UnspokenRequest said:
First, you don't take the time to read carefully what I say.
Here's what you responded in your earlier post:
You quoted me saying: "There are things the state of Israel has been doing during the last few years that don't always look too well on the news sometimes (not only in the middle east, but in the West and elsewhere too)."
You responded: So the murder of innocents, institutionalized teaching of racial hatred, and the propagation of false media by the Palestinians looks pretty good to you? or do you just turn a blind eye whenever a Palestinian mother proudly straps a belt bomb on her son.
BUT, just afterward you quote me again saying:
"Suicide bombers don't look too well either, I agree, but they are not states, only individuals."
Don't you see the contradiction! You're accusing me of turning a blind eye to the atrocities done by suicide bombers. Yet, just afterwards, you quote me saying "suicide bombers don't look well".
My point was that BOTH (suicide bombers and the acts of the Israelite army don't look too well),
There is no contradiction, you have obviously missed my point by excluding my response to the latter quote. By only addressing the "unjustified" actions of Israel toward Palestine you are stating that the cause of all controversy in that region is Israels alone. You expressed that the suicide bombers were individuals that acted independantly of the Palestinian state which I have demonstrated to be untrue.
I am not stating that you turn a blind eye to Islamic suicide bombers but that you turn a blind eye to the fact that Islamic suicide bombers are supported by the state of Palestine and most the Muslim world.
The great difference is that the Arabs, as a whole, are not responsible of the acts of the suicide bombers. However, the state of Israel is obviously responsible for the wall, the colonies and the operation of its army.
Arabs are not represented in the game, Arabia is. That is why im stressing that you are making a false analogy. I agree there is nothing controversial about Arabs, however there is much controversy in the politics and ideological movement of Arabia.
You reinforce my point by stating once again that Israels actions are soley responsible for all controversy excluding Palestine of any fault.
________________________________
- Caucasian is NOT an ethnic group. People usually say it's a race (I don't like this concept though).
Here's how anthropologists usually define caucasian: "Although terms like race, caucasoid, and caucasian means different things to different people, what defines caucasian or caucasoid in the sciences such as anthropology is far more clear.
Caucasians typically have the lowest degree of projection of the alveolar bones which contain the teeth, a notable size prominence of the cranium and forehead region, and a projection of the midfacial region. In anthropology skin color is not counted when describing Caucasians because Caucasians can be from pale light brown (ie Scandinavia) to very dark brown (ie South India). Skin color is the least determinant of race as any race will have lighter or darker skin depending on how close their ancestors have lived to the equator."
From my readings, ethnic group usually refers to cultural AND physiological differences
However, I'll remind you that the definition of ethnic group, nation and race are not fixed. Scholars use different definitions of these concepts. You use fixed definition of nation, state, ethnic group, as if everyone agrees with these definitions.
Still, scholars don't agree.
I'm sure French and English would be insulted to be described as the same ethnic groups. The Angles, the Saxons, the Brittons, the Francs, the Normands. Those are different tribes of ancient France and England. Some are of Germanic descent, others of Celtic, others of Scandinavian descent.
The whole west is often said to be caucasian. However, there's clearly more than one ethnic group in Europe. The Slavs, the Basques, the Spanish, the Italians, the Corsican, the "ethnic Germans" (people in Germany, plus ethnic germans in Austria and many other eastern Europe countries), the Serbs, the Bosnians, the Croatians, etc.
Many people and scholars would say to you that these are different ethnic groups.
I have little knowledge of anthropology and have not done much research on this topic so I will not refute it, in fact your thesis sounds reasonable.
Still, this discussion of nation, ethnic group etc. is beside the point. Civ4 doesn't always chose nations.
Whether it's a nation or an ethnic group doesn't change the fact that putting an Arab civ in Civ4 is less controversial than putting an Israel civilization.
According to your thesis above there is no difference between nations, states and ethnic groups. However on a politcal and cultural platform there is an enormous difference. When discussing issues of controversy it is this political/cultural platform we should maintain.
By maintaining this platform we are not discussing the Arab ethnic group but rather Arabia. This brings us back to the question I posed in my prior post. Is the topic of Israel more controversial than Arabia? do we go by the status quo? I firmly believe that the Arabian ideological/political movement is much more controversial and is the root cause of the dilemma in Israel/Palestine.
You said:
"you stated that all people from Morocco to Iraq call themselves Arab which is untrue. It is equivelent to saying all people in the United States call themsleves Caucasians which would be untrue."
That's not what I said.
Here's what I said: "Arabs should be in the game because people from Morocco to Irak call themselves Arab"
"People" not "all people". people is used in an indefinite way, which is designed to mean that "there are people".
I'd add that, from my travels and from the muslim friends I have in Canada, I think MANY of them call themselves arab in these countries (Of course it varies from country to country).
BTW, I'm French canadian. English is not my first language.
So what you are saying is that if there is a population of Arab people in those states that the entire state should be considered Arab?
On your % of Arab people, they are flawed and here’s why: “During the 8th and 9th and afterwards […] [m]any groups came to be known as "Arabs" not through descent but through this process of Arabization. Thus, over time, the term Arab came to carry a broader meaning than the original ethnic term: cultural Arab vs. ethnic Arab. People in Sudan, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and elsewhere became Arab through Arabization”.
Can you not see the bias and hypocracy in the statement above? So through this rampant and unbridled process of Arabization, the indiginous people lose their identity? it is politically correct for the ethnicity of these people to be compromised? Do you agree with the Arabization which is occuring in Sudan now as we speak?
There are many other things that don't make sense or that I don't agree with in your post. For example, you said that Muslims support terrorism as whole. That is a very big prejudice for someone of Iranian descent. Do you have polls? Verifiable datas? On my side, I’ve read and seen evidences that point to the opposite.
I did not say all Muslims support terrorism, it is the Islamic ideology that is the root cause of terrorism, the evidence is in the Quran and the Hadith all you have to do is read.
This is not the place to discuss this issue so if you are truly interested, research yourself.
For instance, I’ve just read a book from Anne Nivat, who says that many people in the Muslim world are actually afraid of terrorists and terrorism.
Anne Nivat is a Muslim apologist, although I admire here courage she is ignorant of the doctorine of Islam.
Of course Muslims are affraid of terrorism, who wouldn't be? although many Muslims whether 'moderate' or fundamental do not oppose terrorism when directed at the
kaffur (impure unbeliever), the non-Muslim.
(BTW that’s another comment which made me think you were not be Iranian. I've seen and learned to expect a bit more nuance from Muslims and Arabs when they talk about their former country, cultural region or religion).
That is because I am not Muslim, my journey to enlightment has shown me the true face of Islam. Where I once was a brain-washed savage that cheered when 9/11 occured, I now am a free thinker who has joined the rest of humanity.
Oh! And it’s not hard to teach young Palestinians to hate Israel, when the army destroy their homes, cut off their father shop from its client with a wall, or kills a neighbour…
Islamic movements teach hate. That I have heard and read about. As for the Palestinian authority systematically teaching hate, I’d like to have some evidence of this SYSTEMATIC indoctrination. This is something the far right usually comes up with without any solid evidence.
What do you think they teach in the Palestinian schools? Islam is thought above all other subjects, and all other sujects are in accordance to Islam.
Take a look at these so you can see there are two sides to a story.
http://seconddraft.org/streaming/pallywood.wmv
http://tinyurl.com/dl2dm
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mi...ews_Quotes_from_the_Palestinian_Authority.asp
And I won’t get into the debate of what is terrorism. I think we both know that what one would dub terrorism is actually freedom fighter for someone else… I hate every form of violence, so I don’t want to go further along this line. I just want you to be aware that for many people, even people outside of the middle east, Palestinians are first and foremost freedom fighters. Those people usually recognize that the killing of civilians is a bad mean, but to them the end is just.
No I completely disagree with you.
You first state that you hate any form of violence and on the next sentence you excuse it by saying its a means to an end.
What is ironic is you sound just as I did before I apostized, this line of thought is destructive to democracy and what it stands for. There is no excuse for the justification of hate, violence and intolerance. none.
On a more general note, an Israel civ won’t help dialogue between the Western and the Muslim world in any way that’s for sure.
So appeasing the terrorists is the only way to initiate dialogue? You are a defeatists or a proponant of Islam, either way you and will never see eye to eye unless we come to a medium.
This game is not used as a tool for foriegn relations between the west and the Muslim world where are you getting these delusions?
