Not trueKeyser Söze wrote:Bill Maher got sacked from ABC for his support of 9/11.
And he was right by the way.
Glen Miller wrote:I don't like William Maher.
That doesn't surprise me.
Not trueKeyser Söze wrote:Bill Maher got sacked from ABC for his support of 9/11.
Glen Miller wrote:I don't like William Maher.
He tells the truth about religion.Glen Miller wrote:Why not?
I like plenty of people who "tell the truth" as you see it. I like reading Hitchens, Nietzsche, and ResurrectionRooney. I cannot, however, tolerate William's smug smile.ResurrectionRooney wrote:He tells the truth about religion.Glen Miller wrote:Why not?
ResurrectionRooney wrote:1) None of the law mentioned is really relevant to whether it's self defence or not. Terrorists are attacking them, they're responding, that's self defence.
2) They keep voting for terrorists, they need to be kept an eye on. Imagine if they were allowed to do whatever they wanted.
3) Sounds like Hamas should stop firing rockets, take away Israel's main excuse
4) Israel's attacks are to deter other attacks and cripple Hamas' ability to launch them. Hamas' attacks are to create terror. Good guys and bad guys.
5) Hardly a debunking when it cites two examples of them using UN schools to store weapons. Hamas should probably stop using terrorism and giving Israel an excuse.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:Not trueKeyser Söze wrote:Bill Maher got sacked from ABC for his support of 9/11.
FCB wrote:Howard Stern is an idiot. His defense of Israel is that they're a democratic nation, the Jews suffered in the past, and they are the indigenous people of the land.
1) They are not the indigenous people of the land. They mostly came from Europe and other parts of the world. The Arabs outnumbered the Jews by far before the creation of Israel.
2) So what if the Jews suffered? It's not the Palestinian's fault. Why doesn't Germany give them a part of their land and they can form Israel over there? Why should the Palestinians have to suffer for it?
3) Being a democratic nation doesn't excuse you to commit war crimes. USA is a democracy, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and excuse its actions.
If Howard is right about one thing, is that America and Israel have similar beginnings. Coming over from Europe and killing the indigenous people to form their own country. So if you're anti-Israel, you're anti-America.
FCB wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:1) None of the law mentioned is really relevant to whether it's self defence or not. Terrorists are attacking them, they're responding, that's self defence.
2) They keep voting for terrorists, they need to be kept an eye on. Imagine if they were allowed to do whatever they wanted.
3) Sounds like Hamas should stop firing rockets, take away Israel's main excuse
4) Israel's attacks are to deter other attacks and cripple Hamas' ability to launch them. Hamas' attacks are to create terror. Good guys and bad guys.
5) Hardly a debunking when it cites two examples of them using UN schools to store weapons. Hamas should probably stop using terrorism and giving Israel an excuse.
1) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I remember Mandela being considered a terrorist. The truth is, Hamas is the one defending themselves (desperately I might add).
2) Then they shouldn't go around claiming that they pulled out of Gaza and make it seem like poor little Israel left them alone while Gaza is still attacking them. Israel would have a good excuse if they let Palestinians have control over their own land and then deal with any attacks from Gaza.
3) And bend over while they arrest their people, kill their people, and steal their land? I'd rather die fighting. We all saw what happens when Hamas stops firing rockets. Israel still starts the attacks.
4) Israel creates terror too. Their motives are not to just weaken Hamas militarily, but to cause terror in the Palestinians so that they turn against Hamas. The opposite effect is happening though. Hamas is getting stronger because they are the victims and resisting.
5) They use abandoned buildings. Israel has been accused by the UN of using Palestinian children as human shields. Where is your criticism of that?
Keyser Söze wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Not true
You say "not true" yet post a video that proves it's true
FCB wrote:My example of giving land to Jews in Germany, was just as an example to show that they could have gone anywhere. They were offered Uganda too, I believe.
What power over their land are you talking about? Israel has air and naval control of Gaza. They limit their imports and exports. They even calculate the daily calories the people need so as to just barely starve them. They maintain a population registry of Gaza. You call that control over their land? That's basically a prison. You also have Egypt blocking the border on the other side.
I fail to believe that Israel is not capable of making targeted attacks and reduce the civilian casualties.
FCB wrote:I don't even support Jews having their own land. They can assimilate into another country, but they can't just take over someone's land and say we're going to form our own country based on the Jewish race. If Palestinians were to leave the land and say go form their own country in Europe or take over Sinai, I wouldn't support that either. But what happened is hard to reverse, so I support a two state solution.
You know what else Palestinians are capable of? Leaving and letting Israel just expand its territory. But nobody should actually expect that from them. They are fighting an occupation. As the occupier, Israel has more of a responsibility.
Equating punching a near 300 pound 6 feet professional wrestler to using a Boeing 767 to kill unarmed office staffResurrectionRooney wrote:Keyser Söze wrote:
You say "not true" yet post a video that proves it's true
Saying it's not cowardly does not equate to support. If somebody is really angry with Brock Lesnar because he ended the Undertaker's undefeated streak and punches him in the face over it they're wrong to do it, they're committing a crime and they wouldn't have my support, but I'd say they're not cowardly.
The point is that it's brave, but not positive. The difference between that and 9/11 is only a matter of degree - the negative consequences of 9/11 are more severe and the damage caused is a lot greater, but it's still something that's wrong but not cowardly.Keyser Söze wrote:Equating punching a near 300 pound 6 feet professional wrestler to using a Boeing 767 to kill unarmed office staffResurrectionRooney wrote:
Saying it's not cowardly does not equate to support. If somebody is really angry with Brock Lesnar because he ended the Undertaker's undefeated streak and punches him in the face over it they're wrong to do it, they're committing a crime and they wouldn't have my support, but I'd say they're not cowardly.
Bravery (whatever you call not being cowardly) is a positive word. He described the hijackers in a positive manner whilst criticised the US for killing terrorists, something you support.
Being brave is positive. When have you ever heard people call rapists, murders and peodophiles brave?ResurrectionRooney wrote:The point is that it's brave, but not positive. The difference between that and 9/11 is only a matter of degree - the negative consequences of 9/11 are more severe and the damage caused is a lot greater, but it's still something that's wrong but not cowardly.Keyser Söze wrote:
Equating punching a near 300 pound 6 feet professional wrestler to using a Boeing 767 to kill unarmed office staff
Bravery (whatever you call not being cowardly) is a positive word. He described the hijackers in a positive manner whilst criticised the US for killing terrorists, something you support.
Keyser Söze wrote:Being brave is positive. When have you ever heard people call rapists, murders and peodophiles brave?ResurrectionRooney wrote:
The point is that it's brave, but not positive. The difference between that and 9/11 is only a matter of degree - the negative consequences of 9/11 are more severe and the damage caused is a lot greater, but it's still something that's wrong but not cowardly.
After I punch Lesnar I'll be around to face the repercussions, a painful beating that I'll feel and a criminal conviction. 9/11 hijackers died instantly on impact and likely felt nothing. According to their rhetoric they're supposedly relaxing in heaven with beautiful virgins.
I don't think you understand at all the mindset of these people if that's what you actually think.ResurrectionRooney wrote:Impending death creates a massive degree of terror that they had to overcome, which is pretty much the definition of bravery. This is regardless of any beliefs they might have had about what happens afterwards. When a Christian jumps on a grenade to protect his squadmates people don't say "He wasn't brave, he was just being sensible".
Also, what German WWII soldiers are you referring to? The ones defending their country were absolutely right according to you.ResurrectionRooney wrote:Germany soldiers in WWII were probably pretty brave, it doesn't mean they were right do to what they did.
Keyser Söze wrote:I don't think you understand at all the mindset of these people if that's what you actually think.ResurrectionRooney wrote:Impending death creates a massive degree of terror that they had to overcome, which is pretty much the definition of bravery. This is regardless of any beliefs they might have had about what happens afterwards. When a Christian jumps on a grenade to protect his squadmates people don't say "He wasn't brave, he was just being sensible".Also, what German WWII soldiers are you referring to? The ones defending their country were absolutely right according to you.ResurrectionRooney wrote:Germany soldiers in WWII were probably pretty brave, it doesn't mean they were right do to what they did.
Keyser Söze wrote:I don't know if you were being deliberately obtuse but I thought it was pretty clear I meant the mindset of religious zealots that seek to be martyrs.
So is it only OK for Israel to defend its people from terror? No other country are allowed to do it?
ResurrectionRooney wrote:It depends on the circumstances. It's not OK to defend a state which is implementing genocide and pursuing a hugely destructive war to expand its own territory. Ideally the German soldiers would have killed their leaders and defected to the other side. Of course this is not realistic, but it would absolutely have been the right thing to do.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:It's not OK to pursue a hugely destructive war to expand its own territory.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:FCB wrote:I don't even support Jews having their own land. They can assimilate into another country, but they can't just take over someone's land and say we're going to form our own country based on the Jewish race. If Palestinians were to leave the land and say go form their own country in Europe or take over Sinai, I wouldn't support that either. But what happened is hard to reverse, so I support a two state solution.
You know what else Palestinians are capable of? Leaving and letting Israel just expand its territory. But nobody should actually expect that from them. They are fighting an occupation. As the occupier, Israel has more of a responsibility.
They tried assimilating into other countries, it didn't work. You are making yourself look extremely stupid and ignorant here, but then again I support you're taking baby steps. Anything is an improvement from saying Jews should have taken over an area of Germany in 1945.
They should fight it in a non-violent way. It would be more ethical and more successful.
At this point I'd like to conduct a thought experiment to illustrate why I feel that Israel are the good guys in this situation and the Palestinians the bad guys.
At the moment Israel has the power to wipe out the Palestinians, and all of it's enemies in the area. It opts not to do that and expends its money on defence systems and its own infrastructure, improving the lives of both its own citizens and the people of Palestine through aid to improve their situation. When it has to use military force, it uses the minimum possible to achieve its objectives, tries to avoid civilian casualties and uses a small fraction of the force available to it. It has a number of extremely powerful allies, while Palestine has none.
If when we wake up tomorrow the situation is reversed, and Palestine somehow gains all of these military advantages over Israel, what do you think would happen?
Keyser Söze wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:It depends on the circumstances. It's not OK to defend a state which is implementing genocide and pursuing a hugely destructive war to expand its own territory. Ideally the German soldiers would have killed their leaders and defected to the other side. Of course this is not realistic, but it would absolutely have been the right thing to do.
The Jews were terrorising the German population, the government had to take action. That's what you've said before.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:It's not OK to pursue a hugely destructive war to expand its own territory.
Before you've said land won in war was the correct way and totally OK. I'm paraphrasing to make it grammatically correct but in the comment above it seems you've changed your mind.
FCB wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
They tried assimilating into other countries, it didn't work. You are making yourself look extremely stupid and ignorant here, but then again I support you're taking baby steps. Anything is an improvement from saying Jews should have taken over an area of Germany in 1945.
They should fight it in a non-violent way. It would be more ethical and more successful.
At this point I'd like to conduct a thought experiment to illustrate why I feel that Israel are the good guys in this situation and the Palestinians the bad guys.
At the moment Israel has the power to wipe out the Palestinians, and all of it's enemies in the area. It opts not to do that and expends its money on defence systems and its own infrastructure, improving the lives of both its own citizens and the people of Palestine through aid to improve their situation. When it has to use military force, it uses the minimum possible to achieve its objectives, tries to avoid civilian casualties and uses a small fraction of the force available to it. It has a number of extremely powerful allies, while Palestine has none.
If when we wake up tomorrow the situation is reversed, and Palestine somehow gains all of these military advantages over Israel, what do you think would happen?
That's their fucking problem. Why should the Palestinians have to suffer because Jews can't get along with people?
And to answer your question, Palestine might retaliate to all the years of oppression that they suffered. Maybe Israel is acting this way because of the shit they've been through in WWII. But if you want to know what Muslims would do if they had more power than Jews, just look at the Islamic empire in Andalusia or where the Jews fled to when they were persecuted by the Christians during the Spanish Inquisition.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:FCB wrote:
That's their fucking problem. Why should the Palestinians have to suffer because Jews can't get along with people?
And to answer your question, Palestine might retaliate to all the years of oppression that they suffered. Maybe Israel is acting this way because of the shit they've been through in WWII. But if you want to know what Muslims would do if they had more power than Jews, just look at the Islamic empire in Andalusia or where the Jews fled to when they were persecuted by the Christians during the Spanish Inquisition.
Because Jews can't get along with people? Are you blaming the Holocaust on the Jews now? I don't often use emoticons but that warrants it!
They "might" retaliate? What form would this retaliation take? Strongly worded condemnation of Israel? Sanctions? Be more specific, please tell me what you think would happen.
Israel acts the way it does because from the moment it existed Muslims, primarily Arabs, have been trying to destroy it and denying its right to exist. They have to act in the way they do to protect their security. If Palestine adjusted their attitude, moved away from the policies of evil men like Hitler and Osama Bin Laden and instead towards the policies and ideals of great men like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ and me then Israel would have no reason to do bad things they do.
I don't presume that all Muslims are the same, so what happened in Andalusia isn't really relevant to me.
Are there any famous highly peaceful Muslims around by the way? When I was naming great men of peace I could only think of ones from different, or no religions. Whose example could the Palestinians be expected to follow?
FCB wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Because Jews can't get along with people? Are you blaming the Holocaust on the Jews now? I don't often use emoticons but that warrants it!
They "might" retaliate? What form would this retaliation take? Strongly worded condemnation of Israel? Sanctions? Be more specific, please tell me what you think would happen.
Israel acts the way it does because from the moment it existed Muslims, primarily Arabs, have been trying to destroy it and denying its right to exist. They have to act in the way they do to protect their security. If Palestine adjusted their attitude, moved away from the policies of evil men like Hitler and Osama Bin Laden and instead towards the policies and ideals of great men like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ and me then Israel would have no reason to do bad things they do.
I don't presume that all Muslims are the same, so what happened in Andalusia isn't really relevant to me.
Are there any famous highly peaceful Muslims around by the way? When I was naming great men of peace I could only think of ones from different, or no religions. Whose example could the Palestinians be expected to follow?
I didn't blame the Holocaust on the Jews, don't twist my words. I simply said that the Palestinians shouldn't have to deal with or suffer because of something between the Jews and Europeans.
I honestly don't know how they would retaliate. They surely wouldn't exterminate the Jews if that's what you're getting at. But I can easily see them expanding the Palestinians territories. I can see sanctions being used (different from blockading the territories).
Amr Khaled comes to mind as a current Muslim role model. I respect Mohamed ElBaradei when it comes to matters of peace and patience, although I disagreed with him politically at times.
FCB wrote:Amr Khaled comes to mind as a current Muslim role model.
FCB wrote:It was a horrific attack and treatment of not only Jews, but other people. That will never excuse what they're doing now though.
After a year, yes. I honestly believe that if a proper peace agreement is formed between Israel and Palestinian, there will be lasting peace. Both people just want to have their own homeland and live in peace. There are a few extremists on both sides that want to eliminate each other and take all the land.
They're pretty famous actually. Amr Khaled is a famous religious person in the Middle East and was voted in Time's 100 most influential people. Mohamed ElBaradei is a former Nobel Peace prize winner, former head of the IAEA, former Egyptian presidential candidate and former Egyptian vice-president.
You're following a 1500 year old religion based on words in a book that claim to be inerrant, conservatism is part of the package.Keyser Söze wrote:FCB wrote:Amr Khaled comes to mind as a current Muslim role model.
I like him, but I think it's a sad state of affairs that only conservative muslims are seen as "good".
|
|