GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla: God damn. You sound just like that dickhead, “Spoonman.” Your perception of beginnings is extremely mediocre. Consequently, your reasoning on the subject suffers greatly. It is absolutely mindless support.

Emotional blaa blaa.


Leyla:On what reasonable grounds does Israel have more of a right to exist (by definition!) and continue to expand through military aggression than Palestinians the right -- real life, living people -- to fight to return to their homes by the only means they see available rather than continue to have more and more of their land encroached upon and their homes demolished as punishment?

Demolition efforts of any type, bulldozers or bombs, are not really approved of by the Isreali leadership for reasons of revenge. While the Pallies are aggressive then Israel acts to keep them poor - all this stuff has to be rebuilt to provide the organisational structure for a modern community and that costs money. In keeping them poor then tjhey cannot kill too many of their people - they can’t really put up an equal or better war effort, rockets are expensive. It is simply an economic genocide strategy.

When the Isreali's are not attacked they don’t go shooting rockets into the surrounding countires.

Me: Quite frankly I have almost no doubt that if the Arabs didn't have Israel to get all uppity about they'd find something else - their aggression is mostly caused by their religious beliefs.

Leyla: Is that it? A “Jew” is pure religion and Israel a Theocracy, you hypocrite!

Sure, many hate the Jews because of their religious leaderships desire for orthodoxy in people religious practices. Many Jews end up getting outcast as a result of not being supportive of various forms of traditional shit, like only marrying other Jews for instance, I'd imagine.

Israel is not really a theocracy, babe.

Leyla: Even James, who claims he isn't religious, turns out to be quite the Bushian brand of Christian, indeed.

Nahh. I just support action over non-action. Real efforts at change over paying bullshit artists to speak the non-action of diplomacy.

Diplomacy does have a place, and for groups that place is where the parties are prepared to meet and compromise in a dialectic, not "talks".

MKFaizi: You got it. It is not the congressional lobby. It is the religious tribal thing -- the division of the tribes of Abraham. It is the archetypal rivalry of Issac and Ishmael.

The shallow answer - something folks can pinpoint and attach value to because it is easily understood. Religion is just a façade for what lies beneath, and all that lies beneath the minds of the religious are emotions and rote learning.

Jamesh:
Quite frankly I have almost no doubt that if the Arabs didn't have Israel to get all upetty about they'd find something else - their aggression is mostly caused by their religious beliefs.

Diebert: You have to try to see this from a broader perspective. If this conflict was not there, another one would be created by all parties involved. There's always this relatively short-lived struggle for dominance or survival that defines the history of human kind.

Yeah well, that is the same as what I said in my first post on this thread.

Jamesh wrote: Rubbish. All countries are artificial. Israel is just one of the more recent creations, though it has existed for long enough to no longer be considered a new country.

Diebert: What are you talking about? It hasn't even managed to settle its borders yet in the 60 years after it was made!

Perhaps they would have if such hate disputes were still settled in the manner of previous centuries - genocide or slavery.

Diebert: This is a state that would not have existed without Jewish settler terrorist groups and some extreme measures and support from first the British empire, the UN, and later up until today the US.

I am not so sure about that. A minority of Jews were establishing it as homeland well before the creation of Israel, and they were mostly farmers who paid for the land and found the Arabs wanted to take it off them, hence turned into defensive military actions. Since its creation, then yes it probably would not exist now if it were not for the support of the countries you mentioned, due to the overtly racist Arab's wanting to "purify" the whole region.

Diebert: Where came this obsession from to migrate to a place that grew so hostile to their presence (first half 20th century)? A colonist in the new world of the Americas would never have made the journey if the situation was even slightly like Palestine in the 20's and 30's.

On the train home today I read the following:

"Any of the millions of lower class immigrants settled in the four square miles that were the Lower East Side, often in conditions of appalling squalor, with as many as 25 people sharing a single windowless room. By the end of the 19th century the population density of the Lower East Side was greater than in the slums of Bombay. Study of Irish immigrants to Boston showed that on average they survived just 14 years in America. In 1888 the infant death rate in the Italian quarter was 325 per 1000, 1/3 of babies did not survive their first year. At one point for every 100 Italians who arrived in NY each year, 73 left. Perhaps as many as 1/3 of all immigrants eventually returned to their native soil."

Diebert: And while you're thinking, check out the Jewish militants and terrorist groups that prepared the rise of Israel.

Why bother, they acted to defend themselves in a different world - doesn’t mean anything to me who wasn't born a Jew or an Arab back then.

Diebert:How can one support the foundation of one nation, but deny the same struggle, a few decades later, of the Shi'a Muslims (Hezbollah) and the Palestines (Hamas) to create for themselves a place to live and prosper.

Easily, those groups want crap like Sharia law introduced across the world and take actions using violence to achieve this. The Jews just do what the rest of us do - fit in and work within the system to gain power and influence - as per Hollow-woods over the top reaction to poor old nutter Mel Gibson (I already knew he was a nutter for his 19th century like Catholic beliefs)


The problem with your reasoning Jamesh is not your support for the state of Israel, but your lack of support for other factions who are struggling to make their own state, using basically the same means as Israel once used to get where they are now, and even continue to use to survive. If you want to be neutral, go ahead, but if you don't understand why Hamas and Hezbollah do what they do, you don't understand anything either about how Israel functions nowadays. It's really the same thing with a different coating, the coating of being 'modern' and 'civilized'. A quick body count of 'innocents' can sometimes cure this specific delusion.

As far as I am concerned I do understand why Hamas and Hezbollah do what they do.

Irrationality.

One does not have to know more than a rough the history of the area, because in the end discussions about this and that event, just becomes a scoring game and scoring games don’t allow outcomes when aggressive emotions are involved. In the end it just boils down to the fact they fight because they feel they can obtain something. Their actions are not defensive but offensive. They wish to satisfy their egos by obtaining admiration from their cohorts via Israeli scalps and to obtain some imaginary nest egg of happiness by getting the land their ancestors occupied back.

Their actions are only rational if you allow the concept of truth to be overridden by values associated with emotions. There would be thousands of empirical reasons for their emotions of hate and revenge, but I think that we as philosophers attempting to value truth should point out that such emotions have no permanent value. We should be educating ourselves in the West not to accept such subjective values as objective justifications, as in doing so we lead the fuckers into more strife.

Lives could be saved and made more contented, by teaching them that they have nothing to gain by violence against a technologically and organisationally stronger party. While their religion and its leaders autocratically dominate their thinking processes such a change in thinking cannot occur. If they can’t change their thinking they will continue to fight, they simply have too much emotional attachment tied to winning this whole conflict.

Leyla: Are you serious? Oh, I’m sorry. You know all about Muslims and Hezbollah so there’s no reason to examine the matter any further (!). I simply cannot believe you went so far as to try and pull that one on me, James, honestly: and in the same breath as accusing Muslims of "individual masculine ego domination." Wow.

Having been raised by and around Muslims all my life (and “Westerners”), of course I know nothing of the religion and its people compared to your vast armchair experience through maybe a few articles on the internet and “Western” media.

See above, the same answer applies to you. You really are too emotionally tied to your memories of the culture to sensibly talk to. Sure I am attached to the Western cultural modus operandum to some degree, as must you be as well, otherwise you'd go home!! (I'm just joking with that cliche).

You know really all we should be discussing is, What will Israel's strategy result in? There are unknowns in my mind about that question. Not much point discussing what has already occurred, letting us languish in the righteousness of our respective points of view.

The problem with Israel's demolition strategy is that while it will decrease the capacity of the terrorist groups to obtain some style of WMD in the short term, it will lead to an enhanced desire to get same in the long term. I guess they discount this, because as things have stood for some time, this would be bound to occur sometime in the future in any case.

Although violence does so often lead to more violence, I don't necessarily think that they will encounter more 'ordinary' terrorism in the next ten years than what has been building up in recent years. There are always only so many people willing to die, and while the yanks have been in Iraq clearing the tables of the already trained and hardened fanatics over the last few years, and they are still there, it would seem like a good time to set up a more defendable perimeter by the use of a stronger than normal assault. Clearly from the strength of the continuing attacking capability of the Hezzies something was needed to cut them down to a manageable size.

Diebert: What makes you think Arabs, Palestinians, Lebanese, or Shi'a Muslims do not 'accept technology' like "us"?

Ok, they accept it similarly these days, I'll grant you that - mind you they were very slow off the mark - but as far as I can see they are often not allowed to - there are often restrictions put on it.

The Jews have displayed an uncanny ability to utilise technology for gain, hence the number of movie directors and studio owners, and have had a great number of eminent scientists. I find the Jews a clever people, they have a greater respect for rational truth than those around them, albeit that they are still twisted truths. I think their religion and melting pot of different countries/mainstream cultures of origin allows them more freedom to think than Muslims.

MKFaizi: Where in Allah's name did you get the idea that Muslims do not like technology?

From Osama for a start. The fundamentalists don't like it, because they know it can undermine their power. They have the supreme goal though so they will use it of course. I find all Muslims leaders to be fundamentalists, whether the media classes them as moderate or not.

God I hate it when people add their own biased interpretation of something like what I said. I said "Jews readily accept technology, therefore they are like us, and from being like us we have trade, immigration and many other forms of experiences that cause connections." This is somewhat different from "Muslims do not like technology", as per your interpretation.

It looks like you're talking about things you don't have a clue about. The economy of Israel (not 'Jews' by the way) is caused by many factors, but I don't think it has to do with any 'willingness' to embrace technology. It has to do with foreign aid and bullying any possible arising competition over many decades. And in that bullying, they are indeed like US and every apemen indeed.

Carry on.

Foreign aid is kind of interesting though. Is it OK for the Iranians, the Islamic terrorist organisations, Hussein, the Russians maybe to support the Hamas and Hezbollah like groups? It is so convenient to forget that any group or country that is against something the US supports is supporting people like the Palestinians to indirectly get at the US.

In an earlier post I mentioned the concept of organisational merit. If Israel is able to obtain support from countries like the US, or from Jews that live elsewhere, then this is organisational merit as well. They say information is power, well organisational merit is informational power in action. They have gained the capability to gain support under their own terms, unlike the Palestinians who are just puppets being used.


Marsha: Jamesh is extremely ignorant. I get the impression that he must listen to the Savage radio show who talks about the Mohammads who eat virgins for breakfast and beat their children.

Nope. But technically I would support non-religious Western folks who say, "No we don’t support actions that may lead to a loss of freedom for people who now have it" and do something to attempt to stop the momentum of such activities.

Marsha: Bushie is fond of saying that they envy our democracy. Bullcrap. It is proven that Pakistan functions better under marshall law than any attempt at democracy. They don't want freedom. They want ipods.

Lol…the sad fucks. They do envy our freedom you know, but it is more at the subconscious level. It adds fire to the desire to act against freedom.

Marsha: You are entitled to your opinion but before you voice your opinion I recommend strongly that you silence your asshole. Ever read Burroughs story of a man who had a talking asshole? You might find it interesting -- better than Kafka.

Now there is a sentence the word hypocritical applies nicely to.

Marsha: The only thing that can be said of war is that it enforces understanding. It is my hope that twenty years from now, Muslim countries and Western countries may better understand each other. War often causes an eventual melding of cultures.

Now your talking sense, and for such a long lived problem like the Middle Eastern ones are there must be immense pain and cultural change in those countries in order to bring around the change in mindset.

Marsha: I just heard and I am not surprised that American evangelical Christians are very happy about events in the Middle East because they consider this to be the beginning of Armageddon.

Yep, some seem to be pleased for that reason. Shows you how primitive the human mind can be. Those gooses have far less excuse than the Muslims, because they can access non-religious knowledge, unlike the masses in the problem countries.

Lightsmitten: I think we should let the Palestinians and the Israelis annihilate each other. Why put so much emotional investment in the animosities between two Semitic tribes on some alien continent? We should strictly adhere to a policy of utter indifference.

No, Western nations cannot allow Israel to fall, because of the momentum that wopuld give the Muslims for more imperialism, but at the personal level, yes I would agree.


MKFaizi: Jamesh, your ignorance of fairly recent history is also shown in your supposition that Islam makes the people aggressive by the nature of the religion.

It does, but of course it is not the only factor, there are many others, including even the harsh terrain itself. Most of these factors end up supporting a vicious circle and do not allow the Muslims to get over their need for revenge, but while they are aggressive they will continually attract opposition creating continuous opportunities to experience negative and destructive emotions. A greater factor would be the extreme degree of decisional domination of the adult male side of the culture. This - and retaliation against real or perceived racism -leads them (when not though of as individuals, but as a group) to be a little bit more inclined to develop a bossy or arrogant personality.

I've yet to see a group debate on TV where at least one Muslim supporter hasn't lost their cool and remained in that state attempting to hog the debate by the force of their emotional output.

MKFaizi: But I think the discussion has advanced intellectually from this thread. Tighter.

As far as I can see the other thread is full of the typical soft-minded points of view. I get a distinct feeling of herd-like thinking from you lot, Dan included. A mob of peaceniks on a roll. Because pain and destruction to our persons or those we know is rarely felt as being a good thing to all of us,, we become so defensive about things like wars and killing that we fail to see that sometimes exactly that must occur.

We also forget that what occurs, occurs because it must occur that way - we cannot stop it after the event, so attaching emotional values to past events is delusional, as is emotionally attaching blame to some event. We can discuss things in order to provide knowledge to perhaps somehow reduce the need for negative future events, but I see little of that occurring around the place. Why, because we know it is too hard to change the perspective of the Hammas and Hezzies and all the other homeboys - but really that is the key to the synergy that needs to form. It can form, Israel was already doing this with Pallies that worked and lived peacefully in Israel, until the bombs and rockets became intolerable.

You've been lolled into the illusion of peace - there is never any peace. For there to be cause and effect all things must always be in some form of war. Even when there is no military war there are still all the individual wars of greed and ego satisfaction that we all perform.

The West is at war with itself (and the earth itself), that is what capitalism is. The development and use of technology is a war against the affects of the universe.

To form a synergy of two things then sometimes they have to be ground down in order to fit. There will be friction and pain must be inflicted on both parties. As individuals as we grow up we are all made to conform our selfish desires are gradually ground down to levels tolerated by the majority, and if we don't then we risk pain from others. It is the same for nations that wish to grow.

Jamesh wrote: A minority of Jews were establishing it as homeland well before the creation of Israel, and they were mostly farmers who paid for the land and found the Arabs wanted to take it off them, hence turned into defensive military actions.

It appears to have been more complex than that. For example, the ones selling of the land ownership had no right to sell the property on the land, like houses and trees, according to local laws. The European Jews didn't care or know about those laws and took trees and buildings as well, putting a lot of farmers out of business. Locals saw that as thievery and defended what was seen as their property.

There are more details that create another side to his 'noble' myth of land buying. In the end you have to name it like it was: hostile take-over. Nothing wrong about it, unless one decides to sugar-coat it to look 'better'. How "Jewish".

Since its creation, then yes it probably would not exist now if it were not for the support of the countries you mentioned, due to the overtly racist Arab's wanting to "purify" the whole region.

And what reason was there to support Israel apart from guild and religious affliction? Do you consider that a good thing, such motives? Isn't it fishy from a philosophical perspective?

On the train home today I read the following:

"Any of the millions of lower class immigrants settled in the four square miles that were the Lower East Side, often in conditions of appalling squalor, with as many as 25 people sharing a single windowless room. By the end of the 19th century the population density of the Lower East Side was greater than in the slums of Bombay. Study of Irish immigrants to Boston showed that on average they survived just 14 years in America. In 1888 the infant death rate in the Italian quarter was 325 per 1000, 1/3 of babies did not survive their first year. At one point for every 100 Italians who arrived in NY each year, 73 left. Perhaps as many as 1/3 of all immigrants eventually returned to their native soil."

Good point, I didn't realize. But what drove these people to keep going anyway? The American 'dream'? Or were there worse circumstances in their home country. Many Jews migrated because of the anti-Semite climate in Europe. American colonists often had similar problem, religious or political strains.

Diebert wrote:And while you're thinking, check out the Jewish militants and terrorist groups that prepared the rise of Israel.

Jamesh wrote:Why bother, they acted to defend themselves in a different world - doesn’t mean anything to me who wasn't born a Jew or an Arab back then.

I see not much difference with Hezbollah or Hamas 'defending' themselves, even by attacking now and again, in a 'different' world. They try to carve out a secure place to live, too, with rights. And all without mighty backers or 'European' money. From the masses point of view Hamas and Hezbollah are seen as the big moral winners, and that's exactly what is the problem with the current Israeli high-tech razzias.

Jamesh wrote:...those groups want crap like Sharia law introduced across the world and take actions using violence to achieve this. The Jews just do what the rest of us do - fit in and work within the system to gain power and influence

I see only one delusional 'law' against another one. You can only see the crap at the other side, I suppose. The state of Israel does not fit in and 'work within the system'. That's the whole thing, they always went outside it: using global scale assassinations, massive spying programs, secret ('illegal') nuclear programs, military incursions and media manipulations to get what they wanted. And this is only the mainstream part, I'm not even getting into the conspiracy parts of this equation!

Unless you'd define the system as basically a framework for cheating, murdering, disguising and psychological warfare. And perhaps that is the System, a form of Feminine/Jewish/Egotist reality that makes the human world go round.

As far as I am concerned I do understand why Hamas and Hezbollah do what they do.

Irrationality.

I see more reasons to believe they are slightly more rational in their actions than Israel is now. Even on a 'cold' political level Israel is losing out right now, losing support and H&H are laughing their way to the bank, a bank of donor suicide bombers for example.

Their actions are not defensive but offensive. They wish to satisfy their egos by obtaining admiration from their cohorts via Israeli scalps and to obtain some imaginary nest egg of happiness by getting the land their descendants occupied back.

This description seems to fit Israel better. Is your reasoning based on observation or a belief? Or propaganda? Confusing you are.

Their actions are only rational if you allow the concept of truth to be overridden by values associated with emotions. There would be thousands of empirical reasons for their emotions of hate and revenge, but I think that we as philosophers attempting to value truth should point out that such emotions have no permanent value.

The only truth 'overridden' is the truth that all parties involved are just trying to dominate and in the process having to destroy or upsurp the other side. Both know this truth but no one speaks it aloud. Diplomacy is powerless here and only a nuke or some other great wiping out of one or the other can solve it, I suspect too many people are willing to die right now at both sides. And religion I define as that where one is ultimately willing to die for (and as such live for), or kill someone else for instead.

Lives could be saved and made more contented, by teaching them that they have nothing to gain by violence against a technologically and organisationally stronger party.

There are many examples in history were a lot was gained in asymmetric and guerrilla warfare, and they know it. They probably tell these heroic tales at bedtime to their children.

Hezbollah by the way, like Hamas, is organized extremely well, as some observers reported. They appear to work faster and more efficient than large democratic governments and some bureaucratic military.

they simply have too much emotional attachment tied to winning this whole conflict.

To me Israel is nothing but one big Emotional Attachment that founded it and feeds it. That's why I know they will never win. Their opponents are already too long forced to think more realistically, crouching down in the dust, crawling for cover.

James diplomated:

Their actions are only rational if you allow the concept of truth to be overridden by values associated with emotions. There would be thousands of empirical reasons for their emotions of hate and revenge, but I think that we as philosophers attempting to value truth should point out that such emotions have no permanent value.

?!

And you do this by defending your own emotions?

Leaving aside the political debate for a moment, I find the above extremely problematic as the “philosophical” crux of your argument.

I have completely lost the ability to take you as a serious thinker; if it weren’t for the fact that this type of propagandist tripe actually does pass as “reason” on the subject in general, I‘d not bother replying to your contradiction-riddled rhetoric.

By what reason do you disassociate truth from the emotions of apathy, boredom, cowardice and submissiveness and value them above other emotions, James?

In what fit of unreason would you in one breath vilify someone like Scott for joining the armed forces and in another support the very same military to vilify the poor who fight with whatever is in their means -- the one which tells you that you do not need to fight for such causes but others should fight for you? By what stretch of the imagination do you separate the will to power of the poor by whatever means available from the will to power of the rich?

Diebert: What are you talking about? It hasn't even managed to settle its borders yet in the 60 years after it was made!

James: Perhaps they would have if such hate disputes were still settled in the manner of previous centuries - genocide or slavery.

Yes, except that the British alliance intervened and saved the Jews and then failed to make them slaves…

Really, you should be more observant. Genocide, for your purposes, apparently is not that effective if you don't get every single one. There even seems to be a gathering Armenian movement on the emotional “Holocaust” bandwagon. Choices, choices (oh, how the West is plagued with them) -- the genocider or the genocidee?

Hopping like a slippery toad from one lily pad to another in the pond on an island without man-made borders, which side will you take, only to desert it when consistent reasoning fails to emotionally suit you?

More later.

.

I've been trying to understand this conflict for some time. Can anyone help me to understand the following point:

Apparently the Lebonese and Hezbollah claim that the Israelis are occupying their land, as do the Palestinians, and Syrians, etc.

Are they actually talking about the entire landmass of Israel?

They must know that the entire landmass of Israel is not going to be returned to them - which leads me to think that they have an ulterior motive and are seeking gains elsewhere, like the re-inforcing of their religion/ego, and so-on.

ksolway wrote:I've been trying to understand this conflict for some time. Can anyone help me to understand the following point:

Apparently the Lebonese and Hezbollah claim that the Israelis are occupying their land, as do the Palestinians, and Syrians, etc.

Are they actually talking about the entire landmass of Israel?

They must know that the entire landmass of Israel is not going to be returned to them - which leads me to think that they have an ulterior motive and are seeking gains elsewhere, like the re-inforcing of their religion/ego, and so-on.

They see it as a encroachment into "muslim lands". I don't think they will ever accept the existence of israel.

And yes, conflicts with the outer world reinforce the "circling the wagons" effect and actually STRENGTHEN the camaraderie and "in group" - ness .

On another thread you wrote:

millipodium wrote:I say the jews are just as religiously driven as the "terrorists".

I don't know the exact figures, but I would estimate that at least 50% of Israelis don't believe in the existence of God. But I grant that they are just as ego-driven as anyone else, and hence follow the "religion of the Devil" in that sense.

There are also powerful fundamentalist threads within Israeli society that never get talked about. Seemingly only Arabs breed fundies.

As to the the history of the conflict. It's not overly complicated when you break it down to brass tacks. Leading up the the formal creation of Israel in '48 there had been an influx of foreign Jews into the region (primarily Ashkenazi Jews). Their behaviour and Zionistic designs (modern Zionism was born in this period) caused tensions where no such tentions had meaningfuly existed. When Israel was created the local Arabs got shafted because the minority Jews were given 55% of the terriorty in which lived said Jews and various Arab peoples ("Palestinian" is really just a generic term we now use for these Arab groups). Conflict has existed since that time. During the Six Day War of '67 (at which time none of Israel's neighbours had yet to formally "recognise" Israel), a war which Israel actually started - even if with some justification - Israel captured and occupied what are known as the "Occupied Territories" (Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights).

Since that time Israel has refused to relinquish those occupied territories and has even allowed hundreds of illegal Jewish settlements to spring up in them. The various forms of inhumane treatment of Palestinians is a matter of record and not difficult to find. I've posted links to such information already.

How much of the contemporary conflict is about Israel being forced to defer to any of the dozens and dozens of UN resolutions against it regarding these territories and how much is about certain Arabs still refusing to recognise Israel at all, and face the inevitable, is a slippery question. There's a bit of both involved.

A UN or even Nato force needs to be sent to the OTs immediately and Israel told to get the hell out. Over time, the oppression of the Palestinians will be resolved and this may, and hopefully will, create circumstances whereby local Arab communities will cease to feel any alliance with their more radical elements. As things stand, and have stood for some time, they have cause to feel such an alliance.


Dan Rowden

Kevin,

No offense, of course, but why do you write here?

No need for you to reply my posts here. But if you are entirely ignorant of worldly matters -- and you are -- why come posting here with your mind made already up?

You are pro-American. Pro-British. Pro-Israeli. You are anti-Palestinean and anti-Muslim. You are anti-Muslim because you assume that Muslims are all terrorists.

Typical opinion of most white, American, Christian, uninformed, unwilling to look at history assholes.

I think you should stick with enlightenment. That way, you can be as stupid as you want.

In other words, kick your ass upstairs.

Faizi

It seems to me that the Arab states regard the whole of Israel as an occupied territory, since the lead-up to the 6-day war included the fact that Syria was already shelling Israeli villages, and Egypt had blocked Israeli shipping and was concentrating tanks and troops on the border.

After the war it looks like Israel kept the land they were on as compensation for what they went through, as well as for strategic defensive reasons (especially the Golan Heights).

So I would say it's not merely a matter of one or two occupied territories, but the whole of the Israeli territory.

MKFaizi wrote:You are anti-Muslim.

Yes, I am anti-Muslim, but I am also anti-Christian and anti-Judaism. All these religions are crazy because of the ignorance of their adherents.

You are anti-Muslim because you assume that Muslims are all terrorists.

A terrorist is simply someone who fights a militarily superior foe with any means at their disposal. I doubt that all Muslims fit into this category.

I don't know what the answer to the Arab-Israeli conflict is. I'm only asking questions. Perhaps the state of Israel shouldn't exist?

Likewise, perhaps the U.S.A shouldn't exist? Should the U.S.A be handed back to the original inhabitants? I don't know.

Kevin wrote:

I don't know what the answer to the Arab-Israeli conflict is. I'm only asking questions. Perhaps the state of Israel shouldn't exist?

Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? Apparently, nobody can figure this thing out. It's such a complicated issue -- you know, the Holocaust, and all -- it takes nothing less than genius.

The arguments tend to boil down to all opposition to Israel is rooted in religious fundamentalism or emotional attachment, but the creation of Israel and its maintenance in the Middle East has nothing to do with religious fundamentalism or emotional attachment -- despite the fact of the Hebrew Scriptures and the defeat and expulsion of Jews from the very same land circa 70 by the Roman Empire.

The policy is that you may apply religious fundamentalism to those who oppose, but you may only apply ideas such as “democracy” and “economically/culturally progressive” to Israel itself and its supporters. So, as a reasoning individual, you decide to consider the possibility and look at it on that basis, and what do you find? You find a lot of money being poured into (and trouble arising out of) insisting that Israel, the homeland of the Jews, should be kept in the Middle East and you ask, exactly what is so democratic and economically viable about that? Hm, nothing. Well, except one thing -- oil; quantity (for both US domestic and export purposes) and quality.

So, how about we just get nice and honest about it and tell all those stupid Middle Easterners to support hegemony or die, since that’s obviously the highest possible intellectual stance the politically, culturally and technically advanced West can muster.

.

ksolway wrote:On another thread you wrote:

millipodium wrote:I say the jews are just as religiously driven as the "terrorists".

I don't know the exact figures, but I would estimate that at least 50% of Israelis don't believe in the existence of God. But I grant that they are just as ego-driven as anyone else, and hence follow the "religion of the Devil" in that sense.

Satan's worship is worship of the self, and the self's inherent right to dominate others. Satan IS totalitrianism.

The Star of David (Seal of solomon) is a well known satanic symbol.

Leyla,

So, as a reasoning individual, you decide to consider the possibility and look at it on that basis, and what do you find? You find a lot of money being poured into (and trouble arising out of) insisting that Israel, the homeland of the Jews, should be kept in the Middle East and you ask, exactly what is so democratic and economically viable about that? Hm, nothing. Well, except one thing -- oil; quantity (for both US domestic and export purposes) and quality.

I disagree with that. I wish it were true. At least then I could not feel so ripped off at the pump. But all that the conclusion you've come to is, is an educated guess. There's no proof of it.

Millipodium,

You say the star of David is a Satanic symbol. What does it mean in Satanism? The best meaning I've ever read about it is from some Tantric book, where it said that it's two opposing triangles connected, symbolizing union with God (enlightenment)...but of course that most likely wasn't the original meaning.

I'm not a big fan of the wikipedia entry, because it seems like a lot of bull:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David

sschaula wrote:Leyla,

So, as a reasoning individual, you decide to consider the possibility and look at it on that basis, and what do you find? You find a lot of money being poured into (and trouble arising out of) insisting that Israel, the homeland of the Jews, should be kept in the Middle East and you ask, exactly what is so democratic and economically viable about that? Hm, nothing. Well, except one thing -- oil; quantity (for both US domestic and export purposes) and quality.

I disagree with that. I wish it were true. At least then I could not feel so ripped off at the pump. But all that the conclusion you've come to is, is an educated guess. There's no proof of it.

Millipodium,

You say the star of David is a Satanic symbol. What does it mean in Satanism? The best meaning I've ever read about it is from some Tantric book, where it said that it's two opposing triangles connected, symbolizing union with God (enlightenment)...but of course that most likely wasn't the original meaning.

I'm not a big fan of the wikipedia entry, because it seems like a lot of bull:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David

It's more commonly known as a hexagram, and has meaning in all kinds of religious and occultic traditions.

It's association to judaism comes when Rothschild took it as the family coat of arms.

The talmud is basically a book of evil, which has perverted judaism.

millipodium wrote:The Star of David (Seal of solomon) is a well known satanic symbol.

A pentagram (not a hexagram) pointing downward is satanic; pointing upward is wiccan. An inverted cross is also a satanic symbol. Baphomet might also be considered satanic.

Satanists do not use a Star of David as a symbol of satanism.

DHodges wrote:

millipodium wrote:The Star of David (Seal of solomon) is a well known satanic symbol.

A pentagram (not a hexagram) pointing downward is satanic; pointing upward is wiccan. An inverted cross is also a satanic symbol. Baphomet might also be considered satanic.

Satanists do not use a Star of David as a symbol of satanism.

You're wrong.

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

The hexagram, like the pentagram, was and is used in practices of the occult (where it is known as a magician's, or sorcerer's star) as well as Satanism. In these traditions the hexagram is inscribed inside a circle with the points touching it.

In fact, "putting a HEX on someone" refers to the hexagram.

Scott,

I disagree with that. I wish it were true. At least then I could not feel so ripped off at the pump. But all that the conclusion you've come to is, is an educated guess. There's no proof of it.

No proof of what -- the fact that the US has a considerable oil interest in the Middle East?

From the "Oil: straight from the bowser's mouth" thread:

Some hold that US interest in the Middle East has little to do with oil.

“In 2001, United States refineries produced over 90 percent of the gasoline used in the United States. Less than 40 percent of the crude oil used by U.S. refineries was produced in the United States. About 45 percent of gasoline produced in the United States comes from refineries in the U.S. Gulf Coast (including Texas and Louisiana).”

Energy Information Administration (EIA) "Official Energy Statistics from the US Government"

For current US crude oil import stats:

Who's who in crude oil?

Remember that thread? I suppose the US government could be complete liars, but then you, Scott, would sound like a left-wing consipiracy theorist.

The EIA links that I posted (represented above by italic text) have now disappeared:

Home > Page not found
We're Sorry!

The page you requested cannot be found at this time.

Help us get you the information you need. Simply click here to send us an email that automatically provides us with the necessary information below.

A Broken Link To:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/experts/con ... rts.htmurl

Was Found on the Following Page:
viewtopic.php?t=1175

Just send us that email and we'll get back to you.

.

Yes, I am anti-Muslim, but I am also anti-Christian and anti-Judaism. All these religions are crazy because of the ignorance of their adherents.

I am also against religion and ignorance. However, I have seen you write in favor of Christianity over Islam. You have a problem understanding that Christians are as hateful as Islamics. I think this is because you have such a love affair with Jesus as philosopher. You also have a love of western society and its superiority while professing understanding of ancient eastern religion/philosophy. You embrace western tribalism while claiming to be individualistic.

What burns my mind is ignorance expounded when there is no excuse for ignorance. You are a very intelligent man yet you ignorantly favor Jews and Christians over a large segment of world society that you do not understand. You laud Israelis as mostly atheists.

I think you have experience and knowledge enough to know that many atheists are zealots in a religion as concrete as any other religion. Atheism does not connote greater wisdom in comparison to any other fanaticism.

A terrorist is simply someone who fights a militarily superior foe with any means at their disposal. I doubt that all Muslims fit into this category.

That is my definition also. I do not always like the means but I recognize the reality of the need.

However, in the past, you have stated that Muslims are religious fanatics who would be better eliminated. The world would be more peaceful without Muslims.

I don't know what the answer to the Arab-Israeli conflict is. I'm only asking questions. Perhaps the state of Israel shouldn't exist?

The region was much more peaceful before the establishment of the political state of Israel only since 1948. There is truth to the idea of Israel as an illigetimate state. It is a US outpost. The US largely established it and protected it. Under Bush Baby, it has been given full reign to do whatever it wants to do. Hence, more than one thousand Lebanese have died by Israeli bombs over the past twenty three days. Lebanon is a mixed country populated with Muslims and Christians.

The excuse for that is that Hezbollah hides among the civilian population. I am so tired of hearing that. The more that civilian children and non combatant females and handicapped people are killed, the less that rings true.

I do not hate Jews. I do not hate Israelis. I have no problem personally with Israel being located in exactly the same spot where it is presently located. But what I think does not matter.

The resentment in the region is not so much about hatred of Jews but hatred of western imposition. The Jewish nation is seen as an American outpost.

Likewise, perhaps the U.S.A shouldn't exist? Should the U.S.A be handed back to the original inhabitants? I don't know.

If it was up to me, I would immediately hand over the government of the US to to the native Americans. My guess is that any remaining American natives would not be interested. I mean, look at the place. The white man and his ways took over long ago. The descendants of the original inhabitants are very few or so inbred that the ancestry does not matter. Ironically, in a way, most native Americans would be anti-American.

My great grandmother was a Cherokee Indian. I have a picture of her. She was very black. Kind of strange that her features only appear sporadically in her descendants. Could be an archetypal reason I was compelled to marry a Pakistani. My daughter particularly looks "Indian." When she was working in a store a man asked her what tribe she was from. She is half PAK not native American. But her great great grandmother was pure Cherokee. Kind of weird.

The English came to the US in the 1600s. They conquered the land and took it from the native Americans. A long time ago.

The Israeli thing is much more recent. One would think that twentieth century man would be less ignorant than to chase people from their land. The bulk of the Jews who made the state of Israel were European and American transplants. Backed with wealth and knowledge unknown to the region before.

Given that wealth and knowledge, you might think that they would be more compassionate and sensitive to indigenous people. But they were not.

Ultimately, the state of Israel is an illigetimate state backed by the west -- financially and militarily supported by the US.

Given its geographical position, it is no wonder there is conflict.

All I can say is that is sickening to see the Israeli bombs hitting Beirut at this hour.

Kind of turns the definition of terrorism on its head. How is Israel less brutal than Al Qaeda?

Faizi

MKFaizi wrote:However, I have seen you write in favor of Christianity over Islam.

While I have a very low opinion of Christianity, as it exists in Christians, I find it hard to imagine anything worse than Islam, as it exists in Muslims.

You have a problem understanding that Christians are as hateful as Islamics.

All people are pretty much equally hateful - though of different things.

There is not the same culture in modern Christians to go out and destroy all non-believers. That is, we do not see this in the actual Christians of today.

You embrace western tribalism while claiming to be individualistic.

I embrace Western individualism.

You laud Israelis as mostly atheists.

It is a good thing to be an atheist.

Atheism does not connote greater wisdom in comparison to any other fanaticism.

I think you will find more wisdom, on the whole, in atheists than you will find in religious followers.

That is my definition also. I do not always like the means but I recognize the reality of the need.

Does Lebanon really need to fire thousands of rockets across the border at Israel?

I do not see the need.

So Hezbollah want to dissolve the state of Israel.

Israel is a relatively small patch of land. I don't see any good reason why the Israelis can't be allowed to live their own lives within that small piece of land.

However, in the past, you have stated that Muslims are religious fanatics

I have seen much more delusion in Muslims than I have seen in people of any other religion - and that's saying a lot.

I mean to say that there is less freethought in Islam than any other major religion.

It is a US outpost.

This is your theory, but I do no buy it.

It is a lot more than a US outpost. Israelis themselves do not see themselves as a US outpost.

Hence, more than one thousand Lebanese have died by Israeli bombs over the past twenty three days.

What do you expect Israel to do in response to the thousands of rockets being fired at them?

The excuse for that is that Hezbollah hides among the civilian population. I am so tired of hearing that. The more that civilian children and non combatant females and handicapped people are killed, the less that rings true.

That's because you are thinking with your emotions.

The resentment in the region is not so much about hatred of Jews but hatred of western imposition. The Jewish nation is seen as an American outpost.

It may be partly a Western outpost, but too bad if it is. It is only a small region.

If it was up to me, I would immediately hand over the government of the US to to the native Americans.

But would you hand back the whole of the landmass of America, and all the property on it, to the native Americans? Even if, afterwards, all non-native Americans were forced to leave the country?

Given that wealth and knowledge, you might think that they would be more compassionate and sensitive to indigenous people. But they were not.

Indigenous people are not treated well in any country. I'm not sure that Israel is worse than any other country in that regard.

Ultimately, the state of Israel is an illegitimate state

We could equally say that all states are illegitimate, including the U.S, and Australia. Who legitimizes them?

How is Israel less brutal than Al Qaeda?

For one thing, Israel are not purposely targeting civilians, whereas Al Qaeda and Hezbollah most definitely are. (Apart from the Israelis mistreatment of indigenous people)

MKFaizi wrote:

Yes, I am anti-Muslim, but I am also anti-Christian and anti-Judaism. All these religions are crazy because of the ignorance of their adherents.

I am also against religion and ignorance. However, I have seen you write in favor of Christianity over Islam. You have a problem understanding that Christians are as hateful as Islamics. I think this is because you have such a love affair with Jesus as philosopher. You also have a love of western society and its superiority while professing understanding of ancient eastern religion/philosophy. You embrace western tribalism while claiming to be individualistic.

What burns my mind is ignorance expounded when there is no excuse for ignorance. You are a very intelligent man yet you ignorantly favor Jews and Christians over a large segment of world society that you do not understand. You laud Israelis as mostly atheists.

I think you have experience and knowledge enough to know that many atheists are zealots in a religion as concrete as any other religion. Atheism does not connote greater wisdom in comparison to any other fanaticism.

A terrorist is simply someone who fights a militarily superior foe with any means at their disposal. I doubt that all Muslims fit into this category.

That is my definition also. I do not always like the means but I recognize the reality of the need.

However, in the past, you have stated that Muslims are religious fanatics who would be better eliminated. The world would be more peaceful without Muslims.

I don't know what the answer to the Arab-Israeli conflict is. I'm only asking questions. Perhaps the state of Israel shouldn't exist?

The region was much more peaceful before the establishment of the political state of Israel only since 1948. There is truth to the idea of Israel as an illigetimate state. It is a US outpost. The US largely established it and protected it. Under Bush Baby, it has been given full reign to do whatever it wants to do. Hence, more than one thousand Lebanese have died by Israeli bombs over the past twenty three days. Lebanon is a mixed country populated with Muslims and Christians.

The excuse for that is that Hezbollah hides among the civilian population. I am so tired of hearing that. The more that civilian children and non combatant females and handicapped people are killed, the less that rings true.

I do not hate Jews. I do not hate Israelis. I have no problem personally with Israel being located in exactly the same spot where it is presently located. But what I think does not matter.

The resentment in the region is not so much about hatred of Jews but hatred of western imposition. The Jewish nation is seen as an American outpost.

Likewise, perhaps the U.S.A shouldn't exist? Should the U.S.A be handed back to the original inhabitants? I don't know.

If it was up to me, I would immediately hand over the government of the US to to the native Americans. My guess is that any remaining American natives would not be interested. I mean, look at the place. The white man and his ways took over long ago. The descendants of the original inhabitants are very few or so inbred that the ancestry does not matter. Ironically, in a way, most native Americans would be anti-American.

My great grandmother was a Cherokee Indian. I have a picture of her. She was very black. Kind of strange that her features only appear sporadically in her descendants. Could be an archetypal reason I was compelled to marry a Pakistani. My daughter particularly looks "Indian." When she was working in a store a man asked her what tribe she was from. She is half PAK not native American. But her great great grandmother was pure Cherokee. Kind of weird.

The English came to the US in the 1600s. They conquered the land and took it from the native Americans. A long time ago.

The Israeli thing is much more recent. One would think that twentieth century man would be less ignorant than to chase people from their land. The bulk of the Jews who made the state of Israel were European and American transplants. Backed with wealth and knowledge unknown to the region before.

Given that wealth and knowledge, you might think that they would be more compassionate and sensitive to indigenous people. But they were not.

Ultimately, the state of Israel is an illigetimate state backed by the west -- financially and militarily supported by the US.

Given its geographical position, it is no wonder there is conflict.

All I can say is that is sickening to see the Israeli bombs hitting Beirut at this hour.

Kind of turns the definition of terrorism on its head. How is Israel less brutal than Al Qaeda?

Faizi

Faizi. I'm amazingly attracted to you because you're a smart woman who advocates lsd. Too cool.

I believe Islam and judaism both teach a hatred of "other" and advocate theocracy, while christianity does neither. THough we had crusaders, their actions were not scripturally supported, they were operating on a twisted understanding of doctrine, while I believe the islamo-fascists, and talmudosatanists are basically acting according to their religion. The talmud of the jews, and hadiths of the islamics contain an extra layer of hate and theocracy which is absent in christianity.

millipodium wrote: You're wrong.

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

That page references uses of a hexagram by Jews, Moslems, Mormons, Raelians, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and more, with a single sentance about Satanism:

The hexagram, like the pentagram, was and is used in practices of the occult (where it is known as a magician's, or sorcerer's star) as well as Satanism.

To draw some connection between Satanism and Judaism based on this is completely disingenuous.

The Star of David (Seal of solomon) is a well known satanic symbol.

This is just bullshit. The Star of David is well known as a Jewish symbol, but apparently used by half a dozen other religions as well. It's use in Satanism is obscure at best.

The Seal of Solomon was used in the Middle Ages in various magical ceremonies. That tradition -while it does still have a few adherents - is hardly a major movement, and has little to do with modern day Satanism (e.g., the writings of Anton LeVey and the Church of Satan). That Middle Ages tradition is more aligned with Kaballah than Satanism.

DHodges wrote:

millipodium wrote: You're wrong.

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

That page references uses of a hexagram by Jews, Moslems, Mormons, Raelians, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and more, with a single sentance about Satanism:

The hexagram, like the pentagram, was and is used in practices of the occult (where it is known as a magician's, or sorcerer's star) as well as Satanism.

To draw some connection between Satanism and Judaism based on this is completely disingenuous.

The Star of David (Seal of solomon) is a well known satanic symbol.

This is just bullshit. The Star of David is well known as a Jewish symbol, but apparently used by half a dozen other religions as well. It's use in Satanism is obscure at best.

The Seal of Solomon was used in the Middle Ages in various magical ceremonies. That tradition -while it does still have a few adherents - is hardly a major movement, and has little to do with modern day Satanism (e.g., the writings of Anton LeVey and the Church of Satan). That Middle Ages tradition is more aligned with Kaballah than Satanism.

I'm sorry, the hexagram has been an occult symbol longer than it has been a jewish symbol. What do you mean "truth is disingenuous"? You can't fight reality. Get over it. you were wrong. Just grow up.

millipodium wrote:What do you mean "truth is disingenuous"?

No, truth itself is not disingenuous. But a certain presentation of facts, carefully selected so as to deliberately give a false impression, is disingenuous.

On the other hand, using quote marks to imply something was said when it actually was not, is not a presentation of fact but a deliberate mis-statement, so I'd just call that lying.

You can't fight reality. Get over it. you were wrong. Just grow up.

Well, I can't argue with that. You win.

DHodges wrote:

millipodium wrote:What do you mean "truth is disingenuous"?

No, truth itself is not disingenuous. But a certain presentation of facts, carefully selected so as to deliberately give a false impression, is disingenuous.

On the other hand, using quote marks to imply something was said when it actually was not, is not a presentation of fact but a deliberate mis-statement, so I'd just call that lying.

You can't fight reality. Get over it. you were wrong. Just grow up.

Well, I can't argue with that. You win.

The hexagram was an occult symbol, including satanism, before it was ever a jewish one. I'm sorry.