Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What the Danish cartoonist did is basically an attack not on Islam, but religion in general.
I would ask you to consider that the catoonist was mocking the dogma of zealous religious literalists. I think that even the buddah would have smiled. The cartoon was like a slap done to bring enlightenment to those blinded by devotion to religious dogma.
Spiritual masters present the word, then the word gets twisted up by the unskillful masses.
Religion is a beautiful thing. Beauty too is in the eye of the beholder.
If someone fails to perceive the beauty in your religion and make fun of it that's when the beauty get manifest not the riot, call to punish etc.
When someone is cooking meth we should cook that person as well.
Have you followed this idea to its logical conclusion? It would mean that any person or group, whatever their own agenda, could prevent free expression, be it serious or comic.
Does it apply to anyone who might be offended? What happens if I am offended by what, say, the Murdoch press is saying? Or if I object to HHDL's opposition to the use of animal skins? Or if I am upset by Blackadder or The Life of Brian?
I have to disagree mostr strongly: let individuals deal with their feelings of upset but, for the sake of millions murdered in secret, keep expression free.
Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I worded it the wrong way, my bad. The point I wanted to convey was the press should be kept silent if what they say will lead to attacks on a certain group of people, hence the risk of injury or death to people exists because of hateful or instigating words of the press. More specifically, I mean if the press exxagerates something and as a result, a group of lunatics go out and kill a Muslim because of an overexaggeration or a false statement in a newspaper. The press should be kept silent if they write words for the sole purpose of creating hate against a group of people or instigating violence against a group of people. People will get offended no matter what we do, it's almost a formality listening to the people who are offended by a news item or editorial.
Just one last example - if someone stood up and shouted "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there was none, and that resulted in the death of dozens of people, they would be held repsonsible.
its such a materialistic and divided world... that these things here are unavoidable.. its sheer ignorance and selfishness and it seems impossible to quell
Quote:
What the Danish cartoonist did is basically an attack not on Islam, but religion in general.
I would ask you to consider that the catoonist was mocking the dogma of zealous religious literalists. I think that even the buddah would have smiled. The cartoon was like a slap done to bring enlightenment to those blinded by devotion to religious dogma.
Spiritual masters present the word, then the word gets twisted up by the unskillful masses
I just saw this now. This cartoon was overboard & foolish. And I beg to differ on the buddha smiling at this. This is definitely falling under the category of wrong speech. It was divisive, not truthful, not appropriate & not beneficial. It suggested that all Muslims were terrorists, including the founder. This went well beyond satire. Sorry. Pushing the buttons of a group of people you have outwardly stated to be violent, is bound to cause violence. Speaking of twisted, that is what this was. Not defending the rioters & such, just not defending the cartoonist either. This world, especially the Middle East, is especially sensitive right now. We do Not need this.
It's also amazing how slandering of other people and nations is done in the name of religion, not by a majority of a population, but one person who is glorified by the masses who use their message for propoganda for political means, and I agree, this world is too materialistic.
even if this was a 'buddhist country' there would still be one guy or a group which would do this sort of thing. There wil always be people in society parodying God and playing on fears and division.
We can't stop it, thing is people get offended by this because of their own ego, they think their indentity is being attacked. It not only the cartoonists fault but the readers who find it offensive.
Any of these ppl who put themselves in groups like islam, buddhism, christianity are going to find stuff offensive to their religion regardless. They will always complain about something that is absolutist in their beliefs, point is this isn't them.
Religions such as islam and christianity are absolutist, they create the division and hate, theres no real possibility of following all the rules without being judgemental and letting misconceptions rule you, at least not if you group yourself as a christian or muslim.
Theres material everywhere that offends people.
No one belongs in catergories, and its partially their own fault for labelling themselves that they find such trivial stuff to be offensive.
I too seem to have a hard time with hypocrites or those who refuse reciprocity.
-bf
Dearest BF,
Indeed, one of the most memorable and poetic phrases used by the Bard, Jesus of Nazareth, is "whited sepulchres" (although that translation, by Wycliff, is perfect, isn't it!).
The difficulty, I think, is in the perceprion: what one sees as hypocrisy, another may see as defence of something cherished. I can see the hypocrisies of the British position over Afghanistan/Iraq/Lebanon/social justice/et., etc. I can call it 'hypocrisy' but that suggests that the 'hypocrites' are conscious of their double standard. And I do wonder how true that is, when I look at my own hypocrisies.
Strong-mindedness in us may appear deepest hypocrisy to another. That, once again, is the challenge that Jesus, in Judaea, and Gautama, wandering across Northern India, presents us with. Sums up in the other memorable phrase about motes and beams!
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg
Problem is--it gets even worse when you have a "god" or "religion" cheering you on for the evil you do---how about a heaven full-of virgins--as a reward for killing ? You know what they say, "God is Merciful." These are facts that need to be faced and addressed !
Problem is--it gets even worse when you have a "god" or "religion" cheering you on for the evil you do---how about a heaven full-of virgins--as a reward for killing ? You know what they say, "God is Merciful." These are facts that need to be faced and addressed !
The problem that I have with the G-d concept is that it promotes the belief that the created are somehow seperate from the creator, rather than an active participant of the process.
there really isn't any gd or evil though.. its just perception. We can only ever rely on that we did our best. Regret is useless, as we did the best we thought to do at the time.
Concepts of god, is foolishness. It comes down to ppl thinking they can interpret God. God is not definable by any means. His images and his words are not comprehensible to any human.
Monkeys who think god belongs under a banner.
the kuran or bible.. ( both man made ) are not in any way accurate and only interpretable by free will.
Rather than evil or good, it is more a case of ignorance. People do not think about anything past their feet, and relate themselves to god, in many cases it is nothing more than social conformity at its worst. Another false image..
THe christian church, islamic faith... have no links to jesus or god.. its just a front
The problem that I have with the G-d concept is that it promotes the belief that the created are somehow seperate from the creator, rather than an active participant of the process.
The created is NOT the Creator in Islam. I've even seen muslims displaying bumper-stickers to this effect. Therein lies a large part of the problem.
I have been having second thoughts about Islam. Perhaps it is due to my deeper exploration into the New Atheist Movement and learning of the Brights. Many books have inspired me against religion (authors like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others)
The thing is, I see all religious faith as irrational. Sure, there are a few truly renowned religious folks in the past 2000 years, but much more harm is coming from religion than good. Consider the terrorists in the Middle-East, they have been able to with little effort, distort a 'peaceful religion' into a vehicle of mass murder. Page after page within the Koran talks of the punishment awaiting the non-believers.
People will blame this militant terrorism on Western imperialism, economics, poverty, and social unrest. While these can be contributors, religion has the biggest influence on it. Because if those things alone created terrorists, you should expect to see Tibetan Suicide Bombers. They have suffered far more than Iraq or any other state in the Middle-East. And yet there are none of them blowing themselves up along with a bus load of children.
But Tibetan Buddhism does not easily lend itself to murder. You would have a very difficult time twisting Tibetan Buddhism into a weapon of terror. Islam lends itself more readilly to such violence though.
I will not deny the multitudes of moderates who have no intention on killing people. But they seem to be on the losing side of a scriptural arguement. There are far more condemnations of disbelievers than there are suggestions of non-violence in the Koran.
Even if beneficent acts are done because of religion, that dogma is not necessary for it. Just as you don't do good because you fear coal from Santa, you shouldn't have to be good for the sole reason that a divine being wants you to. Religion is not necessary for ethics and if anything, it can be a hindrance to them.
I expect to take heat for this, but surely the world cannot afford to withhold criticism for such prominent irrationality.
I have been having second thoughts about Islam. Perhaps it is due to my deeper exploration into the New Atheist Movement and learning of the Brights. Many books have inspired me against religion (authors like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others)
The thing is, I see all religious faith as irrational. Sure, there are a few truly renowned religious folks in the past 2000 years, but much more harm is coming from religion than good. Consider the terrorists in the Middle-East, they have been able to with little effort, distort a 'peaceful religion' into a vehicle of mass murder. Page after page within the Koran talks of the punishment awaiting the non-believers.
People will blame this militant terrorism on Western imperialism, economics, poverty, and social unrest. While these can be contributors, religion has the biggest influence on it. Because if those things alone created terrorists, you should expect to see Tibetan Suicide Bombers. They have suffered far more than Iraq or any other state in the Middle-East. And yet there are none of them blowing themselves up along with a bus load of children.
But Tibetan Buddhism does not easily lend itself to murder. You would have a very difficult time twisting Tibetan Buddhism into a weapon of terror. Islam lends itself more readilly to such violence though.
I will not deny the multitudes of moderates who have no intention on killing people. But they seem to be on the losing side of a scriptural arguement. There are far more condemnations of disbelievers than there are suggestions of non-violence in the Koran.
Even if beneficent acts are done because of religion, that dogma is not necessary for it. Just as you don't do good because you fear coal from Santa, you shouldn't have to be good for the sole reason that a divine being wants you to. Religion is not necessary for ethics and if anything, it can be a hindrance to them.
I expect to take heat for this, but surely the world cannot afford to withhold criticism for such prominent irrationality.
Actually that is the most rational argument against Islam I have ever heard. Most of the time I just hear "terrorist this, Iraq this etc. Islam evil." After hearing all the criticisms I had decided to buy a copy of the Quran, it is actually pretty good, very interesting read, but yes there are commandments to kill, but then in the old testament there were also commandments to kill. I like that you referred to religion in general, and did not specify Islam alone. Most of the time those arguments are just 'West vs. East' to me.
I smile as I read the jesuitry that condemns "religion" and yet perpetuates the myth that Buddhism is not a religion. Of course, to those of us who practise it, it is a way of life, an approach to psychology, a cosmogony and a philosophy. To 'outsiders', it has all the trappings, rituals and dressing-up of religion. It has music and incense, prayer-like mantras, monks and nuns, and a division between monastic and lay, 'temples', pilgrimages and mysticism.
The idea that Tibet was some sort of 'Shangri-la', at peace and pacifist, before the most recent Chinese invasion ignores the realities. First of all, at the time of the invasion, Tibet was a feudal society, stratified and static, with extreme poverty among the peasant class and extreme luxury among the small ruling class. History records that Tibet, despite its established Buddhist rulers, had the reputation as one of the most warlike and ferocious nations in the region.
The overt reason for the Chinese invasion of the 1950s was "regime change" - familiar? 'Insurgency' by Tibetan nationalists continues, as in the Middle East. This insurgency is often in support of exiled leaders, even if these same leaders condemn it.
A longer view of history suggests that religion is a useful excuse for the ancient realities. Wars are waged for influence and resources. Time and again, the leaders of the current Middle East conflict appeal to 'national interest', 'our' way of life, 'national security'. The poison is not in the religious beliefs and practices but in nationalism, the fiction that the imaginary lines drawn by politicians on a map define anything other than zones of property ownership.
In order to support the current idea that 'religion' is at the root of warfare, the long World War of the 20th century is sometimes seen in the same light. The 'Cold' period of that war was presented similarly: we (the West) were the good, the 'Reds' evil and demonic, atheists all. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. It was a struggle between the imperial inheritor nations. One just has to look at the rhetoric in the US, even after the Hitlerian regime declared war, demanding the dismantling of the British Empire: nothing to do with religion, both the US and the UK being 'Christian'.
Even among those who supported the invasion of Iraq there is a growing awareness that it had nothing to do with any sort of religious belief on the part of the invaders or the invaded. Iraq was a secular nation where religion was kept well away from the political process.
What is certain, however, is that religion can be used very effectively to motivate. The UK has lived with this for decades with internecine warfare in the North of Ireland. Catholics and Protestants across the world, including very important US politicians, supported their 'own' side. But the struggle had little or nothing to do with faith in any form. It had (and still has) to do with the artificial partition of the island in order to protect the investment of English landlords and investors following the Plantation of a Scottish middle-class.
On the subject of self-immolating murderers, it should be noted that the technique is not an invention of the jihadists. In modern history, it was first used in Sri Lanka by the Tamil Tigers. In ancient history, we were taught to admire Samson and his destruction of the Philistine temple!
I accept that I am one of a small band, crying in the wilderness, who believe that the 'nation state' myth is at the root of suppression of freedom and war far more surely than any transitory set of 'religious' beliefs. Our nations are based on the pillaging of our neighbours and their assimilation into our polity or their genocidal destruction. It is not for nothing that red and blue, the colours of blood, feature so prominently on our national flags!
buddhism be a science that unravels our universe..
religion is a social group for the self-righteous jugdement of others,the division and false worship..
the strength it gives can be falsely manifested.. i myself can summon upon enormous faith when i am in right frame of mind.. making me stronger,faster and w/e .. this is not real but induced. I do this sometimes simply to give myself extra power or endurance..
god be no interpretable by no mans eyes.. and god be un-named
I smile as I read the jesuitry that condemns "religion" and yet perpetuates the myth that Buddhism is not a religion. Of course, to those of us who practise it, it is a way of life, an approach to psychology, a cosmogony and a philosophy. To 'outsiders', it has all the trappings, rituals and dressing-up of religion. It has music and incense, prayer-like mantras, monks and nuns, and a division between monastic and lay, 'temples', pilgrimages and mysticism.
The idea that Tibet was some sort of 'Shangri-la', at peace and pacifist, before the most recent Chinese invasion ignores the realities. First of all, at the time of the invasion, Tibet was a feudal society, stratified and static, with extreme poverty among the peasant class and extreme luxury among the small ruling class. History records that Tibet, despite its established Buddhist rulers, had the reputation as one of the most warlike and ferocious nations in the region.
The overt reason for the Chinese invasion of the 1950s was "regime change" - familiar? 'Insurgency' by Tibetan nationalists continues, as in the Middle East. This insurgency is often in support of exiled leaders, even if these same leaders condemn it.
A longer view of history suggests that religion is a useful excuse for the ancient realities. Wars are waged for influence and resources. Time and again, the leaders of the current Middle East conflict appeal to 'national interest', 'our' way of life, 'national security'. The poison is not in the religious beliefs and practices but in nationalism, the fiction that the imaginary lines drawn by politicians on a map define anything other than zones of property ownership.
In order to support the current idea that 'religion' is at the root of warfare, the long World War of the 20th century is sometimes seen in the same light. The 'Cold' period of that war was presented similarly: we (the West) were the good, the 'Reds' evil and demonic, atheists all. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. It was a struggle between the imperial inheritor nations. One just has to look at the rhetoric in the US, even after the Hitlerian regime declared war, demanding the dismantling of the British Empire: nothing to do with religion, both the US and the UK being 'Christian'.
Even among those who supported the invasion of Iraq there is a growing awareness that it had nothing to do with any sort of religious belief on the part of the invaders or the invaded. Iraq was a secular nation where religion was kept well away from the political process.
What is certain, however, is that religion can be used very effectively to motivate. The UK has lived with this for decades with internecine warfare in the North of Ireland. Catholics and Protestants across the world, including very important US politicians, supported their 'own' side. But the struggle had little or nothing to do with faith in any form. It had (and still has) to do with the artificial partition of the island in order to protect the investment of English landlords and investors following the Plantation of a Scottish middle-class.
On the subject of self-immolating murderers, it should be noted that the technique is not an invention of the jihadists. In modern history, it was first used in Sri Lanka by the Tamil Tigers. In ancient history, we were taught to admire Samson and his destruction of the Philistine temple!
I accept that I am one of a small band, crying in the wilderness, who believe that the 'nation state' myth is at the root of suppression of freedom and war far more surely than any transitory set of 'religious' beliefs. Our nations are based on the pillaging of our neighbours and their assimilation into our polity or their genocidal destruction. It is not for nothing that red and blue, the colours of blood, feature so prominently on our national flags!
What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?
uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2008
Hello Alex, and welcome to the forum.
I'm afraid, as a political ignoramus, I can't actually comment.
but I'd like to invite you to the New Members' Introduction Thread, to introduce yourself more thoroughly....
Thank you for posting. I hope you get more concrete answers from others!
Comments
I would ask you to consider that the catoonist was mocking the dogma of zealous religious literalists. I think that even the buddah would have smiled. The cartoon was like a slap done to bring enlightenment to those blinded by devotion to religious dogma.
Spiritual masters present the word, then the word gets twisted up by the unskillful masses.
If someone fails to perceive the beauty in your religion and make fun of it that's when the beauty get manifest not the riot, call to punish etc.
When someone is cooking meth we should cook that person as well.
Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I worded it the wrong way, my bad. The point I wanted to convey was the press should be kept silent if what they say will lead to attacks on a certain group of people, hence the risk of injury or death to people exists because of hateful or instigating words of the press. More specifically, I mean if the press exxagerates something and as a result, a group of lunatics go out and kill a Muslim because of an overexaggeration or a false statement in a newspaper. The press should be kept silent if they write words for the sole purpose of creating hate against a group of people or instigating violence against a group of people. People will get offended no matter what we do, it's almost a formality listening to the people who are offended by a news item or editorial.
Just one last example - if someone stood up and shouted "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there was none, and that resulted in the death of dozens of people, they would be held repsonsible.
I just saw this now. This cartoon was overboard & foolish. And I beg to differ on the buddha smiling at this. This is definitely falling under the category of wrong speech. It was divisive, not truthful, not appropriate & not beneficial. It suggested that all Muslims were terrorists, including the founder. This went well beyond satire. Sorry. Pushing the buttons of a group of people you have outwardly stated to be violent, is bound to cause violence. Speaking of twisted, that is what this was. Not defending the rioters & such, just not defending the cartoonist either. This world, especially the Middle East, is especially sensitive right now. We do Not need this.
_/\_
metta
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/02/05-11.php
I too seem to have a hard time with hypocrites or those who refuse reciprocity.
-bf
We can't stop it, thing is people get offended by this because of their own ego, they think their indentity is being attacked. It not only the cartoonists fault but the readers who find it offensive.
Any of these ppl who put themselves in groups like islam, buddhism, christianity are going to find stuff offensive to their religion regardless. They will always complain about something that is absolutist in their beliefs, point is this isn't them.
Religions such as islam and christianity are absolutist, they create the division and hate, theres no real possibility of following all the rules without being judgemental and letting misconceptions rule you, at least not if you group yourself as a christian or muslim.
Theres material everywhere that offends people.
No one belongs in catergories, and its partially their own fault for labelling themselves that they find such trivial stuff to be offensive.
Dearest BF,
Indeed, one of the most memorable and poetic phrases used by the Bard, Jesus of Nazareth, is "whited sepulchres" (although that translation, by Wycliff, is perfect, isn't it!).
The difficulty, I think, is in the perceprion: what one sees as hypocrisy, another may see as defence of something cherished. I can see the hypocrisies of the British position over Afghanistan/Iraq/Lebanon/social justice/et., etc. I can call it 'hypocrisy' but that suggests that the 'hypocrites' are conscious of their double standard. And I do wonder how true that is, when I look at my own hypocrisies.
Strong-mindedness in us may appear deepest hypocrisy to another. That, once again, is the challenge that Jesus, in Judaea, and Gautama, wandering across Northern India, presents us with. Sums up in the other memorable phrase about motes and beams!
The problem that I have with the G-d concept is that it promotes the belief that the created are somehow seperate from the creator, rather than an active participant of the process.
Concepts of god, is foolishness. It comes down to ppl thinking they can interpret God. God is not definable by any means. His images and his words are not comprehensible to any human.
Monkeys who think god belongs under a banner.
the kuran or bible.. ( both man made ) are not in any way accurate and only interpretable by free will.
Rather than evil or good, it is more a case of ignorance. People do not think about anything past their feet, and relate themselves to god, in many cases it is nothing more than social conformity at its worst. Another false image..
THe christian church, islamic faith... have no links to jesus or god.. its just a front
The thing is, I see all religious faith as irrational. Sure, there are a few truly renowned religious folks in the past 2000 years, but much more harm is coming from religion than good. Consider the terrorists in the Middle-East, they have been able to with little effort, distort a 'peaceful religion' into a vehicle of mass murder. Page after page within the Koran talks of the punishment awaiting the non-believers.
People will blame this militant terrorism on Western imperialism, economics, poverty, and social unrest. While these can be contributors, religion has the biggest influence on it. Because if those things alone created terrorists, you should expect to see Tibetan Suicide Bombers. They have suffered far more than Iraq or any other state in the Middle-East. And yet there are none of them blowing themselves up along with a bus load of children.
But Tibetan Buddhism does not easily lend itself to murder. You would have a very difficult time twisting Tibetan Buddhism into a weapon of terror. Islam lends itself more readilly to such violence though.
I will not deny the multitudes of moderates who have no intention on killing people. But they seem to be on the losing side of a scriptural arguement. There are far more condemnations of disbelievers than there are suggestions of non-violence in the Koran.
Even if beneficent acts are done because of religion, that dogma is not necessary for it. Just as you don't do good because you fear coal from Santa, you shouldn't have to be good for the sole reason that a divine being wants you to. Religion is not necessary for ethics and if anything, it can be a hindrance to them.
I expect to take heat for this, but surely the world cannot afford to withhold criticism for such prominent irrationality.
The idea that Tibet was some sort of 'Shangri-la', at peace and pacifist, before the most recent Chinese invasion ignores the realities. First of all, at the time of the invasion, Tibet was a feudal society, stratified and static, with extreme poverty among the peasant class and extreme luxury among the small ruling class. History records that Tibet, despite its established Buddhist rulers, had the reputation as one of the most warlike and ferocious nations in the region.
The overt reason for the Chinese invasion of the 1950s was "regime change" - familiar? 'Insurgency' by Tibetan nationalists continues, as in the Middle East. This insurgency is often in support of exiled leaders, even if these same leaders condemn it.
A longer view of history suggests that religion is a useful excuse for the ancient realities. Wars are waged for influence and resources. Time and again, the leaders of the current Middle East conflict appeal to 'national interest', 'our' way of life, 'national security'. The poison is not in the religious beliefs and practices but in nationalism, the fiction that the imaginary lines drawn by politicians on a map define anything other than zones of property ownership.
In order to support the current idea that 'religion' is at the root of warfare, the long World War of the 20th century is sometimes seen in the same light. The 'Cold' period of that war was presented similarly: we (the West) were the good, the 'Reds' evil and demonic, atheists all. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. It was a struggle between the imperial inheritor nations. One just has to look at the rhetoric in the US, even after the Hitlerian regime declared war, demanding the dismantling of the British Empire: nothing to do with religion, both the US and the UK being 'Christian'.
Even among those who supported the invasion of Iraq there is a growing awareness that it had nothing to do with any sort of religious belief on the part of the invaders or the invaded. Iraq was a secular nation where religion was kept well away from the political process.
What is certain, however, is that religion can be used very effectively to motivate. The UK has lived with this for decades with internecine warfare in the North of Ireland. Catholics and Protestants across the world, including very important US politicians, supported their 'own' side. But the struggle had little or nothing to do with faith in any form. It had (and still has) to do with the artificial partition of the island in order to protect the investment of English landlords and investors following the Plantation of a Scottish middle-class.
On the subject of self-immolating murderers, it should be noted that the technique is not an invention of the jihadists. In modern history, it was first used in Sri Lanka by the Tamil Tigers. In ancient history, we were taught to admire Samson and his destruction of the Philistine temple!
I accept that I am one of a small band, crying in the wilderness, who believe that the 'nation state' myth is at the root of suppression of freedom and war far more surely than any transitory set of 'religious' beliefs. Our nations are based on the pillaging of our neighbours and their assimilation into our polity or their genocidal destruction. It is not for nothing that red and blue, the colours of blood, feature so prominently on our national flags!
religion is a social group for the self-righteous jugdement of others,the division and false worship..
the strength it gives can be falsely manifested.. i myself can summon upon enormous faith when i am in right frame of mind.. making me stronger,faster and w/e .. this is not real but induced. I do this sometimes simply to give myself extra power or endurance..
god be no interpretable by no mans eyes.. and god be un-named
I'm with you, Simon.
uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict
I'm afraid, as a political ignoramus, I can't actually comment.
but I'd like to invite you to the New Members' Introduction Thread, to introduce yourself more thoroughly....
Thank you for posting. I hope you get more concrete answers from others!