15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:09 pm
Why would anyone bother? I can't demonstrate that there is no tooth fairy, but i don't sit up nights worrying about it, either.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:09 pm
So, do we assume everythng our minds can conjure exists, and seek to prove their non-existence, or should we assume nothing exists until we discover their existence?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:12 pm
Setanta wrote:
Actually, i do consider myself an atheist--to the extent that i know of no god, i am without god--atheist. But i don't assert that there is no god, i simply point out that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a god.

However, we have learned that logic is not one of Ican't's strong points, and that he is happy to proceed to sweeping pronouncements without a shred of evidence.


However,no one has ever demonstrated that there is NOT a God either.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:13 pm
Good question.

I have provided numerous links to support the statements i've been making, but all Ican't ever provides is opinion pieces from rightwing organs. I've even posted a link to a statement by the Director of Central Intelligence--Ican't has provided no links of any kind to support his point of view. What he calls rational is based upon assumptions for which he provides no evidence, and when he is contradicted, he cannot refute the information i've brought to show that he is wrong.

Kinda like a kid having a hyssy fit because you told him there is no Santa Claus.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:13 pm
candidone1 wrote:
So, do we assume everythng our minds can conjure exists, and seek to prove their non-existence, or should we assume nothing exists until we discover their existence?


Yes. Scientists have theorized that that can create very small black holes, plug in some very small particles and create a small universe very much like our own. They conjured this up and are in progress of trying to prove it.

Assuming nothing exists until we discover it's existance kind of ruins the need for an imagination, doesn't it? We'd be far, far behind where we are, technology, if we followed that idea.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:48 pm
Quote:
He offers an oversimplistic and simple-minded view of the middle east and of Muslims


I understand that Ican was merely trying to mock Setanta, but to see him write this about anyone else is truly and honestly the funniest thing I have read in weeks. Smile

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:53 pm
My religous doctrine is derived from the following:
Quote:
The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.


My religous doctrine is:
Quote:
I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, in that they are endowed by God with certain rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the people governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to secure these rights.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

To secure for me my rights endowed me by God, I must possess the right to defend myself effectively against those attempting to deny me one or more of my rights. Those people who are attempting to deny me or are denying me one or more of my rights, thereby forfeit those very rights originally endowed them by God that they seek to deny me.

The gift of my rights by God obligates me to attempt to help others secure these same rights, whenever anyone attempts to deny them these same rights.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 10:38 pm
Setanta wrote:
Actually, i do consider myself an atheist--to the extent that i know of no god, i am without god--atheist. But i don't assert that there is no god, i simply point out that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a god.

However, we have learned that logic is not one of Ican't's strong points, and that he is happy to proceed to sweeping pronouncements without a shred of evidence.


You are confusing agnostic with atheism.

Agnostic: person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists.
Atheist: belief that there is no God.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 09:42 am
GA Resolution: Israel must withdraw from E.J'lem, Golan

Decisive majority in UN General Assembly approves six pro-Palestinian resolutions, including calls for Israel to dismantle settlements, withdraw from territory captured in '67, including E. J'lem, Golan Heights despite heavy opposition by Israel, US
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3335043,00.html
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 10:05 am
blueflame1 wrote:
GA Resolution: Israel must withdraw from E.J'lem, Golan

Decisive majority in UN General Assembly approves six pro-Palestinian resolutions, including calls for Israel to dismantle settlements, withdraw from territory captured in '67, including E. J'lem, Golan Heights despite heavy opposition by Israel, US
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3335043,00.html


Why doesnt that same majority call for the Palestinians to stop their rocket attacks on Israel,to stop their suicide bomb attacks,to stop their killing of Israeli citizens?

When the UN does that,and enforces those resolutions,then they can make demands of Israel.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 10:47 am
pachelbel wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Actually, i do consider myself an atheist--to the extent that i know of no god, i am without god--atheist. But i don't assert that there is no god, i simply point out that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a god.

However, we have learned that logic is not one of Ican't's strong points, and that he is happy to proceed to sweeping pronouncements without a shred of evidence.


You are confusing agnostic with atheism.

Agnostic: person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists.
Atheist: belief that there is no God.


I am confusing nothing. There is more than one definition of atheist. I am without god, therefore i am an atheist. It is not axiomatic that an atheist denies that any deity exists. I certainly don't need to be dictated to by the likes of you on this, or any other subject.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 10:53 am
See definitions of atheism at Infidels-dot-org. By the claim at that site, i am what the Oxford English Dictionary would describe as "a weak atheist." Whether or not anyone wishes to consider that a pejorative is a matter of indifference to me. I am often willing to assert that there are no gods, but only to the extent that no one has ever satisfactorily demonstrated that there are any gods. A "strong agnostic" will assert that the circumstance is unknowable--i don't agree, i will always acknowledge the possibility that the case can be proven or disproven, but i am functionally atheist (without god), because i know of no one who has ever proven the case.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 11:05 am
To return to the topic of the thread:

Hezbollah has threatened for several months to topple the Lebanese government, which is seen (justifiably) as a U.S.-backed government. Syria only finally withdrew from the Lebanon last year, during what is now known as "the Cedar Revolution," widely seen both in the Muslim world, as well as in Europe, as a CIA-backed "coup" against government backers of Syria.

A major demonstration was launched yesterday:

Report from The Guardian (UK) on the Hezbollah-lead movement to topple the government.

A similar report from the Kuwait News Agency.

There are more than one thousand stories available online about this Hezbollah push to topple the government--the government so far has refused to cave-in to any of the Hezbollah demands.

The constitution of the Lebanon calls for proportional representation in the Parliament. Hezbollah has the problem that although they claim to represent Lebanese Shi'ites (and then, only the Twelver Shi'ites, but not the Sevener Shi'ites), they have never been able to get more than fractionally over 10% of the vote--most Shi'ites, Twelver or Sevener, vote for other parties. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party has been unexpectedly strong in parliamentary elections, and has provided an umbrella party for Sunnis and Shi'ites who are unwilling to vote for Hezbollah.

However, even those who won't vote for Hezbollah include many Muslims (and a handful of Christians, although never a significant number) support close contacts with Syria. Hezbollah simply does not have the political clout to topple the government on their own authority, so they have taken the politically astute move of attempting to create a pro-Syrian coalition which will topple the U.S.-supported government, undoubtedly in the hope of eventually taking control of the government.

This is a crucial devolopment, and will determine whether or not Hezbollah can one day actually govern the Lebanon.

I am amused that those here who are unbending supporters of Israel, and who claim that any criticism of Israel constitutes anti-Israel and anti-semitic sentiment, have seemingly failed to notice this development. Hezbollah has never controlled the Lebanon, despite the drivel which Fox, Ican't and McG post--however, they are now making a very creditable drive to achieve just that.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 02:32 pm
Hmmm... Anyine heard from Frank Apisa lately? Is he still kicking around somewhere?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 04:45 pm
Setanta wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Actually, i do consider myself an atheist--to the extent that i know of no god, i am without god--atheist. But i don't assert that there is no god, i simply point out that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a god.

However, we have learned that logic is not one of Ican't's strong points, and that he is happy to proceed to sweeping pronouncements without a shred of evidence.


You are confusing agnostic with atheism.

Agnostic: person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists.
Atheist: belief that there is no God.


I am confusing nothing. There is more than one definition of atheist. I am without god, therefore i am an atheist. It is not axiomatic that an atheist denies that any deity exists. I certainly don't need to be dictated to by the likes of you on this, or any other subject.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=atheist&x=28&y=10
Main Entry: 1athe·ist Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: -_st
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle French athéiste, from athée + -iste -ist
: one who subscribes to, advocates, or practices atheism
synonym see AGNOSTIC

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=atheism&x=35&y=9
Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: thizm
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist (from Greek atheos godless, not believing in the existence of gods, from a- 2a- + theos god) + -isme -ism -- more at THE-
1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b : the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity -- compare AGNOSTICISM
2 : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=agnostic&x=31&y=12
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: agnästik, g-, aig-, -k
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: modification (influenced by English Gnostic) of Greek agnstos unknown, unknowable, not knowing, from a- 2a- + gnstos known, from gignskein to know -- more at KNOW
: one who professes agnosticism ; broadly : one who maintains a continuing doubt about the existence or knowability of a god or any ultimates <agnostic>
synonyms AGNOSTIC, FREETHINKER, and ATHEIST can all apply to one who does not take an orthodox religious position. AGNOSTIC is the most neutral; it usually implies only an unwillingness on available evidence to affirm or deny the existence of God or subscribe to tenets that presuppose such existence. FREETHINKER is broader; it can apply to one of no determinable religious position or to one who feels truth is made more available by not committing oneself to any orthodoxy, especially a belief in God's existence. Often it can suggest a reprehensible and dangerous license of opinion. ATHEIST can apply strictly and neutrally to one who denies the existence of God or tenets presupposing it. More frequently than FREETHINKER, however, it has carried ideas of reprehensible license of opinion and menacing godlessness.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=agnosticism&x=24&y=12
Main Entry: ag·nos·ti·cism Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: agnästsizm, g-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
1 a : the doctrine that the existence or nature of any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable or that any knowledge about matters of ultimate concern is impossible or improbable; specifically : the doctrine that God or any first cause is unknown and probably unknowable b : a doctrine affirming that the existence of a god is possible but denying that there are any sufficient reasons for holding either that he does or does not exist -- compare ATHEISM, SKEPTICISM
2 : SKEPTICISM 1b
3 : an agnostic attitude or disposition
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 05:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Hmmm... Anyine heard from Frank Apisa lately? Is he still kicking around somewhere?

Laughing
While it is often said, "birds of a feather flock together," I don't think that's generally applies to old birds, except perhaps old Penguins.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 05:08 pm
Quote:
Bolton not amused by Hezbolla's western-style protest

http://cnnexposed.com/newsImages/26.jpg
Huge Hezbollah rally in Beirut

US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton gave sarcastic praise to Hezbollah for using western tactics in an attempt to bring down the Lebanese government. "Well good for them," he said referring to Hezbollah's rally of nearly one quarter of the Lebanese population in Beiruit.

Christian leaders joined Hezbollah calling for the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his US-backed government. The largely peaceful protest was reminiscent of the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, which brought down the Russian-backed government of Viktor Yanukovych amidst allegations of electoral fraud.

Hezbollah's popularity soared after it fought a brutal, thirty-four day war with Israel this summer, which leveled parts of Lebanon and killed scores of civilians. The Israeli offensive had the tacit backing of Washington, but was ultimately condemned by much of the world. Israel is presently under investigation for war crimes for using cluster bombs in Lebanese civilian areas.

Outside the UN in New York on Friday, Bolton tried to differentiate the protest in Beirut from similar, pro-western rallies. Bolton said "the point is that the government of Lebanon is democratically elected". But "so was Hamas" shot back Trish Schuh of The Muslim Weekly. Bolton then called Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

But like the western-dubbed terrorists of Hamas, Hezbollah has widespread support among its people. Student protester Mohamad Dakdouk said that "Hezbollah is helping people with reconstruction, the government has done nothing," in an interview with USA Today journalist Jeffrey Stinson.

A brief editorial follows

The recent rise in anti-western sentiment among Arabs in the Middle East correlates directly with a lopsided US foreign policy in the region. The US recently went so far as to veto a UN resolution condemning Israel for what all accounts appears to be the deliberate shelling of civilians (terrorism) in Gaza by Israeli forces. Though probably not official Israeli policy--it was more likely an act by a distressed tank commander than a "technical failiure," as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert alleged--the result was the same.

Events like these only cement feelings of distrust and hatred toward the west among Arabs. The United States should look to other, more moderate groups in Israel and the Middle East when formulating foreign policy and vetoing UN resolutions. Catering to Israeli extremists is and has been detrimental to US interests, the interests of Israel, and most obviously, as demonstrated by recent events in Lebanon and Gaza, the interests of Arabs.

After Bolton bolted from the press stakeout at the UN, Trish Shuh spoke to a CNN journalist about the deeper issues. She felt that AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), the highly influential lobby group influencing US foreign policy in the Middle East, may need to be exposed for promoting extremist policies. After asking CNN correspondent Richard Roth if "CNN Presents" would ever consider doing a story on AIPAC, Roth said he'd rather cover a sex scandal.

http://cnnexposed.com/story.php?story=26


I hate Bolton, i wish someone would burn his hairpiece. He basically worship's Israel.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 05:18 pm
Setanta wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Actually, i do consider myself an atheist--to the extent that i know of no god, i am without god--atheist. But i don't assert that there is no god, i simply point out that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a god.

However, we have learned that logic is not one of Ican't's strong points, and that he is happy to proceed to sweeping pronouncements without a shred of evidence.


You are confusing agnostic with atheism.

Agnostic: person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists.
Atheist: belief that there is no God.


I am confusing nothing. There is more than one definition of atheist. I am without god, therefore i am an atheist. It is not axiomatic that an atheist denies that any deity exists. I certainly don't need to be dictated to by the likes of you on this, or any other subject.


No? Especially since you lose the arguments..............
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 05:50 pm
Zippo wrote:
Quote:
Bolton not amused by Hezbolla's western-style protest
...
US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton gave sarcastic praise to Hezbollah for using western tactics in an attempt to bring down the Lebanese government. "Well good for them," he said referring to Hezbollah's rally of nearly one quarter of the Lebanese population in Beiruit.

...


This is more evidence that the good Lebonese civilians [size=28]willingly[/size] as well as knowingly acted as shields for Hezbollah while Hezbollah fired on Israeli civilians.

Shame on Israel for not waiting as long as necessary to learn exactly where Hezbollah's rocket infrastructure in Lebanon was. Had Israel waited it could have minimized Lebonese civilian casualties, when it did get around to attempting to destroy Hezbollah's rocket infrastructure there. Just because Hezbollah has been murdering Israeli civilians regularly almost since its founding in 1985, Israel has no right to "rush to judgment" in its own alleged self-defense this time. What importance does a few more dead Israeli civilians have, compared to that of hundreds of its good Lebanese neighbors. If Israel didn't exist, Hezbollah would not have attacked it!

Right?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 06:09 pm
Dream on Pachelbel . . . even the rightwingnuts cannot provide an example of anyone as self-deluded and paranoid as you. Lose arguments? To you? That's hilarious. What have you "won," Boy? Did Vanna White lead to your BRAND NEW CAR ! ! !

Hey . . . Pachelbel . . . WAKE UP . . . you're dreamin'.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 07:00:13