Israeli soldier post pics of herself and Palestinian prisoners on where? FACEBOOK

[Chocoholic]

It means that you can't justify Israel (or the US or anyone) treating prisoners badly because other people are worse. If we're the "good guys" it is incumbent on us to follow the rules. The less we follow the rules the more justification "they" have not to. And even when they don't follow the rules, we do it because it is right.

We follow the rules, sans, a few recalcitrant acts by individual soldiers. “Because it is right” means nothing without education, leaders who teach tolerance and religious objectivity and prevent the manipulation of religion for political or other means or ends.

Source
Source
Source
Go ahead and read those, I'll be waiting.

You’re kidding right? About.com – now there’s a scholarly source, LOL! The Statesman, what is that, a Texas newspaper? Suite101.com, if you bothered to check the contributors’ credentials I’m sure you would have been embarrassed. I’m almost embarrassed for you… Do you like 'The Atlantic' http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs.../06/brooks.htm

I’ll say it again, until you educate these young Muslim men, they’ll remain susceptible and receptive to a spurious version of Islamic nationalism taught and based upon nonsense promised to them by the Taliban et al. Therefore, our actions will mean bupkis, without first teaching them religious tolerance and educating them beyond the current level. If not; nothing changes and the cycle continues. In the very least, we should expect this from their leaders.

Why would that even come into your mind when discussing it?

Because, just last week a kid viciously stabbed a Muslim cab driver in NYC for no reason other than he was Muslim. It’s obvious to me that nutjobs know no bounds or borders. And the only reason I brought it up is due to the contentious, emotional hot button that discussion has evoked – right up to Sen Harry Reid and the POTUS.

Why do you care what the other side says? This shouldn't be some geographic pissing match (even though it is all too often.) And we've already acknowledged they're crazy, so your best bet is to convince the non-crazy people about how crazy the extremists are.

Agreed, it shouldn’t be a pissing match. I wanted you to clarify your position, and now you’ve done so. Thanks.

If you compromise your values for the terrorists, you lose. That's how it works. Their goal is to inspire terror, right? If you start clamoring about how you don't know if you can trust Muslims now, you only prove their point about the West wanting to destroy them.

I understand, and I agree. However, that doesn’t mean you capitulate to demands for fear of reprisal and threats of discrimination. In this country, we have the principle of separation of church and state; therefore, we don’t place footbaths in our public universities, prayer rooms in our middle schools, allow drivers licenses’ with photos of burqa-covered women. Yet with each of these, CAIR threatened legal action.

We keep thinking that if we bomb (or shoot, or whatever) them we'll change their minds or something and we don't realize that for every civilian we kill, and we cannot help but kill some, we create enemies of their whole families, friends, neighbors.

Once again, we agree. And those families grow up, and new generations are born and they’re taught who their enemies are and the cycle continues.
BTW thanks for that font tip.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

[We follow the rules, sans, a few recalcitrant acts by individual soldiers. “Because it is right” means nothing without education, leaders who teach tolerance and religious objectivity and prevent the manipulation of religion for political or other means or ends.

No, "because it is right" means everything. You can't control what the other guy does in any situation, you can only be responsible for you.

You’re kidding right? About.com – now there’s a scholarly source,

The credentials of the author, which you could have seen had you bothered.

Huda is a Muslim educator and writer with nearly two decades of experience researching and writing about Islam on the Internet. An American woman of Irish/English descent, she has been a Muslim for the past 20 years.
Experience:

Huda is an educator, freelance writer and editor. She is the author of The Everything Understanding Islam Book, originally published in 2003, with a 2nd Edition in 2009. She currently teaches elementary school in the Middle East.
Education:

Huda holds a M.Ed. degree, and is fluent in both French and Arabic.

LOL! The Statesman, what is that, a Texas newspaper? Suite101.com, if you bothered to check the contributors’ credentials I’m sure you would have been embarrassed. I’m almost embarrassed for you…

The Suite101 author's credentials:

Lamyaa Hashim has lectured internationally on Islamic and Middle Eastern Socio-Economics and Palestinian issues for over 25 years. She served as the world news editor for Islamic Horizons magazine in the early nineties, and her journalism and poems have appeared in various publications around the world and translated into several languages. She reported live from the Middle East as a correspondent for the radio program Sout El-Arab Wel Aruba (Voice of the Arabs and Arabia), and is an avid human rights supporter.

One would think the alleged ties to Hamas, which are unproven, would actually make an article by her stating that suicide bombings are unacceptable more relevant, not less.

And the New Statesman is a British political magazine, the author is the senior political editor and worked for Channel 4. For someone so quick to toss away sources, you provided none that contradict. If you want scholarly sources you're on your own and hopefully you speak Arabic.

Do you like 'The Atlantic' [URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/06/brooks.htm

I do. You'll note that it discusses suicide bombing as a Palenstinian cultural issue, not an Islamic issue.

I’ll say it again, until you educate these young Muslim men, they’ll remain susceptible and receptive to a spurious version of Islamic nationalism taught and based upon nonsense promised to them by the Taliban et al. Therefore, our actions will mean bupkis, without first teaching them religious tolerance and educating them beyond the current level. If not; nothing changes and the cycle continues. In the very least, we should expect this from their leaders.

Do stop acting as if they're country rubes. Highly educated people get taken in by lies and scams all the time. And it's not like you're volunteering to teach "them" (which, you know, don't because in your case it would be counterproductive).

I understand, and I agree. However, that doesn’t mean you capitulate to demands for fear of reprisal and threats of discrimination. In this country, we have the principle of separation of church and state; therefore, we don’t place footbaths in our public universities, prayer rooms in our middle schools, allow drivers licenses’ with photos of burqa-covered women. Yet with each of these, CAIR threatened legal action.

Suffice to say, in most parts of the country people only complain when it isn't their religion that's being allowed by the public school/space/university. Threatening legal action is nothing new.

BTW thanks for that font tip.

Now stop touching the font and color sections of the edit box. Stop. It's bad.

[Chocoholic]

Now stop touching the font and color sections of the edit box. Stop. It's bad.

I touched it once, to see how it worked, I haven't touched it since - I have no idea what "color sections" you're referring to, I only see black type and the light blue background.

For someone so quick to toss away sources, you provided none that contradict. If you want scholarly sources you're on your own and hopefully you speak Arabic.

Sorry, I couldn't get past About.com, went to Suite101's home page to see the contributors, left unimpressed and really went no further.

From my link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs.../06/brooks.htm
Before 1983 there were few suicide bombings. The Koran forbids the taking of one's own life, and this prohibition was still generally observed. But when the United States stationed Marines in Beirut, the leaders of the Islamic resistance movement Hizbollah began to discuss turning to this ultimate terrorist weapon. Religious authorities in Iran gave it their blessing, and a wave of suicide bombings began, starting with the attacks that killed about sixty U.S. embassy workers in April of 1983 and about 240 people in the Marine compound at the airport in October. The bombings proved so successful at driving the United States and, later, Israel out of Lebanon that most lingering religious concerns were set aside.

The tactic was introduced into Palestinian areas only gradually. In 1988 Fathi Shiqaqi, the founder of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, wrote a set of guidelines (aimed at countering religious objections to the truck bombings of the 1980s) for the use of explosives in individual bombings; nevertheless, he characterized operations calling for martyrdom as "exceptional." But by the mid-1990s the group Hamas was using suicide bombers as a way of derailing the Oslo peace process. The assassination of the master Palestinian bomb maker Yahya Ayyash, presumably by Israeli agents, in January of 1996, set off a series of suicide bombings in retaliation. Suicide bombings nonetheless remained relatively unusual until two years ago, after the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat walked out of the peace conference at Camp David—a conference at which Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, had offered to return to the Palestinians parts of Jerusalem and almost all of the West Bank.

At that point the psychology shifted. We will not see peace soon, many Palestinians concluded, but when it eventually comes, we will get everything we want. We will endure, we will fight, and we will suffer for that final victory. From then on the struggle (at least from the Palestinian point of view) was no longer about negotiation and compromise—about who would get which piece of land, which road or river. The red passions of the bombers obliterated the grays of the peace process. Suicide bombing became the tactic of choice, even in circumstances where a terrorist could have planted a bomb and then escaped without injury. Martyrdom became not just a means but an end.

Do stop acting as if they're country rubes. Highly educated people get taken in by lies and scams all the time. And it's not like you're volunteering to teach "them" (which, you know, don't because in your case it would be counterproductive).

Most people are aware that there are tribes, where these "rubes" still practice in child marriages, are uneducated, live in abject poverty and this is what makes them receptive to the promises of the Taliban. It's their impoverished existence, with little or no opportunity for improvement which leaves them vulnerable.

Suffice to say, in most parts of the country people only complain when it isn't their religion that's being allowed by the public school/space/university. Threatening legal action is nothing new.

That's odd, most attended religious or private schools where their children would receive the education desired, not the other way around.

No threatening legal action is nothing new, but capitulating to CAIR by settling to their demands is. It appears to be the post 9/11 gift that keeps on giving...

I'm going back to Delphi, I like the format better.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

Sorry, I couldn't get past About.com, went to Suite101's home page to see the contributors, left unimpressed and really went no further.

Your loss.

From my link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs.../06/brooks.htm
Before 1983 there were few suicide bombings. The Koran forbids the taking of one's own life, and this prohibition was still generally observed. But when the United States stationed Marines in Beirut, the leaders of the Islamic resistance movement Hizbollah[I] began to discuss turning to this ultimate terrorist weapon. Religious authorities in Iran gave it their blessing, and a wave of suicide bombings began, starting with the attacks that killed about sixty U.S. embassy workers in April of 1983 and about 240 people in the Marine compound at the airport in October. The bombings proved so successful at driving the United States and, later, Israel out of Lebanon that most lingering religious concerns were set aside.

Politics outweighed religion and "won" the argument for those people. That doesn't mean that Islam no longer prohibits it.

Most people are aware that there are tribes, where these "rubes" still practice in child marriages, are uneducated, live in abject poverty and this is what makes them receptive to the promises of the Taliban. It's their impoverished existence, with little or no opportunity for improvement which leaves them vulnerable.

Nice, but ignores the point. Generalizing extremists as ignorant and acting like they need to be taught by "us" how to be better is misguided at best.

That's odd, most attended religious or private schools where their children would receive the education desired, not the other way around.

No, they don't. Lawsuit after lawsuit has occurred in the public sphere. And quite frankly, considering the Muslim population in Dearborn, and the fact that it was solving a safety/hygiene issue, it appears that the Muslims Students Association's request for footbaths was a reasonable one. And the school agreed with no legal challenges.

No threatening legal action is nothing new, but capitulating to CAIR by settling to their demands is. It appears to be the post 9/11 gift that keeps on giving...

I'm going back to Delphi, I like the format better.

In Lewiston, CAIR lost its case. (One it had the right to bring regardless). The only case involving driver's licenses in the US that I could find involved a woman suing Florida for the right to wear a niqab (not a burka) in her photo. She also lost.

So where precisely are we capitulating to CAIR's demands like an over eager puppy? Seriously, where are you getting this bull?

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.