Arab Spring

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

I agree that two states is not the solution. It should be one secular country with Jews, Christians, and Muslims living together and without fear of one group dominating another.

If the mayhem of the past is any indication, these three religious groups would much rather kill each other off than live together. Ironically, they all derive from the Abrahamic source. They believe in the same God, just different names. Christian sects hate each other and Sunnis and Shia Muslims hate each other. The Abrahamic religions are deeply flawed, they are intolerant. Each one firmly believes that them and only them have the word of God. Centuries of conflict are the result. It is very unfortunate that the middle east has lots of oil. Otherwise it would have remained a land of sheep herders and camel jockeys.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

If the mayhem of the past is any indication, these three religious groups would much rather kill each other off than live together. Ironically, they all derive from the Abrahamic source. They believe in the same God, just different names. Christian sects hate each other and Sunnis and Shia Muslims hate each other. The Abrahamic religions are deeply flawed, they are intolerant. Each one firmly believes that them and only them have the word of God. Centuries of conflict are the result. It is very unfortunate that the middle east has lots of oil. Otherwise it would have remained a land of sheep herders and camel jockeys.

Randolph, are you aware that the term "camel jockey" is racist and derogatory, and has always been characterized as such. It is an affront to the seriousness of this discussion that you used the term here, and an insult to every Arab member of this site (and there are quite a few).

[randolph]

SMC

Randolph, are you aware that the term "camel jockey" is racist and derogatory, and has always been characterized as such. It is an affront to the seriousness of this discussion that you used the term here, and an insult to every Arab member of this site (and there are quite a few).

The term doesn't have to be derogatory (although it usually is), it can be a joke or humorous. My comment was of a vision of the Middle east without oil. After all the three wisemen came to Bethlehem on camels.

[randolph]

As I see it.
After WWII Great Briton was severely weakened by the war and was desperately seeking a loan from the US. The US under President Truman saw this as an opportunity to increase the US hegemony in the middle east. Ships loaded with Jewish refugees were being shuttled around and prevented from landing in Palestine. Truman proceeded to take over the situation and allowed the refugees to enter Palestine. Initially the UN attempted to establish a secular state but neither the Jews or the Arabs were in favor of that. The US recognized Israel and proceeded to strengthen its influence in the Middle East to counter increasing influence of Russia in the Middle East. The establishment of the Jewish state and its brutal expulsion of Arabs enraged The surrounding Arab states. Massive US military and financial aid to Egypt eventually weaned Egypt away from Russian influence. The US was then able to get Egypt to come to terms with Israel. This greatly strengthened US hegemony in the middle east and made Istarl a serious power in spite of its tiny size.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

SMC

The term doesn't have to be derogatory (although it usually is), it can be a joke or humorous. My comment was of a vision of the Middle east without oil. After all the three wisemen came to Bethlehem on camels.

This morning, I asked a student from Saudi Arabia students, an Arab professor colleague from Syria, and two Arab friends. They said the term is racist, period. They don't even use it in their own community (as some young blacks do with the "N" word).

Rather than claim that it "doesn't have to be derogatory" you should repudiate your use of the term.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

If the mayhem of the past is any indication, these three religious groups would much rather kill each other off than live together. Ironically, they all derive from the Abrahamic source. They believe in the same God, just different names. Christian sects hate each other and Sunnis and Shia Muslims hate each other. The Abrahamic religions are deeply flawed, they are intolerant. Each one firmly believes that them and only them have the word of God...

You are only partly right. Muslims, Christians, and Jews all believe in the same deity, they just use different names.

Christian sects do not hate each other. They may disagree, but hate is too strong a word. The religious wars between Christians ended long ago.

The Sunnis, Shias, Alawites, etc. have been known to disagree with each other and in some cases it has led to violence.

The three Abrahamic religions are not intolerant. It is some of the people and some of the religious leaders that are intolerant. One should read the religious texts to properly understand this. The Koran even states that Christians and Jews are people of the book. Likewise it is only some people and some religious leaders that have decided that their, and only their, religion has the word of God.

The great enemy to religious understanding is illiteracy. If people were taught to read their own and other religious books they would see how much each religion has in common with the others.

Back in the middle ages the Catholic church kept most citizens illiterate as it is easier to control the masses if they are not able to read for themselves. It is the same thing now in some Muslim countries where the religious leaders let only a select few learn to read and those too are only taught the leaders' version and not the original full Koran.

[randolph]

I would like to comment on Ila's last comment but I need to think about it.
In the meantime, I would like to point out some interesting research on the Palestinians. First, DNA studies indicate that the Palestinians are essentially identical to the Jews. Second, the residents of Palestine prior to the Muslim invasion were of the Judaism faith. So the ancestors of the Palistinians were Jews! So perrhaps my earlier comment about the Palestinians converting to Judaism is not so far fetched.

[smc]

Randolph, you're going to let your earlier comment stand?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Randolph, you're going to let your earlier comment stand?

In the context that I used the term, I don't think it was offensive. I am sorry if it did offend offend somebody.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

In the context that I used the term, I don't think it was offensive. I am sorry if it did offend offend somebody.

First of all, how you can think that referring to people living in the Arab world by that term isn't offensive, given what you've been told, is beyond reason. I can understand if you explained that you didn't think it was offensive when you wrote it. But to write now that you "don't think it was offensive" says that you stick by the use of this racist term in your context, as you wish.

Further, I suggest you Google "politician's apology." You haven't apologized for your own use of a racist term. Instead, you've pushed the issue back on to those who might be offended. Shameful.

[Elonar]

A really vigorous and instructive thread, somewhat spoilt by a flurry of point-scoring on the question of what an Arab would find to be a racist remark. On this question, it is my experience that more often than not the most vociferous claimants that a racist offence has been committed come from an entirely different racial group themselves. Oddly enough a friend of mine who owns and runs a camel-racing stable near to Abu Dhabi might have a less condemnatory perspective on the odd use of the term ' camel jockey ' ! However it is a relief to learn from smc that at least three representative arabs have a clear opinion to offer.

Come on boys - get back firmly to the subject of this thread, which is really a good deal more interesting than finger-pointing.

Let's move on now.

[randolph]

Ila --

The three Abrahamic religions are not intolerant. It is some of the people and some of the religious leaders that are intolerant. One should read the religious texts to properly understand this. The Koran even states that Christians and Jews are people of the book. Likewise it is only some people and some religious leaders that have decided that their, and only their, religion has the word of God.

In the Islamic (Madrassas) schools in Pakistan and other middle eastern countries the students are taught to memorize the Koran and learn that the infidels (the west especially the US) are evil and a threat to Islam, therefor, they must be destroyed. This is sanctioned by the Koran. The people bombing and killing innocent people are not illiterate, they are well trained terrorists believing they are performing the will of God.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Ila --

In the Islamic (Madrassas) schools in Pakistan and other middle eastern countries the students are taught to memorize the Koran and learn that the infidels (the west especially the US) are evil and a threat to Islam, therefor, they must be destroyed. This is sanctioned by the Koran. The people bombing and killing innocent people are not illiterate, they are well trained terrorists believing they are performing the will of God.

The Madrassas are run by the clergy. Students are taught the version of Islam that the clergy permits.

The Koran does sanction killing Christians and Jews just because they are Christians and Jews.

If you, randolph, were to travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan to see the terrorists that fight for the Taliban and Al Qaeda then you would be surprised to find out what are their ethnic origins. You would also find that the majority cannot understand Arabic let alone read it. That makes them illiterate in the original language of the Koran. You are right though that they are trained terrorists. You might also note that I left out the adjective "well."