"Silence is betrayal"MLK anti war speech

Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
"Silence is betrayal"MLK anti war speech

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Choosing sides

Ken G. wrote:

President Carter pounds Israel and Obama's AIPAC speech. www.brasschecktv.com/page/536.html

Palestine, Bosnia, Tibet, Darfur, Sri Lanka, Kurdistan, Punjab, Kashmir etc.. are all ethnic conflicts which IMO deserve equal weight. Except for Tibetans, atrocities are committed on both sides with one side claiming moral superiority and the other side being evil and the ones who started it all. Each side is typically driven by a fanatical adherence to an ideology (race, religious, political, language, etc..). Interestingly the victims of one particular dispute often remain silent when their kin are the oppressors of another dispute (ie. because of Islam, Palestinians are hush over atrocities committed by the Sudanese regime). In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones. What is common is a dispute over land with ethnic groups who claim ownership based on an alleged historical inheritance. What is left at the doorstep in all cases is reason and the idea of peaceful co-existence. I live in a comfortable dwelling in the US with a full time job and a decent salary to raise my family. If some group uproots me and claims that all that I have belongs to them because of a historical claim, I would likely be pushed to irrational rage and leave reason at the doorstep. That's right a rational freethinker like me could possibly be pushed into the wrong state of mind in such similar ethnic conflicts.

Thus, I arrive at 3 conclusions:

1. Human beings are hardwired for xenophobic tendencies towards non-kin (like tribes of warring chimpanzees) and there are really no "good guys" and "bad guys"

2. That taking sides with the victimized group is usually contradictory if their extremist kin are themselves oppressors in different circumstances

3. Because of conclusion 1, that ultimately an external "benevolent" power in the long run cannot stop deep seated hatred among Lilliputians and Brobdingnagians

Thus, based on this, the United States should completely extricate itself from the Middle East and tell the Israeli lobby groups to go fuck themselves. Let the Arabs and Israelis, Jews and Muslims settle their own disputes by the sword if that is what they choose.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:In many ways

ragdish wrote:
In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones.
I don't quite see the analogy, but you make good points otherwise.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:ragdish

Thomathy wrote:

ragdish wrote:
In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones.
I don't quite see the analogy, but you make good points otherwise.

Thomathy,

I was referring to the angst between English and French speaking Canadians. Many French Canadians have long sought for Quebec sovereinty. The Party Quebecois' platform has been for the separation from Canada. And despite Canada officially being a multicultural bilingual nation, to this day many francophones desire their own separate nation. Historically many peaceful negotiations and compromises have been made between the federal government and Quebec. This is an ethnic dispute over land that is in many ways no different than Northern Ireland, Palestine, Sri Lanka, etc.. However, barring a few isolate instances of violence (ie. the FLQ and the 1970 October Crisis) this dispute has been peaceful. And because of long standing dialogue, English and French speaking Canadians co-exist without the intervention of some external power. What is interesting is that native Indians who wish to separate from Quebec are not given any sort of referendum towards self-determination by the francophone majority. Oh the hypocrisy!!!


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Thomathy

ragdish wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

ragdish wrote:
In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones.
I don't quite see the analogy, but you make good points otherwise.

Thomathy,

I was referring to the angst between English and French speaking Canadians. Many French Canadians have long sought for Quebec sovereinty.

And they have it (those Quebecois that wanted separation), as much as they can.  Quebec is a nation within a nation.  Thank you, Stephen Harper.  Hmm ...that's probably the only time I'll say that.  Not sure what it means, and neither is anyone else, but it sure closed down that issue.

Quote:
The Party Quebecois' platform has been for the separation from Canada.
You mean the Bloc Quebecois, right?  Anyhow, that's not in their platform anymore.  If you mean the Parti Quebecois, that's not their platform anymore either.  Quebec's not leaving the country.

Quote:
And despite Canada officially being a multicultural bilingual nation, to this day many francophones desire their own separate nation.
A correction, many (less than half) Quebecois (the distinction is important, Francophones are diverse and do not necessarily live within Quebec, but all over the country) want a separate nation.  They have it.  Separation angst gone.  Or at least, now moot.

Quote:
Historically many peaceful negotiations and compromises have been made between the federal government and Quebec. This is an ethnic dispute over land that is in many ways no different than Northern Ireland, Palestine, Sri Lanka, etc..
Actually, it's not an ethnic dispute.  It's a bunch of French speaking Canadians in Quebec who have cultural identity issues.

Quote:
However, barring a few isolate instances of violence (ie. the FLQ and the 1970 October Crisis) this dispute has been peaceful.
That's actually accurate. Smiling

Quote:
And because of long standing dialogue, English and French speaking Canadians co-exist without the intervention of some external power.
Duh!  Not all Francophones live within Quebec ...the province in which the Francophones with cultural identity issues live.

Quote:
What is interesting is that native Indians [eek!  You mean First Nations or Inuit or Metis.] who wish to separate from Quebec are not given any sort of referendum towards self-determination by the francophone majority. Oh the hypocrisy!!!
Yeah, they have cultural identity issues.  No one else can.  United Quebec.  Actually, it's kind of funny, they're the most nationalistic Canadians.  Silly Quebecers.

So, yeah, I'm still not sure what the comparison was for.  It doesn't really make a good analogy that I can see.  Anyhow, we probably shouldn't derail the thread with this particular conversation.  A good analogy might be the Scots and the Britons.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In many ways all of

Quote:
In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones. What is common is a dispute over land with ethnic groups who claim ownership based on an alleged historical inheritance.

Uh. As Thom pointed out, Quebec seperation isn't an issue related to either ethnicity or land inheritance. It's an identity issue.

It's also been more or less settled (if in a bizarre fashion; whatever works, I guess).

 

On the other had, native americans do have many ethnicity and land inheritance friction with the rest of the country, and it is not a 'peaceful' or 'non-violent' sort of friction in any sense (don't take my word for it - check the prison population in Canada). Natives still insist on special priveleges as 'compensation' for percieved centuries old grievances, still insist that it is 'their land', here in the west they insist that they should be able to have their own laws on their reserves (I understand things are beginning to improve in the maritimes?) and they still cry and moan about their 'vanishing culture', as though it had been a static, harmonious and utopian existence in Canada until The Dread White Man (TM) came. For fuck sakes, most of the tribe factions still insist on carrying their old labels ('Blackfoot', 'Crete', etc) even though they are so far removed from the original bodies generationally that they serve as little more than further incentives for conflict.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:In

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones. What is common is a dispute over land with ethnic groups who claim ownership based on an alleged historical inheritance.

Uh. As Thom pointed out, Quebec seperation isn't an issue related to either ethnicity or land inheritance. It's an identity issue.

It's also been more or less settled (if in a bizarre fashion; whatever works, I guess).

 

On the other had, native americans do have many ethnicity and land inheritance friction with the rest of the country, and it is not a 'peaceful' or 'non-violent' sort of friction in any sense (don't take my word for it - check the prison population in Canada). Natives still insist on special priveleges as 'compensation' for percieved centuries old grievances, still insist that it is 'their land', here in the west they insist that they should be able to have their own laws on their reserves (I understand things are beginning to improve in the maritimes?) and they still cry and moan about their 'vanishing culture', as though it had been a static, harmonious and utopian existence in Canada until The Dread White Man (TM) came. For fuck sakes, most of the tribe factions still insist on carrying their old labels ('Blackfoot', 'Crete', etc) even though they are so far removed from the original bodies generationally that they serve as little more than further incentives for conflict.

Not to derail this thread too much but what exactly is your definition of ethnicity versus identity? Maybe I'm using the word too liberally.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:don't take my word for it-check the prison -

- population in Canada. Well as we all know, stats don't always paint the true picture. The Canadian Justice System vs. Aboriginal People - topic:Be it resolved that the Canadian justice system be significantly changed. The Canadian justice system has failed the Canadian people.It has failed the aboriginal people of that Nation on a massive scale.The flawed justice has been insensitive and inaccessible,and has arrested and imprisoned aboriginal people in grossly disproportionate numbers.Aboriginal people who are arrested are more likely to be denied bail,spend less time with  lawyers,and if convicted,are more likely to be incarcerated.It is not merely that the justice system has failed aboriginal people;justice has also been denied to them.For more than a century the rights of aboriginal people have been ignored.Their complaints about police brutality have been left unanswered by the police department's internal investigation.There are many example's that are troubling,and clearly shows the manner in which the Canadian justice system is failing aboriginal people.While the aboriginal people comprise 11.8 percent of Manitoba's population,they represent 50% of the province's prison population.Canada treatment of it's first citizens have been an international disgrace.Unless Canada takes every needed step to redress this problem,this lingering injustice will continue to bring tragedy and suffering to aboriginal people,and to blacken Canada's name throughout the World. Here is a good web site; www.mta.ca/about_canada/native/#GOVERNMENT

Signature ? How ?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Kevin R Brown

ragdish wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones. What is common is a dispute over land with ethnic groups who claim ownership based on an alleged historical inheritance.

Uh. As Thom pointed out, Quebec seperation isn't an issue related to either ethnicity or land inheritance. It's an identity issue.

It's also been more or less settled (if in a bizarre fashion; whatever works, I guess).

 

On the other had, native americans do have many ethnicity and land inheritance friction with the rest of the country, and it is not a 'peaceful' or 'non-violent' sort of friction in any sense (don't take my word for it - check the prison population in Canada). Natives still insist on special priveleges as 'compensation' for percieved centuries old grievances, still insist that it is 'their land', here in the west they insist that they should be able to have their own laws on their reserves (I understand things are beginning to improve in the maritimes?) and they still cry and moan about their 'vanishing culture', as though it had been a static, harmonious and utopian existence in Canada until The Dread White Man (TM) came. For fuck sakes, most of the tribe factions still insist on carrying their old labels ('Blackfoot', 'Crete', etc) even though they are so far removed from the original bodies generationally that they serve as little more than further incentives for conflict.

Not to derail this thread too much but what exactly is your definition of ethnicity versus identity? Maybe I'm using the word too liberally.

I figure more of an ethnic identity issue that those in Quebec that want to separate have. Mainly they want to keep it all french. However the real problem lied on HOW they wanted to do it, basically be a separate nation but with all the benefits of being with Canada, they wanted their own government, their own prime minister etc, etc, but wanted Canada to pay for the costs, health care etc. Like getting divorced but still living with the husband and having him pay all the bills.

However there were more than a few issues that rose up in the last attempt. First off Quebec at the time (don't know currently) was in debt, big time to Canada, I think the total was nearly 7 billion, they didn't have the income to make that up, even if they separated, so they wanted the debt to be cleaned.....not going to happen. Second was setting up the new government, and third and the first nations said that they were going to take back all their land because they do not want to separate from Canada, which was a HUGE chuck of Quebec....essentially Montreal and a few other cities were going to separate, the first nation was going to keep the rest.

However there are francophones outside of Quebec, the next largest settings being in New Brunswick, which share the border with Quebec as well as Newfoundland. That said Northern ontario has a sizeable francophone population, Sudbury, Pembrook, Ottawa all have large populations that speak french....well quebec french.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
To get back on topic and not

To get back on topic and not I find Obama's silence disturbing. I do recall Obama in Turkey speaking out against the PKK [Another ethinic conflict. Kurd vs Arab], but I don't see much talking against Israel.

 

It's no secret the America and much of the world is pro-Israel, and I think that refusing to give Israel a free pass when it comes to them committing astrocities against the Palestinians [a good portion of the causilites in the previous conflict were civilian] would be a decent start to the peace process.

 

I noticed that the Palestinian civilian causilties rarely get as much media attention as the Israeli ones. I mean shouldn't we be outraged that BOTH sides are taking civilian causilties? Why just one side?

 

As to Carter, it is my understand that he wrote a book about the Middle East peace process and don't really know why he didn't enact the policies when he was president, then again I don't really know a lot about his Presidency.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt...pineapple wrote: To get back on topic

 Right On ! Cpt.-tell them to focus their attention on the original topic. By the way,remember back when Obama was running for office and his preacher Jeremy Wright was kicked to the side because of his comments,well his words weren't as anti-imperialist as MLK saying that his nation is the largest purveyor of violence in the world.He was telling it like it is,that's why you don't see or hear about his feeling on Vietnam.

Signature ? How ?


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Ken G.

ragdish wrote:

Ken G. wrote:

President Carter pounds Israel and Obama's AIPAC speech. www.brasschecktv.com/page/536.html

Palestine, Bosnia, Tibet, Darfur, Sri Lanka, Kurdistan, Punjab, Kashmir etc.. are all ethnic conflicts which IMO deserve equal weight. Except for Tibetans, atrocities are committed on both sides with one side claiming moral superiority and the other side being evil and the ones who started it all. Each side is typically driven by a fanatical adherence to an ideology (race, religious, political, language, etc..). Interestingly the victims of one particular dispute often remain silent when their kin are the oppressors of another dispute (ie. because of Islam, Palestinians are hush over atrocities committed by the Sudanese regime). In many ways all of these conflicts are even reflected in the secular peaceful non-violent nations such as Canada with Quebec nationalism among francophones. What is common is a dispute over land with ethnic groups who claim ownership based on an alleged historical inheritance. What is left at the doorstep in all cases is reason and the idea of peaceful co-existence. I live in a comfortable dwelling in the US with a full time job and a decent salary to raise my family. If some group uproots me and claims that all that I have belongs to them because of a historical claim, I would likely be pushed to irrational rage and leave reason at the doorstep. That's right a rational freethinker like me could possibly be pushed into the wrong state of mind in such similar ethnic conflicts.

Thus, I arrive at 3 conclusions:

1. Human beings are hardwired for xenophobic tendencies towards non-kin (like tribes of warring chimpanzees) and there are really no "good guys" and "bad guys"

2. That taking sides with the victimized group is usually contradictory if their extremist kin are themselves oppressors in different circumstances

3. Because of conclusion 1, that ultimately an external "benevolent" power in the long run cannot stop deep seated hatred among Lilliputians and Brobdingnagians

Thus, based on this, the United States should completely extricate itself from the Middle East and tell the Israeli lobby groups to go fuck themselves. Let the Arabs and Israelis, Jews and Muslims settle their own disputes by the sword if that is what they choose.

You've pretty much got it right. I wouldn't take issue with what you said.

I would contribute that rather than realizing that the responsibility for change comes from within, dishonest leaders of countries, and their ignorant population groups seek a foriegn scapegoat and focus on them as the true cause of
what in reality are their own internal problems. This is an expansion of the theme of xenophobia beyond the borders of one's own country or "group".


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:...It's

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
...It's no secret the America and much of the world is pro-Israel, ...

There's no way to say this, except that saying the rest of the world is pro-Israel is completely nuts! (Excluding the US).

You're obviously not familiar with the votes converning Israel and about the issue of Zionism in the UN.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: You're

treat2 wrote:
You're obviously not familiar with the votes converning Israel and about the issue of Zionism in the UN.

 

No I'm not, care to enlighten?



 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To get back on topic

Quote:
To get back on topic and not I find Obama's silence disturbing. I do recall Obama in Turkey speaking out against the PKK [Another ethinic conflict. Kurd vs Arab], but I don't see much talking against Israel.

Obama has been being tougher on Israel (very firmly letting them know that the 'natural growth' argument has now expired. No more settlement build-ups, period).

Quote:
It's no secret the America and much of the world is pro-Israel...

...Much of which world, exactly?

Britain, America and conservative Canada are hard-line pro-Israel, and America's stance is starting to shift. Much of the rest of the world is just plain tired of bot sides and the indiscriminate killing; Hamas is generally condemned as a wholly grotesque body, Israel recieves flak for abusing it's military strength. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc all echo this sentiment.

Quote:
I noticed that the Palestinian civilian causilties rarely get as much media attention as the Israeli ones. I mean shouldn't we be outraged that BOTH sides are taking civilian causilties? Why just one side?

Liar.

CBC and BBC covered the Palestinian casualties and bombing of civilian targets extensively - to the point where even hard line pro-Israel folks like myself had essentially no leg to stand on and had to agree that Israel was being far too aggressive and far too indiscriminate. 

 

Fox News is not 'the media', much as that may suprise you.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Humanity's curse is the

Humanity's curse is the placebo of a label combind with it's deadly ego.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
As an aside? Why am I not

As an aside? Why am I not seeing the sig in my posts that I submitted to my account? I see my posts, but not my sig?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
This is bizzar! Sometimes

This is bizzar! Sometimes the sig is there and sometimes it isnt. I SWEAR I AM NOT SMOKING ANYTHING!  I am too dippy in any case to add to my own insanity.

WTF?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:To get

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

To get back on topic and not I find Obama's silence disturbing. I do recall Obama in Turkey speaking out against the PKK [Another ethinic conflict. Kurd vs Arab], but I don't see much talking against Israel.

What kind of talk would you like to see? Just so I can make sure I understand you correctly.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 It's no secret the America and much of the world is pro-Israel, and I think that refusing to give Israel a free pass when it comes to them committing astrocities against the Palestinians [a good portion of the causilites in the previous conflict were civilian] would be a decent start to the peace process.

Maybe if the Palestinians they were fighting didn't hide in crowded hospitals, mosques, and other civilian centers in the midst of battle this wouldn't be the case.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
For those who are pro-Palestinian

I have a question that is rarely expressed or ever answered among those who are atheist and sympathetic towards Palestinians.

Isn't it contradictory to be both pro-Palestinian and anti-Islamism?

Let's face it. Hamas has no love for blasphemous atheists (probably would put us to death under Sharia law) and they support Omar Al-Bashir who has committed far greater atrocities in Darfur than Israel ever has or will. And I say this as someone who does not have any sympathy for Israel.

Are you supporting liberal, freethinking, secular, tolerant Palestinians? They don't really exist in large numbers do they. I find it very hard to understand why there should be support for one side or the other.

Israelis have an expansionist ideology based on a combination of religious fanaticism of orthodox Judaism, racial superiority and secondary gain from perpetual victimhood (ie. till the end of time, everyone must feel sorry and guilty over the Holocaust).

Palestinians IMO are far, far worse. They too have expansionist ideals which over the years has become increasingly intertwined with violent, extremist totalitarian ideology of Islamism. And they too cry out for everyone to feel sorrow and pity for their plights. Yet they happily relish over the thoughts of killing infidels, stoning women adulterers, beheading blasphemers, praising suicide bombers, etc..

I will never, NEVER side with either Israel or Palestinians. I couldn't care less if one sides atrocities get more media attention over the other. Both sides are the architects of their misery and they get what they deserve. And I'm not holding my breath for that fictional day when rational freethinking and tolerant Arabs and Israelis will rule the Middle East.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm looking into Obama's

I'm looking into Obama's policies and apperently he is really pushing for a two state solution.

 

Quote:

What kind of talk would you like to see? Just so I can make sure I understand you correctly

 

Talks that hold both sides accountable.

 

 

ragdish wrote:

 

Isn't it contradictory to be both pro-Palestinian and anti-Islamism?

 

 

Not necessarily. The PFLP, Fatah etc... are secular nationalists groups [Not that speaking against Israel is automatically supporting them and not that they are any better than Hamas.]

 

I am pro-life I don't like sensless killing period. I am not defending Hamas, nor the PLO, I speaking out for the Palestinian people who just happened to be born and live in a war zone.

 

 

 

 

 


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:ragdish

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ragdish wrote:

 

Isn't it contradictory to be both pro-Palestinian and anti-Islamism?

 

 

Not necessarily. The PFLP, Fatah etc... are secular nationalists groups [Not that speaking against Israel is automatically supporting them and not that they are any better than Hamas.]

 

I am pro-life I don't like sensless killing period. I am not defending Hamas, nor the PLO, I speaking out for the Palestinian people who just happened to be born and live in a war zone.

If in the end Hanan Ashrawi became the leader of all the secular Palestinians, those movements you mentioned would be the ones governing Palestinians today. This is far from the case. My secular Arab friend wholly acknowledge that overall, the Palestinians have turned towards radical Islam as their answer. As I said before, it is incredibly difficult for atheists to justify their Palestinian support if they are anti-Islamic fundamentalism.

If you speak out for the Palestinian people who happened to be born in a war zone, then the same applies to Israelis, Bosnians, Tutsis, Kurds, Tibetans, Darfurians, etc... Collectively, killing is killing. Why defend the Palestinian born and lives in a war zone if that same individual loves the fact that young muslim girls who were raped are stoned to death?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If in the end Hanan

Quote:
If in the end Hanan Ashrawi became the leader of all the secular Palestinians, those movements you mentioned would be the ones governing Palestinians today. This is far from the case. My secular Arab friend wholly acknowledge that overall, the Palestinians have turned towards radical Islam as their answer. As I said before, it is incredibly difficult for atheists to justify their Palestinian support if they are anti-Islamic fundamentalism.

Well, Ragdish, think of it this way:

Hamas is the legitimately elected governing body of Palestine. Let's say, just for argument's sake, they had 70% of the population vote for them (this is being ridiculously generous; there's no way their approval was that high). There were about 1,300 Palestinians killed in the recent attack on Gaza. Would you be square with defending the killing of those people knowing that at least 30% of them did not vote for and in no way support Hamas?

I'm a supporter of Israel for a variety of reasons, but it's barbaric retaliation policies and antiquated military doctrines are simply indefensible. There was no need to bombard Gaza and send in an invasion force; it hasn't worked to quell terrorist attacks in the past and it never will. There are hundreds of options available to the Israelis and they continue to choose the least humane or productive ones - somebody (like the United States) needs to strongly encourage them to start making better choices.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: If in the

ragdish wrote:

 

If in the end Hanan Ashrawi became the leader of all the secular Palestinians, those movements you mentioned would be the ones governing Palestinians today.

 


 

I'm sorry, but how exactly is that a good thing? The PFLP is a terrorist organization.They had hijackings and suicide bombings even before Hamas existed. They reject the two state solution and want Israel in the river.

 

 

 

ragdish wrote:

If you speak out for the Palestinian people who happened to be born in a war zone, then the same applies to Israelis, Bosnians, Tutsis, Kurds, Tibetans, Darfurians, etc...

 

Of course it does.

 

ragdish wrote:

Collectively, killing is killing. Why defend the Palestinian born and lives in a war zone if that same individual loves the fact that young muslim girls who were raped are stoned to death?

 

 

Kevin's estimate of 70% of support for Hamas is wrong. It's was 45% support and Fatah recieved 42%.

 

Even so, is speaking out against he atrocites the LTTE commited agains the Sinhalese, pro-Buddisht?

 

Is speaking out against the astrocities commited by the Sri Lankan government against the Tamils pro-Hindu?

 

You are using some flawed logic

 

take this for example

P1 The Nazi part was founded on German nationalism

P2 Bob is a German nationalist

C Bob is a Nazi.

 

As you can see that is fallacious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Even so,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Even so, is speaking out against he atrocites the LTTE commited agains the Sinhalese, pro-Buddisht?

 

Is speaking out against the astrocities commited by the Sri Lankan government against the Tamils pro-Hindu?

 

You are using some flawed logic

 

take this for example

P1 The Nazi part was founded on German nationalism

P2 Bob is a German nationalist

C Bob is a Nazi.

 

As you can see that is fallacious. 

Oddly enough, I actually agree with your statements. And this doesn't happen too often. But none of this pertains to my argument. My critique of those who choose one side or the other in political debates over Middle East is how sorrow is so compartmentalized to the point of ignorance. The misery among Palestinians is to a large extent of their own making. The same could be said of Israelis. So pointing out that 1400 Gazans had been killed by the evil Israelis blinds the fact that the Gazans can do something about it. The death of human beings is horrible on either side. Yet each side has it in their grasp to make it stop. Gazans can end their devotion to Islamism and support rational liberal secular politics with pragmatic leadership paving their path to statehood. Similarly Israelis need to end their devotion to outdated racialized politics and territorial expansion and similarly adopt rational liberal secular politics. My heart does not bleed for a Palestinian who lost his loved ones and who also supports honor killings or genocide in Darfur. Similary, I have little sympathy for an Israeli whose family died in a suicide attack and who supports more settlements in the West Bank. Unless that Israeli and Palestinian give in to reason, recognize and empathize with each other's pain and the pain wrought by their kin, then they deserve the pain their communities have created.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:If

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
If in the end Hanan Ashrawi became the leader of all the secular Palestinians, those movements you mentioned would be the ones governing Palestinians today. This is far from the case. My secular Arab friend wholly acknowledge that overall, the Palestinians have turned towards radical Islam as their answer. As I said before, it is incredibly difficult for atheists to justify their Palestinian support if they are anti-Islamic fundamentalism.

Well, Ragdish, think of it this way:

Hamas is the legitimately elected governing body of Palestine. Let's say, just for argument's sake, they had 70% of the population vote for them (this is being ridiculously generous; there's no way their approval was that high). There were about 1,300 Palestinians killed in the recent attack on Gaza. Would you be square with defending the killing of those people knowing that at least 30% of them did not vote for and in no way support Hamas?

I'm a supporter of Israel for a variety of reasons, but it's barbaric retaliation policies and antiquated military doctrines are simply indefensible. There was no need to bombard Gaza and send in an invasion force; it hasn't worked to quell terrorist attacks in the past and it never will. There are hundreds of options available to the Israelis and they continue to choose the least humane or productive ones - somebody (like the United States) needs to strongly encourage them to start making better choices.

I would remind you that the Nazis received public support when they came into office. And the flawed German democracy of the 1930s was likely similar to Gazan democracy. Do you square with defending the the Allies killing of those Germans in WWII knowing that many of them did not vote for and in no way supported the Nazis?

I am not equating Hamas society to Nazi Germany by the way (although that would be an interesting debate). People must deal with the fate dealt by the politicians they elected. And I'm not defending the deaths of Gazans here. That 30% minority who rejected Hamas are likely not folks who embrace Sam Harris. Until reason prevails among the Palestinian masses their misery will be neverending.

I agree that there was no need to bombard Gazans and send an invasion force. And I completely concur that there is no need for suicide bombing to achieve Palestinian statehood. Why should the United States need to encourage them to start making better choices. Why does it have to be an outside power to dictate these matters? Similarly, I quite agree with Obama not interfering in Iranian politics at this time? Those folks have brains no different than ours. It is up to them to listen to reason and end their suffering.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Those folks have brains no differant then ours.

  I wholly disagree with your assessment of Palestinian people. First off-No child is born to be a terrorist,and then when you grow-up,you understand that you live in your land ,that is being occupied by a group of people that hate you and associate you with Terrorism,thru no fault of your own,so then your neighborhood gets bombed and your loved ones are killed,which then leads you to hate.But when you were young the only thing that you knew ,was that when you grow up,you wanted to be a Doctor. 

Signature ? How ?


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:  I wholly

Ken G. wrote:

  I wholly disagree with your assessment of Palestinian people. First off-No child is born to be a terrorist,and then when you grow-up,you understand that you live in your land ,that is being occupied by a group of people that hate you and associate you with Terrorism,thru no fault of your own,so then your neighborhood gets bombed and your loved ones are killed,which then leads you to hate.But when you were young the only thing that you knew ,was that when you grow up,you wanted to be a Doctor. 

No disagreement here. The Palestinians have been downtrodden as a consequence of racist and expansionist politics of their Israeli counterparts. Their plight is no different than the dehumanization of Tibetans under Chinese rule. Yet scores of Tibetans are not blowing themselves up in crowded settings because of mandates from the Buddhist faith. The Indians were under British rule (and Islamic rule before them) for a few hundred years. In the end, it was through the secular non-violent revolution of Gandhi that forced the British to leave. However, the Palestinians choose the way of Islamic fundamentalism. They choose the way of pain in response to their pain. And only they can end their pain.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:The dehumanization of Tibetans under Chinese -

-rule. Well first off,the land where the Tibetan live,used to be a part of China,until Kublai Khan (Genghis Khan) grandson and leader of the Mongol  Empire in the 11th century,conquered the land from China and installed the first Dali Lama,a religious dictator.In the U.S. we have a very different understanding of Tibetan society,we see it as a Shangri-La,here is a good link unveiling the truth about Tibet  www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html  ,the Tibet Myth.And then there's a good book from Germany,written by two former students of the Dali Lama,the name of this book is "The Shadow of the Dali Lama:Sexuality,Magic,and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism,here's their Link  www.trimondi.de/EN/interv01.html   ,and if my memory serves me right,the first suicide bomber was a Buddhist in India. 

Signature ? How ?


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:-rule. Well

Ken G. wrote:

-rule. Well first off,the land where the Tibetan live,used to be a part of China,until Kublai Khan (Genghis Khan) grandson and leader of the Mongol  Empire in the 11th century,conquered the land from China and installed the first Dali Lama,a religious dictator.In the U.S. we have a very different understanding of Tibetan society,we see it as a Shangri-La,here is a good link unveiling the truth about Tibet  www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html  ,the Tibet Myth.And then there's a good book from Germany,written by two former students of the Dali Lama,the name of this book is "The Shadow of the Dali Lama:Sexuality,Magic,and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism,here's their Link  www.trimondi.de/EN/interv01.html   ,and if my memory serves me right,the first suicide bomber was a Buddhist in India. 

Beg to differ but the first suicide attack can be traced back to 1881 with the assisination of Czar Alexander II of Russia when the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki exploded a bomb killing himself and the Czar. The first modern suicide bombing was in 1980 when 13-year old Hossein Fahmideh detonated himself as he ran up to an Iraqi tank at a key point in a battle of the Iran-Iraq War. In regards to India if you are referring to the assassination of Rajeev Gandhi, I believe that was committed by a Hindu tamil tiger terrorist.

I am not debating who has the legitimate historical claims of Tibet. The fact is that despite Chinese brutality, there have been no Tibetan retaliation via suicide bombings.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:The fact is despite Chinese brutality,there

 have been no Tibetan retaliation via suicide bombings. reply; that's because they don't have the materials in Tibet. maybe lol PS. Did you check out the link "the Tibet Myth" Tibet is more secular now,thanks to China.They still have many Buddhist traditions.

Signature ? How ?


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote: have been no

Ken G. wrote:

 have been no Tibetan retaliation via suicide bombings. reply; that's because they don't have the materials in Tibet. maybe lol PS. Did you check out the link "the Tibet Myth" Tibet is more secular now,thanks to China.They still have many Buddhist traditions.

Indeed I did read Parenti's article and found it very insightful. And I'll ask this in all seriousness, have you read the Lord of the Rings? I'm sure you have and although the films were great, they do not truly capture Tolkien's message. Now I ask you to bear with me in regards to this analogy and the relevance to the Tibetans and Chinese.

Middle Earth was largely ruled by Monarchs (elves, humans) governing an ignorant peasantry (hobbits, dwarves, orcs, ents, etc..). They were all expected to worship the Valar and of course Eru or Illuvatar (God). The kings (often warring each other) were given power through divine providence. Middle Earth was a theocracy not unlike the Buddhist Tibetan society described by Parenti. This was the very society that appealed to Tolkien.

Tolkien hated the society of Sauron which symbolized the modernization and mechanization of civilization. It was the anti-thesis of the ignorant blissful theocratic monarchy of medieval England. Sauron symbolized technology. And in this regard, Sauron was not too dissimilar to the Chinese communists whom as Parenti pointed assisted in industrializing Tibet. Yet the Chinese were brutal and barbaric in the slaughter of scores of Tibetans to achieve their aims. With all his cruelty, even if Sauron granted me a modern home with a big screen TV and an automatic garage over a smelly hobbit hole, I would not choose his side. I'd rather be an atheist living in Gondor with hopes that King Aragorn will realize that the Valar and Eru do not really exist and allow Middle Earth to evolve into a secular democracy. That's what should have happened in Tibet.

Thanks for allowing me to make my point through an excellent work of fantasy.