IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags general discussion , Israel issues , Israel-Palestine conflict , Palestine issues , US-Israel relations

Reply
Old 20th September 2016, 02:43 PM   #1281
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,994
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Blah Blah Blah.

Meanwhile, in the Real World, Israel keeps stealing Palestinian land, imprisoning the Palestinian People in open-air concentration camps, and murdering those Palestinians who resist.
If it was "open air concentration camps", there'd be bioweapons testing and murder on an industrial scale, with palestinian skin being made into lampshades and hair used to stuff mattresses. And any resistance would have been met with Nerve Gas and extermination of towns, like in Syria.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 02:45 PM   #1282
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
As it stands, the US, like many other countries, has a long history of giving charity to people in need. For that matter, the US has tended to stay at either the top of the list or very close to it. That, alone, is more than enough to put your interpretation of circumstantial evidence in serious doubt, for starters.

Not at all. What I suggested is that the rich do nothing in the way of giving just for the sake of being the benefactor. What I suggested is that there is a likely agenda for playing the part of the benefactor which in no way benefits all equally and likely benefits just the few.

The evidence (in relation to the complaint) is that the US does not even provide for their own poor citizens and tends to lean toward the philosophy that if you cannot 'make it' then it is your fault. Many trusting souls have been betrayed by the creation of the Federal Reserve, the economic crashes created by Wall Street shenanigans wrought through the Machiavellian attitude.

Your argument regarding the US military budget being far more impressive than the measly amount Israel has been granted doesn't mean anything anyway. I imagine the pledged $ for Israels military support comes from the US military budget anyway and the point is that those who are suffering the most as US citizens have the short end of the stick and some investment into making billboards to advertise that fact are probably going to be seen as less offensive than ones which complain about the military's large slice of the tax pie.

So much invested into the war machine while even the grunts who signed up to fight those wars are oft left on the scrape heap once their tour of duty is over with...there are always younger, fresher, ignorant souls eager to serve their country lining up to join in what they believe is a justify ably necessary thing.


Quote:
That's before touching on things like how the US has been pushing Israel (and the Palestinians) towards the peace table and towards the creation of Palestine as an actual state for a long time.
That hearkens to your comment;

Quote:
...I'm not especially a fan of the US military aid to Israel, in fair part because of the mindset of far too many Americans that we should help Israel no matter what, because of religious reasons.
Religious reasons are a big factor in all this. Beliefs about prophesy and end times. I will assume that you know of these things so won't mention them in detail. Suffice to say, while you can support such a thing for other reasons, and be satisfied that the rich with the attitudes spurred on by greed and lack of empathy are not the problem and that the world leaders of US allies are above board and a righteous lot for that, your apparent faith in this process is quite astounding.

The monetary system itself is unnatural and as such will eventually face the reality of nature. I think that the poor comprehend this far better than the rich are even able to.

Quote:
Yes, the US has definitely given more aid to Israel overall. That does not mean that the US' aid to the Palestinians has been, in any way, just for the sake of Israel. Claiming such, quite frankly, is to ignore the US' official stance on the matter, its official actions, and the various unofficial actions of the people of the US, for starters.
I made no such claim. Official stances on matters have to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when the state of affairs on the home front are less than desirable. Ask the poor. They will tell you. (but you have to be genuinely interested.)

Personally I don't trust politicians any more that I trust clergy. Time will tell but I do not think things going to work out to be just peachy for the majority. I think I am being more real about this than you are. I also think that it would be great if things did turn out as good as you apparently believe they will due to your faith in the powers that be and what you regard as their benevolent agenda.

But I don't think that there is any truth in that. We are heading into a very bad future I think, but where we can agree is that time will tell and I sure would like it for you to be the one to tell me 'I told you so' but I have so much doubt in the political processes to hold any hope of that ever been the case.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 09:04 PM   #1283
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
First, let me apologize for my absence. I’ve been busy. I will be busy in the future too. We’ll see how it goes.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
MacDonald's study is not "a paper whose thesis is that the US is basically wrong”…
I was looking at the two sentences before that:

” This dissertation explores the origins of the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel …and illustrates how the West privileged the Zionist narrative over arguments emphasizing the Palestinian Arab right to self-determination.”

Regardless of your opinion of how I paraphrased that, your reading that paper doesn’t demonstrate a willingness on your part to explore different points of view.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I am sure that an "expert" on Zionism, as you are, will be interested to know these important documents. But it seems that you only look at the things that secure your fixed ideas.
When you put quotes on “expert”, what are you quoting?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I am not ignoring it. I had explained with Morris’ words why Ben Gurion said one thing and the contrary: cynicism. Have you a better explanation of his double language?
We’ve already been over this, but to reiterate:

1) The quote you provided was Ben Gurion discussing the Peel Commission proposal. The ideas of separation, land swaps and population exchanges came from the Peel Commission, not Ben-Gurion. So to present that quote as evidence of Ben-Gurion’s secret agenda is wrong and dishonest.

2) The quote I provided was from a letter Ben-Gurion wrote to his son. It wasn’t made public for many years, so dismissing it as “cynicism” or his public persona is just bizarre.

Much of the anti-Zionist arguments are made this way. A handful of quotes are cherry-picked to establish evil intent, then everything they said or did that contradicts that narrative is dismissed as cynicism or a public-relations ploy. It’s very much conspiracy thinking, only elevated to academia.

Zionists were not a monolithic group, any more than anyone else is. It was a political process and a democratic process, with many different voices and points of view shaping the final outcome. Any point of view that doesn’t embrace that is lacking.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
False again. The colonization process in Palestine followed three different phases. First the settlers bought the land to absent owners (usually Turkish) and expelled the peasants that traditionally occupied these lands. This mechanism created an urban sub proletariat that were the main contingent in the riots against the Jews in the thirties.
I feel the need to repeat this quote:

” Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them. Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement, should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”

David Ben-Gurion, 1920.

Of course there are many other sources that Zionists targeted empty lands for their purchases. From Wikipedia, for example. ”In 1918, after the British conquest of Palestine, the military administration closed the Land Register and prohibited all sale of land. The Register was reopened in 1920, but to prevent speculation and insure a livelihood for the fellahin, an edict was issued forbidding the sale of more than 300 dunams of land or the sale of land valued at more than 3000 Palestine pounds without the approval of the High Commissioner.[9]
From the 1880s to the 1930s, most Jewish land purchases were made in the coastal plain, the Jezreel Valley, the Jordan Valley and to a lesser extent the Galilee.[8] This was due to a preference for land that was cheap and without tenants.[8] “


Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Excuse me. I don’t know what “lands occupied” you are speaking about. We were speaking of Gaza and in 1920’ there were scarcely 100 Jews in Gaza.
That specific paragraph was about the 1948 war, and the lands occupied were the Gaza Strip and West Bank that were illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I am not intending to justify Egypt or Jordan...
You don’t need to justify anything to recognize it played a role. Come to think of it, one doesn’t normally look at historical events with the assumption that everything must be justified or condemned.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
…You are intending to justify the massive ethnic cleansing made by Israel at any cost.
Justify it? Hardly. I double-dirty-dog dare you to cite where I justify it.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I have no problem to report any ethnic cleansing. It seems that you have not the same clear intentions.
Oh don’t do that. We started this exchange with you all smiles because I acknowledged the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in 1948. For you to turn around on that like this is dishonest.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 12:17 AM   #1284
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,492
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Not at all. What I suggested is that the rich do nothing in the way of giving just for the sake of being the benefactor.
This isn't quite a coherent sentence. Care to try again? Perhaps you're saying that when the rich give, it's never just for the sake of giving and that they always have sinister ulterior motives?

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
What I suggested is that there is a likely agenda for playing the part of the benefactor which in no way benefits all equally and likely benefits just the few.
Err, no. That's actually not what you said. What you said that was in question was -

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
this is still motivated by concerns for keeping staus quo whilst appearing to be a benefactor.
No "suggesting" or "likely" involved. As for actually benefiting people equally, that's something of an absurd standard from the start. For example, much of the aid to the Palestinians has been marked as to help support Palestinian businesses and encourage new Palestinian businesses. That is supposed to help a fairly specific subset of the Palestinians. A fair bit has been marked as food aid, as well, which is inevitably supposed to be focused on the people who have more difficulty getting food. No, people are not benefitted equally by these things. On the other hand, the "likely benefits the few" invites more detail on what, exactly, you're suggesting. With that, are you saying that the aid money that the US gives the Palestinians is funneled into a few personal accounts of corrupt Palestinian leaders? That would certainly be a problem, yes, though one that the US can or could do relatively little about directly, short of cutting off some amount of further aid as a consequence.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The evidence (in relation to the complaint) is that the US does not even provide for their own poor citizens
...Interesting. So the numerous federal programs that are targeted at and only really benefit the US' poor citizens don't exist. This, alone, would suggest that you really, really don't know what you're talking about. It's certainly true that those programs will not make the citizens rich, but they do quite help with survival.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
and tends to lean toward the philosophy that if you cannot 'make it' then it is your fault.
Frequently, it is, if "making it" just involves the basics. If people don't take advantage of what's available, for example, it's hard to honestly blame the government. If "making it" involves getting rich, of course, that's a different story.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Many trusting souls have been betrayed by the creation of the Federal Reserve, the economic crashes created by Wall Street shenanigans wrought through the Machiavellian attitude.
Indeed. Such events are quite unfortunate for the people who have lost much to them. Still, with that said, it sounds like you think that the government should bear responsibility for replacing assets lost via people making investments that end up being bad. Is this correct?

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Your argument regarding the US military budget being far more impressive than the measly amount Israel has been granted doesn't mean anything anyway.
True enough, directly speaking. The actual point of what I was pointing out, though, was to show a couple major flaws in the argument you were using. "Just think of all the great other ways that our government could be using that money" doesn't actually mean much when it's a negligible portion of the budget from the start and fairly certainly wouldn't be used for those other things anyways, on top of that. It just gets all the worse when there actually are large alternates that could easily be cut and redirected much more significantly without any real negative effect.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
I imagine the pledged $ for Israels military support comes from the US military budget anyway and the point is that those who are suffering the most as US citizens have the short end of the stick and some investment into making billboards to advertise that fact are probably going to be seen as less offensive than ones which complain about the military's large slice of the tax pie.
And why should anyone consider this to be a reasonable argument in any way, shape, or form?

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Religious reasons are a big factor in all this. Beliefs about prophesy and end times. I will assume that you know of these things so won't mention them in detail. Suffice to say, while you can support such a thing for other reasons, and be satisfied that the rich with the attitudes spurred on by greed and lack of empathy are not the problem and that the world leaders of US allies are above board and a righteous lot for that, your apparent faith in this process is quite astounding.
My faith in the process or lack thereof is a bit irrelevant. As usual, my concern has far more to do with the actual arguments being forwarded. If you want to claim that the aid to the Palestinians is actually for Israel's sake, which is a claim that you actually made, it's rather helpful when you can back it up with something more than "rich people help rich people," and "Oh, think of all the ways that this much money would help the poor!" Personally, I would have no problem at all with accepting that some of the people who voted to give aid to the Palestinians actually did so while hoping that it would help keep them quieter and more docile than they would be otherwise, rather than for more humanitarian reasons. I just rather dislike accepting things while knowing that the stated reasons are, quite frankly, terrible. As noted in addition to that, though, the actual actions of the US with regards to the Palestinians seem to support my claim that the US has been working on the behalf of the Palestinian people for a long time and trying to actually help them obtain independence and their own state, without betraying Israel, who actually is officially the US' ally, unlike the Palestinians, in the process.




Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
I made no such claim.
Except that you did, given the words and concept that you actually chose. I can accept that it was unintentional, but you did make the claim. All I really did was boil what you said down to the only way that it could really be a relevant thing to this thread, while staying true to what you actually said.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Official stances on matters have to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when the state of affairs on the home front are less than desirable. Ask the poor. They will tell you. (but you have to be genuinely interested.)
And?

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Personally I don't trust politicians any more that I trust clergy. Time will tell but I do not think things going to work out to be just peachy for the majority. I think I am being more real about this than you are. I also think that it would be great if things did turn out as good as you apparently believe they will due to your faith in the powers that be and what you regard as their benevolent agenda.
Personally, I wouldn't call it a benevolent agenda, really. On the other hand, you have offered very little in the way of real argument to say that it isn't actually benevolent.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
But I don't think that there is any truth in that. We are heading into a very bad future I think, but where we can agree is that time will tell and I sure would like it for you to be the one to tell me 'I told you so' but I have so much doubt in the political processes to hold any hope of that ever been the case.
I, too, have notable doubts and complaints regarding the political processes in the US, especially with regards to Congress and the Presidential elections. This thread is about Israel and the Palestinians, though. As for whether we are heading into a very bad future, though... We very well may be, quite frankly. The US helping with Israel's military, though, does not seem to play any real part in that. Nor does the US giving aid in various forms that are specifically and pointedly trying to better the lives of the Palestinian people, despite the apparently fairly widespread dislike of the US among the Palestinians because the US does not support their desire to eliminate Israel. Meanwhile, of course, the countries that give them weapons, but not much else, to martyr themselves with are liked a lot, apparently.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 21st September 2016 at 12:27 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 02:09 PM   #1285
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
Memorandum of Understanding

I met today in New York with U.S. President Barack Obama and I thanked him for security assistance agreement significantly strengthens the confidence and allows us to Israel to protect ourselves by ourselves from any threat. President Obama gave thanks also for the extensive cooperation between our two countries in the areas of security and intel.

There is no better friend to Israel than the United States and the U.S.A. there is no better friend than from Israel. Is it non-breakable based on common values, common interests and future in common.
==
I met today in New York with U.S. President Barack Obama and thanked him for the Memorandum of Understanding that the United States and Israel signed last week. The MOU greatly enhances Israel's security. It fortifies the principle that Israel should be able to defend itself by itself against any threat. I also thanked President Obama for the extensive security and intelligence cooperation between our two countries.

Israel has no greater friend than the United States of America, and America has no greater friend than Israel. Our alliance is an unbreakable bond based on common values, buttressed by common interests, and bound by a shared destiny. ~ ‎Benjamin Netanyahu

September 2016
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 09:15 PM   #1286
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,492
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
I met today in New York with U.S. President Barack Obama and I thanked him for security assistance agreement significantly strengthens the confidence and allows us to Israel to protect ourselves by ourselves from any threat. President Obama gave thanks also for the extensive cooperation between our two countries in the areas of security and intel.

There is no better friend to Israel than the United States and the U.S.A. there is no better friend than from Israel. Is it non-breakable based on common values, common interests and future in common.
==
I met today in New York with U.S. President Barack Obama and thanked him for the Memorandum of Understanding that the United States and Israel signed last week. The MOU greatly enhances Israel's security. It fortifies the principle that Israel should be able to defend itself by itself against any threat. I also thanked President Obama for the extensive security and intelligence cooperation between our two countries.

Israel has no greater friend than the United States of America, and America has no greater friend than Israel. Our alliance is an unbreakable bond based on common values, buttressed by common interests, and bound by a shared destiny. ~ ‎Benjamin Netanyahu

September 2016
Israel and the US are officially allies. Was this disputed? Personally, of course, I'd put Canada, for example, far above Israel when it comes to how friendly the country actually is with the US.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 02:39 PM   #1287
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Perhaps you're saying that when the rich give, it's never just for the sake of giving and that they always have sinister ulterior motives?
Yes - that is what I am saying.



Quote:
Err, no. That's actually not what you said. What you said that was in question was -



No "suggesting" or "likely" involved.

Whatever. Do you want to be my English professor or just put that impulse to correct aside and go with the gist of what is obviously being said?



Quote:
As for actually benefiting people equally, that's something of an absurd standard from the start. For example, much of the aid to the Palestinians has been marked as to help support Palestinian businesses and encourage new Palestinian businesses. That is supposed to help a fairly specific subset of the Palestinians. A fair bit has been marked as food aid, as well, which is inevitably supposed to be focused on the people who have more difficulty getting food. No, people are not benefitted equally by these things. On the other hand, the "likely benefits the few" invites more detail on what, exactly, you're suggesting. With that, are you saying that the aid money that the US gives the Palestinians is funneled into a few personal accounts of corrupt Palestinian leaders? That would certainly be a problem, yes, though one that the US can or could do relatively little about directly, short of cutting off some amount of further aid as a consequence.
What I said and am saying is that throwing money/what amounts to small change at problems is obviously not the answer. It might make the rich look like they care but that is not necessarily the case. The poor are definitely not convinced but the act.


Quote:
...Interesting. So the numerous federal programs that are targeted at and only really benefit the US' poor citizens don't exist. This, alone, would suggest that you really, really don't know what you're talking about. It's certainly true that those programs will not make the citizens rich, but they do quite help with survival.
They are not working if they only 'help with survival.' But we can let the future show you that this is the case.



Quote:
Indeed. Such events are quite unfortunate for the people who have lost much to them. Still, with that said, it sounds like you think that the government should bear responsibility for replacing assets lost via people making investments that end up being bad. Is this correct?
"The Government" in the sense that this represents the people and that the people pay taxes which can be directed into/invested into The People. One can bail out banksters but not the citizen who is harmed but the actions of those bankers?

Quote:
True enough, directly speaking. The actual point of what I was pointing out, though, was to show a couple major flaws in the argument you were using. "Just think of all the great other ways that our government could be using that money" doesn't actually mean much when it's a negligible portion of the budget from the start and fairly certainly wouldn't be used for those other things anyways, on top of that. It just gets all the worse when there actually are large alternates that could easily be cut and redirected much more significantly without any real negative effect.
Yes - this is the case. I think the use of the word 'fairly' can be dropped as well. This is what I am saying. 'The government' are not representative of 'the poor' and the poor make up the larger percentage of the population.



Quote:
And why should anyone consider this to be a reasonable argument in any way, shape, or form?
What is unreasonable about it?

Quote:
My faith in the process or lack thereof is a bit irrelevant.
Well you mentioned it. I just brought up the prophesy aspect.

Quote:
As usual, my concern has far more to do with the actual arguments being forwarded.
That is very apparent in your reply. The argument is that the problems of the world can be generalized to greed and lack of empathy. You haven't yet sufficiently responded to that.

Quote:
If you want to claim that the aid to the Palestinians is actually for Israel's sake, which is a claim that you actually made,...
No it isn't.

Quote:
...it's rather helpful when you can back it up with something more than "rich people help rich people," and "Oh, think of all the ways that this much money would help the poor!"
Are you denying then that this is the case? Are you saying in this veiled manner that you agree with the way things are presently being done and that you wouldn't have it any other way?

If not, then how do you see the problem and the solution?

Quote:
Personally, I would have no problem at all with accepting that some of the people who voted to give aid to the Palestinians actually did so while hoping that it would help keep them quieter and more docile than they would be otherwise, rather than for more humanitarian reasons. I just rather dislike accepting things while knowing that the stated reasons are, quite frankly, terrible.
Ah, so you can agree that this is a likely motive and thus those rich tend toward 'giving' - not with any view to being true benefactors or learning empathy, but rather, to keep the status quo?

Quote:
As noted in addition to that, though, the actual actions of the US with regards to the Palestinians seem to support my claim that the US has been working on the behalf of the Palestinian people for a long time and trying to actually help them obtain independence and their own state, without betraying Israel, who actually is officially the US' ally, unlike the Palestinians, in the process.
Yet in this, it is obviously not working and likely will continue not to work. Israels present leadership claims this is because the leadership of Palestine are not wanting peace but wanting to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth...

...meanwhile the poor of the world tend towards sympathizing with the Palestinian underdogs because they know how it feels to be at the receiving end of political BS and the rich seemingly unable to foster genuine concern and empathy or regard for the plight of the poor but are very skilled at manipulating the poor to keep them in poverty and secure monetary interest from them.


Quote:
Except that you did, given the words and concept that you actually chose. I can accept that it was unintentional, but you did make the claim. All I really did was boil what you said down to the only way that it could really be a relevant thing to this thread, while staying true to what you actually said.
We will have to agree to disagree on that, as the saying goes.

Quote:
And?
And what? Do you feel my statement wasn't complete enough?

Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't call it a benevolent agenda, really. On the other hand, you have offered very little in the way of real argument to say that it isn't actually benevolent.
The proof is in the pudding. If the act of giving isn't genuine and the motives are based upon greed and lack of empathy (to keep the staus quo), then the outcomes can only be expected to be as they are. What more evidence would you require which would motivate concern in you regarding your apparent suspicion? Concern which would take you to the point of out and out claiming it was definitely not benevolent intention behind the giving? Some kind of wiki leak? Perhaps being taken and shown that the suspected non benevolent agenda was actually the case?


You may as well continue to claim ignorance and say 'until I have such proof, I will reserve any judgment one way or the other about this'... meanwhile the world turns and the future moves into the present.

Quote:
I, too, have notable doubts and complaints regarding the political processes in the US, especially with regards to Congress and the Presidential elections.
You do, do you?


Quote:
This thread is about Israel and the Palestinians, though.
Sure it is, but are you denying that those issues between those peoples are happening on the same planet? Do you know that a thread is not the whole garment? That many threads make up the garment? Are you not aware even that what happens anywhere on this planet affects the planet as a whole? Do you not know already that the Middle East and its continued ancient internal problems have always had an affect on the rest of the world? Are you not aware that the problems between Israel and the enemies it is surrounded by are about disparity, race, religion, prophesy, politics, money, power, and the vast differences between rich and poor and greed and lack of empathy?

Quote:
As for whether we are heading into a very bad future, though... We very well may be, quite frankly.
Yes we are. Quite frankly Israel and the enemies which surround her are also part of that future...and are notable part of the cause of that bad future...

Quote:
The US helping with Israel's military, though, does not seem to play any real part in that.
err...what planet are you living on Aridas?

Quote:
Nor does the US giving aid in various forms that are specifically and pointedly trying to better the lives of the Palestinian people, despite the apparently fairly widespread dislike of the US among the Palestinians because the US does not support their desire to eliminate Israel. Meanwhile, of course, the countries that give them weapons, but not much else, to martyr themselves with are liked a lot, apparently.
That is a relevant observation and one I see as being the direct result of greed and lack of empathy and if the rich sincerely wish to make the changes that their political mouthpieces claim in their speeches, then they sincerely need to put their money where their mouths are and do so. Hording the stuff and competing for the planets resource is not only loony but of evill intent.

Throwing their loose change at the problem will not make that problem disappear. Imprisoning the poor will not make the problem go away. Even eliminating the poor through genocide won't make the problem go away.

So the rich - who realistically are in the prime position to use their hoarded wealth for the good of all and for the necessary changes humanity must seriously contemplate as the only real good alternative - the rich need to invest in eradicating poverty, inequality etc...they have the means in which to become the heroes of all humanity. The poor do not have that luxury.

The poor - in general - are good citizens, the salt of the earth - a few bad apples giving them/their position a bad name and allowing the rich to excuse themselves from adopting the practices the poor oft practice among themselves. Empathy and lack of greed. Perhaps being poor is helpful to that end, but I am not convinced that the rich are not also able to adopt such practice...for real. Genuine, unrestricted benevolence. iow 'Money' is not of itself 'the root of all evill.' How money is used is what determines that outcome.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 01:57 AM   #1288
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,492
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Yes - that is what I am saying.
Generally speaking, when a person tries to deny the humanity of a group that they dislike or oppose, what are they called?


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Whatever. Do you want to be my English professor or just put that impulse to correct aside and go with the gist of what is obviously being said?
English professor? Hardly. I'm simply quite unimpressed by your attempt to move the goalposts. Why should others have to put up with you changing what you're actually saying constantly?


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
What I said and am saying is that throwing money/what amounts to small change at problems is obviously not the answer. It might make the rich look like they care but that is not necessarily the case. The poor are definitely not convinced but the act.
So... being the country that has given the most aid over time out of many means nothing. Good to know. The group of countries that is now the European Union has given more, total, but not individually, incidentally. Either way, I'll accept that many of the Palestinians are not convinced that the US wants to help them, though, given that the US has firmly shown its support for the continued existence of Israel and has withheld direct support for their statehood in the UN until such time as they actually are willing to do fairly basic things for a real state that's willing to follow current international law to do, like agree on borders with their neighbors. These things, of course, matter immensely more than the rich/poor narrative that you're making up.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
They are not working if they only 'help with survival.' But we can let the future show you that this is the case.
So, what's the bar that they should be at, in your opinion?



Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
"The Government" in the sense that this represents the people and that the people pay taxes which can be directed into/invested into The People. One can bail out banksters but not the citizen who is harmed but the actions of those bankers?
For the record, I do not support the get out of jail free card given to far too many offenders there and quite support prosecution of a number of people, before getting to the things that could be said about how Congress helped cause the problem in the first place. So... no. I don't specifically support bailing out the banker in the first place, especially when the bailing out of the bankers was, if I understand the situation correctly, originally supposed to be for the sake of the citizens harmed by the banker and be used in particular ways that more concretely benefited them. A lot of the funds were apparently used for notably different purposes, if I understand that part correctly, too, which leads to a fair portion of my support for prosecution. This has little to do with Israel or the Palestinians, though.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Yes - this is the case. I think the use of the word 'fairly' can be dropped as well. This is what I am saying. 'The government' are not representative of 'the poor' and the poor make up the larger percentage of the population.
So, why even make the arguments that you are? Rather, shouldn't you be more directly arguing that more of the budget should be directed at raising the quality of life of the poor, rather than arguing that a negligible part of the budget shouldn't be spent to help one of our foreign allies and throwing in the bit about the poor exactly as if it was nothing more than a cheap and not thought through justification? Either way, you're addressing the US here and not Israel or the Palestinians. As such, that particular line of discussion would be far better held in the forum specifically focused on the politics of the USA.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
What is unreasonable about it?
That's addressed a little bit just above. Going past that, if you want to the military budget cut and the funds redirected to the poor, actually argue for that. There are quite a few entirely honest and reasonable lines of argument that you can use to support that position, quite frankly, and it's not like it's going to happen when those interested in it happening refuse to argue for it and resort to focusing on little things and employ seemingly spurious arguments in favor of their position.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Well you mentioned it. I just brought up the prophesy aspect.
I did mention a religious aspect to much of the support shown towards Israel. If one were to take it further, I hold the position that no religion should dictate the political actions of the US. There are other, secular reasons for the US to support Israel as well, of course, but when support for Israel is sold with religious lines of argument, I remain distinctly unimpressed.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
That is very apparent in your reply. The argument is that the problems of the world can be generalized to greed and lack of empathy. You haven't yet sufficiently responded to that.
Given that this is the first time you've stated that such is your argument and that there was no honest way to arrive at that claim from the actual words you've chosen to employ, of course I haven't responded to it. At the level that that statement can reasonably be considered true, though, one must accept that both sides in whichever conflict are being greedy and both sides are lacking in sufficient empathy to overcome that greed.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
No it isn't.
Well, when you're saying that the rich support the rich while talking about the US supporting Israel, identifying the Palestinians as the poor (and clearly intimating that acts like walking into a synagogue and trying to shoot all the Jewish attendees to death performed by them are only considered terrorist acts because the rich are trying to suppress the poor), and then claiming that the aid given to the Palestinians is just given to them so the situation there will stay the same with them being complacent while Israel is walking all over them, while the US looks pretty despite supporting Israel... It's actually exceedingly hard to take it as you not claiming that the aid's really for Israel's sake. After all, "the rich protect the rich," in your words, and the US could get away with a lot less if they just wanted to "look good," though that would be much less likely to help "maintain the status quo," which, incidentally, could only really be done for Israel's sake, under your presented logic.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Are you denying then that this is the case?
Rather, I find your position to be an oversimplification from the start. In other words, while there is an element of truth to be found, the picture that you're trying to create with that element of truth is quite distorted.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Are you saying in this veiled manner that you agree with the way things are presently being done and that you wouldn't have it any other way?
That depends on the specifics. In some cases, likely so. In others, not so much. Regardless of the case, I don't especially like seeing things misrepresented.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
If not, then how do you see the problem and the solution?
Depends on the particular situation in question. Throwing out broad, vague questions isn't a particularly good way to get a meaningful response.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Ah, so you can agree that this is a likely motive and thus those rich tend toward 'giving' - not with any view to being true benefactors or learning empathy, but rather, to keep the status quo?
People are diverse, in numerous ways, and frequently have multiple justifications for doing things that they do. It would be more surprising if no contributors to either the giving or a collective decision to give had sinister ulterior motives playing a part in their decision making, quite frankly. It would also be surprising if none of the people had selfish and noble reasons playing a part in their decision making, too. I did not agree that keeping the Palestinians docile was an especially likely motive, though, as I do not pretend to know the make up of the specific group of people in question. Nor, for that matter, do I actually agree that keeping the Palestinians docile necessarily counts as sinister, given that the Palestinians not being docile has fairly consistently lowered their quality of life and pushed the larger reasonable goals of theirs further away and into a worse state.



Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Yet in this, it is obviously not working and likely will continue not to work.
There's something very important here to remember. The US is an outsider with no real say in the matter or authority that they can rely on. There's a very limited amount that the US can reasonably do to force a particular result when they're not willing to just conquer the area and then dictate what events will happen from then on. Doing what they can do reasonably is not really cause for condemnation, even if it would be nice to think that the US is strong and influential enough that the rest of the world should just bow to its desires.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Israels present leadership claims this is because the leadership of Palestine are not wanting peace but wanting to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth...
Not just the leadership, incidentally, and it's not particularly hard for them to back up some similar claims, at last check, even if you were employing some slight hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
...meanwhile the poor of the world tend towards sympathizing with the Palestinian underdogs because they know how it feels to be at the receiving end of political BS and the rich seemingly unable to foster genuine concern and empathy or regard for the plight of the poor but are very skilled at manipulating the poor to keep them in poverty and secure monetary interest from them.
It's really not hard to sympathize with the Palestinians, though, regardless of whether one projects their unhappiness with the rich onto Israel. They're in a rather crappy situation, after all, regardless of how much of it's their fault. On the other hand, it's a bit sad when a person one tries to dehumanize other people for rather spurious reasons, though.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
And what? Do you feel my statement wasn't complete enough?
"And?" as in, "So why should this be considered relevant, meaningful, or otherwise worthy of being said here?"

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The proof is in the pudding. If the act of giving isn't genuine and the motives are based upon greed and lack of empathy (to keep the staus quo), then the outcomes can only be expected to be as they are.
As already noted, those are hardly the only reasons why things could turn out the way they do. Arbitrarily excluding relevant factors and concerns, like you seem to be going out of your way to do, makes for an argument that can be pretty much dismissed out of hand.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
What more evidence would you require which would motivate concern in you regarding your apparent suspicion? Concern which would take you to the point of out and out claiming it was definitely not benevolent intention behind the giving? Some kind of wiki leak? Perhaps being taken and shown that the suspected non benevolent agenda was actually the case?
Well, given the actual nature of how foreign aid actually gets allocated, if I understand it correctly, the case actually presented to Congress for why they should receive aid would be a real start, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
You may as well continue to claim ignorance and say 'until I have such proof, I will reserve any judgment one way or the other about this'... meanwhile the world turns and the future moves into the present.
Rather, the actual concept is more along the lines of "until I have evidence that is at least decent for bigotry, I refuse to accuse people of being bigots." I'm not especially fond of just going along with terribly supported slander or libel.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
You do, do you?
Shocking, ain't it?


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Sure it is, but are you denying that those issues between those peoples are happening on the same planet? Do you know that a thread is not the whole garment? That many threads make up the garment? Are you not aware even that what happens anywhere on this planet affects the planet as a whole?
There's a great answer to these questions, incidentally! Amazingly enough, there is a specific forum called USA Politics to discuss things related to the politics in the USA. That, in fact, would be the place to discuss the politics of the USA! This thread is about Israel and the Palestinians and is in the Non-USA forum for politics, on the other hand. Why would you think that it's appropriate to go into depth about parts of the USA's politics that are not really related to Israel or the Palestinians in this thread?

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Do you not know already that the Middle East and its continued ancient internal problems have always had an affect on the rest of the world? Are you not aware that the problems between Israel and the enemies it is surrounded by are about disparity, race, religion, prophesy, politics, money, power, and the vast differences between rich and poor and greed and lack of empathy?
How nice of you to somewhat negate your earlier statement, incidentally, the one where you said -

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The argument is that the problems of the world can be generalized to greed and lack of empathy. You haven't yet sufficiently responded to that.
Anyways, moving on, because your complaint in this section was that I didn't go into depth about the politics of the USA in an entirely inappropriate place for such and has already been dealt with.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Yes we are. Quite frankly Israel and the enemies which surround her are also part of that future...and are notable part of the cause of that bad future...
Potentially.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
err...what planet are you living on Aridas?
Earth. The US' aid to Israel, especially by the point of this last agreement, changes very little beyond helping to maintain one of the biggest deterrents to war and the situation worsening significantly further, by this point. It has negligible real impact when it comes to the situation of the poor, either in the US or among the Palestinians, and any actual worsening that might result from it would be because of people like you, who, by your own admittance, apparently don't have the guts to fight for what you actually want, so you've decided that rabble rousing against foreign aid to Israel is somehow supposed to make the future a bit better. Stirring up anger and hatred while trying to trick people makes for a great foundation or path to a better future, apparently.



Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
That is a relevant observation and one I see as being the direct result of greed and lack of empathy
Among a host of other things, a number of which you mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
and if the rich sincerely wish to make the changes that their political mouthpieces claim in their speeches, then they sincerely need to put their money where their mouths are and do so. Hording the stuff and competing for the planets resource is not only loony but of evill intent.

Throwing their loose change at the problem will not make that problem disappear. Imprisoning the poor will not make the problem go away. Even eliminating the poor through genocide won't make the problem go away.
You really, really emphasize "rich" and "poor" unreasonably. Still, committing genocide against the Palestinians really would make the problem go away. Other problems would appear, sure, but they'd be much more likely to die down in not too long.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Genuine, unrestricted benevolence.
Personally, I haven't believed in pure altruism existing among anyone, rich or poor, for a long, long time. Enlightened self-interest, sure. Doing things to fulfill personal desires that can be interpreted as benevolent by others, sure. Pure altruism, not so much, and especially not for people that one hasn't met and have no real relationship to. We are fundamentally selfish beings, after all. Nor do I find "unrestricted benevolence" to be a sustainable concept to employ at all, either.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
iow 'Money' is not of itself 'the root of all evill.' How money is used is what determines that outcome.
To rephrase, a bit, to something more direct, money is a form of power. Having more power opens up more opportunity for abuse, and thus, increases the potential to give into some kind of temptation to abuse it. With that said, though, "unrestricted benevolence" with regards to giving money to the poor tends to increases the temptation of the poor to just take what they're given and not really strive for more. There's so much less immediate need to do so, after all, and the more people that give into that temptation, the worse things get. Very few people like being chumps, after all.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 23rd September 2016 at 02:13 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 09:07 PM   #1289
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 56,001
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The argument is that the problems of the world can be generalized to greed and lack of empathy. You haven't yet sufficiently responded to that.
How much of HAMAS's activity in the Gaza Strip would you say is generalized to greed and lack of empathy?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 12:32 AM   #1290
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How much of HAMAS's activity in the Gaza Strip would you say is generalized to greed and lack of empathy?
How much of HAMAS's activity in the Gaza Strip would you say is contributing to the problems of the world?
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 08:40 AM   #1291
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 56,001
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
How much of HAMAS's activity in the Gaza Strip would you say is contributing to the problems of the world?
I asked you a question about your ideas. Please answer it. Then I'll answer your question. I think this the most reasonable way to continue the discussion.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 01:08 PM   #1292
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I asked you a question about your ideas. Please answer it. Then I'll answer your question. I think this the most reasonable way to continue the discussion.
If you are asking then whether I think there is greed and lack of empathy in relation to HAMAS's activity in the Gaza Strip, I would say 'most likely'.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? Because if you are saying everything is Israels fault, you are taking a side rather than seriously wanting to find a solution to the ancient and ongoing problem.

Taking sides will not in itself solve that problem.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 03:07 PM   #1293
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Generally speaking, when a person tries to deny the humanity of a group that they dislike or oppose, what are they called?
Generally speaking, their are so few philanthropists at present that their effect on the world is negligible. What I have been saying is that the rich need to invest everything into solving the problem of disparity. This in itself is not a bad thing to be saying in relation to the problems the world is faced with.

I do not dislike or oppose the rich. Essentially I am saying 'more philanthropists please and thank you.'




Quote:
So... being the country that has given the most aid over time out of many means nothing. Good to know.
Oh - there is no doubt it means a lot to those receiving it and spending it on their military agenda.
In relation to what I am saying though, it means nothing if the agenda isn't focused upon genuinely moving towards eradicating disparity.
You obviously have a problem with that notion and thus are far more inclined to support the status quo.

Quote:
The group of countries that is now the European Union has given more, total, but not individually, incidentally. Either way, I'll accept that many of the Palestinians are not convinced that the US wants to help them, though, given that the US has firmly shown its support for the continued existence of Israel and has withheld direct support for their statehood in the UN until such time as they actually are willing to do fairly basic things for a real state that's willing to follow current international law to do, like agree on borders with their neighbors. These things, of course, matter immensely more than the rich/poor narrative that you're making up.
I am not making up anything. The evidence is plain for any with eyes to see and heart in support of genuine empathy.
Just because one is seen to be acting in a giving manner does not in itself mean that their agenda is therefore pure. History shows this to be the case and you should be smart enough to see it too.







Quote:
So, what's the bar that they should be at, in your opinion?
As I have already said and continue to say. Eradicate all forms of disparity.



Quote:
For the record, I do not support the get out of jail free card given to far too many offenders there and quite support prosecution of a number of people, before getting to the things that could be said about how Congress helped cause the problem in the first place. So... no. I don't specifically support bailing out the banker in the first place, especially when the bailing out of the bankers was, if I understand the situation correctly, originally supposed to be for the sake of the citizens harmed by the banker and be used in particular ways that more concretely benefited them. A lot of the funds were apparently used for notably different purposes, if I understand that part correctly, too, which leads to a fair portion of my support for prosecution. This has little to do with Israel or the Palestinians, though.
Except of course that the so called 'free world' and the 'most powerful nation of the free world' is the one doing these shady dealings to its own citizens - those hard working salt of the earth folk trusting their lives to said system of governance which regularly (and will continue more frequently to do so) betrays that class.
See? The argument is that that which governs America is not as it appears to be. It has an agenda which is as old as Rome and indeed is where the Roman Hierarchy set up after leaving the old world. One can trace this back through the ages, and see also that Christianity was created by the combine effort of Roman and Jew and was specifically created to distract the poor from what the rich were doing - distracted enough for them to cease with hostile and costly revolt by giving them a religion which god ordained the systems which suppress them and keep them poor by creating a false hope that eventually god would come down from heaven and stop the rich hurting the poor - punish them for their deception and hand the world over to the poor. The poor just had to (in the mean time) obey the rich and trust in god to eventually do as he promised.

While the plan was extremely clever, it is nonetheless based upon old concepts which cannot any longer be regarded as very clever at all. Reality bites deep.

However, as I will continue to mention, prophesy plays its part in convincing the believer that everything is going according to gods plan - the Christian continues to be convinced in the legitimacy of the truth of their belief because the prophesies are unfolding, completely deceived because they care not to see that all that is required to shape the future is lots and lots of money and power.

Judaism is also equally convinced although they have a whole different belief about the future and their part in it and how their idea of god treats them in relation to other human beings.

Through it all, disparity rules.

So yes indeed, everything to do with the world of Christians, America, the West, etc is related to Israel and Israels problems with Palestine and visa versa are part of all that, not separate.



Quote:
So, why even make the arguments that you are? Rather, shouldn't you be more directly arguing that more of the budget should be directed at raising the quality of life of the poor, rather than arguing that a negligible part of the budget shouldn't be spent to help one of our foreign allies and throwing in the bit about the poor exactly as if it was nothing more than a cheap and not thought through justification? Either way, you're addressing the US here and not Israel or the Palestinians. As such, that particular line of discussion would be far better held in the forum specifically focused on the politics of the USA.

Like I said, All threads make up the garment. Internal American policies are not separate from the rest of the world. Nothing in the world is separate from anything else. Keeping things separate when in actual fact they are not separate at all is just supporting the deception.


Quote:
That's addressed a little bit just above. Going past that, if you want to the military budget cut and the funds redirected to the poor, actually argue for that. There are quite a few entirely honest and reasonable lines of argument that you can use to support that position, quite frankly, and it's not like it's going to happen when those interested in it happening refuse to argue for it and resort to focusing on little things and employ seemingly spurious arguments in favor of their position.
You seem to have a problem understanding the nature of the world you are in or seeing it from a holistic point of view rather than as lots of unrelated events which an individual can become easily distracted with.

The bigger picture is altogether the real one which needs focusing on and in relation to finding solution in the Middle East, it is sanctimonious for those who see a problem there to which they make a show of supporting but not seeing the same in their own neck of the woods and supporting that as well, as if these problems were somehow separate issues and not at all deriving from the same attitude. Greed and lack of empathy.

Quote:
I did mention a religious aspect to much of the support shown towards Israel. If one were to take it further, I hold the position that no religion should dictate the political actions of the US.
Well that is happening anyway. And for reasons I have now mentioned.
One simply cannot have one without the other in a democracy.
Just the other day I saw Donald Trump in a news clip being prayed for, hands laid upon him and 'amens' and 'thank you gods' and he was obviously a willing participant of this. Donald does not strike me as the religious sort, but hey! You cannot separate the religion from the political. Why not? Because the religion was born from the political. (see my comment re Rome).

Quote:
There are other, secular reasons for the US to support Israel as well, of course, but when support for Israel is sold with religious lines of argument, I remain distinctly unimpressed.
You should be informed then that it doesn't matter even a little bit how 'unimpressed' you are by this...especially if it does not compel you to use your lifes energy in support of eradicating the dysfunction of disparity from the religo-political mindset of humanity and serve to replace that old and useless deception with something more realistic and enduring and righteous. Your first step needs to be to stop believing that politics is separate from religion and to accept that religion is, has always been and continues to be a politically motivated device set on upholding disparity rather than eradicating it.



Quote:
Given that this is the first time you've stated that such is your argument and that there was no honest way to arrive at that claim from the actual words you've chosen to employ, of course I haven't responded to it. At the level that that statement can reasonably be considered true, though, one must accept that both sides in whichever conflict are being greedy and both sides are lacking in sufficient empathy to overcome that greed.
No it is not the first time I have mentioned greed and lack of empathy. Yes I agree, there is nothing to be gained by taking sides.

Furthermore, (and for example) I like both Rodger Waters and Benjamin Netanyahu as personalities. One wants to tear down the wall and the other wants to surround Israel with a wall. Tearing down the wall is certainly something which I can support

Obviously building walls is a form of self imprisonment and an act of separatism thus supporting disparity. The rich want to protect what they see as their OWN, and in relation to race identification, disparity increases even more when the two are combined.

Rodger sees the way Israel treats Palestine as reminiscent of the way Nazi treated Jews, and for that he is labeled an antisemitic - a word used more and more frequently at the slightest bit of criticism against anything Israel and Jews do.

However, while I agree with Rodger wanting the wall down and seeing Palestinians treated as equals rather than as non Jews, I would have to say that he is being extremely insensitive but not antisemitic. Hwe is alowing his anger to dictate an emotional response and even that the walls and attitudes he witnesses re Israel remind him of Racism and Nazi, using such device as an attempt to get Jews to see things from the Palestinian perspective simply will not work.

I would also like the rich to invest in the eradication of poverty and disparity. Culture also breeds disparity so until we all learn to identify with being simply humans and equal for that, 'Houston we have a problem'...Obviously self identifying with race helps breed disparity.

We most definitely have to stop being educated by the same hate our forefathers were educated with. We don't need that education. We don't need that thought control...

The most likely scenario that will happen is that the prophesies will unfold as predicted apart from the one which promises the return of Jesus as gods representative to right the wrong and put a stop to the inhuman behavior...Judaism prophesies claim a messiah is also to come (not from heaven but from Israel) who will also 'fix the world' and Israel will be seen as the good example the rest of the world will follow...this is doable, but if there is the slightest sniff of any disparity, then it will be simply more deception from the political empire of the rich and powerful against the myriad poor slaves...


Quote:
Well, when you're saying that the rich support the rich while talking about the US supporting Israel, identifying the Palestinians as the poor (and clearly intimating that acts like walking into a synagogue and trying to shoot all the Jewish attendees to death performed by them are only considered terrorist acts because the rich are trying to suppress the poor), ...
Just to be clear, I am not saying that I agree with such tactics at all. I am saying that if you cage a dog and poke a sharp stick at it consistently, you can expect the dog to go wild and do wild stuff.

In this case of course we are talking human beings, but the same applies dontcha think? It is a very rare human who can put up with treatment wrought from the principles of disparity and inequality...although the promise of heavenly reward for enduring evil persecution make that less rare). Why do you think Rome invented Christianity? To tame the beast while still lording it over the beast. Because 'it is gods will' and 'god will eventually bless the poor'...etc...ad nauseam. America is the new Rome. Israel is the old Israel but far better positioned to show Her stuff - and that is potentially a very good thing indeed...She really just needs to learn how to be 'Christian' about it...(oh the irony).


Quote:
...and then claiming that the aid given to the Palestinians is just given to them so the situation there will stay the same with them being complacent while Israel is walking all over them, while the US looks pretty despite supporting Israel... It's actually exceedingly hard to take it as you not claiming that the aid's really for Israel's sake.
Israel is 'the rich' in relation to Palestine. I support Israels initiative in many of its projects. I am simply saying that they need to do so much more in relation to disparity...they and all of the richest nations together.

Quote:
After all, "the rich protect the rich," in your words, and the US could get away with a lot less if they just wanted to "look good," though that would be much less likely to help "maintain the status quo," which, incidentally, could only really be done for Israel's sake, under your presented logic.
Again, this has everything to do with prophesy and politics. It began as a plan to dominant and maintain that position. Conceived in a more ancient time, it is (as far as plans go) lacking due to modern knowledge and scientific experience. As old and well supported as it still is, it simply needs to be replaced with something far more appropriate to the needs of the world, rather than specifically toward supporting the requirements of the rich.

Quote:
Rather, I find your position to be an oversimplification from the start. In other words, while there is an element of truth to be found, the picture that you're trying to create with that element of truth is quite distorted.
Feel free to elaborate. Educate me on why you find this to be so.

Quote:
That depends on the specifics. In some cases, likely so. In others, not so much. Regardless of the case, I don't especially like seeing things misrepresented.
You believe I am misrepresenting that which I say is misrepresenting itself. As I said, if we carry on this pathway the end is not going to be very good for the majority of folk, and yes - the majority of folk are poor. You do the math.

Quote:
Depends on the particular situation in question. Throwing out broad, vague questions isn't a particularly good way to get a meaningful response.
Don't be coy. The problem is the Middle East - or specifically the Israel-Palestine conflict, as you pointed out this thread was about...so again I will ask you.

"If not, then how do you see the problem and the solution?"

As much as I would like to address your further statements of reply, I have other things which need my attention.

Shalom
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 02:49 PM   #1294
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 56,001
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
If you are asking then whether I think there is greed and lack of empathy in relation to HAMAS's activity in the Gaza Strip, I would say 'most likely'.
That's not what I'm asking. You don't have to rephrase my question, just answer it.

Quote:
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
I'm still trying to figure out if it's meaningful either way.

Quote:
Because if you are saying everything is Israels fault, you are taking a side rather than seriously wanting to find a solution to the ancient and ongoing problem.

Taking sides will not in itself solve that problem.
That's not what I'm saying. I am taking a side though.

And I gotta be honest with you: I'm not seriously wanting to find a solution to the problem. I've more or less concluded that it's not really a solveable problem--not by me, anyway. If it's solveable at all, it will have to be solved by the Palestinians themselves. Meanwhile I'm content to support Israel's attempts at mitigating the problem, and to oppose Israel's acts that tend to exacerbate the problem.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 04:41 PM   #1295
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,492
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Generally speaking, their are so few philanthropists at present that their effect on the world is negligible. What I have been saying is that the rich need to invest everything into solving the problem of disparity. This in itself is not a bad thing to be saying in relation to the problems the world is faced with.

I do not dislike or oppose the rich. Essentially I am saying 'more philanthropists please and thank you.'
If you are, in fact, saying that the rich always have sinister motives for the "good" things that they do, like you agreed that you were saying, you're directly calling them evil, as a general rule. That's very different from "more philanthropists please" and pretty much cannot be interpreted in any way other than you trying to deny their humanity, in general, even if you point out what you consider to be a small group of exceptions. You are, of course, free to actually retract your prior claim. Until you do, incidentally, your stated position will include such necessary implications as "I don't dislike rich people, even though they're evil."

Going past that, can you make a case for why the rich even should "invest everything" to solve "disparity?" It may be worth noting before that, though, that disparity, in moderation, tends to have positive effects overall for both people in general and for society in general, especially over time. Excessive disparity on average can be more problematic, yes, though focusing on solving "disparity" itself seems to be a fairly poor approach, in that focusing on that specifically is notably vague and can very easily be employed in counter-productive ways. Focusing on ways to raise the quality of life of those who are at the bottom, on the other hand, while not perfect either, is notably better. Slightly tangentially, I favor Kiva in both concept and practice over most charity giving. Disaster relief is something of an exception, but notably has somewhat different priorities.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Oh - there is no doubt it means a lot to those receiving it and spending it on their military agenda. In relation to what I am saying though, it means nothing if the agenda isn't focused upon genuinely moving towards eradicating disparity.
You obviously have a problem with that notion and thus are far more inclined to support the status quo.
I do have a problem with that notion, yes. Going past the ideological and practical problems with specifically focusing on disparity, it's quite worth pointing out, yet again, that there is a rather limited amount that can legally be done after foreign aid is given. Whether the agenda is focused on genuinely moving towards eradicating disparity or not means nothing if the other party isn't willing to use it that way, like you're stating is the case in the quoted, though. So, go ahead and make a case for why we should focus on something that means nothing as if it's important. There is an alternative option, of course. You could advocate for the US to conquer the region and go to a bunch of trouble and extra expense to exercise the authority that they would then have over the region in support of genuinely eradicating disparity.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
I am not making up anything. The evidence is plain for any with eyes to see and heart in support of genuine empathy.
Just because one is seen to be acting in a giving manner does not in itself mean that their agenda is therefore pure. History shows this to be the case and you should be smart enough to see it too.
To repeat a bit, it's the narrative that you're making up, not that a large disparity between rich and poor is meaningless or plays no part. The situation and history of that region is quite complex and has a number of important factors in play. Trying to emphasize any single factor to the exclusion of the rest is a fool's game.

Separately, yes, just because one is seen acting in a giving manner does not in itself mean that their agenda is pure. A real point in case where the giving has sinister intentions (at least directly) is when a part of the government has helped wannabe terrorists get their hands on the materials that they want to use to, say, make a bomb, then uses the bomb they've made as evidence to arrest and imprison the wannabe terrorist. On the other hand, officially giving charity for humanitarian reasons generally comes with distinctly positive implications, and it's completely reasonable to respond to accusations of sinister intent with a request for the accusations to be backed up properly, rather than with empty rhetoric, if the claimant doesn't wish for them to be dismissed out of hand.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
As I have already said and continue to say. Eradicate all forms of disparity.
This is a statement that highlights the lack of practicality of your position and limited grasp that you have on what the actual effects would be. As noted before, disparity, in and of itself, is actually not a bad thing in society. It's one of the quiet, but significant, motivators for people to strive to better themselves, and in doing so, collectively benefit society. Either way, a number of the problems with your sentiment here are demonstrated fairly well when it comes to the points where pure communism fails, significantly, compared to a system where limited capitalism is in play.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Except of course that the so called 'free world' and the 'most powerful nation of the free world' is the one doing these shady dealings to its own citizens - those hard working salt of the earth folk trusting their lives to said system of governance which regularly (and will continue more frequently to do so) betrays that class.

See? The argument is that that which governs America is not as it appears to be.
And when have I ever claimed that the US government is completely good or only does good? There's lots and lots of examples of fairly clearly evil things that the CIA and the US military have done, as an example. There's also lots and lots of examples of good things done by the CIA, the US military, and Congress, though, on the other hand. That some of the things that have been done by a government are clearly not good isn't much of an excuse to try to claim that everything that the government does is not good, regardless of any and all other considerations.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
It has an agenda which is as old as Rome and indeed is where the Roman Hierarchy set up after leaving the old world. One can trace this back through the ages, and see also that Christianity was created by the combine effort of Roman and Jew and was specifically created to distract the poor from what the rich were doing - distracted enough for them to cease with hostile and costly revolt by giving them a religion which god ordained the systems which suppress them and keep them poor by creating a false hope that eventually god would come down from heaven and stop the rich hurting the poor - punish them for their deception and hand the world over to the poor. The poor just had to (in the mean time) obey the rich and trust in god to eventually do as he promised.
Your overemphasis on the rich/poor division is still tiresome. Feel free to try to actually back up your claims here, though, like the specific creation of Christianity for the sake of distracting the poor from what the rich are doing, though. Just do it in a more appropriate thread.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
While the plan was extremely clever, it is nonetheless based upon old concepts which cannot any longer be regarded as very clever at all. Reality bites deep.

However, as I will continue to mention, prophesy plays its part in convincing the believer that everything is going according to gods plan - the Christian continues to be convinced in the legitimacy of the truth of their belief because the prophesies are unfolding, completely deceived because they care not to see that all that is required to shape the future is lots and lots of money and power.

Judaism is also equally convinced although they have a whole different belief about the future and their part in it and how their idea of god treats them in relation to other human beings.

Through it all, disparity rules.

So yes indeed, everything to do with the world of Christians, America, the West, etc is related to Israel and Israels problems with Palestine and visa versa are part of all that, not separate.
Just like apples and potatoes are not separate things because they are both grown and sold by farmers? Most of the world's successful religions can be linked to keeping people in general more complacent about many things that they don't focus on as bad. This tends to be one of the obvious side effects of a successful religion in the first place, though, given that the needs that a religion actually fills are, first and foremost, emotional.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Like I said, All threads make up the garment. Internal American policies are not separate from the rest of the world. Nothing in the world is separate from anything else. Keeping things separate when in actual fact they are not separate at all is just supporting the deception.
So, no comment about why your arguments are directed as badly as they are? Either way, your response here is not especially convincing. International politics have been becoming increasingly linked, given various factors. That is true. However, it is much more effective to examine a subject directly than it is to examine a related subject. Your use of "not separate at all" is not at all viable, yet again.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
You seem to have a problem understanding the nature of the world you are in or seeing it from a holistic point of view rather than as lots of unrelated events which an individual can become easily distracted with.
Err... Heh. No. Rather, your holistic point of view, to me, seems to have an overwhelming number of missing or ignored parts and holes in it. A truly holistic point of view doesn't mean focusing on one specific part and trying to frame everything else as all about that. Rather, it's about acknowledging it all and how it all works together.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The bigger picture is altogether the real one which needs focusing on and in relation to finding solution in the Middle East, it is sanctimonious for those who see a problem there to which they make a show of supporting but not seeing the same in their own neck of the woods and supporting that as well, as if these problems were somehow separate issues and not at all deriving from the same attitude. Greed and lack of empathy.
You've been completely and utterly unconvincing about how greed and lack of empathy are the real problems, quite frankly. Other than that, your logic here fails, quite badly. The problems they actually see, when one is actually looking at their words and actions, seems to be a bit different than the ones that you're projecting onto them. The military aid for Israel has pretty much nothing to do with the poor, like many parts of the budget. Military aid for Israel was in question in what you quoted, after all. As for the "show of supporting," alright, we'll just move past the part where you're not really responding to what's said, yet again. So, which people in their own neck of the woods are worse off than the Palestinians that they are officially trying to help with the aid to the Palestinians, in the ways that they're trying to help the Palestinians?



Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Well that is happening anyway. And for reasons I have now mentioned.
One simply cannot have one without the other in a democracy.
One certainly can have one without the other in a democracy, though, depending on a few things. One of the longstanding concepts behind the US' government, for example, has been that the government itself should be secular, though the people and members of the government are quite welcome to be religious on a personal level. I consider that to be one of the factors that helped the US rise to its present prosperity, quite frankly, and consider the increasing power of religion over the leaders of the Republican Party to have had primarily and obviously negative effects on how well the government actually does its job.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Just the other day I saw Donald Trump in a news clip being prayed for, hands laid upon him and 'amens' and 'thank you gods' and he was obviously a willing participant of this. Donald does not strike me as the religious sort, but hey! You cannot separate the religion from the political. Why not? Because the religion was born from the political. (see my comment re Rome).
Religion and politics do have links, obviously, and sometimes even strong ones, like in a theocracy. That doesn't mean that I think that the US government should do things for specifically religious reasons. Of some note, you didn't even remotely demonstrate that religion was born from the political with your comment about Rome, even before getting to the actual problems there.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
You should be informed then that it doesn't matter even a little bit how 'unimpressed' you are by this...especially if it does not compel you to use your lifes energy in support of eradicating the dysfunction of disparity from the religo-political mindset of humanity and serve to replace that old and useless deception with something more realistic and enduring and righteous. Your first step needs to be to stop believing that politics is separate from religion and to accept that religion is, has always been and continues to be a politically motivated device set on upholding disparity rather than eradicating it.
Yeah... I think I've demonstrated fairly firmly that I don't consider your desires to be realistic, enduring, or righteous. You also clearly did not understand my position with regards to the relation of religion and politics, for that matter. I do disagree with you, there, certainly, given that I do not consider religion to simply be a political tool, even if it has served in that function in some ways.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
No it is not the first time I have mentioned greed and lack of empathy.
So, what did you consider to be you making the argument that all the world's problems can be generalized to greed and lack of empathy before?

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Yes I agree, there is nothing to be gained by taking sides.
Except that I didn't say that. Rather, I pointed out that, at the level that the generalization would count as accurate, it's fairly meaningless when it comes to understanding anything sufficiently well to do anything at all to change things for the better. Being paralyzed with indecision is notably different than assessing a situation and trying to do what one can to make things better, even if it's not always a direct or complete solution.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
I would also like the rich to invest in the eradication of poverty and disparity. Culture also breeds disparity so until we all learn to identify with being simply humans and equal for that, 'Houston we have a problem'...Obviously self identifying with race helps breed disparity.
As a general rule, I support the reduction or eradication of poverty, though I'm uncertain of any ways that are currently available to completely eliminate it in the long term, given human nature. Disparity, as I've noted before, is something that I oppose eliminating, though when there's too much, I do support reducing the gap.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The most likely scenario that will happen is that the prophesies will unfold as predicted
There have been so many failed predictions, at last check, though.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
apart from the one which promises the return of Jesus as gods representative to right the wrong and put a stop to the inhuman behavior...Judaism prophesies claim a messiah is also to come (not from heaven but from Israel) who will also 'fix the world' and Israel will be seen as the good example the rest of the world will follow...this is doable, but if there is the slightest sniff of any disparity, then it will be simply more deception from the political empire of the rich and powerful against the myriad poor slaves...
I... don't see any reason to trust in these predictions of yours. Moving on.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Just to be clear, I am not saying that I agree with such tactics at all. I am saying that if you cage a dog and poke a sharp stick at it consistently, you can expect the dog to go wild and do wild stuff.

In this case of course we are talking human beings, but the same applies dontcha think?
Humans are animals, after all. Various responses to stimuli are quite understandable. With that said, though, that doesn't make trying to claim that the actions are not really what they are any better and nor does it make half-truths about why the reaction was what it was any more accurate.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Again, this has everything to do with prophesy and politics. It began as a plan to dominant and maintain that position. Conceived in a more ancient time, it is (as far as plans go) lacking due to modern knowledge and scientific experience. As old and well supported as it still is, it simply needs to be replaced with something far more appropriate to the needs of the world, rather than specifically toward supporting the requirements of the rich.
Need it be said once more that the Palestinian Arabs would have officially gained most of the land in what is now Israel, had they been willing to co-exist with the Jews back in the beginning? Similarly, just dealing with the rich/poor division in the region would analogous to removing a few of the coals in a smoldering fire and adding a bunch of fuel. The rich/poor division is one aspect of what's going on, yes, but not even close to the only or most important factors in play.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Feel free to elaborate. Educate me on why you find this to be so.
Such has been done, really, repeatedly. In short, though, like was just said above, you seem to emphasize the rich/poor division to the point where you basically claiming that just solving that would be enough to solve all the rest of the many issues in play there, and frequently elsewhere, too.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
You believe I am misrepresenting that which I say is misrepresenting itself. As I said, if we carry on this pathway the end is not going to be very good for the majority of folk, and yes - the majority of folk are poor. You do the math.
Of some note, the average quality of life around the world has risen quite dramatically over the last century, very much including for the poor. That's hardly a supportive sign for how badly things are going for the poor.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Don't be coy. The problem is the Middle East - or specifically the Israel-Palestine conflict, as you pointed out this thread was about...so again I will ask you.

"If not, then how do you see the problem and the solution?"
How do I see the problem for Israel-Palestine? In short, it's a complex weaving of many issues, with many wrongs done by both major sides.

How do I see the solution? In short, compromising to make a two state solution, finally, though with provisions that force some level of cooperation and security for each other, while acknowledging the wrongs that each side has done to the other and making compensation in some way and putting more specific measures into place to punish any further wrongs.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
As much as I would like to address your further statements of reply, I have other things which need my attention.
No rush, if you desire to do so. That's one of the good things about forums.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Shalom
Enjoy your week!
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 2nd October 2016 at 04:48 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2016, 12:59 PM   #1296
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's not what I'm asking. You don't have to rephrase my question, just answer it.
Politically speaking that can be regarded as a reasonable request. However, all things political are forms of entrapment.
Thus, I need to make sure that I am understanding what is behind your question. What motivates you to ask the question in the particular way you formed your question, otherwise any answer I might offer is subjected to that particular path that the one asking the question wants to move down...and it might not be a path I am interested in traversing - mostly because I am seriously interested in finding a solution to the problem...

Therefore that is why I reworded your question - to see if it is contributing to the solution in a meaningful manner. See?

I am finding out if your question is relevant to the solution as well as sussing out your position of approach to that solution. Viability verses distraction.


Quote:
I'm still trying to figure out if it's meaningful either way.
That is the nature of evidence...is it accurate/without bias and how such evidence is presented and whether we have all the evidence in which to make a meaningful/viable decision on how to proceed...and of course, we do not...so... 'how to proceed'?


Quote:
That's not what I'm saying.
That's good, because up until you now saying so, I was not completely sure what you were saying...

Quote:
I am taking a side though.
It seemed to be the case. It also seemed the side you were taking was pro Palestinian - or leaning heavily toward...

Quote:
And I gotta be honest with you:
As crazy at it might sound to some/many, it is the best policy. Politicians could do with simplifying their approaches by culling the excess dishonesty and even fessing up... A cold day in hell signifies significant changes approaching...stuff like that...

Quote:
I'm not seriously wanting to find a solution to the problem. I've more or less concluded that it's not really a solveable problem--not by me, anyway. If it's solveable at all, it will have to be solved by the Palestinians themselves. Meanwhile I'm content to support Israel's attempts at mitigating the problem, and to oppose Israel's acts that tend to exacerbate the problem.
For now my position is much the same. However, I do think there is a solution to the problem - it is solvable.

Unfortunately politics is getting in the way as usual, due mostly to the wheeling and dealing between states and countries to do with strengthening the *status quo of which is largely an inherited legacy of criminal corruption gone vogue... legitimatized by those who inherited the power to do so.

The solution is still simple...however, executing the solution is bound up by the red tape of the *SQ Security System - worldwide - thus in order to make ANY headway into the solution, all, or as many as enough who can be convinced, have to be prepared to dump the inherited manner of 'doing things' in favor of inventing a new way of doing things.

(It is as always, all about the motive behind any agenda.)

At present, Israel and Palestine both appear not to really be wanting peace - if for different reasons.

But seriously, is the answer to the worlds problems really tied up in if peace can come to the Middle East?

I say that the evidence so far points to the whole event being staged from the go get and all manner of significant world changing events can be sourced in relation to this staging - strategic moves made with purpose in mind to a particular desired outcome.

The world wants peace but the Middle East have other plans. Overall this, the Abrahamic God resides, either as an idea inflicted into the world, or as a living being who mostly resides in another dimension and interacts with this one on occasion - communicating with key movers of the overall game being played.

The world is caught up in this conflict. America (thus Allies) stand with Israel as all good Christians have been trained to do.

Russia...has its own agenda - but the Christian/Judeo influence is still involved within her boarders...the politics is are little bit more honest for showing its true colors...and the lie is easier to see (or at least smell) for that.

Then there are China, North Korea blah blah etc...but the focus is the Middle East and the 'problem' of Islam in relation to it's determination to fight the "Jew", because of the consort between Rome and Jew which created Christianity and gave false hope in order to manipulate whole peoples to support the politics of Maters and Slaves.

And of course, organised Islam has its share of Masters as well.

The whole tricky business os for the Masters to continue finding ways in which to befuddle the Slaves.

Getting Slaves to take sides is one of the mainstays of this SQSS

It's all there in the evidence as can be pieced together...but how to convince the Criminal Overlords that there is a better way in which to proceed in which everyone gets a fair piece of the pie and lords and servants fade into the darkness altogether...?

Do we go directly to The One God with many names (Yahweh/Jesus/Allah etc) (should he/they actually exist) and partition him/them directly somehow?

How would that even be possible to achieve?

So then...do we take the other option and work on ways of convincing his people that for the sake of everyone concerned we had better find the correct solution, dispense with the BS and get down to the task of building peace over the face of the planet through the only device left to us...that on the correct understanding of equality, empathy, removing disparity etc et al?

Or do we just shrug and say "the problem is too big for a viable solution and we will just have to go with what plays out as planned by those who invest in that outcome"?

Because, if the crap seriously hits the whirligig ...'we' can always build on Mars, right?

At least, that is also in their plan...as per the evidence.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer

Last edited by Navigator; 6th October 2016 at 01:02 PM.
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2016, 02:24 PM   #1297
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
If you are, in fact, saying that the rich always have sinister motives for the "good" things that they do, like you agreed that you were saying, you're directly calling them evil, as a general rule. That's very different from "more philanthropists please" and pretty much cannot be interpreted in any way other than you trying to deny their humanity, in general, even if you point out what you consider to be a small group of exceptions. You are, of course, free to actually retract your prior claim. Until you do, incidentally, your stated position will include such necessary implications as "I don't dislike rich people, even though they're evil."
"I don't dislike rich people, even though they're evil."

I can live with that as a loose interpretation of my position. The more accurate is "I don't dislike rich people, even though their actions might be evil."
It gets the basic message across. Greed and lack of empathy causing disparity are outgrowths of evil intent etc.


Quote:
Going past that, can you make a case for why the rich even should "invest everything" to solve "disparity?" It may be worth noting before that, though, that disparity, in moderation, tends to have positive effects overall for both people in general and for society in general, especially over time. Excessive disparity on average can be more problematic, yes, though focusing on solving "disparity" itself seems to be a fairly poor approach, in that focusing on that specifically is notably vague and can very easily be employed in counter-productive ways. Focusing on ways to raise the quality of life of those who are at the bottom, on the other hand, while not perfect either, is notably better. Slightly tangentially, I favor Kiva in both concept and practice over most charity giving. Disaster relief is something of an exception, but notably has somewhat different priorities.
It requires going way beyond charity. It requires a rethink in which the value of money (riches) becomes a redundant tool in this world.
The ask is for the rich to finally invest all their riches into the world rather than hording it in separate and conflicting accounts.

It is asking that they invest all that they have into projects specifically motivated by the desired outcome of a world without disparity.

When I study a society and see that they have the necessity to fund-raise within their shared community I see something distinctly out of place. Off kilter.

It is a significant sign of disparity. The raw end of the deal.


Quote:
I do have a problem with that notion, yes. Going past the ideological and practical problems with specifically focusing on disparity, it's quite worth pointing out, yet again, that there is a rather limited amount that can legally be done after foreign aid is given. Whether the agenda is focused on genuinely moving towards eradicating disparity or not means nothing if the other party isn't willing to use it that way, like you're stating is the case in the quoted, though. So, go ahead and make a case for why we should focus on something that means nothing as if it's important. There is an alternative option, of course. You could advocate for the US to conquer the region and go to a bunch of trouble and extra expense to exercise the authority that they would then have over the region in support of genuinely eradicating disparity.
Disparity is the issue so no use in ditching it from the subject or delegating it to a place of lesser priority.

You should also be aware that a significant aspect of the problem has to do with those who are convinced that America (and Allies) are in the proces of taking over the Middle East subversively in relation to an ancient agenda through doing exactly what is now being done.

To see America and Allies truly working in favor of eradicating disparity one need only look at whether disparity exists within her/their boarders. It does. Therefore to think America and Co are motivated by eradicating disparity (in other regions) is rightfully seen to be fake. Something used in order to conceal another - less benevolent - agenda.



Quote:
To repeat a bit, it's the narrative that you're making up, not that a large disparity between rich and poor is meaningless or plays no part. The situation and history of that region is quite complex and has a number of important factors in play. Trying to emphasize any single factor to the exclusion of the rest is a fool's game.

Separately, yes, just because one is seen acting in a giving manner does not in itself mean that their agenda is pure. A real point in case where the giving has sinister intentions (at least directly) is when a part of the government has helped wannabe terrorists get their hands on the materials that they want to use to, say, make a bomb, then uses the bomb they've made as evidence to arrest and imprison the wannabe terrorist. On the other hand, officially giving charity for humanitarian reasons generally comes with distinctly positive implications, and it's completely reasonable to respond to accusations of sinister intent with a request for the accusations to be backed up properly, rather than with empty rhetoric, if the claimant doesn't wish for them to be dismissed out of hand.
Evidence is evidence. How it is understood may vary, even to the point of taking sides on issues.
It is not important to me that you personally see any value in the way I am interpreting the evidence as to how that might change anything.

All i am required to do at this point is to point out the problem as well as show that no solutions have actually been created.

The main problem is the disparity between rich and poor and how the rich are generally okay with continuing to support the policy of continuing down that path into the future which inevitably becomes the present...


Quote:
This is a statement that highlights the lack of practicality of your position and limited grasp that you have on what the actual effects would be. As noted before, disparity, in and of itself, is actually not a bad thing in society. It's one of the quiet, but significant, motivators for people to strive to better themselves, and in doing so, collectively benefit society. Either way, a number of the problems with your sentiment here are demonstrated fairly well when it comes to the points where pure communism fails, significantly, compared to a system where limited capitalism is in play.
The fact that disparity motivates an individual is only because systems of disparity exist in the first place. We are born into them.

Thus, it is all that we know (in practice) and being human/experiencing human life has the unique "Wow Factor" which motivates us to want to continue, even that the situation is bad.

That is the TRUE reason for the motivation "for people to strive to better themselves" as you worded it. It is simply disguised behind the only options available in the given situation. "Disparity exists. Get over it. Get on with it" therefore appears to be the motivator.

Your argument thus presumes that without disparity, individuals will not be motivated to 'better themselves.' and you cite evidence to show this is the case, but the evidence only refers to the status quo to begin with. There are no alternate systems of significance which provide evidence that people do well together by making sure that everyone succeeds equally together.

There is no point in citing the failures of that which called(s) itself 'communism' because there was/is disparity involved in those systems too.

Most pointedly, while you might maintain that presently all is well and good through the actions of the lands of the brave and free - that may be very much an illusion created for the purpose of deception. Eventually there must come a time when the gloves are off and the truth is seen for what it might really be, but by then you and I won't be free to have this conversation...so, rather than making up our minds right here and now, let us continue to look at the evidence...




Quote:
And when have I ever claimed that the US government is completely good or only does good? There's lots and lots of examples of fairly clearly evil things that the CIA and the US military have done, as an example. There's also lots and lots of examples of good things done by the CIA, the US military, and Congress, though, on the other hand. That some of the things that have been done by a government are clearly not good isn't much of an excuse to try to claim that everything that the government does is not good, regardless of any and all other considerations.
It is besides the point in some ways and in one way it really only supports my own argument.

See? You cannot have one government that is both good and evil at the same time. Secrets kept on the order of national security do not fully inform the citizens, and thus the citizens vote while not being fully informed. Apart from that the citizens have no real say in how Government chooses to spend what they have extorted from the citizens, to what end the citizens thus have no control (over their own shared destiny - the path of the many is made up by the few)

More to the point, these are the problems - not the solutions.

People need to be informed as to the future they are heading for and given the opportunity to come up with viable ideas on how to recreate that potential future into something which incorporates the demise of disparity on every level over all of humanity as its main motivation.

Poor people can come up with the ideas and rich people can manifest these ideas so that the eventual path leads to no more rich or poor people.

Problem solved.

All you are subsequently arguing (to which I haven't quoted or deemed it necessary to individually to reply to) is that the problem as a whole is likely not a big deal and that my willingness in focusing on a key aspect of the problem(disparity) is my argument being somehow 'besides the point' in your estimate, as is the religious influence and why it is there and how it was introduced to the world and how that influence is determining outcome.

Claiming 'Besides the point' is not recognizing the holistic nature of what is actually happening. For you to claim such is a subtle lie in which I am unwilling to support as genuine.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 11:23 AM   #1298
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,492
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
"I don't dislike rich people, even though they're evil."

I can live with that as a loose interpretation of my position. The more accurate is "I don't dislike rich people, even though their actions might be evil."
When you're including giving notable amounts of officially humanitarian foreign aid as evidence of how evil they are, because you claim, without evidence or so much as a decent argument in favor of your position, that it's being given for sinister reasons, the practical difference between the two is effectively non-existent, given that any and all "good" actions can be treated as evil on similarly spurious grounds. You're entitled to have your own option, just as others are entitled to have their own rather negative opinion about your opinion.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
It gets the basic message across. Greed and lack of empathy causing disparity are outgrowths of evil intent etc.
Unless you're using another different and also somewhat nonsensical version of "evil" here, no, they aren't. They have entirely natural and selfish origins, which are inherently neutral when it comes to good and evil, though they can certainly be exacerbated by evil intent.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
It requires going way beyond charity. It requires a rethink in which the value of money (riches) becomes a redundant tool in this world.
The ask is for the rich to finally invest all their riches into the world rather than hording it in separate and conflicting accounts.

It is asking that they invest all that they have into projects specifically motivated by the desired outcome of a world without disparity.
So, in response to a request to make a case for why it should be done, what you've done is repeated that you think that it should be done. That's not much of an argument.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
When I study a society and see that they have the necessity to fund-raise within their shared community I see something distinctly out of place. Off kilter.

It is a significant sign of disparity. The raw end of the deal.
To translate, it looks like you're saying that you've taken a look at society, seen that there are things that you don't like, and come to the conclusion that going nuclear on the system is the only way to actually make things better, even if that wouldn't actually fundamentally address or solve the actual problem that you've stated, like in this case. This isn't remotely a viable argument, either.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Disparity is the issue so no use in ditching it from the subject or delegating it to a place of lesser priority.
Based on? You've still failed to make a real case in favor of your position, but you demand that it be taken more seriously than any other view, despite its notable flaws, both direct and indirect.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
You should also be aware that a significant aspect of the problem has to do with those who are convinced that America (and Allies) are in the proces of taking over the Middle East subversively in relation to an ancient agenda through doing exactly what is now being done.
Is there some particular way to prevent conspiracy theorists from finding conspiracies where they want to find them?

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
To see America and Allies truly working in favor of eradicating disparity one need only look at whether disparity exists within her/their boarders. It does. Therefore to think America and Co are motivated by eradicating disparity (in other regions) is rightfully seen to be fake. Something used in order to conceal another - less benevolent - agenda.
The premise here is nonsensical from the start. Foreign aid, as a general rule, is not given to eradicate disparity from the start, and nor does just about any person who has actually seriously looked at the subject of what the actual pros and cons of various levels of disparity are, given the information available in present day, seriously advocate eradicating it in the first place. So, your claim is that they're hiding a sinister agenda behind something that they're not even claiming to do in the first place. Again, your argument can be easily dismissed as nonsense.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Evidence is evidence. How it is understood may vary, even to the point of taking sides on issues.
It is not important to me that you personally see any value in the way I am interpreting the evidence as to how that might change anything.
So, is this lack of importance you've placed on it based on your inability to convince me with nonsensical arguments in favor of your position?

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
All i am required to do at this point is to point out the problem as well as show that no solutions have actually been created.
No. No solutions have been enacted, for various reasons, rather than no solutions have been created. As for what the what you're required to do comment, that rather looks like you claiming that you've somehow got a free pass to make up anything you want.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The main problem is the disparity between rich and poor and how the rich are generally okay with continuing to support the policy of continuing down that path into the future which inevitably becomes the present...
You've still refused to acknowledge that there are notable limits on what can be done from the outside, so this can be dismissed as empty rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The fact that disparity motivates an individual is only because systems of disparity exist in the first place. We are born into them.
Denying reality is a great way to make your position look better! As was pointed out before, humans are, in fact, animals, and not purely idealistically intellectual beings. Furthermore, we are born and raised in notably disparate conditions and manners, generally with disparity even encoded in our genes. No, trying to remove human-constructed systems of disparity would not actually solve disparity and it wouldn't change why pure communism fails notably compared to limited capitalism in a number of ways.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Thus, it is all that we know (in practice) and being human/experiencing human life has the unique "Wow Factor" which motivates us to want to continue, even that the situation is bad.

That is the TRUE reason for the motivation "for people to strive to better themselves" as you worded it. It is simply disguised behind the only options available in the given situation. "Disparity exists. Get over it. Get on with it" therefore appears to be the motivator.
If you can't even differentiate between "I want to stay alive" and "I want to better myself to reach some particular goal" as motivations, your opinion can pretty well be dismissed as completely lacking in value.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Your argument thus presumes that without disparity, individuals will not be motivated to 'better themselves.' and you cite evidence to show this is the case, but the evidence only refers to the status quo to begin with. There are no alternate systems of significance which provide evidence that people do well together by making sure that everyone succeeds equally together.

There is no point in citing the failures of that which called(s) itself 'communism' because there was/is disparity involved in those systems too.
Of note, I specifically said pure communism. That's a bit different from the government policy communism that you seem to be referring to, given that part of pure communism is that there really isn't a government in the first place. With that said, you're also notably admitting here that you have no positive evidence for your claims here to counter the numerous indications that it's quite infeasible.


Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Most pointedly, while you might maintain that presently all is well and good through the actions of the lands of the brave and free - that may be very much an illusion created for the purpose of deception.
Except that I never maintained that, and you claiming that I was can only be out of foolishness or out of dishonesty. Feel free to determine for yourself which option it actually is.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Eventually there must come a time when the gloves are off and the truth is seen for what it might really be, but by then you and I won't be free to have this conversation...so, rather than making up our minds right here and now, let us continue to look at the evidence...
Indeed, I do support looking at the evidence... objectively and fully, rather than through eyes intent on creating propaganda.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
It is besides the point in some ways and in one way it really only supports my own argument.

See? You cannot have one government that is both good and evil at the same time.
And why can't one government be both good and evil? You seem to want to ignore that the US' government is composed of many, many distinct people with many different, and frequently opposing, goals, jobs, and values. Congress can give humanitarian aid at the same time as the CIA assassinates a person largely without Congress' knowledge.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
More to the point, these are the problems - not the solutions.

People need to be informed as to the future they are heading for
Sure. Democratic governments and their derivatives rather require their citizens to be informed and well educated to function optimally.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
and given the opportunity to come up with viable ideas on how to recreate that potential future into something which incorporates the demise of disparity on every level over all of humanity as its main motivation.
Well, I can certainly consider your overemphasis on disparity to be nonsensical and counterproductive to the real goals in play, based on various forms of evidence, and you can keep treating it like it's all that actually matters based on your seemingly quite uneducated opinion. Moving on.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Poor people can come up with the ideas and rich people can manifest these ideas so that the eventual path leads to no more rich or poor people.

Problem solved.
Assuming that those poor people can do the effectively impossible, sure, problem solved.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
All you are subsequently arguing (to which I haven't quoted or deemed it necessary to individually to reply to) is that the problem as a whole is likely not a big deal and that my willingness in focusing on a key aspect of the problem(disparity) is my argument being somehow 'besides the point' in your estimate, as is the religious influence and why it is there and how it was introduced to the world and how that influence is determining outcome.
Well, at this quality of description, I can simply roll my eyes and refer you back to what I had actually said before. If you want to make a real response to the points, feel free.

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Claiming 'Besides the point' is not recognizing the holistic nature of what is actually happening. For you to claim such is a subtle lie in which I am unwilling to support as genuine.
With regards to the holistic comment, let me quote myself, since you failed to so much as acknowledge something very important.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Rather, your holistic point of view, to me, seems to have an overwhelming number of missing or ignored parts and holes in it. A truly holistic point of view doesn't mean focusing on one specific part and trying to frame everything else as all about that. Rather, it's about acknowledging it all and how it all works together.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 03:01 PM   #1299
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
If it was "open air concentration camps", there'd be bioweapons testing and murder on an industrial scale, with palestinian skin being made into lampshades and hair used to stuff mattresses. And any resistance would have been met with Nerve Gas and extermination of towns, like in Syria.
Since you show a blatant disrespect for the thousands of civilians murdered yearly by Israeli troops, do not expect any compassion from anyone when some crazy guy from the middle east drives planes into your skyscrapers

Such people are just as cold and insensitive as you are
How, wait, there is a difference: differently from you, at least they at least have the guts to give their lives for their action and do not just post nonsense sitting on a confort chair

Last edited by SashatheMagnificent; 7th October 2016 at 03:02 PM.
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 05:32 PM   #1300
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,274
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
Since you show a blatant disrespect for the thousands of civilians murdered yearly by Israeli troops, do not expect any compassion from anyone when some crazy guy from the middle east drives planes into your skyscrapers
Who's asking you for any "compassion"? No one needs it or wants it.

Quote:
Such people are just as cold and insensitive as you are
How, wait, there is a difference: differently from you, at least they at least have the guts to give their lives for their action and do not just post nonsense sitting on a confort chair
The 9/11 attackers shared your agenda...but, unlike you, had the balls to act.
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 07:17 PM   #1301
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Who's asking you for any "compassion"? No one needs it or wants it.
Great
As for me, I do not compassionate much the killer that has his family killed

Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
The 9/11 attackers shared your agenda...but, unlike you, had the balls to act.
I have agenda to save children
You have the agenda of kill children, just the Arabs, though

There was a time when the Jews tried to gather money and power in the face of a miserable piopulation
In that time, it did not go very well with them
They should have learned a lesson
Apparently they did not
Let` s hope this time things will not go as bad for them, but as the power of their main ally is faltering, I am worried for them and for their families

Last edited by SashatheMagnificent; 7th October 2016 at 07:22 PM.
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 08:38 PM   #1302
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
I have agenda to save children
I see no evidence of that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 07:45 AM   #1303
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,274
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
Great
As for me, I do not compassionate much the killer that has his family killed
Not sure what this gibberish is supposed to mean.


Quote:
I have agenda to save children
I know what your agenda consists of... and it isn't "saving children".

Quote:
There was a time when the Jews tried to gather money and power in the face of a miserable piopulation
In that time, it did not go very well with them
They should have learned a lesson
Apparently they did not
As I said previously, you and the 9/11 attackers are compatriots- the only difference being you hide behind a computer.
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 08:51 AM   #1304
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I see no evidence of that.
Re read my posts
Or buy better glasses

This is the suggestion I can give to you

Last edited by SashatheMagnificent; 8th October 2016 at 08:53 AM.
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 08:56 AM   #1305
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
As I said previously, you and the 9/11 attackers are compatriots
Yes, I am from Saudi Arabia
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 10:02 AM   #1306
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,274
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
Yes, I am from Saudi Arabia
A second definition for compatriot is a friend or colleague. I consider your ilk to be political friends and colleagues of their ilk.
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 10:07 AM   #1307
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
A second definition for compatriot is a friend or colleague. I consider your ilk to be political friends and colleagues of their ilk.
I am from Saudi Arabia AND I went to school together with my late pal Osama

Happy now?
Or not yet
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 10:11 AM   #1308
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,274
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
I am from Saudi Arabia AND I went to school together with my late pal Osama.
Did it get physical?

While discussing the Eternal Jew?
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 10:13 AM   #1309
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Did it get physical?

While discussing the Eternal Jew?
I assume you are not interested in a serious conversation
Let` s end it here
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 10:18 AM   #1310
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,274
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
I assume you are not interested in a serious conversation
Let` s end it here
A serious conversation on how the filthy Jews provoked German Nazis into an industrial level extermination program by hoarding money and power? Sure, I'm interested- please expand. Be as detailed as your capabilities allow.
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 12:04 PM   #1311
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,492
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
If it was "open air concentration camps", there'd be bioweapons testing and murder on an industrial scale, with palestinian skin being made into lampshades and hair used to stuff mattresses. And any resistance would have been met with Nerve Gas and extermination of towns, like in Syria.
Ahh. Thank you, SashatheMagnificent, for reminding me about this post, even if I consider your response to it to not actually say much of value. That is, other than your claim about thousands of citizens killed yearly by the Israelis, which appears to be entirely and inexcusably false. The death toll is quite real, yes, but doesn't even remotely approach a yearly value of even one thousand. If one takes out the more specific major conflicts, the actual average death toll seems to probably be well under 200 yearly, and even with the major conflicts of the last 15 years added in, less than 500 yearly. Nothing to be happy about at all, but not even close to your claimed number.

With that said, though, it's likely worth repeating that bioweapons testing, murder on an industrial scale, and the residents skin and hair being used to make various products are not even remotely requirements for a case to count as a concentration camp, so the specific argument in the quoted is nonsense. As it stands, there are a number of similarities between Gaza and a concentration camp, yes, though it seems like there are still a few important distinctions, such as the border with Egypt that, were Hamas not such relatively unpleasant neighbors, would probably be notably more open, and that things started in a notably more positive fashion there, with Israel giving them the chance to show that they could responsibly and intelligently self-govern as an important step towards a real two state solution. Most of the similarities have come to be since then, as direct responses to violent and/or terroristic decisions by the Gazans. The situation is bad in a number of ways, sure. "Concentration camp" is just a relatively poor descriptor in this situation, and even more so when the frequently associated emotional baggage and associations are added on on top of the actual situation.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 8th October 2016 at 12:23 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 02:38 PM   #1312
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
Re read my posts
I've read them. That's precisely why I don't believe you.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 03:19 PM   #1313
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Ahh. Thank you, SashatheMagnificent, for reminding me about this post, even if I consider your response to it to not actually say much of value. That is, other than your claim about thousands of citizens killed yearly by the Israelis, which appears to be entirely and inexcusably false. The death toll is quite real, yes, but doesn't even remotely approach a yearly value of even one thousand. If one takes out the more specific major conflicts, the actual average death toll seems to probably be well under 200 yearly, and even with the major conflicts of the last 15 years added in, less than 500 yearly. Nothing to be happy about at all, but not even close to your claimed number.

With that said, though, it's likely worth repeating that bioweapons testing, murder on an industrial scale, and the residents skin and hair being used to make various products are not even remotely requirements for a case to count as a concentration camp, so the specific argument in the quoted is nonsense. As it stands, there are a number of similarities between Gaza and a concentration camp, yes, though it seems like there are still a few important distinctions, such as the border with Egypt that, were Hamas not such relatively unpleasant neighbors, would probably be notably more open, and that things started in a notably more positive fashion there, with Israel giving them the chance to show that they could responsibly and intelligently self-govern as an important step towards a real two state solution. Most of the similarities have come to be since then, as direct responses to violent and/or terroristic decisions by the Gazans. The situation is bad in a number of ways, sure. "Concentration camp" is just a relatively poor descriptor in this situation, and even more so when the frequently associated emotional baggage and associations are added on on top of the actual situation.
You even replied to that non-sense?
Wow, you are a really patient person
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 03:20 PM   #1314
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I've read them. That's precisely why I don't believe you.
You are entitled to any opinion, even the most non-sensical. Please keep it thanks
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 03:27 PM   #1315
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Ahh. Thank you, SashatheMagnificent, for reminding me about this post, even if I consider your response to it to not actually say much of value. That is, other than your claim about thousands of citizens killed yearly by the Israelis, which appears to be entirely and inexcusably false.
>2000 in 2014
~200 from Oct 1 2015 to Oct 13 2015
Since the beginning of October, 199 Palestinians have been killed in shootings and clashes with Israeli forces in the occupied Palestinian territories and Israel, while 28 Israelis have been killed in knife and gun attacks.

Last edited by SashatheMagnificent; 8th October 2016 at 03:29 PM.
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 05:05 PM   #1316
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,492
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
>2000 in 2014
~200 from Oct 1 2015 to Oct 13 2015
Since the beginning of October, 199 Palestinians have been killed in shootings and clashes with Israeli forces in the occupied Palestinian territories and Israel, while 28 Israelis have been killed in knife and gun attacks.
And the overwhelming majority of the apparently 2200-some in 2014 were part of the major combat that happened that year, which was, by far, the worst since 2008, which was also a case of major combat. Shockingly enough, the average yearly death count is dramatically lower when you're not taking a very abnormal single year, one that just happens to be the highest kill count year since 1967, alone and trying to pass it off it as if it was every year.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 8th October 2016 at 05:15 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 06:44 PM   #1317
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
I have agenda to save children
You have the agenda of kill children, just the Arabs, though
Then how about encouraging Abbas to make peace and end this conflict?


Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
There was a time when the Jews tried to gather money and power in the face of a miserable piopulation
In that time, it did not go very well with them

They should have learned a lesson
Apparently they did not
Let` s hope this time things will not go as bad for them, but as the power of their main ally is faltering, I am worried for them and for their families
Wow. That's the most openly racist thing I've read in years. Are you for real?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 07:01 PM   #1318
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Then how about encouraging Abbas to make peace and end this conflict?
Kill the victim and then blame him as he did not want peace
How typically American!!

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Wow. That's the most openly racist thing I've read in years. Are you for real?
How w
as that: the cow who calls the kettle black

Last edited by SashatheMagnificent; 8th October 2016 at 07:04 PM.
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 07:02 PM   #1319
SashatheMagnificent
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
And the overwhelming majority of the apparently 2200-some in 2014 were part of the major combat that happened that year, which was, by far, the worst since 2008, which was also a case of major combat. Shockingly enough, the average yearly death count is dramatically lower when you're not taking a very abnormal single year, one that just happens to be the highest kill count year since 1967, alone and trying to pass it off it as if it was every year.
They only killed a few hundreds civilians then.
Let` s give them a medal
SashatheMagnificent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 09:11 PM   #1320
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,492
Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent View Post
They only killed a few hundreds civilians then.
Let` s give them a medal
So, you're intent on trying to be a troll, then? As was already said, the actual death count is nothing to be happy about at all, but wildly exaggerating the actual numbers is exceedingly dishonest and is distinctly objectionable, as well. Multiple wrongs don't make a right. Going further than that, if a civilian tries to stab or shoot and kill you and gets killed themselves in the process, they're a combatant, not a non-combatant, which matters notably more than "civilian" or "citizen" when it comes to how it's reasonable to feel about the event. The reporting for Palestinian death count tends to make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants, leaving a notable issue there.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 8th October 2016 at 09:25 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.