I hope (but sincerely doubt) that this is joke.

[Achtung Bubba]

From Innovative Minds, which describes itself as a "young software house specialising in the application of internet and multimedia technology for the promotion of Islam."

They offer the Islamic Fun CD-Rom, which encourages Muslim children (age 5 and above) to "learn whilst playing!"

For only 20 British pounds you can...

* "Help the cat retrieve its ball" in "Tree Hop."

* "Help build a mosque" in "Building Blocks."

* "Help the cat uncover the image" in "Meow Tiles."

* "Help the bear fish," in "Fishing Bear."

And my personal favorite...

* Join "the Islamic Resistance to defend your land and family from the invading zionists" in "The Resistance."

Subtle.

 

[Zoomerang96]

that does seem odd, but i imagine jews would do the same thing.

everyone uses everything to their own advantage.

as long as they arent preaching violence, im cool with it.

or is this cd preaching violence? defending your country, being it palestine (though ofcourse its not even a recognized state) they at any point and time are driven into the ground by israeli war ships killing many people, just like suicide bombers.

its all messed up.

why cant both sides just STOP killing each other?!?!

that would be a nice start.

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

notice they say zionists not all jews. KKK does not mean "all the white people".
it's pretty fucked up but i'm sure you'll find this sort of propaganda on both sides.

 

[adamswildhoney]

 

[RavenStar]

The KKK is actually against everyone who is not white OR Christian. If you are white and agnostic, they are against you.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Are we actually suggesting that radical Palestinians - you know, those who are against "Zionism" and are thus quite supportive of the idea of pushing Israel into the sea - may be on a similar moral level as the Ku Klux Klan?

(Why not? They both apparently have a penchant for Mein Kampf.)

You want to equate the two? GREAT!

Klansmen want an area of land all for themselves, as defined by race and culture, and are willing to terrorize their enemies to achieve that end. Their goals are dispicable, their methods are morally bankrupt. The difference between them and Hamas would be... what, exactly?

The disputed land is in the Mideast instead of North America. The enemy is the Jew rather than Jews, blacks, gays, and pretty much everyone else Hitler disliked. And instead of burning crosses and nightly lynchings, the method of terror is carrying bombs into discos.

(And the French press has no trouble condeming neo-Nazis. Their opinion of Palestinian terrorists is a little more, um, forgiving.)

The differences are negligible; I, for one, have no trouble calling both equally evil.

 

[hiphop]

Klansmen want an area of land all for themselves, as defined by race and culture, and are willing to terrorize their enemies to achieve that end. Their goals are dispicable, their methods are morally bankrupt. The difference between them and Hamas would be... what, exactly?

(And the French press has no trouble condeming neo-Nazis. Their opinion of Palestinian terrorists is a little more, um, forgiving.)

The differences are negligible; I, for one, have no trouble calling both equally evil.

Don?t forget that Arafat (and Rabin and Peres) got a peace nobel prize, the KKK or French Neonazis didn?t . It is a pity that the methods of the Hamas (and the Israelis) are morally bankrupt, too... but one difference is, ummm, in history there are a few differences.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Don?t forget that Arafat (and Rabin and Peres) got a peace nobel prize, the KKK or French Neonazis didn?t . It is a pity that the methods of the Hamas (and the Israelis) are morally bankrupt, too... but one difference is, ummm, in history there are a few differences.

Arafat got the Nobel; so did Gorbechev (who the official site calls "President of USSR," as if he was elected by the people - what did Gorbechev do to deserve the prize, besides fail at his efforts to prevent the collapse of the USSR?). Heck, those who believe Henry Kissinger is a genocidal maniac guilty of war crimes care not a whit that he won the prize in 1973.

Hitler's Germany got the Olympics, and now China will also host the Olympics despite an atrocious human rights record.

My point is, the international community occasionally makes grave errors in judgment when it comes to condoning the actions of thugs.

That said, I wouldn't say that Israel is as morally bankrupt as Hamas. Far from it: Israeli forces make every reasonable effort to ensure that innocent lives on both sides are not killed, and they have shown far a tremendous amount of restraint in the efforts.

Hamas TARGETS INNOCENTS. They go out of their way to kill as many civilians as possible, often targeting children. They have bombed such important military targets as bat mitzvahs and discos.

There IS a difference in that case, and it's galling that you suggest otherwise.

 

[sharky]

You also have to remember that Muslim children are taught that Jews are evil. Their text books in school talk about how the Jews started WWII, omit the Holocaust and act as if Jews control a major part of the world and are evil. If a school teaches that and parents teach that, how can children ever learn tolerance?

 

[hiphop]

Arafat got the Nobel; so did Gorbechev (who the official site calls "President of USSR," as if he was elected by the people - what did Gorbechev do to deserve the prize, besides fail at his efforts to prevent the collapse of the USSR?). Heck, those who believe Henry Kissinger is a genocidal maniac guilty of war crimes care not a whit that he won the prize in 1973.

Hitler's Germany got the Olympics, and now China will also host the Olympics despite an atrocious human rights record.

My point is, the international community occasionally makes grave errors in judgment when it comes to condoning the actions of thugs.

That said, I wouldn't say that Israel is as morally bankrupt as Hamas. Far from it: Israeli forces make every reasonable effort to ensure that innocent lives on both sides are not killed, and they have shown far a tremendous amount of restraint in the efforts.

Hamas TARGETS INNOCENTS. They go out of their way to kill as many civilians as possible, often targeting children. They have bombed such important military targets as bat mitzvahs and discos.

There IS a difference in that case, and it's galling that you suggest otherwise.

Relax buddy relax. One time you?ll have a heart attack if you continue like this. I suggested nothing. Read my post again and take it easy. And be sure I won?t get into a discussion about Palestine or Israel. Anyone who wants to discuss this should try it with a jew or a palestine. Its galling that there is so much hate on both sides. By the way, Bubba, by now you should know that I don?t differ much between statal power and private power (in this case not that private). Hurt is hurt, death is death, no matter on which side it happens (go ask Bono).

And you know what? If Bush now would suddenly side with the Palestines (maybe ?cause they offer him oil ...or because America "has interests" in the region, like Condy is never too tired to state... shit, don?t you think other countries have interests too, especially in their homeland?), I bet you would be his opinion.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

I am quite calm, actually. I'm just pointing out what I think to be obvious, that the Nobel Peace Prize is sometimes egregiously mis-awarded, and that the methods between the Israelis and Hamas are not equally morally bankrupt.

I'm not siding with Bush just because he's a Republican, nor would I agree with him (or "be his opinion," as you put it) were he to suddenly support the Palestinians terrorists instead of Israel. These terrorists are killing innocents to destroy the only democracy in the Mideast: we SHOULD not side with them.

Frankly, the suggestion that I'm following lock-step behind Bush is silly; it doesn't hold up to analysis. I've expressed MANY times on this forum that I disagree with some of his domestic policies - most notably campaign finance reform, but also domestic spending, and tarriffs on steel. On the foreign policy front, I think it's clear that our Saudi "allies" are funding terrorism; our friendliness to them is inconsistent with the war, regardless of how much we want their oil or how much Saudi Arabia is needed as a staging ground for an offensive against Iraq. We may need to develop different sources of oil and handle Saddam Hussein first, but Bush WILL have to deal with Saudi Arabia, and you won't find many conservatives who will be 100% happy with Bush until he does.

Finally, it may be true that "hurt is hurt, death is death," but MOST of the civilized world recognizes that sometimes military action is necessary to ensure a lasting peace. And the civilized world recognizes that targeting soldiers in a military base and bombing teenagers in a discotheque are two VASTLY different things: the first may be a necessary act of war, the second is a dispicable act that CANNOT be justified.

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

And you know what? If Bush now would suddenly side with the Palestines (maybe ?cause they offer him oil ...or because America "has interests" in the region, like Condy is never too tired to state... shit, don?t you think other countries have interests too, especially in their homeland?), I bet you would be his opinion.

i couldn't help but quote this from melon's thread about US's pro-torture stand.

The anti-torture proposal enjoys wide support among Western European and Latin American countries. But conservative Muslim states that shun outside intervention are likely to back the U.S. request in order to stave off a vote.

it brings a tear to my eye when all nations, no matter how much they hate each other, can agree on something, heh.