Israel: The Double Standard

The Real Wizard wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

the person I spoke with insisted Israel had the right and the obligation to destroy all threats to itself by any means possible - to hell with the death of innocents, to hell with history showing their method a failure.

Genuine question - when is the last time such blind allegiance has been seen in human history? North Korea doesn't count, because North Koreans don't have access to information outside of what their government wants them to see. Can't say that about the (apparently) civilized world.

Lovely to see you here again.

Thank you. :-) I do pop in now and again, though not as much as before. Life, you know?

I don't have an answer to your question except to say I'm not sure it's blind allegiance as much as extreme arrogance. There are some - not to point fingers but they're usually Fox News addicts - who equate all Palestinians with Hamas, who see all Muslims as an enemy to be destroyed. They lack the ability to understand that saying Israel is wrong for killing so many civilians is not the same as saying Israel has no right to defend itself from terrorists. Though the latter is what they hear. I don't know why that is. We are so fortunate to live in a place where we have access to all sorts of information, yet some prefer the filtered version. Maybe it's easier to let others do the thinking for them. Then all they have to do is get mad.

brENsKi wrote:

Zamidoo wrote:Respectfully (and I mean that - I'm not being sarcastic), I don't think that this is strictly accurate. Religion is involved, certainly, but it isn't a simple case of one religion against another, like neighbours with opposing ideological beliefs arguing over a flower border. The root of all evil is money (and therefore power), not religion, and in this case one side seems to have it all.

sorry. have to disagree. religion was the cause of many more wars and disputes than money ever was. sure money becomes an issue some way down the line - when people forget what they are arguing about - and who's funding which cause start to chase their investments, but initially and fundamentally, it's belief.
belief, and God (of one sort or another) is the biggest cause of national and international dispute almost anywhere,... unfortunately mankind does more damage in the name of God than it does under any other umbrella.

I don't deny that many arguments have been caused by religious disagreement, and that many of these arguments have led to violence, and, in extreme cases, wars. However, I do not agree that religion is the fundamental cause. People may use religion to justify their actions, but it isn't the root of the problem. If it were, all atheists would be pacifists. But I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I see brenski can't resist having a dig at me. Funny, that really lowers my desire for apologizing to you for being 'patronizing'. Wonder why that would be...

On topic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715466/Israeli-official-calls-concentration-camps-Gaza-conquest-entire-Gaza-Strip-annihilation-fighting-forces-supporters.html#ixzz39VemHYcA

http://www.knack.be/nieuws/wereld/oproep-gaza-belgische-politici-sla-hard-op-tafel-wie-wegkijkt-bij-genocide-is-medeplichtig/article-opinion-269083.html (Dutch-language Belgian source)

This is not civilization. If you support this, you don't qualify as a human being.

http://www.knack.be/medias/3057/1565209.jpg

Zamidoo wrote:People may use religion to justify their actions, but it isn't the root of the problem. If it were, all atheists would be pacifists. But I'm happy to agree to disagree.

that's it exactly. People using Religion as an excuse for their actions is Religion being responsible...can't you see that.

And as for Atheists being pacifists - that is a silly things to say. Not believing in something does not make you ambivalent or unaffected by the thoughts/words and deeds of believers....people can disbelieve as strongly as believers believe...

here's some examples of warmongers/haters/persecutors who didn't follow any religious belief or were particularly anti-religion at the time they carried out their attrocities.
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin
Mao Tse Dong

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: This is not civilization. If you support this, you don't qualify as a human being. 

where did I say that?
but conversely, I suppose you support Hamas launching rockets from schools and public buildings? and Hamas using children as human shields?
All I have said ALL ALONG is that there are two very distinct sides to this issue...YOU are blinkered to only one. which is why you continue to patronize. 

Despite holding different views - we should be able to discuss without levelling to attacks and posturing. I don't intend to discuss with someone who hasn't the decency to apologise when they talk down and patronize.  
You want intelligent conversation? then why not ask me about my experiences? You've got all YOU knowledge from textbooks - what about some actual real life experience of these subjects?

I'll leave you with this (from one of my favourite writers)

Nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.

Everybody who is incapable of learning has taken to teaching.

brENsKi wrote:

And as for Atheists being pacifists - that is a silly things to say. Not believing in something does not make you ambivalent or unaffected by the thoughts/words and deeds of believers....people can disbelieve as strongly as believers believe...

Let's leave it - we're obviously talking at cross purposes.

brENsKi wrote:

Zamidoo wrote:People may use religion to justify their actions, but it isn't the root of the problem. If it were, all atheists would be pacifists. But I'm happy to agree to disagree.

that's it exactly. People using Religion as an excuse for their actions is Religion being responsible...can't you see that.

And as for Atheists being pacifists - that is a silly things to say. Not believing in something does not make you ambivalent or unaffected by the thoughts/words and deeds of believers....people can disbelieve as strongly as believers believe...

here's some examples of warmongers/haters/persecutors who didn't follow any religious belief or were particularly anti-religion at the time they carried out their attrocities.
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin
Mao Tse Dong

The Atheism = pacifism fallacy aside: neither Hitler nor Stalin belongs in that list. Hitler was a church-going Catholic, who notably disapproved of the dabbling in 'paganism' of subordinates like Himmler and who got on quite well with the conservative Catholic leaders in Germany. Notably, it was their party, the Centre Party, which got Hitler in power in 1932. Contrary to popular belief, the nazi party did not get a majority, simply a plurality, in those elections.

Stalin was actually being trained as an orthodox priest before he got kicked out and joined the communists out of spite more than ideology, according to reports from people who knew him.

brENsKi wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: This is not civilization. If you support this, you don't qualify as a human being. 

where did I say that?
but conversely, I suppose you support Hamas launching rockets from schools and public buildings? and Hamas using children as human shields?

1) that was not directed at you personally, it was a comment on the article to which I linked directly before the photo to which I added that comment.

2) Where do you get the insane idea from that I support Hamas in any way? I don't. They're part of the problem. Just because I don't think the Israeli government is part of the solution either it doesn't mean I like Hamas. Hamas and Shas are essentially the same thing with a different title for their god and their holy book, and I loathe both.

What I hate most about the state of Israel is how it turns pretty much every single boy and girl into a soldier as soon as they become adults - the same thing Hamas wants to do with the children in Palestine.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

brENsKi wrote:

here's some examples of warmongers/haters/persecutors who didn't follow any religious belief or were particularly anti-religion at the time they carried out their attrocities.
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin
Mao Tse Dong

The Atheism = pacifism fallacy aside: neither Hitler nor Stalin belongs in that list. Hitler was a church-going Catholic, who notably disapproved of the dabbling in 'paganism' of subordinates like Himmler and who got on quite well with the conservative Catholic leaders in Germany. Notably, it was their party, the Centre Party, which got Hitler in power in 1932. Contrary to popular belief, the nazi party did not get a majority, simply a plurality, in those elections.

Stalin was actually being trained as an orthodox priest before he got kicked out and joined the communists out of spite more than ideology, according to reports from people who knew him.

I never said either were not religious to start with did i? stop talking at me like I'm a fool.
You definitely feel a sense of superiority don't you? otherwise, why correct something that is patently NOT incorrect? - for YOUR info: I've now highlighted my original text so you can see you are basically correcting nothing. otherwise, people round here will assume you were right and i was wrong.

bet you don't come back and say "oh yeah, sorry brenski" - not your style is it?

"were not religious" and "didn't follow any religious belief or were particularly anti-religion" are two very similar concepts, aren't they? When you posted that list, which is, coincidentally of course, the same list of supposedly 'atheist mass-murderers' Christian fundamentalists like to use, you were using it as a CONTRAST to religious mass murder. Therefore, it is relevant to point out that both Hitler and Stalin were themselves religious.

I was perfectly willing to apologize for what you perceived as a patronizing tone until I read your "Casper would be surprised to learn that this was one of those experiences that teaches you more than history ever could."-jab. That was so petty I immediately lost all desire to engage in further conversation with you, which is basically how I feel now. I've stuck up for you being a jerk on this forum before, but I'm starting to wonder why.

Anyway, good job distracting from the deputy speaker of the Knesset calling for the establishment of concentration camps to house the population of Gaza until they can be deported and from the huge number of Belgian intellectuals taking a stand against mass-murder, something you still won't condemn. Are you one of those "for the greater good" people now?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

"were not religious" and "didn't follow any religious belief or were particularly anti-religion" are two very similar concepts, aren't they? When you posted that list, which is, coincidentally of course, the same list of supposedly 'atheist mass-murderers' Christian fundamentalists like to use, you were using it as a CONTRAST to religious mass murder. Therefore, it is relevant to point out that both Hitler and Stalin were themselves religious.

I was perfectly willing to apologize for what you perceived as a patronizing tone until I read your "Casper would be surprised to learn that this was one of those experiences that teaches you more than history ever could."-jab. That was so petty I immediately lost all desire to engage in further conversation with you, which is basically how I feel now. I've stuck up for you being a jerk on this forum before, but I'm starting to wonder why.

Anyway, good job distracting from the deputy speaker of the Knesset calling for the establishment of concentration camps to house the population of Gaza until they can be deported and from the huge number of Belgian intellectuals taking a stand against mass-murder, something you still won't condemn. Are you one of those "for the greater good" people now?

Thomas Hitler and Stalin were atheist hitler hated the Catholic church and wanted to kidnap Pius the twelfth and stalin wanted to destroy the russian orthodox church but only tolerated it when ww2 began to get the Russian peoples support.

That's not actually true. The "kidnap Pius XII" story is a fabrication, told by SS general Karl Wolff at Nuremberg to save his skin. There are literally NO other sources for this story. Hitler didn't hate the Catholic church, he was helped into power *by the Roman Catholic political party*. He later repressed progressive Catholics who resisted, but the conservative Catholic establishment, notably in Bavaria, was among his staunchest allies. Stalin's desire to destroy the Russian Orthodox church is likewise less than historical. The repression of the Russian Orthodox church had been official policy in the Soviet Union from the start, since the patriarch had declared the communist party anathema in 1918. Stalin did nothing to stop persecution, but likewise did nothing to further it as the subject does not seem to have interested him particularly: he was principally concerned with (not entirely imaginary) treason in the officer corps and foreign plots to overthrow him. Persecution of the Russian Orthodox church did not start again until Krushchev's rule (1959 to be exact).

^^^^
Stalin didn't hate the orthodox church? Then why are the bones of Russian priests killed by the soviets littering fields in the former soviet union. As for his holiness Pius XII he stilled opposed the nazis so get your facts straight

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: "were not religious" and "didn't follow any religious belief or were particularly anti-religion" are two very similar concepts, aren't they? 

that isn't what is said. stop misquoting me - i said: 
here's some examples of warmongers/haters/persecutors who didn't follow any religious belief or were particularly anti-religion at the time they carried out their attrocities.  

the point being that i was making a clear distinction that some of the list didn't have a religious belief and others were particularly anti-religion when they committed their attrocities. the f*cking key word is the f*cking great "OR" in the middle of the sentence. ie - that some didn't follow a belief, while others did - but were anti-religion at that time, despite their own beliefs. capiche?
what is it with you? why can't you actually read what i type instead of telling me what i mean?

definitely time to back out of this one - no point trying to discuss anything with someone who's intent on telling me what i said or meant - when YOU're wrong on BOTH counts.