Syria

[Soxbadger]

Considering the 3rd most holy site in the Muslim religion is located in Jerusalem I sincerely doubt they are going to blow it up.

 

Tel Aviv, sure, Jerusalem, not likely. Even back in the olden days people like Saladim respected it. Historically speaking, it was the Babylonians and Romans who did the most destruction (see first and second temple respectively).

[greg775]

Considering the 3rd most holy site in the Muslim religion is located in Jerusalem I sincerely doubt they are going to blow it up.

 

Tel Aviv, sure, Jerusalem, not likely. Even back in the olden days people like Saladim respected it. Historically speaking, it was the Babylonians and Romans who did the most destruction (see first and second temple respectively).

 

In my next life I'm going to be a history buff. It would be cool to be able to rattle off the facts you just did.

[southsider2k5]

Considering the 3rd most holy site in the Muslim religion is located in Jerusalem I sincerely doubt they are going to blow it up.

 

Tel Aviv, sure, Jerusalem, not likely. Even back in the olden days people like Saladim respected it. Historically speaking, it was the Babylonians and Romans who did the most destruction (see first and second temple respectively).

 

Depends on who you mean by "they".

[Soxbadger]

Based on sentence structure they would be Muslims.

[southsider2k5]

Based on sentence structure they would be Muslims.

 

All of them at once? That is a pretty safe bet.

[Soxbadger]

Historically speaking Mulsims have been more respectful to Jerusalem and its holy sites than other religions.

 

They may want to kill every Jew, but they generally respect the Jewish tradition due to the fact that they both share the same founder, Abraham, and according to Islam they are the descendants of Ishmael, who was the first son of Abraham and the half brother of Isaac.

[southsider2k5]

Historically speaking Mulsims have been more respectful to Jerusalem and its holy sites than other religions.

 

They may want to kill every Jew, but they generally respect the Jewish tradition due to the fact that they both share the same founder, Abraham, and according to Islam they are the descendants of Ishmael, who was the first son of Abraham and the half brother of Isaac.

 

All it takes is one guy with the ability. Saddam targeted Jerusalem with Scuds during the Gulf War for example. It has also been targeted in past terror campaigns.

 

[Balta1701]

All it takes is one guy with the ability. Saddam targeted Jerusalem with Scuds during the Gulf War for example. It has also been targeted in past terror campaigns.

You realize that the word "Targeted" and "Scud" are like "productive" and "Congress" right?

 

You shoot them off "west" and they land where they're going to land. The V-2 was probably more accurate.

[southsider2k5]

You realize that the word "Targeted" and "Scud" are like "productive" and "Congress" right?

 

You shoot them off "west" and they land where they're going to land. The V-2 was probably more accurate.

 

Pick from any of the terrorist attacks since 1946 if you don't like that one.

[Soxbadger]

If you are going to hate on Muslims thats fine, but attacking holy sites isnt there MO. Thats just a historical fact.

 

I also dont believe Saddam fired scuds at Jerusalem. I can remember that day very clearly because I was in Hebrew school and my teacher was from Israel. He fired at Tel-Aviv and Haifa.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotli...rrorizes-Israel

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/4588486.stm

 

So yeah, the last thing we need is a bunch of saber rattling Americans to claim that Muslims are attacking Jerusalem.

 

[Soxbadger]

He never targeted Jerusalem. It was Tel-Aviv and Haifa. Targeting Jerusalem is off limits, even Saddam knew that.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...y/Gulf_War.html

 

After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein consistently threatened to strike Israel if his country was attacked. If the U.S. moves against Iraq, he said in December 1990, "then Tel Aviv will receive the next attack, whether or not Israel takes part" (Reuters, December 26, 1990). At a press conference, following his January 9, 1991, meeting with Secretary of State James Baker, Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was asked if the war starts, would Iraq attack Israel. He replied bluntly: "Yes. Absolutely, yes."

 

The damage caused by the 39 Iraqi Scud missiles that landed in Tel Aviv and Haifa was extensive. Approximately 3,300 apartments and other buildings were affected in the greater Tel Aviv area. Some 1,150 people who were evacuated had to be housed at a dozen hotels at a cost of $20,000 per night.

 

The more you know.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

If you are going to hate on Muslims thats fine, but attacking holy sites isnt there MO. Thats just a historical fact.

 

I also dont believe Saddam fired scuds at Jerusalem. I can remember that day very clearly because I was in Hebrew school and my teacher was from Israel. He fired at Tel-Aviv and Haifa.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotli...rrorizes-Israel

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/4588486.stm

 

So yeah, the last thing we need is a bunch of saber rattling Americans to claim that Muslims are attacking Jerusalem.

 

Except when the pretty much turned Iraq into a civil war by doing exactly that.

[Soxbadger]

lulz

 

The conversation is about Jerusalem being attacked. I dont know (nor claim to know) anything about Sunni/Shiite inter-fighting, which is completely unrelated to threats against Israel/Jerusalem.

 

Unless you are now saying that threat was to attack Muslim holy sites?

 

Point remains, historically speaking Muslims have not gone out of their way to target holy sites in Jerusalem. Even though they have had ample opportunity, they have specifically chosen against this.

 

Ill just believe you were uninformed about the Saddam issue.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Except when the pretty much turned Iraq into a civil war by doing exactly that.

That was Sunnis targeting Shi'ite sites and vice-versa, right? Whereas all Muslims have reverence for Jerusalem.

[Jake]

A cool AMA going on at reddit with a Syrian who cautiously backs Assad as it is still better alternative than extremist Muslim leadership; also thinks that chemical weapons use is "probaly an inside job funded by an outside source"

[LittleHurt05]

If you are going to hate on Muslims thats fine, but attacking holy sites isnt there MO. Thats just a historical fact.

 

I also dont believe Saddam fired scuds at Jerusalem. I can remember that day very clearly because I was in Hebrew school and my teacher was from Israel. He fired at Tel-Aviv and Haifa.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotli...rrorizes-Israel

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/4588486.stm

 

So yeah, the last thing we need is a bunch of saber rattling Americans to claim that Muslims are attacking Jerusalem.

 

Doesn't a mosque get suicide bombed in Pakistan once a week?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are those not Muslims attacking the mosques?

[StrangeSox]

Doesn't a mosque get suicide bombed in Pakistan once a week?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are those not Muslims attacking the mosques?

That's sectarian violence. Like Protestants bombing Catholics in Ireland. They wouldn't turn around and bomb the nativity to piss off the other because they both deeply revere it, whereas the protestants might not care about some Catholic saint or relics.

[TaylorStSox]

Doesn't a mosque get suicide bombed in Pakistan once a week?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are those not Muslims attacking the mosques?

There's a few things to consider here. First, many Muslims still consider Jerusalem one of their holy cities. The Jews are occupying it and they won't destroy their own shrines in order to drive out the occupation. There's a ton of historical precedence here. Consider Saladin's role in conquering Jerusalem. Second, there's a mutual respect for the city by all 3 religions involved in these conflicts and the city is symbolic. Last, regarding Muslim sects attacking mosques, for some reason it's human nature to treat one's own more harshly. Even our own civil war was arguably the most horrific conflict Americans have been involved in aside from Japan.

Edited August 29, 2013 by TaylorStSox

[Balta1701]

Yup, pretty much spot-on.

[Soxbadger]

I dont know Im kind of sick of the defeatist attitude. Just because bad things have happened in the past, doesnt mean that they will happen in the future. You cant let people be purposefully murdered just because there may be some collateral damage if you try and stop it.

 

We get to worked up about looking through crystal balls to try and guess what will happen. Sometimes you just need to do the right thing, and then let the chips fall where they may. You may not always be the hero, but it doesnt mean you shouldnt try.

 

Maybe we are damned if we do and damned if we dont, but id rather be damned and do.

[StrangeSox]

There needs to be a pretty strong case made that bombing another country and inevitably killing civilians is "the right thing."

[Balta1701]

I dont know Im kind of sick of the defeatist attitude. Just because bad things have happened in the past, doesnt mean that they will happen in the future. You cant let people be purposefully murdered just because there may be some collateral damage if you try and stop it.

 

We get to worked up about looking through crystal balls to try and guess what will happen. Sometimes you just need to do the right thing, and then let the chips fall where they may. You may not always be the hero, but it doesnt mean you shouldnt try.

 

Maybe we are damned if we do and damned if we dont, but id rather be damned and do.

We've let 100,000 people already be murdered in that country. So yes, we can let it happen.

[Soxbadger]

I dont know where that line is. I do think evidence of chemical weapons being used against civilians is probably a "strong case", considering that weve attacked countries just because they allegedly had chemical weapons.

[Balta1701]

I dont know where that line is. I do think evidence of chemical weapons being used against civilians is probably a "strong case", considering that weve attacked countries just because they allegedly had chemical weapons.

And that worked out incredibly well.

[Soxbadger]

So what? I dont really get where you are going with this. You act outraged that 100k people are dead, then you turn around and say that bad things can happen with interference.

 

At some point you need to make a decision and stand by it. Bad things are going to happen, no matter what we do, no matter how good our intentions may be.

 

But you cant let the possibility of bad things dissuade you from doing what you believe is right.

 

Now that is up to every individual, if you dont think its right to interfere, thats your call.