What Are Your Opinions On the Creation of the State of Israel?

[husnain1]

LOL there you again with your silliness. Do you have any evidence to these connections or is it simply stuff you hear on the news? Unless you're in intelligence I doubt you can fully speak to the veracity of those claims (which is all they are).

let me just cut you off with two things:

a) i don't watch the news;

b) if you tell me i have to be intelligence to know something, you'd better be in intelligence yourself if you claim you know about it. otherwise, we can just discuss the topic like adults?

I guess you also believe the US can do no harm?

completely irrelevant to the question. to repeat, maybe you could address the topic instead of just resorting to "but, but, the US is evil too!"

i said that you have to be in intelligence to speak so definitively on whats going on. there is such a thing as propaganda and psychological warfare

 

[husnain1]

again you're showing why I keep telling you that you dont know what you're talking about. The mujahiddeen and the taliban are basically one and the same. Its the same people who were sitting around in Afghanistan with nothing to do and ended up forming the Taliban. In contrast look at Jalalludin Haqqani (Haqqani Network) and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (Hezb-e-Islami), both of whom were senior mujahiddeen commanders who fought against the Soviets with support from the US/Pak.

no, all Taliban might be mujaheddin, but not all mujaheddin are Taliban. frankly, i think you spend much more time deciding no one but yourself knows anything than actually covering the topic.



and yes, let's look at Hekmatyar, since i brought him up for a reason. against the Soviets, the Pakistanis took our money and material, insisted we stay out of Afghanistan, and then funneled the goods to the guys like him that they preferred. go go ISI.

probably because i am Pakistani and I grew up learning about these things before most of you had even heard about them.

as opposed to the US sending it to some other fighter. you act as if the US had the best interest of afghanistan at hand. what do u expect Pakistan base its national interests on? how best they can do things for the US? you dont think the US is taking action that undermines Pakistan there? your problem is your speaking about this issue as if the US is right and everyone else is wrong

 

[husnain1]

At the same time people like you use a blanket term like Taliban to lump all of these groups together.

one, please show me where i lumped all these groups together.

two, YOU just said "mujahiddeen and the taliban are basically one and the same." so who's actually using the blanket term?

As for Kashmir I can fully address the issue but whats the point? you already came to a conclusion since you know best. You clearly show why the Pakistanis dont want to help the US because whenever they do they are called the bad guys and get screwed every which way for it but somehow they continue to help them anyway

and if you're going to play the "why post, since you disagree with me" game, then i have to ask, why are you bothering to post in this thread at all?

the taliban and mujahiddeen are one and the same in terms of ideology. both fought a jihad to ride their lands of kuffar (non-believers according to them) do you even know what mujahiddeen means without having to look it up?

 

[husnain1]

here's the thing you're mixing history and current events. lets just assume for a minute the US didnt have that big of a role in israel's creation. Its not like these people ignored their "beef" with the British or even the Ottoman then. They fought against them too! However currently who is the main supporter of israel? the US so obviously more of the anger will be directed there.

i'm actually not the one mixing history and current events. you are LITERALLY going right to "who is the main supporter of Israel" one sentence after discussing the creation of Israel. i, however, am NOT talking about the issue of who is currently the main supporter of Israel. i don't know why you think i am OR why talking about it relates to my posts on the creation of Israel.

no actually im talking about how current events and history tie together because basically not much has changed. i even offered support as to my conclusions. there is ample evidence out there that shows the US's role in the creation of israel, a simple google search will show you as much. I even tried to point out that logically speaking such staunch support of a nation would have to be based on some sort of history between the two, it just doesnt happen over night.

 

[husnain1]

i should also add that this "incredible amount of posts" thing is some ridiculous fluke that i fucking despise. anyway...

I want you to ask yourself some questions. Why does the US have an undying support for Israel unparalleled to any other nation on the earth? Why is the the US claims to be neutral yet shows CLEAR support for Israel in all matters? The Israeli govt has been occupying the Palestinian territories for decades with the support of the US (and others) and you still wonder why they are hated so much?

did i wonder that? or did i ask "why are you asking me these questions when i have not been talking about ANY of that?"

what in the bloody hell are you talking about?

 

[janklow]

i said that you have to be in intelligence to speak so definitively on whats going on. there is such a thing as propaganda and psychological warfare

okay, let's be clear about the exchange here.

janklow: "the fact of [Pakistan] having such connections to terrorists undermines THAT POINT, and b) the US is not nearly as in bed with the groups we're talking about as the Pakistanis are"

husnain1: "Unless you're in intelligence I doubt you can fully speak to the veracity of those claims (which is all they are)."

so if i have to be in intelligence to make those statements, why don't you have to be in intelligence to claim they're not true?

 

[janklow]

probably because i am Pakistani and I grew up learning about these things before most of you had even heard about them...

so, in other words, you might not know anything about other posters on this forum - their background, their education, their level of knowledge, etc, etc - but because you're of Pakistani descent you know 100% fact about the topic? please. and this on the heels of you posting "there is such a thing as propaganda and psychological warfare." if you don't see the problem with saying being Pakistani means you decide who does and does not know the topic solely on the grounds of "i'm Pakistani," shit, i don't know what to tell you (and i think i also recall you saying "i was born, raised, and currently still live in the U.S.")

i didn't say the US had the best interest of Afghanistan at heart, i said what Pakistan did (and we're straying into that familiar territory where you insist we have to talk about CURRENT EVENTS to talk about the past). the counterpoint is that you don't seem to accept that Pakistan's interests might be ones that led them to fuck the US over on this issue (say, funding a guy like Hekmatyar because you figure the US will eventually leave and thus wanting to keep him in their corner).

finally i'm speaking on this issue not because the US is right and everyone else is wrong, but because i'm pointing out it's not for no reason someone might label Pakistan "fundamentalists/terrorists." oddly enough, i don't think i have even called them that myself. hmmm.

 

[janklow]

the taliban and mujahiddeen are one and the same in terms of ideology. both fought a jihad to ride their lands of kuffar (non-believers according to them) do you even know what mujahiddeen means without having to look it up?

a better question is, do you have the ability to debate a topic WITHOUT your argument being "no one knows what they're talking about but me?" because that one is clearly designed for the sole purpose of talking shit and nothing more.

fine, let's look it up:

mujahideen: Islamic guerrilla fighters especially in the Middle East (yes, it's a little more general than that, i suppose)

Taliban: a fundamentalist Islamic militia in Afghanistan

so, once again i will post this: "no, all Taliban might be mujaheddin, but not all mujaheddin are Taliban."

also, let me know when you want to address your OWN use of blanket terminology.

 

[janklow]

no actually im talking about how current events and history tie together because basically not much has changed. i even offered support as to my conclusions. there is ample evidence out there that shows the US's role in the creation of israel, a simple google search will show you as much. I even tried to point out that logically speaking such staunch support of a nation would have to be based on some sort of history between the two, it just doesnt happen over night.

i did not say there was no history between the US and Israel, as there obviously is. however, this history does not necessary have anything to do with the CREATION of Israel.

further, i'll just point out that despite the fact that both the Ottomans and the British considered it their property to dispose of as they saw fit, the single country you want to focus on is the US. hmmm.

 

[janklow]

what in the bloody hell are you talking about?

if you were less defensive, you might realize how many times i personally have been posting in this thread.

 

[husnain1]

i said that you have to be in intelligence to speak so definitively on whats going on. there is such a thing as propaganda and psychological warfare

okay, let's be clear about the exchange here.

janklow: "the fact of [Pakistan] having such connections to terrorists undermines THAT POINT, and b) the US is not nearly as in bed with the groups we're talking about as the Pakistanis are"

husnain1: "Unless you're in intelligence I doubt you can fully speak to the veracity of those claims (which is all they are)."

so if i have to be in intelligence to make those statements, why don't you have to be in intelligence to claim they're not true?

i conceded that. which leaves us at a moot point

 

[husnain1]

probably because i am Pakistani and I grew up learning about these things before most of you had even heard about them...

so, in other words, you might not know anything about other posters on this forum - their background, their education, their level of knowledge, etc, etc - but because you're of Pakistani descent you know 100% fact about the topic? please. and this on the heels of you posting "there is such a thing as propaganda and psychological warfare." if you don't see the problem with saying being Pakistani means you decide who does and does not know the topic solely on the grounds of "i'm Pakistani," shit, i don't know what to tell you (and i think i also recall you saying "i was born, raised, and currently still live in the U.S.")

i didn't say the US had the best interest of Afghanistan at heart, i said what Pakistan did (and we're straying into that familiar territory where you insist we have to talk about CURRENT EVENTS to talk about the past). the counterpoint is that you don't seem to accept that Pakistan's interests might be ones that led them to fuck the US over on this issue (say, funding a guy like Hekmatyar because you figure the US will eventually leave and thus wanting to keep him in their corner).

finally i'm speaking on this issue not because the US is right and everyone else is wrong, but because i'm pointing out it's not for no reason someone might label Pakistan "fundamentalists/terrorists." oddly enough, i don't think i have even called them that myself. hmmm.

1) umm No. the point was that I might actually understand Pakistan's history and internal politics in a way that might not make sense to you. you might just have learned about some of these people now but again we've known about them for years. for instance you might have HEARD about asif ali zardari but do you know of first hand accounts of the things he's done and been accused of? I doubt it. maybe if you did you might interpret things in a different light. For example, instead of implying that Pakistan may be a terrorist state based on whats been happening in the past 10 or so years, you could actually look at its history and understand that Pakistan has always been "moderate" in terms of its religious values.

2) I fully admit Pakistan would do things to screw over the US if it was in its best interests (hell every country does things like that), however Pakistan has done far more to help the US and has had to pay for it in the blood of its soldiers and citizens. Coupled with the fact that this has been the US's m.o. from the start of its relationship with Pakistan I dont think you can blame Pakistan for being a reluctant partner.

3) No one ever stated you said anything. When I say "you" im speaking in a general nature. Furthermore, here's the problem with you thinking that there is a reason why these people are being labelled terrorists/fundamentalists, I dont think you understand enough about islam to make a distinction from someone who is following the faith in its intended form. for example, one may call them terrorists because they believe they are fighting jihad. here's the problem, westerners here jihad and then equate it with fundamentalism. in islam jihad is a concept that has many different meanings. for example, the jihad that westerners know of is when it is applied to war, however a key misunderstanding is that a true jihad can ONLY be defensive in nature! Now if one doesnt understand this point they can make the "intellectual" leap of equating islam with terrorism. On the flip side the afghanis (taliban or whoever else) believe they are defending themselves after all they were attacked they didnt do the attacking. the most the taliban could be accused of was giving sanctuary to bin Laden which if you go back and research the issue you'd see the taliban did state that if evidence was provided for bin Laden's guilt they would try him in an islamic court. So again in their view they were the ones being attacked so for them jihad is justified ( it would still be a problematic issue from an islamic legal point of view). one needs to understand the religion before one can even pretend they understand what terms like fundamentalism and wahhabi even mean. maybe then you might understand why terrorism seems to only be associated with muslims. when a white man shot up a theatre in aurora, colorado he wasnt called a terrorist even though in the strict sense of the term what he did WAS an act of terrorism. instead you have people questioning his sanity. when a black person commits a crime he is stereotyped because thats what black people do and now when muslims or those claiming to be muslims (and there is a huge difference there) commit violence its labelled as terrorism. the point in all of this that before one applies labels one must understand them first, especially from a point of view that is not of your own.

 

[husnain1]

what in the bloody hell are you talking about?

if you were less defensive, you might realize how many times i personally have been posting in this thread.

no. i really dont know what you were talking about there.

 

[husnain1]

no actually im talking about how current events and history tie together because basically not much has changed. i even offered support as to my conclusions. there is ample evidence out there that shows the US's role in the creation of israel, a simple google search will show you as much. I even tried to point out that logically speaking such staunch support of a nation would have to be based on some sort of history between the two, it just doesnt happen over night.

i did not say there was no history between the US and Israel, as there obviously is. however, this history does not necessary have anything to do with the CREATION of Israel.



further, i'll just point out that despite the fact that both the Ottomans and the British considered it their property to dispose of as they saw fit, the single country you want to focus on is the US. hmmm.

1) thats just it! ive posted enough evidence to negate that claim. history shows the US had A LOT to do with the creation of israel. Maybe it didnt fire the gun but it supplied the bullets.

2) the Ottoman Empire doesnt exist now im sure if it did the Palestinians would have beef with them now. The British took a back seat in the world as a major player. They simply dont matter as much now, however, the Palestinians still have a lot of indignation for them too.

as a side note. the fact that the western powers called for the dissolution of the Islamic Caliphate (which had been around for 1300 years by that time shows again a religious battle being fought.

 

[husnain1]

the taliban and mujahiddeen are one and the same in terms of ideology. both fought a jihad to ride their lands of kuffar (non-believers according to them) do you even know what mujahiddeen means without having to look it up?

a better question is, do you have the ability to debate a topic WITHOUT your argument being "no one knows what they're talking about but me?" because that one is clearly designed for the sole purpose of talking shit and nothing more.

fine, let's look it up:

mujahideen: Islamic guerrilla fighters especially in the Middle East (yes, it's a little more general than that, i suppose)

Taliban: a fundamentalist Islamic militia in Afghanistan



so, once again i will post this: "no, all Taliban might be mujaheddin, but not all mujaheddin are Taliban."

also, let me know when you want to address your OWN use of blanket terminology.

those are the definitions the west have given each to describe them however, they miss the mark.

a mujihad is a muslim engaged in jihad.

taliban is derived from the arabic word talib meaning student. however, the taliban are also mujahid in the sense that they are muslims engaged in jihad. the issue is one being justified while the other being crucified according to the needs of american foreign policy

its kind of ironic that you dont get why I say I understand the issue more than you do when you keep misunderstanding the argument

once again both the mujahiddeen and the taliban waged jihad against who they saw as oppressors. they're fundamentally the same because both are based on the same principles. maybe thats why u dont get why its not a blanket statement!

 

[janklow]

i conceded that. which leaves us at a moot point

your previous remark on this point was a concession? because i quoted it, and yet i could not find that.

 

[janklow]

1) umm No. the point was that I might actually understand Pakistan's history and internal politics in a way that might not make sense to you. you might just have learned about some of these people now but again we've known about them for years. for instance you might have HEARD about asif ali zardari but do you know of first hand accounts of the things he's done and been accused of? I doubt it. maybe if you did you might interpret things in a different light. For example, instead of implying that Pakistan may be a terrorist state based on whats been happening in the past 10 or so years, you could actually look at its history and understand that Pakistan has always been "moderate" in terms of its religious values.

2) I fully admit Pakistan would do things to screw over the US if it was in its best interests (hell every country does things like that), however Pakistan has done far more to help the US and has had to pay for it in the blood of its soldiers and citizens. Coupled with the fact that this has been the US's m.o. from the start of its relationship with Pakistan I dont think you can blame Pakistan for being a reluctant partner.

3) No one ever stated you said anything. When I say "you" im speaking in a general nature. Furthermore, here's the problem with you thinking that there is a reason why these people are being labelled terrorists/fundamentalists, I dont think you understand enough about islam to make a distinction from someone who is following the faith in its intended form. for example, one may call them terrorists because they believe they are fighting jihad. here's the problem, westerners here jihad and then equate it with fundamentalism. in islam jihad is a concept that has many different meanings. for example, the jihad that westerners know of is when it is applied to war, however a key misunderstanding is that a true jihad can ONLY be defensive in nature! Now if one doesnt understand this point they can make the "intellectual" leap of equating islam with terrorism. On the flip side the afghanis (taliban or whoever else) believe they are defending themselves after all they were attacked they didnt do the attacking. the most the taliban could be accused of was giving sanctuary to bin Laden which if you go back and research the issue you'd see the taliban did state that if evidence was provided for bin Laden's guilt they would try him in an islamic court. So again in their view they were the ones being attacked so for them jihad is justified ( it would still be a problematic issue from an islamic legal point of view). one needs to understand the religion before one can even pretend they understand what terms like fundamentalism and wahhabi even mean. maybe then you might understand why terrorism seems to only be associated with muslims. when a white man shot up a theatre in aurora, colorado he wasnt called a terrorist even though in the strict sense of the term what he did WAS an act of terrorism. instead you have people questioning his sanity. when a black person commits a crime he is stereotyped because thats what black people do and now when muslims or those claiming to be muslims (and there is a huge difference there) commit violence its labelled as terrorism. the point in all of this that before one applies labels one must understand them first, especially from a point of view that is not of your own.

01. let me repeat a point: you're saying i might just have learned about something you've known for years based on nothing more than your own background (hence the "you might not know anything about other posters on this forum - their background, their education, their level of knowledge, etc, etc"). it would be more logical to make your point on topic, because this method is simply saying, "i'm of Pakistani descent, so i know and you don't." yeah, you might have reason to care about the topic more, but than increased concern also doesn't make you immune to the "propaganda and psychological warfare" stuff you mention. and again, when did i call Pakistan a terrorist nation?

02. from the start of the relationship, both sides had their agendas and operated in accordance with them. the major differences are that Pakistan is right there and thus pays the price in people getting killed that the US generally does not, and that Pakistan can be accused of double-dealing in ways the US cannot (ON THIS ISSUE, let's not totally stray). if you think Pakistan is a reluctant partner because they think the US is about to leave them in the lurch, fine, but that argument makes it more likely they'd fuck over the US as they saw fit.

03. if you want to speak in a general sense, i suppose i would have to ask you to actually make that clear. do i not know enough about Islam, or do Americans/Westerners not know enough about Islam? because it comes across as a shot at me that you then step aside from by saying "well, i don't mean YOU." yet it's you and i debating this topic, so i don't know who else you're talking to.

another key misunderstanding is stating something like, for example, "true jihad can ONLY be defensive in nature" without considering that people are always, ALWAYS going to manipulate stuff like this for their own interests. i get your point, but you're presuming a universal agreement on this topic.

as far as the Colorado shooter, if we're going with terrorism being for the purposes of coercion, we probably wouldn't call him a terrorist because we don't know what the hell he would have been trying to coerce us into. and if i have to say it, i don't think i'm arguing people don't unnecessarily equate Islam with terrorism.

 

[janklow]

no. i really dont know what you were talking about there.

first, take a deep breath. next, ask yourself how often i post repeated strings of posts in a thread instead large posts with multiple quotes.

 

[janklow]

no actually im talking about how current events and history tie together because basically not much has changed. i even offered support as to my conclusions. there is ample evidence out there that shows the US's role in the creation of israel, a simple google search will show you as much. I even tried to point out that logically speaking such staunch support of a nation would have to be based on some sort of history between the two, it just doesnt happen over night.

i did not say there was no history between the US and Israel, as there obviously is. however, this history does not necessary have anything to do with the CREATION of Israel.



further, i'll just point out that despite the fact that both the Ottomans and the British considered it their property to dispose of as they saw fit, the single country you want to focus on is the US. hmmm.

1) thats just it! ive posted enough evidence to negate that claim. history shows the US had A LOT to do with the creation of israel. Maybe it didnt fire the gun but it supplied the bullets.

2) the Ottoman Empire doesnt exist now im sure if it did the Palestinians would have beef with them now. The British took a back seat in the world as a major player. They simply dont matter as much now, however, the Palestinians still have a lot of indignation for them too.

as a side note. the fact that the western powers called for the dissolution of the Islamic Caliphate (which had been around for 1300 years by that time shows again a religious battle being fought.

01. i don't agree, i think that's the point. quote something i might have missed in all the talk about the current US-Israel relationship?

02. and this is exactly my point: in discussing the CREATION of the state of Israel, you're telling me the Ottomans don't exist now and the British aren't a major player now. but we're not talking about NOW, we're talking about WHEN ISRAEL WAS CREATED.

 

[janklow]

the taliban and mujahiddeen are one and the same in terms of ideology. both fought a jihad to ride their lands of kuffar (non-believers according to them) do you even know what mujahiddeen means without having to look it up?

a better question is, do you have the ability to debate a topic WITHOUT your argument being "no one knows what they're talking about but me?" because that one is clearly designed for the sole purpose of talking shit and nothing more.

fine, let's look it up:

mujahideen: Islamic guerrilla fighters especially in the Middle East (yes, it's a little more general than that, i suppose)

Taliban: a fundamentalist Islamic militia in Afghanistan



so, once again i will post this: "no, all Taliban might be mujaheddin, but not all mujaheddin are Taliban."

also, let me know when you want to address your OWN use of blanket terminology.

those are the definitions the west have given each to describe them however, they miss the mark.

a mujihad is a muslim engaged in jihad.

taliban is derived from the arabic word talib meaning student. however, the taliban are also mujahid in the sense that they are muslims engaged in jihad. the issue is one being justified while the other being crucified according to the needs of american foreign policy

its kind of ironic that you dont get why I say I understand the issue more than you do when you keep misunderstanding the argument

once again both the mujahiddeen and the taliban waged jihad against who they saw as oppressors. they're fundamentally the same because both are based on the same principles. maybe thats why u dont get why its not a blanket statement!

(deep sigh)

do i have to break this "all Taliban might be mujaheddin, but not all mujaheddin are Taliban" down?

okay, if the Taliban are Muslims engaged in jihad, then they are mujaheddin ("all Taliban might be mujaheddin"); however, since you can be a Muslim engaged in jihad and NOT be a member of the Taliban, it does not make you Taliban to be a mujaheddin ("not all mujaheddin are Taliban). therefore, they are NOT the same thing.

what's really ironic is that i am repeating this statement over and over and you have not gotten it as of yet.