Noony vs Furry, an invitation to PROBLEM SOLVING.
Offline Now, both of you have had me blast both of you. I will NOT post in this thread and consider it ONE ON ONE. I may start another peanut gallery thread. But this one is between the two of you.
But keep this in mind. I hear constantly in the news how both sides want peace. And I am sure there are PLENTY in both camps who do.
However, it seems that it is a peace based on all or nothing and the submission of the other.
My postulation TO BOTH SIDES, is that neither wants to budge because of history of tradition and RELIGION.
"Just follow me" seems to be what the other side says will solve all the problems, which WONT happen.
So how DO each of you think this problem can be solved without the baggage of the past? Neither side can undo what has been done. Neither can get rid of the other.
I would like to think BOTH of you know ultimately no matter how much each side in this conflict disagrees, that ultimately we are still dealing with humans.
So without HE SAID SHE SAID, and with out "MINE" or "THEY STARTED IT"
What would each of you do if you could have the power to end this conflict right now?
I want each of you to talk as humans, not labels. As if BOTH of you were trying to arbitrate a fight between co-workers or friends or family members.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline No, a cynic is a person who believes that people are primarily motivated by self-interest or selfishness. That seems pretty close to the mark -- most people don't know the difference between "self-interest" and "enlightened self-interest", and very few people are altruistic enough in nature to make a difference. The result is that various systems wind up broken because people can't see past the end of their nose or the end of the current financial quarter. See The Tragedy of the Commons for an example.
I see this type of behavior all the time -- people who think they can get away with something that is ultimately harmful, all the while forgetting that if everyone made the same decision the negative consequences =will= happen.
But, I can see right through your desire for "enlightened self-interest" and see that it's really just "self-interest". I'm a hopeless cynic.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline FurryCatHerder wrote:No, a cynic is a person who believes that people are primarily motivated by self-interest or selfishness. That seems pretty close to the mark -- most people don't know the difference between "self-interest" and "enlightened self-interest", and very few people are altruistic enough in nature to make a difference. The result is that various systems wind up broken because people can't see past the end of their nose or the end of the current financial quarter. See The Tragedy of the Commons for an example.
I see this type of behavior all the time -- people who think they can get away with something that is ultimately harmful, all the while forgetting that if everyone made the same decision the negative consequences =will= happen.
But, I can see right through your desire for "enlightened self-interest" and see that it's really just "self-interest". I'm a hopeless cynic.
Heh. Yeah, you've got cynic down cold.
I think that getting people to see enlightened self-interest as a viable alternative to the less enlightened variety is the only hope for Mankind. It's the reason I stress =sustainable= in so many areas of human activity. Sustainable behavior costs more in the long term, but it prevents many of the problems we experience on a regular basis. Consider the entire health care debate -- people don't buy insurance because they are "healthy", then they get sick and the total cost winds up being higher because they are now in the Emergency Room. That cost has to be made up, raising health care costs for everyone, including themselves. Sure, they had more money for a while, but now they are horribly in debt to some hospital, or unable to afford insurance at all.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline I can't ignore that. Sorry -- just can't pretend those things aren't happening.
Because you made this statement in a post addressed responding to Brian37, I assumed that you were directing it at him.
The deaths due to Israeli bombs and the second-class treatment due to the Israeli government will only lend credence to what is in their textbooks.
FurryCatHerder wrote:And that would be a grossly inaccurate interpretation of what is going on. The Palestinian government is very good at removing the history from the events that have happened. It really is the case that Palestinian Arabs sided with "the bad guys" in both WWI and WWII. That Hitler would have gone from murdering Jews to murdering Arabs without missing a beat is irrelevant -- the closest thing to a Palestinian leader at the time of WWII didn't conceal, in the least, his support of Hitler's "Final Solution". That should be at least some kind of starting point.
I trust your statements are true, but they did not address what I said.
They believed that =before= the current conflicts. The animosity between the Muslim world and the West is far more complex than "We attacked Iraq and Afghanistan." Spend some time talking to people in those countries -- it's an extremely complex issue, made all the more complex by the realities of war.
Once again, I trust that your statements are true, but they do not address what I said.
Based on your responses to me in several threads, I've come to the conclusion that you think I'm just another ignorant atheist for you to enlighten. It should be easy to understand why this annoys me.
- Login to post comments
Offline Based on your responses to me in several threads, I've come to the conclusion that you think I'm just another ignorant atheist for you to enlighten. It should be easy to understand why this annoys me.
Try making posts that have more than just two or three sentence "gotchas".
Consider this sentence:
The deaths due to Israeli bombs and the second-class treatment due to the Israeli government will only lend credence to what is in their textbooks.
Violence against Israelis started at the same time as the Muslim conquest of the Levant. Islam didn't stop with eradicating the Arabian pagan cults. As the Muslim conquest moved into the Levant (Eretz Yisrael, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria ...), they encountered both Jews and Christians and decided both needed to be conquered. That we were under fairly constant attack from Christians (see "The Crusades"
is irrelevant -- military attacks by Muslims was just a continuation of military attacks by Christians which was just a continuation of what the Romans were up to.
Islam isn't the "Religion of Peace", it is the "Religion of Submission" -- that's what "Muslim" means, "one who submits" and the Qur'an says that non-believers are to be attacked until they "submit".
Not only have people fought back against Islamic imperialism / colonialism, but various peoples have been more or less successful and that's the present situation in Israel. Because Muhammed set up Islam as a militaristic, conquest-driven religion, and because Muslims are "right", they need excuses for why things don't work out. Which they haven't been doing in Eretz Yisrael for about 60 years.
We've been fighting against Islamic imperialism since the Muslims threw the Christians out of Eretz Yisrael the first go round. Muslims claim that we should be "grateful" because they need =some= excuse for why what they've done is such a great idea. They usually tell us how great life was under Islamic rule, and about all the Jewish people can say in gratitude is that Muslims didn't have the same penchant for murdering Jews that Christians did. Muslims limited most of what they did to taxing non-Muslims into poverty and creating a formal system in which non-Muslim =were= second-class citizens -- "Dhimmi", with the state of subservience being "Dhimmitude".
The origins for handing out mistreatment of non-Muslims is found in the Qur'an -- non-believers not only must "submit" but must remain in a constant state of "feeling submitted". That is, of continuous and ongoing persecution.
The plight of Arabs within the region -- Gaza, Judea, Samaria, as well as parts of Lebanon and Jordan -- is mirrored by the expulsion of Jews from more distant Arab nations. The difference is that expelled Jews don't want to move back to Muslim-dominated countries, while Arabs want to move back to where they were busily persecuting Jews and Christians. The key here is that Muslims were the aggressors and it wasn't until 1948 that we finally managed to get our own piece of land with a government that wasn't either Islamic, or failing to adequately protect us from Muslim Arab violence, which had been going on for centuries by then.
In my opinion, Palestinian Arab protests are a projection of their own attacks against both Christians and Jews, and frankly, we should say that. Doesn't make it right, but it would at least be far more accurate than what you've presented.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline This is a photo of Bob Dylan --
When it came out, my older brother joked that he'd made the cover of Rolling Stone. My father and my brother favor each other. My son -- yeah, if he let's his hair go, winds up with that same mess of hair. He also doesn't have pink skin or blue eyes.
So. You were saying?
A Song By Bob Dylan - called With God On Our Side. Maybe his opinion counts for something.
Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And the land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
The Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns on their hands
And God on their side.
The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
- Login to post comments
Offline I have related to this lyric differently at different times in my life which is typical of lots of Dylan's lyrics
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
I look at it today is this God is not so great. He is even be the cause of evil, betrayal and violence. The bible refers to God sending a lying spirit in both old an new testaments. The bible is fairly clear he is a prick and we are simply in his game. But reality it is a man-made game. Best leave him behind. He is not the solution but the problem.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
- Login to post comments
Offline Try making posts that have more than just two or three sentence "gotchas".
I'm not sure what you mean by "gotchas", but I don't think I meant my sentences to be that way. In retrospect, I should have phrased the "deaths due to..." sentence as a question rather than a statement, since I was interested as to whether you thought such an occurrence was plausible.
In my opinion, Palestinian Arab protests are a projection of their own attacks against both Christians and Jews, and frankly, we should say that. Doesn't make it right, but it would at least be far more accurate than what you've presented.
Were the Palestinians in those protests directly involved in persecuting and attacking Jews? What if they only heard about from biased sources--like their textbooks?
Islam isn't the "Religion of Peace", it is the "Religion of Submission" -- that's what "Muslim" means, "one who submits" and the Qur'an says that non-believers are to be attacked until they "submit".
Yes, I believe "Islam" means "submission to the will of God" and a Muslim is "one who submits to the will of God". I've met Muslims living in the US that have zero desire to force unbelievers to do anything. They respect people regardless of their beliefs and really do believe that Islam is the "Religion of Peace".
People in that region aren't born knowing about the conflict between Arabs and Jews: they have to be taught. Furthermore, it is likely that each side will teach children that their side is right and that the other is completely responsible for the problem. This makes it all the more difficult to solve the problem.
What do you think would solve the problem? I'm actually interested in hearing your solution--and not just so that I can criticize it. It is obvious to me that you are quite knowledgeable on the issue, and, therefore, you likely have some ideas on how to solve it.
- Login to post comments
Offline FurryCatHerder wrote:This is a photo of Bob Dylan --
When it came out, my older brother joked that he'd made the cover of Rolling Stone. My father and my brother favor each other. My son -- yeah, if he let's his hair go, winds up with that same mess of hair. He also doesn't have pink skin or blue eyes.
So. You were saying?
A Song By Bob Dylan - called With God On Our Side. Maybe his opinion counts for something.
Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And the land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
The Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns on their hands
And God on their side.
The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
Ahead of his time.
His voice must be an acquired taste. When I hear him sing I want to commit suicide. But as a social activist, spot on and dead right.
If anyone's god truly cared about our species, it wouldn't allow us to kill in his name like two fat chicks fighting over a toothless redneck on Jerry Springer.
If God is on the side of humanity, then it should be fired from his job because he sucks at 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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Ahead of his time.
His voice must be an acquired taste. When I hear him sing I want to commit suicide. But as a social activist, spot on and dead right.
If anyone's god truly cared about our species, it wouldn't allow us to kill in his name like two fat chicks fighting over a toothless redneck on Jerry Springer.
If God is on the side of humanity, then it should be fired from his job because he sucks at it.
You know he's Jewish, right? I mean, he's all over the map, but based on his involvement with Hassidim (Chabad, which is a hella awesome bunch of Jews) and other Jewish groups he still seems tied to his Jewish roots.
I'm all for picking people to idolize, just be careful when you're arguing with a Jew that you don't pick a Jew to hold up as a mensch, because I'm going to point out that the person you've just identified is a Jew ...
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline Heh. Yeah, you've got cynic down cold.
I've learned that whenever someone want me to be a 'team player', it inevitable means they want something from me for nothing.
I think that getting people to see enlightened self-interest as a viable alternative to the less enlightened variety is the only hope for Mankind.
Actully I think the only hope is getting everyone to admit that all behaviors are "self-interest", that "enlightend self-interest" is an illusion. I think the fact that science has demonstrated that we have no free will implies that all behaviors are "self-interest". I think the proper term to differentiate behaviors is cooperative or non-cooperative, but all behaviors are "self-interest". But we all like to put on the act of being "enlightened".
It's the reason I stress =sustainable= in so many areas of human activity. Sustainable behavior costs more in the long term, but it prevents many of the problems we experience on a regular basis. Consider the entire health care debate -- people don't buy insurance because they are "healthy", then they get sick and the total cost winds up being higher because they are now in the Emergency Room. That cost has to be made up, raising health care costs for everyone, including themselves. Sure, they had more money for a while, but now they are horribly in debt to some hospital, or unable to afford insurance at all.
But the problem is the "enlightened" socialists will tell us this means health care is a "basic human right". Therefore, you get expensive health care no matter what. So you can decide not to work or study whatever you please, you can have as many kids as you please the government pays for it all. So it ends up just being a scam by the the so-called "enightented" ones to get something for nothing. Completely unsustainable because over time you get more people expecting free healthcare and fewer people willing or able to pay for it. Healthcare should only be provided in the context of cooperation where society gets something back in return and not a so-called birthright where society gets nothing back.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Ahead of his time.
His voice must be an acquired taste. When I hear him sing I want to commit suicide. But as a social activist, spot on and dead right.
If anyone's god truly cared about our species, it wouldn't allow us to kill in his name like two fat chicks fighting over a toothless redneck on Jerry Springer.
If God is on the side of humanity, then it should be fired from his job because he sucks at it.
You know he's Jewish, right? I mean, he's all over the map, but based on his involvement with Hassidim (Chabad, which is a hella awesome bunch of Jews) and other Jewish groups he still seems tied to his Jewish roots.
I'm all for picking people to idolize, just be careful when you're arguing with a Jew that you don't pick a Jew to hold up as a mensch, because I'm going to point out that the person you've just identified is a Jew ...
So, I don't give a fuck, there are plenty of Christians as well who don't think god is on their side either. You are not special because you are Jewish and neither is he, and that does not prove the existence of a god, anyone's god. It just means he doesn't have a divisive attitude.
www.au.org has people of all faiths who don't take "god is on my side" and are very pluralistic in their thinking.
That does not make the Christian god, or Muslim god or Jewish god real, nor does it mean you deserve a theocracy just because I support Israel STRICTLY in a secular sense.
Luis Black and Mel Brooks are nice people too, but that does not mean they deserve a Jewish state.
Again, I WILL NOT support a Jewish state, anymore than I will support a Muslim State or Christian state OR ATHEIST STATE. I don't care who you are or how nice you are.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline But the problem is the "enlightened" socialists will tell us this means health care is a "basic human right". Therefore, you get expensive health care no matter what. So you can decide not to work or study whatever you please, you can have as many kids as you please the government pays for it all. So it ends up just being a scam by the the so-called "enightented" ones to get something for nothing. Completely unsustainable because over time you get more people expecting free healthcare and fewer people willing or able to pay for it. Healthcare should only be provided in the context of cooperation where society gets something back in return and not a so-called birthright where society gets nothing back.
If it isn't sustainable, it isn't all that "enlightened", if you want my opinion.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Ahead of his time.
His voice must be an acquired taste. When I hear him sing I want to commit suicide. But as a social activist, spot on and dead right.
If anyone's god truly cared about our species, it wouldn't allow us to kill in his name like two fat chicks fighting over a toothless redneck on Jerry Springer.
If God is on the side of humanity, then it should be fired from his job because he sucks at it.
You know he's Jewish, right? I mean, he's all over the map, but based on his involvement with Hassidim (Chabad, which is a hella awesome bunch of Jews) and other Jewish groups he still seems tied to his Jewish roots.
I'm all for picking people to idolize, just be careful when you're arguing with a Jew that you don't pick a Jew to hold up as a mensch, because I'm going to point out that the person you've just identified is a Jew ...
I know he is Jewish and thought since you will not harken to us goys perhaps you would listen to the words of one of your own. Nobody's perfect and isn't that the point? You are no closer to your imaginary god than a muslim is to his imaginary god. They both look alike don't they?
But look at what Dylan wrote. I suppose those words are just as lost on you as Brian37 & mine.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
- Login to post comments
Offline FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37 wrote:Ahead of his time.
His voice must be an acquired taste. When I hear him sing I want to commit suicide. But as a social activist, spot on and dead right.
If anyone's god truly cared about our species, it wouldn't allow us to kill in his name like two fat chicks fighting over a toothless redneck on Jerry Springer.
If God is on the side of humanity, then it should be fired from his job because he sucks at it.
You know he's Jewish, right? I mean, he's all over the map, but based on his involvement with Hassidim (Chabad, which is a hella awesome bunch of Jews) and other Jewish groups he still seems tied to his Jewish roots.
I'm all for picking people to idolize, just be careful when you're arguing with a Jew that you don't pick a Jew to hold up as a mensch, because I'm going to point out that the person you've just identified is a Jew ...
I know he is Jewish and thought since you will not harken to us goys perhaps you would listen to the words of one of your own. Nobody's perfect and isn't that the point? You are no closer to your imaginary god than a muslim is to his imaginary god. They both look alike don't they?
But look at what Dylan wrote. I suppose those words are just as lost on you as Brian37 & mine.
I am sure that there ARE Jews who want to protect the nation of Israel, but I do not think every single Jew wants a theocracy.
Just like there are plenty of Christians in the states who don't see the Constitution as ripped from the bible, although far too many do.
Unfortunately like most believers of most religions they cannot see their pecking order mentality as merely an anthropomorphic reflection of the REAL evolutionary trait of the alpha male in a group.
Our founders had no knowledge of modern evolution, but they certainly did not like pecking orders when it came to religion. To them, your beliefs were yours. You could not be included or excluded as part of a political litmus test based on religion.
They had a much better attitude of treating individuals as such than Furry does. And Joe Lieberman could certainly testify as to the benefits that attitude of neutrality gave to him as a Jew in our Congress. Now it wouldn't surprise me if he himself wanted a Jewish state. But he would also be a hypocrite knowing our secular Constitution allowed a Jew to compete for political office.
Why I am being so harsh on her is precisely because I know what it is like being a minority under a religious majority. She falsely thinks that because I value a secular government, somehow I want to use government to ban religion. I can only debate religion, I cannot physically force people, much less via government, to stop believing.
But it pisses me off being an atheist in a Christian majority, as a minority myself, to see another minority piss on the very thing her fellow Jew used to win a congressional seat. She is pissing on "no religious test" which her fellow Jew benefited from.
And she like me would love to see Iran become pluralistic and allow non-Muslims to partake in their political process. She would love to see Saudi Arabia do the same. If she thinks a neutral government on the issue of religion does not work or cannot work, she is being willful ignorant and doesn't value the plight of minorities other than to treat them like pets.
I'd suggest before she advocates a Jewish theocracy, she go to Egypt and ask the Koptic Christians how wonderful it has been living under Muslim rule.
And even though our Constitution isn't bible based, she ignores the long history of anti-Jewish bigotry people like Lieberman had to overcome. It was only because our laws were not based on a god, but protection of of everyone's religion, he had that shot.
Maybe she'd like to hear tapes of Nixon talking "those Jews".
In a biography written by two of my former professors about Falwell, he said "I do not think God answers the prayers of Jews". Now, imagine what an asshole like that would do if our Constitution were written by him, and not the founders. That quote was made back in the 80s when bigotry against Jews was much more popular in the states.
But yet she has the same pecking order attitude about Israel's government she herself would not want to live under if Christians here had that same "Take your seat at the back of the bus" attitude.
The only decent government is one that LEAVES YOU THE FUCK ALONE on the issue of religion and does not include or exclude you with a religious litmus test. That allows everyone to practice the religion they want without being subject to the religious laws of others.
Joe Lieberman is living proof why a secular government is good.
There is no pecking order on a planet of 7 billion. There are merely people who seek pecking orders because it makes them feel superior. The better governments in the world keep that attitude at bay by remaining neutral on the issue.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37 wrote:Ahead of his time.
His voice must be an acquired taste. When I hear him sing I want to commit suicide. But as a social activist, spot on and dead right.
If anyone's god truly cared about our species, it wouldn't allow us to kill in his name like two fat chicks fighting over a toothless redneck on Jerry Springer.
If God is on the side of humanity, then it should be fired from his job because he sucks at it.
You know he's Jewish, right? I mean, he's all over the map, but based on his involvement with Hassidim (Chabad, which is a hella awesome bunch of Jews) and other Jewish groups he still seems tied to his Jewish roots.
I'm all for picking people to idolize, just be careful when you're arguing with a Jew that you don't pick a Jew to hold up as a mensch, because I'm going to point out that the person you've just identified is a Jew ...
I know he is Jewish and thought since you will not harken to us goys perhaps you would listen to the words of one of your own.
Don't ever call yourself a goy as a way to pretend I don't respect you. Seriously.
As for Dylan, I'll see your Bob Dylan and raise you a King David --
| Psa 34:14 | Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. |
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline I am sure that there ARE Jews who want to protect the nation of Israel, but I do not think every single Jew wants a theocracy.
Okay.
Which of the 7 Laws of Noah are you planning to violate? Could we just get that out of the way -- Planning to murder anyway? Have sex with your mother? Torture any animals and eat them alive? Rip off someone? Obstruct justice?
I'd just like to know which of those religious laws you plan to break.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:I am sure that there ARE Jews who want to protect the nation of Israel, but I do not think every single Jew wants a theocracy.Okay.
Which of the 7 Laws of Noah are you planning to violate? Could we just get that out of the way -- Planning to murder anyway? Have sex with your mother? Torture any animals and eat them alive? Rip off someone? Obstruct justice?
I'd just like to know which of those religious laws you plan to break.
The 7 laws of Noah don't make any difference to someone who is not a God -fearing Gentile. One of the requirements is you have to accept the god.
Blasphemy somewhat takes care of it as it is one of the laws.
Brian blasphemes your god daily, as do I. No harm, though, it would have to actually exist.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Most of what follows is a rant in response to A_N_ony_Mouse's dismissive view that the US did not steal the land.
Pretty much your view I understand of the American Indian screwjob by the US is that it's OK, as the US made treaties after they invaded and stole the land.
This is what I get from your views:
It's OK, as treaties were made after the use of force to take away that which belonged to the Indians.
It's OK, as the Indians now have a great deal.
That's what I get from you.
It's the old might makes right that has gone on with humans forever.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:...
I explained the inapplicability of it to you at least twice and now to her again in this thread.
In promoting it you are approving the enslavement of the Palestinians just because the US once had slavery. Whatever the US did in the 19th c. Israel can do today. Let them get a peace treaty with the Palestinians before fools try to compare it to the Indians.
The land in question was owned by Egypt.
Treaties were signed between Israel and Egypt in 1979.
The other land in question was owned by Jordan.
Treaties were signed between Israel and Jordan in 1994.
So what's your beef if the owners of the land signed it away to Israel by treaty following years of war.
This is different how from treaties you argue in regard to the Indians?
The land in question was OWNED by the people who held title to it. The land was governed by different rules.
In 1979 sovereignty not ownership was returned to Egypt. The Jordanian 1948 claim to sovereignty over the West Bank was recognized by only one country in the world, Egypt.
Who else would they have given sovereignty to?
Could you elaborate? I wrote return and claim. I don't see who you referring to with give.
Sometimes my SouthWest upbringing mingled with 20 plus years in Florida results in strange usage of words.
What I meant here was, what other country could have ruled the land in question on the West Bank in 1949?
In other words, what country should have had the West Bank in your opinion?
And why?
pjts wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
It claim of sovereignty over Jerusalem was recognized by no country not even Egypt.
Why is that a surprise? All of them want the damn place.
If if was blown to bits with a nuke, they would build altars and wailing walls at the closest point they could get.
What was wanted was the UN plan of a sovereign city of Jerusalem. The current version is Jordanian custonianship of the mosques. The US still backs the original UN plan. It is also the way Jerusalemites have solved their problems over the centuries after the three or four sides in every dispute get the mob violence out of their systems.
From my comment it should be noted that I consider Jerusalem to be a problem.
I'd agree the only solution for that damned city is to make it a city state like the Vatican.
I'd recommend Chinese guards instead of Swiss guards though. They'd not be prejudice in who they killed if they encountered violence.
pjts wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The world agreed the West Bank belonged to the Palestinians not to Jordan.
The world aka the UN did the same for Israel and you don't respect that, so obviously those in that part of the world don't much care what the world thinks do they?
When I said no country not even Egypt recognized the claim over Jerusalem that included all the Muslim countries. Sovereignty is recognized by other countries not by the UN. That function is no place in its charter.
I was discussing the West Bank comment you made, not Jerusalem.
Is there something you don't like about the UN and the decisions made?
Your government had representatives in it. They voted. You aren't happy with what they did I take it.
Elect people that will do what you want in that case if you can. If you can't, that's the way that goes in this republic.
And since sovereignty is recognized by other countries, that's what was going on more on less in North America before the white Europeans came.
That the Europeans didn't care is very obvious.
pjts wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Palestine has existed for at least 2500 years, 400 years longer than Judea has been in real history.
As parts of many defunct nations, including the supposed Jews of Judea.
Only Judaeans were Jews. Voluntary or forced observance of the Yahweh cult practices was a separate issue.
You argue that the Palestinians aka Canaanites or whatever lived in the area, thereby their descendants have rights though political boundaries world-wide have moved countless times which doesn't give it much validity.
Everyone of significance has had sovereignty over the land in question. From The Akkadians, 1st Babylonian Dynasty, Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Mitanni, the Hittites,the Persians, the Macedonians (Greeks), the Romans (including the Byzantines) the Turks (Ottomons), the British and others I forget from ancient times.
How can you arbitrarily side with a single group? We can go with who was the earliest, or who was the largest, or just go with what is there now.
You are willing to write off the American Indians by who is there now, why not the mess in Palestine?
pjts wrote:So what? There are still tribes all over N & S America that have existed long before the white man stole the land.
Tribes who did not claim ownership of the land, that is correct. They claimed only the right to live off of general areas. They mostly sold those rights to the Europeans. The Iroquois are among the few who did not and they are still where they were back in 1492. Most of the fighting started for traditional Indian reasons traditional raiding parties and taking women captive and whatever wasn't nailed down. It is the way they did it among themselves. The raiding parties is what was really behind reservations.
I wasn't just thinking of the American Indians here.
You are using the US justification for the theft of the land of the Indians.
Where are you getting your information on this, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or a book written by someone on the winning side?
pjts wrote:I'm of the view that the Northern Kingdom was never part of an ancient Israel. I don't use that word to describe those living in Judah. They were Judahites.
The only evidence I can find is city-state of Samaria (SMR) under Omri (MR) was the only kingdom of note in ancient times. That the creators of the OT drafted him postuhuously into the Yahweh cult is a separate issue. The similarity between the names suggests strongly Omri is a fictional character.
And I'd agree that the fictional story telling in the OT in regard to Omri and Ahab were just that. The Assyrians thought highly of their enemies such as Ahab, or at least respected the force he and the combined forces of Damascus presented.
pjts wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You confuse, I hope not deliberately, the entirely different issues of ownership and sovereignty. When Herzl's delegation to Istanbul asked for the Jews to be given Palestine (funny how he knew the name of a place that did not exist) he was told, "I only rule the land. I do not own it." It was not his to give.
If we compare as you and others do the American Indians and the mid-east one can not do so fairly.
The Indians were Nations. No they had no titles filed for land, its not what they did. They owned all of North America before the white man stole it.
Excuse but nation for Indians was a European word taken from the bible as the preferred translations for the "tribes" and "nations" of Israel. The Iroquois called themselves a confederation, a political union. As for owning there was no concept of land ownership, period. One cannot credit them with a concept they did not have.
Though their words were more of cooperatives, and confederations to some degree, though they saw themselves in a similar way. Not all Indian tribes were friendly to one another just like the Europeans did not all lovingly embrace one another.
They didn't have it in the way you wish to put on them. Because they never considered the possibility of needing such concepts until it was too late. They were there, the white man came and took what was theirs. There is no way around that.
pjts wrote:Though some sold out willingly.
Wars were fought and land was taken. Indians were forced to move. The sovereignty and the ownership of all of it passed to the white man by force. After all they were savages as far as the white man was concerned.
Wars were rarely fought over land. When the Indians agreed the Americans could farm the lands for a price they saw it as a way to get rich as well increasing the game on their hunting lands. Cattle were easier to catch than buffalo. The farmers took a dim view of that. There is where the fighting started. It was hunter-gatherers against civilized people, civilized in the sense that farming and building cities is taken as the beginning of civilization.
Keep in mind even if it really were as simple as in Hollywood using this argument in favor of Israel would also justify Israel making chattel slaves out of the Palestinians. That a thing was done in the past does not justify it in the present.
Further use of this as a defense of Israel also entails the same condemnation of Israel today as of America in the past. I am not sure where you want to go with this.
My objection to you is you are demonstrating an attitude that it was perfectly fine to screw over the Indians.
I'm not using Hollywood. I went to high school with several Indians.
I'm not defending Israel, I'm arguing you consider that it was justified to take by force the lands of the American Indians. You seem to think that it was perfectly fine to do that.
You take the prejudiced view that because the Indians had no land titles, that land was supposedly bought by the US government such as the Louisiana Purchase, that the US owned this land.
However, there were those who lived on it, savage to the view of the invading white Europeans, but having the same right you are trying to assert for Palestinians. Except, that others controlled Palestine, and the Indians controlled North America, until they were beat down by force.
You need to investigate the Indians much further and perhaps you might see it was basically, might makes right or the rights of the many (white men) were more important than the few (the Indians).
The Indians were there and possessed the land perhaps not in a way that you can put into classical white European rules, but not the white invaders. Additionally, the Indians had no comprehension at first that the white men would build permanent settlements.
pjts wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The US and Indians issue is much more complicated and involves legal issues all of whose complex details I cannot address. That said you will note in the US there is mainly "government" land west of the Mississippi which was ceded by Indian and Mexican treaty. All other government land including in the east was bought and paid for as per the constitutional provision covering eminent domain. To this day if you are an American you can have most any part of the remaining government land (if not protected by other laws) if you can make productive use of it. That is, FREE. That is what gold claims and homesteading were all about. It was the legal device for the land rushes. Government owned but immediately transferred to lawfully regulated claimants.
As such government ownership is a legal technicality not a fact as in personal ownership. The main purpose was and is to regulate future ownership and prevent armed land grabs and such as had happened in the Republic of Texas. The only exceptions to this have been almost all military bases and national parks. There is a shale oil deposit that is rumored to dwarf Canada's and the entire middle east in reserves as one of the exceptions. Now if you want to bring up something I have not covered fine. I may or may not be able to address it. I am not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.
I agree, you simplify this far too much. It's not that easy.
I grew up in the US SouthWest. The Indians were forced to agree to the treaties common knowledge to most, or be eliminated more or less.
When you were growing up? Much older than I thought.
You are imposing white European rules on people that had no concept of them.
As I mentioned above, I went to high school with several Indians. One of them had a great grandfather killed by the white men. Another had his grandfather killed and other relatives.
They didn't agree with your assessment of the treaties. This was in the 1960s.
pjts wrote:US law was forced on them. When did they willingly as a general rule agree to be subjected to US law.
Not that the current generation objects to making money off the white man gamblers, or in some cases oil.
What I am trying to point out is, even at its simplest level, it is fundamentally different from what the Jews did in Palestine. You cannot make a parallel of it but if you try it still leaves the Jews on the short end of the argument.
Listen careful A_Nony_Mouse, I'm not talking here about the Palestine mess at all. I'm objecting to your elitist view that the white man did not steal the Indian lands.
My objection to your argument is that you seemingly justify that the screw job to the Indians was all within US law. The Indians didn't give a shit about US law.
As far as they were concerned it was theirs. Not in your white European way, but in the Native American way.
This is far different then what you are trying to claim for the Palestinians.
The Palestinians were part of many different countries that had sovereignty. In the case of the Indians, each group had it in the area they controlled.
They did not build capitol cities, county seats with county clerks to register ownership. They didn't need to, until the invading white Europeans hordes came and had their European view of land ownership.
Explain how an outside group can by force take away what they had for generations in one case and be fine (the Indians) and the other case you argue (Palestine) be wrong?
And I'm not even sure who took the land from the Palestinians, or who they really are. Too many wars there for 2500 years.
I see the theft by force and treaty of American Indian lands for the gain of the white man aka US to be wrong. I object to you being so dismissive of that.
You are exhibiting bias, that it was fine to discriminate against the Indians because they were savages and didn't follow white European rules.
pjts wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:In every case an Indian treaty ceded land as in ownership to the US in accordance with US law. In every case the US had already claimed and maintained sovereignty over that land. The US was imposing its law upon the natives.
When did the Indians who were either attacked or attacked the invading white hordes at the time agree to be US citizens? Not until later did any of that happen.
I do not recall they were required to acknowledge citizenship in the US. That the US did was only after the 14th Amendment and that was only to prevent states from denying rights to free slaves by legal contrivance declaring them non-citizens. I don't know if born in the territories v born in a state was ever litigated as legally different making the 14th inapplicable.
As I said, later. To be subject to US law, they would need to be US citizens or recognize its authority over them. They didn't. Congress earlier on assumed they had the power to pass laws to force removal, treaties, and obedience to US law.
The US encroached upon their lands, not the other way around. There is no way around that.
The tribes are sovereign within their reservations. They were not drafted. If they live on a reservation only income earned off the reservation is subject to federal taxes. ETC, ETC, ETC which are all the complexities I am not going to attempt to get into I mentioned above.
Partial acknowledgment of the US wrongdoing and screw jobs to the American Indians. The treaties gave them rights to self govern, but many laws still apply to them. It is a complex situation, and in many cases treaty dependent.
But none of that makes it right.
So they weren't drafted. One big concession huh for stealing the land.
pjts wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Israel has NO peace treaty with the Palestinians. Absent that there is no place to even begin to confuse sovereignty with ownership. Ownership is a matter of deeded title completely independent of sovereignty. There are records of this going as far back as Ur. In other words as far back as we have found writing. We find such records in every ancient civilization worthy of the name.
The Palestinians as I pointed out were citizens of Egypt and Jordan. They signed treaties.
So far as I am aware only Jordan extended citizenship to those in the West Bank. In any event the treaties were silent on land ownership as they should have been.
The treaties recognized sovereignty. Normally, then the land ownership issue is of the jurisdiction of the country having sovereignty.
That being the case, the country in question can seize the land, as in the case of the American Indians, Russia, or China because the law of the land so allows.
If it was OK, for the US to do this, then it is OK for Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. If you think it is not OK for the country having sovereignty to do this, then it was not OK to do so to the Indians.
pjts wrote:
The problem here is everyone needs to learn to live in the world without killing one another.
The Israelis are stupid in their methods. Stop shooting at us and we will give you your freedom.
The Palestinians don't stop.
A better way is to simply give it to them and move the fuck on.
Give them their property back and let them return to their homes even if they were in Israel and the fighting also ends. When there is no recourse in law to regain private property deadly force is considered moral and lawful by all but the most devout pacifists.
Keep in mind the Jews knew for a fact the Palestinians would never give up and go away quietly when they started showing up in Palestine in the late 19th c. Anything else would be childlike wishful thinking. If you put your pennies in the blue box the land fairy will leave a country under your pillow.
Jews who went there knew the Palestinians would never accept it. They knew it would always be the way it has been. And they know it will never stop. They all voluntarily chose to accept the way it is. They should stop whining and man up to the consequences they freely chose.
Every non-zionist source and even some zionist sources agree that whatever the zionists pretended to be outside of Palestine they always operated as a criminal organization in Israel. They specialized in the protection rackets, extortion and kidnapping. They murdered Palestinian women and children when the Brits arrested their gang members. It is in all the history books if you take away the zionist gloss.
Still today the entire country runs like 1920s Chicago. And I learned about Israel today from Israeli news sources. The Histadrut is as corrupt as the Teamsters ever were.
This same argument can be made for the American Indians.
How did that work out. You and I live in a country that was mostly stolen land.
They got screwed over. Did they get fair compensation, no.
You are so defensive of Palestine, yet seem to sweep under the carpet everything from Sand Creek to the Trail of Tears. Why, because you think they got a fair shake. Have you ever talked with them?
See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre
See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Who was punished for Sand Creek? No One.
Treaties, yeah right, screw jobs is what they were.
And in case you wonder or have forgot, I'm a German descendant on both sides. My Grandparents came from the German colonies in Norka Russia on 1 side in 1898, and my great grandparents came from Germany in 1857 on the other side.
My father's side was subjected to persecution in Russia, that's why they left.
I grew up in the South West and know no German, only English and Spanish.
End Rant.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline ex-minister wrote:FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37 wrote:Ahead of his time.
His voice must be an acquired taste. When I hear him sing I want to commit suicide. But as a social activist, spot on and dead right.
If anyone's god truly cared about our species, it wouldn't allow us to kill in his name like two fat chicks fighting over a toothless redneck on Jerry Springer.
If God is on the side of humanity, then it should be fired from his job because he sucks at it.
You know he's Jewish, right? I mean, he's all over the map, but based on his involvement with Hassidim (Chabad, which is a hella awesome bunch of Jews) and other Jewish groups he still seems tied to his Jewish roots.
I'm all for picking people to idolize, just be careful when you're arguing with a Jew that you don't pick a Jew to hold up as a mensch, because I'm going to point out that the person you've just identified is a Jew ...
I know he is Jewish and thought since you will not harken to us goys perhaps you would listen to the words of one of your own.
Don't ever call yourself a goy as a way to pretend I don't respect you. Seriously.
As for Dylan, I'll see your Bob Dylan and raise you a King David --
Psa 34:14 Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
Well, I don't get a vibe you have any respect for me and was a tad shocked and flattered by this response.
I feel you evade/ignore my questions. At first I found that annoying and now I simply grin. Anyway, Brian37 is covering everything very well and have appreciated his response to some of my post and also his interaction with you. I will go back to the peanut gallery now and toss in some shells now and again.
But before I go I have to iterate the words of Dylan's song are so powerful. I have read them over a number of times.
the land I live in has God on its side. How incredibly lucky to be born chosen and have a piece of dirt dedicated to you.
you don't count the dead with God on your side (at least not the enemies dead)
Any horrendous thing can be done with God on your side
We have to fight because we have God on our side. The chosen always have haters.
You never ask questions with God on your side. How blindingly true.
And the kicker if God was on our side he would stop the next war.
So there is no god and we are left to face each other. What is next?
Do we prop up our man-made dead god like weekend at Bernies' and continue to accuse, abuse and destroy each other? Sounds like a plan. It has been working out so well after all.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
- Login to post comments
Offline Let me tell you what's sick --A couple of years back, during the war between Hezbollah/Syria and Israel, with Lebanon being drug along for the ride, ...
Officially Israel calls it the Second Lebanon War. Israel's major bombing targets were civilian Lebanese infrastructure including ports, oil depots, bridges, highways, and Beirut. Its artillery targets were civilian areas across the border with indiscriminate anti-personnel bomblets.
It all began with three IDF soldiers being captured in Lebanon -- Israel claims they were not in Lebanon. Israel sent some tanks across the border way too late to do anything constructive and lost one of them to a land mine. Israel of course counted the dead from the ill-conceived tanks incursion among the cause for war on Lebanon.
That is, war on Lebanon, which ALL Israeli sources have said since it started.
And now some lame ass apologist from Izzieland tries to get away with calling it something which superficially appears to exhonerate Israel with a name contrary to facts.
It is true Hezbollah responded to the Israeli incursion. It acts as a militia and had the only force capable of responding to the incursion. The Lebanese army is a joke BUT Lebanon is committed to disbanding Hezbollah as soon as it has an army capable of defending the country against Israel attack. Sounds reasonable to me. In the mean time the Hezbollah militia is necessary for the defense of Lebanon.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline ...NEITHER of you will address my question.
You go on to mutter about children but I have not actually seen an issue raised by you which addresses the situation. You certainly have not raised a question in light of the facts. You have not suggested a solution which addresses the facts.
Perhaps you could propose a solution with specfics not generalities or principles or perhaps not. I doubt you can.
I frankly doubt you can even describe the facts in any sense.
Best I can figure is you are saying just because Palestinians suffered Jews should not suffer. That is my honest best guess.
Care to correct me?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree completely with Brian on this one. Even if you can prove that the fault lies entirely with one side, I doubt that side would accept it. Unless BOTH sides admit fault and/or agree to make concessions each perceives as having equal value, the conflict will not end.Furry, if you have people you care about on both sides of the conflict then you have a vested interest in ending this conflict. What plan of action do you think is most likely to succeed? (sorry for the emphasis, I just want to hear your ideas on a solution you think both sides will accept)
In addition, most people only propose a plan if they think that plan is justified. No matter how stupid you may think a plan is, it would be wise remember that the person proposing it thought it was a good idea. In other words, attack them for being ignorant, not for being evil.
As I have noted elsewhere and my alter ego has written
Who really believed putting pennies in a blue box would cause the
land fairy to leave a country under their pillow?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4375
If we are to talk rationally about the subject we have to assume mature adults were making things happen. Adults would know Palestinians would never accede to the Jews back when they started arriving in the 1890s. They had to have known that even if they succeeded the best they could look forward to was living under constant threat of being thrown out just as they do today. There is no credible way to suggest that the way they live today is how they chose to live because adults could foresee how it is today.
They chose to go there. They were adults. They knew it would be like it is.
What is all the whining about? It is sort of amusing to go there with ideals, to win the land for Jews to live in peace but it is inexcusable to blame the failure of a juvenile ideal on the evil of others. Any adult would know the Palestinians would never give up and go away. They have gotten exactly what they chose. They have gotten exactly what they wanted.
Any other conclusion assumes every Jew who went there was an innocent, immature child who did not understand anything about how the world works.
That is not reasonable.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline FurryCatHerder wrote:I can't ignore that. Sorry -- just can't pretend those things aren't happening.
The only one who may have asked you to ignore the evil Palestinians do is A_Nony_Mouse.
Please tell me what exactly what those evils are and why they are "evil". Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war as you will recall.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline And that would be a grossly inaccurate interpretation of what is going on. The Palestinian government is very good at removing the history from the events that have happened. It really is the case that Palestinian Arabs sided with "the bad guys" in both WWI and WWII. That Hitler would have gone from murdering Jews to murdering Arabs without missing a beat is irrelevant -- the closest thing to a Palestinian leader at the time of WWII didn't conceal, in the least, his support of Hitler's "Final Solution". That should be at least some kind of starting point.
More lies. In WWI the Palestinians sided with the British -- sorry, maybe you are telling the truth. Never heard of Lawrence of Arabia? Of course the Brits lied, on one hand promising freedom and on the other hand planning to rule them, Sykes-Picot comes to mind.
As to WWII, the Mufti of Jerusalem did NOT speak for the Palestinians. Even Zionist propaganda says there were no Palestinians, they were invented, as such obviously no one could speak for them. Oops! The zionist lie changes by the needs of the propaganda.
And then we have the Zionists siding with Hitler with the Haavara Agreement and financially supporting the Nazis as they were building their military. Obviously the survival of Jews does not matter to Zionists. As Ben-Gurion said of saving jewish children
"If I had to choose between saving all of them by sending them to England and half of them by sending them to Palestine I would send them to Palestine."
So stop whining about dead Jews. Zionists don't give a rat's ass about Jews. They only care about profitting from Jews. The whole holocaust thing has been an extortion racket, "The Holocaust Industry" by Dr. Norman Finkelstein. You on the other hand spew crap from the instantly discredited "From Time Immemorial" and "The Case for Israel" by Alan "Denny Crane" Dershowitz plagiarist extraordinaire.
You wanted references, I give you references. I really did not want references. You wanted to pretend you wanted references. Stupid bluff that.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline ...But, I can see right through your desire for "enlightened self-interest" and see that it's really just "self-interest". I'm a hopeless cynic.
Correct. Enlightened self-interest for Jews would be emigrating. Staying and trying to hold on is merely self-interest.
Consider the jewish Israeli. Fiercely proud. Independent. Self-reliant. And totally dependent upon the US for their continued existence.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Violence against Israelis started at the same time as the Muslim conquest of the Levant. Islam didn't stop with eradicating the Arabian pagan cults. As the Muslim conquest moved into the Levant (Eretz Yisrael, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria ...), they encountered both Jews and Christians and decided both needed to be conquered. That we were under fairly constant attack from Christians (see "The Crusades"
A total fucking lie. Jewish generals lead Jewish armies alongside Mohamed in the conquest of the Levant. That is very well known history. Mohamed removed ALL restrictions the Byzantines had placed upon Jews. The only problem with Jews was putting an end to their practice of buying Christian captives from slave dealers merely to murder them. This was ended when it was discovered as a Jewish practice at the Mamilla Pool outside Jerusalem.
Cannot you for once tell the truth?
It was the Jewish kings of Mecca and Medina attempting to kill off the early Muslims that caused Mohamed to begin his military campaign. When they surrendered he agreed to consider them equals if they would join him against the idolators.
The Koran provides a specific protections for both Jews and Christians as peoples of the Book and requires they be protected in their persons and their religion.
There is no scholarly disagreement on these points.
You newbie converts do more harm than good when you spout your fantasies as fact.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Okay.I am sure that there ARE Jews who want to protect the nation of Israel, but I do not think every single Jew wants a theocracy.Which of the 7 Laws of Noah are you planning to violate? Could we just get that out of the way -- Planning to murder anyway? Have sex with your mother? Torture any animals and eat them alive? Rip off someone? Obstruct justice?
I'd just like to know which of those religious laws you plan to break.
As what you call "religious" laws are observed by chimpanzees as well as by humans are you claiming Yahweh or Noah or both were chimps? In fact wolves also observe your religious laws. Are you a wolf? Or are Jews wolves? As cattle observe your religious laws, are you a cow?
Are you really so poorly educated you do not know better than you post?
Excuse me. People had to be told was chimps did not need to be told according to your mythology.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline *eyes begin to strain*
After carefully looking at the majority of the posts in this thread, most of them by Nony, I can only have the following expression:
- Login to post comments
Offline *eyes begin to strain*
After carefully looking at the majority of the posts in this thread, most of them by Nony, I can only have the following expression:
Yup. Noticed I don't respond to him anymore?
For example, that the Ottoman Empire, which had control over modern day Israel, joined the "Central Powers" is an historical fact. Yet he wants to claim that "the Palestinians", which were Ottoman Empire subjects, didn't side with Germany. One need only look at how the war went in Gaza, for example, to see that someone other than Germans were shooting at the British.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline Most of what follows is a rant in response to A_N_ony_Mouse's dismissive view that the US did not steal the land.
Pretty much your view I understand of the American Indian screwjob by the US is that it's OK, as the US made treaties after they invaded and stole the land.
This is what I get from your views:
It's OK, as treaties were made after the use of force to take away that which belonged to the Indians.
It's OK, as the Indians now have a great deal.
That's what I get from you.It's the old might makes right that has gone on with humans forever.
Trust me, I did start giving you a very long answer but I finally realized you were conflating the 1948 war of conquest for sovereignty with the 1949 Absentee Owner laws.
The theft came with the 1949 laws. The 1949 laws recognized Palestinian ownership of the land by the very fact of the law itself. Thus ownership is established under the meaning of property ownership in Israeli law else there could be no owner to be absent.
They clearly stated if an owner was absent for some number of years, usually two, the land reverted to the state. The laws ignored the fact that if an owner tried not to be absent he was murdered as either an infiltrator or for violating curfew being absent from his concentration camp/ghetto after hours.
I do not have to argue for Palestinian ownership as the 1949 law establishes ownership under Israeli law.
As I have said it was theft under color of law as there was no way to be not absent. Attempts not to be absent resulted in death of the owner.
If you should desire to seriously discuss the difference between the sovereignty war of 1948 and the European sovereignty issues in North America please start another topic and direct me to it.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline *eyes begin to strain*
After carefully looking at the majority of the posts in this thread, most of them by Nony, I can only have the following expression:
Buf if you fucked with your big head it would be full of brain.
Think about it.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sage_Override wrote:*eyes begin to strain*After carefully looking at the majority of the posts in this thread, most of them by Nony, I can only have the following expression:
Yup. Noticed I don't respond to him anymore?
For example, that the Ottoman Empire, which had control over modern day Israel, joined the "Central Powers" is an historical fact. Yet he wants to claim that "the Palestinians", which were Ottoman Empire subjects, didn't side with Germany. One need only look at how the war went in Gaza, for example, to see that someone other than Germans were shooting at the British.
As opposed to a furry who pretends never to have heard of Lawrence of Arabia and the Palestinians fighting against the Ottomans in return for freedom.
Anyone disagreeing may rent the movie Lawrence of Arabia from at least four online sources or read The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. himself.
On the other hand, those still dreaming of getting done by a furry can avoid the many well known facts of WWI in the middle east.
On the other hand, if you are as dumb as a furry you can talk about the Jews war on the Scots and damn them for it because Judea was part of the Roman empire when it was fighting the Scots. Only the Scots come to mind but the Jews were responsible in every Roman war after annexation by furry, fuzzy reasoning.
Just I do not strain knowledge of history, Israel claims to be an ally of the US. Therefore Israel was an ally in the conquest of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan and those were voluntary rather than the Ottoman and Roman examples. Therefore Israel is as lawful a target as the US for any vengeance strikes.
But I forgot. Israel can do no wrong under jewish law.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yup. Noticed I don't respond to him anymore?
Says the holier-than-thou zealot.
By the way, no one cares if you respond to me; you avoid questions and post misgivings based on very limited truths if not outright lies anyway.
Don't you get it? The only one impressed with you is YOURSELF.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Yup. Noticed I don't respond to him anymore?Says the holier-than-thou zealot.
By the way, no one cares if you respond to me; you avoid questions and post misgivings based on very limited truths if not outright lies anyway.
I don't avoid questions in the least. There are simply too many of y'all responding to =me= for =me= to respond to all of =you=.
If you really want me to respond, pay me the money I'd otherwise be making doing what I do the rest of the time. Otherwise, be content with the time I do have to respond.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline Sage_Override wrote:*eyes begin to strain*
After carefully looking at the majority of the posts in this thread, most of them by Nony, I can only have the following expression:
Buf if you fucked with your big head it would be full of brain.
Think about it.
Nice picture, exactly what I think when either side pulls the "poor me" crap on a planet of 7 billion.
In group
Out group
Virtue of the oppressed
The only thing I see that do
Is leave humanity in a mess.
You two can fight over your sandbox and piss all over each other if you want.
You are just as fucking dense as she is in picking an arbitrary point in history and saying "MINE MINE MINE ME ME ME ME ME"
Nothing lasts forever and all our species has is now, not the past. You two can continue advocating violence towards each other over labels, boarders, call it secular or religious, call it tradition, call it noble, call it loyalty to your own, whatever. All I see is humans killing humans.
Keep flinging your poo at each other. Both of you suffer the stupid blind loyalty crap.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Please tell me what exactly what those evils are and why they are "evil". Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war as you will recall.
I said "may have asked" for a reason. I didn't think you had actually asked her to. In addition, my point was that people on both sides have done bad things.
If indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war, then it is legitimate for both sides.
War ruins countries, tears apart families, and destroys people's lives. I consider those things to be "evil". However, I probably shouldn't have used the word "evil"; it is not specific enough.
- Login to post comments
Offline Otherwise, be content with the time I do have to respond.
Oh, THANK YOU, oh THANK YOU for gracing us with your valuable time by being devoid of rational thinking and straw man tactics; helps keep me on the right path to doing the exact opposite of what you do.
Your posts reek of smugness unmatched by most. If you get a sense of self worth by convincing yourself that you contribute anything but toxic double talk, convoluted views, horse-blinder fact finding and self-centered babble, then hey, have a field day.
As for me, I'm going to bow out and not respond to ANYTHING you post from now on.
Be content for the times I DID respond.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Please tell me what exactly what those evils are and why they are "evil". Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war as you will recall.
I said "may have asked" for a reason. I didn't think you had actually asked her to. In addition, my point was that people on both sides have done bad things.
If indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war, then it is legitimate for both sides.
War ruins countries, tears apart families, and destroys people's lives. I consider those things to be "evil". However, I probably shouldn't have used the word "evil"; it is not specific enough.
BINGO again.
Noony has no problem with supporting blowing up buses that kill unarmed people, just like Furry has no problem supporting Israeli Jets bombing unarmed schools.
And as long as both sides teach their young that killing the enemy is a good thing, and ignore the fact that kids cannot understand adult beefs, they will each continue murder and call it noble.
As long as humans seek power through force, our common suffering will be lost on the unfortunate downside of our evolution in striving to be the alpha male at all costs, even at the cost of the innocent.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Otherwise, be content with the time I do have to respond.Oh, THANK YOU, oh THANK YOU for gracing us with your valuable time by being devoid of rational thinking and straw man tactics; helps keep me on the right path to doing the exact opposite of what you do.
I'm not the one being a demanding ass-hat.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Well, if you're done talking with A_Nony_Mouse it'd be great if you could address the questions and points brought up by myself, Cpt. Pineapple and Brian37 that you haven't gotten to yet.
In addition, I have a question for anyone who wishes to answer: what is it about this issue that makes everyone so emotional?
Also, it seems that strong emotions are what's preventing this problem from being solved in the first place.
Please point out to me where I ever claimed that Jews could not be bigots or have nuts in their bunches as well, Any Jew willing to damage an ice cream shop because they think licking ice cream in public is sexual is a sick fuck. Any Jew willing to deface a billboard because of women with exposed shoulders is a sick fuck. And the Jew in that picture with a Muslim in cross hairs DOES NOT shock me either and that Jew is a sick fuck as well.
I agree that I think Furry is in denial of stuff like that.
BUT you yourself are not helping your own cause by being a bigot yourself. You post a picture of a Jew with a bigoted t-shirt but you yourself would have a t-shirt with cross hairs on Jews. If your hypocrisy were any thicker it would make a septic tank smell like roses.
Guilt by association is bullshit. Whatever denial Furry may be in, does not mean all Jews do that anymore than all Palestinians hate all Jews.
How about YOU treating humans as individuals. How about you not lowering yourselves to the bigotry you rightfully pointed out with that picture of that Jew.
Right after 9/11 in 01 that fear and bigotry toward's Muslims got a Sikh muderderd because some dip shit mistook him for a Muslim.
Your us vs them mentality will harm innocent people no matter how fucking justified you think you are.
I don't think you would have the guts to face the family of a dead Jew and say "they deserved it", anymore than I think Isreali's leaders have the guts to face dead Muslims and dead Palestinians and say "they deserved it".
A human is a human is a human is a human. A dead Muslim is a dead Muslim. A dead Jew is a dead Jew. A dead atheist is a dead atheist. Death doesn't give one fuck how a human dies, or what their race or politics are. Death is final. Maybe if both sides would get that through their fucking heads, you'd both have the peace you say you want.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Those pictures of Jewish kids signing missiles is SICK. But how about the Palestinian Muslim kids burring flags and carrying weapons?
Please tell me what a kid could possibly know about adult traditions and adult religion and adult war, other than what the parents teach them?
All the kids on either side know or can possibly know is that they see death around them. They get sold the tribalism of the culture they live in by the parents.
If the kids were NOT indoctrinated blindly into the adult beefs, those kids would not be doing that.
Perfect example.
I have no doubt if these kids were part of a university experiment stripped of tribal cloths, wearing only generic cloths, stuck in a neutral room at a young age, before they could even speak, what you would see, is that they would get along and form their own likes and dislikes and like or dislike other kids without adult tribalism.
This natural socializing happens without adult influences. In secular public schools or even in pluralistic day care centers, kids will become friends, or form clicks and their own social structure without adult influence. Which proves that humans can get along.
My point is that HATE is taught, tribalism is taught, bigotry is taught. So when you rightfully point out the mental abuse of those Israeli kids, be consistent when you see a Muslim kid with an A-K 47.
If there were no adults selling labels and traditions and abusing the kids on both sides by selling absolutes, those Jewish kids would not be doing that, and the Palestinian kids wouldn't be holding weapons either.
How about both you and she get your respective sides to put humans first and kids first and skip the fucking labels.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Let me tell you what's sick --
A couple of years back, during the war between Hezbollah/Syria and Israel, with Lebanon being drug along for the ride, I've got a Jewish friend who's neighbor's house was destroyed in a rocket attack, and another neighbor (here) who's mother lives in Southern Lebanon and has had Israeli shells falling all around her. Meanwhile, I've made plans to go to Israel for Passover, but I can't stay with the family I'd planned to stay with because they are using their bomb shelter as a bomb shelter, instead of a guest bedroom.
So, I've got a close friend -- a guy I worked with before he moved his family back to Israel -- who barely missed being blown up by a rocket, a couple two houses over from me whose mother is being shelled by the same people trying to keep my friend from being blown up, and yet another friend whose family is sleeping in a bomb shelter.
Two years ago the guy who helps me with marketing -- I don't have the revenue to pay someone, so I've got a guy who donates time with the promise that someday he might get equity -- wants me to go to Baghdad for a business thing that's going on over there. The couple two houses over has family in Iraq as well, and I'm trying to figure out if I can afford the trip when I find out that the wife's family is having to deal with the violence, and oh -- I find out that this Iraqi doctor I've been friends with, he can't help because his family is mostly Sunni and seems to have this idea that maybe he'd be better of dead because he a Shi'a.
I don't have bombs and rockets falling all around me, but I live with this nonsense. I don't need some whacko lecturing me about what's going on there because it affects people I care very much about on both sides of the conflict.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
You are in denial. so if you will not listen to Noony, how about me?
I am quite sure that picture of that Jew with the Muslim in the Cross hairs is REAL. Just like in America WE have fundy nuts who hate niggers and fagots. Please do not lie to me and say Jews cannot be bigots. You are not a bigot yourself, but I would never allow my kid to sign a missile like those in the picture above. Nor would I allow my kid to burn a Jewish flag and hold an A-K 47 and teach them to shout "kill jews".
We pulled stories off the internet about JEWS destroying the property of other Jews because they hated licking ice cream in public and wanted it banned. If you are going to bury your head in the sand and falsely pretend that a label precudes you from doing what humans have always done, you are lending that wacko fuel.
NEITHER of you will address my question.
How can a child's brain process adult issues? How can a child, other than what the parent teaches them, formulate their own thoughts about adult topics?
The truth is there is no such thing as a Jewish kid, or Muslim kid or atheist kid. There are just humans who fuck and make kids. Then those humans raise those kids in the environments they are used to.
There is no way this conflict would exist if the adult beefs, adult politics, and adult traditions were not passed on d to the kids of either side.
I western cultures outside that region such as Canada, UK and Europe, their is an increase of younger generations who are taught to treat others as individuals. What is taught to the children in that region is tribalism and adult crap that infects minds that cannot possibly process adult issues.
I think it is sick that anyone in our species think's it is ok to teach a kid blind loyalty. There ARE bigots in every culture. As much as I love my x-wife, Japanese, will only like you as a friend. It is very hard as a non-Japanese to be part of their culture or marry into their families. I love their culture, but they suffer the human evolutionary flaw our species collectively unfortunately defaults to.
WHY because of the same sense of superiority you are in denial of. That JEW had a t-shirt which advocated murder solely based on a label and implied all Muslims should be murdered. My suggestion to you is to not ignore that. No one is accusing you of wanting part of it, except maybe Noony. But if you ignore it to me that willful ignorance wont help you.
And again, Noony, in supporting Palestine was inconsistent himself by not posting pictures of Palestinian kids with weapons or burning Jewish flags. I think he is just as guilty as you in ignoring the bigotry on his side.
LOOK at it as a human issue, not a label issue.
If it is not ok to teach a kid to use violence as a form of problem solving, then be consistent. War is bad enough, but that t-shirt and those kids signing those bombs is sick. Face and deal with it and stop pretending your label makes eveyrone in that label perfect. Otherwise why do you accept that Beyond and I can have different economic views even though we are both atheists?
BECAUSE BEFORE WE ARE ATHEISTS, WE ARE HUMANS FIRST, and since humans can be different, bigotry can exist everywhere in every country
Jews CAN BE BIGOTS, why? Not because they are Jews, but because they are human.
Bigotry is merely a very shallow anthropomorphism of the natural evolutionary strive to be the alpha male. I'd say anyone with a t-shirt, with a Muslim in their cross hairs, DOES feel superior to Muslims. I'd say the same if it were a Muslim with a t-Shirt advocating the murder of Jews. THE BOTH DO IT, because they are HUMAN,
Right as WW2 ended, because of the bigotry the Japanese Empire sold to them, many Japanese people committed suicide because they were falsely taught that the Americans would rape them and enslave them. But conversely, many decent Japanese people were put in prison camps during the war, for no other reason than the fear and bigotry of Americans.
The difference is I don't ignore the ugly side of what humans do, even if it falls under the word "America" or "atheist". Blind loyalty has been a cluster fuck to both sides based on ancient tribalism and myth.
If you want to ignore the nuts and bigots in Israel and pretend they dont or cant exist, you also, are unfortunately doing what evolution has produced as well, ignorance.
Fuck Noony, do something for yourself, for Israel, and humanity in general, open your eyes and see individuals as such. I am not asking you to listen to him, listen to me. I don't see much hope for him, but you I do.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I agree completely with Brian on this one. Even if you can prove that the fault lies entirely with one side, I doubt that side would accept it. Unless BOTH sides admit fault and/or agree to make concessions each perceives as having equal value, the conflict will not end.
Furry, if you have people you care about on both sides of the conflict then you have a vested interest in ending this conflict. What plan of action do you think is most likely to succeed? (sorry for the emphasis, I just want to hear your ideas on a solution you think both sides will accept)
In addition, most people only propose a plan if they think that plan is justified. No matter how stupid you may think a plan is, it would be wise remember that the person proposing it thought it was a good idea. In other words, attack them for being ignorant, not for being evil.
Brian,
I do see individuals as such. My problem is that I'm a cynic. I don't see through rose colored glasses, I see the world I live in. Not the good world, not the bad world, just the real world.
The real world is that many Palestinians have been told for years that the Jews are the source of all their problems. Arafat (y"s) stole =billions= from the Palestinian people. Hamas murdered anyone they thought might be trying to come up with a peaceful solution to their problems with Israel. Brainwashing Palestinian people to hate Israel is in their TEXTBOOKS.
I can't ignore that. Sorry -- just can't pretend those things aren't happening.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
It's all ego, here on these forums and in the "holy lands"
The only one who may have asked you to ignore the evil Palestinians do is A_Nony_Mouse.
The deaths due to Israeli bombs and the second-class treatment due to the Israeli government will only lend credence to what is in their textbooks.
Just like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and subsequent deaths of many Muslims will lend credence to Muslim terrorists' claim that the United States hates Islam and wants to destroy non-Western cultures.
Technically, that would make you a realist, not a cynic. I think there is an important distinction: a cynic looks at a problem and says it will never be solved--people just suck; a realist looks at a problem and says it will be quite difficult to solve--people are complex.
That's easy. Survival is at stake. Both now and for future generations. All part of what Dawkins calls The Greatest Show On Earth. Mix in all the misunderstanding of situation fueled by religion, this is what you get.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Well, this =is= a thread about a conflict between he and I. Go figure that my responses might be geared that way ...
The deaths due to Israeli bombs and the second-class treatment due to the Israeli government will only lend credence to what is in their textbooks.
And that would be a grossly inaccurate interpretation of what is going on. The Palestinian government is very good at removing the history from the events that have happened. It really is the case that Palestinian Arabs sided with "the bad guys" in both WWI and WWII. That Hitler would have gone from murdering Jews to murdering Arabs without missing a beat is irrelevant -- the closest thing to a Palestinian leader at the time of WWII didn't conceal, in the least, his support of Hitler's "Final Solution". That should be at least some kind of starting point.
They believed that =before= the current conflicts. The animosity between the Muslim world and the West is far more complex than "We attacked Iraq and Afghanistan." Spend some time talking to people in those countries -- it's an extremely complex issue, made all the more complex by the realities of war.
No, a cynic is a person who believes that people are primarily motivated by self-interest or selfishness. That seems pretty close to the mark -- most people don't know the difference between "self-interest" and "enlightened self-interest", and very few people are altruistic enough in nature to make a difference. The result is that various systems wind up broken because people can't see past the end of their nose or the end of the current financial quarter. See The Tragedy of the Commons for an example.
I see this type of behavior all the time -- people who think they can get away with something that is ultimately harmful, all the while forgetting that if everyone made the same decision the negative consequences =will= happen.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."