Zionists must be happy

Page 2 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Khan_Sama
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 882
Location: New Human Empire

22 Jan 2009, 12:08 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

You just mentioned the z word.

Please... could we be serious now?

Anyway, of course the massacres are bad. But really, Zionists? What's next? Illuminati?

Zionism is a reality, while illuminati is a theory. Israel's very foundation is Zionism. A majority of Israeli politicians are openly Zionists. Denying Zionism's influence in Israeli politics is like denying that the Communist Party of China is theoretically Maoist.

monty wrote:

Meanwhile, Israel (which has been described as a bastion of democracy) has stripped its Arab citizens of the rights to have candidates in the next Israeli election. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html

Approximately 25% of Arab-Israelis are against Israel's right to exist. Arab citizens of Israel make up 15% of Israel's population. East Jerusalem is very much pro-Israel. Those two parties do not represent a majority view. However, I do agree, it does go against freedom of expression.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

22 Jan 2009, 2:30 pm

Rafter613 wrote:

Saying that it is unfair for Israel to retaliate even with disproportionate strength is unfair.

You are welcome to think that, but proportionality is essential to most theories of a "just war." Perhaps you are a proponent of unjust wars?

Here are the conditions of a just war according to the most commonly accepted theory:

Quote:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

The only way that you can support a non-proportional response is if you discount the value of innocent Palestinian life; perhaps they are sub-human to you? Or is the death of one innocent Palestinian just as tragic as the death of one innocent Israeli? If all innocent life is equally valuable, you must accept the fact that the IDF is a bigger and worse killer than Hamas.

Also, as mentioned before, game theory indicates that when response is not proportional, such action leads to escalation of violence and more suffering - which I consider immoral. A variation of the 'tit-for-tat' strategy, on the other hand, generally leads to greater security and peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jan 2009, 2:49 pm

monty wrote:

Rafter613 wrote:

Saying that it is unfair for Israel to retaliate even with disproportionate strength is unfair.

Quote:

If we had fought WW2 along the lines you suggest you would be speaking German and I would have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's sink.

In WW2 German civilians (including women and children) did not matter one little bit. Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris head of the RAF Bomber Command specifically targeted unarmed civilians (mostly workers) to disrupt German war production. His justification: He said that the Germans had sown the wind and in due course they would reap the whirlwind. So it was. Firestorms in Hamburg and Dresden. Total wreckage of the German infrastructure. Half a million civilian casualties. Tough luck. That is the nature of war. There is only one Law of Warfare. Win the War.

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his head off and pee down his neck.

ruveyn

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

22 Jan 2009, 3:11 pm

ruveyn wrote:

If we had fought WW2 along the lines you suggest you would be speaking German and I would have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's sink.

No. In WWII, the human cost of not acting would have been greater.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jan 2009, 3:23 pm

monty wrote:

Also, as mentioned before, game theory indicates that when response is not proportional, such action leads to escalation of violence and more suffering - which I consider immoral. A variation of the 'tit-for-tat' strategy, on the other hand, generally leads to greater security and peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

How about kill them all and let God count the bodies. With a big enough tit there is no tat. You will notice that after we nuked two major Japanese cities we got no more trouble from the Japanese of a military nature. They trod on the paths of righteousness and prospered thereby.

ruveyn

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

22 Jan 2009, 3:36 pm

ruveyn wrote:

You have a strange take on God and religion.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jan 2009, 5:17 pm

monty wrote:

xxx

You have a strange take on God and religion.

That I do. And it is original.

ruveyn

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

22 Jan 2009, 5:38 pm

Not really original, as far as I can see - the notion of "kill them all and let God sort them out" is not new; it is a common justification for those ordered to kill, or those who want to kill. It is a way of denying one's moral agency.

And your comment on treading the path of righteousness makes no sense what so ever.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jan 2009, 5:46 pm

monty wrote:

Several of the guidance systems I have designed have brought missiles to my enemies - those who threaten me, my family and my countrymen. I have scalps on my belt and I am proud of each and every one.

To a friend be a friend.
To a neutral be polite
To an enemy be an enemy

and take no prisoners.

That is my version of moral agency.

Conan the Barbarian says it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI

ruveyn

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jan 2009, 6:34 pm

That's some kind of tough-talk you've got there, ruveyn. :roll:

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

22 Jan 2009, 7:29 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

You just mentioned the z word.

Please... could we be serious now?

Anyway, of course the massacres are bad. But really, Zionists? What's next? Illuminati?

Zionist unlike the Illuminati are a historical group (unless you are talking about the Bavarian group who formed in 1776). They had their first recorded meeting in 1897 and decided in 1906 that Palestine should be the Jewish homeland, they continue to this day, check your facts before you make derogatory comments

You just said it, the Illuminati are also a historical group, that doesn't make the conspiracy theorism any less ridiculous. Both groups are death right now.

Quote:

If we had fought WW2 along the lines you suggest you would be speaking German and I would have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's sink.

Or who knows, maybe WW2 would have ended correctly, we wouldn't have entered years of paranoia and would be freer, of course, it is easy to just assume what would have happened and use the silly assumption in an argument.

_________________
.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jan 2009, 2:19 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

You just mentioned the z word.

Please... could we be serious now?

Anyway, of course the massacres are bad. But really, Zionists? What's next? Illuminati?

You just said it, the Illuminati are also a historical group, that doesn't make the conspiracy theorism any less ridiculous. Both groups are death right now.

Not quite the Bavarian version is believed to be long defunct, the conspiracy is that it has survived and grown into a global cabal. Zionism has been alive and well since 1897 and Zionists are very conspicuous today, the existence of Zionism is not conspiracy theory.

Also could you do me a favour and edit the second quote so that it does not appear to be attributable to me, thanks

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

23 Jan 2009, 10:11 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

Not quite the Bavarian version is believed to be long defunct ...

That's what they want you to believe.

DentArthurDent wrote:

Zionism has been alive and well since 1897 and Zionists are very conspicuous today, the existence of Zionism is not conspiracy theory.

You seem to equate conspiracy with myth or delusion. Zionism is a political/religious/nationalist movement that is out in the open. It is a conspiracy, how ever, which means to "con-spire" , to breathe together, to be of the same energy. The Republican and Democratic Parties are both con-spire-acies, as are all countries, along with the Rotary Clubs and the Boy Scouts.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

23 Jan 2009, 10:15 am

Who do the Boy Scouts conspire against?

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

23 Jan 2009, 10:22 am

slowmutant wrote:

Who do the Boy Scouts conspire against?

Why do you think that a conspiracy must be against anything? Any time people come together in common purpose, they breathe together or 'con-spire'. The base definition of conspire is: "to act or work together toward the same result or goal." The word has become colored with secrecy and evil and conflict, but that is related to associations and common use, not to the meaning of the word. The word conspire is no more shady than the word inspire - which means breathe in, to stoke the fires (of life, creativity, or any thing else).

Rafter613
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 96

23 Jan 2009, 11:52 am

Quote:

I did not say that the IDF is not the bigger killer. In fact I believe I admitted that. However what I said is that people are NOT completely logical. They don't think, 'well, by dying I can save two people who are trying to kill me from dying, and 2>1, so I should curl up now.' Expecting the IDF to value the other side's people more then themselves is unrealistic, as is the concept of a 'just war'. War is fought in order to make the other side go away, whether because they attacked you or because you want their land. It is not fought to 'even the scales' and make sure that they loose as much as you do. It is very easy to say 'oh, the IDF is so horrible because they hurt civilians' when you aren't in the battle, when the rockets aren't dropping near your house, then it's easy to say that they should fight fair. But you don't see America saying 'well, we killed more Arabs then we lost during 9/11, let's go home' now do you?

_________________
Humans: Proof against intelligent design.
"There is no law or ordinance greater then understanding" -Plato
"Repeat after me: Morality pays poorly"-Sergent Schlock

Page 2 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Zionists must be happy Post Reply New Topic

Zionists must be happy