Maybe, maybe not. I believe certain species of chimpanzees are starting to beat each other with sticks.
Oh I think man has warred since we picked up sticks. It has only been documented since the rise of written legal systems and city-states.You really think we waited that long?
We've probably been warring since our primitive ancestors were living in trees.
|
We're at ideological loggerheads here, samwise. I think that people can live together productively without overly legalistic systems and hierarchies. I don't want to take the reins of power. I want to see the whole concept of rei(g)ns of power overturned and abrogated. People can live together without having to dominate each other. Granted, you may tell me that history doesn't illustrate this very well, but our history is pathological anyway.
No, I am just going to point out the inevitable hypocrisy of that claim when your desire comes into conflict with people who do want a structured society.
If you do not want such, whatever, thrill yourself.That you insist on preventing other people from having it requires that you do seize power and inflict your will on others despite their wishes, and despite your pretenses of idealism.
I don't think anyone who has a clearly defined ideology is going to be swayed one way or the other by arguments that anyone makes in an internet forum.
That is never the goal of a "debate".
You are never trying to convert your opponent, you are presenting a case to observers so that they may make an informed choice.I do not care if you never see reason, beyond not wanting you to indulge yourself in the destruction of the social structure of the society I am part.
I care about those who might be deceived by your rhetoric into self-destruction.
|
We've probably been warring since our primitive ancestors were living in trees.Since two protozoa ate a third protozoa from opposite sides.
Rule #6 of International Affairs Enjoy ;p
|
|
Well, where I grew up if you decided to throw a snowball at the bully, it was generally understood that you shouldn't cry when he beats the snot out of you.
"I have a couple of primitive rockets that haven't really been effective in getting what I want... Israel has a full blown military that they have just been waiting to use on me... I think I should launch these rockets at Israel!"
Later:
"Help! Help! Israel's beating me up! Help!"
A more accurate comparison would be the bully beating you up because a person you happen to live in the street with threw a snowball at them.
|
|
Moving forward using all my breath
Making love to you was never second best
I saw the world crashing all around your face
Never really knowing it was always mesh and laceI'll stop the world and melt with you
You've seen the difference and it's getting better all the time
And there's nothing you and I won't do
I'll stop the world and melt with you(We should know better) Dream of better lives the kind which never hate
(We should see) Trapped in a state of imaginary grace
(We should know better) I made a pilgrimage to save this human's race
(We should see) Never comprehending a race that's long gone by(Let's stop the world) I'll stop the world and melt with you
(Let's stop the world) You've seen the difference and it's getting better all the time
And there's nothing you and I won't do
(Let's stop the world) I'll stop the world and melt with youThe future's open wide
I'll stop the world and melt with you
(I'll stop the world) You've seen some changes and it's getting better all the time
And there's nothing you and I won't do
(I'll stop the world) I'll stop the world and melt with youThe future's open wide
hmmm hmmm hmmm
hmmm hmmm hmmm hmmm
hmmm hmmm hmmm
hmmm hmmm hmmm hmmmI'll stop the world and melt with you
(I'll stop the world) You've seen the difference and it's getting better all the time
And there's nothing you and I won't do
(I'll stop the world) I'll stop the world and melt with youI'll stop the world and melt with you (I'll stop the world and melt with you)
I'll stop the world and melt with you (I'll stop the world and melt with you)
Modern English. I always thought this song was about hamburgers, for some reason...
We're at ideological loggerheads here, samwise. I think that people can live together productively without overly legalistic systems and hierarchies. I don't want to take the reins of power. I want to see the whole concept of rei(g)ns of power overturned and abrogated. People can live together without having to dominate each other. Granted, you may tell me that history doesn't illustrate this very well, but our history is pathological anyway.No, I am just going to point out the inevitable hypocrisy of that claim when your desire comes into conflict with people who do want a structured society.
If you do not want such, whatever, thrill yourself.
That you insist on preventing other people from having it requires that you do seize power and inflict your will on others despite their wishes, and despite your pretenses of idealism.I don't think anyone who has a clearly defined ideology is going to be swayed one way or the other by arguments that anyone makes in an internet forum.That is never the goal of a "debate".
You are never trying to convert your opponent, you are presenting a case to observers so that they may make an informed choice.I do not care if you never see reason, beyond not wanting you to indulge yourself in the destruction of the social structure of the society I am part.
I care about those who might be deceived by your rhetoric into self-destruction.
Apologies to you, sir.
Shutting up to you now.
Modern English. I always thought this song was about hamburgers, for some reason...
OH MY GOD! What kind of monster are you to eat another living creature? Meat=Murder. Try some yummy tofu instead. Fight your primitive urges! You can do it, I believe in you!
|
Modern English. I always thought this song was about hamburgers, for some reason...OH MY GOD! What kind of monster are you to eat another living creature? Meat=Murder. Try some yummy tofu instead. Fight your primitive urges! You can do it, I believe in you!
Meat = Food
Vegetarian = someone who can't hunt
Modern English. I always thought this song was about hamburgers, for some reason...OH MY GOD! What kind of monster are you to eat another living creature? Meat=Murder. Try some yummy tofu instead. Fight your primitive urges! You can do it, I believe in you!Meat = Food
Vegetarian = someone who can't hunt
Oh, you poor dear. You've been corrupted. You're thinking like a...a...hunter. Don't worry, though. I'll send some good karma your way, some positive waves, and maybe some shrooms. You'll feel groovy in no time.
Oh, you poor dear. You've been corrupted. You're thinking like a...a...hunter. Don't worry, though. I'll send some good karma your way, some positive waves, and maybe some shrooms. You'll feel groovy in no time.Modern English. I always thought this song was about hamburgers, for some reason...OH MY GOD! What kind of monster are you to eat another living creature? Meat=Murder. Try some yummy tofu instead. Fight your primitive urges! You can do it, I believe in you!Meat = Food
Vegetarian = someone who can't hunt
Could you give us your opinion of George W. Bush?
|
Modern English. I always thought this song was about hamburgers, for some reason...OH MY GOD! What kind of monster are you to eat another living creature? Meat=Murder. Try some yummy tofu instead. Fight your primitive urges! You can do it, I believe in you!
If meat is murder than murder tastes good.
|
|
Modern English. I always thought this song was about hamburgers, for some reason...OH MY GOD! What kind of monster are you to eat another living creature? Meat=Murder. Try some yummy tofu instead. Fight your primitive urges! You can do it, I believe in you!
Question: Why are something on the order of 75% of all tofu recipies trying to emulate meat?
Just curious ;)
A more accurate comparison would be the bully beating you up because a person you happen to live in the street with threw a snowball at them.Well, where I grew up if you decided to throw a snowball at the bully, it was generally understood that you shouldn't cry when he beats the snot out of you.
"I have a couple of primitive rockets that haven't really been effective in getting what I want... Israel has a full blown military that they have just been waiting to use on me... I think I should launch these rockets at Israel!"
Later:
"Help! Help! Israel's beating me up! Help!"
Maybe if we are talking about the whole of gaza... but they did elect the guy launching the snowball, and they didn't exactly complain about him doing it either.
Question: Why are something on the order of 75% of all tofu recipies trying to emulate meat?
I can cook some seriously good Dofu and I've never tried to disguise it as meat. But then I do live in China.
Tofurkey, NOOOOooooooooo!
|
|
Maybe if we are talking about the whole of gaza... but they did elect the guy launching the snowball, and they didn't exactly complain about him doing it either.
Indeed they did not.
However, the story properly goes as follows:
In 1958, just after the Suez Crisis, an Englishman, a Frenchman, and an Israeli Jew are walking in the Negev in the south of Israel. They are jumped by two Arabs with knives who tell them they are going to kill them for being imperialist warmongerers.
The Englishman gets a stiff upper lip, throws his chest out, and proudly declares "G-- save the Queen!"
The Frenchman strikes a pose, takes a last drag on his cigarette, and declaims "Vive la France!"
The Israeli looks at the Arab and says "Before you cut my throat, punch me and knock me to the ground."
The two Arabs look at each other, smile, and gleefully comply.
The Israeli looks up and them and says "Not kick me, stomp me!"
The Arabs again go at with joy until the Israeli is lying there, his clothes torn, his body covered in blood.
The Arabs ask "Now what? What do you want us to do next?"
The Israeli says "Just die" as he pulls out a gun and shoots them both.
The Englishman and Frenchman help his to his feet. As they do, the Englishman asks "I say old chap, if you had that gun why didn't you just use it?" The Frenchman nods and adds "Indeed mon amis, why did you have them beat you like that if you could have killed them at any time?"
The Israeli, still bleeding from the beating the Arabs gave him, looks at them and responds, "If I had, I would have been accused of being the aggressor."
Of course it was a lot funnier before the UN realized they could accuse him of war crimes anyway, but what can you do?
Maybe if we are talking about the whole of gaza... but they did elect the guy launching the snowball, and they didn't exactly complain about him doing it either.Indeed they did not.
However, the story properly goes as follows:
In 1958, just after the Suez Crisis, an Englishman, a Frenchman, and an Israeli Jew are walking in the Negev in the south of Israel. They are jumped by two Arabs with knives who tell them they are going to kill them for being imperialist warmongerers.
The Englishman gets a stiff upper lip, throws his chest out, and proudly declares "G-- save the Queen!"
The Frenchman strikes a pose, takes a last drag on his cigarette, and declaims "Vive la France!"
The Israeli looks at the Arab and says "Before you cut my throat, punch me and knock me to the ground."
The two Arabs look at each other, smile, and gleefully comply.
The Israeli looks up and them and says "Not kick me, stomp me!"
The Arabs again go at with joy until the Israeli is lying there, his clothes torn, his body covered in blood.
The Arabs ask "Now what? What do you want us to do next?"
The Israeli says "Just die" as he pulls out a gun and shoots them both.
The Englishman and Frenchman help his to his feet. As they do, the Englishman asks "I say old chap, if you had that gun why didn't you just use it?" The Frenchman nods and adds "Indeed mon amis, why did you have them beat you like that if you could have killed them at any time?"
The Israeli, still bleeding from the beating the Arabs gave him, looks at them and responds, "If I had, I would have been accused of being the aggressor."Of course it was a lot funnier before the UN realized they could accuse him of war crimes anyway, but what can you do?
So the moral of the story is that the Israeli is a cunning strategist who encourages violence against himself so that he can kill not so much with a clean conscience, but without legal retribution?
In your story, I realize, it is the Arabs who started the fight. Yet the Arabs also imply that the three gentlemen walking down the street had it coming (you know, that bit about "they are going to kill them for being imperialist warmongerers.") So which side is right? Who's guilty?
And we're back to square one.
|
|
So the moral of the story is that the Israeli is a cunning strategist who encourages violence against himself so that he can kill not so much with a clean conscience, but without legal retribution?
If that is the moral you take from it, then that is what you take from it.
More rational people would read it and see that for the Israeli, the system of justice has been corrupted, and the threat of murder with immediate threat of carrying it out is not enough to justify self-defense, he must actually have his blood shed before he is to be allowed a right others take for granted.In your story, I realize, it is the Arabs who started the fight. Yet the Arabs also imply that the three gentlemen walking down the street had it coming (you know, that bit about "they are going to kill them for being imperialist warmongerers.") So which side is right? Who's guilty?
And we're back to square one.
You realize but you do not care.
Or you care, but feel the accusation without any evidence constitutes proof and justifies murder.No, we are not back to square one. You have demonstrated clearly for everyone how willing, indeed eager, you are to justify terrorism.
Regardless of which square you stand in, attacking anyone that full out has every advantage possible is just stupid, especially if by not attacking you can gain more time to prepare better.
Regardless of which square you stand in, attacking anyone that full out has every advantage possible is just stupid, especially if by not attacking you can gain more time to prepare better.
It makes good sense in today's media-saturated world where pictures of crying Palestinian women and children can be used to illustrate the hard-heartedness of the Israeli forces. Hamas knows it can't win in a stand up fight. It doesn't need to. If it can convince the world that it is the oppressed party it will win. If Israel's allies abandoned it the Arab nations that surround it would once again try to wipe it off the face of the earth. This particular battle's real focus is the battlefield of world opinion. Judging from the coverage, Hamas is doing well.
The sad part is this battle is also a great recruiting tool for Hamas. A Palestinian who is trying to just live and let live who has a family member killed in the battle is no longer going to be neutral. He is now a defacto Hamas supporter. Children watching the Israelis storm their neighborhoods will grow to resent and hate them, just as their fathers did. Of course the opposite also applies to the Israeli who has a family member die from a Hamas rocket. The cycle of violence will whirl on and on, most likely until someone comes up with a good substitute for oil and all the slush funds for Hamas dry up.
Now I understand that the Israelis aren't innocents, but if Hamas would simply ADMIT that just MAYBE Israel deserves to exist, much of this unnecesary bloodshed could be avoided. Somehow I doubt they will.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Regardless of which square you stand in, attacking anyone that full out has every advantage possible is just stupid, especially if by not attacking you can gain more time to prepare better.The sad part is this battle is also a great recruiting tool for Hamas. A Palestinian who is trying to just live and let live who has a family member killed in the battle is no longer going to be neutral. He is now a defacto Hamas supporter. Children watching the Israelis storm their neighborhoods will grow to resent and hate them, just as their fathers did. Of course the opposite also applies to the Israeli who has a family member die from a Hamas rocket. The cycle of violence will whirl on and on, most likely until someone comes up with a good substitute for oil and all the slush funds for Hamas dry up.
Now I understand that the Israelis aren't innocents, but if Hamas would simply ADMIT that just MAYBE Israel deserves to exist, much of this unnecesary bloodshed could be avoided. Somehow I doubt they will.
There's always hope that some Palestinians are buying a clue on who the cause of their misery is.
I just play one on the TV in my head.Yes, but did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
If by Holiday Inn Express you mean strapped to a table being sponged down and electroshocked all night until the men/hotel staff in white suits succeeded in driving the demons from me... then yes, I had a great room with a complimentary minibar.
If that is the moral you take from it, then that is what you take from it.
More rational people would read it and see that for the Israeli, the system of justice has been corrupted, and the threat of murder with immediate threat of carrying it out is not enough to justify self-defense, he must actually have his blood shed before he is to be allowed a right others take for granted.
Oh. Well, I never claimed to be rational. Especially not on the level of cold, hard logic that you operate with. Yes, yes. I know. I'm a hysterical leftist wacko with no concept of order. We've established that. Smack my other cheek now.
You realize but you do not care.
No, I do care. You and I are looking at the same situation with vastly different perspectives. I don't like to see people suffering any more than you do. Yes, my irrational sympathies tend to lie with those who are at the receiving end of terror attacks. That you cannot see or refuse to see that Israel is guilty of state terror, well, I can do nothing about that. Now I also realize that I am stupid and have bought into liberal media propaganda in regards to that statement. Look, I will be the first to admit that I gravitate towards liberal media. There is a reason for that. It is that the media in the mainstream of the United States is simply a tool of corporations and government, and is very biased in its reporting. Yes, yes, I realize I am feeding the cartoons of myself here. So be it.
Or you care, but feel the accusation without any evidence constitutes proof and justifies murder.
I mentioned early on in this thread Israel's use of cluster bombs against civilians. You spit on this. Yet at the same time you make the pretense of asking me for evidence. Will you even consider such evidence? You have already demonstrated your contempt for the UN.
Cluster bombs, DU, and White Phosphorus being used in Gaza
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=163334&am p;bolum=104
white phosphorous
UN headquarters in Gaza hit by white phosphorous shells
Look, I am more than willing to be grateful to you for presenting the Israeli side of this conflict to me. You clearly have a knowledge of history. Presented with knowledge and civility, I can be a good, receptive student, but I don't appreciate being treated like a fool. Your contempt of me does little to further your agenda.
Meh. Say what you will of America, but we have never allowed religious elements to control the apparatus of the state
We haven't? But we did get pretty close this last time, right? The glorious years at the beginning of the 21st century? That was pretty theocratic of us. And theatrical. In a bad, B-movie kind of way.
|
|
Meh. Say what you will of America, but we have never allowed religious elements to control the apparatus of the stateWe haven't? But we did get pretty close this last time, right? The glorious years at the beginning of the 21st century? That was pretty theocratic of us. And theatrical. In a bad, B-movie kind of way.
Actually I would have to say that we didn't really come all that close. There have been a lot of presidents that were much more religious and religiously influnced than George W. Bush. Calvin Cooledge for instance. President Zachery Taylor was so religious that he refused to break the Sabbath even for his own innaguration and so David Rice Atchison had to be sworn in as president for one day to fill the void.
Meh. Say what you will of America, but we have never allowed religious elements to control the apparatus of the stateWe haven't? But we did get pretty close this last time, right? The glorious years at the beginning of the 21st century? That was pretty theocratic of us. And theatrical. In a bad, B-movie kind of way.
Why, because Bush was a religious man? I don't recall the state being ran by religion during Bush's two terms. You're seeing something that I'm not seeing.
|
|
[You and I are looking at the same situation with vastly different perspectives. I don't like to see people suffering any more than you do. Yes, my irrational sympathies tend to lie with those who are at the receiving end of terror attacks. That you cannot see or refuse to see that Israel is guilty of state terror, well, I can do nothing about that. Now I also realize that I am stupid and have bought into liberal media propaganda in regards to that statement. Look, I will be the first to admit that I gravitate towards liberal media. There is a reason for that. It is that the media in the mainstream of the United States is simply a tool of corporations and government, and is very biased in its reporting. Yes, yes, I realize I am feeding the cartoons of myself here. So be it.
Out of curiosity, what is your view of the rocket atacks on Israel? Is that terrorism or not?
Just to clarify, I consider that Israel is a country formed out of ethnic cleansing (atrocities were perpetuated against Palestinian Arabs in the 40s to get them out of the way - interestingly, Israel never condemned the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (as was)) and terrorism (British soldiers of the Palestinain protectorate, for example, were murdered - or rumoured to have been - by people who ended up as Israeli Prime Minister). On the other hand, Israel has been there for the last 60 years and is one of the few genuinely democratic states in the Middle East (most are pretty grubby dictatorships, and even Arafat fell into that mould of Arab kleptocrat/dictator when he was in charge of the Palestinian Authority, which then led to the rise of Hamas as a political force due to his corruption and lack of interest in the common Palestinian).
On that basis, I tend to gravitate towards the Israeli side since at least they have a democracy, and it is hard to really just sit there while people lob missiles at your citizens. Hamas seems to display the same callous disregard for its citizens and for democracy (it staged a coup to gain control of Gaza, after all) as every other Arab regime one can see. What I have never really understood is why it is OK for muslims to kill muslims (I imagine that Saddam killed many more than Israel and over a shorter period, and he is just one of the more gratuitously unpleasant Arab dicatators) but not for anyone else to do so. Should we be so quick to condemn Israel without considering how the local regimes treat their own citizens? What evidence do we have that Hamas is an enlightened, democratic force, as opposed to a repressive, religious regime with little interest in anything other than its own power-base.
Problem you come into is who gets the prior claim?Take Israel, for instance. Who actually has occupied the territory since time immemorial? Who can claim to be indigenous? Is it the Arabs? Most of them migrated over post-Muhammed.
I don't think we really know when and were the Palestinians come from. I've seen two major schools of argument on this. One set of beliefs is that the population more or less moved in after Trajan's Legions totaled the place and the Jewish Dispora significantly depopulated the area. If so this likely occurred prior to the Arab conquest of the region after the 7th century and presumably consisted of peoples living in neighboring regions the area moving onto the now to a greater or lesser degree (and I doubt anyone knows what degree exactly) abandoned land.
Another school of thought on the topic is that the Palestinians pretty much are the descendent's of the historical Jewish population in the area who were some what depopulated by the Dispora but recovered, demographically speaking, in later centuries.
Certainly we know that tribal groups moved out of the Arabian Peninsula in later centuries, especially during the 7th and 11th centuries but we have little evidence that they completely replaced the existing populations. In fact the evidence is more the reverse, in places where they did tend to write things down, such as Egypt, we know that the arriving immigrants were largely incorporated into the existing population. This helped lead to a break down of the Caliphate into centres of power that were largely (but not completely exclusively - Seljuk and Ottoman Turks being a great counter example) based on older centres of power. Hence Algeria and Egypt and Persia soon reasserted themselves as significant independent centres of power based on the strength of their historic geographic and demographic circumstances.
|
|
You know, the issue is somewhat moot. If someone came up to me and told me to clear off from my house because his ancestors (maybe) lived there 200 years ago, and then shot my wife to prove a point, I would be really pissed off even though I have only lived here two years. Those issues are irrelevant - we are where we are, and have to deal with the issues of today, not several centuries ago or even 60 years ago.
Arguably, the Israelis have a stronger claim to the land since no one contests that fact that they were there as far back as the Empire of Alexander the Great and were granted rights to the land by Darius I of Persia. The Palastinian claims to the land only extend as far back as the Seljuk and Ottoman conquests in the 1300s and 1400s. Therefore, by your own logic, the Israeli people have a better claim to the land that is currently in dispute then the Palastinians do, because they have the earlier claim.
I'll disagree with this based on the idea that at some point ones claim runs out. Exactly when is open for dispute but even the Arab world, mostly, does not got really hot and bothered about the loss of southern Spain 500 years ago. Beyond this my feeling is if the descendent's of the Jewish Dispora want to take up claims for redress based on historic wrongs shouldn't they be taking that up with Italy? It would make more sense if they had demanded half of Sicily as a homeland, or if we want to redress the crimes of the Holocaust then maybe they should have been given Saxony.
That's because there are certain individuals on both sides who don't want the conflict to end. My grandfather used to say that if you follow the money, you find the source of the problem. In the case of Hamas the money leads back to Iran. Ask yourself, what does Iran gain by Hamas provoking a conflict with Israel? Whether you agree with Israel's policies or not, you must admit that firing rockets into Israel, and using civilian facilities to house the missile bases in was an action designed to provoke a conflict. I suggest that this was designed by Iran to do three things, 1) drive up oil prices, which it has so far failed to do; 2) give the world wide media outlets something to focus on other than Iran's apparent nuclear program, and 3) distract from the security gains being made in Iraq.Personally I really don't see much point talking about this both groups are in the wrong and neither want to compromise. In fact I'm willing to bet that even if the Israeli army pulled out tomorrow In a few months/years time the exact same thing would be happening all over again
The problem with this thesis, or at least its justifications, is that the Iranians have been supporting the Palestinians for far longer then Iran has had a nuclear program or that America has been in Iraq.
That said I somewhat agree with your idea that the politicians in the Arab world support Palestinian ambitions for reasons based around economics and power. Essentially its nearly impossible to maintain ones position as a member of the economic and political elite in any of these nations without at least mouthing support for the Palestinian cause. Even in a dictatorship (and Iran is not a dictatorship) one needs the backing of a very significant chunk of the population to maintain ones rule, especially over the long term.
Since the general population of the Arab world is pretty much universally pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli their leaders need to be as well or they risk not being the leaders of their respective states for very long.
In fact in many of these states the government attempts to tread a fine line between appeasing as many of their people as possible by mouthing support for the Palestinians while using force (riot police etc.) to break up pro-Palestinian demonstrations that have become to large and threaten the status quo, a status quo that keeps them in the halls of power.
Why, because Bush was a religious man? I don't recall the state being ran by religion during Bush's two terms. You're seeing something that I'm not seeing.
I must be. Wait, what? You didn't see that? You didn't see the rise of uber-nationalism and quasi-Christian patriotism that just happened? All those "War on Terror" speeches and that "you're either with us or against us?" claptrap? You saw that. Surely you did. I know I haven't just been hallucinating for the past eight years.
Granted, it's perhaps more subtle in the States, but the religious fundamentalism and fanaticism is certainly present. That righteous anger, that indignation, and that conviction that the country can do no wrong, and that any military campaign is justified because we are "the good guys." Sure, some of that comes out of just blind patriotism, but Bush & co. also tapped some religious sentiments to bolster the nationalism.
Am I the only one on these boards who saw that?
Out of curiosity, what is your view of the rocket atacks on Israel? Is that terrorism or not?
My opinion on this is that the situation of the "terrorism" of Hamas vs. the "state terrorism" of Israel is not black and white. For one, it is deeply rooted in a history that I do not fully understand. What is clear to me, however, is that the weapons of Hamas are not commensurate with the weapons of Israel. Hamas does not have white phosphorous, or cluster bombs, or the financial or military backing of any superpower. I am not saying that the rocket attacks are right or just. I do not have enough information at this point to have an opinion on that.
What I see, though, is a massive and indiscriminate campaign of destruction by Israel, using weapons that are vastly disproportionate to the weapons that are being used against them.
Since the beginning of the operation on December 27, over 1,100 Palestinians have been killed, more than half of them civilians, according to the Palestinian health ministry. Israel's casualties have been estimated at 13, including 10 military personnel.
Israel's extensive airstrikes and ground operations have caused $1.4 billion worth of damage to Gaza's economy and left 26,000 people homeless, the Palestinian National Authority announced on Friday.
Am I the only one on these boards who saw that?
No, I'm sure there are others on this board who see it as you do, unfortunately. Sorry, I don't see it.
Meh. Say what you will of America, but we have never allowed religious elements to control the apparatus of the stateWe haven't? But we did get pretty close this last time, right? The glorious years at the beginning of the 21st century? That was pretty theocratic of us. And theatrical. In a bad, B-movie kind of way.
GWB was not one of my favorite presidents. I voted for him exactly zero times. I did support going into Iraq at first because if you want to observe 'state terror' in its truly hideous form than you have to look no further than Saddam and his two sons Uday and Qusay. That was enough for me, plus I thought (as did many) that there was a legitimate WMD threat. There wasn't. As a former military person I decried the micromanagement and politicing of the war, which both sides of the ideological fence used to their own purposes.
America came nowhere near a theocracy at any time. Just because Bush was an Evangelical (and a very political one at that) doesn't mean the entire state apparatus was ferreting out dissenters. Who is the dissenter anyway? We may be on different sides of the Israel question 2E, but I am a Panentheist by religious choice who has more in common with the Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions than anything Abrahamic. I didn't see any church folk busting my door down, nor did my Wiccan, Jew or Moslem friends. Theocracy is state ruled by the church. America is a lot of things, but it is not a Theocracy, and Divine Architect willing, it never will be.
Meh. Say what you will of America, but we have never allowed religious elements to control the apparatus of the stateWe haven't? But we did get pretty close this last time, right? The glorious years at the beginning of the 21st century? That was pretty theocratic of us. And theatrical. In a bad, B-movie kind of way.GWB was not one of my favorite presidents. I voted for him exactly zero times. I did support going into Iraq at first because if you want to observe 'state terror' in its truly hideous form than you have to look no further than Saddam and his two sons Uday and Qusay. That was enough for me, plus I thought (as did many) that there was a legitimate WMD threat. There wasn't. As a former military person I decried the micromanagement and politicing of the war, which both sides of the ideological fence used to their own purposes.
America came nowhere near a theocracy at any time. Just because Bush was an Evangelical (and a very political one at that) doesn't mean the entire state apparatus was ferreting out dissenters. Who is the dissenter anyway? We may be on different sides of the Israel question 2E, but I am a Panentheist by religious choice who has more in common with the Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions than anything Abrahamic. I didn't see any church folk busting my door down, nor did my Wiccan, Jew or Moslem friends. Theocracy is state ruled by the church. America is a lot of things, but it is not a Theocracy, and Divine Architect willing, it never will be.
I agree with you Patrick. I believe it was a just war but I hated the way it was ran by Bush and Rumsfeld. Thankfully, we have a new Secretary of Defense and a general that know what they are doing.
|
|
Um, Samuel... I'm just going to say that you could be a little nicer in your rebuttals. I understand that this issue is divisive, but we can still be civil, and I don't think that Floppy Eared Golem has brought on any of your insults.
Just my 2cp. Please don't burn me.
I tried being civil.
He has made it clear that he desires the destruction of the social order I support, and that as part of that he will support a group seeking the destruction of my ethnic group.
In pursuit of those goals he has made it clear that he will say and support any outrageous claims, regardless of their veracity. When confronted on the errors in his claims, rather than acknowledge them he turns to additional false claims.
There is no civility to his posts, or anything resembling legitimate discourse.
|
|
Oh. Well, I never claimed to be rational. Especially not on the level of cold, hard logic that you operate with. Yes, yes. I know. I'm a hysterical leftist wacko with no concept of order. We've established that. Smack my other cheek now.
Actually you have established that, as well as your contempt for facts.
No, I do care. You and I are looking at the same situation with vastly different perspectives. I don't like to see people suffering any more than you do. Yes, my irrational sympathies tend to lie with those who are at the receiving end of terror attacks. That you cannot see or refuse to see that Israel is guilty of state terror, well, I can do nothing about that. Now I also realize that I am stupid and have bought into liberal media propaganda in regards to that statement. Look, I will be the first to admit that I gravitate towards liberal media. There is a reason for that. It is that the media in the mainstream of the United States is simply a tool of corporations and government, and is very biased in its reporting. Yes, yes, I realize I am feeding the cartoons of myself here. So be it.
You have shown no sign of caring, only of disdain for anyone who does not the play victim in a manner approved by you.
If your sympathies were for those on the receiving end of terror attacks you would sympathize with Israel, which has been the subject of over 10,000 rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza since 2000. That you casually dismiss such attacks because of a simplistic assessment of relative power rather than the effect demonstrates that you put your political agenda ahead of any consideration of sympathy, despite your pretense otherwise.Gravitating towards liberal media is irrelevant.
Attempts at self-deprecation are banal.
What matter is your statements and the value system it reveals, over and above your claims otherwise.
I mentioned early on in this thread Israel's use of cluster bombs against civilians. You spit on this. Yet at the same time you make the pretense of asking me for evidence. Will you even consider such evidence? You have already demonstrated your contempt for the UN.
No, I spat on your declaration that they were war crimes by default.
In return, when I presented that according to the law they were not war crimes, either in general or in specific cases, you spat on the law and declared your proclamations above the law.You have declared your contempt for the law the UN is supposed to be based on. Of which use is respect for the UN in such a situation?
Look, I am more than willing to be grateful to you for presenting the Israeli side of this conflict to me. You clearly have a knowledge of history. Presented with knowledge and civility, I can be a good, receptive student, but I don't appreciate being treated like a fool. Your contempt of me does little to further your agenda.
If you do not wish to be treated like a fool then do not act like one.
It takes very little effort to investigate any of the things I have mentioned here to refute the "story" you have presented. With a bit more effort you can easily find a copy of the Geneva Conventions and read for yourself what the terms you casually misue really mean. And with somewhat more effort than that you can find relevant information about other treaties and elements of history.You have stated clearly that you care nothing for the law, except as you wish to invoke it for your ends.
You have never indicated any respect for basic historical facts that contradict overt lies that you have told, and indeed have charged on to present more lies to support your positions instead.
You have done all of this of your own choice. If you do not like what it says about you then you should make an effort to inform yourself of the facts and control yourself from making absurd dictations of law.
I will note this, your poor performance has done wonders to further my agenda, as I need do little more than present rather simple rebuttals to demonstrate just how nonsensical your position is, and how amoral your support of Hamas is.
Um, Samuel... I'm just going to say that you could be a little nicer in your rebuttals. I understand that this issue is divisive, but we can still be civil, and I don't think that Floppy Eared Golem has brought on any of your insults.
Just my 2cp. Please don't burn me.
I tried being civil.
He has made it clear that he desires the destruction of the social order I support, and that as part of that he will support a group seeking the destruction of my ethnic group.
In pursuit of those goals he has made it clear that he will say and support any outrageous claims, regardless of their veracity. When confronted on the errors in his claims, rather than acknowledge them he turns to additional false claims.There is no civility to his posts, or anything resembling legitimate discourse.
Uh...
I'm speechless.
|
|
Um, Samuel... I'm just going to say that you could be a little nicer in your rebuttals. I understand that this issue is divisive, but we can still be civil, and I don't think that Floppy Eared Golem has brought on any of your insults.
Just my 2cp. Please don't burn me.
I tried being civil.
He has made it clear that he desires the destruction of the social order I support, and that as part of that he will support a group seeking the destruction of my ethnic group.
In pursuit of those goals he has made it clear that he will say and support any outrageous claims, regardless of their veracity. When confronted on the errors in his claims, rather than acknowledge them he turns to additional false claims.There is no civility to his posts, or anything resembling legitimate discourse.
From what I have seen, Floppy-Eared Golem has been remarkably civil in his discourse. He has admitted that his opinions are opinions, has been open-minded to other ideas, and has not resorted to insults yet. He has been forgiving of the flak coming toward him, and has even complimented those who disagree with him on their points. I don't agree with all of what he says, and I find that Hamas and radical Palestinian groups are just as much to blame in the conflict as anyone else, and I can sympathize somewhat with Israel's response (although I think it is ineffective). I can also see the good points in your argument, about the difficulty in reasoning with groups that are, essentially, unreasonable. I still stand by my previous assessment that the Golem is undeserving of your claim that he "will support a group seeking the destruction of your ethnic group." He has made it clear that he does not support Hamas, but that he also does not support the indiscriminate bombing of refugee camps filled with millions of innocent people in order to hopefully kill a few terrorists hiding amongst said population.
If you do not wish to be treated like a fool then do not act like one.
It takes very little effort to investigate any of the things I have mentioned here to refute the "story" you have presented. With a bit more effort you can easily find a copy of the Geneva Conventions and read for yourself what the terms you casually misuse really mean. And with somewhat more effort than that you can find relevant information about other treaties and elements of history.
You have stated clearly that you care nothing for the law, except as you wish to invoke it for your ends.
You have never indicated any respect for basic historical facts that contradict overt lies that you have told, and indeed have charged on to present more lies to support your positions instead.
You have done all of this of your own choice. If you do not like what it says about you then you should make an effort to inform yourself of the facts and control yourself from making absurd dictations of law.
I will note this, your poor performance has done wonders to further my agenda, as I need do little more than present rather simple rebuttals to demonstrate just how nonsensical your position is, and how amoral your support of Hamas is.
I don't believe I ever indicated that I support Hamas. Might there be different readings of history? Is there room in the world for more than one perspective? I hope so.
Your responses are quite disdainful and belittling. I honestly do not know how to begin to collect myself and respond to your barrage of ill temper and facts.
Furthermore, you haven't really shown much interest in discussing the subject, or in shifting your own perspective. What you have done, and done rather exceptionally, is present a barrage of facts and ridicule. If browbeating me into silence is your objective here, you continue to do an admirable job.
Once I recover from this latest round of stunning, I may pick myself off the floor and post a coherent reply. If I don't, well, then assume that I have grown tired of being the target of your arrogance and spite.
|
|
...(and Iran is not a dictatorship)...
In name only, perhaps. In reality, the Islamic clerics who came into power after the fall of the Shah's regime are fairly tight fisted in running the political process. Any political parties deemed to "western", secular, or liberal are routinely disqualified from elections, if not banned outright. This leaves a slate of Islamic parties, from moderate/conservative to fundamental on the ballots. The people of Iran basically have a choice of what level of Sharia they care to live under, not an actual choice of the direction their society will move in.