Liberals: Should Muslims bomb Israel?

Post Reply New Topic

How about everyone just put the damn bombs away!?

No, I dont think the Palestinians should bomb the Israelis. I think it is about time for a Muslim nation however to be put on the UN security council as a permanent member with veto-power. UK and US are already on their to do whatever Israel wants them to do so why cant a single Muslim nation be properly presented? Even India would be a welcome change for equality among religious peoples in international affairs. Muslims form about 25% of the global population, yet are SEVERELY underrepresented because of the Judeo-Christian(the west) hold over global policy. That is why Muslims tend to lash back, it isnt about religion but about politics within their own country and internationally. Israel has committed humanitarian fallacies the size of Russia and yet they are never sanctioned, its disgusting bias and forces them to fight back.
By the way the Quran is STRICTLY against offensive violence except if a non-Muslim tries to take over a Muslim country(Palestine/Israel). In that case Jihad as-Sayf is enacted is defense until the enemy regresses. Israel refuses compromise and treates Muslims like cattle rather than human beings. It is 20 times worse than pre civil-rights America in that Muslims cant even leave certain areas but Israelis can enter and leave Palestine at their desire.
Sorry for the rant but I had to get that out...and I repeat I am strongly against bombings but I do think that the Muslims World needs to team up and get a nation(Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt) into the Security Council and if that demand isnt met then they should all leave the UN. But thats just my idea...

No they don't. They're closer to 20%, and I would say that number is likely inflated by the number of people who are nominally Muslim in order to avoid being killed.

yes, in a lot of middle eastern countries, if you aren't muslim, you are dead

In your dreams you xenophobic ignoramus.

calling the ketle black are we now!
second, in a lot of middle eastern countries, apostatsy is a capital offense, along with homosexuality, women being out in public without an escort and so on. Theocracy is the namoe of the game, take Iran, the real leaders are the clerics, not the president. so it is you who is the ignoramus and from your posts, you are xenophobic and bigotted.

I think they occupy perpendicular universes...

Good idea.



Bad idea, at least by itself. Which nation should be that permanent member? Do you choose Saudi Arabia, which is home to their holy see? Do you choose Indonesia, which is the most populous Muslim nation? Or some other country for some other reason? Remember, we are talking about a permanent member... which traditionally has veto power, and which can cause a bit of a change as we saw with the switch from China-Taiwan to China-Beijing.

On the other hand, the Security Council is a kludge that does not always fairly represent the peoples of the world. It was designed around a power structure by the members of that power structure ... the world has changed, but the Security Council represents the world of 1945. Reforming the Security Council (somehow) makes sense, although it won't be easy.

Um... apostasy is, as cognito said, a capital offense in several middle eastern countries. Death to anyone who leaves Islam is explicitly mandated in the Qu'ran. It is on the law books in several countries, and even where it is not you have vigilantes to worry about.

Only countries that actually punish it are Saudi Arabia and Maldives. All other Muslims countries allow for ANY of the Abrahamic religions. Christians and Jews actually have decent rights even in places like Iran. Islam IS the world's fastest growing religion and it is well over 20%. The xenophobia expressed here is ridiculous btw, you obviously have a deep-seeded prejudice because you are trying to lower their global influence. I stand by what I said esp. about the UN Security Council. Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, or Pakistan would all be decent choices for the spot. Pakistan has troubles in the North but their government is MUCH closer to India's style than you would think...

Even if other religions are allowed to exist in the Middle East, they certainly are not allowed to proselytize. Also, leaving Islam (apostasy) is a capital offense in several countries. so people who were nominally Muslim from birth do not have the option to leave it.


It's not xenophobia- I have no problem with foreigners in general. But there is ample reason to fear the spread of Islam.

That still falls far short of the notion of freedom of religion as promoted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am a strict secularist and want the government out of the business of regulating religious expression....let each individual chose their own religious path.

What about the huge number of people who don't follow the Abrahamic Religions? - Atheists like me, Buddhists, Hindus, etc...

Look, Shizzle ... they offered you a choice between New Coke, Classic Coke, and Pepsi. So don't ask for water.

Yeah but Pakistan's regime is a bit unstable...In its history, it's always been an alternance of militarist regimes and presumably corrupted diplomacies. =/ The army takes over when the corruption is too much, and when they oppress the people too much, they want to go back to diplomacy =/ . Kinda odd.

Oh and huh...water can be found almost anywhere. <.< so heh,

there are tons of Hindus in UAE and even in Saudi Arabia. Indians have HUGE communities in the arab world and they arent treated worse then minorities in the US. Apostasy is only punished in the strictest of Muslim countries where it is a travesty. I am not against religious governments and I dont think secularism should be forced upon anyobdy just as Islam isnt forced upon you in the West. Leave secularism to the west...