Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!!! Check out this poll on American Muslims!!!

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=329
So, a 1/4 of American Muslim men believe that suicide bombings are justified!!! Hmmm... I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

Muslim American young men (<30). The number drops to about 18% when posed of Muslim American men in general.

Even so, I was rather disturbed by this number.

I believe it's roughly similar in Britain and France. It seems to me it's very easy to support extremists from your Council Flat in Blighty, in rather tha same way it's easy to support rebels from your Mansion in the US.

You might as well ask how many people find the Iraq invasion to be justified (still quite a large number), the use of torture on 'Enemy combatants' [which already shows the attitude of the government to to their human rights] (many American soldiers do) or even the constant invasions and airstrikes onto Gaza. (I bet you can get over 60% of people in Israel to support that, just as you can get that number in Palestine in terms of fighting back at Israel)

Just because people believe something to be justified doesn't mean they will do it. They only support the cause/rationale/principle/means. And focussing on one demographic group and the stereotype (i.e. Muslim = bad = bomber) does nothing to help end the violence either.

One also ought to note that suicide bombings are the weapons of the poor, those who cannot afford military training, large armies and advanced weaponry, let alone airplanes or tanks. If you were to give say the militants the same training soldiers in other countries get, you likely would see less random rocket attacks and more targeted operations at the military level.

Frankly it dosent surprise me one bit, of course if the Bushy's had made a similar proclomation prior it would have been racial profiling, or some civil right would have been trampled on.

Funny, my old man used to tell me that sterotypes are often based on peoples expirence and have some basis in truth although warped through the perception of a group will (something like that).

Thankfully they live in a country that affords them the right to state and voice that opinion, but now that the cats out of the bag (yuk, yuk) dont get caught making anti muslim statements, or tieing radiaclism into a particular group because the political correct police come with a big stick.

Who knows, maybe you'll end up on Al Sharpton's radio show.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by Odin are soely his own and dont represent the views of other, namely the org, its posters, the woman who just passed by his desk, the child he saw standing at the bus stop or the vending machine repair man he said hello too 2 weeks prior.

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I believe it's roughly similar in Britain and France. It seems to me it's very easy to support extremists from your Council Flat in Blighty, in rather tha same way it's easy to support rebels from your Mansion in the US.

---

This will probably come as a shock to you, but most of us don't actually live in mansions. The newly immigrated especially tend to find themselves in less than fantastic living accomodations. Your co-op apartment in Brighton Beach would probably be a more accurate locale for Yusuf.

Quote:

---

The survey shows that although many Muslims are relative newcomers to the U.S., they are highly assimilated into American society. On balance, they believe that Muslims coming to the U.S. should try and adopt American customs, rather than trying to remain distinct from the larger society. And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

---

Hmm. THIS bit seems OK

I made it 7% said suicide bombings against civilian targets could "sometimes" be justified, 1% said they were justified. And its not obvious whether they were thinking of pelestinians bombing in Israel (which I do not agree with but is not quite the same as bloewing yourself up on Broadway.)

Still not wonderful, I grant you.

I wonder where they got the UK comparison figures from? Those sure are not being shared with us over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=329
So, a 1/4 of American Muslim men believe that suicide bombings are justified!!! Hmmm... I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

---

Quite worrying actually (even the actual numbers that are obviously different from the ones quoted above :juggle2: ).

On another note - I would be interested to see a similar poll among all citizens of the US (or alternatively for the European countries on the list), with a question like:
"Can the bombing of civilian targets be justified in the defense of freedom?"

I have to admit that I am not entirely convinced that we would end up significantly below 1% for "often" and 7% for "sometimes"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

On another note - I would be interested to see a similar poll among all citizens of the US (or alternatively for the European countries on the list), with a question like:
"Can the bombing of civilian targets be justified in the defense of freedom?"

---

Ah, yes, its much more important to kill innocent people (some would call "infidels") for Islam than it is for freedom. Good comparrison:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Ah, yes, its much more important to kill innocent people (some would call "infidels") for Islam than it is for freedom. Good comparrison:beam:

---

Depends on which concept you value more. I value my freedom more than my religion - apparently others value their religion higher than their freedom.
I would not support the bombing of civilians for either. Would you support bombing civilians (some would call "freedom-haters") for your freedom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Depends on which concept you value more. I value my freedom more than my religion - apparently others value their religion higher than their freedom.
I would not support the bombing of civilians for either. Would you support bombing civilians (some would call "freedom-haters") for your freedom?

---

One involves the actual targetting of civilians. No, I do not support bombing of civilians. You do understand that they are targeting civilians right? You not too PC-brainwahsed to understand that concept, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

One involves the actual targetting of civilians. No, I do not support bombing of civilians. You do understand that they are targeting civilians right? You not too PC-brainwahsed to understand that concept, correct?

---

First:
I note that you resort to personal attacks :no:

Second:
I suggested a poll question that had the same wording as in the poll you linked to.
You stated that bombing civilians for Islam is not comparable to bombing civilians for freedom which looked a bit like you would consider bombing civilians for the latter to be more acceptable. I am glad that we apparently agree that this is not the case.
So what was your problem with the poll question I suggested?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

First:
I note that you resort to personal attacks :no:

Second:
I suggested a poll question that had the same wording as in the poll you linked to.
You stated that bombing civilians for Islam is not comparable to bombing civilians for freedom which looked a bit like you would consider bombing civilians for the latter to be more acceptable. I am glad that we apparently agree that this is not the case.
So what was your problem with the poll question I suggested?

---

I didn't resort to a personal attack. I'm just pointing out that you have the PC mindset that suicide bombings are equivilant to bombing civilians in the name of freedom. Could you tell me which conflict involved the premeditated bombing of civilians in the name of freedom? WW2 maybe? Vietnam? The current conflict in Iraq? Does this poll not trouble you in the least? Do you not see the danger in this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

apparently others value their religion higher than their freedom.

---

So you're cool with them killing you or your family in the name of Allah? How progressive of you. :laugh4:

Make a poll asking americans(or indeed any other country) whether it's justified to invade another country and kill people there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I didn't resort to a personal attack.

---

Sorry - I consider calling somebody "brainwashed" to be a personal attack in a context like this discussion.
I'll keep in mind that you see this differently.

Quote:

---

I'm just pointing out that you have the PC mindset that suicide bombings are equivilant to bombing civilians in the name of freedom. Could you tell me which conflict involved the premeditated bombing of civilians in the name of freedom? WW2 maybe? Vietnam? The current conflict in Iraq?

---

Actually I did not refer to a specific conflict but to a hypothetical question:
"Can the bombing of civilian targets be justified in the defense of freedom?"

I am not sure why you think that in this question this refers to "collateral damage" while in the question in the original poll it refers to intentionally targeting civilians - please explain.

Quote:

---

So you're cool with them killing you or your family in the name of Allah? How progressive of you

---

Perhaps I should repeat what I posted previously in case it did not get noticed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myself

I would not support the bombing of civilians for either

---

The same in this case:

Quote:

---

Does this poll not trouble you in the least? Do you not see the danger in this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myself

Quite worrying actually (even the actual numbers that are obviously different from the ones quoted above)

---

Or if that's not in your taste, ask christians if they are willing to die/kill for their lord. Or a westerner if he is willing to die/kill defending democracy, free speech, whatever...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Or if that's not in your taste, ask christians if they are willing to die/kill for their lord. Or a westerner if he is willing to die/kill defending democracy, free speech, whatever...

---

I'll post the polls if you can provide the evidence that "christians" and "westerners" are as prone to violent actions as followers of Islam are. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Or if that's not in your taste, ask christians if they are willing to die/kill for their lord.

---

I think if you would ask:
"Can the bombing of civilian targets be justified in the defense of Christianity?" you very likely would get (significantly) lower percentages of "positive" answers.

Doesn't suprise me. If I was asked the question in certain ways I would say that suicide attacks are justified:
eg:

• Do you think it is justified for an officer to command a soldier into an attack that will certanly end in his death?
• Do you think that in a war suicide attacks are ever justified?
• Do you think that suicide attackers believe themselves to be justified?

etc.

Pretty :daisy: thread to be honest Dave. You right-wingers are on the backfoot a bit these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I'll post the polls if you can provide the evidence that "christians" and "westerners" are as prone to violent actions as followers of Islam are. :2thumbsup:

---

Thats a generalization right there. Not all followers of Islam are prone to violent actions, at least not those I know of. There are those groups within a demographic population that are prone to violence, but you will find them in any religion, save the pacifist ones.

No wonder Europe is becoming Eurabia. You guys are going to keep apologizing for these folks until they exterminate the lot of you. :laugh4:
I hope that iron turtle necks become the fashion trend soon so that some of you "enlightened" guys have a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Doesn't suprise me. If I was asked the question in certain ways I would say that suicide attacks are justified:
eg:

• Do you think it is justified for an officer to command a soldier into an attack that will certanly end in his death?
• Do you think that in a war suicide attacks are ever justified?
• Do you think that suicide attackers believe themselves to be justified?

etc.

Pretty :daisy: thread to be honest Dave. You right-wingers are on the backfoot a bit these days.

---

Erh, and you need to get your reading scrip checked. You've completely missed the bit about targeting civilians, which your post doesn't address in the least.

I think we'd all agree the charge of the light brigade was a heroic, if stupid thing to do. I don't think we'd have the same feelings of reverence and respect for a guy who drives a bomb-laden car into a nursery school (or for a desk jockey who targets a hospital with a guided missile, with a nod to Ser C's point).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

No wonder Europe is becoming Eurabia. You guys are going to keep apologizing for these folks until they exterminate the lot of you. :laugh4:
I hope that iron turtle necks become the fashion trend soon so that some of you "enlightened" guys have a chance.

---

Can't really say I've seen much of either Eurabia or the numerous hordes of naked, screaming, muslim barbarians who all conspire to take over our countries and make us all brown that the conservatives are so afraid of...

I have noticed better food though. And god knows that was needed.

How dare you speak against the hallowed Lutefisk and Purresupe!?!

Quote:

---

"Can the bombing of civilian targets be justified in the defense of freedom?"

---

Quote:

---

1/4 of American Muslim men believe that suicide bombings are justified!!!

---

These two statements are not comparable. Of course the bombing of civilian targets can sometimes be justified in the defense of freedom. But these guys arent defending freedom. How about asking how many americans favor wiping out all the arabs. That would be a closer comparison. Or would we be justified in bombing Iran. Your not going to find many americans that will back the intentional slaughter of innocents.

Quote:

---

Thats a generalization right there. Not all followers of Islam are prone to violent actions,

---

Where? He said he wanted to make a poll he didnt give the results.

Quote:

---

There are those groups within a demographic population that are prone to violence, but you will find them in any religion, save the pacifist ones.

---

Now were getting down to the real nitty gritty and where all this Islam -Christain comparison today falls flat on its face. What percentage of Muslims are violent vs Christians today in the name of their religion? Its not even close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

How dare you speak against the hallowed Lutefisk and Purresupe!?!

---

Lutefisk smells like death and agony. Simple as that. And no sane person eats that filth... The ones who do uses Akevitt to remove the taste, and I think that speaks for itself. We can't even make drinkable alcohol. And I've never heard of purresuppe, but it sounds like the rest of our food - so INCREDIBLY dull. If it hadn't been for immigration, I would have starved to death. I'll say it loud and clear, NO norwegian food tastes good, 90% of it doesn't even classify as edible.

If you ever see a restaurant with scandinavian food, run as fast as you can.

Beat me to it Dave.

Some other interesting info..

Quote:

---

In addition to young Muslims' attitudes towards homicide bombings, the study found that only 40 percent of U.S. Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Another 28 percent said they don't believe it.

---

Quote:

---

The Pew poll also found that almost half of the nation's Muslims are more likely to identify themselves as Muslims first and then Americans, with 47 percent placing religious affiliation above nationality.

---

Quote:

---

Three out of four people surveyed said the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong, and 48 percent said using force in Afghanistan was wrong. Five percent of those surveyed had a "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" view of Al Qaeda, while 58 percent had a "very unfavorable" opinion of the terror group.

---

We've got a virtual 5th column living amongst us and the PC crowd are content to bury their heads in the sand. +1 Patriot Act :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Now were getting down to the real nitty gritty and where all this Islam -Christain comparison today falls flat on its face. What percentage of Muslims are violent vs Christians today in the name of their religion? Its not even close.

---

Maybe the better question is what triggered this difference. Maybe some recent invasions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

These two statements are not comparable.

---

I was not comparing my question to the second statement (which is incorrect) but to the original question from the poll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by report (p.53)

Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets
to Defend Islam be Justified?

---

I already commented in post #10 why I believe that the comparison of answers to these two question would make sense.

I would like to make the point that "civilian targets" covers a ton of ground in either direction. Is it infrastructure for their military, is it an apartment building with rocket batteries parked around it? Is it specifically for the purpose of killing civilians to inflict terror or submission? Is it to destroy potential voters? Is it to destroy a symbol of the enemy? While the common denominator is the opportunity for civilian casualites, they are, quite different things.

Here's the other problem. Knowing our hesitancy regarding collateral damage, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently launch their attacks from civilian targets.

I'm sorry, if Hezbollah is launching rockets out of a Lebanese school at an Israeli school, the Israelis have a right to see to it that it stops.

I think the qualifier here would be that the Hezbollah gunmen are the target, not the school (they just happen to occupy the same space).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

In addition to young Muslims' attitudes towards homicide bombings, the study found that only 40 percent of U.S. Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Another 28 percent said they don't believe it.

---

Your post is amazing, PJ. I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but according to a CNN poll last summer, 35% of Americans at large believe that the US government perpetrated 9/11 on us. That means that on average, muslim Americans actually have MORE faith in the US government than the average citizen.

I'm not surprised though. Go read DailyKos and the like. You'll see that Al-Queda has a 'strongly support' approval rating far, far in excess of 5%. I was actually surprised that for Muslim Americans, the number for strongly support and somewhat support, combined, only came out to 5%. I don't think you could find numbers that low at a university campus anywhere in the country. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Here's the other problem. Knowing our hesitancy regarding collateral damage, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently launch their attacks from civilian targets.

I'm sorry, if Hezbollah is launching rockets out of a Lebanese school at an Israeli school, the Israelis have a right to see to it that it stops.

I think the qualifier here would be that the Hezbollah gunmen are the target, not the school (they just happen to occupy the same space).

---

Just for clarification - this is not the type of attack on civilian targets I was aiming at with my hypothetical poll question.
In such a case the correct question would be:

"Can the bombing of civilian targets be justified in the defense of your life and the lives of your family?"

(which would add another dimension to the issue)

This is why I chose "freedom" as a "value" to defend which would be more comparable to defending "Islam" as in the original poll question IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Here's the other problem. Knowing our hesitancy regarding collateral damage, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently launch their attacks from civilian targets.

I'm sorry, if Hezbollah is launching rockets out of a Lebanese school at an Israeli school, the Israelis have a right to see to it that it stops.

I think the qualifier here would be that the Hezbollah gunmen are the target, not the school (they just happen to occupy the same space).

---

That's a darn cold comfort for the school that just got reduced to a smoking pile of rubble.

Or anyone in there besides the gunmen for that matter.

Did you ever incidentally think that the gunmen might be doing that taking fully into account the Israelis' infamously cavalier attitude about civilian casualties, since every dead bystander is a reason for someone else (typically a relative) to have a grudge on Israel ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Three out of four people surveyed said the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong, and 48 percent said using force in Afghanistan was wrong. Five percent of those surveyed had a "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" view of Al Qaeda, while 58 percent had a "very unfavorable" opinion of the terror group.

---

Thats a rather flawed question. Why would anyone say "The invasion of my country was good, kill all my neighbors and friends and their friends."
While Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist group by most western countries, its also notable that at the same time the US actively supports islamic militants and terror groups in Iraq as long as they fight against Al Qaeda or anti-American groups. Strategically a sound idea. Ideologically and morally a step backwards if you are actively pursuing a "war on terror". That's like saying if you are a terrorist you are fine as long as you don't mess with the US and Israel.

Note that many of the islamic militant groups that end up labelled as terrorist due to their way of fighting were only created or became active after the invasion of Iraq to drive out what they deem occupiers, which is totally understandable. I mean if all Muslim countries united and invaded and occupied the States, how many Americans would take up arms and fight back? Possibly even with suicide bombings if they did not have enough funds/training? That needs to be put in perspective.

That said, its common knowledge now that there was no legal reason to invade Iraq and that it has brought nothing but strife and has not made the world a better nor safer place. Some may argue bringing democracy there justifies the war, but I ask what this fuss about democracy is about anyway. Why impose a system of government on a country's people just because you think they'd be better off that way? Some systems work better in certain countries than others. One does not have to wonder why this anti-bushism has popped up all around this country.

While not encouraging, this doesn't really bother me. How many suicide bombings have happened in the American cities you guys live in?

If we were tracking money being sent from US Muslims to actually 'support' these bombings, then yeah, I'd be worried. But any idiot can say whatever they want to a pollster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Here's the other problem. Knowing our hesitancy regarding collateral damage, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently launch their attacks from civilian targets.

I'm sorry, if Hezbollah is launching rockets out of a Lebanese school at an Israeli school, the Israelis have a right to see to it that it stops.

I think the qualifier here would be that the Hezbollah gunmen are the target, not the school (they just happen to occupy the same space).

---

While you do have a point there, one also has to ask from where else they are supposed to launch their attacks (under the assumption that they have to of course)? Stand around in an open field waving a rocket? The problem is that Hezbollah isn't a standing regular army like the IDF is and thus has limits on what it can and cannot do. I think if the roles were reversed, either side would use the tactics of the other.

Now, while hiding in populous civilian targets certain isn't all that nice, was Israel's use of cluster bombs (which are banned and condemned) in Lebanon justified? If they really just wanted to target the militants, wouldn't a homing missile be good enough? Why bomb a highly populated civilian area with cluster bombs? Really gotta wonder if there isn't some intent on killing civilians there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That's a darn cold comfort for the school that just got reduced to a smoking pile of rubble.

Or anyone in there besides the gunmen for that matter.

Did you ever incidentally think that the gunmen might be doing that taking fully into account the Israelis' infamously cavalier attitude about civilian casualties, since every dead bystander is a reason for someone else (typically a relative) to have a grudge on Israel ?

---

And did you ever think that the reason the Israelis are willing to make that hard choice is because they realize it's the only way to make Hizbollah stop using civilian bases?

I'm sorry, if Hizbollah is firing from a civilian building, they shouldn't get a free pass. As I said earlier, I really and truly feel bad for the Palestinians. But their biggest problem is not Israel, it's leaders that willingly sign them up to be human shields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

While you do have a point there, one also has to ask from where else they are supposed to launch their attacks (under the assumption that they have to of course)? Stand around in an open field waving a rocket? The problem is that Hezbollah isn't a standing regular army like the IDF is and thus has limits on what it can and cannot do. I think if the roles were reversed, either side would use the tactics of the other.

Now, while hiding in populous civilian targets certain isn't all that nice, was Israel's use of cluster bombs (which are banned and condemned) in Lebanon justified? If they really just wanted to target the militants, wouldn't a homing missile be good enough? Why bomb a highly populated civilian area with cluster bombs? Really gotta wonder if there isn't some intent on killing civilians there.

---

I agree with you 110%. At a certain point, if your methods are crude and inaccurate enough, all protests to the contrary aside, you must be assumed to be looking for civilian casualties. And if you remember last summer, during the whole mess in Lebanon, that was where I drew the line in my support for Israel, that they weren't taking enough precautions.

That's a different issue, though, isn't it? You're arguing whether or not Israel really is targeting civilians. I'm arguing that if they're after people hiding among the civilians, they have a right to stop the terrorist attacks on Israel.

Interesting study.

Alas, I can't copy and paste from it, and I'm too lazy to type whole statistics myself, so I'll only share some brief thoughts about things that caught my attention.

Native born Afro-american Muslims seem to be the most radical.

On the whole, the survey confirms other studies: US Muslims are better integrated than European ones. I think it is connected to 71% of American Muslims seeing hard work leading to succes.

There seems to be a radicalisation, see statistics on page 33. 26% of Muslims think they should remain distinct from US society. This ranges from 39% for 18-29 year olds, to 17% for 55+. There is a marked difference between those arrived before and after 1990, 15% and 25% respectively.
Are these differences a sign of gradual acceptance with age and length of residence, or a they signs of radicalisation? I can't tell.

Edit: one last thing. The total number that don't think suicide bombings are never justified, is 13% for US Muslims, and 35% for French Muslims. Lovely.
For Spain and the UK these numbers are twice as high as for Americans.

FactionHeir

I really enjoyed your post and you brought up some excellent points. My question is that given their role and if their role is one for the people, would they not wish to limit damage to their people? Being unlike an IDF they have more access to the people, they could evacuate a building from which they wish to initiate hostilities. The people would no doubt cooperate completely and aid in not tipping their move if they had the moral authority to be there and on their behalf to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And did you ever think that the reason the Israelis are willing to make that hard choice is because they realize it's the only way to make Hizbollah stop using civilian bases?

---

I haven't heard of Hezbollah ceasing to use that trick you know. Methinks you have a bit too rosy idea of the way the IDF approaches these things. They used to have what amount to flat out death squads whose whole purpose was "retaliation" with excessive force and extreme prejudice, remember ? And they seem to think that a helo-launched Hellfire into a crowd is a fine way to 'assasinate' an old man in wheelchair...

Quote:

---

But their biggest problem is not Israel, it's leaders that willingly sign them up to be human shields.

---

I don't really see what this has to do with the whole territory-ownership issue which is what the whole conflict is ultimately all about, and where Israel has been the single biggest troublemaker from the start. What with that whole "Biblical Israel" and "Jewish State" (as in, "Jews Only") thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I haven't heard of Hezbollah ceasing to use that trick you know. Methinks you have a bit too rosy idea of the way the IDF approaches these things. They used to have what amount to flat out death squads whose whole purpose was "retaliation" with excessive force and extreme prejudice, remember ? And they seem to think that a helo-launched Hellfire into a crowd is a fine way to 'assasinate' an old man in wheelchair...
I don't really see what this has to do with the whole territory-ownership issue which is what the whole conflict is ultimately all about, and where Israel has been the single biggest troublemaker from the start. What with that whole "Biblical Israel" and "Jewish State" (as in, "Jews Only") thing.

---

Hmmm. So what you're saying, is that in the interest of protecting Palestinian civilians, who are allowing Hamas and Hizbollah in among them to attack Israel, the Israelis should just let their own civilians die. Interesting position.

And my post has nothing to do with ownership questions. I thought we were talking about a poll question regarding whether the targeting of civilians could be justified? And as for the Jewish state being "Jews Only", you ought to do a quick web search on how many mosques and churches there are in Israel before you put your foot in your mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Hmmm. So what you're saying, is that in the interest of protecting Palestinian civilians, who are allowing Hamas and Hizbollah in among them to attack Israel, the Israelis should just let their own civilians die.

---

Actually what I think is they should stop being anally retentive about having their Promised Land and sit down at the negotiation table - properly. Already if they don't want to spend the next hundred years or something at this same crap.

Quote:

---

And my post has nothing to do with ownership questions. I thought we were talking about a poll question regarding whether the targeting of civilians could be justified?

---

The ownership question is the big problem of the Palestinians. Actually, it darn near defines them as a group. The ethically questionable tactics of the militants rather pale in comparision.

Quote:

---

And as for the Jewish state being "Jews Only", you ought to do a quick web search on how many mosques and churches there are in Israel before you put your foot in your mouth.

---

Not really. Theory and practice are famously bad over their difficulties in meeting each other. What the pinko-Zionists would have wanted - and still do - is a "pure" Biblical Israel. For numerous practical reasons - starting with the fact not all Zionists are that hardline, and not all Israelis Zionists, and continuing to entirely pragmatic political and economical questions - what they got in spite of their best efforts rather fell short of that.

Mind you, I don't actually know what the lunatic fringe of the Zionist thinks of Christians. Presumably better than they do of Muslims anyway. An interesting question certainly; wonder where you could find info on it...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Make a poll asking americans(or indeed any other country) whether it's justified to invade another country and kill people there...

---

Its called war :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I don't really see what this has to do with the whole territory-ownership issue which is what the whole conflict is ultimately all about, and where Israel has been the single biggest troublemaker from the start. What with that whole "Biblical Israel" and "Jewish State" (as in, "Jews Only") thing.

---

I wasn't aware that the "palestinians" as they are known today ever actually had legal ownership over any of that land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I wasn't aware that the "palestinians" as they are known today ever actually had legal ownership over any of that land.

---

I read somewhere that Palestine was the modern version of Philistine (wiki I think).

So, Philistine V. Isreal. Palestine V. Isreal now, nothing changed.:shame:

Well, in terms of PJ's approach on legal ownership, the area in modern times has gone from being part of the Ottoman Empire to a British Mandate to a Jewish State, with the indigenous Arabs never having legal political ownership over the land. Of course, considering they'd lived there for centuries, that doesn't just divest them of all rights of residency or anything.

As for earlier ownership, it would have originally (in terms of what records we have) been a pagan Canaanite/Philistine area, then a Jewish state, then a province of the Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian/Macedonian Empires, then a semi-autonomous Roman province, then with the fall of Rome a Byzantine province, then part of the Ummah, then it was captured by the Turks, then the Franks, then Saladin and the Ayyubids, then I get a little hazy (Mongols, Mamluks, etc.), and eventually under the auspices of the Ottoman Turks, and on into the present.

Ajax

So one could say the Turks have more of a claim over the area than the "palestinians".

It was never theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Well, in terms of PJ's approach on legal ownership, the area in modern times has gone from being part of the Ottoman Empire to a British Mandate to a Jewish State, with the indigenous Arabs never having legal political ownership over the land. Of course, considering they'd lived there for centuries, that doesn't just divest them of all rights of residency or anything.


Ajax

---

Arabs are the people living in suadi arabia, the people living their now are muslims.

Not debating, just annoyingly nit picking........

Quote:

---

Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets
to Defend Islam be Justified?

---

No. Can you? Freedom is worth defending with your life for all people with any sense. I doubt you my friend are willing to give your life defending any religion :beam:

Quote:

---

read somewhere that Palestine was the modern version of Philistine (wiki I think).

---

And exactly what have the Palestinians as we call them today have to do with the Philistines? It was the name given to Israel after the Romans sent them packing. Instead of the Provence of Judea it was changed to the Provence of Palestine

Quote:

---

So, Philistine V. Isreal. Palestine V. Isreal now, nothing changed.

---

So the Palestinians would have you believe.

Quote:

---

Of course, considering they'd lived there for centuries, that doesn't just divest them of all rights of residency or anything.

---

So if your family rents a house for a few generations its theirs? Few of these people had lived there for centuries and far fewer than that owned any land . Also why should jews be not allowed in Palestine. Because the Romans threw them out? Most arabs migrated there just like the Jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Arabs are the people living in suadi arabia, the people living their now are muslims.

Not debating, just annoyingly nit picking........

---

Arabs are an ethnic group, and it includes the modern Palestinians, as well as many inhabitants of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and other states on the Arabian peninsula and Northern Africa, not just Saudia Arabia. Most Arabs are Muslim, but others are Christians or Jews, and plenty of Muslims are not Arabic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So if your family rents a house for a few generations its theirs? Few of these people had lived there for centuries and far fewer than that owned any land . Also why should jews be not allowed in Palestine. Because the Romans threw them out? Most arabs migrated there just like the Jews.

---

I think duration of residence on a piece of land should have some contribution to ownership or at least rights to continued residence. Native American tribes didn't use the kind of property ownership laws we brought from Europe. Does that mean we were entirely justified in pushing them off their ancestral lands because they didn't legally own them anyway? I don't think so.

And where did I argue that Jews should not be allowed in Palestine? My point, if I have one ~;p is that the area has been ruled/owned by dozens of groups over its history, each with a greater or lesser claim on it, including both the Jews and the Palestinians (not to mention the Turks, and the British, and the French, and Italy, and Egypt, and Greece, and Mongolia . . . ), which is a big part of what makes the issue so complicated.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

This will probably come as a shock to you, but most of us don't actually live in mansions. The newly immigrated especially tend to find themselves in less than fantastic living accomodations. Your co-op apartment in Brighton Beach would probably be a more accurate locale for Yusuf.

---

That was a jab at the wealthy Americans who supported the IRA.

As regards Palastine, has it occurred to the Isrealis yet that a significant number of the "Palastinians" are actually Jewish converts to Christianity or Islam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And exactly what have the Palestinians as we call them today have to do with the Philistines?

---

Both sare the same name and both fight the isreali's. Who knows, their families couldve lived in the same general area for centuries too.

The Romans threw most of the Jews out of there after they'd had enough of putting down major revolts, I seem to recall. The other peoples inhabiting the region doubtless filled the vacuum happily enough, and went one grumbling about the Romans with the remaining Jews.

And when the Muslim Arabs came and booted Byzantine authority off the place for good, the locals pretty much welcomed them as liberators who neither gave a damn about what exact form of Christianity you practised nor had issues with Jews.

After which the place's still been densely enough inhabited, under varying overlords, quite nonstop all the way to the time the first quasi-Zionists started arriving from "the West" in the late 1800s. I rather imagine all those local people did not suddenly magically disappear into thin air when more Jews and Muslims from elsewhere started moving in (judging already by the little detail the Muslim families Saladin appointed to guard the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are still at the job), and I also rather suspect they were driven away with the rest of the Muslims in '48.

Sure, those Jews who'd dwelt there since equally far back have an equal claim to the land, but not counting those folks I'd rather say the indigenous Muslims had a rather stronger claim in general by the default condition of having factually lived on it for generations.

And if you go far enough back into deep Antiquity, someone (Canaanites I think, and whoever the heck was there before them) had been building cities on those hills a millenia before the Israelites even appear on the historical radar.

As for the ancient Philistines, nobody really knows where that lot came from (somewhere around Anatolia and the Aegean are strong contenders apparently) but after their unsuccesful invasion of Egypt the Pharaoh settled them into what is these days roughly the Ghaza strip coastline. They apparently fade away as a distinct group (presumably becoming mixed with the other peoples inhabiting the same general area) sometime around the Babylonian collapse before the Persians or soon after. The Romans probably found the name in Judaic scriptures.

Watchman captured a lot of what I was about to say. Basically, there's no connection I'm aware of between ancient Philistines and modern Palestinians, besides whatever genetic material the local gene pool may have assimilated. Modern Palestinians identify themselves primarily with other Arab peoples.

Here's an excerpt from the Palestinian National Charter, borrowed from wiki:

"The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father—whether in Palestine or outside it—is also a Palestinian." The Charter also states that "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians."

Ajax

It makes me laugh to see people claiming that Ser's question is not equivalent to the question in the poll.

To me it is the same question, it only differs in the ideology to be defended through the targeting of civilians.

I do not believe that anyone actually answered the question.

I would say no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

It makes me laugh to see people claiming that Ser's question is not equivalent to the question in the poll.

To me it is the same question, it only differs in the ideology to be defended through the targeting of civilians.

I do not believe that anyone actually answered the question.

I would say no.

---

I would also consider it equivalent, but he phrased it as another poll he would like to see conducted, not as a question for fellow orgahs. Anyhow, I'd be against targetting civilians to defend either Islam or Freedom. Targetting combatants using civilian human shields gets trickier.

Ajax

Quote:

---

I think duration of residence on a piece of land should have some contribution to ownership or at least rights to continued residence.

---

But it doesnt. What you think is irrelevant. If I own the land and let you rent it and I sell it to someone else your going to tell them youve been living there for 20 years and aint moving?

Quote:

---

residence on a piece of land should have some contribution to ownership or at least rights to continued residence. Native American tribes didn't use the kind of property ownership laws we brought from Europe. Does that mean we were entirely justified in pushing them off their ancestral lands because they didn't legally own them anyway? I don't think so.

---

The Jews bouth the land from the legitimate owners. Mostlly Turkish absentee lanndlords. They didnt just take it.

Quote:

---

the area has been ruled/owned by dozens of groups over its history, each with a greater or lesser claim on it, including both the Jews and the Palestinians

---

:oops:

When did the Palestinians rule the region? Never thats when.

Quote:

---

As regards Palastine, has it occurred to the Isrealis yet that a significant number of the "Palastinians" are actually Jewish converts to Christianity or Islam?
Today 23:29

---

Then their not Jews anymore :laugh4: Look this is really whats so funny and sad about this. In actuality their pretty much the same peoples. Their all semites fighting over which relgion is right. The thing is the Jews really dont care. Their religion only wants Israel unlike Christianity and Islam who want the world. They have no wish for everyone to convert to Judiasm. Hell they pride themselves on being the few the proud the jews.:clown:

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And exactly what have the Palestinians as we call them today have to do with the Philistines?



Both sare the same name and both fight the isreali's

---

Not the same name nor the same peoples. The Philistines were a seafaring people from around Greece somewhere I believe like the Phonicians.

Quote:

---

Who knows, their families couldve lived in the same general area for centuries too.

---

When was the last time a Philistine met a Palestinian ? I dont think they ever have. The philistines were gone before any palestinans existed. Unless you just reffering to people who live in the region as Palestinians.

Quote:

---

After which the place's still been densely enough inhabited, under varying overlords, quite nonstop all the way to the time the first quasi-Zionists started arriving from "the West" in the late 1800s

---

If you call 700.000 people living in that region densly packed :laugh4: The place as a desert and forlorn until jewish immigration stated. It was the Jews who casused all the arbs to migrate there to get a better standard of living. Without the Jews israel would be as bad, no it would be worse9No Oil) than all its poor arab neighbors. The real reason israel is hated is because they have these filthy western ways about them and their not Muslims. Thats it in a nut shell, basicly they have the samething against them as they do us,. Also like us its why their succesful and the arabs are not. Get the hell out of the 17th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

But it doesnt. What you think is irrelevant. If I own the land and let you rent it and I sell it to someone else your going to tell them youve been living there for 20 years and aint moving?

---

More like my family has been living and farming on the land for more generations than anyone can remember, someone invaded years ago and took possession of it, then they sell it to someone else who tells me I have to leave, and then I say heck no. Yes, I'd fight that. Why should a Palestinian farmer care about Western or Turkish property laws over their families and their livelihoods? As people, if not as a clearly defined nation, they'd been there longer than the Turks or Westerners.

Quote:

---

The Jews bouth the land from the legitimate owners. Mostlly Turkish absentee lanndlords. They didnt just take it.

---

Many Native American chiefs also sold land to European settlers. The fact that they often had a collective idea of property ownership and thought they were selling rights to share use of the land rather than exclusive ownership, and that their buyers did little to make things clear to them, makes for a similar situation between their peoples and the Palestinians.

Quote:

---

:oops: When did the Palestinians rule the region? Never thats when.

---

I'll give you that one on a technicality. I shouldn't have said just 'ruled/owned.' I've already stated why I think the Palestinians have a claim to the land as well. They may not have had political control at any point, but it's still their ancestral homeland, too.

Ajax

Can anyone explain to me how in the Nine Hells [D&D super geeky exclamation] does the Backroom -- like, 3+ threads in the front page -- become a battlefield to expound upon the evils of:

Jewish Israeli scums
Palestinian scums
Muslim scums
More Muslim scums

...?

I'm quite tired of it, really. So much bigotry and so much hatred, all from the armchair plutocrats that we all are. Old disproven "facts" thrown around and catchwords and stereotypical positions (some quite chilling, to me) put forth. At least if you're going to hate something hate something cool. Like the Beatles. Or rap music. Or God.

Quote:

---

More like my family has been living and farming on the land for more generations than anyone can remember, someone invaded years ago and took possession of it, then they sell it to someone else who tells me I have to leave, and then I say heck no. Yes, I'd fight that.

---

Your not going to find many palestinians who meet that criteria, Nor will you find Israel invading THIER nation or land. At least in 48

Quote:

---

Many Native American chiefs also sold land to European settlers. The fact that they often had a collective idea of property ownership and thought they were selling rights to share use of the land rather than exclusive ownership, and that their buyers did little to make things clear to them, makes for a similar situation between their peoples and the Palestinians.

---

The Turks wned the land and got much more than it was worth. The Jews paid through the nose for it. A very poor analogy indeed you have here.

Quote:

---

I'll give you that one on a technicality. I shouldn't have said just 'ruled/owned.' I've already stated why I think the Palestinians have a claim to the land as well. They may not have had political control at any point, but it's still their ancestral homeland, too.

---

OK when did they own it LOL? And isnt Saudi Artabia thier ancestral homeland? Palestine is the ancestral homeland of only one peoples living on the earth today and thats the Jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

OK when did they own it LOL? And isnt Saudi Artabia thier ancestral homeland? Palestine is the ancestral homeland of only one peoples living on the earth today and thats the Jews.

---

Wow, by that criteria it's not the Jews ancestral homeland either, because they had to move into it as well. I'm using ancestral homeland as a land where your family has lived for generations, not your ultimate place of origin. I suppose in case of ultimate origin, Africa is the ancestral homeland for us all, as far as scientists can tell, so we should probably leave behind all these other lands we've moved into and return there.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And isnt Saudi Artabia thier ancestral homeland? Palestine is the ancestral homeland of only one peoples living on the earth today and thats the Jews.

---

Bollocks. The whole slew of Semitic peoples probably wandered up from the Arabian peninsula or thereabouts, long before the group that became the Israelites was even a blip on the radar of history. Palestine was already quite inhabited enough when that merry lot can first be positively identified from the archeological and written record.

Go far enough back, and ultimately the only ancestral homeland anyone can claim (without resorting to the supernatural anyway) is the Rift Valley.

Quote:

---

If you call 700.000 people living in that region densly packed The place as a desert and forlorn until jewish immigration stated. It was the Jews who casused all the arbs to migrate there to get a better standard of living. Without the Jews israel would be as bad, no it would be worse9No Oil) than all its poor arab neighbors. The real reason israel is hated is because they have these filthy western ways about them and their not Muslims. Thats it in a nut shell, basicly they have the samething against them as they do us,. Also like us its why their succesful and the arabs are not. Get the hell out of the 17th century.

---

Excuse me if I conduct a breach of etiquette here Gawain, but do tell: are you a bloody racist ?

If I may be forgiven for going back on topic, there was a lovely post about the fallout from the study today:

Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians

The hysteria over the Pew poll about American Muslims continues unabated, with the focus now on the finding that while 80% of American Muslims oppose attacks on civilians in all cases, 13% said they could be justified in some circumstances. The "discussion" illustrates some standard failings of our political discourse.

Michelle Malkin went to National Review to proclaim that the poll "should be a wake-up call, not another excuse for the mainstream media to downplay the threat of homegrown jihad." Mark Steyn said it demonstrates the existence in America of "a huge comfort zone for the jihad to operate in," and Jonah Goldberg warned how "significant" this is. On CNN last night, Anderson Cooper was horrified -- just horrified -- that "so many" American Muslims would support such violence.

The reality, though, is that it is almost impossible to conduct a poll and not have a sizable portion of the respondents agree to almost everything. And in particular, with regard to the specific question of whether it is justifiable to launch violent attacks aimed deliberately at civilians, the percentage of American Muslims who believe in such attacks pales in comparison to the percentage of Americans generally who believe that such attacks are justifiable.

The University of Maryland's highly respected Program on International Public Attitudes, in December 2006, conducted a concurrent public opinion poll of the United States and Iran to determine the comparative views of each country's citizens on a variety of questions. The full findings are published here (.pdf).

One of the questions they asked was whether "bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified"? Americans approved of such attacks by a much larger margin than Iranians -- 51-16% (and a much, much larger margin than American Muslims -- 51-13%):

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...mania/poll.jpg

A rather substantial 24% of Americans thought that such attacks are justified "often" or "sometimes," while another 27% thought they were justified in rare cases. By stark contrast, only 11% of Iranians think such attacks are justified "often" or "sometimes," with a mere further 5% agreeing they can be justified in rare cases. Similar results were found with the series of other questions regarding violence deliberately aimed at civilians -- including women, children and the elderly. Americans believed such attacks could be justifiable to a substantially higher degree than Iranians.

As Kenneth Ballen noted in The Christian Science Monitor in February of this year, Americans express greater support for "attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria." Make of that what you will -- and its meaning is debatable -- but those are just facts.

In general, polling data can be used to document all sorts of pernicious views held by a sizable number of respondents. One recent poll found that 15% of Americans would either outright refuse to vote for, or would have reservations about voting for, a black presidential candidate even if he were qualified (12% would outright refuse to vote for a Hispanic, 11% for a woman, and 14% for a Jew). A 1999 poll of Americans found that 34% answered "yes" -- 34% -- when asked: "If you honestly assessed yourself, would you say that you have at least some racist feelings?" And 18% of Americans believe that "the U.S. should use nuclear weapons even if it has not suffered a nuclear attack."

The reality of that Pew poll is that, generally and comparatively speaking, it demonstrates just how unremarkable, assimilated, peaceful and consummately American is the American Muslim population. If anything, support for violence -- including against civilians -- is notably less than it is among Americans generally. Again, those are just facts. Yet by manipulating the polling data and failing to discuss it comparatively, an impression is quickly solidifying, as intended, that there are throngs of scary and threatening jihadist Muslims -- both in our midst and around the world -- waiting to launch suicide attacks on us, and that necessitates the euphemistic Malkian "wake-up call."

:wall:
Capital. Oh how I love populists.

Quote:

---

Wow, by that criteria it's not the Jews ancestral homeland either, because they had to move into it as well.

---

No because they were the first NATION to be there. Before that they had no homeland.

Quote:

---

I'm using ancestral homeland as a land where your family has lived for generations

---

So am I. If their forced to leave its no longer their ancestral homeland ?

Quote:

---

Bollocks. The whole slew of Semitic peoples probably wandered up from the Arabian peninsula or thereabouts, long before the group that became the Israelites was even a blip on the radar of history. Palestine was already quite inhabited enough when that merry lot can first be positively identified from the archeological and written record.

---

Since you say probably Ill have to assume you dont know. :laugh4: The point is Israel was the first ever nation to claim the region. It was one of the first nations on the planet.

Quote:

---

Excuse me if I conduct a breach of etiquette here Gawain, but do tell: are you a bloody racist ?

---

Well then you are sadly mistaken and owe me an apology. Show me one racist remark in that quote. So you deny that western industry and ideas arent what makes Israel superior to its neighbors and nothing else. if thats racism I dont know what to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No because they were the first NATION to be there. Before that they had no homeland.

---

False. There were other nations there before them. Including the one their records say they committed genocide upon to claim the land.

Quote:

---

So am I. If their forced to leave its no longer their ancestral homeland ?

---

Are you even reading what I'm writing? That's not what I'm saying at all. It's still their ancestral homeland. It's also the Palestinians' ancestral homeland by the same qualification.
:wall:

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No because they were the first NATION to be there. Before that they had no homeland.

---

What happened to the Canaanites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So am I. If their forced to leave its no longer their ancestral homeland ?

---

Quite. As I've said before, the land of what we now call Israel and Palestine should be cleared of both Jews and Arabs, and be returned to its rightful inhabitants, the Phoenicians. Just because they were forced out by the Hebrews does not mean it is any less their ancestral homeland. Within its bounds, abolish the worship of false gods, like whichever one it is that the Jews and Muslims follow, and impose compulsory worship of Baal. Moloch 4 teh win!!!

Quote:

---

What happened to the Canaanites?

---

Not a nation . Not in the sense we think of nations.

Quote:

---

Quite. As I've said before, the land of what we now call Israel and Palestine should be cleared of both Jews and Arabs, and be returned to its rightful inhabitants, the Phoenicians

---

How there are none. Besides what about the earlier people who,lived there?

Quote:

---

Just because they were forced out by the Hebrews does not mean it is any less their ancestral homeland.

---

Once more they were not a nation. There are no more of them today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not a nation . Not in the sense we think of nations.

---

Why not?

Ajax

Because thats what history teaches us :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not a nation . Not in the sense we think of nations.

How there are none. Besides what about the earlier people who,lived there?

Once more they were not a nation. There are no more of them today.

---

Surely there must be some, somewhere, in permanent exile after their expulsion by the Hebrews. Can't we look in Tunisia for whatever descendants of the Carthaginians we can find, and gather them up and give them back their ancestral homeland of Canaan? Sure, their ancestors might have come from other Phoenician cities than those in Canaan, but surely they won't be any more out of place in that land than the million or so Russian Jews transported to Israel to ensure a Jewish majority?

Justice for the Canaanites! Expel the Jews and Arabs and give the land back to its original inhabitants! End the Exile now!

"Nation" as in "people/culture" or as in "nation-state", which is a pretty darn modern invention ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Before that they had no homeland.

---

Being a nomad tends to do that. So by the same token, if a Turkish or Bedouin Arab nomad settled down to till a field in Israel (as many did) that plot of land then became his "ancestral homeland" ? And the Hungarians' "ancestral homeland" is the Great Hungarian Plain on which they settled in the 900s ?

Quote:

---

Nation" as in "people/culture" or as in "nation-state", which is a pretty darn modern invention ?

---

Lets try Egypt Rome or Greece.

My memory is fuzzy, but isn't this the root of the matter when it comes to Egypt and archaeological endeavors there. I remember a former colleague of mine had some extremely tough times with Egyptian authorities, largely because the excavations had to do with possible Jewish settlements and the fear there was and probably still is of people claiming rights to lands based on historical settlement. From what I remember, once again a little fuzzy, but there were problems in Jordan as well, but not quite the blackout on Jewish excavations as in Egypt. They currently have 2 funded digs in Jordan I believe, zero in Egypt.


[edit]

I think I saw something about this on the science channel as well or something, maybe history international.

They cant even dig up the temple mount because the Muslims built a Mosque on top of it in Jerusalem lol. Much of ancient Israel is buried beneath Muslim lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Lets try Egypt Rome or Greece.

---

So which of the two do you consider those to be ?

Quote:

---

Much of ancient Israel is buried beneath Muslim lands.

---

Gee, aren't they bad people when they didn't leave all that prime farmland alone while the Jews were away...?