world heritage status to Jesus' birthplace - despite US and Israel

Any chance these miltants violating the sanctity of somewhere believed to be the birthplace of Jesus were Muslims? No they must've been Christians right since they were stupid enough to touch it.....

 

Nazis are nazis. Goebbels are Goebbels.

 

And, of course, zionists are racist murderers.

 

and...? You'll need to provide sources, by the way.

According to other accounts, the primary reason why the Taliban destroyed the statues was over the willingness of the international community to provide money for the maintenance of them, rather than aid the millions of Afghans who were in dire need of humanitarian assistance. Of course, to some on this board, the West are the 'good guys' and the Muslims/Arabs are terrorists.

Third, and probably most important, the Taliban government for more than a year has been requesting international humanitarian aid for a country ravaged by drought, earthquakes, and war. No aid is forthcoming as long as the Taliban harbor international terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, an anathema to key voting members of the UN Security Council, including the United States, Russia (where the Taliban are working with the Chechnyan rebels), and China (where the Taliban are active among Muslim separatists).

As the Taliban see it, the UN and others (such as New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, the British Museum, Taiwan's National Palace Museum, and even such Taliban friends as Iran, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) will give millions of dollars to save un-Islamic stone statues but not one cent to save the lives of Afghani men, women, and children.

---

"The scholars told them that instead of spending money on statues, why didn't they help our children who are dying of malnutrition? They rejected that, saying, `This money is only for statues.' "

"The scholars were so angry," he continued. "They said, `If you are destroying our future with economic sanctions, you can't care about our heritage.' And so they decided that these statues must be destroyed." The Taliban's Supreme Court confirmed the edict.

"If we had wanted to destroy those statues, we could have done it three years ago," Mr. Rahmatullah said. "So why didn't we? In our religion, if anything is harmless, we just leave it. If money is going to statues while children are dying of malnutrition next door, then that makes it harmful, and we destroy it."

 

What is the difference when al-Qaida kills civilians and an army kills civilians? These are both acts of terrorism.

 

The difference is humangous, the difference is between the deliberate targeting of civilians in order to intimidate the population and the government into submission and regrettable but unavoidable civilian casualties that do happen during wars or military operations and are not considered illegal by the Geneva convention unless deliberate targeting of civilians can be proven.

 

Irrelevant what religion they were. The Church said it would provide refuge for anybody in need. And that is what it did.

They did not destory the church, they did not use snipers with lasers to kill people in the church. they did not throw grenades causing fires in the church.

And in the end it was negotiations, not force, which ended the standoff.

 

and predictable posters are predictable... welcome to ignore since all your posts are the exact same thing. youve not said anything new or fresh in a year.

 

Fine, my source is the blogger Michael Semple who was part of the UN team responsible for the statues.

In the autumn of 2000, in one of my meetings with the Taleban authorities in Bamian, among other projects which they proposed, they requested United Nations assistance to reconstruct the network of drainage ditches around the top of the niches in which the Buddhas rested. They were concerned at the prospect of erosion damage if the ditches were not maintained. I agreed to pass on the various projects (our bit of the UN of course did not have any money!) meanwhile I recall quipping that in the current atmosphere Buddas were troublesome and so it might be better to brick up the niches and pretend to the Kandahari brothers that the Buddhas had left. The Taleban leadership was by then lumbering along the path of confrontation, with moves to browbeat the UN and rather fantastic ordinances and prohibitions to control the population. However, war had not yet been declared on idols.

source

However your sources are better and more than adequate for the point I am making. In fact this quote from your source which you didn't use, says it directly:

Any destruction of archaeological remains is an indefensible crime against humanity.

I fear archaeological terrorism — this ultimatum of "give us what we want or we will destroy our enemies' (and the world's) heritage."

You see the notion in the first sentence is a modern Western one and can be perceived as a weakness to be exploited just as in so many other cases.

Are you seriously suggesting that Mr. Rahmatullah's explanation on his publicity trip to the US a few months before his Bin Laden nobody unleashed 9/11, should be taken at face value? Do you seriously believe that the Taliban had the least qualms about the suffering of Afghan civilians, sufferings they were largely responsible for? Do you think they had any problem with Bin Laden's economic priorities?

 

If only these nazis would all clear off so easily!

 

Thank you for illustrating the problem. You see when you state so emphatically that even "your rednecks" wouldn't be so stupid as to touch it there was a hidden condition you failed to declare and that is unless they are asked to, or alternatively it can be claimed they were freely asked to. Its this convenient liberty you have to pass on responsibility just as with the genocide against the Banu Qurayza! Fact is that the militants violated the sanctity of the church whatever you claim about its status in Islam.

 

until the last decade, there were more terrorist attacks by non muslims. (eg tamil tigers).

even many of teh early middle eastern terrorists were not muslim (in fact - jews committed their fair share of terrorism in Palestine in the 1940's).

might be good to think about the real causes of terrorism.

 

which is not relevant to the church in bethlehem.

I realise you like to paint the taliban as representative of all muslims, that is the perspective of the islamophobe.

 

I would like to see why you cobnsider me an extremist.

Personally, I consider you to be an extremist.

IMHO you resemble a racist neo nazi who only posts here for the express purpose of attacking and denigrating muslims.

you seem to have no other interests.

 

see my previous post re terrorism.

but in any case - why DOES Israel and the US oppose this church being declared a world heritage site?

what is in it for them?

how do they benefit?

 

I would support this even though I'm an atheist. Jesus is a huge historical figure who influenced a lot of people and left a lasting mark.

 

gchamblee made an excellent point, you didn't make a single relevant debate since the day I joined, nothing but slanders and an enormous amount of negative energy! no point in watching that ill face avatar you got there, add to that your words and that's a true nightmare!

Welcome to ignore

 

there is a lie................... the term terrorism of the 19th and 20th century, all began with zionist punks.


take a read

Church in Jerusalem (photo from Ivarfjeld)

The damage to the church was substantial, with burn damage throughout the first floor of the building.

The church was built in Jerusalem in 1897, and housed the Palestinian Bible College until 1947, when parishioners were pushed out by Jewish armed gangs during the violence accompanying the creation of the state of Israel.

Christians make up 2% of the population of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories – the number used to be around 15%, but many Christians from the Holy Land have emigrated due to the harsh conditions of the Israeli occupation, and discrimination against them by the Israeli state.

This is not the first time that Israeli right-wingers have destroyed churches and church property – a number of Chrisitan churches were destroyed during the second initfada (uprising) that began in 2000, and many more were destroyed by Israeli forces during the 1948 and 67 wars.

In 2006, an Israeli couple tried to firebomb an ancient church in Nazareth, the city where Chrisitans believe that Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago. An Israeli court which tried the case failed to convict the couple of any charges.

A leader in the church attacked on Friday, Zachariah al-Mashriqi, told reporters that the attack on the church was a clear attempt to provoke Palestinians to respond in anger. He urged Palestinian Christians to respond to the attack with virtue and patience.

Al-Mashriqi urged the Israeli government to act responsibly and condemn the attack, and work on investigating the attack to find out who was involved and actually file charges in the case. He asked the Israeli government to protect holy sites in the city of Jerusalem, as these sites come under increasing attack by Israeli settlers.



the palestinians hate the bigots as much as i do

 

to you, anything against the (*)(*)(*)(*) hole israel, the land of sissies, is terrorism



here is something that was asked on answersdot com if there are any israeli terrorist.

This was a fine response


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

To be quite honest with you, this question can not be answered *without* including politics in it. The concept of Terrorism is a very subjective concept. Many Palestinians and those having same or similar political leanings with the Palestinians as a whole would see Israel as an inherently terrorist state, whilst Israeli's and those who adhere to the political Right would see Israel as "acting in self-defense", and thus, having clean hands from acting in terror.

By definition, Nelson Mandela would have been a terrorist. Ever heard of the adage that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

Going by conventional knowledge at least, there are no Jewish or Israeli organizations, or at least none I know of. The most I've heard are "radical" organizations, but radicalism and terrorism are not synonymous.

**Edit towards Paperback: To propose that the notion of terrorism is objective as opposed to being subjective is a rather "theoretical" way of looking at things - it abides boldly by definition and theory, despite the fact that even the most well-thought out theories fail to grasp reality by its roots.

The actual definition of terrorism, and of which is your basis on how Hamas and Co. are terrorists, is as such:
(1) Intends to cause fear and terror
(2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal
(3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants.

In that respect, Hamas as well as its allies and similar affiliations (to list here would require me to spend hours at a time) are terrorists. The weight of terrorism however, is not defined by "definition", but by the negative connotations that is attached to it.

A revolutionary or freedom fighter who uses terror for political purposes *is a terrorist* by definition, but is not a terrorist by the connotations attached with the term (such as that of a group of malevolent psychopaths). In that respect, terror would be better put in this case, as an "ends that is the result of its means" - freedom from the result of violence, as paradoxical as that may appear to be at first sight



simply put, israel was created from terrorism

 

I'm sure you would have said the same about the Timbuktu shrines but sadly the prospect of acheological terrorism by Islamists is not limited to Afghanistan and no, it hardly implies that the Taliban is representative of all Muslims! Such rash statements are the language of extremists in denial.

 

Your post here amply fits the bill when you want to know why I see you as an extremist, a racist neo nazi, really........

 

Welcome to Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Lebanon 2006, Cast Lead 2008, Kashmir 1947-2012, Lybia 2011, and quite possibly Syria 2012, Iran 2012.

That is terrorism.

With all do respect, shut up.

Maybe 100, 500 civilian casualties maximum could be called "regrettable and unavoidable", but we are talking hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thousands in Palestine, Kashmir, Lebanon, Libya.

That is terrorism.

Oh by all means then, lets ignore the hundreds of villages wiped out by these armies because it was "an accident".

How can it be proven, dead people cannot give testimonies. The number of casualties speaks for itself.

There are many massacres and war crimes committed by the aformentioned armies

That is terrorism.

(and of all armies, but that is not to the same extent or relevant to my point, I kust want to acknowledge that and give you a part to quote since I know you are incapable of responding to all my posts. You're welcome)

You might get a kick out of this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3466.htm

 

Well you obviously need to do a bit of research.

Firstly it isn't just registered as a world heriatge site but an endangered one and you would have to be very blind not to see that politics is mixed up in it.

Thirteen out of 21 members of the world heritage committee voted in favour of the move at a meeting in St Petersburg. The decision was met by a standing ovation. Six members voted against and two abstained.

The fourth-century Church of the Nativity, built over a grotto where Christian tradition says Jesus was born, needs repairs but the Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is short of funds.

The Palestinian Authority's request included part of the Pilgrimage Route, the path which tradition says Joseph and Mary took into the city in their trek from Nazareth 2,000 years ago.

Palestinians had pointed to what they describe as the dangers of Israeli occupation and cited in particular Israel's 2002 siege of the Church of the Nativity, where militants took sanctuary during a Palestinian uprising. Violence has subsided in recent years and more than two million people now visit the church annually.

Independent experts sent by Unesco to examine the church recommended turning down the request, saying that while the church roof needed patching up the shrine could not be considered "to have been severely damaged or to be under imminent threat".

Friday's meeting in St Petersburg was attended by the Palestinian foreign minister. The Palestinian Authority has viewed its entry into Unesco as a strategic milestone before the broader international recognition it seeks for a future state.

"This gives hope and confidence to our people on the inevitable victory of our just cause," said the prime minister, Salam Fayyad, in a statement following the decision.

source

Less than two thirds carried the vote as there were two abstentions with neither Israel nor US represented on the commitee why is your question only addressed to the US and Israel? Perhaps some thought that this might encourage Palestinian gunmen to take more interest in the church increasing the prospect of archeological terrorism or simply drawing the site into the conflict as has happened in the past? Perhaps some have learnt some lessons from Afghanistan you find irrelevant?

 

I apologize.

I thought you would understand that by 'touch it' I did not mean "to bring a bodily part into contact with especially so as to perceive through the tactile sense : handle or feel gently usually with the intent to understand or appreciate". That is from Websters dictionary

I also apologize because I thought you would understand the difference by being in the Church for protection and shelling the Church (You see, "Israeli" forces have no problem bombing Mosques or even less famous Churches in Palestine)

Here you go, http://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-distortions-during-siege-church-nativity/3984, please accept my apologies.

And this has nothing to do with the Banu Qurayza.... lol

 

This all the more reason for Israel to end the unnecessary occupation to assist in ending the unnecessary violence, so that world heritage won't be destroyed due to stupidity, such as the hatred of Semites.