No, I'm only correcting people's distorted views of history.

Submitted by a Filipino liberal (Philippines), Nov 25, 2006 at 03:10

"This is rather embarrassing as Filipino liberal is correct. So what if in 1967, Egypt had staged their fighter aircraft and were preparing for an attack on Israel the next day."

Firstly, we don't know that Egypt was planning to attack Israel, because Israel attacked first. Sure, Egypt blockaded Aqaba, and they massed troops on the Israeli border. But they didn't attack. Israel can say all it wants, that Egypt was provoking Israel and all that, which is probably true, but so what? If the Israelis say Egypt was provoking them, then why did they take the bait and attack anyway?

"Everyone knows that Jews are not allowed to commence defensive action until Arab nations have commenced attack."

That is correct. That is exactly what I meant. I don't believe in the notion of preemptive strike at all. I believe in self-defense - where you wait for the other guy to attack first, then you fight back. After all, what is preemptive strike? It means attacking someone on the grounds that they were going to attack you, so you attack them first. And is there any means of proving without a doubt that that somenone was really going to attack? No. If they weren't going to attack, what then? If you let them attack first, you have the moral high ground, as they're the aggressors. Of course Israel and the US don't understand this, which is why they're really made for each other - they're so similar. Israel, the 52st state of the US (the 51st is Britain).

You know, this reminds of something I heard once. There's the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Then there's the Silver Rule - Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. Lastly, there's the Black Rule - Do it to them, before they do it to you.

And don't put words in my mouth, I'm not referring to Jews alone. This applies to everyone - I'm not biased, unlike you.

Of course we'll never know now if Egypt would have attacked first - because Israel did!

"The proper protocol for Israel was to formally adopt UN resolution, instead of launching defensive action against Arab attack."

Again, I'm not saying that - stop twisting my words to suit your intentions. I am not aware that the UN was prevented Israel from defending itself in the event of an attack. I know that the Arabs attacked first in 1948 and 1973, and Israel was perfectly justified in defending itself - unless of course, as in 1973, it was already holding land that belonged to other countries.

Of course, I've discovered that some of you conservatives have really distorted definitions of self-defense - in what alternate universe does the US bombing Libya because the US suspects Libya to be behind a nightclub bombing, probably not hitting the people who were actually responsible for the bombing, but instead killing Qaddafi's baby daughter (who as we all know clearly masteminded the attack), become self-defense?

"I stated that Muslims believe that the earth belongs to Islam, and there can be no peace until Islam rules the earth. On Aug 11/06, the following comments by an Imam were posted on Aljazeera: "What's wrong with you Muslims? You have set your sights to low. Don't you know that the world belongs to you. Instead of fighting the Jews, you need to fight the whole world. You should've had control over the whole world by now. Allah is angry because you have forgotten." Well apparently, the Qur'an, the Hadiths, the Holy Imam and me are wrong. Why; because Filipino liberal said so and when has he ever been wrong?"

You still haven't disproved my point. If Muslims believe the world belongs to Islam, it means that they believe that preferably, everyone should be converted to Islam - peacefully, just as Christians believe. At least, that's how it should be. I reiterate my previous point, that there are radicals and fundamentalists in all religions who believe in using force - in Christianity as well as Islam. Apparently, you haven't yet heard Ann Coulter's remark immediately after Sept. 11 that "we have to invade Arab countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Now what do you think of that, Infidel? Or is it only Muslims who are forbidden from using force to spread their religion?

P.S. I know I've been wrong in the past. I know I can make mistakes - but when I know I'm wrong, I correct myself. Unlike some I know.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".