World War III

[sebbysteiny]

I might want to read through the thread you mentioned. So if you could supply me a link to the discussion so I can read what you read, it would be appreciated.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/6926-collateral-damage-self-defence-murder.html

 

Feel free to make a further contribution if you still disagree.

 

Hold up, so killing innocent people because there's a threat on your innocent people is justified? So then, killing yourself and taking with you members of a different culture that is a threat to your culture is not justified?

If innocent people must die for the military / terrorist targets or aims to be taken out (eg terrorist leader standing in a crowd), then it is justified as long as there was no other effective option that would cause less casualties (eg waiting for terrorist leader to enter a car). However, simply killing civilians for fun, glory, revenge or in search of martyrdom is unjustified because it is has no hope of being effective self defence. It is just murder of innocent harmless people and a war crime.

[sebbysteiny]

As horrible as it sounds, maybe it would be better to just let them slug it out. All the really aggressive, fanatical ones would kill each other off, and only the tolerant and peaceful would be left.

 

The problem with international intevention is the following. An international force will be able to stop an army from performing any actions to stop terrorists. However the international force will be totally impatent and incapable of stopping the terrorists from killing innocents. This is show by even the entire Israeli army being unable to stop the terrorists and they are prepared to do more to protect their citizens than any multinational force would. All intervention will do will deprive Israel the right to defend itself whist committing innocent Israeli civilians to certain and continuous death.

[DarkColoredLight]

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/6926-collateral-damage-self-defence-murder.html

 

Feel free to make a further contribution if you still disagree.

 

 

If innocent people must die for the military / terrorist targets or aims to be taken out (eg terrorist leader standing in a crowd), then it is justified as long as there was no other effective option that would cause less casualties (eg waiting for terrorist leader to enter a car). However, simply killing civilians for fun, glory, revenge or in search of martyrdom is unjustified because it is has no hope of being effective self defence. It is just murder of innocent harmless people and a war crime.

 

 

Oh, okay got cha. Never thought of plain and simple killing sprees. Is that sort of thing going on? I mean I'm sure there's some nut that just LOVES shooting live targets that "just so happened" to join the army in hopes of combat. But, what you're saying is this nut has the control to join a force rather than take it apon himself to start up a killing spree. Right?

[sebbysteiny]

Never thought of plain and simple killing sprees. Is that sort of thing going on? I mean I'm sure there's some nut that just LOVES shooting live targets that "just so happened" to join the army in hopes of combat. But, what you're saying is this nut has the control to join a force rather than take it apon himself to start up a killing spree. Right?

This quesiton perhaps should be in the thread I mentioned rather than here.

 

But your close. A nut who wants to kill is not a criminal unless he actually kills intending to kill. However every army since history began contains those types and some will act beyond the strict controls of the army. Those individuals are the criminals, but the commanders and soldiers are not even if they knew that by having and using an army, one guarantees giving the means for a nutter to commit crimes. If it were, then no state would be entitled to its basic right of self defence.

 

Do 'killing sprees' go on? Yes, all the time, but only against Israel. Hezbollah fires rockets into Israeli towns for no other reason than to kill people, and the Palestinian groups including their government do the same with kassams and suicide bombers.

 

I tend to believe that war crimes can be considered self defence and vis versa. Depending on the perspective, justifications, and availible means. If the justifications and means are not to be understood, it's a war crime. If the justifications and means are to be understood it's self defense.

I do not think War crimes depend on perspective. Logically it cannot. If one thing is justified for one people then it must also be justified for the other. The only correct perspective is through the eyes of the person who commits the act. Available means and justification are the factors we agree on.

 

Hence

[The] right of self defence, ... as we [those in the above thread] agreed, extends to the military option that causes least harm to civilians THAT IS ALSO effective at achieving the military objective of stopping aggression.

 

It requires two things: 1 to be effective, and 2 to be the least harmful available option (this considers means and technology).

 

Rocket attacks and suicide bombers cannot be self defence because of 1. It is an act that kills, not an act that defends themselves. If anything, it is totally counter productive. All it achieves is innocent Israeli AND Palestinian deaths. Israel's responses however are almost all effective at saving Israeli lives and are the very best military tactics possible using the latest technology.

 

Of course this assessment of Israel will fall apart if somebody comes up with a new strategy that is better than the Israeli generals could come up with. However I have posed this question hundreds of times and nobody has ever given an answer so I've stopped expecting there to be one.

[DarkColoredLight]

It requires two things: 1 to be effective, and 2 to be the least harmful available option (this considers means and technology).

 

Rocket attacks and suicide bombers cannot be self defence because of 1. It is an act that kills, not an act that defends themselves. If anything, it is totally counter productive. All it achieves is innocent Israeli AND Palestinian deaths. Israel's responses however are almost all effective at saving Israeli lives and are the very best military tactics possible using the latest technology.

 

Of course this assessment of Israel will fall apart if somebody comes up with a new strategy that is better than the Israeli generals could come up with. However I have posed this question hundreds of times and nobody has ever given an answer so I've stopped expecting there to be one.

 

 

It must be consider that their system of beliefs supports such actions. If we're refering to the same system that is (the act of Jihad). Therefore, if we still don't justify their actions of killings, methods of kill, and even their justification, we as the great states of america needs to return the Luisiana purchase and the rest of the west to the natives. Because we TOOK their land with the justification of Manifest Destiny. But, now we're saying that other countries can't have their version of Manifest Destiny.

 

That; do as I say, not as I do, mentallity works half the time. The other half of the time it works against you. Which brings us to World War Three, which could be just a matter of time. Time for the sides to work against each other, fester the anger, then release the stress in the form of bombs.

 

Who know's though third time might be a charm.

[sebbysteiny]

It must be consider that their system of beliefs supports such actions. If we're refering to the same system that is (the act of Jihad).

 

Did I mention their system of beliefs? Nope. I just said,

It requires two things: 1 to be effective, and 2 to be the least harmful available option (this considers means and technology).

Whether the nutters think it is a good thing to slaughter innocents to achieve martyrdom and a place beside Mohammed makes no difference at all to the repulsive nature of their war crimes.

 

Therefore, if we still don't justify their actions of killings, methods of kill, and even their justification, we as the great states of america needs to return the Luisiana purchase and the rest of the west to the natives.

Da ****? Does anybody else have difficulty understanding what that paragraph is talking about? My best interpretation is this. We of the west deplore war crimes. Therefore America must return Luisiana to the natives. Nope, nobody could strain the word 'therefore' to that degree. I must have misinterpretted.

[DarkColoredLight]

Did I mention their system of beliefs? Nope. I just said,

Whether the nutters think it is a good thing to slaughter innocents to achieve martyrdom and a place beside Mohammed makes no difference at all to the repulsive nature of their war crimes.

 

 

Da ****? Does anybody else have difficulty understanding what that paragraph is talking about? My best interpretation is this. We of the west deplore war crimes. Therefore America must return Luisiana to the natives. Nope, nobody could strain the word 'therefore' to that degree. I must have misinterpretted.

 

I realized you didn't mention their beliefs. But, it is a huge factor of what they do. You're more concered about how they do it.

 

It seems to me you'd like everything to be fair. But, since their culture, belief system, and tools (for created, destorying and learning) are different that yours(more or less ours). And, ours SEEMS to be the most advanced. You don't want to see them(not advanced) holding our tools(as stated above). This can be thought of in the sense that we don't let KIDS drive CARS till they're OLD enought and untill they pass a couple tests.

 

This form of superiority is, to me, one of the reasons they hate us. With that hate we started picking political, but justified, fights in the Middle East and Korea. So the terrorists don't get nukes, then use them against us. Right?

 

As for the Luisiana comment, I was trying to point out that we have done terrible things in the past in the name of God, whoever that might be. Now all we have to show for it is Reservations filled with poverty, casinos, and fireworks(this is a generalization based on probably outdated information and heresay). Those Reservations don't justify the past actions, they're rather a jesture of kindness driven by our regret. If we had extreme regret we'd give all the land back, but that isn't exactly in our cards right now. And I'm not so sure the natives would WANT their land back.

 

So let's look at the other side, the side of terrorism. They don't like us because we represent what they hold to be the embodiment of evil. They are doing what they can, using their own inivations to slow down our progress, till we eventually stop. To us, they're wrong because they're killing citizens cut from the same cloth.

 

In the grand scheme of things I don't think either sides are just, because they both don't WANT justice they both WANT action. But, they also want action they're acustom to and they want their actions to be just in the eyes of their people. In other words, both side THINK the other deserves to die, as a third party I have come to the conclution that maybe both sides deserver to die.

 

I think both sides should look at the other and say who are we working for/with/against/as? Are we working for/with/against/as good, (in the christian world you'd drop a O and have your maker) the thing that listens, knows best, loves, brings happiness, all the good that people NEED. or

Are we working for/with/against/as evil, (in the christian world you'd add a D to the begining and have your deciever) the thing that breeds hate, controls and forces on you your destiny, makes you suffer through giving you what you WANT.

 

To make a long story longer, we'll never find world peace/harmony/love if we don't find self peace/harmony/love. Untill then, play on players. Eventually you'll destroy the game for everyone, is that what you WANT?

 

Sometimes I lead myself, and sometimes I follow myself,

DCL

[sebbysteiny]

[some stuff questioning whether we have a right to judge other cultures since different is not better]

 

I've heard arguments like this before and I think this is another way of sticking your head in the philosophical sand whist danger and evil grows around.

 

However you have proposed many things that are not really the subject of this thread (unless the thread owner disagrees). This post seems to be saying that hatred caused by our cultures apparent superiority is a cause of hatred that causes terror. I would fundamentally disagree. Perhaps you should continue this in my 'Islamic Terror: the solution' thread instead.

 

I think both sides should look at the other and say who are we working for/against? Are we working for / against good, or

Are we working for/against evil.

 

The phylosphical sand you are hiding your head in is this: how can we tell right and wrong when those who we say are wrong think they are right and vice versa. Isn't it arrogent for us to condemn others when intellectually our view is no 'better' than theirs?

 

In one foul swoop you have eliminated any possibility for doing any kind of action to help or do good because you have destroyed the concept of good. The consequences of humanity adopting this view would be disastress because all good men will do nothing as they are paralysed by philosphy so evil will triumph.

 

What this boils down to is a total lack of confidence in yourself, your culture and your and your cultures beliefs.

 

If you don't like freedom then try living in a society that is not free: where the entire population is scared sh*tless incase one man or his regime discovers that they even think badly. If you do not like human rights, then why don't you volenteer to enter the gas chambers of the holocaust and live a life of vile persecution. If you think that torture is legitimate then why don't you travel to a country where torture is commonplace and watch as a boy gets beaten and bruised and has teeth extracted as he is in too much pain to even cry. Then tell me that little boy actually likes torture and supports his culture's 'values' over ours.

 

Culture may be different but we are all human beings and we all desire air, feel pain when 1000V is sent through our body and we all get emotionally scarred when we see our parents shot in the head in front of us for having political views. We all desire human rights and we all have a right to them. We all are born to think without being kidnapped and murdered simply for thinking differently.

 

These values are the defining values of our culture, a culture where thought, intellectual study and websites like this are commonplace and where morality gets a genuine hearing and where we hear all sides rather than just one and where hatred and predudice is hunted down and disgraced. These are what make our view 'better' than that of other cultures where ignorance and demonisation dominates thought and actions. If you cannot walk amongst the butcher meat that is the aftermath of a suicide bombing where totally innocent children and mothers struggle with half a blood dripping body gasping for a few more seconds of life and realise that no matter how it is spun or what one is tought, some things are just wrong, then, you must be a martian or something because you quite clearly have no basic sense of humanity but by god I will never let crimes against humanity go unjudged.

[paigetheoracle]

What are you jabbering about??

 

We're talking tactical military conflict; Tanks, rockets and mortars. People dead or with limbs blown off.

Arab countries Hate Israel ---- Israel has to defend itself.

 

If you haven't read the latest news, somone can post it here; or I will.

 

Thank you Rac. You obviously prove my point. You are talking politics and I am talking humanity. People who cannot control their emotions are violent towards others and provoke one another into fights. Just like a city street anywhere in the world, brainless morons try to prove how 'tough' they are by beating the crap out of each other, physically and verbally. The defence used in all cases is 'He started it'. People talk about political and religious ideologies as though they were 'real'. The truth is that they are appalling lies used by every side to justify their claims to sovereignty over land 'none' of them have any right to. Do we say grazing animals have any rights to the land they pass over? No but humanity uses history as 'proof' that it is they and not their opponents who have rights. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, which dinosaur or single celled animal was first onto that piece of land? (we're all just passing through). As Dr Johnston said 'Violence is the last refuge of a scoundrel' (If you can't beat them - get a bigger stick).

[sebbysteiny]

Thank you Rac. You obviously prove my point. You are talking politics and I am talking humanity. People who cannot control their emotions are violent towards others and provoke one another into fights. Just like a city street anywhere in the world, brainless morons try to prove how 'tough' they are by beating the crap out of each other, physically and verbally. The defence used in all cases is 'He started it'. People talk about political and religious ideologies as though they were 'real'. The truth is that they are appalling lies used by every side to justify their claims to sovereignty over land 'none' of them have any right to. Do we say grazing animals have any rights to the land they pass over? No but humanity uses history as 'proof' that it is they and not their opponents who have rights. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, which dinosaur or single celled animal was first onto that piece of land? (we're all just passing through). As Dr Johnston said 'Violence is the last refuge of a scoundrel' (If you can't beat them - get a bigger stick).

 

You have made some good points and some less good ones in my opinion.

 

Starting with the worst first.

People who cannot control their emotions are violent towards others and provoke one another into fights. Just like a city street anywhere in the world, brainless morons try to prove how 'tough' they are by beating the crap out of each other, physically and verbally. The defence used in all cases is 'He started it'.

 

I assume you are saying that the 'he started it' defence that Israel is using is the policy of a 'brainless moron'. However your analogy is false. Comparisons between individual behaviors and state actions are a good tool to simplify a problem in some instances but here it does not work. The difference: the stakes. It is not a man who is getting hit, but entire families who get destroyed by bombs. The stakes are much higher. Turning the other cheek is okay if one gets a bruise or two which will heal in a weak or two, but not if massive casualties occur on the civilians you are supposed to protect whose deaths are irreversable.

 

Secondly, there are no policemen who can sort out the mess afterwoods. If you do not fight back in the face of delibarate and unprovoked aggression, no court is going to give Israel back the lives it lost or take any action to stop Israel suffering further losses.

 

The above two points are fundamental to why states must defend themselves with military force against madmen who do not see right and wrong but weakness and strength.

 

The truth is that they are appalling lies used by every side to justify their claims to sovereignty over land 'none' of them have any right to. Do we say grazing animals have any rights to the land they pass over? No but humanity uses history as 'proof' that it is they and not their opponents who have rights.

 

This is a great point about the inadequacy of history to help even slightly in deciding who should own what land. Perhaps you should look at my 'Justice before peace????' thread.

 

However this point I believe does not prove what you want it to. From my understanding, your argument is thus. You say rightly that history cannot be used to judge territorial gains because if it did, where would it end? However you conclude that therefore no side must own any land. Further you conclude from that that all political arguments regarding rightful land distribution do not exist and therefore there is no justification for any two people to fight each other over land, at least not from a morally perfect perspective.

 

However your ideas on land distribution are only half of the answer. You have proved that history is not helpful. However you have not proven that any other principals are also not helpful. I believe that the principal of peace would be a better solution whereby land is distributed entirely based on what would enable the two sides to live together rather than by any sense of historical justice. The problem is that the Arab side does not wish to live together but they want to eradicate one side with the moderates believing that this is done only if zionism is distroyed and replaced an Islamic state in which the Jewish community may, if they are lucky and grovel enough, get to live as an oppressed minority (or to use their phrasing, the Palestinians get 'Justice' and the 'realisation of Arab rights' thus 'ending the occupation of Palestine' ) and the extremists believing that every Jew in the region must, on top of that, be totally wiped out. Thus Israelis are not fighting over land but over their way of life and / or their right to life. Now I think even you will agree that that is worth fighting for.

[HydrogenBond]

To get WWIII you need to get at least two superpowers to play. None of the players in the middle east have the capacity to involve the world. By keeping the US out of the Isreali conflict, there is no first or second superpower being pulled into the beef. Isreal will kick butt in a week or two and then it will be down to trickle terrorism. It will then take years for the militants to build up enough firepower for another round of hurt.

 

The region is stabilized by US in Iraq. Iran would not even think of mobilizing knowing US would bust up all their war toys.

[paigetheoracle]

I assume you are saying that the 'he started it' defence that Israel is using is the policy of a 'brainless moron'.

 

It is not a man who is getting hit, but entire families who get destroyed by bombs. The stakes are much higher. Turning the other cheek is okay if one gets a bruise or two which will heal in a weak or two, but not if massive casualties occur on the civilians you are supposed to protect whose deaths are irreversable.

 

Secondly, there are no policemen who can sort out the mess afterwoods. If you do not fight back in the face of delibarate and unprovoked aggression, no court is going to give Israel back the lives it lost or take any action to stop Israel suffering further losses.

 

The above two points are fundamental to why states must defend themselves with military force against madmen who do not see right and wrong but weakness and strength.

 

 

 

This is a great point about the inadequacy of history to help even slightly in deciding who should own what land. Perhaps you should look at my 'Justice before peace????' thread.

 

However this point I believe does not prove what you want it to. From my understanding, your argument is thus. You say rightly that history cannot be used to judge territorial gains because if it did, where would it end? However you conclude that therefore no side must own any land. Further you conclude from that that all political arguments regarding rightful land distribution do not exist and therefore there is no justification for any two people to fight each other over land, at least not from a morally perfect perspective.

 

I believe that the principal of peace would be a better solution whereby land is distributed entirely based on what would enable the two sides to live together rather than by any sense of historical justice. The problem is that the Arab side does not wish to live together but they want to eradicate one side with the moderates believing that this is done only if zionism is distroyed and replaced an Islamic state in which the Jewish community may, if they are lucky and grovel enough, get to live as an oppressed minority (or to use their phrasing, the Palestinians get 'Justice' and the 'realisation of Arab rights' thus 'ending the occupation of Palestine' ) and the extremists believing that every Jew in the region must, on top of that, be totally wiped out. Thus Israelis are not fighting over land but over their way of life and / or their right to life. Now I think even you will agree that that is worth fighting for.

 

No, you've got some points but not all. Racoon seems to think I'm for the Arabs and against The Israeli's but that's not the point either. So I'll do like you did and go over the points to further clarify what I'm trying to say.

 

Firstly, I'm not calling the Israeli's brainless morons for their attack on Lebanon, it's just sad that they felt not option but to behave in the way they did: The Romans would have had a better option, which I'd advocate and that may surprise you if you think I'm a sheep not a wolf. The first time they attacked this particular country, years back, they destroyed its airlines which were better preserved because a man or country that is doing well wants to live and the prosperous part of any nation or individual is less likely to put in jeopardy that part of itself that is healthy (pro-life). This is a religious point to make and not a political one. Violence is the language of despair and who in their right minds wants to kill themselves or anyone else? So in answer to one of your other points, morons are afraid of developing their lives because it is easier to die than just put up with things as they are and just get on with the art of life (Zen "Before enlightenment - carry water and chop sticks" after enlightenment do the same): Intelligence = life/ stupidity = death of mind and body(ignorance). This is all about putting blame for your condition 'out there'. Jealousy affects nations as well as individuals. Israel is prosperous and most arab states are not. Israel is technically advanced and well educated, they are not. Those stuck in the past dreaming of former glories are not living in the present and that is Islam not Israel. I admire Israel for picking itself up and raising itself to its present position after The Holocaust (Those who deny it in The West are setting things up so that they can repeat it i.e. The Fascists and I'm against this too but it did give the Jews the kick up the pants that started the state of Israel).

 

By the way, the Romans would have gone into Lebanon and annexed the whole country, much like Bush in Iraq but more successfully. They would have bolstered up the civilian government and put Hezbollah and Hammas separatists into camps: Any trouble and they would have executed the ringleaders, plus decimated the ranks of ordinary fighters.

 

As for the bombing affecting entire families - you're right be it Israeli families through suicide bombings or Arab families through retaliation. History shows us this tit-for-tat warfare has always gone on with occupying forces - the stronger army conquering the weaker and resistance coming from small groups of hidden insurgents (sabouteurs) within. My point is not that nobody 'must' own the land but nobody 'does'. It isn't a question that it's mine or theirs but that whoever is on it and can hold it, is the titular owner. When it boils down to it, the best organised and equiped to defend a territory can be considered the owners (occupying force) but it isn't a question of right but might (You picked up right on this - morally no-one has the right to be or stay anywhere and as you suggest the answer is peaceful co-existance and accepting the status quo: The dominant will never be shifted by opposition but those 'attempting to domineer' others, will always 'test' the situation, to see if they are ready to go voluntarily (Read studies on Monkeys, to see how young males jockey for position, while the troop leader maintains his position through doing nothing and being himself (Man Mountain)). My point all along has been about 'honesty' and by that I mean accepting things for what they are, rather than rebelling and fighting against the truth of the situation by making claims that are based on lies and half truths. Israel is fighting for its survival and peace on both sides is the honesty to accept that all this religious bullshit about rights to the land and being God's 'only' choosen people, is egotistical nonsense. If God is to be found in anything he is to be found in everything and this means Jewish, Islamic and Christian life. Any religion that claims God for themselves are lying and ignoring the fact that the world is round and not flat, contains other religions and races as well as other life forms with as much right to existence as anything else (see my previous threads and postings on fear plus up and coming ones, to understand what is really happening from a scientific perspective i.e. what is truly happening on the Earth politically, socially and psychologically rather than what you're being told is true - by the way this doesn't mean I've got a monopoly on the truth but like most of you out there I'm struggling to cut through the crap of my own mind, let alone that of biased or short sighted others).:D

[sebbysteiny]

Firstly, I'm not calling the Israeli's brainless morons for their attack on Lebanon, it's just sad that they felt not option but to behave in the way they did

 

I agree. It is a shame that no other means exist which will allow Israel its basic right of self defence without killing so many innocents.

 

Violence is the language of despair and who in their right minds wants to kill themselves or anyone else?

 

I disagree. Despair does not necessarily lead to violence and violence does not necessary come from despair. Every now and then they overlap, but, for example, Hezbollah had no despair and many rich memebers of Al Quaeda are from the wealthiest families.

 

I think violence is instead caused either by brainwashing and hate which are formed independantly of despair or by those defending themselves from being attacked by brainwashed and hate filled people.

 

Jealousy affects nations as well as individuals. Israel is prosperous and most arab states are not. Israel is technically advanced and well educated, they are not. Those stuck in the past dreaming of former glories are not living in the present and that is Islam not Israel.

 

Good point. The politics of envy. I have not doubt that hurt pride, not just for the middle East being a backward region, but for the way the entire Arab world got smashed in the 1967 war despite having a military and technical advantage.

 

My point is not that nobody 'must' own the land but nobody 'does'. It isn't a question that it's mine or theirs but that whoever is on it and can hold it, is the titular owner. When it boils down to it, the best organised and equiped to defend a territory can be considered the owners (occupying force) but it isn't a question of right but might (You picked up right on this - morally no-one has the right to be or stay anywhere and as you suggest the answer is peaceful co-existance and accepting the status quo:

 

I cannot accept the principal of acquisition of territory by force. I have not said that morality has no role to play regarding the fair distribution of land. I have simply said that historical analysis has no part. There are numerous other moral principals that could be used to fairly distribute land of which the facts on the ground (including military might) is but one.

 

My point all along has been about 'honesty' and by that I mean accepting things for what they are, rather than rebelling and fighting against the truth of the situation by making claims that are based on lies and half truths. Israel is fighting for its survival and peace on both sides is the honesty to accept that all this religious bullshit about rights to the land and being God's 'only' choosen people, is egotistical nonsense.

 

I agree that there is too much fighting against the truth on both sides (particularly the Arab side). The arabs still dream of eliminating Israel and somehow still think the so called 'right of return' will actually be accepted at one stage. Some have even set a date of 2025 for Israel's imminent destruction based on the texts of the Quoran (see Hamas surmons). Some on the Israeli right still believes that they can have a greater Israel without sacrificing its democratic credentials and Jewish character. Both views challenge truth and directly threaten any prospects for peace.

 

However there is one sub point which I want to tackle because it is a common misconception: the idea that Jews have greater rights according to god because they are 'the chosen people'. Whist some view their right to land as being god given, this view is in the very small minority. According to Jeudism, being the 'chosen people' does not mean they are 'better' than other religions. It means they have been chosen to be spiritually closer to god than other peoples. This gives the Jews a spiritual advantage, but it comes at a price. The Jews must adhere to rules that are stricter than that of most other religions. An analogy is that Jews sit at the front of the class, whilst other religions are further to the back so Jews will be punished more severely for any deviations from the correct path. This does not mean other peoples are worse or even following the wrong god, just that they are different and will find it harder to get close to god and will find easier to avoid spiritual 'detention'.

[paigetheoracle]

many rich memebers of Al Quaeda are from the wealthiest families.

 

I think violence is instead caused either by brainwashing and hate which are formed independantly of despair or by those defending themselves from being attacked by brainwashed and hate filled people.

 

However there is one sub point which I want to tackle because it is a common misconception: the idea that Jews have greater rights according to god because they are 'the chosen people'. Whist some view their right to land as being god given, this view is in the very small minority. According to Jeudism, being the 'chosen people' does not mean they are 'better' than other religions. It means they have been chosen to be spiritually closer to god than other peoples. This gives the Jews a spiritual advantage, but it comes at a price. The Jews must adhere to rules that are stricter than that of most other religions. An analogy is that Jews sit at the front of the class, whilst other religions are further to the back so Jews will be punished more severely for any deviations from the correct path. This does not mean other peoples are worse or even following the wrong god, just that they are different and will find it harder to get close to god and will find easier to avoid spiritual 'detention'.

 

Point one - here you have the guilt feeling of those who think their wealth shouldn't exclude them from the suffering of the underclass (I've seen it in Britain and it appears in upper class people adapting the accents of the lower class, especially in the fashionable adaption of a cockney accent over recent years: It's wanting to belong to something else, to rebel against your upbringing and in this way it betrays them as no different from us or the mechanics behind it - it's only in subject matter and the degree to which they react, that makes them really different).

 

Point two - hate, like greed and envy is based on fear and really they are all synonyms for the same thing, varying only in degree and direction. Love and generosity are about letting go and giving up on those things you are no longer drawn to: Adults have no desire for the toys of childhood but can empathize with the urges of children because they once did want those things themselves but are more than happy to offer them up as gifts, in return for the vicarious joy of seeing others enjoying them now.

 

Point three - thank you for that distinction! Perhaps they should teach it to the arabs. You might find it interesting to read about the Hopi's because they too believe the same thing with regards to them and the rest of the Indian nations. They think they are there to hold to a strict way of life for the survival of the race. On top of this you might like to consider what my partners 'boss' told her when she was on a hospital ward and that was she was tough on those nurses who she thought had potential but didn't bother with the lazy and selfish, who she saw had no potential. It's the same thing with bullying of the intelligent by the cowardly. Teachers are tough on pupils and their peers are too because they have the potential to make the grade and that is because they are long suffering (The lesson of Job is that only by putting up with what life throws at you, can you truly appreciate your time on Earth: It's like The Twilight Zone story where a dead gangster finds himself in a place where his every wish is granted and tells his host that he thinks when he died, he should've gone to the other place and his host replies 'But this is hell!').

[HydrogenBond]

The one thing good about the terrorist groups is that they may have the eye of the tiger but the technical capacity of a kitten. This is not like Germany or Japan during WWII, that had the eye and body of a tiger. That is why the terrorists will never be able to precipate WWIII. They would like the prestige of everyone giving them all that credit. I am not going to play that game since reality says otherwise.

 

Even if Iran is able to get a nuke, it will be an A-bomb and not a H-bomb. Picture them trying to launch Big Boy or Little Boy with one of their girlly man missles. The thing would drop a nut. They would have to send it by truck, which will give off a signal that can be seen by satallite. The odds are it will blow up in Iran. That would be weird.

 

Isreal has the right to defend itself. But I feel sort of sorry for many of the Lebanese civilians. Think about it, they are probablly afraid of both the terrorists and the Isrealis. At least when an Isreali citizen sees one of their soldiers they feel secure. The Lebanese civilians are feeling terror from both groups of soldiers.

 

The old testament says an eye for an eye. This is retail justice and Isreal appears to be going for wholesale justice, ten eyes for one. This would be OK on the battle field but is harder to justify with civilians who may be just expendable pawns to the terrorists.

 

An intersting tid bit. The Palastinians are originally from Syria. They were driven from that land by genocide and settled in the area of Isreal. Maybe Isreal should take some land from Syria, while they are at it, and give it to the Palestinians. This would allow more land for Isreal and the Palestians would be able to return to their real homeland.

.

[Boerseun]

Couple o' good points there, HB.

 

I don't think it'll matter much to the Iranians if their nuke goes off by mistake whilst still in Teheran. It might just serve their purpose, and they can blame it on the Evil West, or somebody.

 

Israel do have the right to defend themselves. But then, so does anybody else. Problem is, the Israel army is the fourth biggest army in the world, and they are armed to the teeth with modern American military hardware. Expecting guys like the Lebanon or pissed off Palestinians, or Syrians, or even Egyptians, or basically anybody in the Middle East who don't like the Israelis too much to take them on in a conventional war, is asking a bit much.

 

The scale is unbalanced.

 

This, also, in a big way, contribute to terrorist attacks against the US. NOBODY can take them on militarily. So, what to do? Terrorism is a symptom of people not happy with a unipolar American world. We desperately need another superpower to keep the US in check.

Go, China/India/Europe!!!

[Turtle]

We desperately need another superpower to keep the US in check.

 

You bet! We Americans have been too long giving more technology & aid to the world than any other country. Let's just turn over that job to the developing countries who are taking it.:lol: Good grief.:D