Israel FINALLY gets treated the way it deserves to be.

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10626
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Israel FINALLY gets treated the way it deserves to be.

Americans: Fuck your nukes. No more hypocrisy. (Obama is now officially the greatest US president in US history, bar none).

Greece has withdrawn from joint military exercises with Israel in protest at the attack on the Gaza flotilla. Athens has also barred the head of the Israeli airforce from flying to Greece.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says he is "deeply shocked" by the Israeli action and calls for an inquiry

Turkish foreign ministry warns Israel of irreparable damage to bilateral ties. "This deplorable incident, which took place in open seas and constitutes a fragrant breach of international law, may lead to irreparable consequences in our bilateral relations," a statement read.

Sweden summons the Israeli ambassador to Stockholm over the "unacceptable" action

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ZuS wrote:Brian37

ZuS wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
No, those are very rational action

Don't mistake understanding of human behavior as being the same as being rational. Just because you can do something doesn't make it rational. I can smoke, to state that is rational, but to say smoking is rational when it causes cancer is absurd. It is only rational to say "people do this".

We look back at the "settlers" who could and did INVADE North America and took the land from the natives by force. It is only rational in the sense of saying "humans are capable of doing this". It is irrational in the sense for what you stated in why you want the Jewish settlements to stop. Because it doesn't take human empathy into account anymore than the Europeans understood the harm they were causing Native Americans.

Ok, so I would consider occupation of North America as a perfectly rational undertaking with a start point, modus operandi and a mission accomplished if you will. We wanted the land, they were on it. We could remove them, so we did. We knew they had feelings and we hurt them, but we also knew that that would last only as long as they live - so we killed them. Today the white man is "native" to the North America and assumes everything in North America as his property. Same is the case with the rest of the world - we own it the minute we have military and/or economic might sufficient to subdue whoever happens to live on our land, wherever that land happens to be.

I don't understand what is so irational about taking resources. That is the most profitable business, bar none.

Brian37 wrote:

Jews want land for the same reason I want food, humans want resources. But in that they irrationally ignore the harm they do to others in seeking out those resources. PALESTINIANS are committing the same irrational fallacy in their rightful desire to protect their own resources. NEITHER is side is willing to put themselves in the others shoes or consider the harm they do to the other, or themselves by reacting the way they do. They BOTH fail to see that their reactions are caused by confusing labels as being important.

Why should Israeli government put themselves in Palestinian shoes? No reason. They have no intention of ruling over a group of people who would have allegiance to anyone but the Israeli rulers. For them to accept one state solution they would either have to be crazy, or find a way to effectively enslave and surpress the entire Palestinian population - sort of the way US has supressed minorities through the prison system and second class citizen status on almost all levels.

Brian37 wrote:

What causes this IN ALL HUMANS throughout our  species history is the irrational placement of label being the most important issue, when the human condition should be. BOTH sides do not understand that they suffer from the same mundane human behavior in mistaking the "tribe" being important when BOTH sides seek the same thing, resources.

They don't give a shit about the tribe. Bush never gave a flying fuck about any one American he sent to death. All they want is obedience, one way or the other. And it just so happens that Israeli government can make Israeli people into a nation of soldiers that will shoot almost anyone, but they can't make a Palestinian do anything other than die. So what the fuck are they going to use Palestinians for? A disciplin tool for their own people and an excuse to bomb Lebanese industry to dust once in a while - for security reasons, of course. But never as a part of the Israeli nation - they would have to be completely out of their mind to do that. Either out of their mind or WITHOUT the weapons supplied by the US. The moment those shipments are cut, Israel becomes a valuable neighbor and a great friend of everyone in the region - they wouldn't have a choice.

I don't understand why you can't put yourself in the shoes of the "deciders". They treat nations the way you treat used cars, buddy.

How dare you equate me supporting the incompetence of BUSH. If I was blindly loyal to my own government I wouldn't agree with you that he was a total fuck up.

So anyone criticizing Palestine is automatically siding with Bush? YOU must not have read ANY of my prior posts where I CONDEMNED ISRAEL!

"Your either with us or against us" Bush...........Sounds to me like you are doing the same thing when I merely suggest that Palestine might be better off without using violent tactics.

INSTEAD OF "US VS THEM" which Bush advocated like a child in a schoolyard, maybe you should, if you don't want to be like Bush, take your own advice and don't falsely accuse me of taking sides.

BUSH WAS A BAD PRESIDENT AND A TOTAL FUCK UP! But that doesn't mean I agree with all the actions of Palestine "just because" .

AND you also missed my point that Jews were given the land by Christians, not because they cared about Jews, but because they wanted the "end times" to come by giving Israel a nation. If that is not a criticism and blasphemy of Christianity or Jews then I don't know what is?

What do you want from me? I will not be loyal to either position because I am too aware of human nature and too aware that this is nothing but a cycle of abuse because humans are too stupid to see that all it does is perpetuate this.

How dare you try to emotionally blackmail me because I didn't try to assassinate Bush because I hated the fact he was our president. I am embarrassed by it , but that does not mean I will contribute to the cycle you and Bush seem to be locked into.

POT MEET KETTLE!

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Here is what you are doing.

Here is what you are doing. WITHOUT even discussing this conflict, I see the same "blanket" black and white thinking on the issue of immigration in the states.

I get accused of being a socialist left wing loony when I simply understand, without condoning, the REASON why people come here illegally. Understanding is not the same as condoning.

I try to explain BOTH SIDES.

On the one hand, you are in a life boat, if to many people climb aboard the boat tips over. So it is understandable that you don't want an overflow of unmanaged people tipping over the boat.

But, at the same time, if you cant feed your family you are going to go where the resources are.

UNDERSTANDING both sides doesn't mean you are choosing sides.

Life IS NOT black and white, and you are allowing your NORMAL empathy for human suffering as a bad reason to put a blanket solution to a complex problem.

I doubt you could face a 5 year old Jew and tell them daddy/mommy deserved to die because Muslims have the right to defend themselves. BUT IT CUTS BOTH WAYS. I also think it would be heartless and gutless for a Jew to tell a 5 year old Muslim that mommy/daddy deserved to die because Israel has the right to protect itself.

Fuck your black and white solutions. They are no more a solution than Bush's "you're either for us, or against us".

ADULT(insert both labels here) "Sorry about your friend/parent/child but they had to die because I was merely protecting myself".

When either side says crap like this AFTER CENTURIES OF FINGER POINTING I hear BOTH sounding like Charley Brown's teacher.

"Wha wha wha wha wha Isreal"

"Wha wha wha wha wha Palestine"

And to what end? The cycle of abuse never stops. I am not against you, believe me. But I will not be blackmailed by either side into choosing sides. It didn't work when Bush tried it, and it wont work if you try it.

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:How dare you

Brian37 wrote:

How dare you equate me supporting the incompetence of BUSH. If I was blindly loyal to my own government I wouldn't agree with you that he was a total fuck up.

So anyone criticizing Palestine is automatically siding with Bush? YOU must not have read ANY of my prior posts where I CONDEMNED ISRAEL!

"Your either with us or against us" Bush...........Sounds to me like you are doing the same thing when I merely suggest that Palestine might be better off without using violent tactics.

INSTEAD OF "US VS THEM" which Bush advocated like a child in a schoolyard, maybe you should, if you don't want to be like Bush, take your own advice and don't falsely accuse me of taking sides.

BUSH WAS A BAD PRESIDENT AND A TOTAL FUCK UP! But that doesn't mean I agree with all the actions of Palestine "just because" .

AND you also missed my point that Jews were given the land by Christians, not because they cared about Jews, but because they wanted the "end times" to come by giving Israel a nation. If that is not a criticism and blasphemy of Christianity or Jews then I don't know what is?

What do you want from me? I will not be loyal to either position because I am too aware of human nature and too aware that this is nothing but a cycle of abuse because humans are too stupid to see that all it does is perpetuate this.

How dare you try to emotionally blackmail me because I didn't try to assassinate Bush because I hated the fact he was our president. I am embarrassed by it , but that does not mean I will contribute to the cycle you and Bush seem to be locked into.

POT MEET KETTLE! 

Dude, chill. I took Bush as an example of an excelent president: he followed the US M.O. to the letter, convinced everyone it was because of incompetence and gave the next president a mandate to publicly fuck small children and still have plenty of political ammo both domestically and abroad - simply on the account that he wasn't Bush. I didn't equate him to you, don't worry. I am trying to explain the mechanics of the world of power.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
<3 I wuvs my wittle doom kitty! <3

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Doomy's in "favor" of Israels actions, more-a-less

 

Israel has a military blockade on an enemy nation

Hippies want to supply aid to enemy nation

Hippies think its a good idea to run the blockade of militaryships

Israel's military proves why it was indeed a bad idea

 

Conclusion; Hippies are morons, and got what was coming to them

 

Now class, show of hands, who thinks its a good and safe idea to run a fucking military blockade in support of said military's enemy? 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Here is what

Brian37 wrote:

Here is what you are doing. WITHOUT even discussing this conflict, I see the same "blanket" black and white thinking on the issue of immigration in the states.

I get accused of being a socialist left wing loony when I simply understand, without condoning, the REASON why people come here illegally. Understanding is not the same as condoning.

I try to explain BOTH SIDES.

On the one hand, you are in a life boat, if to many people climb aboard the boat tips over. So it is understandable that you don't want an overflow of unmanaged people tipping over the boat.

But, at the same time, if you cant feed your family you are going to go where the resources are.

UNDERSTANDING both sides doesn't mean you are choosing sides.

Life IS NOT black and white, and you are allowing your NORMAL empathy for human suffering as a bad reason to put a blanket solution to a complex problem.

I doubt you could face a 5 year old Jew and tell them daddy/mommy deserved to die because Muslims have the right to defend themselves. BUT IT CUTS BOTH WAYS. I also think it would be heartless and gutless for a Jew to tell a 5 year old Muslim that mommy/daddy deserved to die because Israel has the right to protect itself.

Fuck your black and white solutions. They are no more a solution than Bush's "you're either for us, or against us".

ADULT(insert both labels here) "Sorry about your friend/parent/child but they had to die because I was merely protecting myself".

When either side says crap like this AFTER CENTURIES OF FINGER POINTING I hear BOTH sounding like Charley Brown's teacher.

"Wha wha wha wha wha Isreal"

"Wha wha wha wha wha Palestine"

And to what end? The cycle of abuse never stops. I am not against you, believe me. But I will not be blackmailed by either side into choosing sides. It didn't work when Bush tried it, and it wont work if you try it.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ZuS wrote:Brian37 wrote:How

ZuS wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

How dare you equate me supporting the incompetence of BUSH. If I was blindly loyal to my own government I wouldn't agree with you that he was a total fuck up.

So anyone criticizing Palestine is automatically siding with Bush? YOU must not have read ANY of my prior posts where I CONDEMNED ISRAEL!

"Your either with us or against us" Bush...........Sounds to me like you are doing the same thing when I merely suggest that Palestine might be better off without using violent tactics.

INSTEAD OF "US VS THEM" which Bush advocated like a child in a schoolyard, maybe you should, if you don't want to be like Bush, take your own advice and don't falsely accuse me of taking sides.

BUSH WAS A BAD PRESIDENT AND A TOTAL FUCK UP! But that doesn't mean I agree with all the actions of Palestine "just because" .

AND you also missed my point that Jews were given the land by Christians, not because they cared about Jews, but because they wanted the "end times" to come by giving Israel a nation. If that is not a criticism and blasphemy of Christianity or Jews then I don't know what is?

What do you want from me? I will not be loyal to either position because I am too aware of human nature and too aware that this is nothing but a cycle of abuse because humans are too stupid to see that all it does is perpetuate this.

How dare you try to emotionally blackmail me because I didn't try to assassinate Bush because I hated the fact he was our president. I am embarrassed by it , but that does not mean I will contribute to the cycle you and Bush seem to be locked into.

POT MEET KETTLE! 

Dude, chill. I took Bush as an example of an excelent president: he followed the US M.O. to the letter, convinced everyone it was because of incompetence and gave the next president a mandate to publicly fuck small children and still have plenty of political ammo both domestically and abroad - simply on the account that he wasn't Bush. I didn't equate him to you, don't worry. I am trying to explain the mechanics of the world of power.

If you don't want me taking what you said the wrong way, then don't imply that sides should be taken. I think the world is far too full of people drawing lines in the sand. This is the fault of humanity, not them, not us. It is our failure to see ourselves as part of the same species. Once you set someone else up as the "outsider" it is easier to kill them.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If you don't

Brian37 wrote:

If you don't want me taking what you said the wrong way, then don't imply that sides should be taken. I think the world is far too full of people drawing lines in the sand. This is the fault of humanity, not them, not us. It is our failure to see ourselves as part of the same species. Once you set someone else up as the "outsider" it is easier to kill them.

I don't think I can say anything that you will understand the right way. I saw your replies to several of my posts and none of them have anything to do with what I wrote. We're not even on the same planet when definig "sides".

You define sides like this:

1) Palestine 2) Israel

I define them like this:

1) Power 2) Victim

Should you take sides when it comes to my definition of sides? What do you think?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Elements on both sides, by

Elements on both sides, by either definition, are committing stupid and wrongful acts, which are ultimately counter-productive for any peaceful resolution of the situation.

The situation is nowhere near as black-and-white as some would like to paint it, from either perspective.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
BobSpence1 wrote:Elements on

BobSpence1 wrote:

Elements on both sides, by either definition, are committing stupid and wrongful acts, which are ultimately counter-productive for any peaceful resolution of the situation.

The situation is nowhere near as black-and-white as some would like to paint it, from either perspective.

 

Thank you. I get the same lip twitch when someone suggests censorship when it comes to pejoratives as a solution to bigotry. No issue is black and white ever. Life is full of shades of gray and is never always simplistic. The only thing simplistic about humans is that we are human. Our thought process and perceptions are full of gray and more often than not flawed.

It is easy to say "never" until you are put in that position yourself. For humanity to get beyond labels and solve this problem both sides need to get beyond borders and labels and see death for what it is, final. A dead Jew is no more alive than a dead Muslim and the living do a disservice to their side by perpetuating abuse of each other.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:BobSpence1

Brian37 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Elements on both sides, by either definition, are committing stupid and wrongful acts, which are ultimately counter-productive for any peaceful resolution of the situation.

The situation is nowhere near as black-and-white as some would like to paint it, from either perspective.

Thank you. I get the same lip twitch when someone suggests censorship when it comes to pejoratives as a solution to bigotry. No issue is black and white ever. Life is full of shades of gray and is never always simplistic. The only thing simplistic about humans is that we are human. Our thought process and perceptions are full of gray and more often than not flawed.

It is easy to say "never" until you are put in that position yourself. For humanity to get beyond labels and solve this problem both sides need to get beyond borders and labels and see death for what it is, final. A dead Jew is no more alive than a dead Muslim and the living do a disservice to their side by perpetuating abuse of each other.

Another words, B37 is a left-winger pretending to be a centrist.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Are these

Jormungander wrote:

Are these the peace activists you are talking about? They were attempting to break the blockade. Israeli soldiers tried to board them. They attacked the soldiers with metal poles and knives. 7 Israeli soldiers were injured. 15 to 19 'peace' activists were killed. This wasn't the Israelis gunning people down for shits and giggles. They tried to enforce the blockade. they 'peace' activists started beating the shit out of them. The Israelis opened fire. I don't consider this to be a massacre. The Israelis should have had the sense to wait for the boat to enter the exclusionary zone though. That's my only complaint.

If a group of people were attacking you with metal poles and knives, you wouldn't shoot them if you had the chance?

 

I have a question.  If you land on someones boat with a gun, and you get attacked with metal poles and knives, would it be enough reason for you to shoot the owner of the boat?  If yes, then by the same logic any Christian/Muslim/etc. who feels offended by atheists can come to our homes and shoot us if we try to defend our property.  

 

USA has imposed long time ago a unilateral blockade of Cuba.  BUT, the US does NOT shoot the ships and planes going to Cuba from Europe, Canada, etc (here we are not talking about nuclear warheads).  It is only a bilateral business.  WHY does Israel try to dictate its policies to the rest of the world?  Of course, many countries would try to do the same IF they are allowed to do so.   

If an Israeli or Palestinian (does not matter who he is if he has no VALID DOCUMENTS allowing him to enter my house) storms my house in the middle of the night, I would feel proud if I were able to kick his ass out of my house, no matter what his intension is.  I applause brave peace activists who died but who were brave enough to stand up against intruders. 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Elements on both sides, by either definition, are committing stupid and wrongful acts, which are ultimately counter-productive for any peaceful resolution of the situation.

The situation is nowhere near as black-and-white as some would like to paint it, from either perspective.

Thank you. I get the same lip twitch when someone suggests censorship when it comes to pejoratives as a solution to bigotry. No issue is black and white ever. Life is full of shades of gray and is never always simplistic. The only thing simplistic about humans is that we are human. Our thought process and perceptions are full of gray and more often than not flawed.

It is easy to say "never" until you are put in that position yourself. For humanity to get beyond labels and solve this problem both sides need to get beyond borders and labels and see death for what it is, final. A dead Jew is no more alive than a dead Muslim and the living do a disservice to their side by perpetuating abuse of each other.

Another words, B37 is a left-winger pretending to be a centrist.

LOL, I know you are not "poking me" in any real provocation. Having said that, "you got me pegged".

I am hardly "centrist". My advice to Palestine is to scrap violence. I do see them as the immature of the two. But I also see Israel giving the brats what they want by using overkill. Neither side is going to stop until they see the other as human. The labels and borders are the focus which is what the problem is. If they BOTH would fuck the labels and see the death around them and stop pointing fingers, they would get somewhere.

I BET in theory all this would stop (STRICTLY AS AN EXAMPLE) If you took a Palestinian kid and a Jewish kid, say 4 years old and shot them both in public side by side, many, not all, but many on both sides would see the absurdity of what they are doing.

No sane person will kill a child by themselves. Even prisoners revile the harm to kids. But when it comes to the context of war and politics people cant see beyond their own neighbor which allows "collateral damage". But in the context of ones own neighborhood we don't kill our own.

We are no different in our evolution than a lion who won't kill it's own cubs but looks for rivals to kill. We are simply unaware of our own evolutionary instincts at play here.

AGAIN we don't kill our own because it is close to us and we are familiar with it. But with enough distance and differences and disconnect it becomes increasingly easy to kill. That is our evolution at play here and it is our unawareness of ourselves as a species that is allowing both sides to ignore that they are both the same species.

I can see the same behavior in my cat and dog. My dog if it wasn't raised with my cat would most certainly be rough with it or even kill it, even if it didn't intend to. Certainly not all dogs will behave this way, but mine would, if it weren't for my intervention and it's desire to compete for my love. It behaves itself because she knows that I don't put up with it. But if it were on it's own with no oversight it would do what what animals do, it would go after anything it sees as a threat.

As long as both sides see the other as a threat instead of human and they put labels and boarders above humanity this wont stop. I wish humanity could get beyond labels and leave it at words. We really could do some good as a species if we got our priorities in order.

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:USA

100percentAtheist wrote:


USA has imposed long time ago a unilateral blockade of Cuba.  BUT, the US does NOT shoot the ships and planes going to Cuba from Europe, Canada, etc (here we are not talking about nuclear warheads).  It is only a bilateral business.  WHY does Israel try to dictate its policies to the rest of the world?  Of course, many countries would try to do the same IF they are allowed to do so.  

Trade embargos/blockades are NOT the same thing as military/naval blockades

1 gets you arrested by the FBI, the other gets you shot... by a 120mm cannon

Isreal "commandos" was the more diplomatic approach instead of just pummeling the shit out the boat with explosive rounds until it sinks and the passengers are forced to flee and drown

Israels at war, this isnt some petty coldwar induced trade squable like the US and Cuba. Look back into history, this isnt a new thing, for Israel or the world theater.

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
It is an inane observation

It is an inane observation and given that both sides are bad. Of course both sides are bad. If you are sitting on the pot waiting for one side to become "good" to release your righteous indignation, I assure you that your asshole will remain in the clenched position.

But both sides being bad has nothing to do with who will accept what terms of a peaceful resolution and who will not and why. If Brian37 and Brian37's Mexican neighbor have a dispute and everyone in the neighborhood formulates a resolution, and Mexican neighbor37 accepts but Brian37 does not, then I blame Brian37 even though both Brian37 and Mexicanneighbor37 are bad.

To use the "both sides are bad" reasoning would make one complicit in Brian37's bad behavior. Perhaps Mexicanneighbor37 should accept Brian37's abuse for an indeterminate period of time without retaliation, and when such time has expired and Mexicanneighbor37 has shown that he can kowtow to Brian37, only then will Brian37 consider easing up on his abuse of Mexicanneighbor37.



 
 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:


USA has imposed long time ago a unilateral blockade of Cuba.  BUT, the US does NOT shoot the ships and planes going to Cuba from Europe, Canada, etc (here we are not talking about nuclear warheads).  It is only a bilateral business.  WHY does Israel try to dictate its policies to the rest of the world?  Of course, many countries would try to do the same IF they are allowed to do so.  

Trade embargos/blockades are NOT the same thing as military/naval blockades

1 gets you arrested by the FBI, the other gets you shot... by a 120mm cannon

Isreal "commandos" was the more diplomatic approach instead of just pummeling the shit out the boat with explosive rounds until it sinks and the passengers are forced to flee and drown

Israels at war, this isnt some petty coldwar induced trade squable like the US and Cuba. Look back into history, this isnt a new thing, for Israel or the world theater.

 

It isn't new, but it is getting old and tiresome. The adult in this situation is to me, not doing that much better than the child they are trying to control. I would tell Palestine to get with the 21rst century and stop your pathetic Islamic tribalism. I would tell Israel that bombing the shit out of the brats isn't doing much more than creating more brats.

And if they were so interested in not using violence against the boat, why not use water cannons and tear gas and percussion grenades? NO they used paint balls knowing BEFORE HAND that if they boarded they would be attacked. So it is bullshit to claim "we didn't know they would get violent".

And independent aid workers from the west are saying that other non-violent boats were turned away, that did not resist the blockade, At some point when you don't have food, why should it be a shock to others that you would turn to the hand that feeds you, even if that hand is bat shit insane?

Someone has to take that first step and I think Palestine should be the one to do it. They wont get my sympathy by using violence. If Israel is wrong, and they are, then two wrongs don't make a right. If Palestine wants to claim the moral upper hand then do the right thing and stop using violence. I think you will find that the tied will  change if you do so.

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I think however because of

I think however because of the global reach of media and our younger generations it is becoming harder for either side to claim absolute morality. I am now currently hearing the media show Muslim protests around the world. BUT at the same time I am also hearing western non Muslims not give a blanket pass to Israel. I would hope that this sends a Message to some Muslims that they don't have to assume that the west is blind to this.

MUSLIMS READING THIS, if you want our help in the west do yourself a favor and stop demanding violence. We know that there are two sides to this issue. But we have something you seem to fail to take note of, the west has learned to live with words and compete politically non-violently. Until you get with the 21rst century the west won't be willing to side with people living in the past.

It is one thing to say "don't starve us". If Jews are "dissing you" then treat them better than you think you are being treated. The world is far to small now for any religion or nation or political party to demand the submission of others. If you don't like violence being used against you then stop using it yourself. Be the bigger man and take the step you say the other isn't taking.

I don't see Muslims being the "bigger man". I see them living in a theocratic past clinging to the selfish idea that Allah is the dictator of the world. If Allah is compassionate then your god should give up on this notion of forcing others to submit to your god.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, so apart from the most recent battle, Israel has been trying to starve the people of Gaza into submission for a decade. Got that much. Now there is a problem which I see here. Gaza has a border with Egypt. Egypt doesn't much like Israel and the relationship which they do have is based on the fact that Israel has kicked some Egyptian ass a couple of times.

 

So how is it that Israel can get away with the blockade? Simple, Egypt is fully complicit. In fact, they are trying to build an underground wall to prevent smugglers from tunneling in past their military.

 

Which brings up the question of why nobody is talking about what Egypt is doing? Really, they have the ability to make what Israel is doing fully pointless. All they have to do is let food and medicine in from their side and what Israel is doing becomes a spectacular fail. Possibly, the Egyptians have considered the situation and concluded that it is their interest to maintain the uneasy stability on their border?

 

Still, if Israel is to be condemned then Egypt is in the same boat. It has to be both of them or neither of them.

 

As far as the conflict from a few days ago, well, doomy seems to have hit this one square on. A bunch of hippie do gooders tried to run a naval blockade that they were not equipped to deal with. When the ship was boarded, they decided to try to repel the boarding party with sections of pipe. Yes, a very effective weapon against an enemy armed with Uzis. Or not.

 

And why did they have cameras there to document the event? Simple. They felt that they could get PR value from the event. Basically, we are looking at a case of “mommy, the bad men came with their guns and shot at us when we were trying to be nice to people!”. Sorry but that is just crass manipulate the media and by extension garner some sympathy. Remember, these are people who attacked armed soldiers with bit of pipe and knives. They are not innocent here, they are really fucking stupid. They do not deserve any sympathy.

 

Which is not to say that I condone what Israel is doing. In fact, the opposite. However, I also do not condone what the hippies are trying to do either.

 

So what is the solution? Well for starters, the hippies can stop trying to involve themselves in what is not their concern. After that, I suspect that a bilateral cease fire would at least quiet things down a bit.

 

If Hamas wants to not get their asses kicked and their people starved, perhaps they could try actually honoring the cease fire seriously. If Israel wants the cease fire to last long term, perhaps they could stop trying to build new towns in Gaza.

 

Either that or the leaders of both sides should be locked in a room together to see who can go the longest without bathing.

 

No one is claiming they are innocent, what they did was STUPID! But there ARE western non-Muslims who were on other ships who got turned away even AFTER being determined to be non threatening. So all the western observers are liars because they saw things the camera''s didn't catch?

A even Lebanese Christians and Jews living there were pissed at Israel for bombing them back 30 years. Way to turn back the clock. You take a country that is teetering either way but has the seeds of pluralism and destroy any possibility of sympathy? EVEN THE CHRISTIANS LIVING THERE WERE SAYING WHAT THE FUCK?

No the Palestinians should not have gotten violent, but to say it was PR is bullshit. I think they knew they were going to get violent because they, no matter how wrong they were, were getting tired of people back home starving and dying because of lack of resources. I don't think either side has any rights to accuse the other of propaganda tactics all the time.

Someone punches you in the face you get tired of it. I think both sides are tired of getting punched in the face. I think this is the reality neither side is seeing and should see. If they both have "had enough" then peace should be easy. But this isn't about peace, this is about resources and until both sides scrap the labels it will continue.

I agree with the "bathing" tactic. Think both their leaders should be sprayed with skunk spray and stuck in a room until they reach an agreement. Both sides claim to be tired of it all but all either seems to want to do is point fingers. I think the reality is that neither side will be happy unless they are in the drivers seat.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
As I've suggested twice in

As I've suggested twice in different threads:

Break up the shitty Anglo-American alliance with Israel and everything else will come into place.

*bows*

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Trade

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Trade embargos/blockades are NOT the same thing as military/naval blockades

1 gets you arrested by the FBI, the other gets you shot... by a 120mm cannon

Isreal "commandos" was the more diplomatic approach instead of just pummeling the shit out the boat with explosive rounds until it sinks and the passengers are forced to flee and drown

Israels at war, this isnt some petty coldwar induced trade squable like the US and Cuba. Look back into history, this isnt a new thing, for Israel or the world theater.

 

OK, can you name me a single LEGAL UNILATERAL military blockade in modern history?   Anyone?  Smiling 

I think that american aid to Palestine in the same amount (and quality, including military equipment) as to Israel will make magic in the region. Smiling  Maybe Palestinian commandos should peacefully land in Tel-Aviv instead of nuking the city....

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Atheistextremist wrote:ZuS

Atheistextremist wrote:

ZuS wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am at my wits end with both sides. Maybe we need to put a nuke at the Waling Wall and Dome of the Rock and say, "Ok motherfuckers, next one, who acts out, EITHER SIDE, both of you are going to get it".

Thank you for the analysis of the problem and a suggestion for a solution. One can see that you have intensly studied the main aspects of the situation. It is evident that you are at your wits end - well, at least that the problem was allocated to some fringe corner of you wits.

 

Both sides seem to have historical claims and they are intractable foes. Sharing, even becoming a single nation, which would be my hope, is so unrealistic as to be laughable. Given the emnity, what can other nations do? And with what goals in mind?  Force them to share equally on pain of death? You know that's what would be required.

Who should be responsible for this? The Romans/italians for their part in the diaspora in Judea? The Turks, the British, the French? Nazi Germany for stoking Zionism? Israel for casting out citizens of the lands it seized? The UN? America for its long term support of the Jewish state? Germany for given Israel half a billion dollars in arms in the 1950s and 1960s? The arab world for ignoring the plight of palestinians, for refusing them citizenship? For constantly threatening Israel and maintaining a state of tension? Jewish fundamentalists for brazenly stealing land? Every one of the above and more?

Brian's frustration is more than understandable and if you have a solution, ZuS, the world is breathlessly waiting to hear it. Personally, I am sick to death of the middle east and everything in it.

 

THANK YOU,

The stench is coming from both sides. Neither wants to take the first step and demand that the other give the other all the poker chips and just submit. Neither side seems to want to grow the fuck up and it is frustrating because deep down we are dealing with humans in all this.

So to both sides I would say, other than more of the same, other than more violence, other than "my way or the highway" what does either side have to offer? As far as I can see, nothing, nothing but the mundane reality that neither side wants to do anything but fight and piss on each other.

Peace shouldn't be that hard if both sides really want it. I think both sides want peace by force, not by advise and consent. Until they see each other as humans and not Muslims vs Jews, I don't think this will stop anytime soon.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
PPPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTT

Humanism is over-rated. Humans are over-rated, for that matter.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:OK,

100percentAtheist wrote:

OK, can you name me a single LEGAL UNILATERAL military blockade in modern history?   Anyone?  Smiling 

... legality has no meaning in war, especially between enemies

so any answer given is... Not Applicable

 

100percentAtheist wrote:

I think that american aid to Palestine in the same amount (and quality, including military equipment) as to Israel will make magic in the region. Smiling 

I thought i was supposed to be the crazy warmonger!?

100percentAtheist wrote:

Maybe Palestinian commandos should peacefully land in Tel-Aviv instead of nuking the city....

I can agree with that... as would Palestinians... and even Isrealites! But all for different reasons

What Would Kharn Do?


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
This is the reason you never

This is the reason you never get in a land war in the middle east its an elementary mistake.

 

And iv stoped caring about this, they have been fighting for ever. neither side looks particularily interested in making compramises to have meaningful peace so i dont care about them or there causes, let them both kill each other. There is plenty space for both of them. The world is over populated in any event..

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

OK, can you name me a single LEGAL UNILATERAL military blockade in modern history?   Anyone?  Smiling 

... legality has no meaning in war, especially between enemies

so any answer given is... Not Applicable

 

So, the military blockade of Gaza by Israel is illegal. 

 

By the way, I remember Georgia sponsored by the US was trying to impose a military blockade of Abahazia ... but Abkhazia in turn had a mighty northern supporter ... pity, no more Georgian ships around...

Palestine is just unlucky to have no mighty partner in the region... maybe Turkey at last?  A little nucular head in Palestine's possession may quickly bring peace and friendship to the region. Smiling 

 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:This is the

Tapey wrote:

This is the reason you never get in a land war in the middle east its an elementary mistake.

 

And iv stoped caring about this, they have been fighting for ever. neither side looks particularily interested in making compramises to have meaningful peace so i dont care about them or there causes, let them both kill each other. There is plenty space for both of them. The world is over populated in any event..

 

Yes!  I actually see no reason to help either side of that conflict.  Stop aiding them and they kill each other with holy stones and Dead's Sea dirt. 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Humans are

Kapkao wrote:

 Humans are over-rated, for that matter.

    ....agreed. 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:A

100percentAtheist wrote:
A little nucular head in Palestine's possession may quickly bring peace and friendship to the region. Smiling 

 

Or a first strike from Israel in the form of a few or a few dozen nukes.

 

I am a little confused about the outrage over all this. What do you think happens to people who violate Israeli blockades? Do you think the IDF holds their hands and sings "Kumbaya" until everyone reaches a mutually agreed upon peaceful solution? The only thing I don't understand about this is: why didn't Israel wait for the boat to enter Israeli water and then fire on it? Boarding it with commandos on international water? For shame, Israel.

 

100percentAtheist wrote:

OK, can you name me a single LEGAL UNILATERAL military blockade in modern history?   Anyone?

Legal? Who cares? When the US bombed Libya, we were denounced by the UN as outlaws and war criminals. We didn't care. Fuck 'em. "Oh no! This or that act is illegal by international law! You can't do that!" Yes we can. Can and will. Israel is in a similar situation. They can and will violate what others consider to be international law. Besides a lot of hand ringing and UN resolutions denouncing them, they'll be fine. I'm willing to bet that we maintain aid to Israel despite the backlash.

 

ZuS wrote:

1) Power 2) Victim

Should you take sides when it comes to my definition of sides? What do you think?

The Palestinians cultivate an image of victimhood. That's why they DO NOT want independence. That would rob them of a lot of their ability to project an image of them being victims.

 

ZuS wrote:

They should also stop ... arbitrary murder and assassinations

Oh no, it isn't arbitrary.

 

ZuS wrote:

What? As if there is a position for and against. According to international law it is illegal and in case of occupation a war crime to block access to basic necessities for the civilian population for any reason. You don't get to choose here - being against it is mandatory, because people who do it commit an actual war crime.

Yet again with the international law nonsense. Does anyone think that Israel or the US cares? Does anyone think that ICC prosecutors or the ICJ will ever get a chance to apply these laws? The US has already announced that the ICC holds no authority over us. We have promised to use military force against any kidnapper who captures an American to hold them accountable to the ICC. We do cynically use the ICJ when it benefits us. When it doesn't benefit us we ignore its rulings. Israel always joins us in solidarity when we tell the ICJ to fuck itself. The US and Israel are pals like that. We just refuse to abide by international laws and refusal to consent to them robs them of their power.

 

ZuS wrote:

[a lot of what seems to me to be conspiracy theory talk] Because it deserves a thread on it's own.

Sure, tell us more about the sinister conspiracy to discredit truth-telling historians. I get it that the media is controlled by corporate conglomerates that don't have truth and objectivity at heart. But this is a situation of a historian academic denounced by other historian academics as a hack. This isn't Rupert Murdoch pulling strings to discredit a truth teller. This is an academic author of very questionable merit.

 

ZuS wrote:

If anyone killed 6,348 US citizens on US soil, their country (or an arbitrary country if there was no particular country responsible) would be vaporized, but somehow when it's Palestinians, 6k is just not impressive enough.

If a nation acted towards us the way the Palestinians act toward the Israelis, we would go ape shit on them. How many rockets fired into the US would it take for us to bring the hammer down on someone? 1? 2? Some number far, far less than the 8,600 rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel? We would lack the great mercy and restraint that the Israelis have shown in all this.

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." Spot on, Obama. Though, in general, he is far too much of a warmonger for my tastes. In this one matter he happens to have a view that matches mine.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:As I've

Kapkao wrote:

As I've suggested twice in different threads:

Break up the shitty Anglo-American alliance with Israel and everything else will come into place.

*bows*

No, the deed is done. Jews are not leaving. Not that they should have gone there in the first place.

BUT of the two Israel is not a theocracy nor does it want to establish a Jewish theocracy and impose it on the middle east. However, if Palestine were given equal or more weapons than Israel most certainly under the zeitgeist of Palestine, to them a scorched earth policy where all others submit to the will of Allah most certainly would lead to a global conflict. Palestine shoots off nukes, or Israel gets paranoid and shoots them off first, Iran shots it's nukes off and WHAM the world is in it.

BUT where I do agree is that our support of their claimed secularism should put the conditions that our support will only continue if they take their gang symbol off of their flag and incorporate the Arabs and Muslims within their boarders into a pluralistic government. I think including Arabs and Muslims in their government would take the wind out  of the Allah nuts case. I think the two state solution is opposite of what either side should want and plays into the hands of people on both sides who don't want peace, unless it is through submission.

BUT, on the other hand, there are just as many right wing Jews in Israel that would not put up with  pluralism because that would mean to some, bowing to zealots.

It miffs me that we cant come up with a global impartial watchdog group to impose peace and non-violence on both sides. I think if you gave both sides enough years without death the younger generations would be separated from the older divisions and lose their paranoia of each other.

Utopian, and most unlikely. But yea, what we have now is two spouses who beat the shit out of each other and then when the cops show up(media) they point fingers. They deserve each other. That region has to represent the worst in humanity.

 

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:
A little nucular head in Palestine's possession may quickly bring peace and friendship to the region. Smiling 

 

Or a first strike from Israel in the form of a few or a few dozen nukes.

 

I am a little confused about the outrage over all this. What do you think happens to people who violate Israeli blockades? Do you think the IDF holds their hands and sings "Kumbaya" until everyone reaches a mutually agreed upon peaceful solution? The only thing I don't understand about this is: why didn't Israel wait for the boat to enter Israeli water and then fire on it? Boarding it with commandos on international water? For shame, Israel.

 

100percentAtheist wrote:

OK, can you name me a single LEGAL UNILATERAL military blockade in modern history?   Anyone?

Legal? Who cares? When the US bombed Libya, we were denounced by the UN as outlaws and war criminals. We didn't care. Fuck 'em. "Oh no! This or that act is illegal by international law! You can't do that!" Yes we can. Can and will. Israel is in a similar situation. They can and will violate what others consider to be international law. Besides a lot of hand ringing and UN resolutions denouncing them, they'll be fine. I'm willing to bet that we maintain aid to Israel despite the backlash.

 

ZuS wrote:

1) Power 2) Victim

Should you take sides when it comes to my definition of sides? What do you think?

The Palestinians cultivate an image of victimhood. That's why they DO NOT want independence. That would rob them of a lot of their ability to project an image of them being victims.

 

ZuS wrote:

They should also stop ... arbitrary murder and assassinations

Oh no, it isn't arbitrary.

 

ZuS wrote:

What? As if there is a position for and against. According to international law it is illegal and in case of occupation a war crime to block access to basic necessities for the civilian population for any reason. You don't get to choose here - being against it is mandatory, because people who do it commit an actual war crime.

Yet again with the international law nonsense. Does anyone think that Israel or the US cares? Does anyone think that ICC prosecutors or the ICJ will ever get a chance to apply these laws? The US has already announced that the ICC holds no authority over us. We have promised to use military force against any kidnapper who captures an American to hold them accountable to the ICC. We do cynically use the ICJ when it benefits us. When it doesn't benefit us we ignore its rulings. Israel always joins us in solidarity when we tell the ICJ to fuck itself. The US and Israel are pals like that. We just refuse to abide by international laws and refusal to consent to them robs them of their power.

 

ZuS wrote:

[a lot of what seems to me to be conspiracy theory talk] Because it deserves a thread on it's own.

Sure, tell us more about the sinister conspiracy to discredit truth-telling historians. I get it that the media is controlled by corporate conglomerates that don't have truth and objectivity at heart. But this is a situation of a historian academic denounced by other historian academics as a hack. This isn't Rupert Murdoch pulling strings to discredit a truth teller. This is an academic author of very questionable merit.

 

ZuS wrote:

If anyone killed 6,348 US citizens on US soil, their country (or an arbitrary country if there was no particular country responsible) would be vaporized, but somehow when it's Palestinians, 6k is just not impressive enough.

If a nation acted towards us the way the Palestinians act toward the Israelis, we would go ape shit on them. How many rockets fired into the US would it take for us to bring the hammer down on someone? 1? 2? Some number far, far less than the 8,600 rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel? We would lack the great mercy and restraint that the Israelis have shown in all this.

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." Spot on, Obama. Though, in general, he is far too much of a warmonger for my tastes. In this one matter he happens to have a view that matches mine.

So when Israel responds to these bratty assholes and goes "Apeshit" on them what have they done besides create more bratty assholes falsely playing victim? You don't think children in Palestine aren't killed by adult beefs. You don't see it do you? Regardless of how wrong they are, AND THEY ARE, you are perpetuating their problem by your overkill.

This has been humanity's worst case of co-dependency. What good is a cause if you have no one to fight and nothing to fight for? It's like watching Alcoholics fight over a bottle of Jack Daniels. BOTH sides are so drunk on standing their ground that no one sees that the powers that be don't really seem to want the peace both say they want.

AGAIN, they repeat, you respond, they repeat, you respond. They have a cause, you have a cause, and what has been the result of this centuries old conflict? NOTHING, neither side has gotten what they want.

I am not impressed by their playing victim, but I am also equally not impressed that both sides think that repeating the same mistakes will produce different results.

If you don't want your children to die(WHICH IS A LAGIT and normal concern any parent would have) when you kill a child's parent, or a child in Palestine do you think they are going to give a shit why you did it? Or they going to do what you would do and protect their child? They may be deluded but no parent is going to give a shit why their kid died, they are going to do what all humans do and protect the club, ESPECIALLY the children. No different than your fear of your children being harmed.

They are not special and they are not victims, but neither are you and what I would say to them is the same thing I am saying to you. Stop repeating the same bullshit it won't produce different results. They keep repeating and that doesn't convince you, does it? So why would creating more cockroaches which otherwise non fundy Palestinians would not be turning to, why do you think repeating that will work?

Ann Frank would not take your revenge approach:

"Anne Frank I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart."

I think she would do everything she could without violence to convince the misguided Palestinians to turn away from the nuts that feed them. And I also think she would be forgiving to the Germans if she had survived the war. I think she would want the war crimes punished, but not the entire society.

I think you are doing the same thing they are, repeating the same mistakes expecting different results.

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
They are deluded, but that

They are deluded, but that doesn't mean they don't have the same instincts you do. You just talked about the fear of having your children killed. THAT SAME fear exists in the Palestinian population. Would you give a shit what they claimed if your child was killed? SO what makes you think they would give a shit if you said, "It's not my fault, I wouldn't have done it if they hadn't fired first".

"We wouldn't be shooting rockets at you if you'd stop taking our land and stop carpet bombing our population"

WHAT do I hear?

WA WA WA WA WA "YOU/THEY STARTED IT"

"YOU PUT YOUR GUN DOWN FIRST"

"NO, YOU PUT YOUR GUN DOWN FIRST"

How long do THEY/ YOU want this stalemate to continue? How many Jews and Muslims have to die before both of you realize how fruitless this is?

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: I'm

Jormungander wrote:

 I'm willing to bet that we maintain aid to Israel despite the backlash.

=  fueling next 911.

Exaggerating, pay Arab "terrorists" to destroy Israel and there will be no terrorist danger to the US.  Smiling Why not, if the US is still sponsoring other nations killing people?

I think that there should be just one little thing that holds you from taking this position - Christian morality. Smiling

My position is more atheistic, stop helping either side killing another side.

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

 I'm willing to bet that we maintain aid to Israel despite the backlash.

=  fueling next 911.

Exaggerating, pay Arab "terrorists" to destroy Israel and there will be no terrorist danger to the US.  Smiling Why not, if the US is still sponsoring other nations killing people?

I think that there should be just one little thing that holds you from taking this position - Christian morality. Smiling

My position is more atheistic, stop helping either side killing another side.

Your post embraces a defeatist attitude, but the latter part of it is correct: stop aiding Israel. Period.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:... *a whole

Brian37 wrote:
... *a whole mess of unadalturated bullshit tightly framed with zero knowledge about the region, geopolitics, historicity, or anything mildly relating to the core of the issue* ...

You don't read what other people write or at the very least don't try to understand it, you are approaching the issue as if it was a dispute between football fans who can "just choose to be nice", you don't bother to look at the broader regional or global picture and you definitely have no concept of significance of what happened yesterday, let alone between 1945-2010.

Why do you think you can analyse the most profitable business in the universe - war and plunder - with any less dilligence than an engineer approaches his daily job? Why do you think arguments like "they are all just tired of being punched in the face" make any sense in this context? Is an engineer tired of gravity constantly pulling things down? You have to be half insane to be this disinterested in an issue and STILL write several A4 pages of posts completely devoid of any point.

Now don't get me wrong - I don't like tirades, but you are driving me crazy.

 

EDIT: I just saw your last post, and I quote:

Brian37 wrote:

WHAT do I hear?

WA WA WA WA WA "YOU/THEY STARTED IT"

"YOU PUT YOUR GUN DOWN FIRST"

"NO, YOU PUT YOUR GUN DOWN FIRST"

You can not be serious.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No, the deed

Brian37 wrote:

No, the deed is done. Jews are not leaving. Not that they should have gone there in the first place.

BUT of the two Israel is not a theocracy nor does it want to establish a Jewish theocracy and impose it on the middle east. However, if Palestine were given equal or more weapons than Israel most certainly under the zeitgeist of Palestine, to them a scorched earth policy where all others submit to the will of Allah most certainly would lead to a global conflict. Palestine shoots off nukes, or Israel gets paranoid and shoots them off first, Iran shots it's nukes off and WHAM the world is in it.

BUT where I do agree is that our support of their claimed secularism should put the conditions that our support will only continue if they take their gang symbol off of their flag and incorporate the Arabs and Muslims within their boarders into a pluralistic government. I think including Arabs and Muslims in their government would take the wind out  of the Allah nuts case. I think the two state solution is opposite of what either side should want and plays into the hands of people on both sides who don't want peace, unless it is through submission.

BUT, on the other hand, there are just as many right wing Jews in Israel that would not put up with  pluralism because that would mean to some, bowing to zealots.

It miffs me that we cant come up with a global impartial watchdog group to impose peace and non-violence on both sides. I think if you gave both sides enough years without death the younger generations would be separated from the older divisions and lose their paranoia of each other.

Utopian, and most unlikely. But yea, what we have now is two spouses who beat the shit out of each other and then when the cops show up(media) they point fingers. They deserve each other. That region has to represent the worst in humanity.

Sorry B37, a single state solution is not the answer!

Israelis will not want it, Palestinians will not want it.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:You don't read what

Quote:
You don't read what other people write or at the very least don't try to understand it, you are approaching the issue as if it was a dispute between football fans who can "just choose to be nice", you don't bother to look at the broader regional or global picture and you definitely have no concept of significance of what happened yesterday, let alone between 1945-2010.

How old do you think I am? I am well AWARE of that conflict's history and when I was a kid remember stories about the conflict. I used to chose sides, but it has been going on so long that it is way past the point of mattering who is calling who the aggressor.

Like I said before, the adult of the two is doing nothing but creating more assholes trying to punish the child.

AND I AM WELL aware of the regional implications. I do not think that Israel deserves a blank check because someone wrongs them. Was America justified in Abu Grabe(sp) were they justified in invading Iraq for that matter? It is NOT Isreal's intent, although If I had been around after WW2 I would have advised Jews not to move into the crack infested neighborhood. But the Jews high on Yahweh and hurting from their wrongful slaughter, were given the land for less than noble reasons by Christian who wanted to rush in their "end times" prophecy.

But since that was then and no one is going to turn back the clock, I simply do not see Israel doing enough to refrain from using overkill.

This is no different than living in a drug infested neighborhood. If the cops beat the shit out of everyone it fosters a lack of trust and even the otherwise honest people living there will turn to gangs to protect them.And on top of beating the shit out of them they tear down their houses and try to starve them. If you have no house and no food and no way to make a living, it would be very easy for a drug dealer to convince you to follow them if they promised to protect the hood.

I am just trying to get you to see the psychology behind why they behave the way they do, I AM NOT CONDONING their actions.

Bad neighborhoods in America that have improved haven't done so through a police state. Cities that have chronically bad neighborhoods put nothing into improving quality of life and depend way too much on police force and prison systems. They have improved through giving those in the neighborhood opportunity and hope. The Palestinians aren't helping themselves by acting out in violence, but you are not helping them either by forcing them to live in a slum.

The deed is done and neither side is going anywhere. But if you think that you are going to correct their behavior in every case by doing the same thing you have always done, has it been working?

It didn't seem to work when I saw these same stories as a kid, and it doesn't seem to be working now. Why do you think repeating the same behavior will produce the same results when it is obvious it is not?

I think you should work on undermining the zealots ability to convince the masses to follow them by offering them MORE than the zealots are instead of housing them in a prison. But how you think the tit for tat "you kill 1 we'll kill 50" which seems to be Israel's default policy, is working is PATENTLY ABSURD, otherwise you'd have peace by now.

Israel does not deserve a blank check anymore than my government deserves support under all presidents just because I love the country I live in. Blind loyalty in Palestine exists because they are not being offered anything  and the only people protecting them are drug dealers. Israel simply reacts, it doesn't work toward long term solutions. It merely tries to maintain the status quo.

 

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I am a

Jormungander wrote:

I am a little confused about the outrage over all this. What do you think happens to people who violate Israeli blockades? Do you think the IDF holds their hands and sings "Kumbaya" until everyone reaches a mutually agreed upon peaceful solution? The only thing I don't understand about this is: why didn't Israel wait for the boat to enter Israeli water and then fire on it? Boarding it with commandos on international water? For shame, Israel.

There can be several answers to that. Without any research an obvious reason is establishing a precedent for action in international waters. They thought to do it with paint-ball guns and expand slowly to 40mm canons and ultimately nuclear submarines, but it went awry - no biggy, they can repeat the exercise next time with a more fool-proof approach, like maybe ramming a boat instead of boarding it from air.

Jormungander wrote:

Legal? Who cares? When the US bombed Libya, we were denounced by the UN as outlaws and war criminals. We didn't care. Fuck 'em. "Oh no! This or that act is illegal by international law! You can't do that!" Yes we can. Can and will. Israel is in a similar situation. They can and will violate what others consider to be international law. Besides a lot of hand ringing and UN resolutions denouncing them, they'll be fine. I'm willing to bet that we maintain aid to Israel despite the backlash.

That is exactly right and it is almost openly stated and definitely gestured. But there is still an amount of posturing going on and many alliances are still strong, so I don't see US coming out and declaring ownership of the world just yet.

Regarding our discussion, if your argument is that this is ok because might-is-right , then there is no reason for us to talk any further. You have abandoned all legal stands and even posturing, so there is nothing left to talk to you about in this respect.

Jormungander wrote:

ZuS wrote:

1) Power 2) Victim

Should you take sides when it comes to my definition of sides? What do you think?

The Palestinians cultivate an image of victimhood. That's why they DO NOT want independence. That would rob them of a lot of their ability to project an image of them being victims.

Since I know how cynical you are from your comments above, I will not even attempt to call for sober analysis of what it means for a population to be occupied by a violent powerful military for over 60 years.

Palestinian "victimhood" is amply documented by the humanitarian organizations on the ground. You are very welcome to look through the documentation and point out to me which part of the Amnesty International reports is incorrect. The argument that the reports of humanitarian organizations are irelevant, because the situation on the ground is "Palestinian fault" is complete bullshit, because you are not responsible for Palestinian actions, but are responsible for US actions - your question should be what do we do to make the situation better/worse - and on that account the reports are clear.

Jormungander wrote:

ZuS wrote:

They should also stop ... arbitrary murder and assassinations

Oh no, it isn't arbitrary.

In your mind I can see how this can be the case. The 6400 killings you cited are indeed all assassinations of enemy - the civilian population. It seems that in your mind civilian targets are justified by the might-is-right argument - no law, moral judgement or anything of the sort can be applied, and therefore any and all killings cannot by definition be arbitrary.

Jormungander wrote:

Yet again with the international law nonsense. Does anyone think that Israel or the US cares? Does anyone think that ICC prosecutors or the ICJ will ever get a chance to apply these laws? The US has already announced that the ICC holds no authority over us. We have promised to use military force against any kidnapper who captures an American to hold them accountable to the ICC. We do cynically use the ICJ when it benefits us. When it doesn't benefit us we ignore its rulings. Israel always joins us in solidarity when we tell the ICJ to fuck itself. The US and Israel are pals like that. We just refuse to abide by international laws and refusal to consent to them robs them of their power.

Again, you point out that human race is not to live by creed, but by deed - this is your position I pointed out earlier and you reiterate the main aspects of it here. It is a valid reason for us to stop discussing the issue altogether. In your mind there is no law that applies, killing is justified by the right of dominion and no one should be surprised by that. I understand this position perfectly.

Jormungander wrote:

ZuS wrote:

[a lot of what seems to me to be conspiracy theory talk] Because it deserves a thread on it's own.

Sure, tell us more about the sinister conspiracy to discredit truth-telling historians. I get it that the media is controlled by corporate conglomerates that don't have truth and objectivity at heart. But this is a situation of a historian academic denounced by other historian academics as a hack. This isn't Rupert Murdoch pulling strings to discredit a truth teller. This is an academic author of very questionable merit.

This is an interesting topic. Let me try to shift it a bit, so that you don't think I am suggesting conspiracy. Let's NOT talk about Finkelstein right off the bat, but instead look at the intellectual community as a social construct and take a few samples going back up to 2400 years or so. I suggest the following:

1) brief discussion of what it means to be a part of the intellectual community in the NOW, as opposed to RETROSPECT, so that we can distance ourselves from the white noise of today and get some perspective

2) relate our conclusion from 1) to the situation we are discussing here.

Off we go.

There is a large discrepancy between what we consider to be the intellectual society today and the intellectual society of the past. When we think of the intellectual society of the past, we rarely think in terms of a social anthropologist, but instead take to heart and mind the definition taught to us by the elementary school: the intellectual community of the past is a sum of individuals that thought great thoughts, invented great things and changed the world as we know it - we think of Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno, Edison, Tesla, Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Darwin, Socrates/Plato, Nietzsche, Skinner, Piaget and yes - Buddha and Jesus too, amongst many others. But this is not an intellectual community as a social anthropologist sees it - most of these guys never met. Indeed, most of these people initiated what we call a paradigm shift - their research and thoughts ran contrary to the established and commonly accepted line supported by the intellectual community of their time - some of them ultimately paying for it with their lives.

Let's take an instant to appreciate what we just discovered: the intellectual community as a whole does NOT consist of the great minds of our time, but is instead a collection of people who got an education, published and are recognized by their peers - regardless of whether they are right or not.

Well, this sounds kind of vague, you might say. We can see that there actually might be some tendency here, but how can we get a better sense of what is going on? When testing for properties of matter, natural scientists expose the matter to extreme conditions. We can't do this in a controlled environment when it comes to huge social constructs like intellectual community, but we can employ historical experiments with focus on extreme periods and events. So let's look at some extremes:
The people that burned Bruno on the stake, for example, were the most prominent intellectuals in the intellectual community of the day, complete with explanations and justifications and publications on why Bruno was a menace to society. People that made Socrates swallow poison likewise. The intellectual community of Germany during the most extreme period of the past century advocated euthanasia of racially impure - eugenics, social Darwinism and euthanasia of parts of population and at the same time the largest mass murder operation in history - all of it sanctioned and facilitated by the most prominent intellectuals of the day, right in line with the party politics of the leadership of the Nazi Germany.

So, apparently, the intellectual community is a collection of educated publishers accredited by their peers, which has, at least in part, a tendency to align itself with power. I think this is interesting.

Now you can say that this doesn't say anything about Finkelstein, and you are right. But it does say something about Dershowitz and the rest of the apologists for governmental violence - you will have to do your own digging to get to the truth, since you don't know who history will pick or who will be writing it for that matter. As for Finkelstein, you will have to take on his research, footnote by footnote, reference by reference - exactly the way he did take Dershowitz' work in his book Beyond Chutzpah. And it provoked prompt response from Dershowitz. He first attempted to stop the publishing of the book by threats of legal action; censure of the type I am sure you can find parallels to throughout history. When that failed, he wrote to the corporate leadership of the university, demanding consequences for Finkelstein, threatening to go directly to the investors if they ignored him. Rest is history - in more than one way I hope I demonstrated.

Please note that none of this has anything to do with any conspiracy theory, but rather simple societal mechanics. Churchly prominents and intellectuals that made the case for burning Bruno weren't enganing in any claok and dagger conspiracy - they were simply protecting their positions, maintaining status quo and appeasing power.

Jormungander wrote:

ZuS wrote:

If anyone killed 6,348 US citizens on US soil, their country (or an arbitrary country if there was no particular country responsible) would be vaporized, but somehow when it's Palestinians, 6k is just not impressive enough.

If a nation acted towards us the way the Palestinians act toward the Israelis, we would go ape shit on them. How many rockets fired into the US would it take for us to bring the hammer down on someone? 1? 2? Some number far, far less than the 8,600 rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel? We would lack the great mercy and restraint that the Israelis have shown in all this.

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." Spot on, Obama. Though, in general, he is far too much of a warmonger for my tastes. In this one matter he happens to have a view that matches mine.

There is a difference - US is directly responsible for the 6400 dead Palestinian civilians by the virtue of military support for Israel, while we are not responsible for the decisions of the Palestinian leadership. We can influence them, but for their actions we are not responsible.

The problem with your reasoning is that you are talking about Palestinian responsibility - why? You can do nothing about it. You can do something about the support for Israel, because you are a US citizen. You are not responsible for the foreseeable consequences of someone else's actions, but are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of YOUR actions. US supports Israel, which is why we have to look at what Israel does with our support and the foreseable consequences of our support for those actions, in order to decide our position. One of the foreseable consequences of occupation of ANY terrirory for a longer period of time is killing of civilians and suffering of the population. Modus operandi of Israeli government and military is clear: continued occupation of Palestinian territory and continued bloodshed. On top of that, Israel uses US material assistance to bomb the industrial centres of it's neighbors simply for financial gain and political leverage. These are the facts for which the US has direct responsibility by virtue of continued military support for Israel.

And what about the reverse? What if we stopped supplying Israel with weapons? Israel is the most powerful military force in the region - they can take care of themselves. Any bad foreseeable consequences? Well, yes - US can no longer count on Israel promptly answering "how high?" every time they are called to jump - that is a minus for the US.

Now that we have established responsibility for the foreseeable consequences, you can go ahead and explain why you think it is alright for US to continue to provide weapons for Israel. Now you can say - I think it's acceptable to finance murder of Palestinian civilians and continue occupation, because it is in our material interest. Or you can say - I am aware we are responsible, but I am not bothered with breaking a few eggs.

Of course, once this position is on the table there is nothing more to talk about. You have already distanced yourself from law in general and taken up the position of might-is-right, so I suppose you are very likely to distance yourself from fundamental moral principles as well, in which case any discussion regarding responsibility would at the very best be dishonest and quite likely completely irelevant. All that is left for me to do is beat you in the political arena, simply because I refuse to live in a world run by murderers and thieves with no respect for law or moral principles - that is my responsibility.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It didn't seem

Brian37 wrote:

It didn't seem to work when I saw these same stories as a kid, and it doesn't seem to be working now. Why do you think repeating the same behavior will produce the same results when it is obvious it is not?

Why do you think the results we have today aren't exactly the results Israeli and US govt. want? You said it yourself - they did the same thing for 60 years with same results - why would they do that if the results weren't awesome in their opinion? I don't understand why you can't just abandon the notion that they are trying to achieve peace and follow the logic from your own question to the necessary conclusion: if they aren't changing the tactic, they think eternal war is just dandy.

I can help you a bit on the way: look at the history of US/Israel veto of United Nations resolutions for the past 50 years.

Israeli govt. don't want peace. War is awesome business for them and peace would hurt their bottom line. They bomb neighbours every time they rebuild their industry with some lame excuse - of course they don't want peace. They want US guns though. Palestinians could all become Mother Theresa for all Israeli govt. cares - Israel is in the business of plundering and they aren't going to stop as long as they have the weapons. US needs a forward base in the Middle East with all the fancy killing gear they can handle, including nukes. US is not going to stop sending arms to Israel until they are stopped by domestic revolt.

Now you can talk to me about psychology and how tough the problem is, about knee-yerk reactions... really? The same knee-yerk reaction for 60 years? That isn't really knee-yerk, is it? That is the way they do business.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
      Deja Vu ? 

      Deja Vu ?

             

 

      

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Don't think I don't know

Don't think I don't know that there are plenty of Muslims, not just in Palistine, but around the world that would like to do what Hitler did. But that does not make up the entire makeup of the Palestinian population nor is it impossible to find Muslims ANYWHERE that would not advocate it. I am not blind to that, but I do get tired of the Halocaust being milked to set up a taboo that Jews should never be criticised.

To assume all Palestinians because of the nuts feeding them want that is absurd. I think plenty there for no other reason than having nothing see no choice but to take the food from the nuts that feed them. And if someone is feeding you, even if you want to complain, you cant because others might turn on you.

AND the lesson the west STILL fails to learn today, is what they should have done after WW1. They did not reconstruct Germany. Hitler came along, falsely made up a scapegoat, and promised Germany a brighter future. If the west had reconstructed Germany after WW1, Hitler would have been nothing but a loon on a street corner with a coffee cup selling pencils.

If the west is going to lead Islam out of the dark ages, it wont be done by beating the shit out of them as an default "always" tactic and then giving them nothing to look forward to. You cant simply beat someone into submission. We don't like it when Iran threatens us, we didn't like it when 9/11 or the London bombings happen. So what makes the west, or Much less Israel think that beating Palestine into submission submission will work?

HISTORY should not be lost, and it IS a natural instinct to defend oneself. But when ANYONE, in their personal lives, or on a national scale keeps repeating the same failed actions, ON ANY ISSUE, what makes them or us think a different result will happen?

Your paranoia excludes you from trying to find Muslims ANYWHERE who see what you and I see in that Palestine should nut be run by religious whackjobs. I'd say while you are going after the NUTS seek out those who don't want this(ALL OVER THE WORLD) Find a way to undermine the cults of personality by offering laymen and citizens an alternative to turning to the nuts. Beating the shit out of them every single time, simply pushes them to the nuts.

Both sides have tunnel vision and both sides are extremely paranoid of the other and that cycle has to be broken.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
.................

A simple test of who has the moral high ground should be conducted by assessing the way each treat the wounded.

 

Anyone who thinks this flotilla was anything other than a provocation needs to donate the brain they're not using.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:Anyone who

Abu Lahab wrote:

Anyone who thinks this flotilla was anything other than a provocation needs to donate the brain they're not using.

 

Clearly shown by the fact that the Hippies are sending ANOTHER vessel... today? .... IDF, if you're reading this, please cleanse these retards from the genepool...

What Would Kharn Do?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The Islamic world has

The Islamic world has historically been a safe-haven for Jews as they fled the brutal savagery of European Christians. The Muslims were too stupid to know that if you take a rouge from the gallows he'll put you up there.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Clearly shown by the fact that the Hippies are sending ANOTHER vessel... today? .... IDF, if you're reading this, please cleanse these retards from the genepool...

 

If they were serious about providing aid they would use the well trodden path that they have been using for decades and get it inspected first.

 

Anyone want to hazard a guess that this boat will be allowed in, as planned, as it's the one with the 'goodies' on board?

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Clearly shown by the fact that the Hippies are sending ANOTHER vessel... today? .... IDF, if you're reading this, please cleanse these retards from the genepool...

You can't save people from the idiocy of their own mistakes.

 

-Social Darwinist 4 Life Robert "Kapkao" Hester

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The Islamic

Gauche wrote:

The Islamic world has historically been a safe-haven for Jews as they fled the brutal savagery of European Christians. The Muslims were too stupid to know that if you take a rouge from the gallows he'll put you up there.

Yay "Dhimmi" status.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Gauche

Kapkao wrote:

Gauche wrote:

The Islamic world has historically been a safe-haven for Jews as they fled the brutal savagery of European Christians. The Muslims were too stupid to know that if you take a rouge from the gallows he'll put you up there.

Yay "Dhimmi" status.

Well, you know what they say about trading a one-eyed horse for a blind one... don't.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3349
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Gauche

Kapkao wrote:

Gauche wrote:

The Islamic world has historically been a safe-haven for Jews as they fled the brutal savagery of European Christians. The Muslims were too stupid to know that if you take a rouge from the gallows he'll put you up there.

Yay "Dhimmi" status.

better dhimmi than dead, or starving.  i would certainly rather have been a 16th century jew in baghdad, istanbul, or tangiers, than in prague, warsaw, genoa, or cordoba.

jesus, "dhimmi" has become such a fucking buzzword...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3349
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:BUT of the two

Brian37 wrote:

BUT of the two Israel is not a theocracy nor does it want to establish a Jewish theocracy and impose it on the middle east.

oh, there are plenty of increasingly powerful israeli lobbies who would like to do just that.  the ultra-orthodox are a minority but very powerful.  because of them, jerusalem is basically locked down during the sabbath, when the majority of israelis couldn't give two shits if someone observes the sabbath or not.  also, from their ranks come the third temple movements--you know, the people who want to seize the dome of the rock and rebuild the jewish temple, reestablish the davidic monarchy (which may never have actually existed in the first place), etc., etc.  back in college, we religion majors used to laugh at these nuts.  i'm not laughing anymore.

the jewish state was originally conceived as a secular, social (or perhaps even socialist) state by theodor herzl, who was imo a fine a human being.  this is one of the reasons stalin agreed to underwrite israel.  the crazies always fuck everything up eventually.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Where did I put my

Where did I put my hippie-repellent... FUCK THAT. More like... "Where did I put my whimpering idealistic pseudo-revolutionary hypocrite repellent?"

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Abu

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Abu Lahab wrote:

Anyone who thinks this flotilla was anything other than a provocation needs to donate the brain they're not using.

 

Clearly shown by the fact that the Hippies are sending ANOTHER vessel... today? .... IDF, if you're reading this, please cleanse these retards from the genepool...

Would you tell Nazi guards at Auschwitz 1943 too "clense" people bringing food to the prisoners in the concntration camp as well? What would your justification for that be? They should have known Nazis had guns? Shit, I am glad there aren't many people like you around.

The activists knew what they were up against - remember that IDF sank several ships before. The activists just have a few kg heavier balls than you and more than a trace of moral principle. Even getting killed gets their message accross and dieing for a good cause obviously isn't a thing of the past - I applaud their resolve.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.