GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin,

Is your duplicity deliberate?

When will it be possible to have an honest, truly rational discussion with you on the subject?

I must admit, my expectations are much greater in this regard when it comes to you than other pro-Israel/USites on this forum. Perhaps those expectations are indeed misplaced.

At the forefront of our discussion now is the lament over intelligent reporting sources that contribute to a rational resolution of the conflict. Sources that are not sensationalist/propaganda-like. Sources that are not dramatic, shallow or emotional. And then, in the very next post, you say, “And I bet he [Bush] wishes there were a better, cheaper solution.”

From what pool of intelligent reporting that lacks all of the elements so despised would you make such a bet in favour of Bush and against the UN, who are constantly vetoed by the US?

I will address the rest of your post later.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:In the very next post, you say, “And I bet he [Bush] wishes there were a better, cheaper solution.”

From what pool of intelligent reporting that lacks all of the elements so despised would you make such a bet in favour of Bush and against the UN, who are constantly vetoed by the US?

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

My guess is that Israel will remain where it is. Does that mean I'm betting in favour of Bush?

Also, I don't consider myself pro-Israeli. I just think they should be not be unfairly treated.

For example, when Hezbollah moved back into southern Lebanon, they distributed leaflets telling parents to warn their children not to pick up any dolls lying around, since the Israelis have probably dropped dolls containing bombs to purposely blow-up the children.

They probably got the idea from the Western journalists.

Politically the whole fiasco has been great for Hezbollah, who are now more popular than ever.

sschaula wrote:But I don't think his true nature is idiocy. It's funny, because the only people I notice that say such things, I consider idiots

I understand why you have these considerations, since they are grounded in ignorance.

sschaula wrote:That is one aspect of it. Sticking to your guns.

Anybody can stick to their guns whether they are masculine or feminine. Being masculine requires you to keep an open mind. Something Bush doesn't have, and something you choose to have only when it doesn't bruise your ego.

nick wrote:You must have no idea what masculinity really is. Bush is a Woman through and through.

sschaula wrote:Actually, I'd say that about you before I would about him.

Of course you would.

nick wrote:He is a Christian fundamentalist who makes volatile decisions in distressfully emotional states. He doesn't know how to make decisions based in logic, only through his emotions.

sschaula wrote:I disagree.

Of course you do. No need to state the obvious.

sschaula wrote:Of course, that stuff isn't reported because we all want to believe there were no WMDs.

Obviously "we all" don't want to believe it because you don't, along with many others. My initiatve has nothing to do with believing and everything to do with knowing.

Yes, but it is limited and much less practical.

sschaula wrote:So the answer is yes...well then that makes your whole argument quite stupid.

With your inane reasoning, we would be lucky to communicate with smoke signals rather than through the use of advanced internet technology.

sschaula wrote:Alright...it can be done without abortions, which makes it legal. They can work with the technology right now. And they are...and nothing good has come from it.

Don't blame that on Bush. He doesn't give them funding? So what? He's a republican. Should he take that out of our taxes in addition to everything else that's taken out? Marsha doesn't make enough money, Nick...you're going to run her into the ground.

Nothing good has come from it because it is hampered by the president's ignorance and religious beliefs. Also, if we are spending half a trillion dollars on Iraq, any figure would be nice to put towards something that actually serves a good purpose.

sschaula wrote:Do you see troops patrolling the American streets? No. If people listen to your phone calls and look at your internet use, that isn't martial law. People aren't raiding our homes and putting us in cells, unless we do actually have something to hide.

Are you living under a rock? I, along with many other people have been a victim of illegal searches, when in fact there was nothing to be hidden. The police and other similiar institutions are not choir boys. They wont hesitiate to bend the law, or throw the rule book out completely if they really want to.

sschaula wrote:Should society go towards a state of constant martial law? No. It would be like communism. But where society is right now is pretty damn good.

You mean your ego is doing pretty damn good right now.

sschaula wrote:Not all Americans are lawful. Terrorists may train "on the other side of the world" but a lot of then plan to use the things they've learned here in the US. So I think the patriot act is good.

Perhaps the founding fathers weren't the brightest people...maybe they didn't think of every possibility. If there's a stagnancy, then we need to evolve. The founding fathers certainly had some great ideas, though. Especially a government by of and for the people.

To cut through all the bullshit, this mode of thought and action you are promoting is all about the preservation of the ego.

I'm going to ignore that and hope that an actual discussion on the topic of this thread will continue. It doesn't make sense to continue some name calling ego battle. Like I said to Leyla, what we talk about should be about the truth of whatever topic it is and not about eachother.

I may be full of ego and stupid...but what does that have to do with anything? Argue against points, not the person making the points.

A story about feeling oppressed and threatened



I moved to a new town, where I knew a friend. Once I'd arrived, I visited my friend. We sat at a table and I was served some tea. I asked my friend, "What are the people like here? Is anyone interested in truth?" My question drew a long silence. Then my friend said, "If you lived among madmen, would you humour them? Or would you directly challenge their madness, using no allusions or parables or white lies?"

I looked him in the eye and said, "I would speak the truth." My friend asked, "Are you quite sure?" "Yes," I said, calmly. There was another pause, and we both sipped tea. Then my friend said, "Would you back out, if your life was under threat?" I paused. I thought it over. Then, without heroism or arousal, I said, "No."

We talked about what we'd been up to lately, finished our tea, and my friend showed me around his house and garden. Then he said, "I'd like to introduce you to my landlord. I think he's home at present. He suffers from a mental illness, but is generally intelligent and passionate. If you talk to him about truth, he becomes quite mad. This town is full of people like him, and he is a town leader."

We walked up to the second entrance to my friend's house. The door was closed. Standing on the threshold, my friend turned to me and said, "Are you prepared to stay with him and not to run away when he makes difficulties, until he lets you go?" I said, "Yes." Knocking on the door, and introducing us, my friend then left. After all, he had never said he'd stay to help.

I looked at the man. We were the same in height, but he had a bulkier physique. I had little doubt that, if he chose to attack me bodily under arousal, he'd over-power me. He invited me in, closed the door, and then locked it. Oh, great! My decision was activated.

We sat in the lounge-room, in comfortable arm-chairs, facing each other over a small table. He was quite calm. Then he said, "Did I lock the door?" When I said I thought so, he got up to test it. Then he turned slowly to face me, and said, "Are you interested in truth? Or do you prefer to lie to feel safe and get along with others?" His pupils had dilated slightly, and his breathing had altered. I noticed his fingers were curling and uncurling slightly.

Calmly, I told him my preference, as I had to my friend.

He moved slowly and deliberately back to his armchair and sat down, smiling. His eyes were bright. Suddenly, he rose slightly, and leaned towards me, and his voice was loud and intense: "I WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE VERY DIFFICULT, AS LONG AS YOU TALK TO ME OF TRUTH!" Without missing a beat, I asked, "Do you feel like this much of the time?" He snarled. He obviously enjoyed theatricals. With a growl, and saliva on his lips, he said, "I won't kill you immediately.

"You need time to learn. The people in this town watch over each others' words, and they will watch you. They will stalk you, steal your money, cheat you, trip you, poison your food, interfere with your electricity and plumbing, corrupt your mail, disturb your sleep, set fire to your home, misinform you, and let you feel that you are a nothing here. They'll stalk you until your words and actions match theirs. Every time you speak truthfully," and here he was in an intense rage, with veins throbbing at his forehead and neck, "you'll suffer more!"

He was telling the trth, and how he was suffering. He wanted me to suffer much more, a symbol of what caused his intellectual warfare. How was I to deal with this?

Now he moved, hunched over, standing over me. I imagined the hair on his neck prickling. He whispered in my ear, "I'll let you go today, you worm. You'll be hardly damaged at all." His hand suddenly was on my shoulder, firmly. And then gripped my throat. The breath in my neck was hissing. I realised he was going to bruise my neck, to leave a visible sign that would last a week.

"I am also head of police here. The legal system is under my control. Now, go. Watch what you say. I have ears, and they all report to me." I stood, waiting for my breath to settle. "May I visit again, sometime?" I asked. He smiled, and replied, "It would be my pleasure."

I left, while he stood at the door. I thought, what an odd man. He can't help speaking truthfully, but blocks awareness of it, and won't admit it. And there seem to be plenty like him in this town, if both my friend and this man are right. I didn't need to ask my friend for any more information or assistance at this stage, but considered what I ought to do.

I decided that my best approach would be to use logical questions, to get any of them to think. I'd ask, "Is that the truth?" And when they said, "No, it is a lie," then that would be a good start. If they wouldn't talk at all, or started to do odd things to me, I'd have to encourage them to remember. I could only do the best I could. If they kept replying, "No, it is a lie," then I'd ask, "Why are you lying?"

It might, if done intelligently, reveal their personal motivations for feeling inclined to hate individuality and to hate choosing things rationally. It wasn't likely to occur without massive opposition, but I didn't have a set and ordered life, so even if my body was damaged, and I felt a lot of pain, that was still natural processes. I'd just have to do the best I could.

I decided never to allow the thought that I was oppressed, given that I had voluntarily accepted the consequences of speaking truthfully in a society that hated truth. I would not alter my decisions from feelings of self-pity. I would go for my walks, make visits, exercise, and carry on as much as normal - as much as I could. If ever I felt stressed, then I would relax and reason to clear out the arousal.

If things did indeed get difficult, then I might try becoming a town pest, or a jester, until they settled down again. In this way, I would increase stamina for outright truthfulness. My friend had lasted here and seemed not harmed at all. He was not worried. What he had decided was evidently based on his own capacity, realising the legal system couldn't be relied on in this area. I also could only do my best. If this town did reveal itself to be as I had learned so far, then I'd try to alter the legal system. I would not bother becoming a Gandhi, since heroism tended to stifle my own capacity to reason. I didn't like forcing myself to stick to role-playing, even if it was useful occasionally.

I could only do my best, based on my karma.

Kevin wrote:

Step up to the plate instead of yelling from the sidelines.

Defensive measure, Kevin -- what you wrote above.

I was neither yelling nor blustering. I have written much to this thread and I know that some others have written much about the brutality of checkpoints for Palestinians in Israel. Even if I was a Palestinian living in Israel and had experienced these things and wrote about them here, you would not accept it. There is no way to PROVE it to you, not even if I was able to give you personal experience of it. There are plenty of documentation on that subject and I think much of it has been posted here.

I have not been able to pay a lot of attention to the forum for the past few days because my daughter is very ill in the hospital. Being a parasite, it is my duty to go to the hospital and advocate for her welfare since she is too weak to do it herself. In that way, I can suck the life force out of her.

However, I will try to find some proof for you, even though, no matter what I come up with, you will not see it as proof because such proof will go against your set in concrete beliefs.

Faizi

Leyla wrote to Kevin:

The pictures of a group of armed Israeli soldiers smacking a rock against a Palestinian man, or the one where they were hitting another’s head against the wall?

Kevin replied:

Gruesome images can be found anywhere - especially in such conflicts. They don't prove anything other than things are gruesome.

But this brutality is not the result of conflict. It is the result of checkpoints.

This is what I mean, Kevin. Your beliefs about Israel are so set in concrete that you are like an old man with Alzheimers. That is not bluster or yelling or rudeness or a personal attack. It is an observation. Even if Jesus Christ came down from Heaven and showed you clear evidence you would refute it -- BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT FIT NEATLY INTO YOUR PRE-SET IN CONCRETE PRESUMPTION THAT JEWS ARE GOOD AND ARABS ARE BAD.

That is not yelling. It is simply the exasperation of trying to get through the concrete -- thick as a brick. You do not have to be pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli but you could open up that thick skull just a tad. It is dangerous to live inside such a closed skull.

Faizi

Kevin wrote:

I've no doubt that the Israelis have been closely watching the Hezbollah military build-up over recent months, and this was probably a factor in deciding the manner of their response.

No matter what, you will always have a handy excuse for the Israelis. I swear, I think you must be having an affair with Condi Rice. You sound just like her.

Faizi

MKFaizi wrote:

I've no doubt that the Israelis have been closely watching the Hezbollah military build-up over recent months, and this was probably a factor in deciding the manner of their response.

. . . you will always have a handy excuse for the Israelis.

How do you know it is an "excuse" rather than the facts of the matter? Once again your post has no content.

MKFaizi wrote:But this brutality is not the result of conflict. It is the result of checkpoints.

Why do you think the checkpoints are there? For fun?

Kevin wrote:

Why do you think the checkpoints are there? For fun?

I know why they are there. I seriously question the implementation of brutality in enforcment. I do not think suicide bombings are nice things. I don't like them.

But given the brutality of the oppression I am not surprised that they happen. You can only take being hit and beaten so many times before you retaliate.

Faizi

I wrote a reply to Kevin that disappeared. I cannot duplicate it but I will sum it up.

Faizi

Hi Marsha,

Were people in the Muslim community you were familiar with supportive of population controls, or do you reckon they felt they ought to become a majority ?

Kevin,

L: In the very next post, you say, “And I bet he [Bush] wishes there were a better, cheaper solution.”

From what pool of intelligent reporting that lacks all of the elements so despised would you make such a bet in favour of Bush and against the UN, who are constantly vetoed by the US?

K: I have no idea what you're talking about here.

My guess is that Israel will remain where it is. Does that mean I'm betting in favour of Bush?

Fair dinkum, Kevin. You are incorrigible. Really.

You said:

I acknowledge it alright. That is Bush's current solution. And I bet he wishes there were a better, cheaper solution.

But there's no use criticizing unless you can come up with a better solution.

On what information do you base your opinion that Bush wishes for a better, cheaper solution? Yes, I call that favour over the UN solution. Do you even know they exist??

Here’s another hint!

You wrote:

I think Israel should be allowed to exist peacefully within the borders of their small bit of land.

Sure. So, to be fair, let’s prove that they will not be allowed to exist peacefully within the borders of their small bit of land before we go all out justifying Israeli terrorism of Palestinians attempting to live peacefully on their own land by getting Israel out of the occupied territories and the water systems -- as per the numerous UN resolutions!

Please note: I will be asking you for the sources that you trust with regard to any information upon which you have drawn such conclusions on the issue.

.

sschaula wrote:I'm going to ignore that and hope that an actual discussion on the topic of this thread will continue. It doesn't make sense to continue some name calling ego battle. Like I said to Leyla, what we talk about should be about the truth of whatever topic it is and not about eachother.

I may be full of ego and stupid...but what does that have to do with anything? Argue against points, not the person making the points.

Why not get to the source of points? We must pull the weeds out by the root so that they don't grow back.

MKFaizi wrote: . . .given the brutality of the oppression I am not surprised that they happen. You can only take being hit and beaten so many times before you retaliate.

That's for sure. So what do you think the solution is? The bombings were worse before the roadblocks.

Leyla Shen wrote:

That is Bush's current solution. And I bet he wishes there were a better, cheaper solution.

But there's no use criticizing unless you can come up with a better solution.

On what information do you base your opinion that Bush wishes for a better, cheaper solution? Yes, I call that favour over the UN solution. Do you even know they exist??

In an ideal world, the Israelis would withdraw from the occupied territories, and then their neighbours would let them live in peace. But I doubt that it's going to happen regardless of what the UN would prefer. Firstly I don't think Israel is going to fully withdraw, and secondly I don't think their neighbours would refrain from attacks even if they did withdraw.

I can tell that Bush is not happy with the way things are going by looking at his body language when he speaks about the issue. He sincerely wishes he didn't even have to deal with the problem. He is pressured on all sides.

So, to be fair, let’s prove that they will not be allowed to exist peacefully within the borders of their small bit of land before we go all out justifying Israeli terrorism of Palestinians attempting to live peacefully on their own land by getting Israel out of the occupied territories and the water systems -- as per the numerous UN resolutions!

Before the occupation of those territories, the attacks on Israel were worse than they are now.

It's not possible to "prove" the attacks would increase if they withdrew. All we can do is make our best guess. My guess is that given the current sentiment and the historical momentum in the Middle East, the attacks will increase.

I don't think it's right for us to make Israel withdraw from the occupied territories just to see whether they will be crushed to a pulp.

Marsha,

. . .given the brutality of the oppression I am not surprised that they happen. You can only take being hit and beaten so many times before you retaliate.

Actually, the opposite seems to be true for the people of the region. Look at what Saddam did to Iraq. Like you've said before, he kept it in check. It was violent then, but much less compared to today.

When you treat your pet dog like your equal, it will take advantage of you. It will beg for food, bite your ankles, tear up your furniture, shit on the carpet, bark all day, and constantly want to be petted. When you beat it to a pulp anytime it does something you don't like, it becomes submissive and fearful of you. It may fight at first - until its spirit breaks.

It's obvious that treating Mujahadeen like equals to ourselves doesn't work. They see our obvious fault, and look at us as weak because of it. If we treated them like shit they wouldn't have so much hope.

In the Jill Carroll story, which I posted in another thread here, her captors kidnapped her in order to get the US government to release a few of their women from Abu Ghraib. That's what it was all about. If we didn't give them the hope for such a thing, there'd be no reason to have kidnapped her and killed her partner.

If the US military was the bad guy, and the Holy Warriors were simply left to defending themselves beyond any cause, they'd become much less violent. When you are told that you're the bad guy, you'll do things that bad guys do. Terrorist acts. When you're made to think you're innocent, you'll do things innocent people do.

So in my opinion, the majority of America needs to stop knowing what's going on in Iraq. That's the problem. The administration always has to cater to the public's wants, which is retarded in this situation. No one here actually knows what it's like over there...not even news reporters or soldiers who've been there. They get a brief glimpse. When people stop knowing about what's taking place, the military needs to beat the shit out of every suspicious person in Iraq. If someone is carrying a weapon of their own, kill them. If they aren't giving you information, take them hostage. We should actually be fighting a war, and not being given orders by the media.

That's the only thing I think will do any good. Beat the hope out of all Holy Warriors. They are just like dogs that need some training. People are too concerned about diplomacy. Tip toeing around our enemies. In doing so, we're only creating more as well as feeding the ones we already had.

Hopefully we pull out soon...or else pull an Israel. At least they know what they're doing militarily. War needs some brutality. A country's military should be feared by its enemies, not laughed at.

This is the fault of the American thinking public.

Kevin wrote:

In an ideal world, the Israelis would withdraw from the occupied territories, and then their neighbours would let them live in peace. But I doubt that it's going to happen regardless of what the UN would prefer. Firstly I don't think Israel is going to fully withdraw, and secondly I don't think their neighbours would refrain from attacks even if they did withdraw.

Speculation. Not worth much, really.

I can tell that Bush is not happy with the way things are going by looking at his body language when he speaks about the issue. He sincerely wishes he didn't even have to deal with the problem. He is pressured on all sides.

Damn. My heart goes out to the sorry wanton cowboy. What, he’s dropped his “axis of evil” rhetoric? Do you think he understands the body language of a suicide bomber or a few thousand slaughtered Palestinians? Or does he only understand the body language of a dead Jew?

Hey, wait a minute -- doesn't that make him an emotional source of information or is supposed remorse not considered emotional? What else can you tell me about his thoughts, Kevin?

Is it for this reason that we assume Bush wishes there were a better, cheaper solution? I mean, really, what is it you are trying to say about him and the UN? Bush has the best answer and the UN does not, right?

Before the occupation of those territories, the attacks on Israel were worse than they are now.

Cite your source/s, please. I’d like to examine it/them.

It's not possible to "prove" the attacks would increase if they withdrew.

Yes it is.

I don't think it's right for us to make Israel withdraw from the occupied territories just to see whether they will be crushed to a pulp.

Why not? What is the difference between Israel being crushed to a pulp or Palestine?

As far as I know, there has only ever been a remote possibility of one wise Jew (and again I state here that I personally do not believe in an historical Jesus) -- and the Jews themselves saw to his death according to the same account.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Before the occupation of those territories, the attacks on Israel were worse than they are now.

Cite your source/s, please. I’d like to examine it/them.

It's a long read, but you could start with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, in which Israel lost about 1% of its population.

Kevin,

So your argument is they had a greater loss of life then than they do now and that makes their actions in the occupied territories as well as US funding fair and justified. That is an interesting argument, Kevin. I see no reason, on those grounds, not to promote the same solution for Palestine.

You raised a point in an earlier post that I have not yet had the time to address, and will do so now. It was something along the lines of why would the UN establish Israel in the Middle-East only to abandon them. Much earlier in the discussion, I spoke about that very issue, questioning the reasoning.

You see, its strikingly ironic that the UN and the US saved the Jews from Hitler only to create little neo-Nazis like Scott to keep Israel and the Jews alive in the Middle East. He's such a confused thing. In one breath he is a self-confessed believer in democracy, and in another is one who would turn his back on it in an instant. (James, I’m still waiting for you to reply to my question in the Democracy? thread, by the way.)

I don’t buy for one second that nobody knew there would be conflict upon the creation of the state of Israel in the Middle East -- that they suddenly woke up one day and discovered much to their surprise that there was a problem. Did they just put them there to hear their incessant whining about anti-Semitism and how bad those Muslims are as the Jews proceed to blow up the place left, right and centre? What am I missing, here?

So, again as I did early in the piece, I ask -- why is the US funding the state of Israel -- what was and is fair about it, exactly?

.

Don't want to butt in, but,

You see, its strikingly ironic that the UN and the US saved the Jews from Hitler only to create little neo-Nazis like Scott to keep Israel and the Jews alive in the Middle East.

Neo-Nazi? That's funny seeing as how it was the Jews that were persecuted...and yet you think I'm on their side. It's funny seeing as how the Muslims aren't persecuted today, and yet you label me a persecuter.

This is a war, not a holocaust, Leyla. There is an enemy, not a victim. Israel is an ally, but it's not my country. I fight for the freedom of the people in my country before I fight for the freedom of people in other countries.

If anyone is taking freedom from others, they don't deserve freedom to be given to them. A person who gives freedom, giving a freedom taker his freedom, will invariably be taking everyone's freedom. Don't you see that?

This is pure logic.

He's such a confused thing. In one breath he is a self-confessed believer in democracy, and in another is one who would turn his back on it in an instant.

Even though you seem to be ignoring anything I say, I'd like to know how you think I'd turn my back on democracy in an instant. I don't like unsubstantiated claims.

So, again as I did early in the piece, I ask -- why is the US funding the state of Israel -- what was and is fair about it, exactly?

I'll try to put this in terms you can understand...

Once upon a time...

Israel began as a little child in the middle of a deep dark forest. Wolves surrounded the child, and a hunter came to its rescue by teaching the child how to fight and set traps, as well as build a powerful fortress to keep the wolves at bay.

The hunter and the child instantly became friends. Allies. Compassion arose in the heart of the hunter. What wouldn't you do for a friend, Leyla? Are you the type of stab someone in the back, or to run through hell to help them out? Do you sit there and contemplate the truth, or do you act out of the truth?

This is what I think the US support of Israel is about...friendship. It's what all diplomacy should be about...otherwise it's just a fraudalent shaking of hands.

Wisdom is based in emotion. It doesn't deny it. Feelings that you can't help are real, despite what you try to make yourself into. A cold hearted philosopher. A relentless thinker. Wisdom laughs at you when you fool even yourself into believing such lies. Thinkers take what is and reflect upon it. They don't change it. Philosophers love the way things are. They are never cold hearted.

Does this make sense to you, woman?

What you feel is undeniable, and you can't change it. Enlightenment isn't in changing it, but living with whatever it is you are.

So what may seem as stupid, such as the US and Israel simply being friends to eachother, I see as simply reality.

Do you get it, Leyla?

sschaula wrote:Don't want to butt in, but,

You see, its strikingly ironic that the UN and the US saved the Jews from Hitler only to create little neo-Nazis like Scott to keep Israel and the Jews alive in the Middle East.

Neo-Nazi? That's funny seeing as how it was the Jews that were persecuted...and yet you think I'm on their side. It's funny seeing as how the Muslims aren't persecuted today, and yet you label me a persecuter.

This is a war, not a holocaust, Leyla. There is an enemy, not a victim. Israel is an ally, but it's not my country. I fight for the freedom of the people in my country before I fight for the freedom of people in other countries.

If anyone is taking freedom from others, they don't deserve freedom to be given to them. A person who gives freedom, giving a freedom taker his freedom, will invariably be taking everyone's freedom. Don't you see that?

This is pure logic.

He's such a confused thing. In one breath he is a self-confessed believer in democracy, and in another is one who would turn his back on it in an instant.

Even though you seem to be ignoring anything I say, I'd like to know how you think I'd turn my back on democracy in an instant. I don't like unsubstantiated claims.

So, again as I did early in the piece, I ask -- why is the US funding the state of Israel -- what was and is fair about it, exactly?

I'll try to put this in terms you can understand...

Once upon a time...

Israel began as a little child in the middle of a deep dark forest. Wolves surrounded the child, and a hunter came to its rescue by teaching the child how to fight and set traps, as well as build a powerful fortress to keep the wolves at bay.

The hunter and the child instantly became friends. Allies. Compassion arose in the heart of the hunter. What wouldn't you do for a friend, Leyla? Are you the type of stab someone in the back, or to run through hell to help them out? Do you sit there and contemplate the truth, or do you act out of the truth?

This is what I think the US support of Israel is about...friendship. It's what all diplomacy should be about...otherwise it's just a fraudalent shaking of hands.

Wisdom is based in emotion. It doesn't deny it. Feelings that you can't help are real, despite what you try to make yourself into. A cold hearted philosopher. A relentless thinker. Wisdom laughs at you when you fool even yourself into believing such lies. Thinkers take what is and reflect upon it. They don't change it. Philosophers love the way things are. They are never cold hearted.

Does this make sense to you, woman?

What you feel is undeniable, and you can't change it. Enlightenment isn't in changing it, but living with whatever it is you are.

So what may seem as stupid, such as the US and Israel simply being friends to eachother, I see as simply reality.

Do you get it, Leyla?

Israel is our friend? That's why we should all die in southern lebanon?

What has israel done for the U.S. It's all one sided. I know you understand a beaten dog. Are we Isreael's?

Democracy in the mideast? These people are violent tribalists.

Democracy presumes that the winning party will not genocide the losing party. It's for people closer in values, and familiar with the concept of enlightened government through consent and rationality, instead of government through autocratic force and tribal dominance. Iraq was all about providing a buffer between Israel and Iran.

The whole thing collapses when the reification of 'things' like Jew, Arab, American, Israel, Palestine, US, UN are discovered to be the actual delusions they are...

These 'things' are mental conceptions held in perpetuation by their constant reification.

Stemming from the mental insistence that Self/Other is fact gets the Suffering rolling along very nicely...

Without the mental construct of the Self/Other division...how could we have Drama?

Not much happens with the 'drawing in' of Enlightenment...

Enlightenment is like the 'Off' Switch.

Drama...the 'On' Switch.

On/Off...On/Off...On/Off.

People largely want Drama...the 'rush' of emotion...to 'feel' shock and awe...excitement...danger...to be 'pushed' to the very threshold of 'Life and Death Situation'...to be staring down the barrel of Loss...

da dum, da da da dum dum dum...here come the marching girls...oompa oompa..

Sure, suffering hurts but it's a small price to pay....for the magnificent swirl of the 'heady', 'intoxicating', 'surprising' twists and turns of events as the 'latest blockbuster' Drama unfolds before your eyes...

It's Hilarious.

All you have to do is believe.

frank

sschaula wrote:

In terms of direct threat to the US, I think your home grown dipshits are far more of an immediate threat than Islamic dipshits.

Then the pacific ocean must be clouding your view of the country. Because just this past Saturday there were foiled plans for an attack on Labor Day in Michigan. And around a week ago there were a big group of Muslims planning to use liquid explosives on planes from the UK to America. And just yesterday there was a Pak woman trying to board a plane with an explosive gel.

Not to mention the fairly recent plot to destroy the Sears Tower, probably the US's greatest building landmark besides the Trade Centre.


Dan Rowden