Israel's Right To Exist

[Legion]

If not for the Abrahamic cults and their intolerant gods of violence, there would be no conflict.

I believe I would be hesitant to endorse or agree with this statemant unless it was modified somehow.

Why?

I guess because "there would be no conflit" is unqualified. Maybe I'm being nitpicky. I suppose something like... there would not be conflict between the peoples of this region... would suit me better. I would then be much more willing to entertain its possibilty.

[Lycorth]

I guess because "there would be no conflit" is unqualified. Maybe I'm being nitpicky. I suppose something like... there would not be conflict between the peoples of this region... would suit me better. I would then be much more willing to entertain its possibilty.

 

It's clear that, given the topic of the thread, I am indeed referring to the people of the region of the Middle East. Do excuse any vagueness on my part, though I think I was stating my intent plainly enough.

 

And I do insist that, were it not for their individual cults' teachings (the Torah insists that the Jews are the Chosen People to whom Yahooweh gave Israel, the Koran encourages conversions by force which necessarily includes the Jewish people), there would be no conflict in the Middle East.

[Warrior_of_god]

And I do insist that, were it not for their individual cults' teachings (the Torah insists that the Jews are the Chosen People to whom Yahooweh gave Israel, the Koran encourages conversions by force which necessarily includes the Jewish people), there would be no conflict in the Middle East.

I agree. both their cults keep the fire going.

[The Paineful Truth]

Woodsmoke wrote:

 

They were allowed to freely practice their faith without threat of persecution as dhimmis (non-Muslims living in the Islamic world who paid a poll tax in return for the freedom and security granted them in Muslim society), a system actually very similar to many of our secular governments today--i.e. they don't care what you do in your free time so long as they get their "dues."

 

The word Dhimmi means both "protected" and "guilty". Protected because the received the "Gods Word", and guilty because they reject Muhammed and distorted his revelations from Allah. Their status was a daily source of demeaning to abusive treatment and the tax ranged (depending on the taxing authority) from a true burden to crushing.

 

Infidels have three choices: submission (the meaning of "Islam"), dhimmitude or death.

[heschel]

That whole region should be reduced to a glass parking lot

 

Advocating genocide is so much less effective when one uses hackneyed metaphors like "glass parkinglot". Wouldn't it be more effective to say something like "X-treme glass parking lot" so that you'll be understood by both the readers of unimaginative blogs and schoolchildren with edgy attitudes? Rock on, party.

[Warrior_of_god]

That whole region should be reduced to a glass parking lot

Yes...because the killing of millions of innocent people, including kids would solve the problem...

[Asimov]

I dispute the word "deserve" but the rest I agree with. See my post above.

 

I dispute "might makes right". I don't think anyone has a right to that land, especially if they cite religion as their reasons for wanting it. If no one has any real right to the land, then they do deserve it if they hold on to it. Since they get funding they, like every other group who wants a piece, have no right to it.

 

Advocating genocide is so much less effective when one uses hackneyed metaphors like "glass parkinglot". Wouldn't it be more effective to say something like "X-treme glass parking lot" so that you'll be understood by both the readers of unimaginative blogs and schoolchildren with edgy attitudes? Rock on, party.

 

I think it's more we're tired of hearing about wars being fought over this shithole in a desert. If there was a way to simply reduce the land to a smoldering pile without causing serious problems in the outlying environs and the fallout, I would do it and say "if you guys can't share, nobody gets it."

[Asimov]

That whole region should be reduced to a glass parking lot

Yes...because the killing of millions of innocent people, including kids would solve the problem...

 

It might open a few eyes.

[Warrior_of_god]

It might open a few eyes.

Yes...and close just as many...

[Thurisaz]

Looking back at history, if killing people could solve this problem, it would have been solved long ago.

[Asimov]

It might open a few eyes.

Yes...and close just as many...

 

No...just vaporize them.

[Vigile]

I dispute "might makes right". I don't think anyone has a right to that land, especially if they cite religion as their reasons for wanting it. If no one has any real right to the land, then they do deserve it if they hold on to it. Since they get funding they, like every other group who wants a piece, have no right to it.

 

Reread my post. I don't think that might makes right in a philosophical sense of the word. I'm essentially just pointing out that that is the reality in an anarchical system of states. Pressures can be put on states that get too out of hand, but short of military intervention by an even more powerful state (further proving my point), might does make right in this system. In a system of anarchy where does morality come into play?

[Warrior_of_god]

No...just vaporize them.

My point exactly...

[Asimov]

I dispute "might makes right". I don't think anyone has a right to that land, especially if they cite religion as their reasons for wanting it. If no one has any real right to the land, then they do deserve it if they hold on to it. Since they get funding they, like every other group who wants a piece, have no right to it.

 

Reread my post. I don't think that might makes right in a philosophical sense of the word. I'm essentially just pointing out that that is the reality in an anarchical system of states. Pressures can be put on states that get too out of hand, but short of military intervention by an even more powerful state (further proving my point), might does make right in this system. In a system of anarchy where does morality come into play?

 

Correct, and morality is not present in that area currently.

[Warrior_of_god]

orrect, and morality is not present in that area currently.

And the only option is to wipe it out and start over?

[Asimov]

orrect, and morality is not present in that area currently.

And the only option is to wipe it out and start over?

 

Did I say that? I think clergicide was the one who stated the whole area should be turned into a sheet of glass.

[Warrior_of_god]

No you didnt say it, though its almost as if your implying it. However, you did say that there is no morallity in the region now, how would you introduce morality then?

[Asimov]

No you didnt say it, though its almost as if your implying it. However, you did say that there is no morallity in the region now, how would you introduce morality then?

 

Two possible ways. One would be to conquer the entire region and enforce peace between the two groups. It's unfeasible though because no army is big enough and it would probably temporarily unite the entire middle east until the threat was gone, then it would degenerate into a shitfest again.

 

The other is to step back and let them fight amongst themselves until they've had enough bloodshed or one kills the other.

 

So far talking isn't working.

[Warrior_of_god]

The other is to step back and let them fight amongst themselves until they've had enough bloodshed

I think its safe tos ay that wont happen.

[Amethyst]

I think the entire conflict was born out of their cults' doctrines.

 

In the beginning, Jews wouldn't tolerate Is-lame, because to them it was anti-Yahooweh.

 

In the beginning, Moose-lims wouldn't tolerate Jews, because their beliefs were non-Is-lame.

 

Both groups had a religious claim to the land of what is now Israel.

 

Were it not for the Abrhamic cults, we'd have no unrest in the Middle-east. Even for the non-religious amongst both groups, the religious violence transferred to cultural.

 

I agree. But what can we do about it now? Why do we (the U.S. as a country) have to even be involved in this dispute? It makes no sense to me. The terrorists are just going to keep attacking until the U.S. and Israel are wiped off the face of the planet, or until we destroy them first. And even if the U.S. does pull out of the dispute eventually, the terrorists will still keep attacking until Israel is wiped off the planet, or someone else destroys them, and I doubt that's going to happen for a very very long time. It's a Kobiyashi Maru as I see it, but there's no way to hack the holodeck to get a winning ending.

[Amethyst]

Two possible ways. One would be to conquer the entire region and enforce peace between the two groups. It's unfeasible though because no army is big enough and it would probably temporarily unite the entire middle east until the threat was gone, then it would degenerate into a shitfest again.

 

The other is to step back and let them fight amongst themselves until they've had enough bloodshed or one kills the other.

 

So far talking isn't working.

 

I don't see any of the above happening anytime soon.

[Lycorth]

I agree. But what can we do about it now?

 

I say we just pull out. End all ties, funding, and involvement with the entire Middle East, focus on our own country and on improving our own defenses, our economy, and anything else we need to, and make sure everyone in the Mideast understands that if anyone should not leave us alone and attack us, we'll attack back - and indeed spare no one in doing so.

 

There's no easy way out, so we can only do what's best for ourselves right now. And also learn a lesson about not getting involved with other nations' affairs in the future.

[Warrior_of_god]

I say we just pull out. End all ties, funding, and involvement with the entire Middle East, focus on our own country and on improving our own defenses, our economy, and anything else we need to, and make sure everyone in the Mideast understands that if anyone should not leave us alone and attack us, we'll attack back - and indeed spare no one in doing so.

 

There's no easy way out, so we can only do what's best for ourselves right now. And also learn a lesson about not getting involved with other nations' affairs in the future.

I agree. We should have listened to Washington.

 

It's a Kobiyashi Maru as I see it, but there's no way to hack the holodeck to get a winning ending.

 

Hack the people?

[Asimov]

Two possible ways. One would be to conquer the entire region and enforce peace between the two groups. It's unfeasible though because no army is big enough and it would probably temporarily unite the entire middle east until the threat was gone, then it would degenerate into a shitfest again.

 

The other is to step back and let them fight amongst themselves until they've had enough bloodshed or one kills the other.

 

So far talking isn't working.

 

I don't see any of the above happening anytime soon.

 

 

No, but that's not the point. The point is that we put too much time and effort into a useless war.

[Vigile]

And we will continue to do so as long as we let interest groups have lobby access to our governement pressuring officials to act in such a way that is not in our own best interests. The same can be said of Cuba.