Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Gee-had carries consequences.

When you start a war, don't cry foul because you are trashed by a better trained, better equipped and more motivated opponent.

The crocodiles you can shed tears with are over there ------>

Who started a war?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Gee-had carries consequences.

When you start a war, don't cry foul because you are trashed by a better trained, better equipped and more motivated opponent.

The crocodiles you can shed tears with are over there ------>

Who started a war?

Link?

What war?

Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

 

[Rigby5]

So. Show me where the distinction is made in her post. In the meantime, I'll use YOUR logic and assume that Tinmore doesn't really have issues against Jews but only "Zionists".

Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: The indoctrination and exploitation of people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology which has a source in Islam.

And you can't see the difference?

It is rather difficult to "see the difference" when you create a quote from Tinmore (based on your reading of what his views are) and then quote literally from Hollie with no personal interpretation.

Try this:
Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: Islam - a religion which indoctrinates and exploits people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology.

She will go on about how Mohammed was a pedo and Islam is a religion of pedophilia if given a chance as well.

She is not separating out extremists - she was very clear.

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

Nonsense.
First of all, it is the Quran and not koran. Nor would anyone not capitalize a proper noun like that. It is just like capitalizing the Bible, or Zionist.
And no, the Quran is very clear that it is not created by God, and does have mistakes and corrections, unlike the Bible, which does claim to be perfect.
You are also lying about the Kaffir.
They are considered undisciplined and therefore dangerous and unpredictable, but Jews and Christians are not considered to be dangerous or unpredictable, and it is considered they have an equally valid path to heaven and salvation.
The Quran is very clear on harming anyone being wrong except as necessary in defense.
But your main false claim is that Islamists commit any atrocities at all.
They do not and can not, if they are Islamists.
You just do not know what an atrocity is.
And there are no innocent Israelis when they knowingly occupy homes and farms that were illegally stolen from the indigenous native owners.

 

[Coyote]

So. Show me where the distinction is made in her post. In the meantime, I'll use YOUR logic and assume that Tinmore doesn't really have issues against Jews but only "Zionists".

Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: The indoctrination and exploitation of people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology which has a source in Islam.

And you can't see the difference?

It is rather difficult to "see the difference" when you create a quote from Tinmore (based on your reading of what his views are) and then quote literally from Hollie with no personal interpretation.

Try this:
Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: Islam - a religion which indoctrinates and exploits people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology.

She will go on about how Mohammed was a pedo and Islam is a religion of pedophilia if given a chance as well.

She is not separating out extremists - she was very clear.

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the kuffar and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

I've also read the Koran, as well as a history of Mohammed and some other history. My focus has not been confined or constrained by looking only for information on Jihad. There are a lot of rules and regulations in Islam, on how to treat people, enemies, conduct warfare, etc etc as well as frankly contradictory information. There is a lot of good stuff as well as violent stuff. It's a lot like the Bible in that sense which also had people doing horrible things to other people in the name of their religion.

What tends to strike me about your focus is it's narrowness. For example you claim atrocities (and I'm presuming you mean such as ISIS perpetrated) are perfectly Islamic, yet Islamic leaders and clerics around the world denounced it as unIslamic (I guess you know better than they about their religion and you consider them to be misguided?).

It's not worth arguing because we have clearly different points of view here, though I do agree that Islam in many parts of the world needs a reformation.

So am I correct in that your statements apply to Islam as a whole and all Muslims - not just Palestinians?

 

[Coyote]

So. Show me where the distinction is made in her post. In the meantime, I'll use YOUR logic and assume that Tinmore doesn't really have issues against Jews but only "Zionists".

Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: The indoctrination and exploitation of people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology which has a source in Islam.

And you can't see the difference?

It is rather difficult to "see the difference" when you create a quote from Tinmore (based on your reading of what his views are) and then quote literally from Hollie with no personal interpretation.

Try this:
Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: Islam - a religion which indoctrinates and exploits people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology.

She will go on about how Mohammed was a pedo and Islam is a religion of pedophilia if given a chance as well.

She is not separating out extremists - she was very clear.

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

Nonsense.
First of all, it is the Quran and not koran. Nor would anyone not capitalize a proper noun like that. It is just like capitalizing the Bible, or Zionist.
And no, the Quran is very clear that it is not created by God, and does have mistakes and corrections, unlike the Bible, which does claim to be perfect.
You are also lying about the Kaffir.
They are considered undisciplined and therefore dangerous and unpredictable, but Jews and Christians are not considered to be dangerous or unpredictable, and it is considered they have an equally valid path to heaven and salvation.
The Quran is very clear on harming anyone being wrong except as necessary in defense.
But your main false claim is that Islamists commit any atrocities at all.
They do not and can not, if they are Islamists.
You just do not know what an atrocity is.
And there are no innocent Israelis when they knowingly occupy homes and farms that were illegally stolen from the indigenous native owners.

It can be the Quran or Koran - it's in Arabic script anyway.

 

[Rigby5]

There are many many Palestinians who just want a decent life for themselves and their families and see nothing coming from leadership, corruption, and constant threats of violence from Israel. Infrastructure is repeatedly targeted and destroyed. Embargos place severe restrictions on how they live. Many of the people massing at the border fence aren't "Islamic terrorists" but just plain fed up and desperate people. People who are sick and tired of seeing their agriculture destroyed, children assaulted by stone throwing settlers and land taken.

Your response here absolutely REEKS of "its all the Jews fault".

"If only the Jews would stop attacking the poor, innocent Arabs so that the Arabs could just have a decent life for themselves, then everything would be rainbows and unicorns."

You pretend that the culture of violence and the ideology of mass murder and suicide is nothing but a response to Jewish "evil", as if the "Jews made them do it".

Tinmore couldn't have said it better.

Oh bullshit. You are totally ignoring the complexity of the issue - TOTALLY. I'm not laying blame - I'm calling bull on your claim that it is entirely one sided and simplistic. You know it isn't. So quit jumping to the "it's the Jooooos" victimhood defense!

Oh please.

Hollie's paragraph was about ideology.

If you want me to stop using the "Joooooooos victimhood defense" STOP giving me cause to.

You can do that by addressing Hollie's points in her post. Instead of (one-sidedly and without context) listing all the things which Israel (Jews) are "doing" to the Arabs which is preventing their "peaceful" life. Stop ignoring the ideology and claiming that "if only the Jews would stop doing these terrible things, then there would be peace".

Oh Please. Try to apply your standards evenly and DO NOT CLAIM I AM SAYING THINGS I DID NOT SAY. That is incredibly dishonest!

....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths...


That is talking about MUSLIMS.

Go ahead and defend. I do not find any more defendable then Tinmore's comments.

"....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths..."

How else does one describe a cradle to grave program of indoctrination with a singular focus of gee-had against the Jewish people?

You obviously want to excuse the Hamas run, Hitler Youth styled "summer camps" as innocuous play time. I won't.

I’m a bit more of a realist regarding the intentions of islam’s gee-had superstars. Their agenda is, of course, an Islamic Middle East (and more) modeled on a very rigid interpretation of the koran. An exclusively Arab Middle East, free of external influences (especially the hated “West”) is the stated goal. There’s little room for doubt, there. The tidal wave of anti-Americanism / anti-"westernism" has multiple wellsprings, of course. And they're understandably attached to a U.N.-centered vision of international law that has worked well enough in placating Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and in parts of Western Europe -- ever since America liberated and rebuilt the place -- but is useless against terrorists and rogue regimes with weapons of mass destruction. Mix in German pacifism; Russian insecurity; French ego and cynicism; Arab self-pity, paranoia, and envy; and near-universal resentment of the US as the motivator of all the ills afflicting the moslem world and you have a recipe for a belligerent, 7th century politico-religious ideology that cannot confront its failures.

That is insane.
The word Jihad, means to act correctly.
It sort of mean pity, and has nothing at all to do with harming anyone.

And if there had ever been a sense of conflict between Muslims and Jews, then Jews would not have lived under Moslem rule for so many thousands of years.
In fact, there would have been no Jews in Spain.

Zionists are not Jews.
Zionists are secular, against Judaism, and illegally want to steal land from indigenous natives.

 

[Rigby5]

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

As far as murdering innocents like children, read the Old Testament some day.

{...
The Book of Joshua is the story of how Israel conquered Canaan. Joshua, the leader of the Israelites, sent two spies to Jericho, the first city of Canaan that they decided to conquer, and discovered that the land was in fear of them and their God. The Israelites marched around the walls once every day for six days with the priests carrying the Ark of the Covenant. On the seventh day they marched seven times around the walls, then the priests blew their ram's horns, the Israelites raised a great shout, and the walls of the city fell. Following God's law they killed every man, woman, and child, as well as the oxen, sheep, and donkeys. Only Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute who had sheltered the spies, her parents, brothers and all "those who belonged to her" were spared. Joshua then cursed anybody who rebuilt the foundations and gates, with the deaths of their firstborn and youngest child respectively. This was eventually fulfilled by Hiel the Bethelite under King Ahab's reign.
...}

 

[José]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

Since when piracy is the same as anti-americanism?

Piracy is banditry, criminal activity.

They couldn't care less about the nationality of the ship.

They were already raiding ships 700 years before Jamestown.

While such raids had occurred since soon after the Muslim conquest of Iberia in the 8th century, the terms "Barbary pirates" and "Barbary corsairs" are normally applied to the raiders active from the 16th century onwards

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

If you don't have any examples of muslim anti-americanism prior to 1948 just say so.

 

[Rigby5]

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Gee-had carries consequences.

When you start a war, don't cry foul because you are trashed by a better trained, better equipped and more motivated opponent.

The crocodiles you can shed tears with are over there ------>

And when have Palestinians ever started a war?
The 1948 war was started by Zionists massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin.
Even Israel admits it started the 1967 war, to invade Jerusalem.
About the only war Arab started was the 1973 war, to get the Sinai back.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Can illegal settlers living on stolen land be considered innocent?

There is a whole lot one can say in regards to the claims made in that one sentence but I'm going to keep it simple:

Is there any way - any way at all - a 2 yr old child is NOT INNOCENT?

How can you possibly justify the targeting and killing of a CHILD?

I think I know the answer - you will blame the parents, the government, etc. But that is a diversion.

I want to know what a child can possibly have done to justify murder.

The Israelis choose to raise their families in Israel's war zone. They should have the responsibility to protect them. Israel has put its war zone in Palestine. The Palestinians are not responsible for that.

lol There is no war zone. There are parts of many large US cities that are far more dangerous than anything the so called Palestinians can muster. There is no armed struggle, just hate crimes from the politically and socially backward Palestinian society.

So, you think hate is created in a vacuum?

Sometimes yes...it is. When groups are separated it becomes much easier to see them as "the other" and attribute or believe bad things about them.

It's a whole lot different when you sit down to supper with the "other" and meet them as people. That often destroys stereotypes.

One of the unintended consequences of Israel's policy of total separation is that the two groups have far less interaction.

What planet are you posting from? Here on Earth it is the PA and Hamas that are opposed to Palestinians having anything to do with Israelis, not Israel opposing contacts with Palestinians. Do you notice how you always blame everything on the Jews, even things the Palestinians are doing, and then say, "Who? Me? Anti semitic?"

Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians break PA law by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria under the full protection of Israel's labor laws, earning from two to six times as much as the could anywhere else and the result of these mutually beneficial interactions is peace and prosperity for both parties. These Israeli communities are built by Palestinian workers and by Palestinians companies. While people like you and Tinmore wallow in hate and cherish more conflict, these Israelis and Palestinians are making peace everyday, and if Palestinian owned companies were able to do business with Israeli companies, this peace would be more widespread.

 

[Rigby5]

....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths...


That is talking about MUSLIMS.

Go ahead and defend. I do not find any more defendable then Tinmore's comments.

This is talking about the ideology used by Muslims...

by Muslims...not Muslim extremists...not some Muslims - every statement has been a broad brush, not a narrow one.

Well, two points

1. The posts, taken in their entirety (at least on I/P), clearly name the ideology as the problem, not the religion and not the people.

2. It takes a strong culture to support that much visible, tangible extremism.

This has nothing to do with religion, race, people, or culture.
If the land illegal taken from Arabs was returned or at least exchanged, then there would be no problem at all.

What's legal and what's illegal? That land has been over run and taken by many peoples at many different times. It's a popular spot. The Muslims took it from the Christians who took it from the Jews.

Nonsense.
The Arab Canaanites, Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, Nabatians, Philistines, Phoenicians, etc., always lived there and have always owned the land.
When the Levant was over run, that only changed who ruled, not who lived there.
Christians never lived there in any number, and neither did Jews.
The vast majority were Arabs who later became Moslems.
They never moved, left, or entered.
That would be against their culture.
The Jews were only invaders who for just a few hundred years.
They were defeated by the Babylonians, Assyrians, and the Romans, and were hardly ever in or ruling the Land of Canaan.

 

[Rigby5]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

The Barbary pirates are not Arab.
They are Berber, of ancient Egyptian ruling class heritage.

 

[Hollie]

So. Show me where the distinction is made in her post. In the meantime, I'll use YOUR logic and assume that Tinmore doesn't really have issues against Jews but only "Zionists".

Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: The indoctrination and exploitation of people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology which has a source in Islam.

And you can't see the difference?

It is rather difficult to "see the difference" when you create a quote from Tinmore (based on your reading of what his views are) and then quote literally from Hollie with no personal interpretation.

Try this:
Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: Islam - a religion which indoctrinates and exploits people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology.

She will go on about how Mohammed was a pedo and Islam is a religion of pedophilia if given a chance as well.

She is not separating out extremists - she was very clear.

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the kuffar and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

I've also read the Koran, as well as a history of Mohammed and some other history. My focus has not been confined or constrained by looking only for information on Jihad. There are a lot of rules and regulations in Islam, on how to treat people, enemies, conduct warfare, etc etc as well as frankly contradictory information. There is a lot of good stuff as well as violent stuff. It's a lot like the Bible in that sense which also had people doing horrible things to other people in the name of their religion.

What tends to strike me about your focus is it's narrowness. For example you claim atrocities (and I'm presuming you mean such as ISIS perpetrated) are perfectly Islamic, yet Islamic leaders and clerics around the world denounced it as unIslamic (I guess you know better than they about their religion and you consider them to be misguided?).

It's not worth arguing because we have clearly different points of view here, though I do agree that Islam in many parts of the world needs a reformation.

So am I correct in that your statements apply to Islam as a whole and all Muslims - not just Palestinians?

I’m struck by your presumption that pious Moslems who commit acts of atrocities in furtherance of their religion are somehow doing so contrary to Islamic ideology.

It becomes quite preposterous to assert that Moslem's ideology has nothing to do with Islamic terror. These are the books that are holy to Muslims--the Koran is literally interpreted to be God's own, uncreated word. These books provide the basis for Islamic shariah law. They constitute the fundamental "system for life" for each Moslem. More importantly though, they contain ample divine rationale for the murder and conquest of those who refuse to accept Islam's supremacy.

And beyond the books, actions speak with the utmost clarity. In scores of armed conflicts in the world today, Moslems are fighting for their God-given right to subjugate the infidels and to make Islam and God's law

Ultimately, the worldwide plague of islamic terrorism is a function of a particular politico-religious ideology. When islamic terrorist superstars drench their threats to kill infidels with "god willing", I'm not conflicted by ambiguity or reservations about what is at stake. The current, globe-girdling crisis pits Islam against the better parts of the West. Those who want to see the two sides as morally equivalent routinely demand that we try to understand "what the Islamic militants want" and to appreciate "our own role in bringing such destruction upon us." In other words, we are required to see the components of the Islamic hive mind, which kills and enslaves, as individuals with the same sort of moral basis as our own: persons who would be capable, given certain preconditions, of treating us as moral equals, despite our divergences from Islam’s ideology. Well, hell. That's pretty silly. Can anyone show me one location in the islamist Middle East where infidels are accepted/treated as equals of Moslems? I don't have the moral compass that Moslems have regarding their absolutist distinction between Moslems and infidels, and I celebrate that.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions. Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a politico-religious ideology that flies the flag of "submission" and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn and murder anyone who differs with them.

 

[Rigby5]

So. Show me where the distinction is made in her post. In the meantime, I'll use YOUR logic and assume that Tinmore doesn't really have issues against Jews but only "Zionists".

Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: The indoctrination and exploitation of people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology which has a source in Islam.

And you can't see the difference?

It is rather difficult to "see the difference" when you create a quote from Tinmore (based on your reading of what his views are) and then quote literally from Hollie with no personal interpretation.

Try this:
Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: Islam - a religion which indoctrinates and exploits people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology.

She will go on about how Mohammed was a pedo and Islam is a religion of pedophilia if given a chance as well.

She is not separating out extremists - she was very clear.

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

Nonsense.
First of all, it is the Quran and not koran. Nor would anyone not capitalize a proper noun like that. It is just like capitalizing the Bible, or Zionist.
And no, the Quran is very clear that it is not created by God, and does have mistakes and corrections, unlike the Bible, which does claim to be perfect.
You are also lying about the Kaffir.
They are considered undisciplined and therefore dangerous and unpredictable, but Jews and Christians are not considered to be dangerous or unpredictable, and it is considered they have an equally valid path to heaven and salvation.
The Quran is very clear on harming anyone being wrong except as necessary in defense.
But your main false claim is that Islamists commit any atrocities at all.
They do not and can not, if they are Islamists.
You just do not know what an atrocity is.
And there are no innocent Israelis when they knowingly occupy homes and farms that were illegally stolen from the indigenous native owners.

It can be the Quran or Koran - it's in Arabic script anyway.

True, but Koran is more the Victorian colonial spelling and not the modern nationalist spelling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

The Barbary pirates are not Arab.
They are Berber, of ancient Egyptian ruling class heritage.

arab - muslim world

DURR

 

[Hollie]

Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: The indoctrination and exploitation of people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology which has a source in Islam.

And you can't see the difference?

It is rather difficult to "see the difference" when you create a quote from Tinmore (based on your reading of what his views are) and then quote literally from Hollie with no personal interpretation.

Try this:
Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: Islam - a religion which indoctrinates and exploits people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology.

She will go on about how Mohammed was a pedo and Islam is a religion of pedophilia if given a chance as well.

She is not separating out extremists - she was very clear.

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

Nonsense.
First of all, it is the Quran and not koran. Nor would anyone not capitalize a proper noun like that. It is just like capitalizing the Bible, or Zionist.
And no, the Quran is very clear that it is not created by God, and does have mistakes and corrections, unlike the Bible, which does claim to be perfect.
You are also lying about the Kaffir.
They are considered undisciplined and therefore dangerous and unpredictable, but Jews and Christians are not considered to be dangerous or unpredictable, and it is considered they have an equally valid path to heaven and salvation.
The Quran is very clear on harming anyone being wrong except as necessary in defense.
But your main false claim is that Islamists commit any atrocities at all.
They do not and can not, if they are Islamists.
You just do not know what an atrocity is.
And there are no innocent Israelis when they knowingly occupy homes and farms that were illegally stolen from the indigenous native owners.

It can be the Quran or Koran - it's in Arabic script anyway.

True, but Koran is more the Victorian colonial spelling and not the modern nationalist spelling.

Otherwise, it's the Islamic Hate and War Manual. <----- Capitalized so as not to hurt your feelings.

 

[Rigby5]

There is a whole lot one can say in regards to the claims made in that one sentence but I'm going to keep it simple:

Is there any way - any way at all - a 2 yr old child is NOT INNOCENT?

How can you possibly justify the targeting and killing of a CHILD?

I think I know the answer - you will blame the parents, the government, etc. But that is a diversion.

I want to know what a child can possibly have done to justify murder.

The Israelis choose to raise their families in Israel's war zone. They should have the responsibility to protect them. Israel has put its war zone in Palestine. The Palestinians are not responsible for that.

lol There is no war zone. There are parts of many large US cities that are far more dangerous than anything the so called Palestinians can muster. There is no armed struggle, just hate crimes from the politically and socially backward Palestinian society.

So, you think hate is created in a vacuum?

Sometimes yes...it is. When groups are separated it becomes much easier to see them as "the other" and attribute or believe bad things about them.

It's a whole lot different when you sit down to supper with the "other" and meet them as people. That often destroys stereotypes.

One of the unintended consequences of Israel's policy of total separation is that the two groups have far less interaction.

What planet are you posting from? Here on Earth it is the PA and Hamas that are opposed to Palestinians having anything to do with Israelis, not Israel opposing contacts with Palestinians. Do you notice how you always blame everything on the Jews, even things the Palestinians are doing, and then say, "Who? Me? Anti semitic?"

Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians break PA law by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria under the full protection of Israel's labor laws, earning from two to six times as much as the could anywhere else and the result of these mutually beneficial interactions is peace and prosperity for both parties. These Israeli communities are built by Palestinian workers and by Palestinians companies. While people like you and Tinmore wallow in hate and cherish more conflict, these Israelis and Palestinians are making peace everyday, and if Palestinian owned companies were able to do business with Israeli companies, this peace would be more widespread.

First you misappropriate the word "Semitic".
It does NOT mean Jewish.
It means of the Arab language group.
It came from a deliberate reference to Shem, a son of Noah, and intended to refer to the Arab root, of which the Hebrew came from much later.

Second is that Israel is constantly and illegally harming Arabs, so those helping Israel are traitors.

 

[Rigby5]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

Barbary pirates - Wikipedia

The Barbary pirates are not Arab.
They are Berber, of ancient Egyptian ruling class heritage.

arab - muslim world

DURR

Are the Mongols, Moguls, Mamelukes, Moors, or Turks Arabs?
The answer is no.
Neither are Iranians.

As to whether they are Moslem or not, that is also up for contention.
The Mongols definitely were not, and totally wiped out the entire Moslem leadership.
There essentially was no Islamic leadership after around 1200 AD or so.
As time went on, these invaders adopted more and more Islamic tradition, but it is not clear how Moslem they will ever be?
Is Turkey Moslem or not, is not easy to answer.

 

[Rigby5]

It is rather difficult to "see the difference" when you create a quote from Tinmore (based on your reading of what his views are) and then quote literally from Hollie with no personal interpretation.

Try this:
Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: Islam - a religion which indoctrinates and exploits people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology.

She will go on about how Mohammed was a pedo and Islam is a religion of pedophilia if given a chance as well.

She is not separating out extremists - she was very clear.

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

Nonsense.
First of all, it is the Quran and not koran. Nor would anyone not capitalize a proper noun like that. It is just like capitalizing the Bible, or Zionist.
And no, the Quran is very clear that it is not created by God, and does have mistakes and corrections, unlike the Bible, which does claim to be perfect.
You are also lying about the Kaffir.
They are considered undisciplined and therefore dangerous and unpredictable, but Jews and Christians are not considered to be dangerous or unpredictable, and it is considered they have an equally valid path to heaven and salvation.
The Quran is very clear on harming anyone being wrong except as necessary in defense.
But your main false claim is that Islamists commit any atrocities at all.
They do not and can not, if they are Islamists.
You just do not know what an atrocity is.
And there are no innocent Israelis when they knowingly occupy homes and farms that were illegally stolen from the indigenous native owners.

It can be the Quran or Koran - it's in Arabic script anyway.

True, but Koran is more the Victorian colonial spelling and not the modern nationalist spelling.

Otherwise, it's the Islamic Hate and War Manual. <----- Capitalized so as not to hurt your feelings.

Wrong.
The Quran is quite clear that no one is to ever be harmed except in defense.
There can also never be compulsion over religion.

The wars from the Mideast towards Europe were Mongols, Moguls, Moors, Mamelukes, and Turks, not Arab Muslims.

But I do appreciate the capitalization, even though I am Jewish and not Muslim.