Know thine enemy...

[sjhipple]

imported post

marine dad wrote:

They want their old country, old land, old farmsback that was confiscated from them after WWII.

and the jews want their old country, old land, and old farms back that were confiscated from them in 168b.c.

I love when this happens!!!

We have boiled the discussion down to what is really the only point at issue. Both sides have a claim to the land. Whose claim is greater? Whose claims hould prevail? I have multiple arguments on both sides about who holds the greater claim, but I'd like to note this progress.

The main problem I have is that regarding the disagreement summarized above, I don't think the USA has any right to declare itself the abiter.

 

[swillden]

imported post

Legba wrote:

In connection with the original context of the thread, I would point out that this conflict is fought by people of faith on both sides. I can't think of a war that was started by avowed atheists offhand.

Can you think of an atheist state? The only reason wars started by atheists are rare in history is that atheists are rare in history. The only atheist states I can think of are the communist nations of the last century, and they haven't been particularly peaceful.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

Come to think of it, in the Israel-Palestine land claims, even if we take the Old Testament at face value, didn't the Israelites displace other peoples when they moved into the region of modern-day Israel? So, then, even according to that religion's texts, it was the Canaanites' land first. Let's find those Canaanites' descendents and give them the land of Israel, since they had it first...

swillden, you bring up a good point with communist nations' being atheist. However, it seems to me that they didn't really engage in too many wars. True, there was a desire within, oh, the Soviet Union, to eventually take over the world, but they really seemed to be more isolationist than anything. Also given how the Soviet Union pulled out of WWI once communists came to power, and the fact that WW2 was more of a defensive war for them than anything, and that the Cold War was, well, cold, and fought against a proclaimed Christian power, I'd say that the few examples we have of atheist nations do tend to stay away from outward warfare. That doesn't go to say that they treated their citizens well, but that's another issue entirely.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Come to think of it, in the Israel-Palestine land claims, even if we take the Old Testament at face value, didn't the Israelites displace other peoples when they moved into the region of modern-day Israel? So, then, even according to that religion's texts, it was the Canaanites' land first. Let's find those Canaanites' descendents and give them the land of Israel, since they had it first...

QFT...this international arbiter thing is getting difficult.

swillden, you bring up a good point with communist nations' being atheist. However, it seems to me that they didn't really engage in too many wars. True, there was a desire within, oh, the Soviet Union, to eventually take over the world, but they really seemed to be more isolationist than anything. Also given how the Soviet Union pulled out of WWI once communists came to power, and the fact that WW2 was more of a defensive war for them than anything, and that the Cold War was, well, cold, and fought against a proclaimed Christian power, I'd say that the few examples we have of atheist nations do tend to stay away from outward warfare. That doesn't go to say that they treated their citizens well, but that's another issue entirely.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know enough to refute it, but I'm not sure that's true. I mean, the soviets occupied Afghanistan for years. That's when we taught Osama Bin Laden everything he needed to know about how to kill Americans.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Come to think of it, in the Israel-Palestine land claims, even if we take the Old Testament at face value, didn't the Israelites displace other peoples when they moved into the region of modern-day Israel? So, then, even according to that religion's texts, it was the Canaanites' land first. Let's find those Canaanites' descendents and give them the land of Israel, since they had it first...

The problem with that logic is that if all people were "given" back property they had previously, most of us would have to leave America because the natives were here first... It's the spoils of war. Nations have been, and will continue to, fight other nations for land, power, money, oil, women, food, etc.. It will never stop as long as man exists. I don't sympathize with the Palastinians.If you want someone to blame, go ahead and blame England for their role in the beginning or better yet, Nazi Germany, for their persecution of the Jews in the 1930's. What else were the Jews to do?

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

The last people that should be blamed are the U.S. as we have only been involved since the United Nations were given task to handle the situation from England.

If everyone "gave" back land they took or were given, it would sure change the landscape of the globe, and I am not sure it would be for the better. Look at the balkins... How would you go about dividing up that land?There is something to be said for survival of the fittest.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

snip
swillden, you bring up a good point with communist nations' being atheist. However, it seems to me that they didn't really engage in too many wars. True, there was a desire within, oh, the Soviet Union, to eventually take over the world, but they really seemed to be more isolationist than anything. Also given how the Soviet Union pulled out of WWI once communists came to power, and the fact that WW2 was more of a defensive war for them than anything, and that the Cold War was, well, cold, and fought against a proclaimed Christian power, I'd say that the few examples we have of atheist nations do tend to stay away from outward warfare. That doesn't go to say that they treated their citizens well, but that's another issue entirely.

Cold War is a misnomer, a term traced back to a political advisor, picked up and perpetuated and popularized by Walter Lippman in his 1947 book The Cold War. It would more accurately have been called a The Proxy War. Millions of people were killed in hot wars from 1945-1989. Many, and probably most, of those wars were proxy wars involving USSR, USA, GB, China and other powers. France fought the communists in Angola and Vietnam. Belgium fought socialist forces in the Congo. We could list them for days.

The atheistic communist governments were FAR from isolationist and continuously fomented armed revolution and warfare around the world. They most often did it the way we intervened in Vietnam pre-1965, but their soldiers, advisors, pilots, intelligence teams, weapons and mlitary support ran rampant in huge sections of the world. Their virulent expansion led to the domino theory, which led to justification for Korea and Vietnam. That didn't all occur because the communist were sitting home quietly drinking vodka and talking about how peaceful the world would be if the US just quit meddling in other country's affairs. Most of their lapses in proxy wars were during times they were busy slaughtering 20+ million of their own people for political expediency and convenience.

While the comments about the WWs are not wholly innaccurate (and I think part was misspoken) it is such a limited part of the facts that it is akin to stating that Charles Manson never killed anyone. I don't want to make this into a history dissertation. Not trying to bust your chops, just trying to help keep the facts straight.

 

[Legba]

imported post

swillden wrote:

Legba wrote:

In connection with the original context of the thread, I would point out that this conflict is fought by people of faith on both sides. I can't think of a war that was started by avowed atheists offhand.

Can you think of an atheist state? The only reason wars started by atheists are rare in history is that atheists are rare in history. The only atheist states I can think of are the communist nations of the last century, and they haven't been particularly peaceful.

Well, the United States has no official religion as far as that's concerned, and the incidence of atheism isn't particularly rare, except as official state policy.As for the communists, they haven't been any more bloodthirsty than the capitalists have. The human lust for (self-)destruction predates questions of economic theory.

-ljp

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

Legba wrote:

As for the communists, they haven't been any more bloodthirsty than the capitalists have. The human lust for (self-)destruction predates questions of economic theory.

-ljp

That's a bold statement. Not entirely disagreeing with you but I am curious to see what information you have to corraberate that line of reasoning...

 

[BobCav]

imported post

It's amazing how far humanity has actually fallen from grace andironic that the most spiritualof organizations make the greatest claims and have fought such wars killing each other overthe most material of all things - land! How very "Old Testament".

The only "land" I claimto posess is that whichis directly beneath me and only for that moment. All else is temporary at best. My home is not of this earth.

"Satan laughing spreads his wings..." (Black Sabbath - War Pigs)

 

[Legba]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Legba wrote:

As for the communists, they haven't been any more bloodthirsty than the capitalists have. The human lust for (self-)destruction predates questions of economic theory.

-ljp

That's a bold statement. Not entirely disagreeing with you but I am curious to see what information you have to corraberate that line of reasoning...

I considered it self-evident and notbold at all. The two World Wars ought to be sufficient examples. The Reds participated in the second, but only after they were invaded. Andlet's not forget Franco, Salazar, Popadopolous, the Brazilian and Argentine juntas, the Uruguayan repression of the Tupamaros, Sukarno, the Shah of Iran, etc. Right wingers like the taste of blood every bit as much as Stalin and Mao did.

-ljp

 

[expvideo]

imported post

To me, owning something for 1800 years makes it yours.

 

[Heartless_Conservative]

imported post

not to mention the crusades...

Yes, lets all feel bad about a series of wars which the Muslims both started and won; not to mentioned how those evil Christians got all upset about being raped, slaughtered, and enslaved by Muslim raiders prior and duringto said wars officially kicking off.



Bigots like you disgust me.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Dictators of any stripe are dangerous and tend to be bloodthirsty, their economic ideology aside.

 

[Erus]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

"Satan laughing spreads his wings..." (Black Sabbath - War Pigs)

You know, Bob.. you have quite the interesting musical sub-reference style.

I think I like it



Erus

 

[bohdi]

imported post

marine dad wrote:

well.

at this point i would like to say that i have enjoyed this thread. some played well, others didn't. some took their ball and went home.

although i am really jewish, i really couldn't care less about who is, or isn't, nor what anybody thinks about the israel/palestinian issue.

those are issue's that NONE of us know we're right on, so anybody's opinion is just that. an opinion.

i enjoy a good debate. if you engage me in debate, i will try my best to "cut your guts out" if i disagree with you.

you are free to do the exact same thing to me. i wont get mad, cry, or run home. hell, i'll probably laugh my ass off if you give me a good shot.

i spent 6 years with9 other guys getting together and having live exchanges just like this thread has been. only difference, we were all in one room. although we all cursed each other out many times, by the end of the day, we all had a meal and a few drinks together.

and couldn't wait for the next weeks get together. i guess i should realize i'm not with those guys here, and some don't appreciate my charming sarcastic wit and humor.

i apologize to all i have offended, and hope to offend you more.

shalom all

I for one am not offended at all by anyone's comments here, especially on this particular thread. Of the things that I find fascinating about history and wars is that for the better half of what we know as civilization there was a phrase used often or applied, though may not have necissarily been around all the time, "And to the victor the spoils"......Someone once told me that included destroying any account from the losing side of why they thought the conflict began to begin with, written or oral, only to be re-written by the winning side. Now I'm not sure if that's 100% true, but certainly possible.

Parts of history (pre 1600) I find like the game of "telephone", where sometimes the truth becomes muddled because thefacts get distorted over time. Harder to do in modern times, but possible to a point.Nearly impossible in today's world, but that all depends on how many people know about whatever event is going on. I find that religion is one of those things that everyone believes, feels, or has faith in their view as being the correct one. It's hard for me personally to believe in a story that was started so far back that the documentation may not be exactly accurate. The core messages are not bad: Be good, be nice to other people, and help those in need who cannot help themselves....I think that should be about all people need to be concerned about lol. We've got guns for everything else

 

[bohdi]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

It's amazing how far humanity has actually fallen from grace andironic that the most spiritualof organizations make the greatest claims and have fought such wars killing each other overthe most material of all things - land! How very "Old Testament".

The only "land" I claimto posess is that whichis directly beneath me and only for that moment. All else is temporary at best. My home is not of this earth.

"Satan laughing spreads his wings..." (Black Sabbath - War Pigs)

All hail Oz, lol. Leave it to a hopped up rock star to capture the moment and be used by a gun rights enthusist I like it....

 

[BobCav]

imported post

Hehe... I spent way to much time as a kid in front of the TV and listening to the music of the 70's!

 

[marine dad]

imported post

since this thread has died down a little, i took the time to do a little research. the first two links posted to supposedly "prove" that israel is committing genocide against the palestinians were links to articles written by a man named Ilan Pappe.

Pappe is jewish, was a proffesor at haifa, and was eventually forced to leave the university because of his anti-zionist views. here are some reviews of his work by fellow historians:



Critiquing Pappé's 2004 book, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, historian Benny Morris wrote in the New Republic:

'Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication. This book is awash with errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography. The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappe's historical methodology and his political proclivities. For those enamored with subjectivity and in thrall to historical relativism, a fact is not a fact and accuracy is unattainable'.






Pappés book contains many factual misrepresentations:



'Readers are told of events that never happened, such as the nonexistent May 1948 Tantura "massacre" or the expulsion of Arabs within twelve days of the partition resolution. They learn of political decisions that were never made, such as the Anglo-French 1912 plan for the occupation of Palestine or the contriving of 'a master plan to rid the future Jewish state of as many Palestinians as possible.' And they are misinformed about military and political developments, such as the rationale for the Balfour declaration . . .







In a review essay of "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," Seth J. Frantzman calls Pappe's work "a cynical exercise in manipulating evidence to fit an implausible thesis." Frantzman summarizes: "Pappe's book falls short, and it does so in a particularly damning way. He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evicence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring others."

so it would seem to me that one can find a cite to almost anything, but that doesn't make it true. there are always two sides to every story, and either side may be wrong or right.

m

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

My government has way more force and violence against me over my lifetime than all the Muslims of the world combined. The government is "thine enemy."

:uhoh:

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Back to the original posting, the enemy is not Islam. That religion, like others can be used for good or for bad. Religion, like your handgun is a tool. Religion is a much stronger tool. Power hungry people use religion to gain power. Greedy people use religion to become rich. Saintly people, like Mother Teressa, use religion to help their fellow man.

There is the potential for a clash of civilizations type struggle between the West and the Islamic states. You see the clash over things such as the cartoons in Danish newspapers. The enemy will not be Islam if this happens, but those that use Islam and Christianity to gain power and wealth.