Soback Posted April 11, 2002 Report Posted April 11, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Wait fifty years and you'll probably recognize the hypocrisy in that statement. Just because I will be old, doesn't mean I will be weak. quote: Yes, the Arabs have lived in a desert for thousands of years, survived, and flourished. That doesn't sound weak to me. They have lived, survived, and stagnated in there. They never flourished. Their sultans drained the resources, money, and everything they could out of their population, getting rich in the process and giving nothing to their population in return. Now that Israel is there, and made their country rich through their government policies and their people, poor arabs want a piece of it, just for their own fullfilment. quote: Ahh, so you define a civilization's worthiness by their ability to exploit resources. Sorry Soback, that doesn't mean squat. A civilization's ability to exploit large volumes of resources only indicates their level of dependence on such resources. The strenght of a civilization is defined by it's achievements in arts, technology, and other areas, including their ability to use natural resources (hell, who do you think was more evolved, neanderthal or a sword weilding knight). Arabs lived on that land for thousands of years, but they couldn't even make anything resembling what Israel made in their 50 years it was there. So yes. Israel is worth much more to the world then all the arab counries combined. quote: I don't think that anyone should own land.That statement right there prooves my first point about socialistic/liberatarian views and how they equate to pure communism. I PLAN on owning land. Land where I can build a house, raise my family and enjoy my life. I DON'T PLAN on living like those pours people in Russia did 20 or 30 years ago, 5 families cramped into one large house just because all land belonged to the government.
Kush Posted April 11, 2002 Report Posted April 11, 2002 Paddy, The Strong VS the Weak argument doesn't stand up in real life. Only in novels. The Roman's were strong. So was the British Empire. So was the Mongol Empire, Hapsburg (sp), Norman. Etc. So on. The idea that the Isreali army is strong and must wipe out the palestinians who are weak is... well... weak. [ 04-11-2002, 09:24: Message edited by: Kush ]
Menchise Posted April 11, 2002 Report Posted April 11, 2002 quote:Just because I will be old, doesn't mean I will be weak.The young would disagree if they followed your logic. quote:They have lived, survived, and stagnated in there. They never flourished. Their sultans drained the resources, money, and everything they could out of their population, getting rich in the process and giving nothing to their population in return.I guess the sultans didn't bother with helping the 'weak'. quote:The strenght of a civilization is defined by it's achievements in arts, technology, and other areas, including their ability to use natural resources (hell, who do you think was more evolved, neanderthal or a sword weilding knight). Arabs lived on that land for thousands of years, but they couldn't even make anything resembling what Israel made in their 50 years it was there. So yes. Israel is worth much more to the world then all the arab counries combined.Strength does not equal worthiness, and Israel had a lot of help in the process. quote:That statement right there prooves my first point about socialistic/liberatarian views and how they equate to pure communism. I PLAN on owning land. Land where I can build a house, raise my family and enjoy my life. I DON'T PLAN on living like those pours people in Russia did 20 or 30 years ago, 5 families cramped into one large house just because all land belonged to the government.I said I don't think ANYONE should own land. That includes governments. Anyway, this is off-topic. If you want to debate this, start another thread (preferably in the BCC forum).
goaliejerry Posted April 11, 2002 Report Posted April 11, 2002 QUOTE: "The strenght of a civilization is defined by it's achievements in arts, technology, and other areas, including their ability to use natural resources (hell, who do you think was more evolved, neanderthal or a sword weilding knight). Arabs lived on that land for thousands of years, but they couldn't even make anything resembling what Israel made in their 50 years it was there. So yes. Israel is worth much more to the world then all the arab counries combined." Just so all of you know, arab/Islamic culture in the middle ages was highly advanced, thier knowledge of astronomy and mathmatics surpassed that of europeans. Their reach extended to practically every corner of civilization, and they traded with vast numbers of people. As far as Isreals contribution to the world, I think its funny that you claim thier contribution to the world is great. Can't you see their entire country's culture is built off of American ideals and money? Thats why there is so much culture conflict, Arabic way of life is completely opposed to western culture, which is what Isreal exhibits. Thier essentially a self-governing American colony, thier contruibutions to the world are supportive of America's own and nothing more. So arabic oil is worth nothing to the world? Come on, think before you write.
Soback Posted April 11, 2002 Report Posted April 11, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: quote:The young would disagree if they followed your logic.Anyone can disagree with that. But it still stands true. Just because people are old, doesn't mean they are weak. Let me explain so that you don't degenerate my point into a young (strong) vs old (weak) argument. Young, old, middle aged can all be weak and a drain to the country if they do nothing to contribute to it. It's understandable if the person or a society helps it's weak elements to BECOME stronger so that they will start contributing something. It's STUPID of a society to help it's weak elements by continuously supporting them. (ex. wellfare in the US that people abuse by receiving it years and years, or when someone receives disability but is able to go out in his back yeard and jump on a trampoline. quote: I guess the sultans didn't bother with helping the 'weak'. Yeah, that's exactly what I meant by people twisting my words for their own argument. Let me explain it clearer. Sultans drained the economy of the arabic countries. Their government system is a heirarchy. So people were very poor but had nothing to compare themselfes to (in the middle east area). Now that Israel is there and their average citizens are 10 times as rich as an average citizen in an arab country the arab population started asking some questions. What do you think their sultans and leaders are going to tell them? That they robbed them blind all this years? No, of course not. They told them that the reason they are poor is BECAUSE of ISRAEL, because Jewish people took their best land, their money and that's why they are suffering. While Israel was GIVEN a piece of desert and transformed it into a beautiful country, and now every arab wants a piece of it for pillage. quote: Strength does not equal worthiness, and Israel had a lot of help in the process. Yes, Israel did have a lot of help in the process. Most of that help came from other Jewish people from other countries. Arabs have BILLIONS of dollars coming into their countries from selling oil. Where do those Billions go? Into their economy, infrastructure, social services (that right there just made me laugh). So Israel build and developed their country by good leadership and government, while arab countries stagnated to the point where in this MODERN age their citizens live in mud huts and the sultans ride around in benzes from one palace to another. I will agree that they were quite good in the middle ages, but that was a long time ago and you can't ride that forever. So, Russia was the most powerfull country in the WORLD in 1759. It had beautiful culture, religion, science. Look at it now. Are you going to argue me that it's not a decrepid poor country that is trying (finally) to change itself for the better? Well same thing with arab countries. They are still stuck in the middle ages and today they are VERY decrepid. quote: I said I don't think ANYONE should own land. That includes governments. Anyway, this is off-topic. If you want to debate this, start another thread (preferably in the BCC forum).I will leave this particular argument at that.
Soback Posted April 11, 2002 Report Posted April 11, 2002 quote:Originally posted by goaliejerry: quote: Just so all of you know, arab/Islamic culture in the middle ages was highly advanced, thier knowledge of astronomy and mathmatics surpassed that of europeans. Their reach extended to practically every corner of civilization, and they traded with vast numbers of people. Let me post a piece from my other post that will clear this up. "I will agree that they were quite good in the middle ages, but that was a long time ago and you can't ride that forever. So, Russia was the most powerfull country in the WORLD in 1759. It had beautiful culture, religion, science. Look at it now. Are you going to argue me that it's not a decrepid poor country that is trying (finally) to change itself for the better? Well same thing with arab countries. They are still stuck in the middle ages and today they are VERY decrepid. " And clear up some more. What they were very well suited those times. What they are is a whole different story, but that's what matters the most. NOW in this day and age arab people have nothing. Let me repeat this , NOTHING. Not only do they have nothing to offer no arts, no technology, but they want to get it for free (destroying Israel and taking over) like it belongs to them. I don't blame the regular population. Those poor uneducated farmers and workers that know nothing better than to listen to their rich higher class and do exactly as they are told. So compare Israel to any arab country today, and tell me which country would you rather go to on a trip? Would you go and wonder through dusty streets, look at people who are broke poor, "oh wait there's a palace, maybe I will go visit and take some pictures. Hold on a minute, what are those armed guards doing by the dooor? I guess I am not gettin in after all". Or would you rather go and see a city with aqueducts running all through it, plants growing in the desert, beautiful architechture, and a FRIENDLY society. quote: So arabic oil is worth nothing to the world? Come on, think before you write.Like I said. Don't twist my words. Arabic oil is not their achievement. They didn't and wouldn't even know what oil is if not for the modern man coming in that country and discovering their oil deposits and then developing them, and in the end TEACHING them on how to use and extract that precious resource.
Guest Posted April 11, 2002 Report Posted April 11, 2002 This whole argument comes down to one thing, WHO is the stronger and more moral party in this conflict. Who has the biggest stake in this argument, and who above all has the right to that land. I'll give you a clue, ISRAEL!! HELLO!! The "Palestinians" don't even exist, there is NO such thing as a country called Palestine and there NEVER has been, nor at the rate they are going, will there be. Israel is a Republic/Democratic country, the "palestinians" are controlled by a terrorist, and they ARE NOT elected. Arafat happened to be the strongest terrorist, so he got to be in power. Israel is a capitalist, free enterprise society, they have jobs, thousands of jobs, and that is one of the HUGE reasons that there are so MANY so-called "Palestinians". Thier own despotic countries had NO opportunities for them, so they would rather live in the "occupied" territories and make 8 times as much money, then live in thier own countries and starve. Well, the PA is a terrorist organization and kept in power by the main terrorist factions, Arafat OK's ALL terrorist attacks, and if you think that is BS, just wait until the truckloads of paperwork are released. Arafat screams peace to us in English then whips up his followers in war against Israel in Arabic. WHO WANTS PEACE AGAIN? that's right, the "palestinians", my butt. The "palestinians" who wish to remain in the occupied territories should be made to take an oath not to attack or harm Israel in any way shape or form, if they refuse, they should be deported to Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc, or in other words, back to where they came from. If they are willing to take that oath, then they should be allowed to work in Israel and make money as they were before. Israel deserves to exist and has made an oasis out of a desert, if and when the other Arabic countries can do the same, then maybe they will deserve to be talked to about a separate country of Palestine. Until then, they have the moral authority of a child molesting priest. The "Palestinians" should be made war upon until they throw in the towel, a political peaceful resolution will not MAKE peace. The thorough beating of the "Palestinians" will actually create peace. That is how it will finally stop, once the "Palestinians" are beaten into submission and give up unconditionally, and Arafat is gone from power, THEN and ONLY THEN, will there be peace. War is hell, but sometimes it is the only way to make sure that the enemy is done attacking. THOROUGHLY and COMPLETELY destroy thier willingness and ability to fight. Israel should be allowed to do that to the "palestinians". Then they will truly have peace.
goaliejerry Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 Jaguar, can you please be informed before you speak. YES PALESTINE WAS ONCE A COUNTRY. Located with the mediterania to the west and the Dead Sea to the east, in what is now isreal and parts of Jordan. For god sakes this stuff isn't hard to find out. You can goto Webster.com and look up the definition, but to save you the trouble here it is. Palestine 2:former country bordering on the Mediterranean on W & Dead Sea on E; a part of the Ottoman Empire 1516-1917, a British mandate 1923-48; now divided between Israel & Jordan with Arab Palestinians in the West Bank having limited self-rule since 1993 Palestine is also known as the biblical term Canaan. This is the ancient COUNTRY OF PALESTINE. It sounds silly when you say things that aren't true. However, one point that I conceed is that the Isrealis are originally from palestine too, however they do not call themselves such. And yes, may "palestinians" do come from other regions, but the country of origin for an individual person isn't what matters, it's the origin of his lineage that does. For example, while I am certainly american, My heritage is polish, as my ancestors were polish and from poland. It works the same for the Arab Palestinians. And also, morality is realitive. If an isreali and a palestinian kill each other in the name of god, who goes to heaven? Do they both? Or neither? Just because you think something is true doesn't mean it is, and the same holds true for me and anybody. The answer to the above question does not exist, because any answer provided would be opinion only. And also, this is not directed to you Jaguar, a civilizations worth is not judged by their current value rather their contribution to the development of world cultures. Would you say that Roman Culture of old was not great, because according to your logic, since the collapse of the Empire their stature has declined. And yes Russia is defunct now, however that diminishes nothing from their cultural value. So yes, your right, current Arab culture seems to be anti-progressive, but it takes NOTHING away from their value as a culture. And you say they have nothing to offer in terms of art and such. THEY WOULD SAY THE SAME ABOUT US. THIS IS ALL REALITIVE. We don't see thier art because our cultures clash. You wouldn't have any interest in Arabic art, how self centered of you to think that because it doesn't appeal to you that it has no value. Typical American Cockyness, thinking we rule the world. How much did you actually study art before coming to the conclusion that Arabic art is worthless? I'm curious about that. I am sure their are many Arabs who completely enjoy thier art, and see no value in ours. It's all realitive. And also, Arab poverty, whose fault is it? Which powers came and took the oil and took the wealth back home from these regions, leaving them bare? Oh thats right, EUROPEANS. WE RAPED THEIR LAND AND STOLE THEIR WEALTH. IT IS NOT THIER FAULT THEY ARE DIRT POOR. European culture came in and dominated the weak and left them with nothing. And Jaguars gonna say "Yes we did, thats how it is and that is good. They were weak and we took advantage, it just the way things are." If thats no where near accurate please correct me. America isn't a Saintly nation, we are in no ways perfect or completely moral, and to assume that anything we do is RIGHT is plain ignorance. Was it right to round up every Arab person in America for questioning after 9/11? Or target arabs in airports simply because of how they look? Don't get me wrong, I wholly favor profiling, I say search their asses, they might have a bomb, it doesn't bother me. AND THAT IS THE AMERICAN ATTITUDE. And at least I can recognize it. EVERYTHING I BELIEVE IN AND SEE AS RIGHT IS WHAT FAVORS ME ONLY. And the same goes for you. What of Loyal arab americans who are in the military, who love this country and would die for it? Is it right that every citizen looks at them with suspicion after 9/11? Of course not, morality and rightness has nothing to do with the majority. THE MAJORITY OFTEN TIMES IS WRONG. And yes those are the values of western culture, but keep in mind, and I feel like I'm a broken record with the volume turned down, every thing we discuss here is all realitive, we say thier wrong, they say we're wrong. We're both set in our ways and unwilling to open our minds, so who is truly right? I'll tell you, NOBODY. JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU KNOW, THINK YOUR RIGHT, THINK THEIR WRONG, DOESNT MEAN JACK S_IT. [ 04-11-2002, 22:38: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]
LibertyToad Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: [QB]And Menchise, are you saying that war is wrong?I have already written that war is also terrorism. In other words, yes. Huh? "War is wrong"? How utterly simplistic. So I guess the Allies in WWII were "wrong". The US in 1776 was "wrong". I suppose then, that defending your country against an aggressor that has vowed to "push you into the sea" is wrong? War's are horrible things but sometimes necessary. It doesn't take 2 states to start a war, it only takes 1. I invite you to read the Palestinian Covenant of 1968.
LibertyToad Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by Menchise: quote:I don't think that anyone should own land.Smile then, because Carl Marx loves you.
Soback Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by goaliejerry: And also, this is not directed to you Jaguar, a civilizations worth is not judged by their current value rather their contribution to the development of world cultures. Would you say that Roman Culture of old was not great, because according to your logic, since the collapse of the Empire their stature has declined. And yes Russia is defunct now, however that diminishes nothing from their cultural value. So yes, your right, current Arab culture seems to be anti-progressive, but it takes NOTHING away from their value as a culture. And you say they have nothing to offer in terms of art and such. THEY WOULD SAY THE SAME ABOUT US. THIS IS ALL REALITIVE. We don't see thier art because our cultures clash. You wouldn't have any interest in Arabic art, how self centered of you to think that because it doesn't appeal to you that it has no value. Typical American Cockyness, thinking we rule the world. How much did you actually study art before coming to the conclusion that Arabic art is worthless? I'm curious about that. I am sure their are many Arabs who completely enjoy thier art, and see no value in ours. It's all realitive. And also, Arab poverty, whose fault is it? Which powers came and took the oil and took the wealth back home from these regions, leaving them bare? Oh thats right, EUROPEANS. WE RAPED THEIR LAND AND STOLE THEIR WEALTH. IT IS NOT THIER FAULT THEY ARE DIRT POOR. European culture came in and dominated the weak and left them with nothing. First of all. Read my post again. Like I said before. I am not arguing that the arab countries were deemed strong culturally and in other ways BACK in the middle ages. THEY AREN'T NOW. Roman Empire was great, but it withered and died. arab countries are withering and dying but they seem determent on taking every progressive culture and country with them by establishing terrorist cells all over the world, and KILLING people into submission. Modern countries are trying to solve the problems they have with the middle east diplomatically but that doesn't seem to work (it hasn't worked for decades) so when diplomacy fails then force is the next step. As for arab poverty. Wake up. Who controls the oil? Who can influence gasoline prices and all the trade in the world (what you think those ships and planes that go from continent to continent are run on sunlight). If you think that anyone else controls that oil you are WAY out of the loop. Again, like I said before. Modern man came to middle east, discovered oil, developed it, and taught the arabs on how to extract and use it. THEY CONTROL IT NOW. So, the next question is where do the money from the oil go? Where do the money (BILLIONS) that US has given in aid to the arab countries went? Do we see any improvement in their standard of living? No, what we see is their sultans building villas near oceans and palaces. So arab countries are poor because of the way their government is set up and nobody else but themselves are at fault for that. So read my post again that said when the local arab population started asking why the Israel has such a high standard of living and they don't, what was answered to them. Sultans are not going to point a finger at themselves and say WE took all your money, they are going to point at Israel and say THEY took all your money, so let's take it back. And last. You are good. Really good. You and menchise obviously read my posts. You reply to them, but instead of reading a paragraph, taking the point I was making in that paragraph and countering it, you take a sentence out of that paragraph, and desolve/degenerate the whole debate to that one sentence only. So since you can't lead a debate the intelligent way I see no point in debating with you 2 at all. This is my last post on this issue. I already made my points, now the only thing that is left to do is go watch the news reports where 90% of them tell you how many arabs have been killed but don't tell you how for 5 weeks now, EVERY single day a bomb has exploded in Israel (one of the reasons why Israel started this campaign), how synagogues are burning in France, and how many more children are without moms (since those terrorist SPECIFICALLY target children and civilians) and how red cross is sneaking terrorists and explosives in their ambulances. All you are going to hear instead is how the Taliban have their food unproperly prepared while being illegally detained, how their turbans aren't being ironed, how palestinians are suffering due to Israeli "occupation". [ 04-12-2002, 00:09: Message edited by: Soback ]
goaliejerry Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 Your right soback. The "powers that be" so to speak have squandered whatever aid has been given to their countries in exchange for oil. And I'll be honest, I missed your post at the bottom of page three, and you know what? I agree completely with everything you said. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a socialist in any respect. It's just that it always seems that popular opinion is always 100% pro isreali while 100% anti-palestinian, at least in America. I just wish to highlight that Isreal, despite their clear identification with American values, does not always act in the most prudent manner. And on the larger scale, America isn't as completely moral and rightous a country as some would like to admit. And some, not all or most, but some palestinian grievences have merit. However ultimatly my favorship swings towards the Isrealis, for as you said, thier government is much more well rounded, its a democracy for petes sake, while most arabic/islamic states are sham governments, with powerful shadow rulers manuvering puppets disguised as prime ministers or presidents. I feel pity however for the common man Arab, who really has no choice as to how to live his life or lacks opportunity for advancement. It's very true that Arabic leaders feed thier people lies and such, that it is Isreal and America that keeps them down, when in truth thier own government is responsible. This probably sounds lame but I only desire freedom for every man and women, to live and breath and be left to thier own hands, to be free to steer their own fate, wether down a path of success or bitter failure. I only wish to argue that it is not the "palestinian people" who are to blame. And as our culture so quickly jumps to, I wish to stave off the dehumanization of Palestinians and Arabs in general, and encourage people to gather and contemplate the facts before making conclusions. In this day and age of 24hour news coverage, where one feels they can get the full story in a sound bite, its important to realize that that sound bite was written by someone with a bias and a deadline to boot, and the whole story can never NEVER be known to one who was not actually there. As far as picking apart arguements, I've always felt that breaking down and destroying an opponents particular claim, when done successfully, can sink their entire credibility. However, I will admit, as opposed to many who won't/can't admit it,(and I truly referance no one in particular here) I feel hearing from someone who is informed and passionate and in direct opposition to my viewpoint is always beneficial, for it allows me to examine my stance for it's strenghts and weaknesses and modify it accordingly. I too am done here, all of this equates to mountain goats butting heads over and over, and all that results is sparks. I'd just like to say that I always enjoy lively spirted dabates, and truly appreciate an informed opponent. So to Jaguar and Soback, who are the only ones I really dealt with here, thanks and best wishes, I CAN'T WAIT FOR MP. (p.s. If anything really compelling gets presented again here, I can't help but jump in once again!)
Soback Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by goaliejerry: I too am done here, all of this equates to mountain goats butting heads over and over, and all that results is sparks.I guess that's why I have a headache towards the end of the day.
Menchise Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 OK, I'm going to try to make one final post for the second time, and this time I'm taking the gloves off. This thread initially started with the question, 'Who is right; Israel or the Palestinians?' The debate over this question has branched into sub-debates about what constitutes terrorism and which culture is more worthy. Here is my 'compact' statement to express my opinions once and for all, and if I sound like a brick-headed socialist, then so be it! This conflict is ultimate proof of the destructive nature of the state system. The motivation behind the formation of the Zionist movement was the problem of anti-Semitism. In other words, the state-sanctioned Euro-Christian culture found convenience in the use of Jews as scapegoats. The Zionists came to the conclusion that this problem could be solved by establishing a Jewish state, with which the culture could be based free of inroads by the anti-Semites. In other words, they decided that in order to defend the Jewish culture from the state-sanctioned Christianity of Europe, they must make Judaism into a state-sanctioned culture, thus assimilating into the state system. The decision to establish this state in Palestine clearly did not sit well with the Palestinian Arabs, who wanted Palestine to be their own state sanction after living under Turkish rule for 400 years. The treatment of both sides as pawns by the British and Americans didn't help matters. The existence of 'holy sites' sacred to both religious cultures in the region contributed to the conflict, since state jurisdiction over those sites suggested that they were owned by one side. Every side in this conflict made one big mistake when they followed the false assumption that a culture needs a state to have self-determination. The only reason why so many believe in this assumption is because other state-sanctioned cultures are using their power to expand their influence at the expense of other cultures without such power. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is a polarized version of this struggle for cultural dominance. Cultural dominance only serves the property owners of a nation - which the state is designed to protect above all others - especially the beneficiaries of estranged labour. Estranged labourers are denied the fruits of the national cultures, thus they do not have a culture to call their own. Therefore, the emancipation of labour from estrangement is the emancipation of culture from statist conflict. quote:Huh? "War is wrong"? How utterly simplistic.I agree. quote:I suppose then, that defending your country against an aggressor that has vowed to "push you into the sea" is wrong?To do what one must do to defend oneself is unavoidable, even when it's terrorism (a.k.a. war). What one does after the end of the unavoidable is how one is judged. quote:Smile then, because Carl Marx loves you.Who's Carl Marx?
Kush Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 Aww man! Everyone's leaving just as things are getting interesting! I would agree that it is not necessary for a culture to have a state, but I would add that it is intrinsic to the desire to be a culture to want a state to represent that culture. States with dual or triple or multiple cultures are always struggling with the desire of one or more cultures within the state to declare themselves a state. Whether the creation of Isreal is right or wrong is immaterial. One could spend energy arguing that the creation of Canada, Australia/New Zealand, America, Mexico et al is wrong, and one could be right in that argument. It won't change the fact that these nations exist and will not go away. I honestly believe that the only solution to the problem is that both sides MUST find a way to put their mutual hatred aside. It is possible. Other nations have done it. Every citizen must learn to put their anger and hatred aside, and desire to live in peace. The only way to stop terrorism is through sitting at a table and participating in harsh tough negotiation. Tanks will not do it. Don't take my word for it. Look at N Ireland. S Africa. People must change. Their hearts must change. Period. You can't legislate it. You can't force that to happen with a gun. You must communicate. Deal with harsh truths. That's the only way. Really.
LibertyToad Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 Hi. Although, I am a strong supporter of Israel, I will concede that some of their methods could appear to be heavy-handed. On the other hand, if they truly feel they are fighting for their existence, I can understand them. The sad thing is that they cannot even allow ambulances in to help the Palestinians because, in the past, the Palestinians have reportedly used ambulances to transport weapons and suicide bombers--if that isn't terrorism--I don't know what is. I will state that there are some good, interesting points in your most recent post. quote:Smile then, because Carl Marx loves you.Who's Carl Marx? [/QB]
Guest Grayfox Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 ahhhh socialism abound... if i were writing a paper i would get an A hands down just by reading this thread
J.Smith Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 *looks around and says quietly* These people have been fighting each other since biblical times. What in the wolrd makes people think that peace will come in a few years. I belive that fighting each other is a major part of their culture. And the only way to change that is to change their culture. Which if possible will take much longer that two or three years.
Steve Schacher Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 quote:Oops, forgive me, I meant to type "Karl" Marx. In case you don't know (and you may have been asking due to my spelling error), Karl Marx was the Father of Communism.He knows.
Guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 And Goalie, Palestine is a region, IT HAS NEVER BEEN A COUNTRY!! NOT EVER!!! It is like saying the Rocky Mountains, or the Northwest, it was NEVER a country. This will be my last post as well, I hope ISRAEL KICKS THE HELL OUT OF THE "Palestinians" enough is enough. Time to take the gloves off and knock them back to the stoneage. The uncivilized, terrorising bastards. Killing of civilians is unacceptable, another suicide bomber, this time a woman, blew herself up in Jerusalem this morning. This is wrong and it has to stop, and if it takes isolating the Palestinians to such a point that they can't move, then so be it!! They are uncivilized and deserve nothing less then to be treated as such. Barbarians need to be treated like barbarians.
Guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Posted April 12, 2002 My logical side agrees with Jaguar. Its my damn morals that get in the way. But I know that if ultimately it was up to me to make the decision, my morals would go flying out the window faster than Resnig out the airlock. Its a cultural clash. And like throught all history, when cultures clash the result is either anhiliation or assimilation by the victor. The palestinians have proven they dont have any respect for civilians and non-combatants... and suicide bombers targeting them is not helping them at all. Last night CNBC aired a very, very interesting program about the issue. They brought in people from both sides of the fence, mainly a group of young, EDUCATED people, half palestinian, half israeli and had a relatively civil discussion about this mess. They also had "experts" talk about the situation and how the involved (including the US) have done in their efforts to solve this. What I got from this was -Powell SERIOUSLY fukd up the Israeli operation's objective by meeting with Arafat. Arafat is NOT a leader, he is a figurehead. 'He is a leader only as long as the cameras are pointing at him' (exact words from one of the interviewed).. Arafat's power and credibility had been seriously compromised in the previous months in both the eyes of the palestinians, the arab nations and the western powers... when the Israeli army cornered him and cut him off the cameras after the suicide bombers kept striking, his image faltered considerably, showing just how weak, indecisive, double-talking and most importantly, INCAPABLE of leading the Palestians he is.. And now, ALL the sudden he once again becomes a figurehead, a leader because Powell met with him, by association of this, Arafat is back in the game. His image was restored. And all sides know he cant stop his own people from keeping the terrorist attacks. -Israel is using (and rightly I believe) the analogy of "This is our ANACONDA". I'd like to hear what Bush has to say about this!. -Israelis in negotiating table, Palestinians blowing stuff up... go figure which one is really interested in a civilized solution. Israel said it would give back 98% of the land they occupied in the last century.. Arafat WALKED away from this and started another wave of suicide bombers. -The incredible infrastructure of the "suicide bomber" factories found by the Israelis (and confirmed by neutral observers tagging along) show just how involved the PLO is in this activity. Not to mention the rewards given to the families of the lunatics that blow themselves up.
aramike Posted April 13, 2002 Report Posted April 13, 2002 quote:This conflict is ultimate proof of the destructive nature of the state system.When the morality against killing is set aside in favor of targeting civilians to achieve a political end, the only proves that socialism would NEVER work. Why? Because in order for a society driven on religious belief such as the Palestinians to be involved in a socialist order, that socialist state must conform to their religious desires. I have no inclination to conform to that religion. Therefore I have ZERO desire to live in such a state. quote:To do what one must do to defend oneself is unavoidable, even when it's terrorism (a.k.a. war). What one does after the end of the unavoidable is how one is judged.War is not terrorism. War can be defensive in nature. Terrorism, by its very definition, is OFFENSIVE in nature at all times. quote:As you probably know, one of the ideas advocated by Communism is that all land be controlled by the state. This, of course, shifts a massive amount of control to the government. As a conservative (and nearly a libertarian) I find the idea of the government controlling all the land in a country tyrannical.It's not only tyrannical, it's virtual suicide. To give one body control over everything TOTALLY eliminates any accountability for that body.
Menchise Posted April 13, 2002 Report Posted April 13, 2002 So much for my 'final' post. quote:I would agree that it is not necessary for a culture to have a state, but I would add that it is intrinsic to the desire to be a culture to want a state to represent that culture. States with dual or triple or multiple cultures are always struggling with the desire of one or more cultures within the state to declare themselves a state.That's because a culture with its own state becomes the dominant culture within the state. When you have conflicting cultures within one state, the motivation for separatism is obvious. The desire for a state has less to do with wanting cultural representation than it does with wanting cultural power. Who benefits from that power? The beneficiaries of estranged labour. quote:Whether the creation of Isreal is right or wrong is immaterial. One could spend energy arguing that the creation of Canada, Australia/New Zealand, America, Mexico et al is wrong, and one could be right in that argument. It won't change the fact that these nations exist and will not go away.Nations come and go with time. They're not permanent. quote:Oops, forgive me, I meant to type "Karl" Marx. In case you don't know (and you may have been asking due to my spelling error), Karl Marx was the Father of Communism.I knew. I was just joking about the spelling of the name. quote:As you probably know, one of the ideas advocated by Communism is that all land be controlled by the state.No. In the context of Marxism, the control of land by a proletarian state is a temporary measure for the purpose of wresting capital from the bourgeoisie so that it can be used to build a new social structure or society; it's a transition period, sort of like the period between 1776 and 1787 when the USA didn't have a constitution yet. Marx's definition of Communism is what happens after the transition period has concluded, which is when the state starts to decline into oblivion as it no longer has a purpose for existing. quote:When the morality against killing is set aside in favor of targeting civilians to achieve a political end, the only proves that socialism would NEVER work. Why? Because in order for a society driven on religious belief such as the Palestinians to be involved in a socialist order, that socialist state must conform to their religious desires.No it doesn't. To conform to such desires is to make one culture dominant. Any culture that cannot survive without state-sanctioned domination is not a real culture; it's statist propaganda. The end of the state system is the end of such destructive influences. I see no reason why Islam or Judaism would require such power to exist unless the culture has been perverted by the propaganda of state or pseudo-state entities, such as the PLO's Covenent of 1968 and Ben-Gurion's concept of racial democracy. The dismantling of the state system will separate the religion from the propaganda. quote:War is not terrorism. War can be defensive in nature. Terrorism, by its very definition, is OFFENSIVE in nature at all times.What about when a government uses force on its own people to defend its power? Is that not terrorism? Of course it is! It's not a big stretch to say that using force on another people to defend one's power is also terrorism, even when it's immediately necessary. War is just a grandiose euphemism that is used when terrorism is believed to be necessary. [ 04-13-2002, 00:26: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Guest Posted April 13, 2002 Report Posted April 13, 2002 You know. sometimes I feel that Menchise does not live in reality. No offense Menchise, honest, I enjoy a good debate with you. But sometimes, sometimes, I feel that your sense of reality is so far out there, that I just cannot even see an inkling of what you are talking about ever happening. Socialism is a lovely political thought, but it does not and has not EVER taken into consideration Human Nature, and until Human nature changes, which I have serious doubts will ever happen, socialism will be a dream of intellectuals, and innocent people will die because of such grandiose schemes.
Menchise Posted April 13, 2002 Report Posted April 13, 2002 Jaguar, can you be more specific? Do you disagree with everything I've written or just my opinions on how to solve the conflict?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now