magekillr

What did you mean?

I remember about two years ago I used to troll on here about God, acting like a creationist and that the world could be 10,000 years old. I think it was less about trolling, and more about expressing my frustration about the stupidity and willful ignorance of my parents. Any time I try and educate them about the subjects of cosmology or biology (evolution), they treat me like some arrogant [puncture] that's trying to end their beliefs in God. I mean, I am an arrogant [puncture], but when it comes to the education of others, especially people like my parents, I try and be as humble as I can. Rather than trying to understand what I am telling them, they blast me in defense of their religion, and tell me evolution is nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to remove God out of our lives. I was always complacent towards God and religion. I never really had a problem with it. However, working for Obama's campaign for however many months that I did has made me...very hostile towards the idea of organized religion. I never knew how much it consumed people's lives, controlled which ways they voted, what issues were of utmost importance, etc. I understand how much of a personal role that religion fills in people's lives, but to use your religion as a guide to whom you vote for is just asinine. Why wouldn't you use logic and critical thinking to properly assess the candidates? Aren't you thinking of the other people that you're thrusting your religion on? Oh well, people can vote for whatever reason they like, whether it's race or religion or w/e, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical of that choice. Anyway, that was a ton of rambling. So during the election with all these people making their choices based on their dogmatic beliefs, I began to question what I believed and where I ended up on the line along theist and atheist. I began to question the Judeo-Christian God especially, as well as Allah (which would be the same God). The different rules inside the religion didn't make much sense to begin with, but then when I thought about the concept of Hell, then I was REALLY at a loss for words. The idea of an omnipotent being, sending people to a place to die and suffer and burn for all of eternity for a mild 100 years on Earth, when he was the one that "created" this person to start...just makes absolutely no sense. As explained in the Death Penalty thread by Bluelancer, sociopaths do not think like your traditional person; they don't value life, and could/would kill someone without a second thought. How could God send someone to hell for killing someone, when it was God that created his mind to think like a sociopath in the first place, and for all eternity no less? It just seems a tad harsh for an omnipotent being that created us and knows what we will do. Oh, speaking of which, that's why the idea of "free-will" doesn't make sense, either. I have free-will, but he knows what I'll do. Why let me be born at all if you know I'm destined for hell? None of it makes a bit of sense. So that leaves me with my beliefs, where do I belong then. I can't really say, actually. I'm not an atheist, but I'm not necessarily your traditional theist, either. When I think of books like the Bible or the Qur'an as "divinely" inspired, I think of man dreaming of ways to defend the "sacred" texts in the form of a cop-out, so that no one would question it. I also believe that none of these people in the Bible/Qur'an actually spoke to God, but that they just acted like they did depending on the outcome. For example, if the Philistines were defeated in battle, God "granted them favor and told them to go to war." However, if they lost and were enslaved or something, God "punished them for their sins and lack of faith." To think that Muslims believe the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad over a span of several years, and that his followers wrote down what he said is just...ridiculous and laughable. If anyone did that in modern times, they'd be laughed at like they were crazy. Actually, that did happen with the Mormons, or at least something vaguely similar. So I guess I do believe in God, but I'm not sure what "God" is. I wouldn't be so sympathetic towards the atheists' cause if there wasn't so much that is threatening the school system and our rights as citizens. I don't blame religion for the cause of war, I blame nationalism and pride in one's heritage; that divisiveness to so easily condemn those that are different than you, it just goes much farther than religious differences. Although I don't believe in a jealous or vengeful creator, I would say that I am a Christian. I think of Jesus as a wonderful man with wonderful parables that showed people great ways to live one's life. So to that, I subscribe to the Jeffersonian Bible, and try to incorporate his teachings to my everyday life. What more is a Christian than a "Follower of Christ"?

Ugh, this hatred needs to stop. This is what I don't like about Israel overreacting; now there's antisemitic happenings all around the world. I saw a rally for "pro-Israel" people on youtube, and there was violence there as well. I just don't get it! Peace is the priority, not the massacre of any innocent civilians! The damn governments on both sides just...ugh!

All the more reason for the Israeli military, to keep using the force they have been using to "destroy" HAMAS. Regardless of civilian casualties. Civilians who will eventually become like HAMAS themselves. Well you're not ignorant at all. Hey look, Obama is about to be inaugurated, and Israel declares a ceasefire. Hmmmmmm, didn't see that one coming :roll: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html

Who even asks this question in at all a legitimate light? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -bin-laden Extremism and radicalism when used as a tool to bring harm unto others is never a good thing. No need to discuss this further, why is this even a discussion?

Well Hamas won't be out of power until the other parties stop ruining their own legitimacy with corruption. Not really. They're not that corrupt, they're just radically violent in how the want to accomplish their foreign policy goals. I would agree that they're corrupt in that they send rockets over the border because it will keep them in power. They know full well that Israel would have a response like this, and it would push their support/poll numbers up. That's really the only corruption that they have. They give 90% of their money to the citizens, and the remaining 10% is for weapons. They're not living in some upscale mansion while the citizens suffer, they suffer just like the civilians. Fatah is the corrupt party that took all of the money and kept it for themselves. Hamas has legitimacy because no one that matters seems to care about the Palestinians except for Iran. Hamas might be giving them a lot of social infrastructure, but it's really nothing more than a guise to keep themselves in power. If they cared for the civilians, they wouldn't lob rockets in the first place; they're not dumb, and neither are the Israelis that are in power.

Another method, of course. This is not a military problem, and it cannot be solved with a military solution. I've already established what needs to happen to end Hamas' legitimacy, and that's for Fatah or another political party in Palestine to stop ruining its reputation by giving in to corruption. If that happens, Hamas will be out of power within a year to two years. Yes, there will still be factions within Palestine, but they'll fade out when the people of Palestine realize they don't have to resort to extremism to be helped. Second, Israel needs to be more negotiable on their terms. Quite frankly, if I cared about who ruled the land and who was in power, I probably wouldn't agree to their terms either; they're pretty ridiculously biased in their own favor, and they're unwaivering in what they will accept. If the US put more pressure on Israel to negotiate their terms, we'd see some progress. [bAs the person that I am, I would give Israel any terms they wanted if it resulted in peace, if the Palestinians were treated as citizens of Israel, and if Jerusalem was accessible to Muslims. However, not everyone is like me, and some think that land ownership and some power are big deals. It's all nationalist nonsense, but I digress. Third, Israel needs to stop condoning the establishment of illegal settlements in the West Bank, as well as stop removing settlements that are owned by the Palestinians. If they did that, Palestine would feel that Israel actually recognizes their sovereignty. Fourth, Israel needs to end its blockages of food aid and water that they've set up throughout the strip. They also need to give Palestine some control over their own sea and airspace. Fifth, once Hamas is out of power, it would be much easier to negotiate true sovereign borders with a secular/leftist Fatah in power. It will open up Israel and force them to be "less secure", but it's a solution that everyone can live with. edit: And just for a little sidenote, I'd like to post some radical parties in Israel that have a lot of legitimacy in their country: Likud "The Likud charter continues to emphasize the right of settlement in "Judea (and) Samaria" (more commonly known as the "West Bank") and Gaza,"[2] and as such, brings it into direct conflict with Palestinian claims on the same territory, although the majority of Palestinians claim the entire territory of Israel as their own.[3] Similarly, their claims of the Jordan river as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as "the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel," do the same." The Likud party has had great power in recent years. They claim the right to settle in land that is not Israel's, illegal settlements. Jewish national front "The Jewish National Front calls for a state that is more Jewish in practice than strictly in ceremony, including emplacement of Torah laws in place of the current civil ones after the Jewish majority is increased west of the Jordan River. This will be achieved through motivating mass Jewish immigration to Israel as well as encouraging emigration of Arabs through various incentives." National Union "The party has a joint platform, and in particular it supports the settlement of all the Land of Israel, advocates the use of more military power in the War on terror and harsher measures against Palestinian terrorism. It rejects all current Oslo-based peace efforts which it sees as dangerous to Israel and the notion of what it calls a "22nd Arab state". The party instead advocates voluntary transfer of the Arabs from the West Bank, though it has been vague as to how this could be implemented." All of these parties pretty much don't recognize the Palestinians' right to exist or have their own sovereign borders by continuing the expansion of Israel.

But you do agree with using that land there to fire seemingly endless supplies of rockets across the border? If Hamas didn't abuse thier power and fire a bottomless stockpile of rockets into Israel, Israel wouldn't need to do things such as restrict movement, and they could make peace. No, of course I don't. Israel has done these things while Fatah was in power as well. Hamas and terrorists haven't always been around, you know. Terrorist groups don't set up shop to watch the world burn, they use the only method that they feel will make their cause heard. Is it counterproductive against them? Sure it is, but so is our response to terror.

Well Bush was never elected the first time. If that had happened in France, there would have been absolute chaos. The second time I'll give him, but again, screwy things happened all over Ohio with electronic voting machines. I picked Kucinich as my first choice, and Obama was my second, even though before the primaries I had pretty much settled that Hillary would win the primary. What got Obama elected was not necessarily his message, but his organizing of how he ran the campaign. Officials in America aren't elected by standing on a soap box giving speeches, and telling what they're going to do; it's just not what happens. It might be the case in foreign countries as their elections aren't like ours, but what gets ours elected is grass roots. His message perhaps attracted his beginning following, I know what attracted me to him was that he was the only candidate, except Kucinich, that had opposed the War in Iraq from the very beginning. However, if you have an organized campaign that floods the streets, knocks on doors, and makes phone calls, you're going to have a good shot at winning. That's how he won: his site made it so easy to volunteer and donate money. Organized campaigns and grass roots are the key to winning elections in America. I worked for John Kerry's campaign (not worked, volunteered), and it was horribly disorganized compared with Obama's. Like, there's just no comparing the two campaigns lol. After winning the nomination, Sarah Palin pretty much sealed McCain's fate. Anyway, I never answered why I think the Saudis are funding al Qaeda. It's nothing more than speculation and hearsay on my part, and it's a bit of a stretch anyway, so take it with an extreme grain of salt. The Saudis and al Qaeda are both Wahhabis, a specific branch of Sunni Islam. To this, they probably have the same objectives about what they want to accomplish. The Saudis used to fund extremist political parties and leaders in Pakistan, and these extremist parties/leaders were not different from al Qaeda in their goals or sometimes even their methods. I don't really think the Saudis really have a problem with how al Qaeda does their business because of this fact alone. They have to be getting their money from somewhere, and when you start narrowing down the places they can/could be getting it, Saudi Arabia doesn't necessarily get ruled out. I think the dislike of the Saudi family is more of a personal thing, and I don't think it would necessarily conflict with what they both hope to accomplish in business. Looking at who shares the same sect of Islam is, in my opinion, a much better tool in finding who agrees with whom. They were given the West Bank? No they weren't. I already gave a brief history of what's happened in the area; they've more than doubled their land mass, when the original UN lines were biased towards them in the first place. 55% of land mass to 1/3 of the population is hardly fair, especially when the Palestinians were already living there. UN resolution 242 called for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in 1968. Forty years later, the world still waits for Israel, buffered by their personal [wagon] kissers, the United States, to comply with that order. It hardly matters if the Palestinians get East Jerusalem anyway, considering Israel has already built illegal settlements completely surrounding the area. I believe in human rights and treating people justly. So, forty years after the war ended, I don't believe that Israel has the right to degrade Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, torture them, restrict their freedom of movement, restrict their access to food and water and medical supplies, destroy their settlements, build illegal ones in their place, completely control their sea and airspace, and brush off the bombing of schools and mosques and hundreds of civilian casualties as collateral damage....

Who broke the cease-fire again? Look, Ginger and I aren't defending Hamas's attacks, but stop acting like Israel is some sweet dove that is helpless. This is all about the Kadima party's poll numbers :wall: I mean, crickey, it was just released in the press that Israel wanted Bush in early 2008 to help them attack Iran, THREE times. Had Rumsfeld been in charge instead of Gates, we probably would have, too.

I don't agree at all about that - Hamas' beef with Israel is ideological and always has been. They don't acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation. Until they do, nothing will change. They could discover oil in Gaza, make every Palestinian as rich as the Saudis and the only change would be that Hamas would buy larger armaments. K, that's Hamas. What does Hamas have to do with the citizens of Palestine? They'll be gone when the citizens' needs are met by a non-corrupt Fatah, which used to be the most popular party in Palestine until they were seeded with corruption. Were you old enough to vote in this 2008 election (assuming you're American)? What was your most important issue? The majority of Americans had the economy on their mind before Iran, and before Iraq, and before any other foreign policy. Do you think the Palestinian people are any different?

I'm not sure yet, I want to travel around first before I decide. Before I travel outside of America, I've got a few cities on my list as places I want to live: * Seattle * Chicago * Portland * Phoenix or Tuscon * Boston Now outside of the US, I've looked at Sweden or Finland as possible places to move to. They've fairly lax immigration laws, and I might be able to move to Sweden easily if I land a job at BAE.

Lord, apparently you're forgetting something: when you solve the grievances of the civilians, Hamas and all other terrorist organizations cease to exist because they don't have support, or recruitment. Like with Israel seeking to "obliterate" Hamas? It's a complicated situation, but then it's not really. If Israel wants to get Hamas out of power, they're going about it in the wrong way. Israel needs to stop its expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, and Fatah needs to end its corruption and start helping the citizens of Palestine instead of hoarding the money for themselves (cause you know, 90% of Hamas's funds go towards helping civilians. You know this, right? The Palestinian people don't elect governments that seek to end Israel, they elect the groups that help them the most, and Hamas has helped them far more than Fatah). If this happens, Fatah will be elected in a landslide victory, and Hamas will be out of power. With Hamas out of power and Fatah helping the citizens, organizations like Hamas begin to disappear because the cries of the citizens are being met. Then, Fatah and Israel can come together and draw a map to that which is similar to the original UN designations back in 1949. It can happen, if Fatah ends its corruption, and if Israel stops its settlements.

Again: When they agree to stop shooting rockets at us. Oh goody, now I get to post another article to make your government look even more terrorist than they already are: Excerpt: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350 The fact that you don't care about people dying, is just...wow. I can't even describe it.

I'll defend my accusation of the Saudis later, but for now... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819492.stm Israel, please, I beg of you, end the brutality and murder of civilians! When will you stop!

Well even beyond that vote, the Religious Right and a lot of Christians seem to have unconditional support for Israel. I just don't know where this support comes from given the history of the area, perhaps it's a generational thing. It could be the superficial view of "this conflict going on for thousands of years and the Jews were God's chosen people" or something, but this is a claim I am making out of ignorance, because frankly I do not know where it is coming from or why. I notice a lot of young people are more focused on peace and not "winners and losers". Even some of my friends in Israel that are younger just don't care what happens, as long as it results in peace and freedom. One stated, "I don't care if we give the whole entire land back to Fatah and call it, "The Republic of Banana", I just want the rockets to stop landing on my families' heads, and I want my government to stop killing innocent people."

Yes, but people in the gaza strip are backed by and supplied by Iran, which is in turn backed by Russia. Israel is backed by the U.S., which is in turn backed by most of Europe, Japan, and Argentina. Russia is a big country with a big army and with plentiful nuclear weapons, getting them pissed off could trigger World War III. I know the chance of this happening is very slim, but it's a possibility nontheless. Rubbish. Hamas is backed mostly by Saudi Arabia, which is backed by the United States. 1 Yes, they're funded by Iran, but most of their funding comes from Saudi Arabia. Second, 90% of Hamas's funds are spent on their infrastructure, which is why they're in power in the first place. Fatah was corrupt and hoarded the money for their own party, rather than their own citizens. Hamas, as much of a terrorist organization as they are, have helped the people of Palestine when it comes to social programs like schools and hospitals, far more than Fatah. Third, this is my own speculation, but I believe the Saudis are also funding al-Qaeda, which would in fact be a bit of irony because of how much money the Saudis receive from America.

Well, Freaky, like you said, it's a lot more complicated than that. The real "root" started at the end of the 19th century in Europe. Antisemitism had plagued Europe during this time, and this is when the Zionist movement really started to gain legitimacy. Jews had been rejected from many European countries, and this is when the idea of a "separate country for Jews" had really started. They eyed the area of Palestine, even though it was pretty packed to begin with. Oddly enough, the Palestinian movement emerged at around the same time to fight off the Ottoman Empire, and later on the British colonies. Seeing as both movements eyed the same land, with the Palestinians living there for years, they were going to clash. Now the British controlled the area of Palestine, and the antisemitism reached new heights with WWII and Hitler. The UN pretty much agreed that Britain's empire needed to come to an end, and that the area could be divided evenly among the Jewish people and the Palestinian people. Israel was to get 55% of the land, despite Palestine being there first and the fact that the Jews would make up 33% of the population. Palestine did not agree to this partition of the land, with good reason because it was essentially stolen from them and divied up against their wishes in an unfair manner, so then you have the Arab War of 1948. This war caused thousands upon thousands of Palestinians to be uprooted from their homes, and Israel drastically expanded its borders beyond the original UN partitions. More conflict ensues over the years eventually leading up to the "6 Day War", and now Israel expands its borders so much that the Palestinians are almost pushed into the Mediterranean Sea. Beyond this conflict you have illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Israel controls the sea and airspace, and ultimately limits aid that gets through with blockades. How the US is so pro-Israel, I do not know, but it's beyond ridiculous, and it needs to end.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domestic ... 9220090107 Key point: I'd say that abstinence only education is a result of religion. Although, I will be fair. I don't think the idea of abstinence or fidelity came from religion, just that religion adopted these concepts because during the days before contraceptives, it was vital for society.

Brilliant summary from the Vlogbrothers of Youtube: edit: He made a mistake about Fatah, though. He meant Palestine, not Pakistan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... 4520090106 There will be a UN investigation. So, I thought they were preventing civilian casualties as much as possible? Guess which permanent member of the UN Security council will probably block that... Edit: just to point out, this is a crime of war, but don't expect Israel to be held accountable, because they never have been. Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online.

Yep, if it means opening the means for civilians to escape, that's exactly what you should do. Or, maybe..........just, maybe.......YOU DON'T REACT THIS WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE! And how should we react? If your country would have been bombed by rockets for the past 8 years, what would you have done? You can't talk to them, they don't want to. Even during cease fires the shoot rockets at us. You got no idea what you're talking about you haven't lived here (or in Gaza) for the past years. News reporters don't broadcast exact feelings. The invasion to secure the area is a much better response than air-raiding villages. Historically, and theoretically, invasions result in less civilian casualties than air-raids. It's too little too late now, though. I know they don't want to talk, they don't recognize your right to exist. This is why the onus is on a third party, namely the US or the UN (but they veto everything). I don't know that Hamas would even consider talking to the US either, certainly they wouldn't talk to saber rattlers like Rice or Bush. Scarborough put a "hypothetical" on Morning Joe, "What would we do if Canada started launching rockets across the border?" Well we probably would act the same way Israel has, even though it's a completely different situation considering the history of the areas. However, that doesn't mean I condone the US acting in that manner, nor is Canada the same population density as the Gaza Strip, nor is it as small. Like Ginger said, I tire of people like you telling me that I have no idea what I am talking about just because I don't live there, especially when Olmert's own daughter, wife, and people protest the actions taken by Israel.

Yep, if it means opening the means for civilians to escape, that's exactly what you should do. Or, maybe..........just, maybe.......YOU DON'T REACT THIS WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE! And I wish more news broadcasters were like Al Jazeera, they put the American Media to shame. Furthermore, all this talk about Israel having the right to defend itself: yep, I agree wholeheartedly, they have the right to defend themselves. However, don't expect that act of defense to not backfire because you were a huge amoral [wagon] about when you killed hundreds of civilians. Also don't expect Hamas to go anywhere, which was the main reason for this? Right? Isn't that what Livni said? http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD95FTP280 Or was it what Regev said? Someone's lying, and it ain't Regev.

This is what people like you do not seem to [bleep]ing understand! Killing any and all Hamas militias will not end their power, and they'll only be replaced by a more radical group! When the dust settles, what do you think all of these teenagers seeing their brothers and sisters that were amputated/killed/marred by shrapnel are going to think? "Oh, we had this coming because Hamas fired rockets...damn." No, that's not what they're thinking. These people are uneducated, starved, and fed propaganda that Israel is bombing their Mosques because they're warring against Islam. The first thing they're going to think is, "How do we get even with these Israeli bastards for destroying my city and people?" They will then join or actively support any of the various terrorist organizations. What don't you understand? It's a false dichotomy because they don't have to choose "bomb or don't bomb", there are a variety of things that they can do. I live in the United States, regrettably. No? No what? No that Livni isn't lying? I can give you quotes of their stories conflicting, sir. They're inadvertently targeting civilians by air-raiding them, knowing full well how densely populated the area is; it's what, 11,000 some people per square mile? That makes idea of the IAF dropping leaflets telling civilians to flee their homes... absurd. "Warning: Flee your homes, for we will be constructing air strikes. Good luck getting out though, LOL."

That, is [cabbage]. As we've said before, Israel are avoiding Civillian casualties as much as possible, but it's impossible in a space like Gaza, but more to the point, would Hamas in thier mindset avoid civillian casualties if they had the firepower? The answer would be no, primarily because they want "Wipe the zionist entity from the face of the earth" No they're not. If an area is that densely populated, you do NOT air-raid them. It's true mate, neither government cares for their own citizens and wants to use the situation for political power. Look at the poll numbers... You know what's worse than Hamas gaining political power from this?