Islam does not hate christianity

How can that be when it runs so clearly counter to our own moral sense? By what moral reasoning? Or is it only "right" because God is God, and anything he does must be right?

How can mercy, fairness, and forbearance be a fallen condition?That's what we're arguing about, after all. God says these children need to be slaughtered; we disagree. And somehow it's our moral sense that is fallen, that is degenerate? How can you fall your way to virtue? How does that make any sense? How can we be expected to come to understand the goodness and mercy and love of God if these are not traits that he exemplifies? You commit a grave error of circular reasoning, here. You assume that God is loving, and conclude that the slaughter of the children was an act of love. But the only reasonable conclusion is that the slaughter of the children demonstrates that God is not loving.

Sure, but the people we are talking about aren't sociopaths. At best they're the grandchildren of sociopaths, and we don't visit any particular hardships on the children of criminals in our society. What crime can these children have committed? We're talking about punishing them for crimes that their relatives committed. How can you "know what you're getting into" when it's being gotten into long before you were born? But here's the thing. I'm not wrong; you are, and God is. No, it makes perfect sense to me - God isn't a good person. It's not hard to understand; it's merely impossible to reconcile with your assumption that God is good. The conclusion you should be drawing from that is not that you're incapable of understanding, but that your assumptions are wrong.If I told you that "2+2=5", you would correctly point out that I was wrong. If I tried to tell you "no, you have to first assume that I am right, and even then, it's hard to understand how I could be, but trust me, I am", you'd rightly tell me that was bullshit. Well, I call bullshit on this. No, it's quite the opposite. It can't be understood if you assume that God is good. If you do not assume that, it's easily understood. I'm not righteous. But the thing is, I have God's own sense of good and evil. He said so, in the Bible. Even Jeffery Dahmer could remember flowers on Mother's Day, or to tip the pizza guy. Just because you can point to something loving and good God did over here doesn't mean that everything God does must be loving and good.

But it isn't, though. It's not a moral law. Ok. But lets keep in mind that I'm not the one justifying the brutal slaughter of children. Which is just what I was about to say about you. It never ceases to amaze me how God's apologists employ the exact same arguments battered women use to exonerate their abusive husbands.

Oh, really? Like that 12-year-old girl the Israelis machinegunned, just to watch her die? I'm supposed to believe she was the greatest criminal mastermind of the 21st century?Or the American protestor they ran over with a bulldozer? I'm supposed to believe she was somehow harboring a terrorist arsenal? Where? In her handbag?It's really cool how you've circularly exonerated Israel; I'm amazed in the faith you must place in its leaders to simply assume that anyone who dies from an Israeli bullet was secretly a terrorist. How is it, though, that you decided which side to place your unwavering, unquestioning faith in? Did you flip a coin, or what?Me, I think both sides are assholes, or have assholes among them, so don't you dare paint me as some kind of anti-semite Palestinian sympathizer.

Are they? I didn't know that.All I know is, whenever anyone acts like Israel isn't blameless in any way, they get called an anti-semite.

Oh, always? You followed this one up? Or did you just assume that, since Israel cannot err, they must be blameless?As it turns out, you are wrong. A 13-year-old girl was indeed shot repeatedly by an Israeli officer; her family is going ahead with a lawsuit. The press didn't just make it up to besmirch your beloved, can-do-no-wrong Israel. No, it's clear that you trust nothing except the Bible and Israel, which you trust absolutely; any evidence that contradicts either of those can be summarily dismissed. And that's your argument? That, if I looked into things, I would find that Israel is always blameless, and never does anything wrong? Or is that something I have to assume from the outset?The thing is, I used to think like you - I came down on the side of Israel and their right to see to their own security. That was naievete. When I looked into things, carefully, that was when I discovered that neither side was particularly angelic.Let me pose a question - could Israel, in your opinion, ever go to far? Or is there no tactic that Israel could adopt that you would not support in the name of their own security?

It took me a while to dig up what I was talking about, but I did find it. Her name was Iman al-Hams. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Jan_Feb_2005/0501009.html

quote:

---

TO THIS DAY, the family and friends of 13-year-old Iman al-Hams are at a loss to explain how or why she wandered into the closed military zone in Tal al Sultan in Rafah on her way to school on the morning of Oct. 6, 2004. Early wire service reports speculated that she might have been late for school and was taking a shortcut. The actual geography, however, makes that unlikely.

​

But Iman never made it to school, because she was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers, who riddled her body with bullets. As often happens when the Israeli army kills or injures Palestinians, the IDF delayed the ambulance from al Najjar Hospital trying to reach her. But with five bullets in her headof the at least 15 the Dr. Ali Musa, the hospital’s director, reported findingIman was dead long before she ever reached the hospital. Indeed, so much blood had soaked into her UNRWA school uniform and into the ground where she fell that her body was nearly bloodless when it finally reached the hospital.

---

Oh, and this is really great. Apparently this girl was the greatest terrorist threat the world has ever known:

quote:

---

Muddying the waters further were the next actions of Captain R, the company commander, who approached Imanwounded, according to Palestinian witnesses, but alive and lying on the ground helplessand first fired two shots into her at close range to confirm the kill. Then, according to IDF witnesses, he walked a short distance away, turned back, approached the child again and emptied the magazine of his automatic weapon into her body.

---

I mean, that's the only explanation, right Faith? The beneficent Israelis would never have slaughtered a 13-year-old girl like a beast unless she was a terrorist, right? Because they never act out of anything but their own security, right? Isn't that exactly what he's said? That if it makes Israel look bad, it's always a lie?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-24-2005 21:26 AM

As I read more about this, it may be that Faith is referring to the fact that the two soldiers who said they saw Captain R unload his weapon into her body may have lied because they didn't like the guy.Which seems to be a rather minor point. She was, after all, shot 15 times, well after it had been established that she was an unarmed girl. We have the radio tapes to prove it.

Nobody's called me one, yet. But it's often the inevitable conclusion of any debate vs. Israel's partisans.

What, in your view, gives a country the "right to exist"?

I know you Israel partisans see enemies at all sides, but I've never understood why you expect the BBC or anybody else to care enough about Israel to have a bias in the first place. I understand why Christians like you have a bee in your bonnet over Israel; why should we believe anybody else gives enough of a damn to oppose you?

And of course, they say the same thing about you. And that's really what it always comes down to, isn't it? Religious prickwaving. It's like the theological Cola Wars.

Am I? I don't think so. You do, after all, fly off the handle at the slightest suggestion that Israel is culpable for some pretty bad deeds. Like in this post, for instance. The slightest hint that Israel might have done something bad and off you go. He wasn't brought to justice, though. They let him go. They cleared him of all charges. No steps were taken to bring him to justice by Israel. I'm sorry, but no, it's not. It's a verifiable and indeed conservative description of your behavior. You have consistently refused to accept any source that contradicts you; and you've used that contradiction as rationale for refusing to accept them. In other words when we try to show you sources that show that you're wrong, you claim that our sources are in error because they don't agree with you. Who on Earth has made that argument here? You would do far better to stick to addressing the arguments we've actually made, not thes ludicrious strawmen of your own invention. As I said, you Israel partisans see enemies at every turn. It's that side of the story I've repeatedly asked for, but which you won't provide. What's the Israel side of the Iman Al-Hams story? What was the oh-so-reasonable security interest that meant a 13-year-old girl had to be shot 15 times?

Oh, so any time Israel runs its soldiers through token proceedings, we're supposed to believe that's justice?As it turns out, the civil investigation has not been completed; criminal charges have still not been cleared against him. He's merely been cleared by a military oversight board; a seperate criminal investigation proceeds against him. And, of course, we don't even known who we're talking about - his name, though he's not a minor, is still not yet public.I don't see the justice. Can you explain it to me? How is that grounds for clearing him? Iman Al-Hams isn't really dead because the witnesses were lying? She wasn't really shot 15 times? Then who did her family bury? Yet, what he did was found by the military investigation not to be contrary to Israeli policy. As you pointed out, they cleared him.What do you think that means? You're arguing from both sides of your mouth - on the one hand, he didn't do anything wrong according to Israeli policy, yet a sentence later, you're caling it the actions of a soldier "who went nuts.". Which is it? It's not surprising to see you bend over backwards in these rhetorical gymnastics to protect Israel, no matter the human cost.