jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (79 posts)

An Note To Hub Pages Management

  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    Inexcusable!

    There is a post on the politics forum which links to an idiot burning pages of a Koran. I reported it an hour ago and it's still up. What does Hub Pages consider objectionable? Gang raping a nun?

    This is not a freedom of speech issue. Politics and religion are intertwined. Thomas Paine was none too fond of 'Papists'. Drawing the line of separation between Church & State is not easy.  We will have a lively discussion whenever any group tries to impose their brand of morality on the body politic. I welcome the opportunity to  show islamiphobes for the fools they are.

    I am not a 'Christian' by most Christian standards. (I wonder if Jesus will see it differently?) You won't see me burn a bible not because of any special respect for the book, but because I respect a lot of Christians who have found a respectable spiritual & social code in the words of Jesus. Likewise I would never desecrate the the Book of Mormon or any Hindu book.

    I expect reprehensible antics from the wingnuts. What surprised me is how Hubpages has allowed it. Desecrating a Holy  Book of ANY religion is inexcusable. It is legal, but Hub Pages does not have to be bound by that standard. They would not allow me to link to pornography online even if the Supreme Court had decided not to censor it. They don't have to allow links to disgusting acts of violence against a book, place or icon of a minority religion.

    Time for a bunch of folks to go to the post by AC that mentions Anne Barnhardt and hit the report button. And it's time for HP  to clean up their act or quit banning anyone for anything.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ... why is burning a koran so bad?

      Why can South Park call Jesus a pedophile, but they can't even show an image that might possibly be considered Muhammad?

      Dude. Give it up. Only liberals could convince themselves that showing "Jesus taking a crap on the president, a pregnant woman, and the American flag" is less offensive than "showing something that MIGHT be mohammed".

      wake up. You've been brainwashed by tolerance.

      Liberals:
      http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep … -tolerance

      The scene of Jesus taking a crap on everything that is "American":
      http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep … rs-part-ii

      (it starts at 20:26)

      And the first episode of "we can't show mohammed":
      http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep … ars-part-i

      It's utter nonsense.

      My rights do NOT end where your feelings begin.

      10 cheers for HubPages NOT being a bunch of Cowards!!

      hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah!

      1. superwags profile image77
        superwagsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I find it objectionable, but not so much that it's a koran being burned, but that it's an OP on the forum. I don't think that's right - it's just openly insulting a porportion of the community on here.

        Presumably you've seen the video - it's just a pain in the arse thinking she's being clever and "brave". It's BS.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          she looks psychotic. If anyone got mad at what one psychotic bimbo did with her book (really? bacon?), then... well... they need to stop watching it.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If Doug Hughes is for a lifetime ban then I am against it.

      Seems the prudent course..

    3. Daniel Carter profile image86
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Did you flag the post in the thread, and perhaps flag the profile?

      I think that's a lot more sensible than alerting the media about this particular incident.

      And if you DID flag the post, etc., and HP hasn't responded, doesn't that give you enough information about where they stand on freedom of speech?

      If you don't like the rules, you can always start your own website and proclaim yourself supreme ruler there, if it's not working for you here.

      Just sayin'.

  2. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Trying to insert your beliefs into Hubpages policies?

    Before you try, why don't you try to finding divinity/holy? I guess you're out of luck, considering it's been placed on the same scale as Love.

    You know it when you see it in action. It's unfortunate, there isn't anything divine/holy about the human species. You believing there is, doesn't make it truth or even True or Fact.

    Just because some idiot burned a book, you consider to be holy/divine, in reality. It's a book, just like any other reference book in existence. You reference it, whenever you feel the need to do so.

    The exercise of freedom of speech, where someone burns a book, is their right. My only problem with this idiot did, was of no integrity. He knew the reaction and consequence of what he was about to do, before he ever set it a fire. That is just plain stupidity in motion.

    The link was provided as a source of an article written about it? Was it not?

    Please do try to keep your religion to yourself and out of other people's life. wink

    1. superwags profile image77
      superwagsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You can't agree with that post and associated link though Cags - it's effectively an OP with a link to a youtube clip of a woman burning a koran.

      You've got to have some standards on here; I'm not the easily offended type, but you wouldn't put something on here just to be objectionable. You wouldn't accept gratiutous swearing or disrespectful behaviour...

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Why does "burning a book", and "showing a psychotic woman be an idiot" piss everyone off?

        The complaints come from the same people who complain about how dumb Palin is, and make fun of her for opposing birth control while her teen daughter is pregnant.

        It's CLEARLY nonsense.

        1. superwags profile image77
          superwagsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not o here telling my most offensive Japanese tsunami joke, or the best ones about 9/11 or necrophilia. There's a place for gratuitous, offensive things, and it really shouldn't be here...

          I don't understand why you don't get this?

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Why do you think "I don't get it". Of course I get it!! I'm not THAT dumb!! "Evan: if you piss people off, they get mad".. REALLY?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

            Of course I "get" it. I just disagree with the statement. You guys don't want her to post the video because it might piss someone off.

            I think that's dumb.

            Go ahead and make your "japanese tsunami jokes". I have friends and family over there. Hell, I'd probably laugh (if they were good). Sure, you might piss someone off. But that doesn't mean that you can't say them. That would be BS.

            You'd probably lose a lot of friends, and hurt your own reputation (I'd probably not bother reading your posts -- the same way i don't really take what AnnCee, LadyLove, and others seriously).

            You'd just be harming yourself - the same way that AnnCee hurt her (his?) own reputation by posting the inflammatory video.

            What's the end result of the post of that video?

            1) I have less respect for AnnCee
            2) I saw an idiot using bacon as a bookmark

            AnnCee just hurt him/herself. That's pretty much it.


            ... I'm curious how everyone would react if, instead of AnnCee saying "She's a hero", s/he said "What a horrible thing! What insensitive people!".

            I bet it would have been different.

            1. AnnCee profile image70
              AnnCeeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I didn't say she was a hero.  I'm still not sure what I think about this action or this person.  She's brave.  She went into this with her eyes wide open to the danger.  That's like standing on a wall and taunting your enemies below.  People have died for doing less.

              Was her action foolhardy?  Outrageous? Courageous?

              Since she is completely aware of the consequences I would say courageous.   She has the courage of her convictions.

              Will people die because of what she did?  I'm afraid so.

              This was an extremely radical and provocative action.  I've never seen anything like it.

              I consider it newsworthy, shocking, and worth thinking about.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                You think it's courageous to get strangers overseas killed for your actions taken at no personal risk? (Yeah, if she had flown to Afghanistan to pull her stunt in public, that would be guts.)

                She's taking chances with the lives and futures of strangers because she's a hateful birch. (The tree smile )

                1. DannyMaio profile image57
                  DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you should be banned for trying to take away our right to free speech and expression! your actions could cause riots in the streets because we do not want our liberties taken away. why do we have to follow your way of thinking? Did he/she kill anyone? they did not even burn the book and now you want someone banned for posting something they thought was interesting? GO TO IRAN they live that way and you can go rat on every woman that is not covered up or wearing something inappropriate. Did you see sex in the city the movie? they went to the middle east and Samantha dropped a condom and was fooling around with a man and they were getting mad. was that irresponsible? You people will never give up trying to ruin this country! did you write to the middle eastern countries when they burned the church down and bibles and killed Christians because they are Christians? do we go in the streets and riot and kill? they are responsible for their own actions! if anyone doesn't like it don't watch!!!

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                    Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Doesn't my right to free speech extend to stating my opinion?

                    I think AnnCee's link is vile and should get her a lifetime ban. Do you think only wingnuts expression is proteted under the 1st amendment?

              2. DonDWest profile image76
                DonDWestposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                You're nothing but a filthy Zionist.

                1. DannyMaio profile image57
                  DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Now we have racism because someone does not agree with your way of thinking? so you can say anti-Semite things without even knowing if they are? nice...and you are any better?

                  1. DonDWest profile image76
                    DonDWestposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm not a racist for pointing out the racists, which Zionists certainly are. And stop throwing around the anti-semite word because I disagree with a genocidal Isreali phycho babble spreading her word around these forums.

          2. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            As a matter of fact, Ron Montgomery's thread was closed during the tsunami crisis!
            It was considered offensive to some, and it was closed.
            Seems to me, this is just as offensive, yet NOW it's called "freedom of speech"...what about Ron's freedom?

            What are the guidelines here? Ok to offend some, but not others?

            And, the adds were removed from my pro-abortion hub. Nuff said. We know where the bias is.

      2. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        It's a reference book, no different than any other book in existence. If the person wants to burn a science book are you going to condemn them? Probably not, because it's their right to freedom of expression.

        If it's objectionable, then those who need to address their own inner issues and not step on the rights of others. Yes, civility should be a standard. Things should be seen for what they truly are.

        I'm not condoning what was done. I don't find it acceptable. What I do have to do is accept that it is their right and it's not my place to interfere. As I said already, the person who did the original burning, knew it would anger others and could cost lives. But, the lives that were taken were not nor should the blame be placed on the person who burned the book. It should lay with the morons who killed other people. As a result.
        There is a difference, which I pointed out above.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Excuse me if I left you with the impression that I'm Muslim. I am not. I know some - my daughter's best friend is from a Muslim family. They're  fine people. No horns or tails.

      My post indicated (I thought) that an attack on the symbols of somebody's religion - ANY RELIGION - should be out of bounds on Hubpages.
      If it was up to me, AnnCee would get a lifetime ban.

      As you know, there's at least a dozen westerners in the Mideast who are dead because of this kind of legal but hateful crap posted on the Internet to incite rage. I do not think the government can or should intervene in the US - but the civil society - the people of the United States don't have to  endorse or allow it.  Hub Pages does not have to allow it.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Your religion is irrelevant to me, as much as it is relevant to you. I didn't get any impression of your religion. Because, it actually doesn't matter.
        Someone's "religion" can be attacked and/or considered attacked, if one simply disagrees. So what's your point? I've seen many believers on here, scream personal attack, simply because they disagreed with a poster's comment.
        See, you are determining the bounds of Hubpages? How nice of you. Squashing freedom of speech?

        There is no need to incite rage, it's already raging and has been for thousands of years. And, as I said before in my previous post- it's only a reference book. Nothing divine or holy about it.
        You're correct, it shouldn't.
        Civil society? Another person who believes something that doesn't actually exist. Society IS NOT Civilized. And, to think it is anywhere near it...maybe you should look at yourself and figure out why?
        Actually, they do, if they understand rights and the world around them.

        You're correct, they don't have to, but since it wasn't removed, then it would appear that your view isn't shared. However, if you make enough noise, with this thread, you might actually get what you want. Oppression of other people's rights.

  3. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    I am waiting for a comment from Hub Pages.

    Care to educate us on policy??

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If you are asking HP to censor our conversations based on religion, I wish you the worst of luck.

      It is bad enough that HP has to censor what is published as a result of business necessity.

      I have seen discussion here on rape, child pornography and slavery.  In comparison to these issues the discussion of others' "mistreatment" of religious icons is little more than a raindrop in a thunderstorm. 

      Let it go.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        There is a distinction between a discussion of child pornography and a link to a video of a violent rape of a child.

        The discussion, among adults, is appropriate. The video is not.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          There is also a distinction between a video of child rape and a video of a small fire.  Regardless of the fuel.

          And no, I didn't watch the video.  Not interested in watching a bunch of idiots proving just how stupid they are.  Of course, I'm not much interested in the screaming of other idiots demanding that everyone in the world be as idiotic as they are either!

          Let it go.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You can decide that the 'small fire' is trivial. Do find a way to explain that to the families of the dozen (or so)  UN workers who died in Afghanistan as a result of a 'small fire' in Florida that was set and posted on the Internet for the purpose of inciting a riot. The people who do this are loathsome cowards because they are out of reach of the Islamic fundamentalists they hope to torment. Like a child shooting a dangerous animal in a cage with a BBQ gun.

            Any responsible parent would take the gun away and punish the mean child.

            Hub Pages needs to be the adult here and they are failing in their duty.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              It is my belief that it is important to maintain our way of life - our freedom.  This does not include bowing to and submitting to those that use death and torture as a way to coerce others in the world to agree with them.

              Should we shut down the type of thing that "incited" the riot it won't help; the next demand may be to require that the world to stop all action during daily prayers.  Then to participate in those prayers.  Then to join the killing of those that object. 

              The extreme islamic faction over there will stop at nothing less.  Best to either eradicate them or ignore them.  As WE cannot eradicate them (only their peers can do that) our best bet is to ignore their demands and stop (or help to stop) their murderous actions whenever possible.  As extreme force is the only language they understand that is the language we must use when dealing with them.  Not the language of placation, which is what you are advocating.  Should we go so far as to hang the book burners the extremists will be placated only until another of their demands is not met.

              I DO actually agree that the book burning was a stupid thing to do - the only possible purpose served was to incite the riot in a far away place.  Nevertheless I must support their right to do so - it is our way of life just as murder is theirs.  I prefer our way.

              1. AnnCee profile image70
                AnnCeeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Well said.

                1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness - read carefully. I clearly said that the US  government should not interfere. No censorship. My suggestion was that Hub Pages should lifetime ban Ann Cee for linking to an idiot who burned a Koran. I made it clear that this is not just in deference to Islam or the Koran but also included the Bible, Book of Mormon or any scripture or icon of any religion.

                  Hub Pages can and does make their own rules. Right now, those rules make no sense.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    It appears to me that HP rules are intended solely for the purpose of promoting business and income.  Rules based on ethics or morals are not apparent (at least to me) and that's the way I like it.

                    If the day ever comes that I feel that HP is censoring our hubs or conversations based on their own concept of ethics, religion or anything but promoting business use I will leave. 

                    While certain organizations (notably religious ones) censor their members according to ethical standards of that organization, I do not belong to any of them voluntarily.  Nor would I want to; I am quite capable of deciding these matters myself and do not need anyone else to tell me how I should behave.  And that includes anyone telling me how to treat a book, whether it be a religious fantasy book or not. 

                    Personally I'm tired of the whole PC thing; never step on any toes, always defer to someone else's concept of right or wrong, and forever give way to any religious nut that comes around.

                    Remember the episode a while back when a bunch of Muslims decided to delay an entire airplane load of people so they could pray just before takeoff time?  That kind of thing will only grow worse and worse if we let it, and demanding (through govt action or otherwise) that we defer to such actions will neither delay, diminish or stop such demands.  Neither will demanding that we neither burn religious books nor show pictures of such.

                    Your suggestion that someone be banned from HP for providing a link to a book burning (even though said burning gave excuse for killing more infidels) is offensive.

  4. melbel profile image93
    melbelposted 6 years ago

    Personally I find most of the things posted in the religion and politics forums extremely objectionable. However, I just avoid those areas. There will always be people you disagree with. I avoid sharing my political beliefs online because there is always a person who will counter with ridiculous behavior (and there are those people who just counter for the heck of it.)

    I avoid it. You should too. Let stupid people rage about their religious beliefs because a news program makes up facts and says something is bad, but don't you let it get you down. Instead of getting angry, get proactive -- maybe create a hub about religious tolerance.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So why is anyone ever banned?

      I mean, if I say XYZhubber has the brains of a Mediterranean Fruit Fly, I get banned for a week. But if I link to a psychotic, (nod to Evan who diagnosed) whose mimicking the actions of Jones which have triggered murders overseas, you suggest I write a hub.....

      Yeah, right.

      1. kmackey32 profile image82
        kmackey32posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Ive never been banned and I write some crazy things sometimes especially to ones promoting there religion, which I think they should ban in the forums but ya know, too each there own......lmao

  5. AEvans profile image71
    AEvansposted 6 years ago

    I tried to located the thread reagrding "the burning of the quaran" however I cannot locate it. I have to agree that if it is something deragatory then it should be removed. Everyone has a right to their beliefs. Not all Muslims are murderers or tyrants its ashame that we percieve all of them to be inhumane and heartless.

  6. Ralph Deeds profile image74
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    I wasn't able to find the "offensive" link by AnnCee. I assume it appeared on the thread involving the xxxhole minister in Florida who burned the Koran Are we beating a dead horse, so to speak????

    1. DannyMaio profile image57
      DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      no that was not the same it was a woman who blasted republican Lindsey graham and the burned pages she thought was evil and then gave her address for anyone who wanted a piece of her. crazy lady if you ask me.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image74
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What thread was the "offensive link " on? I'm curious as to what the controversy is about. Is it still up or has Hubpages deleted it? Lindsay Graham is one of the few Republican senators who occasionally makes sense, in my opinion.

        1. DannyMaio profile image57
          DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Look under anncees to find it It is still up. I personally will not put that info up. as far as Lindsey Graham I personally think he is wrong. He was looking to take more liberties away. this woman blasted him big time which I thought would have been fine but she had to go crazy and take it to another level.

          1. AnnCee profile image70
            AnnCeeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I agree.  I didn't expect part two.  A very radical action and she is encouraging others to follow suit for the sake of disarming this threat of violence with which they are holding the world hostage.

            Terror is a complex enemy.

            She decided to hit it in the heart.

  7. DonDWest profile image76
    DonDWestposted 6 years ago

    I feel we're living in a world that's already too politically correct as is. . .

    I don't feel anti-religious references should necessarily be banned, but it's in the wrong forum, we have a religious forum for such material.

    I will also state that there are some things less offensive in nature that are widely policed and banned here: swearing and nudity comes to mind.

    1. DannyMaio profile image57
      DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      obvious you do not feel anti-religious bantering should be stopped you just called someone a filthy Zionist. and I would agree that it is your right to say anything you like as freedom of speech is important. should you be banned for that post? I do not think so.

      1. DonDWest profile image76
        DonDWestposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Zionism is about as religious as Al-Queda, we've been through this already. . .

        1. DannyMaio profile image57
          DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement
          THE KEY WORD IS JEWISH!!

          1. DonDWest profile image76
            DonDWestposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            And Al-Queda claims to be a Muslim political movement. Politics and religion don't mix. Fact of the matter is such groups are political movements and not much else. I'm tired of speaking to a wall.

            Maybe somebody else can explain to you that Zionism is neither a race nor a religion.

            1. DannyMaio profile image57
              DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              his rabbi disagrees, sounds religious based to me,...sorry

              Rabbi Kook's answer was the following:

                  Zionism was not merely a political movement. It was actually a tool of God to promote His divine scheme and to initiate the return of the Jews to their homeland - the land He promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God wants the children of Israel to return to their home in order to establish a Jewish sovereign state in which Jews could live according to the laws of Torah and Halakha and commit the Mitzvot of Eretz Israel (these are religious commandments which can be performed only in the land of Israel). Moreover, to cultivate the land of Israel was a Mitzvah by itself and it should be carried out. Therefore, settling Israel is an obligation of the religious Jews and helping Zionism is actually following God's will.[

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            No, the key word is political.

            1. DannyMaio profile image57
              DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              of course for your socialist views it is. how in one sentence he says Jewish is not a nationality or political. and is a religion and now it clearly shows it is a Jewish(religion)political movement, so it is religious!

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                No, wrong again, Jewish is the people, Judaism is the religion.

            2. DannyMaio profile image57
              DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Zionism are discussed in the following places at Britannica.
              Assorted References

                  major reference  (in  fundamentalism (religious movement): Religious Zionism)

                  Despite the hostility of most Orthodox rabbis, Zionism aroused considerable enthusiasm among many Orthodox Jews who saw in it the promise of the long-awaited messianic redemption. Some Orthodox rabbis, therefore, sought to legitimate Orthodox participation in the Zionist movement. Rabbi Yitzḥaq Yaʿaqov Reines (1839–1915), founder of the Mizraḥi religious Zionist...
                  Mizraḥi  (in  Mizraḥi (Jewish religious movement))

                  ...of Zionist nationalism; its traditional slogan was “The Land of Israel, for the people of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel.” It became the principal party of the Orthodox religious Zionists.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, a political party, thanks for confirming.

          3. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Vice President Biden is a Zionist, and he is not Jewish...it's a political movement.

            1. DannyMaio profile image57
              DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              according to Wikipedia and Britannica it is a Jewish political movement. I posted what they say? sorry I take their word for it over people on hub pages. and If Biden sees himself as a Zionist he must hate Obama who is against Israel.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Obama against Israel?
                He played golf while little babies were being slaughtered in Operation Cast Lead.
                Chuck Schumer and gv Patterson were whooping it up in NY.
                People were dancing and singing and enjoying the blood-shed.
                Please--anyone who is honest about Israel doesn't last long.

                Look at Goldstone...even him, they got to.
                But they can't get to the One who knows.
                So shame on their eternal souls!

  8. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "then Britain won it and SOLD it to Israel, they have kept the receipt". Like to see the receipt.

    1. DannyMaio profile image57
      DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

      The area of Israel was originally the British mandate of Palestine. IE, Britain owned the land and Palestinians lived on it. Following World War II, the land was given over to Jews so they could have their own homeland after the horrors of the Holocaust. However, the Palestinians living there became refugees in their own homeland. Many were forced to leave then and following the 1967 Six Day War and others since. Many are still hoping to return, nearly 60 years after being forced to leave. A couple of years ago, George Bush said Palestinian refugees could never expect to return to the area of Palestine, however, at the time of the creation of Israel in 1948, Americans, for once, had nothing to do with it.
      I would suggest this website for further information:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/c…

      In terms of Britain giving away a country that isn't theirs, this is an interesting question as that is what Britain has done throughout its historical colonial past. India was divided into 3 countries because of the British, Cyprus is in two parts, Northern Ireland was a mess for decades, many other islands are still owned by Britain eg Virgin Islands and Falklands.

      The actions of the past have repercussions to this day: Northern Ireland's fragile peace, India's stand-off with Pakistan, Greece and Turkey over the legitimacies of Cyprus and, of course, the topic the questioner asked, the legacy and the future of the Middle East.

    2. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sold, bought, given, whatever. Obvious ploy to fulfill prophecies and bring about armageddon. Working wonderfully.

  9. Reality Bytes profile image90
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    I cannot find the thread or the link.  Was this a google owned "youtube" video?   If it was and youtube does not find it offensive then by the great google god laws it is not offensive.  smile


    I found it and it is posted to youtube thus whatup?

  10. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "Terror is a complex enemy."

    Indeed. One could be your friend one day, then the next day, your enemy.

    All one needs to consider is: Who Benefits?

  11. lrohner profile image83
    lrohnerposted 6 years ago

    Maybe I'm just simple-minded or something, but why would anyone expect HP to take something like that down? It's a book, for Pete's sake. If someone's entire religion lives and dies on a written page, that's a pretty poor damn excuse for a religion. If I want to go and burn a Koran, I'll do it. Or a bible. Or the flag. If that bothers you, go and live in another country that doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Seriously.

    HP doesn't censor material. Google does. And HP follows Google's lead so that we can all continue to make money here. Once HP does start listening to the likes of the OP and censors material, I'll high-tail it out of here pretty darn quickly.

  12. Maddie Ruud profile image80
    Maddie Ruudposted 6 years ago

    Burning a book, no matter what book it is, is not hate speech in and of itself.  It is offensive, certainly.  Disgusting, sure.  But not hate speech.  I watched the video in question, and the woman is reading passages from the Qur'an and analyzing it (though perhaps incorrectly).  She does not say all Muslims are evil.  And actually, if you take the Qur'an quotes out of context, as she's done, some of them sound like hate speech themselves.

    In any case, no matter whether I agree or disagree with her, she does have a right to her opinion, and HubPages is not in a position to start making calls based on whether or not something is distasteful.

    1. superwags profile image77
      superwagsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'm just about to put a link up to a porn video named two girls one cup; just to offend.

      Is this ok?

      p.s. don't ban me - I'm trying to make a point.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Or write a hub about abortion--that will get your adds banned.

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          That's unfounded LMC.

          I had an abortion hub up for months. I recently deleted, because I address the issue in another hub.

          It should not be banned, either for publication or ads from Google either.

      2. Maddie Ruud profile image80
        Maddie Ruudposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Pornography is a different matter entirely; we do not moderate porn because it is offensive.  I'm not sure how this bears on the current conversation, and I'm not going to get drawn into a long discussion about our adult content policy here.

  13. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "and HubPages is not in a position to start making calls based on whether or not something is distasteful." Thank You.
    Seems so many are inclined to censorship.

  14. aware profile image68
    awareposted 6 years ago

    My idea of god lay not on a page. I  feel that all those books do a disservice to the grand idea of god, With their divisive interpretation.And misrepresent  its possibility. I love god ideas and respect others beliefs. And  by no means  do i burn books .The reaction of the faithful is what i find far more disturbing than  the burning of  any book.Islams reaction was the intent of  action. It was meant to provoke  barbaric  like behavior. In order to support the idea of Islam being a violent  faith. This guy that burnt the Koran  is playing  Islam like a fiddle. and to see so many Killing because of it .  Makes even a tolerant person like me , question the civil nature  all religions claim to live by.
    All religions  i feel are in need of correcting their path.
    For gods sake i hope they heed the call for that.
    Ray

  15. Charlu profile image85
    Charluposted 6 years ago

    I think if we all spent more time writing hubs with all this creative thinking going on we would make more money

    All I can say is WOW

 
working