I didn't "skillfully avoid the question" - I said that I didn't know.

I can certainly understand why such attacks have taken place.

They wouldn't have if there was no occupation in the first place.

However sometimes they are foolish at best.

Is it Jihad? probably not. Can I understand it? absolutely. It is the job of the occupier to certify the security if the people, both its own and those under occupation.

If Israel wanted peace, there would be peace and no attacks would happen. It was even offered normalisation with all arab neighbouring states as a sweetner in 2002, but it refused to acknowledge it.

And therein lies the problem. If it is good and righteous for Hamas members to kill themselves whilst taking Israeli citizens to their graves as well, then surely the 19 hijackers on 9/11 and the 7/7 bombers must also go to heaven.

Jumping from one false supposition to another.

Firstly, who says that the people are merely citizens and not soldiers? Secondly, Israel is actively occupying the Palestinian lands and subjugating the people.

Soldiers are not the same as civillians (and I would also suggest that settlers are also not the same as they are criminals at best who are carrying out a criminal activity).

Those are huge distinctions tht you fail to make.

Were the people on the planes or in the twin towers soldiers? were they actively occupying a foriegn land and in a state of war with the attackers? no.

Were the people killed in 7/7 bombings soldiers? no. Were they actively supporting the subjugation of other people? no.

Britain/the US are not Israel.

btw, lets give the Israel Palestine stuff some context:

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6SklTzn1A]

Listen to them talk about what they have been through and tell me it does not make your blood boil.

Listen to them talk about how they saw their relatives butchered. It's not about religion. You only have to be human to feel wronged by what is done there.

Please watch that documentary. and then ask yourself, what is it that will drive some of them to attack israel?

(Let me know if/when you have watched it.)

You know if Hamas went the route of the IRA they would have a state called Palestine within just a few years.

Hamas offered a 40 year ceasefire, it was rejected by Israel. So no, that is not true.

But if the Palestinians took on a none violent position they would garner far more world support and political clout.

Look at the Oslo accords - the peaceful intention of the Palestinians was abuse in order to trebble the size of the settlements.

This is a conflict that could be ended by either side, but which side is ready to halt the violence and start a realistic peace process?

The Oslo accords, Hamas's ceasefires and commitment to a longer term ceasefire all show that the above is not true.

Again, you missed my point. My point is that when you think that by killing yourself and people of another creed/culture/religion/etc (who you have a legitimate grievance with their government) that you will go to Heaven and get those 72 virgins. Then the slippery slope has been greased a little more!

Did you know that before Hamas (which is it suggested is a Mossad ceration), the previous Palestinian resistance movements were not Religion based? they were often either communist or Socialist in nature.

There is no difference with the belief system of a Hamas fighter and one of the 7/7 or 9/11 bombers.

Only according to you. Why the need to use broadstrokes to paint everyone under the same brush?

Al Qaeda esque groups have tried to get a foothold in Gaza, and they have fought against Hamas. Hamas does not support Al qaeda's ideology.

There is a world of a difference between them.

If you presume that because Israel has national conscription, so every adult Israeli will have at some point served in the miitary, then I can see that (rather weak) point. Though I had no false supposition when I mentioned civilians. Here is a wikipedia column with more info about such acts.

Would you differentiate between a settler and a "normal" civilian?

The only recent attack deliberately targetting non soldiers (which was a few days ago - actualy there were two) was on people living in an illegal settlement who are directly contributing to the suffering of the Palestinian people.

By living on stolen land, they are spreading misery and carrying out oppression.

As for attacks on Civilians in Israel proper, Hamas has made pledges that it is willing to come to an agreement where neither side attacks civilians.

I would think it wrong to attack the normal civilians, however much of the news reporting of any attacks has been biased. When the news reports talk about civilian casualties on a bus which left a military base and was on its way to a military checkpost, my mind wonders if they really were civilians.

Hamas aint perfect. I have no issue with accepting that it or people affiliated with it have done many wrong acts.

But if we are painting the black and white picture which I assume you demand, I will be on the side of Hamas.

I don't know, is the argument of the agnostic.

I disagree.

The past few posts may have been overly defensive, so I will try to explain where I come from here:

1. There are religious absolutes.
2. However when relatives are used or two opposing absolutes are used (I will explain this later), I cannot always judge which is more right.
3. I do not pretend to know the will of God. I just try to (mostly) act on the requirements and the morals taught/required by God through the qur'an and sunnah, however my understanding and my actions are both imprefect.

When it comes to absolutes, the main ones are:

1. Opposing occupation is jihad.
2. Suicide is haraam.
3. Deliberately targeting civilians is not allowed.

From there, what can be absolutely agreed upon by all Muslims is:

1. fighting against soldiers that are occupying the land is jihad.
2. Resisting occupation is Jihad.

Then you have a list of less certains, the main one:

1. Targetting the occupying forces in attacks that also result in suicide (as opposed to an attack which *may* result in death - the difference between using a gun, rocket and using a suicide belt). Some will consider this legitimate, others will not, saying nothing can justify suicide.

After this come even more grey areas - these ideally should not happen and do not strictly meet the Islamic criteria:

1. Are the settlers civilians, or are they an occupying force?
2. Are the Israeli citizens really civilians?
2a. there is mandatory military service,
2b. those lands were also occupied and palestinian residents booted off in 1948.

In these situations, number one is the lightest grey while 2 is the darkest grey, closest to an absolute "wrong", but once again due to situation it is not an absolute. However this has not been done in quite a long time so there is less need to worry about it, most combat has been targeting either soldiers or settlers.

There is also an option of "do nothing" and this is offered by the pro Israeli side as the fastest route to peace, "don't fight us and we will negotiate with you and get you your rights".

However this was tried in the past and it resulted in greater usurpation of land and property at a faster rate than before.

The current PM of Israel was even on record of using the negotiations in order to buy time and to change the realities on the ground instead of actually trying for peace.

When it comes to absolute wrongs, there are some there too:

1. Using or deliberately targeting children.

I hope that clarifies where I come from. (No one has to agree with my thinking.)

(I probably shouldn't get involved since i'm clueless but...)

Vocalist wrote:

Anyway, I digress.. Your argument seems to be that Hamas are simply a territorial defensive group and the people who kill themselves do so out of love for the land and their nation.

If they're a defensive group, aren't they doing it to protect themselves more than anything else? :S

Vocalist wrote:

And this is where I love debating Muslims. Because whether you like it or not, Islam is a very diverse and pluralistic religion, and I could easily find quotes from imams and other so called "religious leaders" who would call halal what you just claimed to be haram.

The imams aren't always right :/ Unfortunately there are lots of people out there preaching wrongly about Islam. You should read into the Qur'an & Sunnah when judging Islam. I don't think you'll find theres anything pluralistic about it. (i think, if i've understood correctly :oops: anyway i'll get back to what i'm supposed to be doing now...)

Islam is totally pluralistic. The absolutes are few. The efficacy of a religion for absolutely anyone in any time would be severly restricted if this wasn't the case.

I see. see told you - clueless!

Glad i got involved though, i obviously don't understand this pluralistic business, anyone care to explain?