Now here is someone I can agree with.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Cato, you did not ask a question. So I did not dodge one.

But I note that you did dodge several of mine. So, for the 3rd time, I ask you what evidence is there that Iraqi civilians- or even the then Iraqi government- had anything to do with flying planes into the World Trade Center?

OK I'll be a lot more honest than you. There is no evidence that the Iraqis had anything to do with the World Trade Center Butchery that I am aware of.

Then why when I ask about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, do you say, "The one and only legitmate purpose of government is to defend in our liberties from foreign and domestic threats. We pay for that afterall through our taxes. So, in that sence, yes I support what was done in Irag and in Afganistan, even though I still believe that it far too little and far too late." If there is no evidence that Iraqis had anything to do with the World Trade Center Butchery, why do you support the seven year and still going on invasion of and war with Iraq? And if there is no evidence that Iraqis had anything to do with the World Trade Center Butchery, why would you say of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I still believe that it far too little and far too late"?

Now to get back to the subject at hand, which you have dodged all over the place. You are the one that originally took exception to Mr Rudd's statement, show me where he is wrong in what he stated and why he is in error.

I did not dodge anything. And I did not take exception to Mr. Rudd's statement. I simply asked, "Some day, when Muslims are in the majority, they will have their own Prime Minister of Australia. Will you still agree with the Prime Minister then?" But instead of trying to think about it and answer the question I asked, your smart assed reply was, "So I guess your solution would be to to bow down and kiss their behinds and then allow the muslim thugs to rape, pillage and murder, simply because of being afraid of offending them." But that does nothing to address my question about how you and Mr. Rudd might think about the same dynamic when you and he are among the minority in a Muslim majority nation.

But instead of answering, you make all manner of various false accusations about me- but about things I did not say. And then you have the audacity to say that I have "dodged all over the place". Physician, heal thyself first.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:That has been the point of my posts here all along- that Cato (who says "As far as the muslim world goes, I don't give a tinkers damn about them.) can expect that Muslims will eventually become as ruthless in their zeal to change the western world to their purposes as white Europeans and the U.S. government was 2, 3 and 4 centuries ago. And, to be sure, today's god of Islam is a hell of a lot more militant than that of today's Christians. I think that Cato and most other Americans would be well advised to give more than a "tinkers damn" about the Islamic agenda to either convert or eradicate the infidels.

And therein lays the fallacy of your arguments. You’re comparing Muslims to what you term "European invaders" when they were not invaders at all, they were immigrants looking for a new land.

They invaded a land that was already someone else's- not theirs. You can call that "immigration". But it was an invasion- an invasion that had to take on centuries of violence against native Americans to endure.

And in doing so, they didn't leave Europe and head to established countries in the Middle East or Africa and try to change those established countries, they went to a new land, largely inhabited and unoccupied and set up settlements and grew from there.

It was not a new land. It had been here for eons. And it had been inhabited by others for a very long time.

No matter how you cut it, Europeans of the 15th-17th centuries had every right to the settlements they had established as well as to move to new, unoccupied lands just as nomadic Asian tribes had done.

We just simply disagree on that. The "right" to do that was not established just because that is what the Europeans wanted to do.

From there, because of hospitalities and acts of violence from BOTH sides, what resulted was a century’s long war between nomadic Indian Americans and settled European Americans and like it or not Ziggy, when one fights a war, the goal is to win.

The "European Americans" were not "settled". They were by and large economic and military expansionists who wanted nothing less that to own and control North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As to the "goal" of war, if the only goal is to "win", but without the moral authority to prevail, then the party not having the moral authority to prevail neither deserves to "win" that war, nor even the moral right to fight in that war.

Yet you exempt the Amerindians from any blame because you claim since they arrived before Europeans, they had more right to the land.

That is not quite what I said, but close.

By that reasoning, Australians or Americans are justified if they commit acts of violence against Muslims up to and including murdering the entire family after brutally raping the women and torturing the men and then desecrating their bodies after death.

That s not at all what I said. But as you said, when one fights a war, the goal is to win. And morally, the Amerindians deserved to win that one because they were defending their homeland from wannabe conquerors.

And Australians or Americans would be justified in resisting via war any peoples from other nations determined to forcibly take and control lands already occupied and controlled by Australians or Americans. But part of the problem with that is that America has recklessly squandered its right to defend itself against real agressors because it makes war in places like Vietnam, and later Iraq, and in like manner dozens of times in other nations in in both the western and eastern hemispheres when it was convenient to some economic purpose or other to do so.

"The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilize savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells."

John Flynn, 1944

ziggy wrote:

Then why when I ask about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, do you say, "The one and only legitmate purpose of government is to defend in our liberties from foreign and domestic threats. We pay for that afterall through our taxes. So, in that sence, yes I support what was done in Irag and in Afganistan, even though I still believe that it far too little and far too late." If there is no evidence that Iraqis had anything to do with the World Trade Center Butchery, why do you support the seven year and still going on invasion of and war with Iraq? And if there is no evidence that Iraqis had anything to do with the World Trade Center Butchery, why would you say of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I still believe that it far too little and far too late"?

I don't support the 7 year war and I never have. First, as you have so vividely pointed out there was no reason for the war and secondly, even if there was, we certainly never fought it to win. Third, an the issue that really rags me is that the politicians on both sides of isle used the invasion for political gain. Finally, the public didn't have the wherewithal to stick with it oncew the politican committed the military as a vast majority of the public seem to want to begin with.

ziggy wrote:I did not dodge anything. And I did not take exception to Mr. Rudd's statement. I simply asked, "Some day, when Muslims are in the majority, they will have their own Prime Minister of Australia. Will you still agree with the Prime Minister then?" But instead of trying to think about it and answer the question I asked, your smart assed reply was, "So I guess your solution would be to to bow down and kiss their behinds and then allow the muslim thugs to rape, pillage and murder, simply because of being afraid of offending them." But that does nothing to address my question about how you and Mr. Rudd might think about the same dynamic when you and he are among the minority in a Muslim majority nation.

So we also should tuck tail and bow down to a group of people simply because they may be the majority one day? Oh by the way you still haven't answer the question either.

ziggy wrote:But instead of answering, you make all manner of various false accusations about me- but about things I did not say. And then you have the audacity to say that I have "dodged all over the place". Physician, heal thyself first.

Really, well sorry about your tough luck. However, the fact remains, your posts convicted you. I just told you what your posts said.

You're arguements are not logical Ziggy. You ignore the fact that much of the land was sold to settlers by Indian tribes and that many of these tribes came by the lands they occupied using the methods you blame on Europeans.

Aaron wrote:You're arguements are not logical Ziggy. You ignore the fact that much of the land was sold to settlers by Indian tribes and that many of these tribes came by the lands they occupied using the methods you blame on Europeans.

By what authority do what you have said were nomadic tribes "sell" land that was used in common by several tribes? It is kind of like if Jimmy sold Ziggy the Brooklyn Bridge, then Ziggy would claim it for his exclusive use or control.

As to being or not being logical- nearly every day I find myself asking myself why did I say so and so yesterday or last week. I admit that I am not always logical. Who among us is?

So we also should tuck tail and bow down to a group of people simply because they may be the majority one day? Oh by the way you still haven't answer the question either.

So what about the 'Golden Rule'?

Stephanie wrote:I agree with you regarding the UN. I included them because so many people do hold them in high regard.

B'Tselem is an organization comprised primarily of Jews living in Israel. I pay a lot of heed to what they have to say.

I was far from impressed with Amnesty Internation's Site, but a look at B'Tselem's shows it very well done and making an even handed case.

Obviously the harm done to civilian non-combatants must be minimized by all parties involved. The humanitarian crises caused by closed borders deserves attention as well; however, that interest must be coupled with Israel's security. I am well aware that you reject the validity of Zionism, but if you are going to reason with Israel, you have to respect their right to self-protection. At the same time, the human cost of their policies in the name of security is not acceptable, either.

As far as I can tell, the Israeli-Palestinian violence is largely a case of "nobody's right when everybody's wrong." I believe, as I've previously stated, Israel's God-given right to exist, but I also accept that the government has acted poorly. Ultimately I see the United States' role as ideally non-existent. Let the Israelis and Palestinians fight it out, and Americans from either side of the matter can send support if they, individually, so choose.

SheikBen wrote:
As far as I can tell, the Israeli-Palestinian violence is largely a case of "nobody's right when everybody's wrong." I believe, as I've previously stated, Israel's God-given right to exist, but I also accept that the government has acted poorly.

Is Israel's "God-given right to exist" somehow superior to the natural right of any other peoples to exist?

Israel as the Jewish state is an institution that most folks around the world think ought not exist, including, no doubt 95% of the Palestinians. That has to factor into any "peace" calculus.

And how does that factor into the "God-given right" of ALL peoples to exist- to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

ziggy wrote:

So we also should tuck tail and bow down to a group of people simply because they may be the majority one day? Oh by the way you still haven't answer the question either.

So what about the 'Golden Rule'?

What about it? Do you tuck tail and fall over if someone threatens to harm you or your family? Is that what you expect our leaders do to?

Are the Muslims of Australia threatening to harm anyone? That is what this thread was about in the beginning.

Michael,

It is entirely possible my belief that Zionism is "evil" stems from my Catholic up-bringing. Here is why:

The priests & deacons at both St. Michael's & St Phillip's spoke of a kind, loving God. All the fire and brimstone was kept to a minimum and when I questioned both a young priest and a deacon about all the violence in the OT I was told it was symbolic. The sisters at St. Patrick HS also spoke of a benevolent God who loved all people.

I can't reconcile that with a God who would so favor some of his "children" over others to the point where it would be acceptable for one group to wage war, displace, and attempt to eliminate the other.

In my mind, when it comes to the issue of Zionism, the existance of the God of the Bible is irrelevant. Whether he exists or not, the carnage of the Zionists is inexcusable.

I agree whole-heartedly our government needs to stay out of the entire ordeal.

ziggy wrote:And how does that factor into the "God-given right" of ALL peoples to exist- to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

What exactly do you mean by this?

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:And how does that factor into the "God-given right" of ALL peoples to exist- to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

What exactly do you mean by this?

I mean what I think Jefferson meant by "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I was trying to ask in a different way the question I had asked you earler, but to which there was no reply, to wit:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:
As far as I can tell, the Israeli-Palestinian violence is largely a case of "nobody's right when everybody's wrong." I believe, as I've previously stated, Israel's God-given right to exist, but I also accept that the government has acted poorly.

Is Israel's "God-given right to exist" somehow superior to the natural right of any other peoples to exist?

Or are the people of Israel somehow more endowed than others with that, "God-given" right to exist?

As individuals, no, but as a nation, yes.

Of course to the extent that people's individual right to life and liberty are being curtailed by governments BOTH foreign and domestic, Israel and Palestine are in the wrong. But you are meshing together two different topics, here. While the treatment of the Palestinians is often wrong, there remains the real insistence on the part of the great majority of Palestinians that Israel has no right to exist as a nation.

Now you may be OK with that theory, but then the US itself has no moral authority to protect itself, either, as I'm sure a great many indigenous don't think the United States has a right to exist, either.

ziggy wrote:Are the Muslims of Australia threatening to harm anyone? That is what this thread was about in the beginning.

Governments are established to protect the people's liberty. (Of course the sorry bastards we have leading this nation don't understand that) Anyways Mr. Rudd made a valid point. Simply if you want to come to Australia to live you need to be willing to assimilate. If you aren't willing to do that then don't be here. I agree.

And Australians, just like Americans, need to be able to encompass a little change.

It is inevitable, after all.

SheikBen wrote:Of course to the extent that people's individual right to life and liberty are being curtailed by governments BOTH foreign and domestic, Israel and Palestine are in the wrong. But you are meshing together two different topics, here. While the treatment of the Palestinians is often wrong, there remains the real insistence on the part of the great majority of Palestinians that Israel has no right to exist as a nation.

Now you may be OK with that theory, but then the US itself has no moral authority to protect itself, either, as I'm sure a great many indigenous don't think the United States has a right to exist, either.

Is that a statement, or a question? If it is a question, then I answer that yes, the U.S. does have moral authority to protect itself. But as I said earlier, the U.S. has squandered away much of that moral
authority by making war around the world in so many military intrusions that had nothing to do with protecting itself from foreign threats to the U.S. The U.S. does not deserve to win wars that it had no moral authorty to start and pursue. We have been the bully of the world for too long. The chickens will eventually come home to roost.

How should Israel act, then, in defense against common terrorist activities against them?

How should Palestinians act, in defense of genocide?

Stop committing genocide against the Palestinians?

That would help convince me that they really want peace.

Steph beat me to it.

It really upsets me more than mere words could ever express that so many people think the Palestinians should just lay down and die like dogs. I don't hate Jews. I certainly don't hate Hebrews, my only grandchild is 25% Hebrew. While the older I get the more useless "hate" becomes and the less energy I find myself able to commit to it, I sure do loathe fanatical Zionism.

While my opinion on this subject has come 540 degrees on this subject and I'm certainly not defending Israel, I can't help but point out that it was the Arab/Muslim world that declared war on Israel in 1948 when that country became a recognized nation.