Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

There were a handful of "Palestinians" there at the time the UN carved out a small county-sized area to be the Nation of Israel. There has not been time for that small group to have produced the Palestinian population that is there now.

Foxfyre wrote:

There were a handful of "Palestinians" there at the time the UN carved out a small county-sized area to be the Nation of Israel. There has not been time for that small group to have produced the Palestinian population that is there now.

So where did they come from?

Foxy, I can never tell whether you are in favor or against the UN. Sometimes you them to back up your claims, sometimes you attack them squarely.

However, you do realize that under the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Palestine was to be divided into two states of approximately equal size, one for Jews and one for the Palestinians? And you are aware that following the war of 1948, according to the UN 711,000 Palestinian Arabs left the region? Of course, the Israeli estimate of the refugees is 520,000 and the Palestinian estimate is 900,000.

But then, those numbers (of refugees, mind you) are clearly in the face of your argument that the region was almost unpopulated before the creation of the state of Israel.

old europe wrote:

Foxy, I can never tell whether you are in favor or against the UN. Sometimes you them to back up your claims, sometimes you attack them squarely.

However, you do realize that under the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Palestine was to be divided into two states of approximately equal size, one for Jews and one for the Palestinians? And you are aware that following the war of 1948, according to the UN 711,000 Palestinian Arabs left the region? Of course, the Israeli estimate of the refugees is 520,000 and the Palestinian estimate is 900,000.

But then, those numbers (of refugees, mind you) are clearly in the face of your argument that the region was almost unpopulated before the creation of the state of Israel.

Yes, you are right. I was thinking of times before 1947, but that is a different story and I was incorrect in my timeline. (I am NOT well versed on 20th Century Middle Eastern history.) As for my opinion of the UN, we would have to cover almost 50 years of my awareness of the UN for a decision on that. At the present time I think it is a mostly toothless and corrupt organization. Fifty years ago it did better though it was flawed from its inception.

Since you agree with OE regarding how many Palestinians were in the area at the time of the creation of the state of Israel at what point do you think insurgents were planted in that area to be make Israel miserable?

It is my opinion that the majority of the Palestinians are in fact militant insurgents planted in that area precisely for the purpose of making Israel's life miserable. ...But I know honest, educated Americans who are squarely in sympathy with the Palestinians on that issue. They aren't there and the only thing they have to influence their opinions is what they see on TV, read in the papers, or see on the internet. Look how many people post on these message boards an opinion that the terrorists are simply freedom fighters defending their homeland in the only way they know how

Foxfyre wrote:

It is my opinion that the majority of the Palestinians are in fact militant insurgents planted in that area precisely for the purpose of making Israel's life miserable. ...But I know honest, educated Americans who are squarely in sympathy with the Palestinians on that issue. They aren't there and the only thing they have to influence their opinions is what they see on TV, read in the papers, or see on the internet. Look how many people post on these message boards an opinion that the terrorists are simply freedom fighters defending their homeland in the only way they know how

just for the sake of a devil's advocacy here, is it not true that the same can be said about any news or information that we get second hand absent of our personal on-site presence and observation ?

in other words, the administration constantly refers to the iraqi insurgence as "terrorists" as opposed to "freedom fighters" or "the iraqi resistance".

but how do you, without being there know with certainty that's the truth of the situation ?

you don't really, do you ?

it is, rather, what you believe to be the truth. BIG difference.

so really, it gets down to a question of at what point do you simply have to take the information at face value, weigh it using what ever empirical baselines you have and go from there.

part of that empirical baseline needs to be the consideration of the source, right ?

an example being that the delivery of information as broadcast by fox news will generally be of a different perspective than the way the same information is presented by msnbc. msnbc's delivery is different than cnn.

for myself, i try to get as many pov's as i can on a subject, look for similarities as well as disparities, use the baselines and work from that.

since we cannot be everywhere at once (how can you be in 2 places at once when you aren't anyplace at all ?? thanx f.t. !), we have no choice but to trust, but verify.

In Iraq...the majority of people are going about their daily prayers, marketing, jobs, schools, and tending their gardens and are hurting nobody. A small group of angry hostiles are blowing up the mosques, police stations, markets, and groups of the peaceful people. One side is trying to make it work. One side is on record as trying to prevent that...

since you mention that you mostly trust the u.s. military for the truth, i'd like to get your opinion on the discrepancies in what we here from the actual commanders and the pov offered by the white house sources.

There seems to be a disconnect in your thinking here Finn, that is frankly, un-Finn like. At Auschwitz, some of the condemned Jews actually assisted the Nazi's in hope of living just a little longer. The instinct for self-preservation is pretty damn strong in us humans. I suspect that more than a few Nazi's were Nazi's for the exact same reason. Guys like Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il etc. are not of the sort you want to cross. Crucify perhaps, but not cross. I think we'd all like to believe as individuals that we would never succumb to fear in such a situation but I for one am grateful that my medal has never been tested in such a way.

Indeed. I previously made a point that the majority of a tyrant's followers do so for reasons other than blind fanatacism, and, I contend, this applies to the followers of religion based tyrants as well.

Do you contend that belief in a rewarding Afterlife wouldn't make it easier for a man to overcome his instinct for self preservation? I'm not talking black and white here. Isn't it reasonable (perhaps even undeniably so) to suggest that the stronger a man's belief that he's going to heaven, the easier it is on his psyche to cross the proverbial bridge?

Of course it would be, but so would the promise that his family would be well rewarded, the expectation that he will become part of heroic legend or the belief that his death can accomplish far more than his life ever could.

In the case of the suicide bomber; you have an extreme example of a man overcoming his instinct for self preservation. Is it not, at least, a little easier to do so with a belief (with any amount of conviction) of a belief of the promised land… especially if you believe your actions will help you gain admission?

(Sighting examples of non-theist suicide attacks does not answer or even apply to these questions. My point is a matter of likelihood, not possibility. Sighting examples of good deeds perpetrated by the faithful is equally irrelevant. I'm not bashing religion or the religious; I'm trying to illustrate a dangerous side-effect.)

Suicide attackers are a relatively rare, albeit powerfully dramatic, example of extremism. That there have been conspicuous examples of secular suicide attackers (Kamikaze pilots and Tamil Tigers to name two) is relevant because it proves that religion is not the only ideology which can produce people who will give up their lives for the cause.

Now, one could argue the suicide bomber is the most extreme example of sacrificing oneself to the cause of the collective. Now let's look at degrees. I would argue that simple murder of innocents on behalf of the collective is a lesser example of one sacrificing his own beliefs for the good of the collective. Not quite as tall of a hurdle as suicide bombing, but a hurdle for your average man just the same. Now, once again: Is it not, at least, a little easier to do so with a belief (with any amount of conviction) of a promised land… especially if you believe your actions will help you gain admission?

There certainly has been no shortage of people willing to murder innocents in the name of religion. My argument is not that religion has never been used to support evil deeds, just that it is no more effective a framework for tyrants to enthrall followers than any other ism.

Only religion can offer post-death rewards or punishment to the individual. No ism can.

Not so in the sense of what might motivate someone to kill himself for the cause. That people have done so for secular causes is proof that earthly rewards can be as powerful a motivation as those said to be available in an after-life. You seem, in the preceding and the following to be suggesting that secular sacrifice is selfless while religious is sacrifice is personally selfish. Here again, I don't think there is any real distinction to be made between the two. The young Palestinian who blows himself up because he imagines that after his death his friends and neighbors will shoot guns in the air and declare him a hero, is every bit as selfish as the one who blows himself up because he believes will provide entry to paradise.

A man can sacrifice himself by stepping in front of a bullet to save his friend. A pilot can run his aircraft into Pearl Harbor in hopes of saving his Country. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't find religion a necessary element to such behavior. It's a question of likelihood. Given a year to plan; to step in front of that bullet, or ram your plane into Pearl Harbor; would it not be at least a little easier to do so with a belief (with any amount of conviction) of a Promised Land? Now factor in a belief that such an action will increase the likelihood of your admittance to that Promised Land.

Doesn't the likelihood in each of the above scenarios increase with such beliefs? This is just one advantage religion has over any ism, when led by the charismatic fanatic.

Yes, if two people are considering killing themselves for a cause, if one of them truly believes that doing so is a ticket to heaven, it will be easier for that person to detonate the vest of dynamite. The implication of your argument though is that this is some hugely significant advantage for a religious tyrant as opposed to a secular tyrant, and this just isn't the case.
I don't know how Hitler, Stalin or Mao tse Tung could have been more successful in terms of enthralling nations and influencing citizens to do horrible things.

God's will is far more compelling than the Furor's or Dear Leader's because He can make promises and threats the others cannot.

This is clearly not the case. First because it is only the rare fanatic who is motivated to action based soley on his perception of God's will, and secondly because both Hitler and Stalin managed to amass an undeniably large and effective support structure not only without the need for promises or threats in the afterlife, but in spite of the spiritual promises and threats of their opponents.

It may be comforting, for some, to think that there is a force outside of human nature that can cause us to engage in or tolerate unspeakable acts, but that is not the case. Not religion, nor nationalism, nor communisim, nor any other ism is responsible for the evil deeds of men. Men are. What is proven by history is not that there is one particular framework (religion) that is superior to all others in providing cover for the evil, but that they are numerous and varied, and the only real constant is lust for power.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Clearly, the billions of people who found themselves subject to communist rule did not joyously subscribe to the actions of Stalin or Mao. The point, of course, is that neither did the masses who have found themselves subject to religious rule.

Ignoring all the snottiness which preceded this--something it appears that you are unable to argue without puking up all over a thread--you are still wrong.

This from someone who began our exchange with "As for Finn's horseshit--." Please spare me your ridiculous attempt to present yourself as the voice of civility.

The Franks who went on crusade were not subject to religious rule as the people of the Soviet empire were subject to Stalin's rule. They went on crusade because they were duped by religious doctrine. A handful of their leaders had venal agendae of self-agrandizement and self-enrichment, the rest of the fools who went to the various crusades participated because of principles which were central to their world view. You have completely failed to make a case that there ever were a class of people who were "subject to religious rule" who were lead astray against their collective will.

The Franks who went on crusade, are not the historical equivalent of the people of the Soviet Empire. One would think that someone who takes such pride in his expertise in history would appreciate this. Reread my statement which you felt compelled to quote: "The point, of course, is that neither did the masses who have found themselves subject to religious rule." Even assuming that Medieval Europe can be described as a theocracy (an absurd assumption at that) the masses didn't embark on Crusades.

Moreover, if you believe that only a handful of Crusaders marched off to the Holy Lands for personal reasons rather than for some absolute sense of defending the faith, then you may be good with dates but you don't know much about history, or human nature.

For two millenia, christianity has been a plague on humanity. From humble origins it rose within a few centuries to become the dominant religion of the dominant political organization of its day--the Roman Empire. The pre-christian empire had an official state religion, but adherence sat lightly on the shoulders of the people of the empire, who were free to follow any creed, as long as they had paid lip-service to the state religion. Christianity changed all of that. In the finest tradition of Abrahamic intolerance, both the Christians and the Muslims have tolerated no religious dissent.

Not only were European christians not subject to religious rule, those who did rule them fought for centuries, and successfully, to prevent the ecclesiastic authorities from asserting any control over secular matters.

Well at least we agree on one point, and yet you insist on offering Medieval Europe as an example of the effectiveness of the religious framework for tyrants.

The point is not about "isms," it's about the fanaticism which lies just beneath the surface of organized religions. Fascism and communism may come an go, but organized religion is here for the long haul, and in those versions of it which have come out of the middle east--Judaism, Christianity and Islam--the potential for diasterous consequences based upon unquestioning adherence to the dogmatic superstition is enormous.

What utter and biased tripe. Fanaticism lies just below the surface of any body of thought to which man ascribes significant importance. It is entirely possible that within the next 100 years (hardly a historical eon) the grip of religion on human thought and action will be a minor consideration. Do you really think that if this is the case, that we will find ourselves in a Golden Age where all men and women can live together in peace?

Western Europe, perhaps more than other region on earth, has moved well away from whatever constraints religion may place upon the people. The Crusaders are now anything but. Is there any reason to believe that they have freed themselves from the consequences of human frailty?

You display a fine ignorance of history, and an eager willingness to make simplistic statements for the purpose of supporting your argument. You display no ability to substantiate the vague generalizations and oversimplifications which underlie your case.

Blow it out your Pomeranian ass, you supercilious twit. Debate the issues, if you can, and save the bile for when your pooch pees on the rug.

Finn wrote

Quote:

It is, I think, foolish, and dangerous to attempt to exempt individuals from accountability for their evil by focusing on a particular ism.

If you had your way and religion was wiped from the face of the earth, do you really believe that evil would be as well?

I will sum it up in a few words.
The evil men [regimes] do dies with [it/them]. While the evil of religion never does. For as long as religion exists with it's divisive beliefs and fanatical followers religion will continue to be th irritant that causes conflict between people and nations.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Only religion can offer post-death rewards or punishment to the individual. No ism can.

bingo.

isms are limited in the promise of benefit to this life, this world, this time.

Yes, if two people are considering killing themselves for a cause, if one of them truly believes that doing so is a ticket to heaven, it will be easier for that person to detonate the vest of dynamite.

The implication of your argument though is that this is some hugely significant advantage for a religious tyrant as opposed to a secular tyrant, and this just isn't the case.

I don't know how Hitler, Stalin or Mao tse Tung could have been more successful in terms of enthralling nations and influencing citizens to do horrible things.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

God's will is far more compelling than the Furor's or Dear Leader's because He can make promises and threats the others cannot.

This is clearly not the case. First because it is only the rare fanatic who is motivated to action based soley on his perception of God's will, and secondly because both Hitler and Stalin managed to amass an undeniably large and effective support structure not only without the need for promises or threats in the afterlife, but in spite of the spiritual promises and threats of their opponents.

It may be comforting, for some, to think that there is a force outside of human nature that can cause us to engage in or tolerate unspeakable acts, but that is not the case. Not religion, nor nationalism, nor communisim, nor any other ism is responsible for the evil deeds of men. Men are.

I don't know how Hitler, Stalin or Mao tse Tung could have been more successful in terms of enthralling nations and influencing citizens to do horrible things.
Sure you do. They could have succeeded. More over, they could have permanently changed the minds of sufficient numbers to have their movements become… a religion.

The only thing religion can persuade better than other isms is the killing of oneself for a cause (and this seems to be limited to Muslim extremists). Men don't need a promise of heaven to kill others.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I don't know how Hitler, Stalin or Mao tse Tung could have been more successful in terms of enthralling nations and influencing citizens to do horrible things.
Sure you do. They could have succeeded. More over, they could have permanently changed the minds of sufficient numbers to have their movements become… a religion.

They did, and they did.