The things the CBC never told me;
As tens of thousands of Palestinians clambered back and forth between the Gaza strip and Egypt today, details emerged of the audacious operation that brought down a hated border wall and handed the Islamist group Hamas what might be its greatest propaganda coup.
Hamas, which took control of the coastal territory last June after a stand-off with Fatah, has denied that its men set off the explosions that brought down as much as two-thirds of the 12-km wall in the early hours. But a Hamas border guard interviewed by The Times at the border today admitted that the Islamist group was responsible and had been involved for months in slicing through the heavy metal wall using oxy-acetylene cutting torches.
That meant that when the explosive charges were set off in 17 different locations after midnight last night the 40ft wall came tumbling down, leaving it lying like a broken concertina down the middle of no-man’s land as an estimated 350,000 Gazans flooded into Egypt.
Avoiding mentioning the Egyptian wall all this time, while mentioning the Israel wall every chance they got only confirms the Main Stream Media is anti-Israel.
CBC Radio broadcast an interview with someone who says Israel built the wall. I cannot confirm the validity of that claim.
If only the Palestinians accepted the UN partition of the land between the Med, Red, and Dead Seas. Everything would be hunky-dorry. Not!
The victim role does NOT suit you, ET. You have demonstrated repeatedly on this post that you do NOT read what others write; you simply react, and react emotionally.
Please put aside your latest straw man (love Israel and hate Arabs) and TRY to understand what so many others have written.
BTW, it is nothing short of ridiculous of you to suggest that I am “rejecting the very basis of free speech, which is, the right to dissent”. I know this is hard for you to understand, so I will spell it out – at no time did I say you had no right to say what you have said. I am simply expressing MY right to disagree with you, my right to dissent. Can you see that? That you actually wrote such drivel about “free speech” is yet another example of your emotionality. Please take a deep breath and TRY to see what so many others on this post have been saying. Please stop re-acting, and stop putting up bogus straw men.
Another palestinian infrastructure project-somebody built something so let us destroy it, then we can distribute our garbage on the other side as well.
What a profoundly destructive mob, that prefers to live in squalor and collect handouts. Is it any wonder that surrounding arab states do not want to absorb this population in their vast unpopulated geographical areas?
Here is a good opportunity for the Israelis, when all the Gazans are over in Egypt , they can grab Gaza back, rebuild the wall, and leave the Gazans stuck in the Sinai, it is a nice big place they will love it.
One of the confusions I see in these comments is our ‘western’ understanding of ‘nation’ versus the Middle East understanding of ‘nation’. In the Middle East ethnicity plays a much more dominate role than geography.
A family I know moved from Lebanon into a country in North Africa (they have the documents to prove it). 600 years later they are still considered Lebanese. I know that many Iranians resent Islam because it is Arabic in origin and they are Persian. I have heard that the Palestinians are not considered Arab by their Arab neighbours.
Palestinians are considered Philistine, a European not Middle Eastern people. They share the same religion as their Arab neighbours but when push comes to shove the Palestinians don’t have any family support.
ET: In your 6:52 post you’ve diagnosed what the solution will be, namely a two-state solution. It’s not new and we’ve seen this coming as early as the Oslo Accords in the early ’90s. There are many mutual grievances, but two of the many outstanding ones boil down to this: the Palestinian radicals keep lobbing various attacks against the civilian infrastructure of Israel; and Israel, through walls and settlements, shrinks the size of any future Palestinian nation, making the Palestinian demand for ‘right of return’ that much more unattainable (even if it was desirable). I’m not arguing which of the two is right, simply noting the clashes.
You as a highly relevant question, what’s the solution to which I would add when will it happen. The answer I suspect is only when both sides have suffered enough that they are willing to suppress their own fanatics to agree on terms. Just as the Palestinians are plagued by irreconcilables such as Hamas, Israel has its own version as well. After all, the Oslo Accords fell apart in some measure because a religious Orthodox fanatic assassinated Israel’s prime minister. That assassination was far from the only cause; Arafat’s deliberate return to the Intifada as a way of getting negotiating leverage against Israel has probably inflicted more misery on the Palestinans as a policy than just about anything else. As long as the polarization continues, there will be no peace.
It is my understanding that Israel built the wall along the Egyptian border with Egypt’s approval.
Not saying that this is an Israeli apartheid wall or anything, just getting the facts straight.
Israel is now saying that maintenance of the border is up to the Egyptian military and they do not care too much what Egypt does. I imagine Egypt will be on their best behavior, they have been taking a decidedly more anti-western stance since the NIE report was released.
terrence – you don’t bring up any dissenting arguments with me; you just declare that I am ’emotional and hysteric’. Or, you make juvenile comments about ‘the evil jooos’. That’s my point – that’s not an argument. How about dealing with the issues? And no, I’m not defining myself as a victim. I’m arguing against your failure to provide reasoned and data based arguments.
Joe – Palestinians are very low in the status level of Middle Eastern arabs. I don’t know whether they are not considered ‘arabs’; I only know that they are considered ‘at the bottom’ of the status hierarchy.
And yes, you are right; nationality, per se, doesn’t play a major role in the ME. That’s because it has been, for thousands of years, run by tribalism. I prefer the term ‘tribal’ to ‘ethnicity’. They’ve never moved into the political organization of the nation-state.
Tribalism means that kinship and family plays the major organizational political and economic role. So, when people here argue that there never was a Palestinian nation, it’s a meaningless argument. The idea of the ‘nation-state’ was a recent one, emerging in Europe in the 12-14th c. In the ME, the system has run by tribalism.
cgh – right, you’ve got both sides fighting against each other. You’ve got the militants in the Palestinian side, who by now, have only one image of an Israeli (the Evil Ones); and you have the settlers on the Israeli side, who also have only one image of a Palestinian (the Non-Chosen ones). I’m suggesting that these two perceptions can never be reconciled. But, they can be reduced in political authority. The ‘middle set’ on both sides, Palestinian and Israeli, can, I suggest, get along quite well.
Remember that Oslo was not about recognizing a Palestinian state. It was only about allowing municipal self-government in various Palestinian towns. That’s all. Israel retained control of water, borders, roads, airspace, resources etc. So, it wasn’t about a Palestinian state.
I think Arafat was right to reject it – but, I think even IF it had been recognition of a state, I suspect he still would have rejected it. Arafat didn’t want a Palestinian state; he’d lose power.
However, given the two realities – and the realities are not the emotional hatreds between the fanatics on both sides, but the actual population base on both sides – what can be done?
6 million Israeli, 4 million Palestinians. It has to be a two state solution. BUT, this means that Israel, in particular, has to give up that West Bank and its private control of the water.
It also means that the other Arab nations will have to acknowledge the Palestinians (whom they sneer at in reality) as a legitimate people. And, as a democracy. That’s going to be hard.
James – yes, I can imagine that Israel doesn’t care what Egypt does, as long as it ensures that the goods coming into Gaza from Egypt are not military.
ET, yes I agree that the formal terms of Oslo were a municipal agreement principally. I think you will also agree that all parties understood that if things worked out it would lead to greater autonomy later on. Oslo was after all only the first step, not the final defined end state. This is why I think Arafat was wrong. He was doing it, not to defend the rights of Palestinians but to maintain his own hold over the PLO which had been slipping during and after the exile in Tunis.
And yes, large parts of both did get along after a fashion prior to the Intifada. The Palestinian territories’ economies were tightly bound up with Israel’s.
One thing that cannot be forgotten in all this is foreign involvement. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are to a very large extent organizations supported with money, weapons, organization and training by Iran. Until the foreign influence is diminished, the prospects for peace will likely remain remote.
ET says: “It also means that the other Arab nations will have to acknowledge the Palestinians (whom they sneer at in reality) as a legitimate people. And, as a democracy.”
Shouldn’t this read, “it also means that the Arab nations will have to acknowledge the Jews (whom they sneer at in reality) as a legitimate people. And, as a democracy.”
Why, if Arabs can live in Israel, are Jews not allowed to live in the West Bank? What is wrong with some Jews settling there? How is it any different from Jews settling anywhere?
Have you ever been to Judea? (West Bank). I don’t think that you could call the Judean desert particulary fertile.
Are Arabs in Israel allowed to increase in number (ie by making babies?)? Why aren’t Jews allowed to grow in number in the West Bank?
If the Arabs had accepted the partition of 1948 they could be celebrating their 60th year of statehood. The Jews accepted this partition, the Arabs did not and the rest is history.
Why does the existence of a “state of Palestine” require that no Jews live there? Why must they get out? Hebron, Jerico, Shechem, Bethleham are all important to Jews – why would the new democratic state of Palestine not allow any Jews to live in it?
ET, I am sorry I not part of your echo chanber. But, given your complete failure to read and UNDERSTAND so many commenters, I really do not want to be in your closed group.
I am sure you are NOT aware, but it is YOU who does not repsond to what SO many others have written; you do not argue, you simply react, and/or raise bogus straw men.
You should have a close look at your projectionas onto SO many others in this post. You have turned what could have been an interesting discussion into an emational rective farce. You have some good points, but you bury them in so much reactive rubbish, it is not worth the bother to read any more.
Hopefully, on other posts, you will revert to your reasonable form.
cgh – right, I agree with you about the foreign involvement. And of course, Arafat’s agenda was strictly about his own personal power. He didn’t want to lose that power in a Palestinian state.
ex-liberal – no, I meant what I said about the other arab states not wanting and not being willing to recognize a Palestinian state. I think that the Palestinians are always viewed, by arabs, as the lowest of the low..and hardly ‘high enough in nobility’ to have their own nation.
And you are not being exactly open about the issue of the West Bank. Jewish settlers living in the West Bank, with the West Bank fully part of a Palestinian state, with those settlers under the authority of a Palestinian state – is quite different from Jewish settlers living in the West Bank with the West Bank settlers under the authority of Israel. I’m sure you can acknowledge the difference.
I’m most certainly not claiming that a Palestinian state need not contain Jews! I’m not talking about the religious identity of the citizens of a state, and I suspect you know that. I’m talking about the governmental authority over the land and citizenship of its population.
As I said, it’s a completely different situation if the West Bank were under the sovereign authority of a Palestinian state, and any Jewish people living there, would be, as Palestinian citizens, under that govt’s authority. If the current settlers don’t accept that, they’d have to leave.
You know, if a Palestinian state ever comes to pass, and I think it’s the only solution, I suspect that the closest economic and even social alliances of that state, will be with Israel. Not with its Arab neighbours.
As I said, the other arab nations view Palestinians as nonentities – and that’s an old, old tribal opinion. Plus, Palestine has, economically, little to offer to those other states in resources or services. So, I would see that the two states, Israel and Palestine could develop close economic ties – in fact, that would be the only route for Palestine. And for Israel.
ET…have you gone Islamic in your old age?? Usually your posts are enlightening,but recently,I have seen a disturbing pattern emerge in your pro terrorist bias.Somebody getting to you? Or have you been a plant all along? Nobody, BUT nobody except the Palis are responsible for the sh*t they are now in.Maybe it’s about time the Jooossss adopted a little SAS warfare..i.e…to get rid of a threat you must cut off not only its head,but its feet,which means everybody from daddy on down to little Betsy-Sue.
There is one other solution to the Palestinian issue. Let all the Palestinians become Jews. It may be more difficult to attain but it would likely bring a more lasting peace.
I would have suggested conversion the other way but Islam is not a peaceful religion.
Justthinkin – that’s very unfair to say that ET has a “pro-terrorist bias”. We may have different and strong opinions on Israel and the Palistinians relationship, but, she has never minimized, endorsed or been less than strongly condemning of terrorism. Nor has she denied or excused Palistinian terrorism.
I wonder why ET is posting here? Seems to me she’d be much happier at Stormfront.
ET: You may in your earlier remarks have hit upon an interesting aspect to the problem. Israel is the only western constituted democracy in the region, making it a very different form of government to traditional patterns in the Middle East. But there’s one interesting feature it has which is not common to all other western democracies but which it does share with some non-democratic regimes in the Middle East. It has included religion as a definition of citizenship. There are very good reasons for Israel to be constituted in that fashion, however, this means that Israel has a greater difficulty than many in incorporating citizens from other backgrounds or in reaching understandings over disputed territory. This too is not a new topic and has been discussed extensively within Israel, but I am unsure of the degree to which it has been raised in the context of an overall agreement with the Palestinians.
It’s late, and I will follow up tomorrow if you are interested.
Since we’re trying to have an intelligent discussion here, perhaps we can both agree to ignore the late night trolls.
Yes, ET and cgh, please do continue your discussion. I’m afraid I don’t have much to add, but I do appreciate the information. It seems to me refreshingly free of bias, either way, and sincere in it’s intent to enlighten those of us willing to keep an open mind.
We could use more of that around here.
Hi Jimbo. Not really trying to sort out solutions just yet, at least on my part. Just an exploration so far to try to define the problem. Fact is, the ME is something that has defied solution by politicians of all stripes going back at least two millenia.
Well, that’s it for me tonight.
“and when the govt of this new land makes it quite clear that, due to your religion, you are no longer welcome as a citizen.”
I hate to pile on here ET, but this isn’t true. The last I read 17% of Israel’s population aren’t just Arabs, they’re Muslims, with a few Druze and Christians.
And why don’t you ask the Islamofascist Saudi Arabia about their banning of all Jews, including no Jewish visitors, to this day?
As well, your repeated claim that the Palestinians are severly anti-Semetic because of land grievances is false. The Islamic ideology pre-dates this mess. It is the Islamic ideology that is fundamentally racist and anti-Semetic.
Along with several “Jews are the sons of apes and pigs.” verses in the Quran, the aHadith and Sira are rife with Jew hatred and mass killing.
“Kill the Jews wherever you find them.” – Mo (Hadiths)
Or, you could both continue the conversation on one of your own blogs.
Jimbo – really? “refreshingly free of bias”? Did you mean all the posters, or only ET and cgh?
Having an open mind is one thing, but do some research on your own.
ET and cgh are not the final authorities on this subject.
Yeah Irwin but Saudi Arabia is an equal hatred country. They even ban some Islamic sects.
Why do all discussions of the two state solution include a condition that Israel/Jews must not have any settlements in the West Bank? What kind of logic is that? Surely a two state solution would include the right of Jews to live in Hebron, Jerico, Bethleham, etc.
By the way any one can become an Israeli citizen if you live there for a certain number of years. You don’t have to be a practicing Jew to become a citizen right away – you just have to have one Jewish grandparent (recent history led Jews to this)
And the water issue? ET makes it sound like Israel controls/keeps water. hmm, not so sure: check this http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/water.html
James, 7:46 P.M.
The Israelis did build the wall during their occupation of Gaza, but I doubt that they consulted the Egyptians. The wall, as far as I know, is entirely on Gazan territory – not right on the border and therefore none of Egypt’s business. OOPS!
Since Hamas came to power, the Egyptians have had an agreement with Israel to prevent Gazans from travelling back and forth, in order to control the flow of weapons and explosives into Gaza. Since yesterday’s mass invasion, that arrangement seems to be dead as a doornail.
Brilliantly argued, ET. The trainers have the stretchers out and are now carrying your faux-opponents off the canvas and out of the ring. Not to say that everyone was disagreeing with you of course, many were not, nor to say that many who make non-faux counter-arguments don’t make good arguments.
And not to say that I agree with everything you’ve argued ~ I don’t even know enough about many of the details to be able to know whether to agree or not. Probably you’ve got at least one detail wrong, none of us are perfect.
Nevertheless, I think your overall model of the nature of societies in general, the current dynamics of the I&P societies in particular (where current includes the effect of history but does not focus on historic details that are by now irrelevant to or subsumed by the effect), and the realpolitik issues that must be addressed by the global system of states in regard to this problem, is generally correct.
CHG, who makes a number of good arguments, suggests that the problem will only be solved when both sides have suffered enough. Perhaps, ‘though it does seem like there’s more than enough suffering going on already, at least among the non-power seeking non-militant citizens on both sides.
Perhaps, on the other hand, the problem will not be solved until the global system of states decides that the problem has become too risky for it to allow the problem to continue. As long as it’s not, shysters in the global system of states will succeed in actually promoting the conflict for personal advancement.
If my argument in the previous paragraph is true, then it may be the case that the solution to the problem is closer to hand than we might otherwise suspect, in the sense that nuclear weapons proliferation has become a major strategic threat to the power-brokers in the global system of states, and the mitigation of that threat may include some agreed or forced resolution to the problem.
To be clear, I don’t know what to do next, and I don’t know how it’s going to turn out. The current situation, all in, appears largely intractable at least in terms of current best practice. The two-state dance is probably the only reasonable approach right now, realpolitik-wise. Hank argues in favour of this approach and related realpolitik issues, his approach which I largely agree with, in this Charlie Rose interview of Henry Kissinger:
video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6468270690914589463
Some radical development might change the I&P situation, or maybe not; it might go on for a long time (for some value of long). Personally, I try to avoid predicting the future states of chaotic dynamic systems.
Quite right Vitruvius. The nuclear issue has always weighed in here. After all, it was in 1973 that the US and USSR had to find a solution after their confrontation and the recognition that Israel itself had nuclear weapons and would in desperation use them. Given the strong interest that both great powers had in finding a solution, the current impasse shows just how intractable it can be. I think we all understand that the two-state solution is the only real way this can be solved, but like you and ET I think its possibility is purely speculative at this time.
Look, as long as the Islamic trilogy is the foundation for Jew hatred – commanded, rewarded and sanctified by allah and flawlessly demonstrated by his prophet – there will not be a solution to the so-called Palestinian question. Or any other question, as it has to do with Islam.
Based on the trilogy, Muslims are taught from childhood that they have an allah given obligation to hate the Jews. And if allah is for it, who’s against it?
Holy commissions are a more powerful and mitigating factor than land grievances.
Re: “Jimbo – really? “refreshingly free of bias”? Did you mean all the posters, or only ET and cgh?
Having an open mind is one thing, but do some research on your own.
ET and cgh are not the final authorities on this subject.”
They may not be the final authorities, but they certainly come off as credible, reasonable, and unbiased. There are other posters I’d put in the same boat, and I appreciate being privy to their debates.
I find it refreshing, because there are many other posters whose views I consider very biased, unreasonable, closeminded, and sometimes downright kooky, like Irwin “Crazy” Daisy, to use one example. Every post, the same general message, ad nauseum, scouring the earth, and the internet, for any shred of a reason to hate those not like him, primarily Muslims. Irwin – we get it.
As for doing my own research, I always appreciate being aimed in the right direction. I’m usually very busy, putting money back into the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.
Appreciate that Jimbo. The ME situation is too difficult to solve for any human. I did find a couple things ET said showed her interpretation of facts and events (I won’t call it prejudice) steered away from the Israelis’ cause. A few others noticed that also. A caution sign is always raised in my mind when I read that they should give up land.
Since the goal of the Palestine authority is to eradicate Israel, it is hard to imagine a two-state solution.
Since 1978, I’ve read so much and heard so many speakers on this subject that it would be hard to condense it.
I could suggest two people to you. One is a former Muslim now a Christian: Faisal Malick. He is living in Canada. The other is Joel Rosenberg, a Messianic Jew. There are others, but you could begin with them.
It’s fascinating, and I encourage you to read what these two have written.
I too steered away from taking up the Israelis’ cause in my comment, Gerry. To the degree that I takes sides on this matter, I’m on the Israelis side. However, if one wishes to analyze a situation and understand it, which is usually a good idea before taking up causes, then while one is doing the analysis it’s best to not take up causes, as that often tends to cloud the analysis. It’s like begging the question.
A good deal of non-light-generating heat in this thread was between the activists and the analyzers. It doesn’t need to be this way, yet we often find that all it takes is one or two who don’t understand that to set things off.
Thanks for the direction “gerry at January 24, 2008 5:59 PM” . I’ll check out your suggestions when I’m at home.
I’d have to agree with Vitruvius, and admit that, generally, I side with the Israelis. It seems sometimes, to quote someone whose name I can’t remember, that “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” If another country was lobbing rockets into my area, I’d tend to be a tad on the aggressive side.
However, I can understand the plight of the Pal’s too, especially if my children were being starved through a blockade of sorts. Regardless of root causes, I’d be most angry with whoever was maintaining the blockade. When you’re hungry, it’s amazing how little or nothing else matters but food.
The problems seem insurmountable at times. But them, I remember thinking that about South Africa.
The blockade is in response to the rocket attacks but they allowed some food and fuel in for one day, after the U.N. warned that international food aid may have to be suspended by the wkend.
The Israeli PM said he would not allow a humanitarian crisis to develop. But he said Gaza’s residents won’t be able to live a “pleasant and comfortable life” as long as southern Israel is under rocket attack.
Still the attacks continue, which indicate the true enemies of the Palestinians are their fellow Arabs, as ET also said.
I choose sources that give a true picture from both sides, fair and balanced.
Like you I wouldn’t want to see my family suffering from an embargo, but I also wouldn’t want to live with my family in the area being bombarded. It is a very frightening situation.
“like Irwin “Crazy” Daisy, to use one example. Every post, the same general message, ad nauseum, scouring the earth, and the internet, for any shred of a reason to hate those not like him, primarily Muslims.”
Jimbo, the leftist in Conservative clothing. Are you pining for a job at the HRC? I’m sure you’d fit right in.
‘Jimbo’ (of all juvenile nick names available, why this handle?) doesn’t have the intellectual ability to post a rational, researched opinion or counter argument. He has posted on this blog that his feelings trump facts. And when researched facts don’t agree with his feelings, he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
Remind anybody of a certain political type?
“The same general message” that you still don’t get is that it’s the Islamic ideology, bonehead. It’s not about ‘those generally not like him, primarily Muslims.”
And it’s not about looking for a “reason to hate,” based on anything found on the internet. My opinion is based on the exact textual evidence found in the Quran, Hadith and Sira, proven by the actions of Muhammad and his followers.
And yours?
“The problems seem insurmountable at times. But them (sic), I remember thinking that about South Africa.”
And what’s your knowledgeable, fact based ‘opinion’ about South Africa now, Jimboob?
“Nobody has a right to an opinion unless they are in possession of the evidence.” T.S. Eliot
No. Clause 2 of the Charter clearly gives Canadians the right to opinion without possession of evidence. It is you, my dear Mr. Daisy, who is pining for a job on the HRCs. Moreover, sir, I know from discussions here and at other sites that your characterization of Jimbo is simply wrong. In other words, you have formed an opinion without sufficient evidence. And I will fight for your right to do so, with one proviso: I will not fight for you when you deny that right to others.
Entirely correct, Vitruvius and well said. Jimbo approached this topic with an inquiring mind, and all he got from some was abuse and denial of his right to have information to form an opinion.
Jimbo, none of us engaged in this debate, pretends to have answers. As you correctly noted, we are trying to define the problem. To do that requires a level of inquiry for which slogans are worse than useless. You started with the most useful statement of all of us, noting the limited knowledge we have. Absolutely correct. Dropping preconceptions about anything is the necessary first step towards trying to find solutions to problems. Don’t be bashful; join in, because different perspectives always help. Your reference to South Africa was the one hopeful thought anyone has expressed in this thread.
Welcome to the René Descartes club, ladies & gentlemen 😉
The wall is 4 m high above its base. It has been well-known about for many years. If you don’t know about it, then stop professing your ignorance to all and sundry.
Vitruvius,
Not that I need to explain myself, however, Jimbo continually and purposely, misrepresents and misconstrues my opinion, attempting to slur my posts as bigotry. I then feel I must correct the slur by reposting the same point again, ad infinitum.
I have made it very clear and supported my posts with direct facts and evidence that it is the Islamic ideology as expressed in the trilogy that is foundationally violent and the impetus and justification for Islamofascist violence. Not Muslims.
Yet, his first post on this thread began with, “like Irwin “Crazy” Daisy, to use one example. Every post, the same general message, ad nauseum, scouring the earth, and the internet, for any shred of a reason to hate those not like him, primarily Muslims.”
This willfull smearing is insulting and irritating.
Is this the type of thing you agree with?
No, Daisy, Jimbo’s first comment above at 11:04 PM on the 23rd did not mention you, he simply asked ET and CGH to continue their discussion. Moreover, it was you, Daisy, who first called Jimbo “al-Jimbo”, on another thread some weeks ago, in response to a perfectly reasonable opinion he posted, thus misrepresenting and misconstruing Jimbo’s opinion. It is you, Daisy, who I find to be willfully insulting and irritating, it is you who I find to be a bigot, it is you who behaves like a sociopath toward those who don’t completely agree with you.
Those are the types of things I do not agree with. However, since Kate asks us not to engage in flame wars here, and since I think everyone is entitled to their opinion (modulo Kate’s rules) I usually simply ignore you (unless explicitly asked), which I will now return to doing.
It seems you suffer from selective reading. Jimbo did purposely misrepresent my opinion, as he’s done frequently, in order to make a bigotry claim “a reason to hate those not like him, primarily Muslims.” This is completely untrue, and a typical leftist hush tactic. In fact, other than fanatics involved in the promotion and acts of violence, I don’t blame Muslims. I’ve always maintained that Muslims are the first victims.
My opinion and many others including Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Hirsi Ali, etc, is that the Islamic ideology is foundationally violent as expressed and proven in the trilogy and this is the basis for Islamic extremism.
So, it’s interesting to know that exposure and criticism of an ideology is branded as bigotry by some, like yourself. I’m surprised you haven’t called it racism.
Furthermore, as much as I recall, Jimbo’s “perfectly reasonable opinion,” was based on knowing a couple of nice Muslims and his feelings, as he stated. He also stated that he had no knowledge of the texts, yet still attacked my opinion, attempting to misconstrue it as bigotry and offering no rational counter argument or evidence to support anything.
However, who cares, since you seem to enjoy attacking those who have done nothing to you – ignore away, it’s no great loss.
The last word is yours, Irwin ~ I wish you no ill will.
In the end, it’s up to the readers to decide.
Thanks for putting up with us, Kate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k