Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism

[battleax86]

Our post got too long so I had to chop some of your paragraphs up. Sorry.

I understand. I'm having to break up my reply into two posts because of this forum's software.

The Canaanites were there first and Yahweh in his infinite wisdom decided that the best course of action would be to "leave alive nothing that breathes." Then came Babylon and then a few others until the Romans kicked them out.

OK...? The Caananites were being judged for their wickedness, which included human sacrifice. Throughout history, God allowed the Israelites to be conquered because they'd turned their backs on God. Now, He has restored them to the land that He gave them.

Considering that Islam is the farthest extension of this religious course (Judaism>Christianity>Islam), it could be argued that the Jews and the Muslims are one and both have this historical claim. Both claim Abraham as their father, both claim that it was them that owned the land.

You cannot claim Islam to be an extension of Judeo-Christianity because they are contradictory in nature. If they worshipped the same God, there would be no contradiction between them. The Muslim claim is illegitimate in Christianity, since God clearly gave the land to Abraham's descendants through Jacob, not Abraham's illegitimate descendants through Ishmael.

What the land looked like before, frankly, doesn't matter. Some sort of eminent domain conversation is out of the question.

Uh, definitely, because this doesn't involve taking anyone's land to put a school or a road or some other public building in its place. :neutral:

My point was not specifically what the land "looked like" before, but the fact that this Arab claim of the Jews coming and displacing a flourishing "Palestinian" Arab nation is pure and utter BS.

??? Begged them to stay? I've never in all my research heard of anything like this. Could you provide a link so I can see what you're refering to?

No problem.

From an Arab, no less.

It doesn't matter how big it is. If it isn't yours, it isn't yours.

Ah, but it is theirs. That aside, it doesn't seem the least bit odd to you that an entire culture has the genocidal goal of slaughtering a tiny nation that occupies 2% of your region?

Arabs either fled for fear of raising children in a war zone or were run off their land.

There is no evidence of anyone being run off of their land. Besides, if they were so afraid of living in a war zone, why didn't they flee to other Arab countries, instead of ending up in an area that could easily be a war zone (and indeed became a war zone) in the event of Israeli victory? Because they "knew" and were hoping that the Arab armies would quickly drive the "Zionist gangs" into the sea. They left in anticipation of Israel's destruction. They forfeited their right to return. If they want to leave the refugee camps, let them find a place to live in the Arab countries. Many Jews were expelled from the Arab countries around this same time frame, and Israel welcomed them with open arms. Why won't the Arab nations do the same for their voluntarily displaced "brothers?"

http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm - Fairly non biased. Holds both parties equally accountable for their actions.

The conflict was intensified and complicated by the 1948 war. About 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled during the war, and Israel did not allow them to return. Many Palestinian refugees were settled in camps under miserable conditions, where they have remained for several generations.

I agree that they are non-biased. However, they didn't give any type of source for their contention that some of the Arabs were expelled.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/israel_5.htm - Slight bias to Palestinians, however, I feel that the statistics are important.

1947: UN takes control over Palestine.
— November 29: A UN plan for dividing Palestine into two countries, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem as international zone, is presented. This plan was immediately met by violent protest from the Arabs. 590,000 Jews and 1,320,000 Arabs live in Palestine (31%).

I would doubt any information from this site, since they have other information that is clearly false (such as their claim that Jews are not an ethnic group).

Fear of being in a war zone is hardly voluntary.

Letting fear control you is, indeed, voluntary. Besides, this fear was instilled by Arab leaders warning the Arabs in the region to leave. They are responsible for this fear, so they should deal with the refugee problem.

During WWI a single Arab state was promised to Arabs for fighting the Ottoman's i.e. Lawrence of Arabia, but after the war was over they realized that a single power in the area of so much oil would be bad, so they broke it up and installed dictators. See above statistic for population info.

Much of Col. Lawrence's reports were later found to be falsified (the Arab revolt had little significance), but that's besides the point. I agree that British colonial policy in the region sucked badly. Yet, the Arabs got more than they were promised. They got five states, instead of one. Now, they're raising hell because they don't get a sixth, one that they could have had if they hadn't launched an invasion in 1948.

I can agree with this, but there were still Arabs whose homes and lineage trace back into the land of Israel. In a culture oriented around a family structure, the line in the sand that kept them from the land of their Grandfathers was an action that didn't exactly bring unity to the area. Especially while their Grandfather's home sat under a Jewish flag. It was an insult.

Yes, the Arabs also list referring to region as Judea and Samaria as "insults and incitements." :roll:

The fact is that these Arabs fled the region in anticipation of Israel's destruction. For whatever reasons, they fled voluntarily. They were not forced out. At the same time, many Jews either voluntarily fled or were forced out of their homes in neighboring Arab nations. Yet, Jewish refugee camps do not exist. Why is that? Because the Israelis accepted the realities of war and absorbed their Jewish brothers, just like every other nation in the history of the world has done for displaced people of their same ethnicity. The Arab nations, on the other hand, refuse to accept the Arab refugees that they encouraged to flee Israel. Instead, they keep them around as willing cannon fodder to fight the Israelis with and victims to hold up to world opinion.

How did they try to re-write history?

Your source says it best.

The Palestinian version is that they were innocently minding their own business, when suddenly the Zionists attacked them and evicted them by force, as part of a preconceived plan of ethnic cleansing.

http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm

I would say thank you if I thought you were sincere.

Oh, I am. If you can find a way to change their demands to something acceptable, I'd be all for it.

 

[battleax86]

... Yeah that was kind of my point.

If that was your point, then you entirely missed mine. You were saying that if we had attacked Afghanistan in 1998 and the country fell, these men would have done something that "we would all look on with disdain and tragedy." My point is that we didn't invade Afghanistan in 1998 and they DID do something that we all look on with disdain and tragedy, something that wouldn't likely have happened if we had acted decisively three years prior.

It would only be a matter of time before they regained their ability to act. It is ridiculous to think that you can permanently chain hatred. You have to change it, and you can not do it from a mile in the air with not so precise precision missles.

I'm not talking about chaining their hatred. I'm talking about chaining their ability to act. Pulling off something like 9/11 requires massive and organized coordination. To achieve this, the hijackers were in constant contact with Afghanistan and vice versa. They received training in Afghan camps. That's something precision missiles are very good at disrupting.

What is it you hate? I don't mean like "I hate cats" I mean hate in the sense that Usama bin Laden hates America.

Satan. I've been TAUGHT that hating anyone else is wrong.

For example, you don't have to teach a child to hit another child when that kid is playing with a toy that the first child thinks is his and won't give it to him. You have to teach the child that hitting other people is wrong.

That's based on conditioning.

I don't know any child that has been conditioned to act violently.

A child doesn't know what pain is until he experiences it or sees it. Until a child falls down, he runs everywhere he goes, yes?

Yes, and once he realizes what pain is, no one has to teach him to inflict pain on those who won't do what he wants.

Until the idea gets in his head to hit another child, the child doesn't hit. When a child is born all he does is **** himself and cry about it, get hungry and cry about it, sleep and cry when he wakes up, and smile when he gets attention. He doesn't know anything about violence or evil. He knows love.

He knows violence and evil, but doesn't know how to act on it because, as you've said, he hasn't experienced pain. He doesn't know how to effectively use violence. He knows love because that's one of the first things taught to him out of the womb. But who teaches him to hit others? Who teaches him when to hit? If someone did teach him that, who taught the teacher? No one taught him violence. It's something that comes naturally to human beings once they know what pain is and what inflicts it.

I've been spanked once in my life in my and father apologized for it. He said it wasn't the right thing to do. When I got into a fight at school I was not hit; I was hurt, but not physically. That is how I learned my lesson.

Then you're a fortunate exception. Many criminals are sitting in prison today because their parents didn't give them a good old-fashioned *** whooping.

They may not listen to what we say on television, but they cannot ignore what is right in front of them. That is why we can't merely speak, we must act and we must act in way that cannot be twisted into propaganda, regardless of whether we think we will be greeted as liberators or not.

We were greeted as liberators, but that's besides the point. Anything can be twisted into propaganda. When we entered Saudi Arabia at the request of the government to protect Arab lands from warmongers, it was twisted into propaganda. When we dropped food and supplies to help the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, that was twisted as propaganda. What type of acting did you have in mind?

I was refering to sacrifices as in getting off oil and away from Arab dictators.

Yes, that's the ultimate goal. Unfortunately, for time being, doing that would plunge our economy into crisis. That's not an acceptable sacrifice to keep the Arabs from hating us.

Where does pre-emtive war fit into all of this?

It fits with the concept of logical self-defense. For example, if you see a man raising his gun at you and you kill him, even though you fired first, you still have that moral highground, because it was the other man who first had the intention to kill. In the case of Iraq, it would be akin to stopping someone before they gave someone else the means to kill you.

Well.... This is just off the top of my head so, bare with me... We could stop putting them in power?

We put in the Shah prick in Iran, which directly led to Khomeini's rise.

We supported Saddam until the 90s.

Hmm...maybe you should look things up before going off the top of your head. No worries, though. There's nothing wrong with learning.

We did not put the Shah in Iran. He was already in power, but his power had been unconstitutionally removed by a prime minister who was moving heavily towards the Soviet Union. There was a power struggle between the two. The Soviet Union supported the Communist-leaning prime minister. To prevent Iran (and a good chunk of the West's energy supply) from falling to Soviet influence, we supported the Shah. He was the lesser of the two evils. As for Khomeini, he came about because Carter didn't go all the way in his support for the Shah. We backed off because he was a dictator and, following your line of logic, we didn't want dictators in power, so instead of supporting the lesser of the two evils, as we had done before, we backed off and it bit us in the ***.

Who is they? Muslims or the dictators you mentioned? I assume that you are refering to the latter. Dictators do not matter so long as men do not fear them. Just as a democracy, their power is given to them by people. A people's will give power to a democracy, and a people's fear gives power to a dictator. The answer is in people.

You're mistaken. I was talking about the people's hatred, that common anti-American, anti-Israeli hatred that runs rampant around the Middle East. As for the people being able to remove dictatorships, that only works when the dictators give in somewhat. In the case of Saddam, the people overthrowing him was next to impossible.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

OK...? The Caananites were being judged for their wickedness, which included human sacrifice. Throughout history, God allowed the Israelites to be conquered because they'd turned their backs on God.

And? ...Leave alive nothing that breathes. Do you know the gravity of such an idea? Were children in charge of the Human sacrifices? Did they deserve to be slaughtered? Were the cattle all homosexuals? Did they deserve to die?

Now, He has restored them to the land that He gave them.

Absolutely ridiculuous. The UN gave them the land, not God.

You cannot claim Islam to be an extension of Judeo-Christianity because they are contradictory in nature. If they worshipped the same God, there would be no contradiction between them.

Adam to Moses. Moses to David. David to (Yes, I'm skipping more than a few) Jesus, Jesus to Mohammed. They're all praying to the same guy.

The Muslim claim is illegitimate in Christianity, since God clearly gave the land to Abraham's descendants through Jacob, not Abraham's illegitimate descendants through Ishmael.

You would call him illegitimate, but according to Muslims Hagar was Abraham's second wife. Both the Bible and the Qur'an have the same credibility.

My point was not specifically what the land "looked like" before, but the fact that this Arab claim of the Jews coming and displacing a flourishing "Palestinian" Arab nation is pure and utter BS.

The issue to me isn't at all about if it was flourishing or not. It was a land where Arabs lived with a slight majority.

No problem.

From an Arab, no less.

Very well. I still think it's secondary to the point.

Ah, but it is theirs. That aside, it doesn't seem the least bit odd to you that an entire culture has the genocidal goal of slaughtering a tiny nation that occupies 2% of your region?

My region?

They left in anticipation of Israel's destruction. They forfeited their right to return. If they want to leave the refugee camps, let them find a place to live in the Arab countries. Many Jews were expelled from the Arab countries around this same time frame, and Israel welcomed them with open arms. Why won't the Arab nations do the same for their voluntarily displaced "brothers?"

Because Israel was made with the expressed purpose of creating a homeland for Jews, so to deny the admittance of Jewish refugees from Arab lands contradicts it's purpose. For Arab nations to accept the refugees would be to accept the state of Israel. I don't like the notion of using peoples lives as in such a way, but the people in the refugee camps (at the time) wanted to go back to their homes rather than go start one anew in Jordan or Egypt.

I agree that they are non-biased. However, they didn't give any type of source for their contention that some of the Arabs were expelled.

After Ramle and Lydda had been captured, the Israeli leadership was surprised to see that the inhabitants didn't flee spontaneously. That was a large problem to them, as they couldn't leave such a large and hostile population in that area. Therefore, Israel forcibly expelled 60,000 inhabitants from their homes, starting on July 14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

I would doubt any information from this site, since they have other information that is clearly false (such as their claim that Jews are not an ethnic group).

Where does it say that?

Letting fear control you is, indeed, voluntary. Besides, this fear was instilled by Arab leaders warning the Arabs in the region to leave. They are responsible for this fear, so they should deal with the refugee problem.

If you have a family and a war is on it's way to your doorstep, would you not leave?

Much of Col. Lawrence's reports were later found to be falsified (the Arab revolt had little significance), but that's besides the point. I agree that British colonial policy in the region sucked badly. Yet, the Arabs got more than they were promised. They got five states, instead of one. Now, they're raising hell because they don't get a sixth, one that they could have had if they hadn't launched an invasion in 1948.

The Arabs were promised a single state over the whole area. The got the whole area broken up and dictators installed.

Satan. I've been TAUGHT that hating anyone else is wrong.

You should not hate him either. WWJD?

I don't know any child that has been conditioned to act violently.

You don't know any child that has been spanked?

When a child is hit for doing something "wrong," he learns to hit when he thinks something is wrong. Since a childs view of wrong is not far beyond what he disagrees with he hits. He is taught that pain is how you change someone's mind. It takes even more pain avoidance lessons for him to get a grip.

Then you're a fortunate exception. Many criminals are sitting in prison today because their parents didn't give them a good old-fashioned *** whooping.

Most criminals are sitting in prison because of neglectful parents or violent parents, I would say.

We were greeted as liberators, but that's besides the point.

Are you kidding me?

Anything can be twisted into propaganda.

I want to teach Music in the West Bank. How do you see that being twisted?

When we dropped food and supplies to help the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, that was twisted as propaganda.

How? They were told it was poisoned, if I remember right. The people that ate it saw through the bullshit.

We did not put the Shah in Iran. He was already in power, but his power had been unconstitutionally removed by a prime minister who was moving heavily towards the Soviet Union.

I'm aware of this. The Shah was an evil bastard and his removal, unconstitutional or otherwise was the will of the Iranian people. Soviet Union or otherwise we put an evil bastard back in power after the people put forth a concerted effort to depose him.

As for Khomeini, he came about because Carter didn't go all the way in his support for the Shah. We backed off because he was a dictator and, following your line of logic, we didn't want dictators in power, so instead of supporting the lesser of the two evils, as we had done before, we backed off and it bit us in the ***.

We put the Shah back in power. With all the blowback that has occured, you think that was a good decision? Arguably the birth place of modern Islamic Extremism? A communist would have ruined the Iranian economy. If the Soviets wanted to help they would have to take funds out of their already wrecked and failng economy.

 

[battleax86]

And?

And what? This was the judgment of God. He has the right to decide who lives and who dies.

...Leave alive nothing that breathes. Do you know the gravity of such an idea?

Yes. These tribes had become far too wicked. They were given 400 years to repent and refused. They had to be removed. Instead of a flood, as happened about 2000 years earlier, He sent the Israelites.

Were children in charge of the Human sacrifices?

No, but it makes no difference. They would have continued the same practices as their parents, just as their parents had learned from the previous generation.

Did they deserve to be slaughtered?

Unfortunately, yes.

Were the cattle all homosexuals? Did they deserve to die?

God likely had the cattle slaughtered to show the Israelites that they were their to cleanse the land, not merely take over the Canaanites' possessions. As animals, I don't really have any sympathy for them.

Absolutely ridiculuous. The UN gave them the land, not God.

God works through people.

Adam to Moses. Moses to David. David to (Yes, I'm skipping more than a few) Jesus, Jesus to Mohammed. They're all praying to the same guy.

Just because Mohammed claims it does not make it so. There have been many false prophets throughout the two millenia since Jesus walked the planet, all claiming to pray to the same God. You can't draw a line between Jesus and Mohammed any more than you can draw a line between Jesus and David Koresh.

The issue to me isn't at all about if it was flourishing or not. It was a land where Arabs lived with a slight majority.

Whether there was a slight majority of them there is irrelevant. There was no Arab Palestinian nation, the Arabs did not consider themselves "Palestinian," and controlled incredibly tiny portions of the land that was re-established as Israel.

Very well. I still think it's secondary to the point.

I agree. This whole issue is secondary to the point of non-violence vs. Islamic terrorism. However, it is not secondary to the issue of what happened in 1947-48. The Arabs are claiming that they were expelled. The fact is that they evacuated in hopes of Israel's destruction.

My region?

Forgive me, I meant to say "their region." :roll:

Again, it doesn't seem the least bit odd to you that an entire culture has the genocidal goal of slaughtering a tiny nation that occupies 2% of their region?

Because Israel was made with the expressed purpose of creating a homeland for Jews, so to deny the admittance of Jewish refugees from Arab lands contradicts it's purpose.

According to you, the Arab states were also created for the express purpose of giving the Arabs control over a state, something that they were denied during their centuries under Turkish rule.

For Arab nations to accept the refugees would be to accept the state of Israel.

They should have accepted the state of Israel from the beginning, but that's besides the point. They would not have to accept Israel to allow the evacuees to resettle in their borders. We have accepted many refugees from other countries without recognizing the legitimacy of the regimes that displaced them.

I don't like the notion of using peoples lives as in such a way, but the people in the refugee camps (at the time) wanted to go back to their homes rather than go start one anew in Jordan or Egypt.

Again, that's something that they should have thought about before heeding the orders of the Arab nations. However, what has kept not only them, but their descendants, in these "refugee camps" (more like regular towns, now) for over half a century? I can't think of any group that has been considered refugees for such a long period of time. A normal refugee would realize that his home is gone, accept that fact, and relocate to another area, usually one predominately inhabited by his own ethnicity. Yet, the evacuees are unable to do that. The only logical explanation for this is that the Arabs refuse to accept them in order to keep them as pawns against Israel.

After Ramle and Lydda had been captured, the Israeli leadership was surprised to see that the inhabitants didn't flee spontaneously. That was a large problem to them, as they couldn't leave such a large and hostile population in that area. Therefore, Israel forcibly expelled 60,000 inhabitants from their homes, starting on July 14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War[/quote]
The neutrality of that article is under dispute, but I've been able to find other sources that back this contention. Very well, 60,000 Arabs were expelled from Ramallah and Lydda. Obviously, you can't allow an armed and hostile population of that size. However, it should also be noted that the Israelis were surprised that the Arabs didn't spontaneously flee. Apparently, the incident at Ramallah and Lydda was an anomaly.

Where does it say that?

Click your link, then click on the link for "Jew."

If you have a family and a war is on it's way to your doorstep, would you not leave?

Perhaps, but I wouldn't leave to another area that could easily be a war zone itself, which is besides the fact that most of the Arab evacuations were unnecessary. There was no reason for the Arabs to evacuate cities like Haifa, other than the fact they were expecting a large Arab army to come in and destroy Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Haifa_in_1948

The Arabs were promised a single state over the whole area. The got the whole area broken up and dictators installed.

They were not promised the area that would become Israel.

You should not hate him either. WWJD?

Jesus is at war with him.

You don't know any child that has been spanked?

When a child is hit for doing something "wrong," he learns to hit when he thinks something is wrong. Since a childs view of wrong is not far beyond what he disagrees with he hits. He is taught that pain is how you change someone's mind. It takes even more pain avoidance lessons for him to get a grip.

OK, so who conditioned the parents to be violent? Who taught them violence?If it is unnatural for human beings, why must we teach people to control their anger? If violence were unnatural in humans, we would have nothing to worry about when people get angry. Unfortunately, violence is a very natural response to anger. Believing that humans are basically good and peaceful is a nice ideal, but a very naive one.

Most criminals are sitting in prison because of neglectful parents or violent parents, I would say.

Neglectful? Probably. I don't think that someone would end up in prison because of violent parents, however (violence in terms of spanking for bad behavior). Spanking teaches a child that bad behavior is wrong. Without this, most children think that they can get away with bad behavior and, unfortunately, end up in prison as a result. Such situations can also be linked with neglect.

Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not.

I want to teach Music in the West Bank. How do you see that being twisted?

You are a spy. You don't really have any interest in teaching music. You are just using that as a cover to gain insider access to our town so you can tell the Zionists and the Americans information about our mujahideen. This has been a common American tactic throughout history. One of your own "patriots," Nathan Hale, used this ploy against the British. Even now, American Christians go to China posing as "teachers" to surreptitiously spread their filth. You will die, infidel spy. ALLAHU AKBAR!!!

See how it's done? Now, you have the benefit of defending yourself against a non-screaming non-fanatic who isn't ready to have his mob grab you and make you the exalted guest of honor at his hemp party. You wouldn't have that benefit in Nablus.

How? They were told it was poisoned, if I remember right. The people that ate it saw through the bullshit.

The ones that got to eat it. The rest of them saw people coming out in NBC suits to "decontaminate" the area and came away with the "knowledge" that America had tried to murder Iraqi civilians.

 

[battleax86]

I'm aware of this. The Shah was an evil bastard and his removal, unconstitutional or otherwise was the will of the Iranian people. Soviet Union or otherwise we put an evil bastard back in power after the people put forth a concerted effort to depose him.

There was no popular concerted effort. It was the backroom dealings of a powerful Iranian MP. He was not elected by his district to overthrow the Shah. Even if he was, you can't spin that off as the will of the entire nation. Saying that Mossadeq's attempts to overthrow the Shah was the will of the Iranian people would be like saying that Brezhnev's overthrow of Khruschev was the "concerted effort" of the Soviet people to overthrow him.

We put the Shah back in power. With all the blowback that has occured, you think that was a good decision? Arguably the birth place of modern Islamic Extremism?

Modern Islamic extremism began over Israel, but as far as it being a good decision, in hindsight, it's debatable. Letting Iran and a huge chunk of the West's energy supply fall to the Soviets could have hindered us greatly in the following decades. In 1953, when there was no benefit of a crystal ball that could look into 1979, it was most definitely a good decision.

A communist would have ruined the Iranian economy. If the Soviets wanted to help they would have to take funds out of their already wrecked and failng economy.

The Soviet economy neither wrecked nor failing in 1953. They would have been able to bail out Iran just like they did with Cuba a few years later. It would have taken them decades to fall, something that we could not risk. This is all besides the fact that the Iranian economy probably wouldn't have needed Soviet life support. Europe depended on Iranian oil. Not even a socialist could have f**ked that up to the point of a national collapse. We would have simply allowed a pro-Soviet dictator to replace a pro-American one. Considering that it was Iran, that would have been a disaster for the West.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

And what? This was the judgment of God. He has the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Why?

Yes. These tribes had become far too wicked. They were given 400 years to repent and refused. They had to be removed. Instead of a flood, as happened about 2000 years earlier, He sent the Israelites.

Omnipotence at his hands and God is powerless in the face stubborn men? Certainly God is capable of such things, after all he hardened the Pharoah's heart so he could kill the first born of Egypt... Anselm would say that a God that would perform a miracle to change the hearts of men is better than a God that would order a genocide because after all, we can conceive something greater than a God that would order a genocide, namely, a God that perform a miracle to change the hearts of men.

No, but it makes no difference. They would have continued the same practices as their parents, just as their parents had learned from the previous generation.

What gives you that idea?

Unfortunately, yes.

Is that why we should turn the Middle East into a plane of Glass, so that the honor killings would stop for now and forever?

God likely had the cattle slaughtered to show the Israelites that they were their to cleanse the land, not merely take over the Canaanites' possessions. As animals, I don't really have any sympathy for them.

Well that opens up a completely different debate, so I'll drop it here.

God works through people.

People work through people. Calling the UNs creation of Israel the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy is self-fullfiling. If God interfere's with the wills of men, then essentially we don't have "free" will. If we don't have "free" will, then a just and compassionate God is incapable of sending anyone to hell. After all, it was God's actions and not their own.

But I suppose that's presupposing things about your argument. Could you elaborate on the notion of God working through people? When your airplane lands safely at the airport of your choice, do you thank the pilot on the way out or do thank God?

Just because Mohammed claims it does not make it so. There have been many false prophets throughout the two millenia since Jesus walked the planet, all claiming to pray to the same God. You can't draw a line between Jesus and Mohammed any more than you can draw a line between Jesus and David Koresh.

The same could be said of David or Ezekiel or anyone else. It is faith that makes a spiritual fact, not you.

Whether there was a slight majority of them there is irrelevant. There was no Arab Palestinian nation, the Arabs did not consider themselves "Palestinian," and controlled incredibly tiny portions of the land that was re-established as Israel.

There were over 800,000 Arabs in the land that would become Israel. After the war there would be less than 120,000.

agree. This whole issue is secondary to the point of non-violence vs. Islamic terrorism. However, it is not secondary to the issue of what happened in 1947-48. The Arabs are claiming that they were expelled. The fact is that they evacuated in hopes of Israel's destruction.

They evacuated to avoid a war and to maintain their safety.

Forgive me, I meant to say "their region." :roll:

I didn't mean to be a douche bag, I just thought you were insinuating something and I didn't know what it was.

Again, it doesn't seem the least bit odd to you that an entire culture has the genocidal goal of slaughtering a tiny nation that occupies 2% of their region?

I don't think that's the culture's goal, but all the same: the land ages ago belonged to the Jews and half a century ago belonged to the Arabs. Today it belongs to the Jews and all of these things must be reconciled.

According to you, the Arab states were also created for the express purpose of giving the Arabs control over a state, something that they were denied during their centuries under Turkish rule.

Arabs had always been there though, and in large numbers. I think that's the difference and that difference must be respected.

They should have accepted the state of Israel from the beginning, but that's besides the point.

It's not besides the point, it was land that belonged to Arabs and Muslims and raising the star of david over this land didn't go over so well.

A normal refugee would realize that his home is gone, accept that fact, and relocate to another area, usually one predominately inhabited by his own ethnicity. Yet, the evacuees are unable to do that.

I don't know that that is wholly true. A man's home is a man's castle, that is the basis of English law and arguably social contract.

The only logical explanation for this is that the Arabs refuse to accept them in order to keep them as pawns against Israel.

Let us hope you have more proof than that.

Very well, 60,000 Arabs were expelled from Ramallah and Lydda. Obviously, you can't allow an armed and hostile population of that size. However, it should also be noted that the Israelis were surprised that the Arabs didn't spontaneously flee. Apparently, the incident at Ramallah and Lydda was an anomaly.

So... fleeing a warzone is to hope for the extermination of the Jews, but sticking around and fighting FOR YOUR HOMES is apparently not acceptable either so much so that they should be forced the hell out. Women, children, anything that breates while you're at it.

Click your link, then click on the link for "Jew."

It says that anyone born to a Jew is a Jew and anyone who converts to Judaism is a Jew. What's wrong with that?

Perhaps, but I wouldn't leave to another area that could easily be a war zone itself, which is besides the fact that most of the Arab evacuations were unnecessary. There was no reason for the Arabs to evacuate cities like Haifa, other than the fact they were expecting a large Arab army to come in and destroy Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Haifa_in_1948

Haifa was one of the primary objectives of Plan Dalet in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The operation was named Operation Misparayim which is a Hebrew word that means "scissors". It was captured by the Carmeli Brigade and Irgun April 20-21, 1948.

That's the first thing mentioned on the page. What makes you think it wasn't a threat?

They were not promised the area that would become Israel.

Not specifically I suppose, but they certainly weren't told ahead of time that Israel would be created and that it would be the Jewish homeland despite the Muslim Majority that lived there.

Jesus is at war with him.

How many bombs has Jesus dropped on Hell?

Believing that humans are basically good and peaceful is a nice ideal, but a very naive one.

Believing that humans are equipped for war is a stupid idea, that's why people don't survive it.

Neglectful? Probably. I don't think that someone would end up in prison because of violent parents, however (violence in terms of spanking for bad behavior). Spanking teaches a child that bad behavior is wrong. Without this, most children think that they can get away with bad behavior and, unfortunately, end up in prison as a result. Such situations can also be linked with neglect.

I was never spanked, and therefore, I find it hard to believe that children are incapable of realizing right from wrong without the violent use of Kohlberg's stage 1.

No, I'm not.

I could show you some of my pictures, but unfortunately this website has alot of people below the age of 18 and many more that probably don't pictures of what war looks like.

See how it's done? Now, you have the benefit of defending yourself against a non-screaming non-fanatic who isn't ready to have his mob grab you and make you the exalted guest of honor at his hemp party.

You're just being obtuse now. I would expect to encounter some resistance to my prescence, but my Kung Fu is strong (that's a joke). These are a very religious people and if any of them need to be reminded that Allah is most gracious and most merciful and most disproving of inhospitality, it would not be difficult to remind them.

You wouldn't have that benefit in Nablus.

Ohh, you've been to Nablus?

 

[battleax86]

Why?

Because He created humanity.

Omnipotence at his hands and God is powerless in the face stubborn men?

God will not subvert human free will, even though He could. If someone refuses to repent, God will allow them to make that decision, lest humans become robots.

Certainly God is capable of such things, after all he hardened the Pharoah's heart so he could kill the first born of Egypt...

The context of the Hebrew reads that God allowed Pharoah's heart to become hardened without God trying to influence it the other way.

Anselm would say that a God that would perform a miracle to change the hearts of men is better than a God that would order a genocide because after all, we can conceive something greater than a God that would order a genocide, namely, a God that perform a miracle to change the hearts of men.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the opinion of a medieval monk, but the Bible has shown repeatedly that God will not perform a miracle to change a man's heart unless that man wants his heart to change.

What gives you that idea?

The fact that God ordered them destroyed. Being a merciful God, I doubt that He would have destroyed people who would have repented.

Is that why we should turn the Middle East into a plane of Glass, so that the honor killings would stop for now and forever?

Honor killings are more of a Central Asian thing and not something that you can generalize for any particular region, especially given the fact that (rightly or wrongly) people are killed for an offense, not sacrificed to idols, and the fact that the authorities make some effort to prosecute those who commit these crimes (though they face uphill battles). This is more comparable to a draconian frontier justice, not an occultic religion. Human sacrifices, on the other hand, were an ingrained institution in Canaanite religions. It's a completely different situation.

Well that opens up a completely different debate, so I'll drop it here.

OK, but just out of curiosity, are you one of those animal-rights people?

People work through people. Calling the UNs creation of Israel the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy is self-fullfiling.

Self-fulfilling to who?

If God interfere's with the wills of men, then essentially we don't have "free" will. If we don't have "free" will, then a just and compassionate God is incapable of sending anyone to hell. After all, it was God's actions and not their own.

You're confusing free will and influence. If you convince me to do something, you are not interfering with my free will, yet you are, to some degree, responsible for the actions that you convinced me to take. The same thing applies in the case of the UN and Israel.

But I suppose that's presupposing things about your argument. Could you elaborate on the notion of God working through people?

Sure. When people pray, God does not usually talk to them in an audible voice, but puts thoughts in their heads. God can do this even when people aren't praying. When God puts a thought in someone's head, He is influencing them to do something.

When your airplane lands safely at the airport of your choice, do you thank the pilot on the way out or do thank God?

Both. I thank God for giving the pilot the ability to land and the pilot for doing his job correctly.

The same could be said of David or Ezekiel or anyone else.

No, the same couldn't. David was a direct ancestor of Jesus. Mohammed is not related to Jesus at all. Ezekiel followed the law of Moses. So did Jesus, until His fulfillment of the Law on the Cross. Mohammed invented a religion that contradicts the Bible and claims it to be corrupt. The whole argument for putting Mohammed on the same line as Jesus (e.g., "Adam to Moses to David to Jesus to Mohammed) is that Mohammed claimed to pray to the same God. That's a pretty weak case, in light of the fact that Islam, through the Koran and Hadith, contradict the Bible on several key issues.

It is faith that makes a spiritual fact, not you.

Neither faith nor I make any facts, spiritual or otherwise. Faith is a belief. Beliefs are not facts.

There were over 800,000 Arabs in the land that would become Israel. After the war there would be less than 120,000.

Yep, a sad situation that could have been avoided if the Arab nations hadn't invaded and advised the Arab inhabitants to leave.

They evacuated to avoid a war and to maintain their safety.

Then why, for the love of all things holy, did they evacuate to another place that just as well became a war zone when the Israelis turned back the invasion?

I didn't mean to be a douche bag, I just thought you were insinuating something and I didn't know what it was.

Looking for the hidden meanings, eh? :lol:

I don't think that's the culture's goal, but all the same: the land ages ago belonged to the Jews and half a century ago belonged to the Arabs. Today it belongs to the Jews and all of these things must be reconciled.

Actually, half a century ago, Israel was fighting its second war against the Arabs, but I know what you meant. In 1947, the Arabs only controlled about 16% of the land that Israel now controls. Most of the land was barren, unpopulated, and controlled by the British. Today, the Jews are now in control of their homeland, the homeland that God gave them, and the only justifiable reconciliation in this conflict is the defeat of those who try to violently remove them from their homeland.

Arabs had always been there though, and in large numbers. I think that's the difference and that difference must be respected.

No, not really. The Arabs hadn't always been where they are now. Iraq and Lebanon did not come under Arabs hands until the Middle Ages. The Arabs were mostly confined to the Arabian peninsula until shortly after the advent of Islam. The Turks took over the entire region not too long thereafter.

Even if your supposed "difference" were true, the fact remains that these states were created for the express purpose of giving Arabs control over their own states - the same purpose of Israel for the Jews. It makes just as much sense for them to take in the Arab refugees as it did for Israel to take in the Jewish refugees.

It's not besides the point, it was land that belonged to Arabs and Muslims and raising the star of david over this land didn't go over so well.

No, that land did not belong to Arabs and Muslims. As I said, they only controlled about 16% of the land. They may have been a slight majority, but it was just as much a land of Jews.

I don't know that that is wholly true.

OK, do you have another example of refugees remaining refugees for over half a century?

A man's home is a man's castle, that is the basis of English law and arguably social contract.

A man's home is his castle so long as he holds that castle. Once he abandons that castle and the current holders won't allow him to return, it doesn't make much sense to gripe about it for six decades. Go find a new castle.

Let us hope you have more proof than that.

Do you have another explanation for why the Arab nations won't allow refugees of their own ethnicity into their borders?

So... fleeing a warzone is to hope for the extermination of the Jews, but sticking around and fighting FOR YOUR HOMES is apparently not acceptable either so much so that they should be forced the hell out.

No one was fighting for their homes. The Israelis didn't take away the homes of anyone who tried to live peacefully there, as evidenced by the Arab minority in Israel. As for fleeing the war zone, it's not so much that they fled a war zone as it is WHY they fled and where they fled to. In 1948, that region had been a war zone for quite some time. It's not like they were living in a peaceful utopia and all of a sudden war broke loose. The Arabs had ample opportunity to flee a war zone prior to May 1948, but they didn't do so in large numbers until the Arab leaders ordered them out. Secondly, if they were so interested in fleeing a war zone, why did they flee to somewhere that easily could have (and did) become a war zone in the event of Israeli victory?

Women, children, anything that breates while you're at it.

Yes, Gandhi, we're all aware of the mass deportation of cattle. :roll:

It says that anyone born to a Jew is a Jew and anyone who converts to Judaism is a Jew. What's wrong with that?

It also says this:

"The definition of a 'Jew' is not linked to race; Jews constitute many different ethnic groups."

It's attempting to claim (falsely) that the Jews are not an ethnic race. This is simply false.

Haifa was one of the primary objectives of Plan Dalet in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The operation was named Operation Misparayim which is a Hebrew word that means "scissors". It was captured by the Carmeli Brigade and Irgun April 20-21, 1948.

That's the first thing mentioned on the page. What makes you think it wasn't a threat?

Most Arabs fled in May, after the fighting had ended. :wink:

 

[battleax86]

Not specifically I suppose, but they certainly weren't told ahead of time that Israel would be created and that it would be the Jewish homeland despite the Muslim Majority that lived there.

They were told in 1917 and their leaders signed off on it.

How many bombs has Jesus dropped on Hell?

You're operating under two misconceptions. The first is that satan is actually in hell. He's currently on Earth, roaming it to and fro. Secondly, everyone involved in this conflict (from God to the devil) are spirits. Bombing wouldn't have much effect, would it?

Believing that humans are equipped for war is a stupid idea, that's why people don't survive it.

I didn't say that people were equipped for war. I said that people have a natural capacity for violence and hatred.

I was never spanked, and therefore, I find it hard to believe that children are incapable of realizing right from wrong without the violent use of Kohlberg's stage 1.

I similarly find it hard to believe that you were never, ever spanked...

Kohlberg makes a logical argument. Children do not really care so much about morality, just what will earn them punishment from authorities. Oftentimes, the only effective punishment is spanking.

I could show you some of my pictures, but unfortunately this website has alot of people below the age of 18 and many more that probably don't pictures of what war looks like.

None of which change the fact that we were, indeed, greeted as liberators... :wink:

You're just being obtuse now. I would expect to encounter some resistance to my prescence, but my Kung Fu is strong (that's a joke). These are a very religious people and if any of them need to be reminded that Allah is most gracious and most merciful and most disproving of inhospitality, it would not be difficult to remind them.

That's one of the most naive things I've heard you say. Do you honestly think that after they twist your motives and make you out to be a spy, they'll stop when you say, "No no no, guys, remember that Allah is gracious and merciful!"? They'll just as quickly answer that Allah ordered them to strike at the neck of the infidel, especially an infidel spy. Their hatred is fanatical and there is no way that you can talk your way out of it.

Ohh, you've been to Nablus?

I've met people from there and I know how the culture is, in general.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Because He created humanity.

And?

My mom and dad created me. Do they have some sort of right over if I live or if I die?

The context of the Hebrew reads that God allowed Pharoah's heart to become hardened without God trying to influence it the other way.

Do you speak Hebrew?

Exodus 7:2-5

You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the opinion of a medieval monk, but the Bible has shown repeatedly that God will not perform a miracle to change a man's heart unless that man wants his heart to change.

You would disagree that nothing greater can be concieved than God? It's Saint Anselm. Not just Anselm the medieval monk.

Paul persecuted christians for a living, did he want to change before God spoke to him?

The fact that God ordered them destroyed. Being a merciful God, I doubt that He would have destroyed people who would have repented.

Their children. Think for yourself. Children believe in Santa Clause. The mind of a child is malleable.

OK, but just out of curiosity, are you one of those animal-rights people?

I like animals, but I also like a good steak .

Self-fulfilling to who?

To anyone who sees it as a prophecy.

You're confusing free will and influence. If you convince me to do something, you are not interfering with my free will, yet you are, to some degree, responsible for the actions that you convinced me to take. The same thing applies in the case of the UN and Israel.

Sure. When people pray, God does not usually talk to them in an audible voice, but puts thoughts in their heads. God can do this even when people aren't praying. When God puts a thought in someone's head, He is influencing them to do something.

God puts thoughts in peoples heads?

First: Prove it.

Second: There's a lady who cut off her babies arms who says the same thing you're saying.

Both. I thank God for giving the pilot the ability to land and the pilot for doing his job correctly.

God didn't give the guy the ability to land, he learned it in aviation school.

No, the same couldn't. David was a direct ancestor of Jesus. Mohammed is not related to Jesus at all. Ezekiel followed the law of Moses. So did Jesus, until His fulfillment of the Law on the Cross. Mohammed invented a religion that contradicts the Bible and claims it to be corrupt. The whole argument for putting Mohammed on the same line as Jesus (e.g., "Adam to Moses to David to Jesus to Mohammed) is that Mohammed claimed to pray to the same God. That's a pretty weak case, in light of the fact that Islam, through the Koran and Hadith, contradict the Bible on several key issues.

Mohammed is a direct descendent of Abraham, you've already admitted this.

On what "key" issues do Islam and the Bible contradict one another.

Granted Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God, but simply an awesome prophet.

Neither faith nor I make any facts, spiritual or otherwise. Faith is a belief. Beliefs are not facts.

If a Muslim says that Muhammad is God's prophet, then it is a fact of Islamic spirituality that Muhammad is God's prophet. This is the same sort of faith based fact that Christians take hold to when they say the Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead.

Yep, a sad situation that could have been avoided if the Arab nations hadn't invaded and advised the Arab inhabitants to leave.

It could have been avoided if the UN hadn't decided on the Partition plan. Muslims here, Jews there. It's not that simple.

Then why, for the love of all things holy, did they evacuate to another place that just as well became a war zone when the Israelis turned back the invasion?

The Arab nations wouldn't accept them into their country and the Israelis wouldn't let them go home.

Actually, half a century ago, Israel was fighting its second war against the Arabs, but I know what you meant. In 1947, the Arabs only controlled about 16% of the land that Israel now controls.

It was their land, no matter the use or lack thereof.

Most of the land was barren, unpopulated, and controlled by the British. Today, the Jews are now in control of their homeland, the homeland that God gave them, and the only justifiable reconciliation in this conflict is the defeat of those who try to violently remove them from their homeland.

If this is true, then it is God's will that there is hatred in the hearts of men, and there is war in their "homeland." I think God wants peace, because I can concieve a God greater than a God that doesn't want peace, namely a God that wants peace.

No, not really. The Arabs hadn't always been where they are now. Iraq and Lebanon did not come under Arabs hands until the Middle Ages. The Arabs were mostly confined to the Arabian peninsula until shortly after the advent of Islam.

Ohh yeah, that's only over a thousand years of history.

Even if your supposed "difference" were true, the fact remains that these states were created for the express purpose of giving Arabs control over their own states - the same purpose of Israel for the Jews. It makes just as much sense for them to take in the Arab refugees as it did for Israel to take in the Jewish refugees.

I would agree with you, but to accept the refugees is to accept what they feel to be a wrong on the part of a Jews, that's how they viewed/view it.

No, that land did not belong to Arabs and Muslims. As I said, they only controlled about 16% of the land. They may have been a slight majority, but it was just as much a land of Jews.

Ohh yes the immigrants since the... I'll give you late eighteen-hundreds for the majority of immigrants.

OK, do you have another example of refugees remaining refugees for over half a century?

No, but I wasn't debating that part of your argument.

A man's home is his castle so long as he holds that castle. Once he abandons that castle and the current holders won't allow him to return, it doesn't make much sense to gripe about it for six decades. Go find a new castle.

The UN said this land is now the JEWISH HOMELAND. This will be Arab land and this will be Jewish land. They had no right over a land that belonged to predominantly Arabs.

Do you have another explanation for why the Arab nations won't allow refugees of their own ethnicity into their borders?

Lack of information does not equate to a fact.

No one was fighting for their homes. The Israelis didn't take away the homes of anyone who tried to live peacefully there, as evidenced by the Arab minority in Israel. As for fleeing the war zone, it's not so much that they fled a war zone as it is WHY they fled and where they fled to. In 1948, that region had been a war zone for quite some time. It's not like they were living in a peaceful utopia and all of a sudden war broke loose. The Arabs had ample opportunity to flee a war zone prior to May 1948, but they didn't do so in large numbers until the Arab leaders ordered them out.

I really don't think you are at all trying to empathize with the situation. Put yourself in the situation. You're an Arab, a Muslim. You're told that the area you're living in is about to be a Jewish Homeland. Arab leaders say, "Transjordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria are going to invade and reclaim the land for Arabs." Your neighbors are leaving. Your family is leaving.

That's a hard situation, and I don't know how you could be so obtuse and detached about it.

Secondly, if they were so interested in fleeing a war zone, why did they flee to somewhere that easily could have (and did) become a war zone in the event of Israeli victory?

Because like the rest of the world it was a surprise that this tiny little state could hold off the Arab nations.

It also says this:

"The definition of a 'Jew' is not linked to race; Jews constitute many different ethnic groups."

It's attempting to claim (falsely) that the Jews are not an ethnic race. This is simply false.

Is what it said false? Do Jews not constitute many different ethnic groups? The events of the Diaspora pretty much lead to the change of the Jewish race, I would say. Those that lived in Russia really aren't of the same Geneology of those that lived in Poland or in the Middle East.

Most Arabs fled in May, after the fighting had ended. :wink:

After a few days, only about 10,000 of Haifa's Arab residents remained. 20,000 Arabs fled after Arab leaders advised them to leave the area because forces from six Arab nations were planning to invade and destroy Israel. A further 20,000 became refugees in Lebanon and Jordan.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

They were told in 1917 and their leaders signed off on it.

In 1921 a Palestinian delegation went to London and requested Britian to reject the Balfour declaration on the grounds that it violated Article 22 of the League of Nations - http://www.mideastweb.org/leaguemand.htm

You're operating under two misconceptions. The first is that satan is actually in hell. He's currently on Earth, roaming it to and fro.

Don't tell me... Barbara Boxer?

Secondly, everyone involved in this conflict (from God to the devil) are spirits. Bombing wouldn't have much effect, would it?

So it's really nothing like the kind of war we're talking about. There's no killing, there's no death. That doesn't sound like a war at all. It sounds like a struggle.

I didn't say that people were equipped for war. I said that people have a natural capacity for violence and hatred.

I will concede that when frustrated people will try to express their emotions, namely anger, physically. However, I do not believe that hatred is natural at all.

"No baby comes out the womb and it's first words are like, "The Jews got all the money!" - David Cross

I similarly find it hard to believe that you were never, ever spanked...

Do I come off to you as a liar?

Kohlberg makes a logical argument. Children do not really care so much about morality, just what will earn them punishment from authorities. Oftentimes, the only effective punishment is spanking.

Would you agree that children have a natural affinity of love, at least for their mother? Between the time spent in the womb and the nurturing from the moment of birth, wouldn't you say a child loves, if not both parents, his/her mother? This is speaking of course in an ideal situation of two loving parents.

That's one of the most naive things I've heard you say. Do you honestly think that after they twist your motives and make you out to be a spy, they'll stop when you say, "No no no, guys, remember that Allah is gracious and merciful!"? They'll just as quickly answer that Allah ordered them to strike at the neck of the infidel, especially an infidel spy. Their hatred is fanatical and there is no way that you can talk your way out of it.

Talk to Tashah. She teaches in the west bank when she has free time, she has told me. That's an Israeli. That's a Jew. That's a woman. That's alot of things that the stereotype you've got built up in your head wouldn't like so much. The sheer fact that she goes and takes such risks kills hatred. These are religious people, very religious people. They know killing is wrong just like you and I do, and I would expect that there would be some fanatics, but even these men have Earthly agendas. They want people to be on their side. They are not going to get people on their side if they kill their child's school teacher. I'm not afraid, nor am I naive.

Again, I think you're being obtuse.

I've met people from there and I know how the culture is, in general.

I know a Palestinian, he's from Gaza, and I've met his parents and they had no problem with their son hanging out with an infidel spy. I know a guy not 2 years out of Tehran. I've had conversations with a few level headed Muslims as well as one fairly radical Muslim who grew up a few hours from Islamabad.

All of these people are in my Arabic Lab. All of these people think that what I want to do isn't naive. They think it's strange, they think I might be somewhat lonely and might have a hard time finding a job at an elementary school, anywhere in the West Bank, but they think it's certainly possible, while ambitious. My Arabic Prof, refers to it as "the most liberal thing he's ever heard."

 

[DivineComedy]

When have I avoided condemning Hamas? I do not condone killing, I DON'T CARE WHAT CLOTHES YOU WEAR WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT.

You just avoided condemning their method of warfare, which sets them apart from lawful belligerents.

Because you don’t care what clothes Hamas is wearing while killing, that is why the Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism thread is futile:

“The State sponsor of terrorism calls the terrorist a ‘martyr‘ when they dress up like a student and walk on a bus to blow up, and people die in an instant without time to say ‘oh ****.’ Forget for a moment any bias against Israeli occupation and just consider the situation as an unbiased observer that just sees the violence and wants to stop it. The civilian victims do not have a chance to stop that terror, because they can’t even see the enemy! Who did you see? You see a foreign power {State sponsor of terrorism that was in violation of a cease-fire resolution like H 32 of UN resolution 687 that required them not to support terrorism} support an act of terrorism. Certainly you would not require a civilian to drop everything and fight for nonviolence on a foreign battle field?”

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush:
“In said scenario, there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever. Nonviolent or otherwise.”
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...&postcount=432

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

So you're a racist? You have made an assertion that a person is a savage because "peaceful" isn't a common characteristic, in your opinion, of a certain group of people. Forgive me, but that's certainly how it sounds.

You have made the assertion, it is not my job to prove it wrong. I don't have evidence that my neighbor isn't a serial killer. You know what I do? I assume he's not a serial killer.

No. Savagery has nothing to do with race, I am part Cherokee. I did not make the assertion that a person is a savage because “peaceful” isn’t a common characteristic, I asked the Palestinian a question in which the Palestinian repeatedly refused to condemn Hamas. I asked the question politely about Hamas in my very first post to the Muslim, just like I was polite to the Taliban supporter prior to 911. What we are dealing with here is a Palestinian that could not condemn Hamas. If your neighbor lived in a neighborhood known for supporting serial killing, and your neighbor was known to not condemn serial killing, you would be stupid to assume he’s not a serial killer and go over to Dahmer‘s house for tea.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. I don't know why you can't understand it. These people are guerrillas in an urban jungle. If they wore a big green and red uniform, they don't stand a chance. Therefore they view the only possile tactic as subterfuge, and yes, deception. I do not condone this. I do not excuse this. I understand this, despite how counter-productive I think it to be.

If I was to accept what you believe about Hamas then JB Stoner, Ted Kaczynski, Walter Leroy Moody, and Timothy McVeigh were also “guerrillas in an urban jungle.” Seriously, do you know how to tie your shoes yet?

I think Israel would be better off accepting that hundreds of thousands of people lived on the land they lived on that fled or were driven out during the war.

I will point out that the Jews went through all the legal channels at the time, and got legal rights and agreements for more of them to go to the geographical region of Palestine, for a Jewish home in the territory their people had occupied continuously long before the existence of the Jewish Temple. The Arabs illegally started the WAR, and lost. So the Arabs (and so-called “Palestinians,“ a word not in my grandmothers dictionary) have no legal or moral rights to destroy Israel. As I previously pointed out in the Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism thread, once the world community recognized Israel and made her a Member State the equation changed, to then demand Israel give back the land would be like the government using eminent domain and selling someone a property and then allowing the previous occupant to take it back; if there was a wrong the world community should compensate the Palestinians financially, and that is it, but the world community has no right to make Israel give up her land.

It is not God's duty to make things right, it is ours.

At least we can agree on that, that is why I support my Social Contract policing Al Quacka’s like Hamas and all of those people like JB Stoner, Ted Kaczynski, Walter Leroy Moody, and Timothy McVeigh, that your childish argument claims are “guerrillas in an urban jungle.”

No one should accept injustice. Period.

That is an absolute that destroys forgiveness, and if that is what you teach the Palestinians and the Israelis there will never be peace. Where is the Jewish Temple at? Should the Jews not accept that injustice and abomination of King of the Hill? Hamas Charter: “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”

Effectively what you said, applying to the hypotheticals you brought up, is that if gangs are raping, pillaging, and plundering your neighborhood, you have the right to RAPE, pillage and plunder their neighbor hood.

That's an eye for an eye. Jesus was against it.

Absolute BULL! NO, I did not say that. That is the reciprocity of the amoral Al Quacka. And the ancient law of eye for an eye is not in violation of their own Golden Rule, because the Golden Rule basically sums up the law. Jesus was not against policing criminals. The Golden Rule does not prevent policing criminals, but it does prevent an Al Quacka from taking the law into their own hands according to their own ideas of justice, while on land held under threat of eminent domain by a higher social contract; the land must be policed or the ownership of the land is put up for sale to the social contract willing to police it:

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

If Israel used the same reciprocity of the amoral Al Quacka like Palestinian/Hamas, that was supported by Saddam‘s own ideas of justice, Arab pizza parlors and weddings would be getting blown up by Israelis in civilian clothes and they would be called “martyrs,” but alas only Arabs in civilian clothes are wont to blow up Arab pizza parlors and weddings and get called “martyrs.”

It is a shame that I have to waste so much time explaining such fundamental concepts to someone taking a philosophy class.

Two boxers fighting according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules are not violating the Golden Rule, they are treating each other as they would want to be treated, the same applies to nations fighting according to the Geneva Conventions (it is a contract between High Contracting Parties). The boxer that secretly puts something illegal in his gloves for advantage, and the terrorist that uses civilian disguise is violating the Golden Rule. The actions of the so-called Palestinian/Hamas Terrorist “State” has not been in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with their well documented PLO terrorists and Hamas terrorists using civilian disguise, and the Internet is slap full of pictures of Israeli soldiers clearly wearing uniforms, but I wouldn’t expect a terrorist propagandist to acknowledge those irrefutable FACTS. However, I expect a terrorist propagandist to equate the righteous policing of the Palestinian Terrorist WAR criminals with a violation of the Golden Rule! Should a so-called “Palestinian terrorist now attack Israel and the Palestinian/Hamas Terrorist State allowed them to be called “martyrs” it would be an ACT OF WAR; the land would then be for sale to the highest bidder!

To have the right of eminent domain the civilian/civilization must own the land, and they have a right to publish cartoons. If the civilian wants to attack the foreign publisher of the cartoons, through terrorism as in “do we need to blow things up,” and claim their territory is off limits in response to the war in essence becoming a nomad (claiming any killing of a nomad during warfare is a violation of the Golden Rule), the nomad had better get out of any territory whose social contract is at war with their neighbor; the refusal of the nomad to take their children to safety and leave a war zone is a guilt on their head.

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

Respond to the principalities and powers of the air.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

You just avoided condemning their method of warfare, which sets them apart from lawful belligerents.

I couldn't care less what kind of killing you deem to be "legal" and "illegal." One way or another, in my eyes, it is wrong.

No. Savagery has nothing to do with race, I am part Cherokee.

What does being part Cherokee have to do with this?

I did not make the assertion that a person is a savage because “peaceful” isn’t a common characteristic,

Perhaps I misunderstood or perhaps you misspoke, but it seemed to me that you offered the fact that you don't see "uniformity" as proof that Peaceful Muslim was/is a savage.

I asked the Palestinian a question in which the Palestinian repeatedly refused to condemn Hamas. I asked the question politely about Hamas in my very first post to the Muslim, just like I was polite to the Taliban supporter prior to 911. What we are dealing with here is a Palestinian that could not condemn Hamas.

Why is it that you could not remain polite after the very first post?

If your neighbor lived in a neighborhood known for supporting serial killing, and your neighbor was known to not condemn serial killing, you would be stupid to assume he’s not a serial killer and go over to Dahmer‘s house for tea.

I disagree, especially in the case of Palestine and terrorism. I would be more tempted to go for tea, but maybe that's just the activist in me. I certainly find no sense in refering to him as a bloody savage.

If I was to accept what you believe about Hamas then JB Stoner, Ted Kaczynski, Walter Leroy Moody, and Timothy McVeigh were also “guerrillas in an urban jungle.”

I think the situations differ considerably. Hamas has a charter that says, "Hey, we want you to die," where as Kaczynski just sent the bombs. I suppose to an extent the situations are similiar and I view them similiar to the degree that what they are both doing is wrong. Would you think it sensible for JB Stoner to wear a Klan robe when he blows up churches and go during the day when people can see him? No, it doesn't matter. He's an asshole either way.

I can't think Ted Kaczynski without thining Will Ferrel. Are you an SNL fan?

Seriously, do you know how to tie your shoes yet?

I'm a bunny ears kind of guy. What about you? Loop it, swoop it? What's your method?

I will point out that the Jews went through all the legal channels at the time, and got legal rights and agreements for more of them to go to the geographical region of Palestine, for a Jewish home in the territory their people had occupied continuously long before the existence of the Jewish Temple. The Arabs illegally started the WAR, and lost. So the Arabs (and so-called “Palestinians,“ a word not in my grandmothers dictionary) have no legal or moral rights to destroy Israel. As I previously pointed out in the Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism thread, once the world community recognized Israel and made her a Member State the equation changed, to then demand Israel give back the land would be like the government using eminent domain and selling someone a property and then allowing the previous occupant to take it back; if there was a wrong the world community should compensate the Palestinians financially, and that is it, but the world community has no right to make Israel give up her land.

I don't think Israel should have to give it's land back to the Palestinians. I believe that today's Jews that call this land their home should be allowed to keep their homes, businesses, way of life, etc.

When the world community gave the land to the Jews as a homeland it made the situation completely hopeless for the Palestinians. What legal channels did they have at that point to change things? None. Many said that the only answer was war, I would say they were wrong (so would history, for that matter).

At least we can agree on that, that is why I support my Social Contract policing Al Quacka’s like Hamas and all of those people like JB Stoner, Ted Kaczynski, Walter Leroy Moody, and Timothy McVeigh, that your childish argument claims are “guerrillas in an urban jungle.”

When have I said that policing criminals is wrong? When have I spoke against the notion of justice?

That is an absolute that destroys forgiveness, and if that is what you teach the Palestinians and the Israelis there will never be peace.

Resisting injustice does not destroy forgiveness. Especially when nonviolence is used.

Absolute BULL! NO, I did not say that.

Following your logic, you certainly did.

"If an already existing Israel has no right to self-determination, neither do the so-called 'Palestinians.'"

That's not the Golden Rule and it's not the Hobbsian "rational self-interest" of the Social Contract that you keep mentioning.

Then you made the strawman that somehow I don't believe in Police doing their job.

What you advocated was doing to the Palestinians what they would do to the Israelis. Remember?

Effectively, that means raping a rapist, killing a killer, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

That reminds me: How are the Palestinians denying Israel's right to self-determination? I must have missed your previous answer if it does indeed exist.

That is the reciprocity of the amoral Al Quacka.

That doesn't justify it.

And the ancient law of eye for an eye is not in violation of their own Golden Rule, because the Golden Rule basically sums up the law.

I disagree. I would say the two contradict.

Jesus was not against policing criminals.

Niether am I.

Two boxers fighting according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules are not violating the Golden Rule, they are treating each other as they would want to be treated, the same applies to nations fighting according to the Geneva Conventions (it is a contract between High Contracting Parties). The boxer that secretly puts something illegal in his gloves for advantage, and the terrorist that uses civilian disguise is violating the Golden Rule.

The actions of the so-called Palestinian/Hamas Terrorist “State” has not been in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with their well documented PLO terrorists and Hamas terrorists using civilian disguise, and the Internet is slap full of pictures of Israeli soldiers clearly wearing uniforms, but I wouldn’t expect a terrorist propagandist to acknowledge those irrefutable FACTS. However, I expect a terrorist propagandist to equate the righteous policing of the Palestinian Terrorist WAR criminals with a violation of the Golden Rule!

I am not a terrorist propagandist. I would appreciate it if you did me the courtesy of not refering to me as such (self-determination again).

I acknowledge that Israelis wear uniforms.

I never equated any police action as a violation of the golden rule. This whole thing started by saying that Muslims have a right to self determination. You then brought up Israelis and Palestinians. I don't know why. It seemed to me that denying a Palestinians right to self determination because they do the same to Israelis (something I'm not so sure of) isn't really treating people how you expect them to treat you. Then you brought up police. I don't know why. This whole line of dialogue is one big pointless strawman.

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

About your thought experiment regarding the bus bombing. No one knows about such an attack, therefore any resistance is not futile, but impossible.

You claiming that nonviolent resistance is futile is like saying that chemotherapy is futile because a doctor admits that if he doesn't know about a tumor he can't treat it with radiation.

I've had a long day and I'm very tired, but that seems like a good comparison. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Rachel]

I don't think that it is always wrong to use force since nations must sometimes go to war in order to protect their people, but clearly targeting innocent civilians and strapping suicide belts on children and sending them to murder other children can't be justified under any circumstances.

Defending yourself and your family, or fighting for your freedom doesn't in any way justify such methods.

Of course nations that go to war must act according to the same moral principles and avoid any civilian casualties if at all possible.

 

[DivineComedy]

About your thought experiment regarding the bus bombing. No one knows about such an attack, therefore any resistance is not futile, but impossible.

You claiming that nonviolent resistance is futile is like saying that chemotherapy is futile because a doctor admits that if he doesn't know about a tumor he can't treat it with radiation.

YOU ARE WAY WRONG! The Hamas tumor knew about the attack when it called for such attacks, just like the Iraq tumor knew about such attacks when they called the Hamas bomber a “martyr,” just like the Iran tumor knows about such attacks when it calls for such attacks, so resistance is not futile. Only nonviolent resistance is futile, if it will not be invasive and effectively stop the tumorous State Sponsors of Terrorism from spreading such cells.

Why not get an invasive nonviolent scalpel to go to Iran, quickly, to effectively cut out the tumor before it turns malignant spreading its most deadly cells? On the other hand, do you want us to just shake our rattle over the patient hoping it works, and if it does not work, and the tumor becomes malignant, do you want us to use radiation to take out all the tumors at once?

I disagree. I would say the two contradict.

I said: “The ancient law of eye for an eye is not in violation of their own Golden Rule, because the Golden Rule basically sums up the law.”

If eye for an eye it is the law of the land, and your social contract, or the Hebrew covenant, and you commit a crime, how could it be a conflict?

You just got through saying you are “not against policing criminals.”

Render unto Caesar…

The Golden rule does not prevent one from making a fatal sword stroke chopping an ear off while defending someone else from thieves in the night wont to murder. The Golden rule does not prevent the police from arresting or killing criminals.

Would you think it sensible for JB Stoner to wear a Klan robe when he blows up churches and go during the day when people can see him? No, it doesn't matter. He's an asshole either way.

When my parents let it be known that they wouldn’t discriminate against blacks the Klan attacked my home, three times (the last time my parents wouldn‘t let me see what had been burning in the front yard), oh, darn I guess my parents not giving in must have been nonviolent resistance, anyway, the Klan didn’t wear their robes or do their crimes during the day, young person!

Instead of just arresting JB Stoner (actually he walked around like Colonel Sanders, going about business as usual, before turning himself in), we should have waged total war against the Klan; the Klan and their many off shoots should not be allowed to exist. When a Klan type stands up on the podium and calls for criminal attacks, like they do all the time, our law enforcement just stands there looking; I blame that on “liberal” philosophy. I see no reason to “remain polite” to those that can’t condemn the terrorist group, EXCUSE ME; I don‘t care about the terrorist group’s social work or if they did pressure my grandfather to stop drinking.

It seemed to me that denying a Palestinians right to self determination because they do the same to Israelis (something I'm not so sure of) isn't really treating people how you expect them to treat you.

The PLO charter that existed prior to the 1967 borders was denying the right of Israelis to self-determination. If the Palestinians want a State all they have to do is respect others, why is it so hard for you to understand? The rights to self-determination have to be mutually respected. Respect has to be mutual. I don’t have to respect a JB Stoner’s right to be free to own land if a JB Stoner does not respect my right to own land and be free. It has historically been the Arabs, the Muslims, and the Palestinians that have not been respecting the right of a Jews to own land and rule it, not the other way around.

I cannot even begin to trust the motives of this nonviolent resistance movement until nonviolence argues with all its might to condemn the use of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare, and is successful in at least getting soldiers to wear a damn honorable uniform. I will not abandon violent police action due to an “understanding” of the civilian disguise used by the “guerrillas in an urban jungle,“ because civilian disguise to facilitate victory in war is like a boxer hiding a metal rod in his glove and is a violation of the Islamic Golden rule: “Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself.” The Golden rule does not disrespect social contracts, like the use of civilian disguise in warfare disrespects all social contracts. The Golden rule does not prevent peoples from being High Contracting Parties in the Geneva Conventions, or prohibit the hanging of spies and terrorists by the neck until dead after they surrender and before they have completed their mission. The Golden rule does not allow a people to be nomads which absolve themselves of their responsibility to police what they want to call their land.

***** {In keeping with our previous movie theme}

"All right. [War is] instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands... But we can stop it! We can admit that we're... killers. But we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill... Today!"
http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/James_T._Kirk_Quotes

Is it that easy? If it was that easy it should be easier to convince them to put on a damn honorable uniform, especially if they might face Mutual Assured Destruction if they do not.

{I saw the episodes when they first aired, and I assume you saw it in reruns.}

*****

If you understand “the only possible tactic as subterfuge” used by the “guerrillas in an urban jungle,” you should understand the following tactics; and please feel free to add any:

1) Wall off the Savages, and search their every orifice with a cold hard robot probe for any possible salami bombs when they approach civilization, and inspect their every movement. And wait for the Savage tumor to get more powerful, and to acquire nukes for distribution with their cells, or to have an epiphany and realize the futility of war.

2) Wage total war against the enemy; accept only an unconditional surrender!

3) Spread democracy among the State Sponsors of Terrorism and behold the dark humor: Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who supported Hamas attacks using civilian disguise to facilitate warfare, responding to Muslim bombers in civilian disguise blowing up market places in Sadr City.

4) Make the cancerous patient heal themselves, or else. Let it be known that any attack by any terrorist cell whatsoever with weapons of mass destruction, regardless of claims of responsibility by a particular cell, would be considered an attack by all of the tumorous State Sponsors of Terror; develop and deploy the antiballistic missile SDI system; {read the margins}:

Mutual is the fear of any terror,
Assured we contest the allied should partake,
Destructions to apply till equal
portion share,
fear
I
Say to sponsors of terror!​

 

[battleax86]

And?

My mom and dad created me. Do they have some sort of right over if I live or if I die?

Your mom and dad procreated you. They are your fellow humans. They are your equals. God created the entire human race from nothing and is the Supreme Being of the Universe. That's an important difference and one that allows Him to make those decisions.

Do you speak Hebrew?

Exodus 7:2-5

You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.

I don't need to speak Hebrew. Others do.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/pharaoh.html

You would disagree that nothing greater can be concieved than God?

Did I ever say that? I might agree with Anselm about that, just like I would agree with him that the sky is blue, but I wouldn't take his opinion as an authoritative source of logic on the issue we're discussing.

It's Saint Anselm. Not just Anselm the medieval monk.

The Catholic Church can call him whatever they want. I, too, can call him whatever I want (if it accurately describes him).

Paul persecuted christians for a living, did he want to change before God spoke to him?

Probably not. Yet, God did not force him to change. Paul made the willful decision, after God spoke to him, to become a Christian and serve God. He just easily could have rebelled and run the other way.

Their children. Think for yourself. Children believe in Santa Clause. The mind of a child is malleable.

God knows what is in a person's mind better than you do. These children were being brought up under this system. They would have continued down the same path.

I like animals, but I also like a good steak .

Then there's hope for you yet. :lol:

To anyone who sees it as a prophecy.

I don't see how anyone who reads with an honest mind can take it as anything other than a prophecy.

God puts thoughts in peoples heads?

First: Prove it.

Here you go.

Second: There's a lady who cut off her babies arms who says the same thing you're saying.

That's a pretty heavy overgeneralization there, hippie. Satan also has the capability of putting thoughts in people's heads.

God didn't give the guy the ability to land, he learned it in aviation school.

God gave him the intelligence to learn.

Mohammed is a direct descendent of Abraham, you've already admitted this.

An illegitimate one.

On what "key" issues do Islam and the Bible contradict one another.

Granted Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God, but simply an awesome prophet.

That, in itself, is a huge contradiction, one that would not occur if Christianity and Islam truly worshipped the same God. Other contradictions include Surah 5:116 (where the Koran claims that Christians believe Mary to be God) and Surah 9:30 (where the Koran claims that the Jews hold Ezra as the Son of God).

If a Muslim says that Muhammad is God's prophet, then it is a fact of Islamic spirituality that Muhammad is God's prophet. This is the same sort of faith based fact that Christians take hold to when they say the Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead.

Not true. People saw Jesus walk on water and appear to them after He had been crucified. The only evidence any Muslims had the Mohammed was a prophet was because he said so.

It could have been avoided if the UN hadn't decided on the Partition plan. Muslims here, Jews there. It's not that simple.

The Partition plan didn't really do that. It gave the groups control over certain areas, but no one was forced to move anywhere. Even then, there was no justification for the Arabs to invade.

The Arab nations wouldn't accept them into their country and the Israelis wouldn't let them go home.

Because they fled their homes in anticipation of Israel's destruction.

It was their land, no matter the use or lack thereof.

No, it wasn't. It was uninhabited land that didn't belong to anyone (except the British, momentarily).

If this is true, then it is God's will that there is hatred in the hearts of men, and there is war in their "homeland." I think God wants peace, because I can concieve a God greater than a God that doesn't want peace, namely a God that wants peace.

God wants peace, yet God recognizes the occasional need for war. It's not God's will that there is hatred in men's hearts. He didn't want the Arabs to go to war. However, once there is war, He will not back down from it.

Ohh yeah, that's only over a thousand years of history.

So what?

I would agree with you, but to accept the refugees is to accept what they feel to be a wrong on the part of a Jews, that's how they viewed/view it.

Then we can both agree that their view was wrong.

Ohh yes the immigrants since the... I'll give you late eighteen-hundreds for the majority of immigrants.

Most of the Arabs arrived since that time, as well. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that they were the "indigenous" population.

The UN said this land is now the JEWISH HOMELAND. This will be Arab land and this will be Jewish land. They had no right over a land that belonged to predominantly Arabs.

Again, the land predominately belonged to NO ONE, except the ruling government (in this case, the British). You can't say that because the Arabs took up 16% of the land, as opposed to the Jews' 9%, that they were the rightful owners of the other 75%.

Lack of information does not equate to a fact.

We are talking about logic-based facts. If you do not have any alternative explanation, then my argument stands.

I really don't think you are at all trying to empathize with the situation. Put yourself in the situation. You're an Arab, a Muslim. You're told that the area you're living in is about to be a Jewish Homeland. Arab leaders say, "Transjordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria are going to invade and reclaim the land for Arabs." Your neighbors are leaving. Your family is leaving.

Unless I had anything against the Jews, I would have stayed. The ones that did have more rights than any other Arab Muslims in the region.

That's a hard situation, and I don't know how you could be so obtuse and detached about it.

Just because I don't get emotional about it and form my opinions based on emotions does not mean that I'm "detached" or "obtuse."

Because like the rest of the world it was a surprise that this tiny little state could hold off the Arab nations.

I see, so they obviously didn't have any problem with their "brothers" coming in and destroying the Jews.

Is what it said false? Do Jews not constitute many different ethnic groups?

No, they don't. There's a difference between religious Jews and ethnic Jews (many of which are atheists).

The events of the Diaspora pretty much lead to the change of the Jewish race, I would say. Those that lived in Russia really aren't of the same Geneology of those that lived in Poland or in the Middle East.

The Jews were, for the most part, extremely careful about not marrying outside their ethnicity. There's no evidence to suggest that they are not the same as they were when they were expelled.

After a few days, only about 10,000 of Haifa's Arab residents remained. 20,000 Arabs fled after Arab leaders advised them to leave the area because forces from six Arab nations were planning to invade and destroy Israel. A further 20,000 became refugees in Lebanon and Jordan.

Yet, Haifa never saw any fighting for the rest of war...

 

[DivineComedy]

I don't think that it is always wrong to use force since nations must sometimes go to war in order to protect their people, but clearly targeting innocent civilians and strapping suicide belts on children and sending them to murder other children can't be justified under any circumstances.

Defending yourself and your family, or fighting for your freedom doesn't in any way justify such methods.

Of course nations that go to war must act according to the same moral principles and avoid any civilian casualties if at all possible.

I would have just said, "I agree," but the length thingy stopped it.

 

[DivineComedy]

Because they fled their homes in anticipation of Israel's destruction.

G>B would have us believe that no so-called “Palestinians” left their homes to go join in the destruction. It could be said that the failure to stay was the so-called “Palestinians” fault; if they had just adopted nonviolence…

 

[battleax86]

In 1921 a Palestinian delegation went to London and requested Britian to reject the Balfour declaration on the grounds that it violated Article 22 of the League of Nations - http://www.mideastweb.org/leaguemand.htm

Your link does not back up your assertion.

Look friend, we can argue about the Israeli-Arab conflict until we're blue in the face, but it will not give us any deeper understanding of the topic of this thread.

Don't tell me... Barbara Boxer?

How on Earth did you guess? :lol: :roll:

So it's really nothing like the kind of war we're talking about. There's no killing, there's no death. That doesn't sound like a war at all. It sounds like a struggle.

It is a different kind of war, but a war, nonetheless.

I will concede that when frustrated people will try to express their emotions, namely anger, physically. However, I do not believe that hatred is natural at all.

Then where does it come from?

"No baby comes out the womb and it's first words are like, "The Jews got all the money!" - David Cross

Dude, seriously, David Cross is not a legitimate source. :lol:

People can be taught to channel hatred towards many different things, but the hatred must still arise from within themselves. The first person to hate the Jews did not have anyone to teach him this, but made the conscious, natural decision to hate.

Do I come off to you as a liar?

I have an aversion to accepting claims that cannot be verified, in general. Nothing personal against you.

Would you agree that children have a natural affinity of love, at least for their mother? Between the time spent in the womb and the nurturing from the moment of birth, wouldn't you say a child loves, if not both parents, his/her mother? This is speaking of course in an ideal situation of two loving parents.

Yes, humans have a natural capacity for love. Unfortunately, they also have a natural capacity for hate.

Talk to Tashah. She teaches in the west bank when she has free time, she has told me. That's an Israeli. That's a Jew. That's a woman. That's alot of things that the stereotype you've got built up in your head wouldn't like so much. The sheer fact that she goes and takes such risks kills hatred. These are religious people, very religious people. They know killing is wrong just like you and I do, and I would expect that there would be some fanatics, but even these men have Earthly agendas. They want people to be on their side. They are not going to get people on their side if they kill their child's school teacher. I'm not afraid, nor am I naive.

You are naive to think that Tashah's experience, if true, indicates that you will be safe doing the same thing. I, too, speak from experience on this matter. A neighbor of ours (from Arlington) who tried something similar in Nablus was beaten within an inch of his life (and would have been killed if the Israeli military hadn't shown up when they did) because there were militants in the town who thought he was a risk to pass information to the IDF or the CIA.

Again, I think you're being obtuse.

Again, I think you're being naive.

I know a Palestinian, he's from Gaza, and I've met his parents and they had no problem with their son hanging out with an infidel spy.

You're in America. Not much to spy on, is there? :lol:

I know a guy not 2 years out of Tehran. I've had conversations with a few level headed Muslims as well as one fairly radical Muslim who grew up a few hours from Islamabad.

All of these people are in my Arabic Lab. All of these people think that what I want to do isn't naive. They think it's strange, they think I might be somewhat lonely and might have a hard time finding a job at an elementary school, anywhere in the West Bank, but they think it's certainly possible, while ambitious. My Arabic Prof, refers to it as "the most liberal thing he's ever heard."

If these people are living peacefully in America, then they are the more liberal Muslims. You might actually have a chance with these people. Your chances would be considerably less with the radicalism that runs rampant throughout the West Bank and Gaza, which is besides the fact that you asked me how your intentions to be a teacher in the West Bank could be twisted into propaganda (like the American food drops were). You can argue with me about it, and I would agree that you've got good intentions, but it doesn't change how what you're doing can be twisted if the wrong people come to town.

To sum things up, the whole concept of nonviolence is an excellent ideal, but one that can only work when the other side is willing to put aside violence as an option. Ghandi's tactics worked because he was up against a civilized British government that gave a rat's ***. He wouldn't have lasted three seconds under a Communist or Baathist regime that had no compunction against torturing him into confessing treason and shooting him.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

YOU ARE WAY WRONG! The Hamas tumor knew about the attack when it called for such attacks, just like the Iraq tumor knew about such attacks when they called the Hamas bomber a “martyr,” just like the Iran tumor knows about such attacks when it calls for such attacks, so resistance is not futile. Only nonviolent resistance is futile, if it will not be invasive and effectively stop the tumorous State Sponsors of Terrorism from spreading such cells.

Why not get an invasive nonviolent scalpel to go to Iran, quickly, to effectively cut out the tumor before it turns malignant spreading its most deadly cells? On the other hand, do you want us to just shake our rattle over the patient hoping it works, and if it does not work, and the tumor becomes malignant, do you want us to use radiation to take out all the tumors at once?

That's all fine and good, but you're shifting what we're talking about. We're talking about a douch-bag on a bus.

I said: “The ancient law of eye for an eye is not in violation of their own Golden Rule, because the Golden Rule basically sums up the law.”

If eye for an eye it is the law of the land, and your social contract, or the Hebrew covenant, and you commit a crime, how could it be a conflict?

You just got through saying you are “not against policing criminals.”

Render unto Caesar…

The Golden rule does not prevent one from making a fatal sword stroke chopping an ear off while defending someone else from thieves in the night wont to murder. The Golden rule does not prevent the police from arresting or killing criminals.

I would agree with this, but in the case of the right to self-determination, there is no imminent danger demonstrated in the above statement. If someone calls you a derrogatory statement, is it right to return in kind with a comment about the aggressor's mother?

When my parents let it be known that they wouldn’t discriminate against blacks the Klan attacked my home, three times (the last time my parents wouldn‘t let me see what had been burning in the front yard), oh, darn I guess my parents not giving in must have been nonviolent resistance, anyway, the Klan didn’t wear their robes or do their crimes during the day, young person!

Instead of just arresting JB Stoner (actually he walked around like Colonel Sanders, going about business as usual, before turning himself in), we should have waged total war against the Klan; the Klan and their many off shoots should not be allowed to exist. When a Klan type stands up on the podium and calls for criminal attacks, like they do all the time, our law enforcement just stands there looking; I blame that on “liberal” philosophy. I see no reason to “remain polite” to those that can’t condemn the terrorist group, EXCUSE ME; I don‘t care about the terrorist group’s social work or if they did pressure my grandfather to stop drinking.

You should arrest people for speaking from a radical point of view? Is that what you propose? That is your suggestion for fighting Klansmen without robes?

The PLO charter that existed prior to the 1967 borders was denying the right of Israelis to self-determination.

How is it happening today, after the 1967 borders? The conversation regarding self-determination was about the cartoons. These cartoons were not published in 1967.

If the Palestinians want a State all they have to do is respect others, why is it so hard for you to understand?

That's not all they want. Maybe a few of them want their homes back. Maybe a few want their birthright back.

The rights to self-determination have to be mutually respected. Respect has to be mutual.

I don't know if you've ever worked in a department store, but you have to respect people that don't respect you for generally 5 + hours a day.

It has historically been the Arabs, the Muslims, and the Palestinians that have not been respecting the right of a Jews to own land and rule it, not the other way around.

And the displacement of near a million people is an eye for an eye, fair, response to this history?

I cannot even begin to trust the motives of this nonviolent resistance movement until nonviolence argues with all its might to condemn the use of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare, and is successful in at least getting soldiers to wear a damn honorable uniform.

You should only question my motives if condone the facilitation of warfare in any form of dress or lack thereof.

I will not abandon violent police action due to an “understanding” of the civilian disguise used by the “guerrillas in an urban jungle,“ because civilian disguise to facilitate victory in war is like a boxer hiding a metal rod in his glove and is a violation of the Islamic Golden rule: “Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself.”

I never advocated the rejection of police force.

I never advocated metal rods in a bout between boxers.

The Golden rule does not disrespect social contracts, like the use of civilian disguise in warfare disrespects all social contracts.

According to Hobbses notion of rational self-interest as well as social contract, any warfare is an abscence of social contract.

***** {In keeping with our previous movie theme}

"All right. [War is] instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands... But we can stop it! We can admit that we're... killers. But we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill... Today!"
http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/James_T._Kirk_Quotes

Is it that easy? If it was that easy it should be easier to convince them to put on a damn honorable uniform, especially if they might face Mutual Assured Destruction if they do not.

{I saw the episodes when they first aired, and I assume you saw it in reruns.}

Star Trek?? Hmm what was I doing while Star Trek was on... Ohh! I remember now: I missed that episode because while it was re-airing, I was kissing girls and developing social skills. Damn. You know, it really is the little things that you regret.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Your mom and dad procreated you. They are your fellow humans. They are your equals. God created the entire human race from nothing and is the Supreme Being of the Universe. That's an important difference and one that allows Him to make those decisions.

Why does having unmatched, and unlimited power give God the right to be uncompassionate.

I don't need to speak Hebrew. Others do.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/pharaoh.html

I didn't see where the Hebrew translation was in err, but I did find this:

Likewise, God saying He hardened Pharaoh's heart is no contradiction, because He "did" harden his heart, by taking away the God Given ability (by Grace) to see or understand the truth.

Did I ever say that? I might agree with Anselm about that, just like I would agree with him that the sky is blue, but I wouldn't take his opinion as an authoritative source of logic on the issue we're discussing.

For his time, he proved the existence of God. If you disagree with Anselm, why would try to discredit him?

Probably not. Yet, God did not force him to change. Paul made the willful decision, after God spoke to him, to become a Christian and serve God. He just easily could have rebelled and run the other way.

Did he make a willful decision? Does a man really have a choice of denying the power of God after he has seen it with his own eyes? What happened to God not performing miracles for the unwilling?

God knows what is in a person's mind better than you do. These children were being brought up under this system. They would have continued down the same path.

You don't know that. They are children. CHILDREN. You're telling me that if God told you to kill a child, you wouldn't at least hesitate to consider the consequences of such an action?

I don't see how anyone who reads with an honest mind can take it as anything other than a prophecy.

If I say to you, "I have a vision: Tomorrow I will buy an apple," and tomorrow I buy an apple, am I clairvoyant? No. Millions of people, Christians and Jews alike, believed that Israel would return, and they made it return. It was not the will of God, it was the will of men. It was a prophecy that was made by a man and was fulfilled by man.

Here you go.

Are you kidding me?

That's a pretty heavy overgeneralization there, hippie. Satan also has the capability of putting thoughts in people's heads.

How could this poor women discern the difference? How could she have known that the voice in her head was not the voice of God calling for the blood of yet another child?

An illegitimate one.

So you would say. In Christianity, the notion of a second wife would create such an illegitimacy. Hagar was Abraham's second wife the Muslims would say and his biological link to his father cannot be denied one way or another.

That, in itself, is a huge contradiction, one that would not occur if Christianity and Islam truly worshipped the same God. Other contradictions include Surah 5:116 (where the Koran claims that Christians believe Mary to be God) and Surah 9:30 (where the Koran claims that the Jews hold Ezra as the Son of God).

There are only 110 verses in Surah 5.

I don't know anything about Surah 9:30. I've read that there is a debate that means "Uzair" to be "Ezra," but all the same it's confusing.

They are different religions I will not deny that, but to say that Islam is not an extension of Christianity is to say that Christianity is not an extension of Judaism and then assert as proof to say that Christians believe in Christ as the son of God.

Not true. People saw Jesus walk on water and appear to them after He had been crucified.

The disciples. One could really say that they are truly non-biased.

The only evidence any Muslims had the Mohammed was a prophet was because he said so.

And? The only proof you have of anything in Christianity is becuase the Bible says so. It is faith. That's the only requirement.

Because they fled their homes in anticipation of Israel's destruction.

I suppose that depends on who you ask. It seems to me that many fled in fear.

No, it wasn't. It was uninhabited land that didn't belong to anyone (except the British, momentarily).

Nearly a million people isn't uninhabited.

God wants peace, yet God recognizes the occasional need for war. It's not God's will that there is hatred in men's hearts. He didn't want the Arabs to go to war. However, once there is war, He will not back down from it.

How can you say that God does not want hatred in men's hearts, he put it there. It is natural, isn't that your assertion? He gives men hatred as he gives a pilot the intelligence to learn to fly.

Again, the land predominately belonged to NO ONE, except the ruling government (in this case, the British). You can't say that because the Arabs took up 16% of the land, as opposed to the Jews' 9%, that they were the rightful owners of the other 75%.

You can't really do that for the Jews either.

We are talking about logic-based facts. If you do not have any alternative explanation, then my argument stands.

In your own little world, yes. If you do not have evidence but only a lackthereof, your argument doesn't mean anything to anyone else.

Unless I had anything against the Jews, I would have stayed. The ones that did have more rights than any other Arab Muslims in the region.

If you feared for the lives of your family, your children, you would have left. I believe your previous answer to this was "maybe" or "perhaps." I believe it to be a certainty.

Just because I don't get emotional about it and form my opinions based on emotions does not mean that I'm "detached" or "obtuse."

A lack of empathy and understanding is detatched and obtuse.

I see, so they obviously didn't have any problem with their "brothers" coming in and destroying the Jews.

I would say they were thinking in their own interest rather than the interests of others.

Yet, Haifa never saw any fighting for the rest of war...

And? The fear was there and the fear was real. People left to protect there families and when they wanted to see their homes again, they were told to stay out.

Your link does not back up your assertion.

Yes it does. It lets you read Article 22 of the League of Nations.

Then where does it come from?

Hatred comes from a conditioned response/reaction. It is learned.

People can be taught to channel hatred towards many different things, but the hatred must still arise from within themselves. The first person to hate the Jews did not have anyone to teach him this, but made the conscious, natural decision to hate.

Really, do you know the first guy to hate the Jews? It does not have to be learned by another anti-semite. It could be learned by negative experiences with Jews. Children can learn to avoid fire by being told or by being burned.

I have an aversion to accepting claims that cannot be verified, in general. Nothing personal against you.

You have your very own personal eye witness.

Unfortunately, they also have a natural capacity for hate.

Prove it.

You are naive to think that Tashah's experience, if true, indicates that you will be safe doing the same thing.

Now Tashah's a liar?

I, too, speak from experience on this matter.

You speak from your neighbor's experience on this matter.

A neighbor of ours (from Arlington) who tried something similar in Nablus was beaten within an inch of his life (and would have been killed if the Israeli military hadn't shown up when they did) because there were militants in the town who thought he was a risk to pass information to the IDF or the CIA.

You're telling me he was just walking through Nablus enjoying the scenery (?) and someone yelled "JEW, SPY" and he got jumped?

If these people are living peacefully in America, then they are the more liberal Muslims.

What makes you think they aren't moderate? You certainly don't know them. I do.

tactics worked because he was up against a civilized British government that gave a rat's ***. He wouldn't have lasted three seconds under a Communist or Baathist regime that had no compunction against torturing him into confessing treason and shooting him.

Do you know how many people died in the Amristar massacre? How many people were beaten, some killed, at the march to the sea where Gandhi's followers?

The British were guilty of many things and of course they were no match for the cruelty of Saddam or Stalin, but I truly believe that if a people have faith, nonviolence is all they need to change things. It is not easy and it is not without pain or suffering, but no struggle is. It may take longer, and it may prove more costly occasionaly, but pure consequentialism is not a representation of what is most ethical.

 

[DivineComedy]

That's all fine and good, but you're shifting what we're talking about. We're talking about a douch-bag on a bus.

NO, I am not shifting what we are talking about, but you are! For what reason, do you shift what we are talking about? We are talking about a HAMAS on a bus supported by a “sovereignty” that called the civilian clothed bomber a “martyr” instead of a criminal, that makes the bombing a different situation than an individual criminal “douch-bag” whose actions are unsupported:

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

According to Hobbses notion of rational self-interest as well as social contract, any warfare is an abscence of social contract.

A terrorist propagandist would claim that “any warfare is an absence of social contract.” I am not calling you a terrorist propagandist, but I would like to know where in the hell you got that doodoo from? To be sure, the purpose of taking a philosophy class is not to regurgitate what someone has told you. Although, if your teacher is like the Communist Sociology professor I once had, you will not get an “A“ if you do not answer the questions “correctly” on the final exam, like saying that Karl Heinrich Marx was the greatest economic thinker.

Since you are laying off on Hobbes feel free to use quotes that can be checked, like this:

“Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it, it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself. And therefore there be some rights which no man can be understood by any words, or other signs, to have abandoned or transferred. As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force to take away his life, because he cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself.”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hobbes-lev13.html

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

The man that adopts the use of civilian disguise to wage war “cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself” after the war is over and the soldiers beat their swords into plow shears, and the same applies to a society, whereby the society that adopts the use of civilian disguise to wage war cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to themselves.

“As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault” his right to have his civilian clothes respected, because he cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself or his kind: nonviolent resistance is futile when you do not effectively resist both the philosophy and the “sovereignty” that supported the civilian clothed “soldier” blowing up a bus full of students!

Our rational self-interest that is expressed under our social contract and sovereignty (of we the people) can wage warfare against a foreign State Sponsor of Terrorism that supports terrorism, and WE do not lose our social contract. We can wage war when it is in our rational self-interests to oppose Fascists and NAZIS, and WE do not lose our social contract. Move to another sovereignty or lawless territory (where survival of the fittest rules), if you do not want to be a part of this social contract waging war against Islamifascists, it is your right, otherwise you must “drink the poison” of a war in your name {insert American flag uniform patch here}, as Socrates would probably say.

The use of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare is the renouncing of the ability to form a trusted civilian social contract, and in that sense it is the absence of a social contract, that is why our Nation has ratified only those Geneva Conventions that have not clearly watered down the prohibition of the use of civilian disguise. The thieves or the terrorists cannot trust each other not to steal or blow up respectively. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr renounced his right to form a trusted civilian social contract by supporting Hamas attacks using civilian disguise, and like honor among thieves is now facing the same kind of “Muslim” bombers blowing up market places in his home territory of Sadr City.

The adoption of the foolish philosophy of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare destroys the sovereignty (of the people), and the teachers of such foolish philosophy are an offshoot of the “liberal“ moral rot of “by any means necessary.” If you were correct that “any warfare is an absence of social contract,” it would make every individual responsible for his own survival of the fittest. That is the kind of sovereignty and philosophy that the Nazi rooted Baath party of Saddam must believe in, as I previously posted {Afghan sentence added}:

In the age when the divine right of kings is no longer taken seriously, and democracy is spreading, what does a tyrant have to do for job security?

1) Support a system of individualism, crime and punishment, that will be bought by the simplest of foolish philosophers, where anyone that “feels” they are being unjustly treated has a “God” given right to use civilian disguise in warfare, to take the law into their own hands “according to their own ideas” of justice:

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

2) Take steps to ensure the “survival of the fittest” in reaction to article one:

“I think, that you, often criticize those whom you criticize in order to weaken them, by saying that they use emergency laws, and what emergency laws, by western standards, cannot be a general rule. But now, unlike what you used to say about those whom you accuse of being dictators and despots, we see dozens of emergency laws and measures adopted by the governments of the West, with the US in the forefront, after facing one painful event.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

The feedback loop creates the job security for the tyrant‘s job description.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

NO, I am not shifting what we are talking about, but you are! For what reason, do you shift what we are talking about?

It seemed to me that your previous remarks were speaking about terrorism as a whole when we were in fact talking about a douche bag on a bus. While possibly represented by a terrorist organization, this man/woman is not terrorism.

A terrorist propagandist would claim that “any warfare is an absence of social contract.” I am not calling you a terrorist propagandist, but I would like to know where in the hell you got that doodoo from?

Where did I get it from? What's his name... ohh yeah: Thomas Hobbes

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

It is not the act of taking off a uniform that violates a contract between men.

To be sure, the purpose of taking a philosophy class is not to regurgitate what someone has told you. Although, if your teacher is like the Communist Sociology professor I once had, you will not get an “A“ if you do not answer the questions “correctly” on the final exam, like saying that Karl Heinrich Marx was the greatest economic thinker.

My Philosophy Teacher is a weirdo. He thinks voting is stupid and he reads alot of Nietzsche.

My knowledge of Thomas Hobbes and Social Contract theory is from research I did for Ethics Bowl this year where I condemned the looting in the midst of Hurricaine Katrina. It was my stongest case, unfortunately it was never called.

The man that adopts the use of civilian disguise to wage war “cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself” after the war is over and the soldiers beat their swords into plow shears, and the same applies to a society, whereby the society that adopts the use of civilian disguise to wage war cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to themselves.

The Palestinians cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to themselves by any form of violence no matter the state of their clothing.

The adoption of the foolish philosophy of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare destroys the sovereignty (of the people), and the teachers of such foolish philosophy are an offshoot of the “liberal“ moral rot of “by any means necessary.” If you were correct that “any warfare is an absence of social contract,” it would make every individual responsible for his own survival of the fittest. That is the kind of sovereignty and philosophy that the Nazi rooted Baath party of Saddam must believe in, as I previously posted {Afghan sentence added}:

There are many today that would argue that every individual is indeed responsible for his own survival of the fittest.

Aristotle said that fairness is defined as treating equals equally and unequals unequally.

Are Palestinians and Israelis equal?

Should they be expected to fight equally?

 

[DivineComedy]

Where did I get it from? What's his name... ohh yeah: Thomas Hobbes

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

It is not the act of taking off a uniform that violates a contract between men.

Hobbes is talking about people in their most primitive state, “survival of the fittest,” without any civilization, a savagery “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” Hobbes is not claiming that war against such savages removes our social contract (laws) simply because someone does not read what he wrote. Your statement, that “according to Hobbses notion of rational self-interest as well as social contract, any warfare is an abscence of social contract,” is still INCORRECT! As Hobbes clearly said at the beginning of your quote, “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe,” where there is no common government (power) to keep them in awe (under control) and no social contract exists: we the people have a social contract called the United States Constitution. Nothing Hobbes said destroys our social contract when we put on a uniform or send someone else in uniform to wage war to protect ourselves from squat to urinate SAVAGES hiding behind a woman‘s dress.

Hobbes also went on to say things about the savages of the time period:

It may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before.

That is why I asked the “Peaceful” Muslim if her Golden Rule only applied within her tribe, because that is the way it was among some savage tribes.

And Hobbes perfectly described the Savage:

To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.

We see the savagery in Iraq where the supporter of Hamas savagery, Muqtada al-Sadr, is ironically now faced with the exact same savagery in Sadr City. That is the kind of “liberty” that Al-Quacka supports, and that Saddam said “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings,” and it begs for tyranny, which our rational self-interests cannot allow.

That is exactly the kind of savagery the “Peaceful” Palestinian Muslim described:

Expressing your opinion and ‘Freedom of Speech‘ is fine until the point of insult.. if what you are saying justifies the insult then that means non of the human rules we are creating are applicable ..

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...8&postcount=34

G>B suggest you learn how to read a philosopher‘s work, as in their arguments and counter arguments that are made within the same work, before you butcher a philosopher’s work and attribute to him things he did not say.

And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against everyone, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them. And that law of all men, quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hobbes-lev13.html

If the so-called “Palestinian“ lay down his right to civilian clothes, by using civilian disguise to wage war, we are not obligated to expose ourselves as prey when he “says” {in church lady tone}, “the war is over,” and wants us to take his civilian clothes seriously.

A man must “be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself,” therefore, if we are content to allow the use of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare we are in a perpetual state of war without end to be searched without end. I am not content with that kind of liberty. I say we kill all of the bastards and take back our liberty to hold up our Frisbee throwing arm to say, “Hi.”

It is not the act of taking off a uniform that violates a contract between men.

The taking off of the uniform to facilitate making war makes them a savage. As Hobbes would say, Savages only have a contract within their family or tribe and have no contract with men, as Hobbes said they “have no government at all.”

If the so-called “Palestinians” want to be treated equally with the Israelis (who just have to hold up their right hand) the so-called “Palestinians” must abandon Savagery and fight according to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit the use of civilian disguise. Otherwise, even if Israel is destroyed, it is in our rational self-interests that our social contract require that the so-called “Palestinians” submit to having every orifice searched with a cold hard robot probe for a possible salami bomb before they approach a bus, pizza parlor, and a marketplace, or any civilization! If the so-called “Palestinian” Savages want their civilian clothes respected they must wear a uniform to wage war; as Hobbes said: “What you would not have done to you that do not you to another.” I do not wish to be searched when wearing civilian clothes, so I wore my military uniform with pride.

I demand the animals be butchered so that I may continue to go get a sausage pizza in civilian clothes without being probed!

 

[DivineComedy]

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
“The State sponsor of terrorism calls the terrorist a ‘martyr‘ when they dress up like a student and walk on a bus to blow up, and people die in an instant without time to say ‘oh ****.’ Forget for a moment any bias against Israeli occupation and just consider the situation as an unbiased observer that just sees the violence and wants to stop it. The civilian victims do not have a chance to stop that terror, because they can’t even see the enemy! Who did you see? You see a foreign power {State sponsor of terrorism that was in violation of a cease-fire resolution like H 32 of UN resolution 687 that required them not to support terrorism} support an act of terrorism. Certainly you would not require a civilian to drop everything and fight for nonviolence on a foreign battle field?”

In said scenario, there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever. Nonviolent or otherwise.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...&postcount=432

It seemed to me that your previous remarks were speaking about terrorism as a whole when we were in fact talking about a douche bag on a bus. While possibly represented by a terrorist organization, this man/woman is not terrorism.

I would expect a terrorist propagandist to say that.

An insane person that likes to watch things go BOOM, and that has no political motive, and consequently could not be called a “martyr,” would not be terrorism, but simply a sad state of affairs that they didn‘t get help, and I personally think what you said is STUPID! Like, not getting enough sleep or something, like a brain switch turned off?

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Hobbes is talking about people in their most primitive state, “survival of the fittest,” without any civilization, a savagery “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” Hobbes is not claiming that war against such savages removes our social contract (laws) simply because someone does not read what he wrote.

Would you not agree that two neighbors have a contract between themselves? Surely if one perpetrates violence toward the other it is a violation of this contract? Would you not say that such a violence is in itself is the violation and that the clothes of the perpetrator, if at all relevant, are second to the initial violation of the contract?

Your statement, that “according to Hobbses notion of rational self-interest as well as social contract, any warfare is an abscence of social contract,” is still INCORRECT!

I disagree, and I think that is because there was a misunderstanding of our exchange. I was speaking about the state in between the states of Palestine and Israel.

As Hobbes clearly said at the beginning of your quote, “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe,” where there is no common government (power) to keep them in awe (under control) and no social contract exists: we the people have a social contract called the United States Constitution. Nothing Hobbes said destroys our social contract when we put on a uniform or send someone else in uniform to wage war to protect ourselves from squat to urinate SAVAGES hiding behind a woman‘s dress.

You're absolutely correct about our social contract. I thought we were speaking of the contract in between the two warring parties.

That is exactly the kind of savagery the “Peaceful” Palestinian Muslim described:

That doesn't seem to be what she described at all.

G>B suggest you learn how to read a philosopher‘s work, as in their arguments and counter arguments that are made within the same work, before you butcher a philosopher’s work and attribute to him things he did not say.

...

This is all unneccessary. As I said, I believe there was a miscommunication, misunderstanding.

The taking off of the uniform to facilitate making war makes them a savage. As Hobbes would say, Savages only have a contract within their family or tribe and have no contract with men, as Hobbes said they “have no government at all.”

Palestinians have a government.

If the so-called “Palestinians” want to be treated equally with the Israelis (who just have to hold up their right hand) the so-called “Palestinians” must abandon Savagery and fight according to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit the use of civilian disguise.

To do so, would mean defeat. It would mean yet another loss to people who already have no hope.

Otherwise, even if Israel is destroyed, it is in our rational self-interests that our social contract require that the so-called “Palestinians” submit to having every orifice searched with a cold hard robot probe for a possible salami bomb before they approach a bus, pizza parlor, and a marketplace, or any civilization! If the so-called “Palestinian” Savages want their civilian clothes respected they must wear a uniform to wage war; as Hobbes said: “What you would not have done to you that do not you to another.” I do not wish to be searched when wearing civilianclothes, so I wore my military uniform with pride.

When you donned your uniform, you and your country had a better chance of success than those who would fight in uniform for Palestine would have.

I demand the animals be butchered so that I may continue to go get a sausage pizza in civilian clothes without being probed!

If you want them to be butchered, you should not have such high hopes for how their desires for you.

I would expect a terrorist propagandist to say that.

I don't know why you can't have the common courtesy stop calling me that at my request. It seems like the majority of your posts are not even aimed at an interesting or worthwhile discussion, but aimed at a frustrating and stressful discussion. I have not made such remarks toward you.

An insane person that likes to watch things go BOOM, and that has no political motive, and consequently could not be called a “martyr,” would not be terrorism, but simply a sad state of affairs that they didn‘t get help, and I personally think what you said is STUPID!

I don't think you can argue that these men are without political motive. I don't think you can argue that a political motive is all that is needed to be a martyr either.

Like, not getting enough sleep or something, like a brain switch turned off?

As a matter of fact for the past months I've been through alot of stress regarding my health. Thank you for your concern, but I'd rather avoid the topic of my brain switching off.