What I'm worried about is the world thinking that terrorism by the Palestinians is somehow justified. Regardless of what the reason for terrorist acts may be, it's never justifiable.
It's not like the hatred Palestine expresses for Israel is unprecedented; they've been forced off their land, oppressed and attacked for decades now. Can you really be surprised a nation would resort to such radical extremes in such a desperate situation?
If Israel respected Palestine's sovereignty as a nation we'd have no problem. (A question could be asked of whether it's too late now, on the other hand.)
Can you give an example of an elected politician in, say, America who displays antisemitic beliefs? I didn't think it was that common.
I'm also worried that even though it's a well-known and well-published fact that Palestinians teach antisemitism and hatred to their small children, the world mainly ignores it. Nobody shows concern nor reproach.
Antisemitism is not really a problem nowadays anymore. Today it is instead the antimuslimism that is the problem. Just like illuminati's antisemitic brainwashing led to WW2, the antimuslimic brainwashing today will lead to WW3 soon. People see enemies everywhere, but the only enemy is in the brain.
As for NesVideoAgent's post announcing features, I am inclined to think that someone should take ownership of that aspect and arrange that themselves. It is difficult to achieve with the site and the bot being on different servers
What I'm worried about is the world thinking that terrorism by the Palestinians is somehow justified. Regardless of what the reason for terrorist acts may be, it's never justifiable.
Literally the same can be said about Israelites, really.
I also find it wrong that the word "terrorism" has suffered a huge inflation and is being used as an umbrella term for everything (in a similar way as eg. the term "racism" is). Any act of war is called "terrorism", not because it would be, but simply to show disagreement.
There are clear differences between acts of terrorism and military acts of war:
- Military war is usually aimed at the enemy military forces, in order to disable them. It's usually considered a good thing to minimize civilian casualties, if possible. On the other hand, acts of terrorism are invariably targeted towards civilians and their aim is to maximize civilian casualties.
- Likewise military war usually targets enemy military infrastructure and tries to minimize damage to civilian infrastructure. Acts of terrorism try to maximize destruction of civilian infrastructure.
- War is usually declared in advance, as a last resort when all peaceful negotiations fail. One of the ideas is that the other country gets to move its civilians to safety, if possible, Acts of terrorism have no specific warning in advance because the objective is to kill as many civilians as possible, after all.
Many people deliberately define terrorism as "civilians died". That's not the definition. The definition is "civilians were the main target". Israel has not committed any terrorist acts. It has performed military operations. Yes, civilians have died because of them, but the civilians were not the target.
On the other hand, Palestinian terrorists target civilians and try to maximize casualties. That's the pure definition of terrorism.
If you disagree with Israel's military operations, ask yourself what would your country do if it was constantly being attacked by some neighboring people.
Btw, this is an interesting article about the subject: http://www.thelocal.se/17466/20090209/
I don't know what my country would do, but if there's any possibility to I'd refuse to take part in their games of war. There's no benefit for me in putting my life on the line or for me killing other people. I'm very anti-social in that regard. I'll intoxicate myself with others, but I won't kill with others. That just crosses a line for me.
Unfortunately, war is a game that only requires one side to play, and that side already said that they want you dead. :P
Also, civilized countries will not help you, but they will only protest moderately if you build an army to repel the attack.
Arabs also have a history of faking casualty numbers, because victimism benefits them, and lying is not a sin if you do it to a non-muslim (and if you lie to a muslim, it's only a sin if you are caught).
Much of what is being stored in North Sinai - including food items like lentils, pasta, chickpeas, and juice - has been deemed by Israel to be "non- essential" to life in the Gaza Strip.
Israel has violated the Geneva Convention in disrupting health facilities during a time of war:
Isn't it worse for Arabs that fill ambulances with terrorists? Saying that about Israel is a joke when the other side is a worse offender and also because it's the one that always breaks the peace treaties.
Also, something to think about: Why is it that victims of the jewish holocaust deserve their own state, while victims of the darfur genocide do not?
This is an easy one, because the land belonged to the british and they gave the land to the jews as a gift, and they have the right to give it away to anyone they want. :P
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Ah-3E-1I4]This guy[/URL] will hopefully clear up the confusion by telling you what really happened. Jk, just wanted to post it because it kind of fits the current topic. I don't know anything about these conflicts, so I refuse to form an opinion about that matter. Everything I hear about it seems strongly biased.
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZENW1oYNGnk]Another one of his videos.[/URL] Very similar.
heh.. just when I saw new posts in this thread, I thought I should ask a question. Then I read that Ferret had already asked exactly the question I wanted to pose. nice one :)
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Just a nice image, not a question at all.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
It's far complicated than that. There are people to which showing a baseball doesn't work because it's too complicate to understand, but saying that something is so because that person says so works for the reason appeal to authority works. Personifying the concept of goodness as the most authoritative person, and remaining consistent with the message (which also provides good results) is the reason of the success of christianity.
Also, it's known that the only reason at least 25% of population don't commit crimes is solely for fear of punishment. That is, if they think they won't be hurt, they will do whatever they please, like kill you or destroying a forest, or whatever hurts the rest of the world as a whole. It's known that cultures that have some form of after-death judgement are more succesful than others due to the effect it has on these kind of people.
Additionally, most forms of "god's punishment" for doing so and so, which is the basis of religion's morals, are simple rules of thumb of survival when there's no technology to give a reasonably scientific explanations. For example, eating pork was banned from many religions due to trichinosis and infidelity was also chastised because it spread a lot of diseases. In fact, most of Africa current problems with diseases are due to absolute lack of morals: at least 25% of men have raped a child, people infect others thinking the other will carry with his 'bad spirit' and he will be free, and infidelity is the norm, not the exception.
So even if you were an atheist science-zealot kind of person full of hatred against religion, trying to disprove it is equivalent to shooting in your foot, because there are scientific studies that find evolutionary advantages on religious populations, and you are proactively working against them.
But just to make my point more sound, let's say that you see kermit the frog telling kids to brush their teeth every night before sleep, then you are so outrageous because Jim Henson is using a puppet to tell kids to brush their teeth that you have to tell them that kermit the frog doesn't really exist, and that they shouldn't worry about brushing their teeth at all! That's totally stupid and detrimental to everyone. Jim Henson wasn't "controlling the kids", he was delivering a message simple to understand for everyone, that he knew was good even if he didn't give any proof of it, nor talked about the quirks and exceptions that would blurr the simplicity of the lesson.
In conclusion, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, and people being unable to give an explanation for something doesn't mean that the explanation doesn't exist, just that the person hasn't the training to give it, or that it is more complex than what you need to know at that moment.
You're wrong here. Nobody does that. I don't think anybody, atheist or not, would argue that murder (or no brushing your teeth) is okay. You don't need religion to have morals.
And the thing is, Kermit the Frog doesn't wage war on other people that like different puppets...
Science goes perfectly well without religion.
When science can't explain something, it goes, "Okay, we don't know that yet and it's fine"
When religion can't explain something, it goes, "Here's, our best guess, it must be right."
All your points are wrong, because all your assumptions are false.
Also, religions other than Islam (and some interpretations of calvinism) are against war and forceful conversion, and Islam only if they follow their sacred texts. People going to war using religion as an excuse are like people commiting crimes using videogames as an excuse, it makes no sense unless you have prepared yourself to believe that, but it's used a lot by interested parties to gain influence.
What I'm worried about is the world thinking that terrorism by the Palestinians is somehow justified. Regardless of what the reason for terrorist acts may be, it's never justifiable.
One guys terrorist is always another guys freedom fighter. The british also legally owned the (now) USA and I'm sure they saw the founding fathers as terrorist.
So I'll reserve judgement on this issue and just see how it plays out. Because in history the winner was always right...
DrJones wrote:
In fact, most of Africa current problems with diseases are due to absolute lack of morals: at least 25% of men have raped a child, people infect others thinking the other will carry with his 'bad spirit' and he will be free, and infidelity is the norm, not the exception.
You said it yourself. Africans are doing those things because of THEIR stupid religeons. (disclaimer: imo all religeons are equally stupid)
They rape and harm others and even children because their religeos leaders tell them that they will be cured from AIDS if they do so. And religeos people that they are they believe them. In the end everybody wants to live, so they do these horrible things. All in the name of religeon.
Btw. Invidelity is also the norm in the western world. You just have to turn on the news to see what gouvener has a mistress this week. Here we are just generally better in hiding it and if we are smart we use condoms, which most africans just have no access to.
DrJones wrote:
All your points are wrong, because all your assumptions are false.
Could you please explain why his statements are false? I know quite a lot of atheists and none of them has murdered somebody. Shouldn't they be on a murder spre right now?
PS: I'm not saying that believing in a god is stupid, but organized religeon always is and always will be no matter in what shape or form.
What further illustrates your point is that a good part of the USA territory was once "owned" by natives, which have then been hunted and bound to small reservations.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
DEMOTIVATING
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
One guys terrorist is always another guys freedom fighter.
There is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. The main target of freedom fighters are (usually invading) enemy troops. The main target of terrorists are innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the military.
There is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. The main target of freedom fighters are (usually invading) enemy troops. The main target of terrorists are innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the military.
Should we classify America's army in freedom fighter or in terrorism ?
Because they killed civilians,
but fighting terrorism,
but they don't attack those who are invading,
I just don't know if your definition is good, or not. It depends on the point of view I guess.
