16 replies to this topic

[JJ]

Today, during the usual Monday assembly, an ustad (meaning a Muslim religious teacher over here) came to my school and gave a speech about Israel and Palestine, as my school was asking for donations for Palestinians. If this was just about the hardship of the people, I would have been fine with it, but instead it was literal propaganda. He blabbered on and on....

Now, firstly, before the content, I think it's wrong to have such a hard-line speech in a secondary school, where there are students as young as 13, so young that they run around during recess to play, like children. Their view of the whole situation could just be manipulated easily (if they were listening, anyway). It is really startling to me how such an extremist talk can even be allowed under my country's strict internal laws, when other much acceptable things are prosecuted. Really strengthens my perception that I'm living in a third world country.

As for the actual content roughly, there's talk about how Israel blockaded Palestine to basically kill everyone so that they can easily occupy the Gaza strip. So to me, I know for a fact that Israel intends to colonize the area, but well, that is kinda exaggerated. According to him, Israel soldiers are basically the worst things ever after Satan, they cut open pregnant women, massacre women and children, loot everything of value on you. Of course, there's them tanks and jets, destroying buildings, killing hundreds. He specifically mentioned (white) phosphorous bombs, how they react with even the oxygen atoms in water, causing horrifying burns.

Naturally, like all extremists, he blames Zionism, and the US. I always heard of all this hate towards Zionism, but never knew what the heck it actually meant, then I searched Wikipedia. Ok, basically Jews wanting to return to their homeland. And that's wrong, how? What's worse to me, is that he equates Jew people to Zionism. Based on the previous definition, how is it possible that all Jews are on a consensus that they want to live in Israel? And well we all know that the US probably contributes a lot to this problem, so nothing much of interest there.

Next, on to the most bullshit points of all. Apparently cigarette companies all belong to Jews, and by smoking you contribute to the torment of Palestinians. To what extent is this true? Maybe Jews own them, but do they actually pour money into destroying Palestinians? Also, rather amusingly, he states how the Jewish people are some of the smartest, and we need to study hard to fight them. Uhh, sure.

Towards the end, he even went off-topic, stating that people in Kashmir (which is nowhere close to Israel) are living in the freezing temperature without heating because Israelis bombed out the power grid. This really make him seem like he's talking out of his arse.

Thankfully that speech probably didn't do much, I live in an area where the majority is Chinese, while Muslims are the minority, not to mention that there are a fair amount of people who just prefer to live under the rock. Still, seeing the taint of extremism is not a pretty sight. So, what you guys think of what he said?

[Wizard]

I must admit that this ustad does sound like he's a bit of a nut job and/or extremist, but from the information provided about Israel and Palastine, here, in the West, a small proportion of what he says could be based in fact. Just on one point, Israel does use white phosphorus and did so very recently (last year). But what he has spoken about covers a very large area of the touble within the Middle East.

Your point about Zionism and the Jewish religion is undoubtibly correct. Not every single Jewish person wants to live in Israel, where ever that really is, or whether it is legal or not. I honestly think that Zionism now isn't Zionism in it's original, intended meaning, the home of the Jews in the Holy Land. It is now far more about protectionism and dare I even say this, about a modern version of lebensraum. The Jews could share Jeruselem with the Palastinians, but choose not to. They choose to want to have it to themselves. They could even follow the Middle Eastern Road Map to Peace and not build settlements in Gaza etc, but they choose to do so, something that even the Americans, very strong supporters of the Israelis, have disagreed with.

I doubt it can be correctly denied that the IDF soldiers have committed atrocities during the closure of the borders and multiple wars. Could it be a retaliatory instinct following years of terrorist bombing? Possibly. Does it make it right? Ofc not. Someone doesn't wake up one morning and decide to become a terrorist and launch mortars into Israel and the IDF won't just bomb Gaza or the West Bank because they've bought too many JDAMs from the Americans.

Israel is a melting pot of sins, ironic given that it is probably one of the most allegedly Holy places on the planet. Now a vicious circle that will probably never be undone. I totally diagree that this person be allowed into your school to talk of such things, without someone else putting the Israelis point across, although, Semetical points of view are rarely heard outside of the West.

[GuardianTempest]

And that's why I never take sides when it comes to stuff like this....unless if one of the opposing parties really could use some whacks to the head with a flexible stick of dynamite.

[n5p29]

that kind of ustad is one of a people kind I hate most.
he knows only a little (maybe nothing), blinded to the one-sided truth.

if someone like him start to speech at a Jumat, I prefer to sleep, waiting the pray to start.

[SquigPie]

He sounds like someone who hangs out at Jew Watch when he's bored.

Have more to say, but have to run now, will edit it in later.

[Golan]

The problem with the Israel-Palestine conflict is that neither side is right - both are responsible for countless atrocities and take turns in undermining peace efforts. In the end, it doesn't matter who killed whom, which side did what and who was once in the right - every aggression now is as bad as whatever event it is "justified" with. People like this ustad are responsible for unspeakable death, destruction and sorrow caused by their hatred.

Wizard, on 2 Aug 2010, 11:35, said:

Your point about Zionism and the Jewish religion is undoubtibly correct. Not every single Jewish person wants to live in Israel, where ever that really is, or whether it is legal or not. I honestly think that Zionism now isn't Zionism in it's original, intended meaning, the home of the Jews in the Holy Land. It is now far more about protectionism and dare I even say this, about a modern version of lebensraum. The Jews could share Jeruselem with the Palastinians, but choose not to. They choose to want to have it to themselves. They could even follow the Middle Eastern Road Map to Peace and not build settlements in Gaza etc, but they choose to do so, something that even the Americans, very strong supporters of the Israelis, have disagreed with.

The Lebensraum parallel is quite uncalled for - Israel does not conquer or annex territory as the third Reich did, most of the lands they claim have in fact been given to them, though the problem is that it happened without the former/current inhabitants consent.

[Wizard]

Golan, on 2 Aug 2010, 17:20, said:

The problem with the Israel-Palestine conflict is that neither side is right - both are responsible for countless atrocities and take turns in undermining peace efforts. In the end, it doesn't matter who killed whom, which side did what and who was once in the right - every aggression now is as bad as whatever event it is "justified" with. People like this ustad are responsible for unspeakable death, destruction and sorrow caused by their hatred.

Wizard, on 2 Aug 2010, 11:35, said:

Your point about Zionism and the Jewish religion is undoubtibly correct. Not every single Jewish person wants to live in Israel, where ever that really is, or whether it is legal or not. I honestly think that Zionism now isn't Zionism in it's original, intended meaning, the home of the Jews in the Holy Land. It is now far more about protectionism and dare I even say this, about a modern version of lebensraum. The Jews could share Jeruselem with the Palastinians, but choose not to. They choose to want to have it to themselves. They could even follow the Middle Eastern Road Map to Peace and not build settlements in Gaza etc, but they choose to do so, something that even the Americans, very strong supporters of the Israelis, have disagreed with.

The Lebensraum parallel is quite uncalled for - Israel does not conquer or annex territory as the third Reich did, most of the lands they claim have in fact been given to them, though the problem is that it happened without the former/current inhabitants consent.

It wasn't meant to be used in an offensive context, sorry if it hit any nerves. However, how do you explain the Golan Heights (slightly weird pun-non-pun there)?

And there are several groups who actually question the legitamacy upon which Israel was created.

[Golan]

We-ell, the Golan heights were taken in the Six-Day-War, not a conflict aimed at annexing territory. Nations tend to have a habit of taking such souvenirs, just look at the Alsace area at the German-French border. Also, they have quite some strategic importance, so a country threatened by extinction every other day would keep it.

Oh, sure there are groups that question how Israel was created - as said, it was pretty without the consent of the people who already lived in that area. But Germany didn't even have a questionable claim on the areas it tried to take as Lebensraum. They just took what they wanted by force.

[Wizard]

Golan, on 2 Aug 2010, 18:37, said:

We-ell, the Golan heights were taken in the Six-Day-War, not a conflict aimed at annexing territory.

I certainly agree that annexation of the territory was probably not the original objective in respect of the Golan Heights, but the continued settlement of the West Bank is certainly Israel "extending itself". And Jerusalem...

[Brad]

There are always extremists, no matter how potent or impotent the argument. As Golan rightly states, both sides are to blame, and both sides have equal motivation.
On the point of extremists being allowed in a secondary school, well, that's horrific. My opinion is that any argument, that is being taught, should be given equal groundings for the listeners to have the right of choice. People will always disagree with me, with many people, because it suits them. And that sort of attitude breeds mindsets such as your Ustad example.


It'd be interesting to see what sides people take here in the conflict, if anyone wants to derail the topic slightly with me.

[Wizard]

I don't see any particular harm in derailing this one slightly. The Middle East conflict is a huge subject.

Personally I'd fall on the side of the Palastinians.

Edit: will expand on that later.

Edited by Wizard, 02 August 2010 - 22:20.

[deltaepsilon]

Wizard, on 3 Aug 2010, 8:14, said:

I don't see any particular harm in derailing this one slightly. The Middle East conflict is a huge subject.

Personally I'd fall on the side of the Palastinians.

I agree somewhat with you there. I'm inclined to think it might be because they could be seen as underdog in the situation, as Israel is a military beast with the US on their side. However, you certainly can't overlook the fact that they still dropped white phosphorus on primary school. Essentially I can't decide on which side to support because they're both quite morally grey.

And that ustad who preached at JJ's school is as ignorant and bigoted as those other extremist, hardline Muslims who destroy the reputation of their religion. It's pretty horrifying to see an asshat like this force his point of view in an environment filled with impressionable young minds.

[GuardianTempest]

^ But then look at the Christian hypocrites, enforcing everything and making sure the earth is an 'ideal' place. If these two collide then WW3 begins and they're the only factions fighting while the rest of us will be in the background watching.


Everything is good in moderation, and extremists are well....taking things to the extreme, is there any opposite to them?

Battleground: Antartica.

[Golan]

Brad, on 2 Aug 2010, 21:22, said:

It'd be interesting to see what sides people take here in the conflict, if anyone wants to derail the topic slightly with me.

Taking sides is what caused the whole mess, the only sensible way out is siding with the people living there. Unless the peoples there set aside their differences, the only other option is one side being taken out of the picture - which will probably only happen by brutal force.

It's really difficult to take sides as siding with one means opposing the other. The majority of people involved in the conflict have "inherited" it, so you can't really backtrack the conflict to a few incidents and decide based on them who's in the right and who isn't - it isn't about these issues anymore. In short, I'm against the extremist positions, Hamas and the moronic Israeli hardliners.

[Areze]

Golan, on 3 Aug 2010, 6:09, said:

It's really difficult to take sides as siding with one means opposing the other. The majority of people involved in the conflict have "inherited" it, so you can't really backtrack the conflict to a few incidents and decide based on them who's in the right and who isn't - it isn't about these issues anymore. In short, I'm against the extremist positions, Hamas and the moronic Israeli hardliners.

This. Extremism, by any ideology, can only lead to destruction and despair. In many ways, both are in the wrong, but have Freudian Excuses for why they're there and doing what their doing. It's a mess, with no clear cut lines, unlike what most people would wish there was.

However, letting an extremist into a school filled with children is very questionable. It strikes as an attempt at brainwashing, and then the whole cycle of resentment-action-blame-reaction starts again.

[BeefJeRKy]

I'd rather not get dragged into this debate personally as there is as of now a couple of casualties in the South as a result of a clash between the IDF and the Lebanese Army (surprisingly no Hezbollah). But what I can say is that while it can be argued that neither side is in the right at this conflict, one can certainly find that the Israeli response in general to all matters relating to Gaza are fairly exaggerated. Most specifically the unending siege that started after the kidnapping and the assault on the humanitarian aid ships a few months ago. I find that world's patience with Israel is starting to run out.

Anyway, that Ustad is talking about things he is not familiar with. Only people living in Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel can truly comment on what's going on with some form of relevance. Of course the IDF has done some inhumane things in its past, but then again, the PLO and Hamas are FAR from innocent themselves. And Zionism is very difficult to interpret. At its core, it is the great Jewish dream of uniting the chosen people under one nation. But today it represents their motive for aggression and the scapegoat on which Muslims blame all the worlds' problems.

TL:DR I'm not on the best of terms with Israel, but that doesn't make other sides better.

[GuardianTempest]

That is the only problem I've seen so far where it can't be solved with a good amount of nukes firepower other than the firepower itself.

That is why I hate 40% of the global population: self-proclaimed dominance obviously in a racist manner and the willingness to use force to show it.

Besides, if they win then they're the new government and, as always, there will be a new faction trying to take them out.

Wish they'd stop for a moment and look around. Besides, if their 'god' was the true one then the war never should've happened and we'd be doing their customs.

Also, if Allah was Christ in disguise...he went too far.

Now that is not an Ustad anymore....he is a tanga!!