Israel/Gaza (Round 3)

[dondon151]

i don't have the time right now for lengthy rebuttals but i'll drop a sentence in response to:

(1) - Suppressing Hamas isn't an effective long-term solution? Why not?

it breeds more extremism. if you suppress hamas, some other palestinian extremist group will take its place, and there's no guarantee that the group will ever be wiped out. this is a thoroughly obvious conclusion. the US spent quite a lot of resources trying to rid korea and vietnam of communism and iraq of the baath party, with i dare say, less than effective results.

this is compounded by the dual facts that this extremist ideology in particular borrows heavily from religion and that it's easy to portray israel as an invader of the middle east because zionist colonization is only recent history. i can demonstrate this kind of mindset by proposing a thought experiment: if we took all of the israelites and moved them to some piece of prime real estate (say, oregon) for free, would that be an effective long-term solution? i would hypothesize that it wouldn't, because when zionists had a homeland for the jewish people in mind, they probably weren't thinking of anything in the western hemisphere.

so broadly, what everyone wants to do is to suppress hamas, but the best way to go about it effectively is to make the suppression organic, i.e. cut off the teat from which the ideology figuratively sucks.

Edited August 9, 2014 by dondon151

[Life]

It might be important to point out that according to various newsites and IDF reports, civilian casualties may be as low as 1 person for every terrorist. At least 900/2000 are not civilians.

That's pretty much unheard of in urban warfare. Genocide and ethnic cleansing my ass.

[Moishe Oofnik]

I want to just toss out a comment about Bibi.

Look. The guy obviously doesn't eant rockets fired at his country. But Bibi loves being PM. And while Hamas is in power, Bibi is (unfortunately) Israel's best choice for being a PM who understands war. I mean, Naftali Bennett pretty much wants Gaza razed to the ground, for example.

Talking about Bibi and his own wants is an entire can of worms and one I won't touch because I don't know enough to offer a better solution (not even Yair Lapid and I voted for Lapid) and I'm also holding back a bit of bile.

Phone double post. Nightmare, do me the honours.

I'm now going off topic to another thing. ISIS. For those who have no idea what ISIS is, it stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. AKA another terrorist cell.

The amount of deaths in Syria has been staggering. We're talking over 100,000 in the last two years. So why the fuck are people up in arms about Israel when their northern neighbour has a legitimate genocide going on?

I think I know the answer but this still bothers the fuck out of me.

Sorry that I am posting this late on this topic (Im also from israel nice to meet you)

But with the election coming do you still think voting lapid was a good idea he was an awful minister of finance he is an unreliable lier and clearly just throws fancy words that basicly means nothing "New politics" Bollucks got old

We vote licod aka מחל\ליכוד because we simply have no one else to pick left wingers are awful in israel they contribute nothing look at the oslo accords they werent beneficial the 2nd intifada still happend we just gave them land that would lead to more bad shit for us bennets agenda is destroy all mooslims cahlon doesnt want to be PM he wants to be minister of finance (he was a good minister of Communications) but he really doesnt have a right winger nor left winger agenda who you really gonna pick be serious for a moment you dont vote for the prime minister in the israel elections you vote for the Political partys to create a coalition

The Right Winger that i am (also for the dude who said religoen causes war alot stop being deluded most wars have been about land stalin was atheist lenin was atheist and hitler as agnostic and most religous based wars are because mooslims) I do despise that people are still trying to defend BDS or Hamas BDS is a hipocritical faction (I dont see you taking the cheap out of half your phones aint it now)

Fact is that i dont know about you im voting or cahlons party (i dont even remember its name) Culano it was i think or Likud

I find Voting Lapid tidius after his rather underwelming job as minister of finance and the stinking lier that he is

say what you want about BiBi but he is good at outside communications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQx3XMkiVbg to prove how well he can debade on this matters but he clearly ravages in the fact that he is the prime minster i think the majority of citizens would be happy if he would be like minister of Foreign affairs

Also I am sorry for bad grammar and or lack of punctuation im writing this write before I am going to sleep

Im from netanya btw.

[Rapier]

I know this has little to do with your post, but...

for the dude who said religoen causes war

Religion doesn't cause war. Religion -can- be a reason for war, like... well, anything else one may think of, especially when the subject is of polictical concern. Individuals should be blamed for using religion as an excuse for war, it is not religion that should be blamed.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Rapier

[Irysa]

Individuals require motivations and basis to cause wars. Trying to shift the blame is a difficult task because hypothetically I can say that a Political Idealogy that expressively encourages enslavement of minorities DOES cause, or is at the very least notably responsible for the enslavement of minorities in areas that that idealogy is followed. Would you be comfortable saying that such an idealogy isn't causing that?

Edited February 15, 2015 by Irysa

[Life]

Sorry that I am posting this late on this topic (Im also from israel nice to meet you)

But with the election coming do you still think voting lapid was a good idea he was an awful minister of finance he is an unreliable lier and clearly just throws fancy words that basicly means nothing "New politics" Bollucks got old

We vote licod aka מחל\ליכוד because we simply have no one else to pick left wingers are awful in israel they contribute nothing look at the oslo accords they werent beneficial the 2nd intifada still happend we just gave them land that would lead to more bad shit for us bennets agenda is destroy all mooslims cahlon doesnt want to be PM he wants to be minister of finance (he was a good minister of Communications) but he really doesnt have a right winger nor left winger agenda who you really gonna pick be serious for a moment you dont vote for the prime minister in the israel elections you vote for the Political partys to create a coalition

The Right Winger that i am (also for the dude who said religoen causes war alot stop being deluded most wars have been about land stalin was atheist lenin was atheist and hitler as agnostic and most religous based wars are because mooslims) I do despise that people are still trying to defend BDS or Hamas BDS is a hipocritical faction (I dont see you taking the cheap out of half your phones aint it now)

Fact is that i dont know about you im voting or cahlons party (i dont even remember its name) Culano it was i think or Likud

I find Voting Lapid tidius after his rather underwelming job as minister of finance and the stinking lier that he is

say what you want about BiBi but he is good at outside communications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQx3XMkiVbg to prove how well he can debade on this matters but he clearly ravages in the fact that he is the prime minster i think the majority of citizens would be happy if he would be like minister of Foreign affairs

Also I am sorry for bad grammar and or lack of punctuation im writing this write before I am going to sleep

Im from netanya btw.

First of all, hit me up sometime. Let's chat and get a beer. I speak Hebrew too so don't feel like you need to speak in English.

Point number two: Yair Lapid was shoe-horned into a job where he was handcuffed and designed to fail. Why would you not give the reporter the job of שר החוץ or שר החינוך. Finance Minister? Plus, Bibi handcuffed him by not allowing Lapid to actually work the way he wanted to. And Lapid STILL managed to put through and pass a proposal of raising the minimum wage.

Are you before or after the army? Because if you're before, you have no idea what that means for the working class.

I believe that if Lapid was שר החוץ (Foreign Minister), Israel would have a much better PR with the rest of the world because A) it's not Lieberman and B) he's very educated and knows how to appeal to people, considering his reporting background.

Long story short, I'm either voting for יש עתיד (Lapid) or עלי ירוק (Marijuana Legalization Party) this upcoming election.

[Moishe Oofnik]

יופי תודה רבה על זה שאני יכול לדבר עברית

אני כרגע לפני צבא אבל אני עובד ולמדתי כלכלה בתיכון

יש דברים שאני מסכים עם לפיד כמו נגדיות למדינה חרידית אבל הוא הבטיח דברים שהוא לא יכול לקיים ליברמן פשוט חרא מהלך לדעתי יאיר לפיד יכול להיות שר חוץ או שר פנים טוב יש לו כריזמה הוא יודע לנאום ביבי גם יכול להיות שר חוץ טוב אבל יש לי חוסר אמון בלפיד בתור ראש ממשלה

אני לא אוהב את ביבי בתור ראש ממשלה אני לא בטוח שהליכוד רוצה את ביבי בתור הנציג שלהם לבחירות בכנסת הבאה כחלון מבין בכלכלה הוא היה שר תקשורת נפלא מטעם הליכוד

אז אני הולך אולי להצביע לו

עלי ירוק עוד מפלגה שרצה לשינוי חוק או תפקיד בתור שר הייתי מצביע אליהם עם לא היה את כחלון כי אני די מסכים עם המצע שלהם

נב:נחמד להכיר עוד ישראלי בפורום

Edited February 15, 2015 by TTPK_Tal

[Life]

יופי תודה רבה על זה שאני יכול לדבר עברית

אני כרגע לפני צבא אבל אני עובד ולמדתי כלכלה בתיכון

יש דברים שאני מסכים עם לפיד כמו נגדיות למדינה חרידית אבל הוא הבטיח דברים שהוא לא יכול לקיים ליברמן פשוט חרא מהלך לדעתי יאיר לפיד יכול להיות שר חוץ או שר פנים טוב יש לו כריזמה הוא יודע לנאום ביבי גם יכול להיות שר חוץ טוב אבל יש לי חוסר אמון בלפיד בתור ראש ממשלה

אני לא אוהב את ביבי בתור ראש ממשלה אני לא בטוח שהליכוד רוצה את ביבי בתור הנציג שלהם לבחירות בכנסת הבאה כחלון מבין בכלכלה הוא היה שר תקשורת נפלא מטעם הליכוד

אז אני הולך אולי להצביע לו

עלי ירוק עוד מפלגה שרצה לשינוי חוק או תפקיד בתור שר הייתי מצביע אליהם עם לא היה את כחלון כי אני די מסכים עם המצע שלהם

נב:נחמד להכיר עוד ישראלי בפורום

Just making sure I read this right because there's no punctuation.

- You're before army and even if you're working, my guess is that you're not paying taxes like arnona or bituach leumi

- Leiberman was crap

- Lapid should be either Foreign or Education Minister

- You're not a fan of Bibi

- You want Moshe Kahlon to be PM

Pretty much in line with my own thinking however I'm still going to vote for Lapid. Simply because Lapid needs enough seats to be able to argue for the job of Foreign or Education Minister. My hope is that he's Foreign Minister. As for Moshe Kahlon, I really don't know enough about him to support him or be against him. But as long as Bennett isn't PM, I'm happy.

By the way, speak English on the forums. I might understand you but everyone else won't.

[Rapier]

Individuals require motivations and basis to cause wars. Trying to shift the blame is a difficult task because hypothetically I can say that a Political Idealogy that expressively encourages enslavement of minorities DOES cause, or is at the very least notably responsible for the enslavement of minorities in areas that that idealogy is followed. Would you be comfortable saying that such an idealogy isn't causing that?

That is true. Some parts of the Qu'ran do encourage war, for example, and IIRC, the Old Testament does as well. However, we can't in basis of this generalize that religions in general cause war. It is usually people that use religion as motive for war, not that they themselves encourage it.

[dondon151]

mein kampf doesn't encourage the genocide of jewish people, either!

[Life]

mein kampf doesn't encourage the genocide of jewish people, either!

It still talks about "the Jewish peril" and Hitler's second book (Zweites Buch) is more in depth. And both of them were written ten years before WW2 starts so your point is stupid. He's not allowed to be become more radical ten years later?

Your comparison is stupid.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Man Bun

[Rapier]

mein kampf doesn't encourage the genocide of jewish people, either!

Yeah, because the semelhance between mein kampf and other religious books are far too many for a valid comparison. You win.

Not to mention one generalizes when they say all religion encourage war (and that is my point, we can't). The Bible's New Testament, which is the one that christians follow, rather encourages peace. Whatever the Catholic Church did is not justified by their religion anywhere. I think the Buddhist and Hinduist religions also encourage peace rather than war, but I am not certain. So my point stands.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Rapier

[Irysa]

That is true. Some parts of the Qu'ran do encourage war, for example, and IIRC, the Old Testament does as well. However, we can't in basis of this generalize that religions in general cause war. It is usually people that use religion as motive for war, not that they themselves encourage it.

You can't generalise and say that "religion does not cause war" without implying that there's no responsibility involved though.

Religion doesn't cause war. Religion -can- be a reason for war, like... well, anything else one may think of, especially when the subject is of polictical concern. Individuals should be blamed for using religion as an excuse for war, it is not religion that should be blamed.

Are your words.

It's perfectly valid to say that it has caused wars and continues to cause wars, much in the same way that is perfectly valid to say political idealogies have caused and continue to cause wars. Or at the very least, have a large amount of responsibility.

Also at the Catholic thing, see Apocrypha. <_<

Edited February 20, 2015 by Irysa

[Rapier]

There's only responsibility when said ideology, polictical or religious, explicitly encourages wars. I don't see how liberalism or conservatism encourage wars, but I can see how radicals from both sides may use their ideologies as excuses or even inspiration for such behavior. The claim that all religion cause wars by encouragement is demonstrably false since there are at least two which do not encourage war in any part of their doctrine, namely christianism (the old testament may as well not even exist since no one follows it) and hinduism. Also, that is the same logic used to blame atheism for the deaths of many in the Soviet Union, because the State would not tolerate religion. Therefore, nor atheism nor religion cause wars, although they may be used as reasons to do so.

[Irysa]

So basically, it has to be specific? So you'd be okay with saying that Islam has encouraged war then, since the Quran has long had controversies surrounding passages endorsing violence against non-muslims? There are different ways to read into it but it's definitely enough to bear some responsiblity.

(the old testament may as well not even exist since no one follows it)

This is blatantly false. Most churches stances on things like homosexuality stem from the old testament, and even the observation of the Sabbath is an old testament tradition (although thankfully no Abrahamic religion opts to stone people to death for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week anymore...)

Edited February 22, 2015 by Irysa

[dondon151]

It still talks about "the Jewish peril" and Hitler's second book (Zweites Buch) is more in depth. And both of them were written ten years before WW2 starts so your point is stupid. He's not allowed to be become more radical ten years later?

Your comparison is stupid.

either you didn't pick up on the sarcasm or i have no idea what you're trying to say.

EDIT: the distinction between things that cause war and things that people use as motivations for war is meaningless. a motivation for war is a cause of war; this is true semantically.

Edited February 22, 2015 by dondon151

[Rapier]

There are different ways to read into it but it's definitely enough to bear some responsiblity.

If it is the misinterpretation of words that made people get into wars, then it is the individuals' sole responsibility for not being able to understand their own ideology. If it is not, then said ideology is also to be blamed.

and even the observation of the Sabbath is an old testament tradition

That's strange, because only few doctrines actually follow through the observation of the Sabbath. For most other doctrines, it's just another day like any other. Unless sabbathists are dominant in the United States or something.

Also, doesn't the New Testament also reprimand homosexuality? I don't remember whether it is old testament exclusive or not.

Anyway, the point is you don't see any christians or any christian church preaching persecution and death (well, there's Westboro Church and other radicals, but they're exceptions) because they follow a testament that preaches for love, peace and mutual understanding.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

Anyway, the point is you don't see any christians or any christian church preaching persecution and death (well, there's Westboro Church and other radicals, but they're exceptions) because they follow a testament that preaches for love, peace and mutual understanding.

hi crusades

[Rapier]

hi crusades

Then by the same logic I blame atheism for killing people in the Soviet Union.

where is your god now

Not to mention Crusades were done AGAINST Muslim invaders as a form of DEFENSE of the western world, so here you go.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

Then by the same logic I blame atheism for killing people in the Soviet Union.

you can't blame atheism for killing anyone. no one has ever killed someone else in the name of atheism - it's the empty set with regard to religion. if one has no religious motivation, then the motivation has to come from some other ideology. in the case of the soviet union, there was this ideology called communism. maybe you've heard of it?

Not to mention Crusades were done AGAINST Muslim invaders as a form of DEFENSE of the western world, so here you go.

"In 1095, Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem."

"The crusaders often pillaged the countries through which they travelled in the typical medieval manner of supplying an army on the move."

"The Peoples' Crusade prompted Rhineland massacres and the murder of thousands of Jews."

"The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) was originally intended to conquer Muslim-controlled Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt. Instead, in April 1204, the Crusaders of Western Europe invaded and sacked the Orthodox Christian city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire."

alert: we have a revisionist

Edited February 22, 2015 by dondon151

[MartyTheDemonSlayer]

@Rapier

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Sadly, at least according to a literal interpretation, the old testament is still in full force. On another topic, cases where Christianity has not been all about love, peace, and mutual understanding: the Spanish Inquisition, horrible homophobia in Uganda, and opposition to contraception. Mind you that two of these are modern, not historic, examples.

[Irysa]

If it is the misinterpretation of words that made people get into wars, then it is the individuals' sole responsibility for not being able to understand their own ideology. If it is not, then said ideology is also to be blamed.

Who's to say it's a misinterpretation? It is a pretty valid way to read into it, and it has been read into it. Retroactively attempting to explain how it doesn't condone it is one viewpoint, and it doesn't mean the fault is in the individual. It's the text's fault for being unaffirmative enough to be read in such ways.

That's strange, because only few doctrines actually follow through the observation of the Sabbath. For most other doctrines, it's just another day like any other. Unless sabbathists are dominant in the United States or something.

The whole concept of Sunday being a day off work is a firmly rooted thing in Western tradition, that comes from the Old Testament.

[eclipse]

Quick reminder: Be careful when interpreting religious texts - it's pretty easy to spin things without context (historical, translation notes, etc.). This goes triple for the Quran, since there's plenty of secular reasons to twist the passages in that book to mean something else entirely.

[feplus]

Quick reminder: Be careful when interpreting religious texts - it's pretty easy to spin things without context (historical, translation notes, etc.). This goes triple for the Quran, since there's plenty of secular reasons to twist the passages in that book to mean something else entirely.

This is good advice, but it should be coupled with more good advice: interpreting religious texts is not entirely subjective. Problematic passages in any holy book cannot be hand-waived by appealing to a "that's just one interpretation" refrain.

Put passages in their context but don't be an exegetical relativist. Religion 101.

[Rapier]

Well, I can exploit this through another angle: Religion is only harmful when used for political purposes. All historical examples where religion had some weight in were due to politics. From this point of view I can still argue that religion does not cause wars, unless it is intentionally used by individuals for political purposes.

you can't blame atheism for killing anyone. no one has ever killed someone else in the name of atheism - it's the empty set with regard to religion. if one has no religious motivation, then the motivation has to come from some other ideology. in the case of the soviet union, there was this ideology called communism. maybe you've heard of it?

It does not change the fact that communists killed people for professing their religion because they desired to uphold an atheist State. Atheism was also used as an excuse by communists to persecute people, much like christianity was used by its political heads to start wars and persecute people. In this aspect both cases were the same.

On another topic, cases where Christianity has not been all about love, peace, and mutual understanding: the Spanish Inquisition, horrible homophobia in Uganda, and opposition to contraception. Mind you that two of these are modern, not historic, examples.

The Spanish Inquisition's blame is mostly on Spain though the church also shares the blame for consenting. For the historical context, the Pope merely authorized it so to not lose their most important political ally in times where protestantism was growing and the catholic church was losing their influence, they had little choice but consent. You have to show the link between 'horrible homophobia in Uganda' and 'christianism', because disagreeing with one's behavior (which is what most christians do regarding homosexuality) is not the same as executing them in public, which is what people in the Middle East actually do a lot. The opposition to contraception part seems silly, I never mentioned 'mutual understanding' as 'they agree with everyone', and I don't see how disagreeing about a political matter is something that vile, no matter how silly that disagreement is.