Israel in the Gaza Strip

[rowie]

I'm not offended.

"Hi guys, I'm Reza Azlan, and I've just written this balanced look about a bunch of people whose credo is "Nobody is right except us" and guess what? It's the title of the book. You'll just love it! And I believe it too."

Or are you saying that he is simply an enthusiast? ("No Car But Holden"). I don't think so. Life is too short to bother with such extreme viewpoints.

This is frustrating but here goes - no god but god is a saying that emphasizes Muhammads belief that God was a a single god that created the universe. Pre-Islam Arabia was made up of factions with pagan beliefs and rituals who believed and worshipped many gods. No God but God does not refer to a specific type of God that you are implying (Ie: A Muslim god). It refers to a singular god same as how the Jews and Christians believe. No god but god is a term to unite this new religion under a singular monotheistic religion as opposed to the polytheistic practices that were around in his time. It does not refer to a specific type of God, so I think your Holden analogy is incorrect. It emphasizes the monotheistic base of the religion, just like Judaism and Christianity. Respectfully, could you kindly explain your interpretation of it in that it means 'nobody is right except us'. You obviously have another take on it, I just want to know how you come to it. Thanks.

 

[lucas]

Certainly.

If the credo "No God But God" is an attempt to ultimately include people of all faiths and beliefs it has failed and will continue to fail miserably. It will reduce the number of gods people should believe in (you say yourself that this was the intent - reduction to one). Its thrust, therefore, is towards exclusivity - as is the case with all major religions. Even if the intent was benign, you should be able to see the inherent danger of such a belief.

If the credo issues directly from "god" (whatever that means) then it shows that god has no understanding of human nature and its propensity for bigotry. Thus god is less than god and god, as such, does not therefore exist.

I'll stick to atheism thanks.

You have misunderstood my reference to the Holden car, but that's OK. It's hyperbole, but acceptable because the phantom writer just loves Holdens - he doesn't seriously want to take all other cars off the road.

 

[rowie]

As for the title not being important, it actually is. It is the basis of Islam and an indication of it's inability to accept other cultures and people, like most other hardline cults.

Kenna, can you explain how No God but God refers to its inability to accept other cultures? It is in reference to a singular god as it was a monotheistic religion as opposed to the polytheistic practices of the time. It does not actually read "No God but a Muslim God". That is why there is so many references in the Quran to Judaism and Christianity - because they shared the same monotheistic beliefs, and Muhammad referenced the Jews and Christians as being people of the book that shared the same god as muslims. This is way before others warped islam for their own political/economical benefit. But the book clearly explains this- and you have read it, so how did you get from it that shows definitively its inability to accept other cultures? The book clearly indicates that the prophet was in agreement with people of the book. Did you not read that bit?

 

[lucas]

It does not actually read "No God but a Muslim God". That is why there is so many references in the Quran to Judaism and Christianity - because they shared the same monotheistic beliefs, and Muhammad referenced the Jews and Christians as being people of the book that shared the same god as muslims.

How convenient. Pity if you are a happy pagan worshipping a nice female god, but then women's beliefs never did count for much did they?

 

[rowie]

Certainly.

If the credo "No God But God" is an attempt to ultimately include people of all faiths and beliefs it has failed and will continue to fail miserably. It will reduce the number of gods people should believe in (you say yourself that this was the intent - reduction to one). Its thrust, therefore, is towards exclusivity - as is the case with all major religions. Even if the intent was benign, you should be able to see the inherent danger of such a belief.

If the credo issues directly from "god" (whatever that means) then it shows that god has no understanding of human nature and its propensity for bigotry. Thus god is less than god and god, as such, does not therefore exist.

I'll stick to atheism thanks.

You have misunderstood my reference to the Holden car, but that's OK. It's hyperbole, but acceptable because the phantom writer just loves Holdens - he doesn't seriously want to take all other cars off the road.

Good point. But then this is the underlying base of most of the major religions, so the exclusivity bit should apply not only to Islam but Christianity/Judaism as well. So the inability to accept other cultures is not a trait inherent in Islam alone then - based on monotheistic practices, other religions qualify as well.

 

[rowie]

How convenient. Pity if you are a happy pagan worshipping a nice female god, but then women's beliefs never did count for much did they?

Actually they did. Muhammad changed many laws that oppressed women at the time. They were afforded equal rights in business and money and given senior positions in running of the community he set up. This was unheard of at the time in vast majority of the region. Pre-islam (and post) period was notorious for awful subjugation of women. Muhammad attempted (vainly) to change all that. It certainly had no lasting effect as the caliphates after him ensured status quo treatment.

 

[lucas]

So the inability to accept other cultures is not a trait inherent in Islam alone then - based on monotheistic practices, other religions qualify as well.

Quite correct. Which is why adherence to any of them is, in some small way, a step in the wrong direction and will ultimately cause hurt and pain in the world regardless of one's best intentions.

Muhammad's views on women are not the point. He wanted to rid the world of other beliefs. Enough said.

 

[gordon2007]

So... putting my Conflict Resolution hat on,

Whiskers, I can appreciate that you've had courses in conflict resolution (and received competence), but mate...you're starting to sound a bit full of yourself.

I can argue that I'm a certified holden technician, but if I fail to fix your car correctly, am I still right just because I'm a certified technician?

To me, you are sounding as though your argument is that you're correct in what you say because you've had a "course" as apposed to an argument for one side or the other.

 

[wayneL]

Whiskers, I can appreciate that you've had courses in conflict resolution (and received competence), but mate...you're starting to sound a bit full of yourself.

I can argue that I'm a certified holden technician, but if I fail to fix your car correctly, am I still right just because I'm a certified technician?

To me, you are sounding as though your argument is that you're correct in what you say because you've had a "course" as apposed to an argument for one side or the other.

I would also like to know why someone who claims to be a "conflict resoluter" is involved in so many conflicts on the forum. As far as an ability to put people off-side, whisker's inherent talent is second to none.

 

[gordon2007]

I would also like to know why someone who claims to be a "conflict resoluter" is involved in so many conflicts on the forum. As far as an ability to put people off-side, whisker's inherent talent is second to none.

My post is\was not meant as an attack on whiskers. It is merelyto point out that I feel his arguments and rebuttals are getting a bit off course.

Let's not turn this into an anti whiskers thread. I actually enjoy and concur with a lot of his posts.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers, you talk about "conflict resolution" and attempt to take an educated approach to the current situation. However, the major concern at the moment is "civilian casualties", so dont dismiss the core issue by referring to it as "innocent civilian casualities propaganda"

Hi McQuack, you misunderstand... I'm not dismissing the civilian casualties at all... clearly my sentence referred to the intentions of Hamas ... ie to say Hamas is deliberately hiding among the civilian population to launch their rockets and fight Israel knowing full well that if Israel retaliates there is a high chance that the civilians will get wounded or killed too... which they use as propaganda in the press.

I have said previously that any responsible parent would always resolve their conflits between themselves and always keep their children safe... ie well out of harms way both physically and emotionally. Hamas clearly are not thinking of the welfare of their children in the same sense that any normal reasonable parent would, because they are using them as human shields.

Innocent civilian casualties ARE NOT "propaganda".

Clearly Hamas is using them as propaganda to sway people emotianally over the horror of their deaths to blame Israel... and having some success in playing on the empathy of some people.

But as I said before... if Hamas had an ounce of concern for their civilians, women and children, and abided by the conventions of war, they would either evacuate them or get out of heavily populated areas to fight Israel, so their civilians stayed relatively safe.

But the point is Hamas doesn't live by reasonable standards of behaviour, sort out their conflicts by reasonable standards of behaviour or fight WAR by reasonable standards of behaviour let alone the normal conventions of war.

I repeat, if Hamas men had the guts to fight their battles like civilised men instead of hiding behind their women and children as shields, then the civilian casualties wouldn't be a significant issue.

As far as I'm aware no country has ever used their civilians as human shields as Hamas does. Sure there have been civilian casualties in the major wars, but for the most part both sides respected the civilian populations and evacuated them behind the lines.

But thinking about civilian casualties... when the Japanese resorted to human rights atrocities and bombing civilian populations in WWII, where would we be today if the US didn't bomb a couple of complete cities of civilians?

While suggesting that in war it sometimes seems necessary to fight fire with fire when the other side doesn't play by the rules of war... but having said that, I clearly stated that I'm not convinced that if a 'secret ballot' was taken that the palastine people necessairly support Hamas's tactics and refusal to consider a cease fire... let alone fighting with them as human shields.

 

[wayneL]

My post is\was not meant as an attack on whiskers. It is merelyto point out that I feel his arguments and rebuttals are getting a bit off course.

Let's not turn this into an anti whiskers thread. I actually enjoy and concur with a lot of his posts.

My question stands.

Particularly in light of the outstanding bias in the most recent post.

I'm not on hamas' side, but from a conflict resolution viewpoint, Whiskers stance is ludicrous in the extreme and ignores the history of guerrilla movements, including those of European "Christians".

 

[Whiskers]

My post is\was not meant as an attack on whiskers. It is merelyto point out that I feel his arguments and rebuttals are getting a bit off course.

Let's not turn this into an anti whiskers thread. I actually enjoy and concur with a lot of his posts.

I appreciate that gordon2007... a point I made earlier is that one needs to focus on what is internationally recognised right and wrong behaviour in the context of the protocols and process one needs to go through to resolve the conflict.

I may have elaborated a bit above about the context of civilian casualties in declared war.

But if you'd like to mention the particular aspects that you are concerned with, I'll see if I can explain the logic (as opposed to impulsive emotional reactions like personality bashing) a bit better.

Again, I'm not trying to dismiss the civilian casualties one bit, but one has to be able to get past the emotional issues to engage in dialogue rather than debate to properly recognise the issues necessary to resolve conflicts.

 

[lucas]

I know this might sound heretical, but I don't mind if people create a bit of conflict in these forums. I think I understand the pros and cons of others' responses to Whiskers' arguments, but just because he is a conflict resolver doesn't (in my mind) mean he has to toe some special line that we don't.

I'm really only interested in the arguments - sometimes the most loopy teach me something.

 

[wayneL]

I know this might sound heretical, but I don't mind if people create a bit of conflict in these forums. I think I understand the pros and cons of others' responses to Whiskers' arguments, but just because he is a conflict resolver doesn't (in my mind) mean he has to toe some special line that we don't.

I'm really only interested in the arguments - sometimes the most loopy teach me something.

Whiskers is entitled to his opinion and his biases, just like the rest of us, but preaching conflict resolution at the same time is amusing.... in an annoying way. But the worse thing is a pompous person with a bias blind spot- a refusal to accept that you may be biased.

My suggestion to him is to do some revision, he clearly missed something in the course.

A conflict resoluter must stand between the parties and walk a mile in each's moccasins, get the parties to understand each other and draw attention to transgression of both. This most clearly is not the case. The one sidedness is ridiculous. (as a conflict resoluter)

 

[Whiskers]

My question stands.

Well wayneL, first of all conflict per se is not the problem. Conflict is often healthy. Conflict per se is simply a difference of opinion.

The problem arises with the behaviour people choose to deal with conflict.

We can count the number of people who you claim are "óff side" with me on the fingers of one hand... and they are basically the same few that not only conflict, but denegrate into insults and personality bashing with numerous people when they don't subscribe to their views.

You and chops account for most of the conflict involving me that has degenerated into playing the man rather than adressing the issue. I certainly have not recripicated in that regard. Again conflict per se is a healthy way for people to engage in dialogue about different view points. Debate etc as you are demonstrating aims at winning the point or at least distrupting or denegrating good dialogue.

I have repeatedly invited you to specifiy any particular aspect of conflict resolution or the criteria that you have a problem with, but you have never mentioned any, just critise me.

There are a number of personalities we use to describe people who attempt to block group functionality. They include the agressor, the topic jumper, the playboy, and the dominant.

I believe I mentioned a couple of times earlier on different issues that perceived provocation is no excuse for bad behaviour. It simply demonstrates that person is lacking in good manners and or any intention of wanting to resolve a conflict of opinion.

It seems that your main gripe is that some of us are trying to take an objective view of this problem, but a small number just cannot get out of their emotional inferiority complex or whatever.

Originally Posted by wayneL: ... conflict resoluter must stand between the parties and walk a mile in each's moccasins...

There are five methods of conflict resolution... avoidance, accomodation, compromise, competition and problem solving.

But, the best method for a permenant resolution of the conflict is the problem solving method... but if both party's don't come to the table in good faith and engage in dialogue as opposed to debate then the inevetiable result is competition.

A compromiser 'stands between the party's'... a problem solving conflict resoluter invites the party's to engage in 'dialogue'.

An accomodator or compromiser 'walks in the party's moccasins'... a problem solving conflict resoluter already understands the psychology of the way people 'walk', and purposely and deliberately does not walk in the footsteps of either party, but tries to get the party's to walk in different footsteps.

The rules for negotiating are:

1. Make a distinction between the people and the problem.
2. Concentrate on your and the other party's interests, not on defending your position.
3. Try to find options that satisfy both party's.
4. Bargain to onjective criteria.

Avoidance, accomodation and compromise have all been tried in the middle east in the past with no lasting resolution.

Currently by mutual agreement they are in competition mode and as mentioned above it just may be that a similar result to the end of WWII eventuates.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I cannot understand how the Arab Kings and Princes in the region can sit on their collective arses and not lift a finger to support the Palestinians.

A funny mob.

gg

 

[lucas]

Currently by mutual agreement they are in competition mode and as mentioned above it just may be that a similar result to the end of WWII eventuates.

What? Hamas and all the staunchly anti-Jewish Arab countries get thoroughly whipped by Israel and agree that they were hopelessly misled and are genuinely remorseful? I don't think so.

wayneL, BTW, who is John Waters? The actor? (Always thought of his work as having been well-executed and enjoyable, surely of some socially-redeeming value.)

 

[mayk]

I cannot understand how the Arab Kings and Princes in the region can sit on their collective arses and not lift a finger to support the Palestinians.

A funny mob.

gg

Once bitten twice shy. Also they don't want attention to their brutal regimes.

Why can't Israel take in all the people of Palestine in to the greater Israel, and end this two state rubbish? May be then the two can have a competition on producing the most number of babies to win the next election....

 

[Whiskers]

What? Hamas and all the staunchly anti-Jewish Arab countries get thoroughly whipped by Israel and agree that they were hopelessly misled and are genuinely remorseful? I don't think so.

Don't you know how WWII was ended?

The alias bombed two whole cities including civilians to force the unconditional surrender of the Japanese military.

But I sincerely hope that sort of thing doesn't happen again.