAR AWAY from ground zero... considering how crowded NY is, it'll take you about 15 mins to get there from ground zero... its ridiculous that its title is "ground zero mosque", because thats 100% false... the conspiracy theory actually was created by this racist who also tried to spread a conspiracy in 2008 election time that obama was malcom x's son... so obvious, it's blown out of proportion... and its all a political stage... the republicans just want to stir drama to gain followers for November elections... because they kno obama isn't going to support their racist views of being against the building of the COMMUNITY CENTER.. not a mosque.. which is another big big lie...
Posted: 9/18/2010 1:29 AM PDT
What new profile?
Posted: 9/17/2010 2:20 PM PDT
Oh, congratulations on the new profile by the way. -_-
Posted: 9/17/2010 2:17 PM PDT
Well that is obviously clear.
Obama is NOT a Muslim. The idea that a Muslim would be elected President of the US at this time is utterly ridiculous.
And no one is building a mosque ON ground zero. They are building it two streets away, as part of a multi-faith centre.
And it will NOT cause a catastrophic anything, because that's already happened. The west and the middle east can't really get much more angry at each other. And the President isn't allowing any of this. It happens whether he likes it or not, because it isn't any of his business. It isn't against any laws, so there's nothing wrong with it.
And please clarify, are you Albanian, or American. What passport do you hold? (If any...). Are you an Albanian immigrant living in the US?
Posted: 9/17/2010 11:21 AM PDT
I'm Albanian thank you sir'Dorchadas lol But I'm american I can say. So they're building a mosque where the twin towers where? But is obama going to allow it just because he's muslim? Even then that would start like a huge castrophic um what is that called. Uh well you know what i mean. holy crap that doesn't sound like a good idea. Do you think it's a good idea. I wouldn't know though, not really anyways I lack political "savyness"
Posted: 9/17/2010 10:32 AM PDT
See this is the problem. I'll bet ThomasA is an American, and yet he/she doesn't know what a mosque is, even though America is at war with at least two muslim fundamentalist groups.
If you aren't American, my bad.
A mosque is a Muslim house of prayer, (like a church is to Christians) where they go to pray on their holy day, Friday.
Posted: 9/16/2010 3:33 PM PDT
Whats a mos- that thing? Ground zero...Thats the twin towers right? sorry I'll just go google it *coughs
Posted: 9/8/2010 10:20 AM PDT
It would be a VERY short run for president, followed by a tarring and feathering and being escorted of the country on a wooden rail made from a cactus. No thank you, fellow asshat. No thank you.
Posted: 9/8/2010 6:20 AM PDT
If you ever run for President, you should use that as the opening statement to your speech.
My fellow asshats....
Posted: 9/7/2010 12:16 AM PDT
My fellow asshats, I agree with you.
Posted: 9/6/2010 10:00 AM PDT
That is so very true.
Posted: 9/6/2010 9:54 AM PDT
Being Muslim doesn't really have anything to do with it. Every race, religion, ethnicity and group has it's own share of assholes.
Posted: 9/5/2010 5:26 PM PDT
I don't think those Muslims are in the majority. I have a couple of Muslim friends, and they say most Muslims detest that sort of thing. But they do say that there some like that.
Posted: 9/5/2010 2:51 PM PDT
All mosques aren't like community centres. Women and men are separated, and you only really go there to pray. Sometimes community centres include mosques, but then again, those are only centres for the Muslim community.
What annoys me is that some Muslims seem to think they are a nation unto themselves. Some Muslims also seem to percieve everyone of other religions and ethnicities as inferior. Which bugs me. I mean, if we bug you so much, clear off back to your own kind!
No-one forces them to live amongst us.
Posted: 9/5/2010 7:04 AM PDT
Well, I don't know if all Mosque are always like a community center, just that the article I read said this one was supposed to be.
As to Ground Zero, a tolerance center would be perfect. But I think they are going to build the HQ for the Fantastic Four or something.
Posted: 9/5/2010 5:40 AM PDT
See, that would be an idea. I'd back either a monument to all faiths, (and indeed lack thereof) or a big-ass monument to Hate, with all sorts of spiky blade-things, and blood all over it, and have it constantly spew out smoke from the burning flesh of human sacrifices to the Gods of War and Vengence.
Posted: 9/3/2010 6:10 PM PDT
It really doesn't matter much if the media (in general) lies and gives hyper-attention to the non-relevant things in order to get up their "ratings".
What matters is that every person who watches TV, Internet content, listens to radio, reads newspapers, magazines and etc uses their own discernment.
Babies aren't born with discernment. Discernment and critical thinking are taught and the earlier, the better. Elementary, secondary school, college and university.
American TV has more than 200 channels with all sorts of things. There is a small button in the remote control "delete" that can be used once you have identified which channels misconstrue facts and opinions, don't research deeply and hard-workingly and in ultimate instance, tergiverse the truth on a constant basis --for whatever reason they have.
When criminals are not Muslims or Jewish, their religious "affiliation" (if they have one) is hardly mentioned.
Stereotypes, and mostly when they are negative, are terrible for living in peace.
Around Ground Zero, a mosque, a church, a synagogue, a buddhist temple and any other temples could be built; or as Navar explained, a community center for religious and non-religious people who want to keep peace and tolerance.
Posted: 9/3/2010 3:55 PM PDT
Yeah, the media does hype things that aren't as controversial as they make them sound. I don't get it either.
Posted: 9/3/2010 2:57 PM PDT
Oh, I agree, not all Muslims are terrorists, I spend part of my summer living with them. In fact, it's probably more accurate to say all Northern Irish are terrorists.
Hmm, if there is already a mosque there, why are they saying that a new one is being built. Why is the media lying to us again? Hyped up. Also, it isn't even at ground zero, it's two blocks away, right? Well in that case, fair enough, expand and update it the same way any building must be expanded and updated.
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:03 PM PDT
There is already a small mosque there, they just want to build a better one on the same spot. Just because 10,000 Muslims out 1.7 Billion are fanatics doesn't mean we should blame them. There were Muslims in the trade towers working on 9/11, and who did recovery and rescue after wards. Tolerance suggests that we not be so quick to indite people who had nothing to do with terrorism. Most Muslim Americans fell that terrorist of their religion are crazies. I would agree, anyone who incites terror as a tactic towards their goals is crazy.
If we as a nation ever hope to achieve true equality for our people, than we have to outgrow this kind of bigotry and intolerance.The mosque that is there now was there before 9/11, so it is sort of outdated. And they want to add improvements that allow anyone of any faith or non-faith to be able to use the facilities. It will be more like a community center, so I fail to see how this is construed as such a bad thing. They want to bring people together. It seems like the perfect way to heal some of these wounds.
Yeah, the last thing we need is more McDonanlds, right?
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:01 PM PDT
I don't think a mosque should be built. I mean, how many people actually live in that area? Muslims don't need a mosque for their daily prayers, and it isn't a residential area. So it isn't necessary. And all the terrorists were Muslims. It's just a bad idea. Muslims in the area survived perfectly well without a mosque, so building one is clearly some sort of attempt to start controversy. Which is disrespectful.
Sure, it isn't illegal, but it certainly is bad manners. And it does nothing to ease the tension between Muslims and the rest of the world.
And for Pete's sake don't build a McDonalds!
Posted: 9/2/2010 9:01 AM PDT
Why is a mosque near ground Zero such a bad thing? What is with all the Muslim bashing? Why is it taking so long to build something at Ground Zero? I mean fer cryin' out loud, put a Mickey Dee's there, that's pretty American.