Imma sue Al Kaydar an'nem!!!

Where is Al Sharpton when I need him??

Just a little FYI for those who still don't understand why Arabs hate Israel (and the US support of it)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...k-1230046.html

thanks for posting that, it was a good read


I read an article the other day -in print, no links, sorry- by some Israeli writer and he suggested that peace would only come through a secularization of the region (Palestine/Israel and their shared/disputed land)

Good job for Egypt though, for trying to get peace

Hmmm...Over Christmas, I was talking to my (VERY evangelical) parents about the situation. They have a religious basis for protecting Israel at all costs, regardless of what Israel has ever done. I asked them if Israel was completely innocent in all that has happened. To them, it doesn't matter.

I don't believe in killing, period, so I'm in favor of peace all the way around.

Yeah, good luck with that.

A question for the lawyers, if US Transportation Security Authority officials hadn't been involved could the airline on its own legally prevented him from flying? On the one hand it seems like they could have whatever dress codes for their passengers they wanted to put in place and enforce consistently. On the other, because in this case it's the guy's ethnicity that makes the shirt threatening to some people, they'd be discriminating against him probably to address the dress code issue. So, could the airline probably have gotten away with saying, turn your shirt inside out or we won't let you on the flight?

I have another question too that I wondered what you all thought about. How much should the desire to avoiding racial or ethnic discrimination overrule the use of correlations that seem to have pretty good validity in law enforcement, assuming that any really existed?

Obviously, expecting all the members of a racial, ethnic or religious group to just accept that they already have one profile "strike" against them and therefore have to bear a certain loss of civil liberties is crazy and wrong.

But if you watch and read as much kind of "true crime" crap as I do, there are frequently repeated claims like most serial killers are white guys and that it's especially rare for serial killers to seek victims of a different race. If these claims bore out statistically, is it okay for law enforcement agents to focus more scrutiny on suspects of certain races, assuming that there are other non-racial reason that the people came under suspicion?

ETA: obviously, my serial killer example involves a specific crime that the police know has already been committed and most "profiling" seems to me to be about preventing a crime that hasn't happened yet when were talking airlines or an assumption about a crime that might be occurring but that there's no definitive proof off like drug transportation. Does that matter if it's you that the police think might be guilty based partially on your race?

My mom said something similar the other day when we were talking about this (and also about the 7 signs of the end of the world...or whatever its called). According to my mom, the Israel from biblical times was just as vicious as present-day Israel, so their actions shouldn't be a surprise.

Secularization? Not gonna happen. It might be better for Israel to do it (since all 3 religions are very prevalent in Israel) but Palestine is ruled too much by Islam to be able to separate them.

There might be some kind of "peace" if Israel would just do what they say and stops occupying Gaza & the West Bank.

That's not 100% true. Yes, Hamas is an Islamic based movement, but Fatah is far from an Islamic base movement. It's more of a Pan-Arabic movement with secular ideology. Some of Fatah's higher ranks are Christians.

Fatah itself has an "observer" status with the Socialist International

Did I say it was justified? There are many things that are a reality but are not justified. In some cases it is justified (thinking.. FBI psychological profiling of serial killers, which tends to be very accurate) and in some cases it is not (assuming that a husband killed a wife who has disappeared). Profiling occurs in every walk of life and in almost every situation. Life insurance companies do it (raising rates for smokers and people with chronic illnesses), marketing and advertising agencies do it (beer ads during football games, make up ads during Lipstick Jungle), auto companies market certain cars to certain people. If a newborn is found in a highschool bathroom, they don't search the local nursing home for 85 year old men who may have done it. It's not always an infringement on people's rights. Sometimes it is. It can be a way of narrowing down who you're looking for. If you read the rest of my post, you'd see that I cited times that it didn't make sense, so please don't take it out of context.

Ladies and gentlemen welcome Starang.

This thread's maturity level has just dropped to a record low. Can we have some mature, adult discussion back please?

Ugh. As someone who is Jewish, has lived in Israel, and has many friends in the Israeli military, I find it hard to post here since it is clear where most of the sentiment is. I would take articles like the one posted with a grain of salt, as they are clearly writing from a biased point of view. For one, Palestinians in the last 10 years have been increasing using women and "children" (I don't really see a 16-17 year old with a gun as a child but that's just me) for their suicide attacks, as they would be less suspicious. Many of the women and children reported killed are killed while inside the Hamas compounds being bombed, as they are the wives and children of the people the Israelis are trying to eliminate. While it is regrettable that these things happen, it is a part of war. I found it interesting when a Palestinian rocket aimed at an Israeli city went astray earlier in the year and killed a bunch of Palestinian children, there wasn't a single mention of it on CNN. I'm sorry if I'm rambling a bit, it just drives me crazy how slanted news coverage and the UN are on this issue.

Would you pull all of your military out of an area that at every chance keeps attacking your country? Come on, be reasonable... There are people on both sides who are largely in the minority and perpetuate this situation, but to blame one side or the other is pretty ridiculous IMHO.

To address the quote about ancient Israel being aggressive, if you/your mother actually read up on a bit of history, ancient Israel was constantly being attacked by the Romans, Greeks, Philistines, Babylonians, the list goes on. They weren't going around conquering more land. The only offensive battle I can ever remember hearing about by the ancient Israelis (Judea) was the battle of Jericho, in which they initially took the land of Israel.

I also resent the term aggressive. Israel is constantly provoked by countries whose leaders want every man, woman and child there dead. The Israelis do things no other army would do (drop leaflets ahead of time warning of bombings for one). Sorry I need to stop posting about this before I blow my top haha...

Both sides are to blame, but if your going to make a "promise" (of sorts) keep it. Israel gave those two territories to the Palestinians, yet continue to occupy the land. Yes they should pull out of "Palestine." Pulling out doesn't not mean they should stop protecting themselves, but Israel should protect themselves on their side, instead of keeping their soldiers on Palestinian "land."

Palestine is as much to blame as Israel, but let's not pretend that Israel is innocent either. Let's not forget they were the one that broke the ceasefire on the 4th of Nov, and again on the 18th of Nov. (according to the UN)

You can resent the term aggressive, doesn't mean it isn't true. You think other countries want all men, women and children of Israel dead? Hmmm...how many women and children in Gaza have died by the hands of the Israelis in the past week or so? Come on now.

ETA: Numbers don't lie. Numbers aren't slanted/biased. As of Jan 8.--763 Palestinians had died in Gaza, most of them children, while another 3000+ were injured. How many Israelis have been injured/killed?

For one, many Israelis do not believe the Palestinians should have any land, and had no say in the matter (these are usually the more religious hard-liners). If you think about this from any other countries perspective, whether it is land that they gave to the other people or another country altogether, if they have the military might and are being constantly attacked, they will occupy that country to ensure these attacks are minimized... It's basic logic. I feel for the citizens of Gaza, because most of them just want a home in which to raise their children and live their lives, but when you make a stupid decision like they did in 2006, electing a known terrorist group as the leaders of your region, it really isn't going to end well for you. I really feel for the 43% who voted for the much more levelheaded Fatah party.

"Palestine" is not attacking Israel at every chance they get, but the Hamas militants are, and this has been going on for some time now, Israel has just gotten sick of it's citizens dying/being injured and its property being destroyed.

If you cannot see the distinction between a national ideology of exterminating an entire race of people and collateral deaths due to the enemy constantly hiding itself amongst the civilian population, I really can't have a reasonable conversation with you on this topic. Also, as I previously pointed out, some of those "women and children" being killed are either militants or the wives/children of militants. As I said before... I hardly consider a 16 year old wielding an AK-47 a child.

I agree totally. I joined International Fellowship of Christians & Jews for that purpose and to help the cause of Israel. I dont agree with everything Israel does. I dont agree with everything the USA does. But I will defend both at all costs. This is not a war based on land or history. It is based on theology. I personally believe Israel has a biblical mandate to that land.

Oh well then that makes it alright :rolleyes:

Well that's the problem (Israel not believing Palestine has any rights to the land). I mean, who's land it was prior to 1948? Pretty sure it was Palestine until the British (and several other countries) gave the land back to the survivors of the Holocaust, and that is where the trouble really began.

You do have a point about occupying the land, but Israel isn't just occupying the land and attacking when needed. They are killing Palestinians without being provoked by them first. That isn't just "occupying" anymore.

I totally agree with you, I feel for the people of Gaza. I don't think they knew what they were getting into when Hamas was elected. And Israel does have a right to protect themselves. With that said, I DO believe Israel is going a little too far. They claim they won't stop until Hamas is exterminated, but is that even feasible? If one Hamas leader is killed, there will just be another one to take his place. Instead of constantly bombing houses, schools, "churches," etc, and claiming there were weapons (have any of those claims been proven true yet?) they should be a little more secretive. Infiltrate Gaza and find the true Hamas members, instead of blind bombings.

True, 16 yr olds are not children, but I hope you aren't thinking those are what are being considered "children" cause I KNOW there are infants, toddlers, etc that are dieing.


ETA:
Well if we are gonna go there, then Israel only has a "biblical mandate" to part of the land they currently claim. (According to the maps in my bible) The biblical Israel stopped short of Jerusalem, and extends into present day Jordan. The Gaza strip (and the land around it) was not Israel but Philistia and the land from Jerusalem down was Judah and Edom.

You can see what land biblical Israel claimed and what current day Israel claims here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/kingdoms.gif