Start at the beginning. (What better place to start?)
This video segment is just short of 13 minutes in duration. It's the first of a three-part series focusing on the basics of the Qur'an, from Abdullah Saeed, the Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne.
I can't even review this video segment myself, at the moment, because of a room conflict. I will have at it later tonight or Monday.
It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic Jihadist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the Jihadists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.
It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:
“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”
“No you didn’t.”
“Wait, what? Yes we did…”
“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”
“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”
“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”
“Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”
“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”
“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”
“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”
“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”
“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”
“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”
Does one death by islam bother you? How about 270,000,000 + million murders by "the religion of peace" in the past 1,400 years. Or only 192,837.143 per year. Regardless of wars, they slaughter a whole lot of people. Not even saying what they do to animals. Of which you can EASILY find on the internets.
109 is such a small number when dealing with muslims. Think bigger, then you can see.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: All I can say is that this very argument is how the Democrats sold obama care.
"We have to approve the Qur'an so that you can find out what's in it." ~ Akbar Bin-Shadeball
Another tragic weekend, across the world. Mass murder and maiming in Istanbul, with a particularly heavy toll on the city's riot police. Last I saw, the voices of the Turkish national government were saying that it was (likely) some militant Kurdish group. Three days of nation-wide mourning declared for Egypt, after the mass murder and maiming at the main Coptic Christian cathedral and adjacent buildings in Cairo.
If I really thought that these tragedies could be boiled all the way down to just one single or unitary cause--"Islam", or the Qur'an--maybe I wouldn't try to make any time at all for "levity" in these discussions.
I'm not ready to view the YouTube video segment that I posted. That was my immediate response to what MeM started out with, and the way that he "framed" this. I think it's a good response.
At this point, I do not know that after I "roll" it for myself--I've not yet "rolled" any of that YouTube segment--that I will see it as any kind of on-point response to MeM's "just for openers" style of post, here. The one from MeM that got this little ball rolling. I think it's possible, but not a slam dunk; not by any means.
I didn't just pull Abdullah Saeed out of my *you know what*. I have read one of his Qur'an-related essays, about what the Qur'an means to him, and about what he thinks it should mean to any THINKING Muslim (Chill out, ISIS. Not talkin' 'bout YOU here. Or Al Qaeda. Or Boko Harum. Or any "lone wolves" or jihadist "cells".)
I'm not ready to view the YouTube video segment that I posted. That was my immediate response........
At this point, I do not know that after I "roll" it for myself--I've not yet "rolled" any of that YouTube segment--that I will see it as any kind of on-point response to MeM's "just for openers" style of post, here. The one from MeM that got this little ball rolling. I think it's possible, but not a slam dunk; not by any means.
I didn't just pull Abdullah Saeed out of my *you know what*. I have read one of his Qur'an-related essays, about what the Qur'an means to him, and about what he thinks it should mean to any THINKING Muslim
And reasoning like this (about obama care ) is one major reason Trump won the election.
Your defense of islam in this thread is pathetic at best, and any THINKING person would conclude that your copy paste responses and admission of ignorance within them are a joke. Much like the pathetic comic rinse alter ego.
Al Qaeda used a variety of formats, and particularly, the Internet and the World Wide Web, to advertise its counterfeit version of Islam all around the world, for the purpose of recruiting Muslims (and also non-Muslims who could be coopted or converted) to the Al Qaeda cause.
More recently, ISIS entered the extremism "game" and mastered the use of various global electronic communications platforms (Telegram has become the "hot one") to overtake Al Qaeda and capture the "pole position" in this "race".
Younis Abdullah Mohammed was an Islamic extremist and an Al Qaeda recruiter.
Jesse Morton is a research fellow and a part of the ongoing program at George Washington University to deconstruct the radical Islamist ideologies, and to formulate effective ways of standing up against Islamic extremism and steering younger and more impressionable Muslims (and non-Muslims) away from becoming radicalized.
Younis Abdullah Mohammed and Jesse Morton are the same person.
One of the events in this "Mr Hyde reverts to Dr Jekyll" transformation was when Younis (or Jesse) was incarcerated in solitary confinement and began to review the Qur'an on his own, away from the influence and the coaching of the radical imams who steered him towards the counterfeit Islam of Al Qaeda.
This, according to New York Times researcher and reporter Rukmini Callimachi, who has become one of the more widely respected investigators on the radical Islamist "beat". She has an hour-plus video presentation on YouTube, and if you use the link that I am about to provide, it will queue directly to the moment when she starts talking about her conversations with Jesse Morton. This is just over four minutes of her hour-plus presentation, and in YouTube "coordinates", the segment on Jesse Morton starts at 42:24 and stops at 46:52. Minutes and seconds.
For more background on Rukmini Callimachi and how she earned her reputation as an expert reporter on the radical Islamist networks and ideologies, Wired Magazine has it for you online, in an eminently readable column that is presented after the banner of "How One Journalist Uses Social Media To Get Inside The Minds Of ISIS."
So what's the bottom line here? If this post were at the top of the thread, the thread would be known as "Some carefully researched reasons NOT to believe MidEngineManiac, Rickady88GT and any number of other Pennock's posters when they try to pass off the counterfeit Islam of Al Qaeda and ISIS as real Islam.
MidEngineManiac, Rickady88GT, and "company" are being sucked in by the likes of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (etc.), who have created a "nice" online cottage industry for themselves, by passing off the counterfeit Islam of the Muslim extremists as real Islam. Just like the Muslim extremists that are on the other side of that very same funhouse mirror. It's a two-way mirror that distorts reality from both the back side--the Muslim extremists themselves--and the front side, where the so-called "counter jihad" of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (et al) is to be found.
That's the bottom line.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-23-2016).]
I think" the bottom line" is, there are a bunch of folks who just don't care what you say about that religion, or world-changing insights some of their followers might be or whatever... You might as call it Hillaryism.
You will NEVER convince them of anything, whether it be objectively true or not. You might as well be the one slowly slicing through a victim's neck, or lighting them on fire, or dipping them in boiling oil, or whatever barbaric act they choose to do this week.
I suspect folks have rinselberg fatigue, but feel free to continue to devote the time to sway the masses in the OT area of a discontinued car forum. (the car is discontinued, not the forum. you know what I mean...)
I do enjoy the non-religious stuff you post.
Happy Holidays and happy new year. Lets hope the next year is one leaning heavily towards the "good guys" (whoever they are)
[This message has been edited by TheDigitalAlchemist (edited 12-23-2016).]
Yeah, um, no. Numbers do not lie, and as you write your last post, more murders are being committed in the name of allah.
I get that there are moderate and peaceful muslims. Where are they in the past few days? Or even in the past several decade4s while islam slowly creeps across the world. Their fight lasts longer than your comprehension.
Here is the thesis: Rebellion must have an unassailable base, something guarded not merely from attack, but from the fear of it: such a base as the Arab revolt had in the Red Sea ports, the desert, or in the minds of men converted to its creed. It must have a sophisticated alien enemy, in the form of a disciplined army of occupation too small to fulfil the doctrine of acreage: too few to adjust number to space, in order to dominate the whole area effectively from fortified posts. It must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Rebellions can be made by 2% active in a striking force, and 98% passively sympathetic. The few active rebels must have the qualities of speed and endurance, ubiquity and independence of arteries of supply. They must have the technical equipment to destroy or paralyze the enemy’s organized communications, for irregular war is fairly Willisen’s definition of strategy, “the study of communication,” in its extreme degree, of attack where the enemy is not. In 50 words: Granted mobility, security (in the form of denying targets to the enemy), time, and doctrine (the idea to convert every subject to friendliness), victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive, and against them perfections of means and spirit struggle quite in vain.
Yeah, um, no. Numbers do not lie, and as you write your last post, more murders are being committed in the name of allah.
I get that there are moderate and peaceful muslims. Where are they in the past few days? Or even in the past several decade4s while islam slowly creeps across the world. Their fight lasts longer than your comprehension.
Eh, **** it. Figure it out for yourselves.
I would guess other Muslims are being killed in larger numbers than whites or lets say Westerners. Do you think the moderate and peaceful Muslims are ok with that too because they haven't managed to stop it? I didn't see many Catholics stopping the abuse of young boys all in the name of Christ by priests and brothers, in fact I would submit there was systemic cover up. I guess all the good Catholics were ok with it? I don't believe that but using the logic many on here do then that's what they would conclude. Some sickos represent the whole bunch, they're different so it's ok to fear and hate. Driving each side further apart isn't going to help IMO. In fact my opinion is that the vast majority of any religious or non religious people want to live and let live, want a better life for their children, and want to enjoy themselves without harming others. There are plenty of people no matter who or what they might follow or not follow that are evil and do bad things but I still believe in humanity, even with all our flaws.
From a man who knew "these people". It's been 100 years since the heyday of Lawrence of Arabia. Muslims haven't completely transformed (changed) during the last 100 years, but neither have they remained entirely the same.
From a man who knew "these people". It's been 100 years since the heyday of Lawrence of Arabia. Muslims haven't completely transformed (changed) during the last 100 years, but neither have they remained completely the same.
I blame the media for not showing the the Muslim rebuke of terrorism. I also blame the Muslim community who have avoided the media to prevent internal strife for those rebukes....
If everyone would simply take stand and choose a side, this could be over very quickly, It's the fear labels and retaliation that fuels the silence allowing terrorist to increase through recruitment. Seriously, peer pressure carries a lot of weight and more pressure is being applied from the terrorist side than the world.
Victim's screams are rewards for them and glorifies their faith. Only when the true Muslim Community is revealed and their disapproval of terrorism are known, will terrorism lose it's appeal to disgruntled Muslims seeking a finale attempt to gain honor through false doctrine....
IMO Many documented Christian atrocities were ended only when Christians challenged the interpretation theology being used to justify it. Until then, just like modern terrorist who falsely think they are honoring their GOD. The first flaws in their thinking is the assumption that any act on their part give them the authority to expect praise or Glorification from God. Our deeds are not a price to secure a better after life, it just the cost of doing business in this life......
Did anyone notice Obuma tried to sneak the UN into shutting down Israel building in 'Palistinian territory' this week ? Someone here, prob Jaski, said there was no evidence Obuma hates Israel...so there you go. Trump got wind of it and put pressure to shut down that UN vote before it happened and hes not even sworn in yet. Israel is the ONLY friend we have in the middle east, yet the current administration tries to tromp on them at every opportunity. He even gave Netanyahu's opponent money for his campaign against him. I also heard Obuma is trying to permanently shut down arctic oil drilling as his final act of disdain. Trump will reverse that since he wants the US to make more oil.
This is a single minute of UN Ambassador Samantha Power's statement as she declared that the United States would abstain from either supporting or vetoing this latest UN resolution about Israel and the Palestinians. This is the Obama administration's way of allowing the UN resolution to emerge from the Security Council as "adopted" or "accepted" by the Security Council, but without the formal and explicit approval of the United States.
I heard quite a bit of "Sam's" (Samantha Powers) statement, and I did not hear a single word, sentence or paragraph that I disagree with. I would like to see the complete statement posted on YouTube or somewhere online where I can listen to it from start to finish. It may be a little too soon for that, as it only happened within the last hour or so.
If the complete statement lives up to my expectations when I can review it, I predict that my reaction will be Hoorah. Kudos to Samantha Powers and to President Obama on this issue. They said "a right thing". Unfortunately, the circumstances are such that they cannot DO or EFFECT "a right thing". But they SAID "a right thing". Perhaps the Obama administration is at fault for not coming down harder against Israel's ever-expanding settlements "attitude" before this moment. Perhaps not.
I don't know that this abstention on the UN resolution will improve anything, but I think it was the perfect way for Obama to handle it. This is in line with Obama's recent predecessors in the Oval Office.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-23-2016).]
109, 109. Do I hear 120? How about 115? Is there a 110 here? A 110 in the house? Should I drop the hammer? This cream puff is loaded and it could still be yours. Now's not the time to let the cat get your tongue, if you've got an open parking space in your garage.
109, 109. Do I hear 120? How about 115? Is there a 110 here? A 110 in the house? Should I drop the hammer? This cream puff is loaded and it could still be yours. Now's not the time to let the cat get your tongue, if you've got an open parking space in your garage.
110 reasons... very droll. Now I have a response to the "PragerU" video that was posted by Pennock's jmbishop.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop:
The narrator is a man. The son of Muslim immigrants to the United Kingdom, from Pakistan.
He describes how he learned to share a hatred for Jewish people that is connected to the modern day state of Israel and the modern day conflicts that link the Jews of Israel and their supporters with Palestinians, in an antagonistic way.
He describes how the experiences that he gave himself, culminating in his going to Israel himself, on a "fact finding trip", brought him to relinquish this hatred.
Nowhere in this brief video does he connect the hatred for Jewish people that he learned at a younger age with the Qu'ran, or with anything more specifically Islamic than "speakers and teaches at mosques and schools in the 1990s." That would include speakers and teachers who were Muslim, and possibly, some others who were not Muslim, but who shared the same animus against the modern day state of Israel.
Did he find it necessary to disavow his belief in Islam--to rid himself entirely of his cultural and religious inheritance of "Muslim-ness"--after this process that led him to abandon his hatred towards the modern day state of Israel and towards the Jewish people of the present day? Or does he still consider himself a Muslim?
In the context of this discussion, the question that I have just put forward here--whether or not the narrator of this video still regards himself as a Muslim--is a really big deal.
It would be a signal omission from this narrative if he no longer considers himself a Muslim. That would be a revelation about himself that absolutely has to come at the end of the video. Otherwise, we are not being well informed by this "lesson" from the world renowned institute of higher learning that is PragerU.
I think he still considers himself a Muslim, but that is just my "take". The video is not explicit about this.
Still regards himself as a Muslim, or a Muslim no more--what do you think?
What are the takeaways from this video, and how does it support or contradict the material at TheReligionOfPeace website that MidEngineManiac posted (via link) at the very start of this "discussion"..?
Does something as brief and as truncated as this 4+ minutes of video from "PragerU" provide enough in the way of substance for any reasonable person to "hang their hat on"..?
A rhetorical question for sure.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-28-2016).]
If everyone would simply take stand and choose a side, this could be over very quickly, It's the fear labels and retaliation that fuels the silence allowing terrorist to increase through recruitment. Seriously, peer pressure carries a lot of weight and more pressure is being applied from the terrorist side than the world.
Perhaps when they do it would result in a much larger ISIS.
I would guess other Muslims are being killed in larger numbers than whites or lets say Westerners. Do you think the moderate and peaceful Muslims are ok with that too because they haven't managed to stop it?
No. I do not want all muslims dead. Contrary to any beliefs held, I am more than willing to bet the house that I have more muslim acquaintances than you would even believe. 34 years growing up with them.
quote
I didn't see many Catholics stopping the abuse of young boys all in the name of Christ by priests and brothers, in fact I would submit there was systemic cover up. I guess all the good Catholics were ok with it?
Again, I find abuse of children the GREATEST offense. I grew up catholic. I no longer follow any religion.
quote
I don't believe that but using the logic many on here do then that's what they would conclude. Some sickos represent the whole bunch, they're different so it's ok to fear and hate. Driving each side further apart isn't going to help IMO. In fact my opinion is that the vast majority of any religious or non religious people want to live and let live, want a better life for their children, and want to enjoy themselves without harming others. There are plenty of people no matter who or what they might follow or not follow that are evil and do bad things but I still believe in humanity, even with all our flaws.
I can nearly fully agree with you here. It is just the whole islam thing that gets in the way of things like women's and children's freedoms. They are not like what you think. Or even how I think. You believe one thing, but they are working towards extinguishing any religion or person that does not follow the males in their religion.
I ask this... What if we let islam run free? What do you think would happen? Don't think like you. Think like them.
That's what the Law of the Land (United States) is all about. Freedom, in so far as the latitude allowed for any one person or group (like Islam) does not subtract from anyone else's freedom.
Seems like the number of Muslim immigrants and refugees that the U.S. has let in over the last five or so years of conflict, from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, much of Africa, Afghanistan, and Myanmar--the "Rohingya"--is just a drop in the bucket, compared to the numbers that have been let into the United Kingdom (pre-Brexit) and some of the other major countries in Europe; especially Germany.
This thread was put forward as "109 reasons not to believe Rinse and friends".
That can be reworded as "109 reasons not to believe rinselberg" without discarding any essential meaning.
Believe rinselberg about what?
I have not posted in favor of the U.S. taking in as many Muslims as could be imagined from all around the world. I have not posted in favor of the U.S. opening its doors to Muslim immigrants and refugees in the same big way as has happened across Europe. If our soon to be President Trump has changes in mind, concerning how the U.S. admits immigrants and refugees from foreign countries, I am not rejecting any of his ideas, a priori.
I yield the forum to the next member who wants to "speak".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-28-2016).]
Rinse its simple...you are a muzzie apologist because you lefties view it as a religious freedom issue.
"My" side is against them because we view it as a security, legal and forced life-system issue.
They wanna worship snack bar then nobody cares. The problem arises when they want to impose their shira and value system on the unwilling by force. A life and value system that is wholly incompatible with western values.
Its not like they aren't proving our sides point on a daily basis.
This is a single minute of UN Ambassador Samantha Power's statement as she declared that the United States would abstain from either supporting or vetoing this latest UN resolution about Israel and the Palestinians. This is the Obama administration's way of allowing the UN resolution to emerge from the Security Council as "adopted" or "accepted" by the Security Council, but without the formal and explicit approval of the United States.
I heard quite a bit of "Sam's" (Samantha Powers) statement, and I did not hear a single word, sentence or paragraph that I disagree with. I would like to see the complete statement posted on YouTube or somewhere online where I can listen to it from start to finish. It may be a little too soon for that, as it only happened within the last hour or so.
If the complete statement lives up to my expectations when I can review it, I predict that my reaction will be Hoorah. Kudos to Samantha Powers and to President Obama on this issue. They said "a right thing". Unfortunately, the circumstances are such that they cannot DO or EFFECT "a right thing". But they SAID "a right thing". Perhaps the Obama administration is at fault for not coming down harder against Israel's ever-expanding settlements "attitude" before this moment. Perhaps not.
I don't know that this abstention on the UN resolution will improve anything, but I think it was the perfect way for Obama to handle it. This is in line with Obama's recent predecessors in the Oval Office.
The full text of Samantha Power's address to the United Nations Security Council concerning the resolution against Israeli settlements, on Dec 23rd 2016
Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me begin with a quote: “The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.”
This was said in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan. He was speaking about a new proposal that he was launching to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While ultimately, of course, President Reagan’s proposal was not realized, his words are still illuminating in at least two respects.
First, because they underscore the United States’ deep and long-standing commitment to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. That has been the policy of every administration, Republican and Democrat, since before President Reagan and all the way through to the present day.
Second, because President Reagan’s words highlight the United States’ long-standing position that Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 undermines Israel’s security, harms the viability of a negotiated two-state outcome, and erodes prospects for peace and stability in the region. Today, the Security Council reaffirmed its established consensus that settlements have no legal validity. The United States has been sending the message that the settlements must stop – privately and publicly – for nearly five decades, through the administrations of Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama. Indeed, since 1967, the only president who had not had at least one Israeli-Palestinian-related Security Council resolution pass during his tenure is Barack Obama. So our vote today is fully in line with the bipartisan history of how American Presidents have approached both the issue – and the role of this body.
Given the consistency of this position across U.S. administrations, one would think that it would be a routine vote for the U.S. to allow the passage of a resolution with the elements in this one, reaffirming the long-standing U.S. position on settlements, condemning violence and incitement, and calling for the parties to start taking constructive steps to reverse current trends on the ground. These are familiar, well-articulated components of U.S. policy.
But in reality this vote for us was not straightforward, because of where it is taking place – at the United Nations. For the simple truth is that for as long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations. And not only in decades past – such as in the infamous resolution that the General Assembly adopted in 1975, with the support of the majority of Member States, officially determining that, “Zionism is a form of racism” – but also in 2016, this year. One need only look at the 18 resolutions against Israel adopted during the UN General Assembly in September; or the 12 Israel-specific resolutions adopted this year in the Human Rights Council – more than those focused on Syria, North Korea, Iran, and South Sudan put together – to see that in 2016 Israel continues to be treated differently from other Member States.
Like U.S. administrations before it, the Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to fight for Israel’s right simply to be treated just like any other country – from advocating for Israel to finally be granted membership to a UN regional body, something no other UN Member State had been denied; to fighting to ensure that Israeli NGOs are not denied UN accreditation, simply because they are Israeli, to getting Yom Kippur finally recognized as a UN holiday; to pressing this Council to break its indefensible silence in response to terrorist attacks on Israelis. As the United States has said repeatedly, such unequal treatment not only hurts Israel, it undermines the legitimacy of the United Nations itself.
The practice of treating Israel differently at the UN matters for votes like this one. For even if one believes that the resolution proposed today is justified – or, even more, necessitated – by events on the ground, one cannot completely separate the vote from the venue.
And Member States that say they are for the two-state solution must ask themselves some difficult questions. For those states that are quick to promote resolutions condemning Israel, but refuse to recognize when innocent Israelis are the victims of terrorism – what steps will you take to stop treating Israel differently? For those states that passionately denounce the closures of crossings in Gaza as exacerbating the humanitarian situation, but saying nothing of the resources diverted from helping Gaza’s residents to dig tunnels into Israeli territory so that terrorists can attack Israelis in their homes – what will you do to end the double-standard that undermines the legitimacy of this institution?
Member States should also ask themselves about the double standards when it comes to this Council taking action. Just this morning we came together, as a Council, and we were unable to muster the will to act to stop the flow of weapons going to killers in South Sudan, who are perpetrating mass atrocities that the UN has said could lead to genocide. We couldn’t come together just to stem the flow of arms. Earlier this month, this Council could not muster the will to adopt the simplest of resolutions calling for a seven-day pause in the savage bombardment of innocent civilians, hospitals, and schools in Aleppo. Yet when a resolution on Israel comes before this Council, members suddenly summon the will to act.
It is because this forum too often continues to be biased against Israel; because there are important issues that are not sufficiently addressed in this resolution; and because the United States does not agree with every word in this text, that the United States did not vote in favor of the resolution. But it is because this resolution reflects the facts on the ground – and is consistent with U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administration throughout the history of the State of Israel – that the United States did not veto it.
The United States has consistently said we would block any resolution that we thought would undermine Israel’s security or seek to impose a resolution to the conflict. We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence, which we’ve repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the Palestinian leadership, and which, of course, must be stopped.
Unlike some on the UN Security Council, we do not believe that outside parties can impose a solution that has not been negotiated by the two parties. Nor can we unilaterally recognize a future Palestinian state. But it is precisely our commitment to Israel’s security that makes the United States believe that we cannot stand in the way of this resolution as we seek to preserve a chance of attaining our long-standing objective: two states living side-by-side in peace and security. Let me briefly explain why.
The settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now putting at risk the very viability of that two-state solution. The number of settlers in the roughly 150 authorized Israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has increased dramatically. Since the 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords – which launched efforts that made a comprehensive and lasting peace possible – the number of settlers has increased by 355,000. The total settler population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem now exceeds 590,000. Nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the separation barrier that was created by Israel itself. And just since July 2016 – when the Middle East Quartet issued a report highlighting international concern about a systematic process of land seizures, settlement expansions, and legalizations – Israel has advanced plans for more than 2,600 new settlement units. Yet rather than dismantling these and other settler outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing in the Israeli Knesset that would legalize most of the outposts – a factor that propelled the decision by this resolution’s sponsors to bring it before the Council.
The Israeli Prime Minister recently described his government as “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history,” and one of his leading coalition partners recently declared that “the era of the two-state solution is over.” At the same time, the Prime Minister has said that he is still committed to pursuing a two-state solution. But these statements are irreconcilable. One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict. One has to make a choice between settlements and separation.
In 2011, the United States vetoed a resolution that focused exclusively on settlements, as if settlements were they only factor harming the prospects of a two-state solution. The circumstances have changed dramatically. Since 2011, settlement growth has only accelerated. Since 2011, multiple efforts to pursue peace through negotiations have failed. And since 2011, President Obama and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly warned – publically and privately – that the absence of progress toward peace and continued settlement expansion was going to put the two-state solution at risk, and threaten Israel’s stated objective to remain both a Jewish State and a democracy. Moreover, unlike in 2011, this resolution condemns violence, terrorism and incitement, which also poses an extremely grave risk to the two-state solution. This resolution reflects trends that will permanently destroy the hope of a two-state solution if they continue on their current course.
The United States has not taken the step of voting in support of this resolution because the resolution is too narrowly focused on settlements, when we all know – or we all should know – that many other factors contribute significantly to the tensions that perpetuate this conflict. Let us be clear: even if every single settlement were to be dismantled tomorrow, peace still would not be attainable without both sides acknowledging uncomfortable truths and making difficult choices. That is an indisputable fact. Yet it is one that is too often overlooked by members of the United Nations and by members of this Council.
For Palestinian leaders, that means recognizing the obvious: that in addition to taking innocent lives – the incitement to violence, the glorification of terrorists, and the growth of violent extremism erodes prospects for peace, as this resolution makes crystal clear. The most recent wave of Palestinian violence has seen terrorists commit hundreds of attacks – including driving cars into crowds of innocent civilians and stabbing mothers in front of their children. Yet rather than condemn these attacks, Hamas, other radical factions, and even certain members of Fatah have held up the terrorists as heroes, and used social media to incite others to follow in their murderous footsteps. And while President Abbas and his party’s leaders have made clear their opposition to violence, terrorism, and extremism, they have too often failed to condemn specific attacks or condemn the praised heaped upon the perpetrators.
Our vote today does not in any way diminish the United States’ steadfast and unparalleled commitment to the security of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by Palestinians. We have to recognize that Israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure there is not a new terrorist haven next door. President Obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to Israel’s security because that is what we believe in.
Our commitment to that security has never wavered, and it never will. Even with a financial crisis and budget deficits, we’ve repeatedly increased funding to support Israel’s military. And in September, the Obama administration signed a Memorandum of Understanding to provide $38 billion in security assistance to Israel over the next 10 years – the largest single pledge of military assistance in U.S. history to any country. And as the Israeli Prime Minister himself has noted, our military and intelligence cooperation is unprecedented. We believe, though, that continued settlement building seriously undermines Israel’s security.
Some may cast the U.S. vote as a sign that we have finally given up on a two-state solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. None of us can give up on a two-state solution. We continue to believe that that solution is the only viable path to provide peace and security for the state of Israel, and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And we continue to believe that the parties can still pursue this path, if both sides are honest about the choices, and have the courage to take steps that will be politically difficult. While we can encourage them, it is ultimately up to the parties to choose this path, as it always has been. We sincerely hope that they will begin making these choices before it is too late.
"they want to impose their shira and value system on the unwilling by force. A life and value system that is wholly incompatible with western values. Its not like they aren't proving our sides point on a daily basis."
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Rinse its simple...you are a muzzie apologist because you lefties view it as a religious freedom issue.
"My" side is against them because we view it as a security, legal and forced life-system issue.
They wanna worship snack bar then nobody cares. The problem arises when they want to impose their shira and value system on the unwilling by force. A life and value system that is wholly incompatible with western values.
Its not like they aren't proving our sides point on a daily basis.
"You"--and by that I mean your Pennock's Off Topic persona or brand--have lost track of where your freedoms end and others' freedoms begin. The freedoms of other groups and individuals that are just as much a part of Canada as are you. Even more so, when you project your ideas across an international border and present them in the context of the United States.
As far as that statement at the very end,
quote
It's not like they aren't proving our sides point on a daily basis.
I don't believe that any human institution, system or endeavor in recorded history has ever been perfected. No religion has ever perfected the conduct of all of its claimants. Not Christianity. Not Islam. Not Judaism. Not Buddhism or Hinduism. Not the Wiccans. No common or shared attitude of atheism or agnosticism has ever achieved that kind of perfection, either.
There is not a system of policing in any major country that has any prospect of completely eradicating the full range of human criminality, from the more ordinary crimes of personal avarice and unchecked desires, to the far more extraordinary crimes of the Muslim jihadists and their sympathizers.
No nation's security apparatus can reasonably lay claim to a perfect defense against terrorists and their plots.
These are the eternal facts--the facts of human imperfectability--that create the space or opening for the deception, manipulation and demagoguery that are manifest in the closing sentence from your small presentation; again,
quote
It's not like they aren't proving our sides point on a daily basis.
If you were to go "relative" about Islam and about Muslims, and present Off Topic content in a relative way, using comparisons between Islam and other religions and theologies, and using comparisons between Muslims and other demographics, that could make some sense; but to me, you seem just about one atomic radius away from 100 percent "black and white" or "cut and dried" in your thinking. You perceive yourself as an individual. You perceive almost everyone else through the reality-distorting lenses that are group stereotypes. This comes out in your very first sentence,
quote
you are a muzzie apologist because you "lefties" . . .
There's no possibility in the current and longstanding MidEngineManiac brand for the complexity that could sustain a kind of discourse that in any way resembles a surgeon's scalpel, more than a sledgehammer.
I don't mind in the least that "you" come to me free of any additional charge, as part of my basic Pennock's "package", but I wouldn't upgrade to premium, just to have access to the MeM channel. For that, you would have to bring in some content specialists and revitalize your product. Any thoughts about a possible date for the relaunch? For Mem 2.0..?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-29-2016).]
There's no possibility in the current and longstanding MidEngineManiac brand for the complexity that could sustain a kind of discourse that in any way resembles a surgeon's scalpel, more than a sledgehammer.
Only because they don't let me play with rocket launchers anymore. Sledgehammer wasn't my 1st choice.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Any thoughts about a possible date for the relaunch? For Mem 2.0..?
Depends...when is the big "reset" on the world at large hapeneing ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
"You"--and by that I mean your Pennock's Off Topic persona or brand--have lost track of where your freedoms end and others' freedoms begin. The freedoms of other groups and individuals that are just as much a part of Canada as are you. Even more so, when you project your ideas across an international border and present them in the context of the United States.
Actually, the whole "Muzzie" or "Shira" issue is global and transcends all international borders. The whole damn world has one hell of a problem on their hands.
As to my philosophy, there is something I read when I was about 15, and has stuck firm for 35 years. Its not exactly "on thread topic" but will give you some insight at least. . Its called "Anthem" by Ayn Rand. You should read it someday, Trump did ....or in more "Sledgehammer" terms, you may THINK you have a democratic right to force me to accept Islam and Shira and co-exiost with it--but I have a sledgehammer that says zero tolerance for it in MY existence. (IOW, they have the right to shut up and pee off with their snack bars)
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 12-29-2016).]
There is nothing about islam that works with America. Period. Freedom of religion stops when religion imposes upon me. Sorry, but as usual, I will defer to my personal, documented, and vast experience in actual contact with muslims as my facts. I did not read any of my experiences. I lived them.
Edit: I will stay vigilant so that you may enjoy your readings.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 12-29-2016).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: .......but I will not try to gloss over the fact that Muslims plainly seem more vulnerable to the allure of radical and criminal ideologies.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-29-2016).]
Good Vid, only if some could see that their hatred of Muslims is born from much of the same ignorance and assumptions.
quoted from tony
Does one death by islam bother you? How about 270,000,000 + million murders by "the religion of peace" in the past 1,400 years. Or only 192,837.143 per year. Regardless of wars, they slaughter a whole lot of people. Not even saying what they do to animals. Of which you can EASILY find on the internets.
109 is such a small number when dealing with muslims. Think bigger, then you can see. end quote.
Newf... actions, show the truth.. words are easy to say.. Seems.. people thoughts on muslums.. are that way FOR A GOOD REASON..
These are the Muslims that the MEM [MidEngineManiac] "channel” and its followers don't want you to know about. The Muslims that the news editors and managers at MEM never report on, or discuss "on air". They are the Muslims who are fully vested in the cultural harmony and economic prosperity of the secular and multicultural nations that they belong to: the nations of the “West”. They want to live under secular governance, that gives no privileged status to Islam before any other religious or personal beliefs. They do not want to live under the scrutiny and duress of Islamic courts or Sharia laws—and they don’t want you to live that way, either.
Abdullah Saeed calls them the “Participant Muslims of the West”. He describes them, and their significance as the vanguard of an ongoing modernization of Islam across the globe that is slowly but steadily eroding the influence of Islamist Muslims, who want no separation between mosque and state, and their violence-minded offshoots, the Muslim jihadists of ISIS, al Qaeda; etc.
As a Muslim, Saeed practices Islam as part of his daily life. As a scholar, he has studied Islam in a systematic way since he began to come of age. As a Participant Muslim of the West, he is helping to shape multicultural dynamics within Australia, where he lives and works.
There are Participant Muslims like Abullah Saeed in every Western country, and several have been put into the limelight as the focus of some of my 5,400+ previous posts on this online discussion forum, going back to 2010 when I registered as a Pennock's member.
The YouTube video is 10 minutes "on the nose". The professor’s English is slowly cadenced, with a slight regional accent that should pose no problem whatsoever for any English language enabled viewer. It starts with some hokey, Arabic-sounding background music, but that’s only the first 8 secoonds. From then on, it’s a straightforward “chalk talk”—without the chalk. He expresses himself in a simple, straightforward speaking style that is 99 percent without any Islamic jargon or any obscure words and terminologies.
10 minutes... you're about to waste 10 minutes or more in the very near future, posting new rants about Islam that are as off-target and poorly informed as most of your previous rants. What have you got to lose? It would be counterproductive for you to skip past this brief video presentation. You may be able to work some of it into your very next rant.
More about the speaker
Abdullah Saeed is the Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne. He is also the director of the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies, a cooperative effort of the University of Melbourne, University of Western Sydney, and Griffith University; and co-director of Melbourne's Centre for Islamic Law and Society.
His publications cover Qur’anic hermeneutics, Islam and human rights, Islamic law reform, Islamic finance, Muslim communities in Australia, and Islam and freedom of religion. The list of books that he's authored includes Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam (2004); The Qur’an: An Introduction (2008); and most recently, Reading the Qur'an in the Twenty-First Century: A Contextualist Approach (2013).
A native of the Maldives, Saeed received his B.A. in Arab and Islamic Studies from the Islamic University (Saudi Arabia) and his Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from the University of Melbourne.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-19-2017).]
Again, I find the CONSTANT need to change things, even definitions and word meanings, aggravating. Honestly, between the ever changing formats on electronics that idiots recreate and call their own everyday, to definition swaps including the word "hero", this is getting out of control. Please stop.
They are not like what you think. Or even how I think. You believe one thing, but they are working towards extinguishing any religion or person that does not follow the males in their religion. 
