Palestine Joins ICC to Pursue Israel for War Crimes

[7437]

I can. Islam.

Pretty sure Islam wasn't a side effect of ww2

 

[Marsupial]

You must be joking. If anything, this is the most overblown conflict in the world. The amount of casualties and territory evolved is so minor, relatively speaking, that to address it as if impeding world peace is laughable.

I don't think that guy has ever heard of a place called Iran, and he seems to think Israel, with the #37 - #40 (depending on source) economy in the world has a major influence on the global economy.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Pretty sure Islam wasn't a side effect of ww2

Israel might be the worst side effect of WWII. I can't think of anything else that has been causing such a long-lasting problems for the world peace.

So? Islam is more of a hindrance to peace than any side effect of WW2. The bolded portion is what made the post asinine and was what I was replying to. Especially since the reason why Israel is a hindrance for peace is Islamic hatred for Jews.

 

[7437]

So? Islam is more of a hindrance to peace than any side effect of WW2. The bolded portion is what made the post asinine and was what I was replying to. Especially since the reason why Israel is a hindrance for peace is Islamic hatred for Jews.

Soviet union?

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Soviet union?

It's Russia now, but they're certainly a contender.

 

[dissolved]

You must be joking. If anything, this is the most overblown conflict in the world. The amount of casualties and territory evolved is so minor, relatively speaking, that to address it as if impeding world peace is laughable.

Yup.

 

[dissolved]

I can. Islam.

I 2nd this.

 

[Madmick]

They have as much right as anyone as an internationally recognized state to pursue this avenue.

 

[Rod1]

The ignorance in your posts is astounding. Jihadis have been a major obstacle to world peace for over a millennia, far longer than the US has even been a country. Imposing their barbarism on non-believers, along with the brutality of their Sunni-Shia split has been causing wars since Muhammad had his "revelation".

Put it this way, even if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow and Palestine was given all that land, Islam would still be an impediment to world peace. But instead of Israel, Muslims would be bitching about the Sunni/Shia supremacy, Nigeria, Kashmir, Thailand, Philippines, etc.

1.- This is completely wrong, first you talk over a millenia, a millenia ago christians were also engaging in holy wars and were just, if not more barbaric than muslims. Also in a millenia there has been major schisms in christianism that also caused wars.

2.- Modern crazy Islam, which is just a revival of medieval and ancient practices of jews and christians that were long forgotten started in the XVIII century, but it didnt amounted to much since it was just a bunch or rural fanatics living in poverty in central Saudi Arabia.

It was once the Ottoman empire fell, that such craziness became unchecked, but still local. The real problem started when said crazies became big actors in the world stage during the Cold war as they were cozied by the world powers and given a lot of money via the old trade. And that was post-WW2.

Look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey and several other muslim countries 50 years ago, nowhere near batshit crazy and all moving towards secularism, until the Gulf arabs started exporting their fucking crazy early medieval version of Islam.

Islam in theory is not more violent than judaism, the problem is that fundamentalists took over the religion, and their strict adherence to a moral code written 1400 years ago is what fucked everything up.

 

[MisterT]

1.- This is completely wrong, first you talk over a millenia, a millenia ago christians were also engaging in holy wars and were just, if not more barbaric than muslims. Also in a millenia there has been major schisms in christianism that also caused wars.

2.- Modern crazy Islam, which is just a revival of medieval and ancient practices of jews and christians that were long forgotten started in the XVIII century, but it didnt amounted to much since it was just a bunch or rural fanatics living in poverty in central Saudi Arabia.

It was once the Ottoman empire fell, that such craziness became unchecked, but still local. The real problem started when said crazies became big actors in the world stage during the Cold war as they were cozied by the world powers and given a lot of money via the old trade. And that was post-WW2.

Look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey and several other muslim countries 50 years ago, nowhere near batshit crazy and all moving towards secularism, until the Gulf arabs started exporting their fucking crazy early medieval version of Islam.

Islam in theory is not more violent than judaism, the problem is that fundamentalists took over the religion, and their strict adherence to a moral code written 1400 years ago is what fucked everything up.

My post never said Islam was more violent than Judiaism/Christianity/etc as your response is indicating. My post simply pointed out that Islam today is much more of an impediment to world peace than Israel.

2.- Modern crazy Islam, which is just a revival of medieval and ancient practices of jews and christians that were long forgotten started in the XVIII century, but it didnt amounted to much since it was just a bunch or rural fanatics living in poverty in central Saudi Arabia.

It wasn't just a bunch of rural fanatics. The Muslim Mughal Empire in the late 1700s and 1800s was one of the most powerful institutions in the world. The passionate zealotry they unleashed on the local non-believers was astounding. All in the name of spreading the glory if Islam. That same fanaticism was ingrained in the minds of Afghans/Pakistanis later on. Those people look at themselves as the spiritual decendents of the Islamic Ghazi's that attempted to Islamize the Indian Subcontinent and consider it their destiny to one day complete that journey (the Pakistani Army even names their warships and missiles after these Ghazis like Babur, Tipu Sultan, Aurangzeb, etc). The modern day Islamic fanaticism was alive and has had its roots well before Soviet/US funding propped up Arab regimes that exported Wahabism to the rest of the Muslim world.

Apologists can play the whole "Islam is now worse then Christianity/Judaism" card all they want. But at the end of the day, when the question is raised as to what is one of the leading threats to world peace, Islam, or rather a strict adherence to it, still would be at the top of the list.

 

[7437]

It's Russia now, but they're certainly a contender.

I dont see how Islam has caused more problems than the russians/soviets.

 

[Rod1]

My post never said Islam was more violent than Judiaism/Christianity/etc as your response is indicating. My post simply pointed out that Islam today is much more of an impediment to world peace than Israel.

And i agree, i just merely pointing out that the religion fanaticism wasnt really widespread during the modern age, the revival of medieval practice is something recent.

It wasn't just a bunch of rural fanatics. The Muslim Mughal Empire in the late 1700s and 1800s was one of the most powerful institutions in the world. The passionate zealotry they unleashed on the local non-believers was astounding. All in the name of spreading the glory if Islam. That same fanaticism was ingrained in the minds of Afghans/Pakistanis later on.

Sounds like Hindu revisionism IMO. And Muslim-Hindu conflicts have always been prevalent.

Those people look at themselves as the spiritual decendents of the Islamic Ghazi's that attempted to Islamize the Indian Subcontinent and consider it their destiny to one day complete that journey (the Pakistani Army even names their warships and missiles after these Ghazis like Babur, Tipu Sultan, Aurangzeb, etc). The modern day Islamic fanaticism was alive and has had its roots well before Soviet/US funding propped up Arab regimes that exported Wahabism to the rest of the Muslim world.

Again, where is the evidence of such a thing? why was largely rural and undeveloped Afghanistan still had buddhist works of art and european style cities until the taliban took over?

Apologists can play the whole "Islam is now worse then Christianity/Judaism" card all they want. But at the end of the day, when the question is raised as to what is one of the leading threats to world peace, Islam, or rather a strict adherence to it, still would be at the top of the list.

No, "apologists" rightly so, dismiss the idea that Islam has been an unchanging monolith for a millenia, Islam like christianity had becoming less and less important in the life of muslim countries until crazy fundamentalists got a hold on a lot of money.

Maybe Islam is beyond helping now, maybe not.

 

[dissolved]

I dont see how Islam has caused more problems than the russians/soviets.

That's because you would have your eyes closed.

A sentiment that really needs to stop is the one that assumes that Islam is like every other religion. Because it most certainly is not. And many of us have covered it extensively (but not nearly as much as is deserved). The facts are readily available for those not marked for indoctrination and brainwashing (the lies of that religion).

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I dont see how Islam has caused more problems than the russians/soviets.

They're certainly a contender. They have a poor track record with respect to human rights and had their unsuccessful attempt to dominate the world. Islam has them beat because there's no reason behind the core values and they are better at inspiring aggressive action among its adherents no matter where they may reside in the world. The primary allegiance is to a fictitious, furious deity and his warlord prophet.

 

[7437]

That's because you would have your eyes closed.

A sentiment that really needs to stop is the one that assumes that Islam is like every other religion. Because it most certainly is not. And many of us have covered it extensively (but not nearly as much as is deserved). The facts are readily available for those not marked for indoctrination and brainwashing (the lies of that religion).

Not sure if you are stupid or what. Stalin killed a shitload of people. The soviet union was WAY worse than Islam. Here is 7 million intentionally starved in Ukraine.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

We can move on to the great leap forward in china if you think that Islam is worse than the soviet purges.

 

[7437]

They're certainly a contender. They have a poor track record with respect to human rights and had their unsuccessful attempt to dominate the world. Islam has them beat because there's no reason behind the core values and they are better at inspiring aggressive action among its adherents no matter where they may reside in the world. The primary allegiance is to a fictitious, furious deity and his warlord prophet.

So because they are more spread out, that means they are worse. I dont think that makes sense. The Soviets killed a ton more people, its not even really close. (unless I am missing some pretty impressive genocides. possible, Islamic regions are in the shittiest parts of the world generally speaking)

China's Great Leap Forward is another example of something that is far worse than everything Islam has done combined.

I am not saying that a ton fo fucked up stuff is done in the name if Islam, it is. Constantly. That doesnt make it the worst thing ever though.

 

[MisterT]

And i agree, i just merely pointing out that the religion fanaticism wasnt really widespread during the modern age, the revival of medieval practice is something recent.

No, it really isn't. It's been prevalent throughout Islam's history even before the rise of petro-funded Wahabism. What about Amin el-Husseini's pogrom against the Jews in the early 20th century? Pershing faced Islamic militancy in the Philippines around that time, and fanatical Deobandi sects were preaching a "purer" form of Islam for ages before that as well. It's erroneous to say that fundamentalism wasn't widespread. It's always been widespread. It's just that we've managed to see it more up close and personally in recent decades as a result of the Middle East's vast oil wealth. Saudi Wahabism didn't force people to return to a purer form of Islam. It just amplified and further militarized the fanaticism that was already bubbling.

Sounds like Hindu revisionism IMO. And Muslim-Hindu conflicts have always been prevalent.

Your joking right? Hindu revisionism? It's not revisionism when Muslims themselves proudly boast of it. Have you heard of Aurangzeb and his mission to forcibly convert non-believers? How about Sultan Tipu? You calmly say "Muslim-Hindu conflicts have always been prevalent". Have you ever wondered why Muslims have been the only major group to not be able to largely co-exist peacefully with Hindus when nearly every other major religious group has been able to do so? Those conflicts were going on long before a bunch of Arabs got money and started exporting fundamentalist ideologies.

Again, where is the evidence of such a thing? why was largely rural and undeveloped Afghanistan still had buddhist works of art and european style cities until the taliban took over?

The evidence is given in history books. Afghanistan from 1700 onwards had been a bastion of one Islamic Kingdom after another. All of whom proved their mettle by raiding the land of non-believers (namely Hindu India and harassing Sikh lands). Look into Ahmad Shah Durrani, the Afghan King who massacred Hindus in Delhi and desecrated the Sikh's Golden Temple by filling it with the bodies of dead Sikhs and cows. It would be severely unbecoming to take the example of few European style cities and educated upper class Afghans as proof of a liberal Afghanistan. That region of the world produced some of Islam's most celebrated jihadis long before the Saudi's touched down with their fundamentalist funding.

 

[Rod1]

No, it really isn't. It's been prevalent throughout Islam's history even before the rise of petro-funded Wahabism. What about Amin el-Husseini's pogrom against the Jews in the early 20th century?

Yes, because anti-semitism is only the byproduct of Islam, specially in the XX century when everyone loved the jews.

Pershing faced Islamic militancy in the Philippines around that time, and fanatical Deobandi sects were preaching a "purer" form of Islam for ages before that as well.

Was resistance religiously motivated? Also all i can see about deobandi, none implies that they were religiously violent until well into the second half of the XX century.

It's erroneous to say that fundamentalism wasn't widespread. It's always been widespread. It's just that we've managed to see it more up close and personally in recent decades as a result of the Middle East's vast oil wealth. Saudi Wahabism didn't force people to return to a purer form of Islam. It just amplified and further militarized the fanaticism that was already bubbling.

Yet, we can see history and realize that most islamic countries had secular governments until recently.

Your joking right? Hindu revisionism? It's not revisionism when Muslims themselves proudly boast of it. Have you heard of Aurangzeb and his mission to forcibly convert non-believers? How about Sultan Tipu? You calmly say "Muslim-Hindu conflicts have always been prevalent". Have you ever wondered why Muslims have been the only major group to not be able to largely co-exist peacefully with Hindus when nearly every other major religious group has been able to do so? Those conflicts were going on long before a bunch of Arabs got money and started exporting fundamentalist ideologies.

Another instance of Aurangzeb's notoriety was his policy of temple destruction, for which figures vary wildly from 80 to 60,000.[35] Indian historian Harbans Mukhia wrote that "In the end, as recently recorded in Richard Eaton's careful tabulation, some 80 temples were demolished between 1192 and 1760 (15 in Aurangzeb's reign) and he compares this figure with the claim of 60,000 demolitions, advanced rather nonchalantly by 'Hindu nationalist' propagandists,' although even in that camp professional historians are slightly more moderate."

Again, im fairly ignorant of Indian history but i do know that Hindus and Muslims tend to exaggerate what the other side did.

Whats, pretty evident is that considering the amount of time the Mughal empire lasted, they would have had plenty of time to erase Hinduism from the region, but they didnt.

evidence is given in history books. Afghanistan from 1700 onwards had been a bastion of one Islamic Kingdom after another. All of whom proved their mettle by raiding the land of non-believers (namely Hindu India and harassing Sikh lands). Look into Ahmad Shah Durrani, the Afghan King who massacred Hindus in Delhi and desecrated the Sikh's Golden Temple by filling it with the bodies of dead Sikhs and cows. It would be severely unbecoming to take the example of few European style cities and educated upper class Afghans as proof of a liberal Afghanistan. That region of the world produced some of Islam's most celebrated jihadis long before the Saudi's touched down with their fundamentalist funding.

Seems to me like a standard practice to destroy your opponents, is the Roman destruction of the Temple proof that the Romans were religious zealots?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Spoiler

1.- This is completely wrong, first you talk over a millenia, a millenia ago christians were also engaging in holy wars and were just, if not more barbaric than muslims. Also in a millenia there has been major schisms in christianism that also caused wars.

2.- Modern crazy Islam, which is just a revival of medieval and ancient practices of jews and christians that were long forgotten started in the XVIII century, but it didnt amounted to much since it was just a bunch or rural fanatics living in poverty in central Saudi Arabia.

Spoiler

It was once the Ottoman empire fell, that such craziness became unchecked, but still local. The real problem started when said crazies became big actors in the world stage during the Cold war as they were cozied by the world powers and given a lot of money via the old trade. And that was post-WW2.

Look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey and several other muslim countries 50 years ago, nowhere near batshit crazy and all moving towards secularism, until the Gulf arabs started exporting their fucking crazy early medieval version of Islam.

Islam in theory is not more violent than judaism, the problem is that fundamentalists took over the religion, and their strict adherence to a moral code written 1400 years ago is what fucked everything up

.

18th century?

 

[Rod1]

18th century?

Islamists were the only ones expanding in the early medieval period? go figure.