DescentBB

wait.. "home land"... not hardly.

Try reading history again. And Israel and bought the land they're in now .. with legit money.... twice since the 1800's. It's theirs. The Palestinian people were the "redheaded stepchildren" of the Arabic states and are now being used by the Arabic states to leverage against Israel whom they want to see eradicated.

And that's that in a nutshell.

As Netanyahu’s own words show, however, Israel will accept nothing short of the acquiescence of Palestinians to their own subordination

and why shouldn't he? the Hamas charter calls for the total destruction of Israel. not much of a leader if he's not willing to defend his own people now is he?

THE COVENANT OF THE HAMAS - MAIN POINTS

=======================================



The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement was issued on August

18, 1988. The Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as the HAMAS,

is an extremist fundamentalist Islamic organization operating in the

territories under Israeli control. Its Covenant is a comprehensive

manifesto comprised of 36 separate articles, all of which promote the

basic HAMAS goal of destroying the State of Israel through Jihad

(Islamic Holy War). The following are excerpts of the HAMAS

Covenant:



Goals of the HAMAS:

------------------

'The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian

movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is

Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of

Palestine.' (Article 6)



On the Destruction of Israel:

-----------------------------

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will

obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)



The Exclusive Moslem Nature of the Area:

----------------------------------------

'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession]

consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one

can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.'

(Article 11)



'Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the

Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem

wherever he may be.' (Article 13)



The Call to Jihad:

------------------

'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the

individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation,

it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)



'Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses

everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the

call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This cry will

reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is

achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about.'

(Article 33)



Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:

-------------------------------------------

'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and

international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of

the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than

a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of

Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by

Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a

waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)



Condemnation of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty:

----------------------------------------------

'Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of struggle

[against Zionism] through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. The

Zionists are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar

agreements in order to bring them outside the circle of struggle.

...Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high treason,

and cursed be he who perpetrates such an act.' (Article 32)



Anti-Semitic Incitement:

------------------------

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)



'The enemies have been scheming for a long time ... and have

accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money,

they took control of the world media... With their money they stirred

revolutions in various parts of the globe... They stood behind the

French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the

revolutions we hear about... With their money they formed secret

organizations - such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions -

which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies

and carry out Zionist interests... They stood behind World War I ...

and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the

world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge

financial gains... There is no war going on anywhere without them

having their finger in it.' (Article 22)



'Zionism scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet

expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates River. When they have

finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they

will look forward to more expansion. Their scheme has been laid out

in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.' (Article 32)



'The HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the

circle of struggle against World Zionism... Islamic groups all over

the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped

for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews.'

chicken-egg. Seems a reasonable response, CUDA, to a nation who will not accept anything short of complete occupation of Jerusalem and other territories, permanently under Israeli control. If someone wanted to demand those terms of me, I'd be calling for their destruction or elimination. Seems pretty straightforward......almost completely reasonable.

A simple yes would have been sufficient.

And most likely- Israelis would be killed on sight if not kidnapped in every single one of the arab states surrounding Israel.

Just a quick comparison between Gaza and the West bank:

West Bank GDP climbed from $3.3 billion in 2007 to $4.4 billion in 2010, while per capita GDP went from $1,580 to $1,924, an increase of 22%. The growth looks even better when viewed over a longer period: in 2010, West Bank GDP was 50% higher than in 2000, and 124% higher than in 1994.

Gaza's per capita GDP actually decreased from $886 in 2007 to $876 in 2010. Even when factoring in last year's spike, Gaza's real GDP in 2010 was only 11% higher than in 2000 and 24% higher than in 1994.

Well, well. Just a quick comparison between War in Ukraine beginning of the 21th century and Vietnam War the middle of the 20th century.

Vladimir Kolotov, Professor, Head of the Department of History of the Far East

60 years ago - the "democratic" puppet dictator

In July 2014 marks exactly 60 years since the signing of the Geneva Agreements on Indochina, in accordance with them ended the First Indochina War (1946-1954), hosted by France. The outcome of the confrontation has decided not eloquence diplomats and brilliant result of the operation at Dien Bien Phu Vietnamese commander Vo Nguyen Zyapom. He wisely took advantage of the French generals focusing on quick victory in a pitched battle, lured a limited contingent of the enemy in a trap prepared beforehand in a mountainous area in the northwest, cut supply lines and defeated the cream of the French Expeditionary Corps. Victory in the historic battle has strengthened the position of the resistance forces in the negotiations.
Geneva Accords recorded a new balance of power in Indochina, and, according to the accepted scheme in those years, Vietnam was divided at the 17th parallel into North and South. France was forced to leave North Vietnam and the United States pushed through the appointment of his henchman Ngo Dinh Diem as Prime Minister of South Vietnam, which marked the beginning of the epic lasted almost a year to further displacement of French Americans.

United States, of course, had their own understanding of how the Geneva Accords, and developed in East Asia geopolitical situation. South Vietnam was proclaimed bulwark of the "free world" in East Asia. Washington believed that the fall of Saigon cause a chain reaction and the remaining countries in Southeast Asia, one after another fall under the control of the Sino-Soviet bloc. Therefore, it was decided to transform South Vietnam at a crucial reference point, which will be an insurmountable barrier to the mythical communist expansion.
Recorded in the Geneva Conventions holding two years later - July 20, 1956 - the general elections to the Parliament unified Vietnam was thwarted. South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem only with American support was able to gain a foothold in power instead of the general election to the legislature unified Vietnam began to organize a "crusade" against the controlled "godless communists" of the North.
During this period, the curators of the CIA spent several spectacular operations psychological warfare, which is quite worthy of a separate study in institutions, even decades later. They have shown that the technology of reflexive control large masses of confused literate people are quite effective propaganda can be used to your advantage. By the way, the curator of the future of the South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem through the CIA arrived in Saigon before the ward and started to create his public support, a favorable image, as well as a "national army".

It was on his recommendation of a local and Western media have begun to present Ngo Dinh Diem as a staunch nationalist, though any observer with even the most elementary knowledge of the history of Vietnam, they would immediately ask the obvious question: how comes from a Catholic family could be Vietnamese nationalist? Yet this propaganda piece did not initially embarrassed or curators, or the inhabitants, who have read the article of Western journalists.
However, Ngo Dinh Diem not always blindly follow the instructions provided. Even before the "election" of the President in 1955, he was told that in democratic countries indecent win with a score of 100 percent, with the presidential candidate had taken my word for it that this his election will not be. Ngo Dinh Diem as his word, and received a total of 98.2 per cent. Soon it began to take shape around the hard dictatorship, which could hold only foreign bayonets. South Vietnamese army launched three attempts to the elimination of the hated dictator.

By the way, the most astute contemporaries even then noticed the tendency of American special forces in the organization of high-profile terrorist attacks, responsibility for which is traditionally attributed to the unsuspecting opponents. For example, the British writer Graham Greene and intelligence in his novel "The Quiet American," said one of these terrorist attacks, trained curator of Ngo Dinh Diem. In a literary work, "The Quiet American" appeared under the assumed name Pyle.

Representatives of the CIA, arrived in Saigon, took control of the main South Vietnamese media and put in power a Catholic president. Based on American support, the Catholic minority Launched an ambitious policy of repression against the Communists and discrimination against other religions. Subjected to the greatest pressure of traditional religions, especially Buddhism. Consistent policy Catholicism army of the state apparatus and forced conversion to Catholicism of the population of South Vietnam.
At this time, the Americans created a regime of enhanced preparing to carry out its core mission - the organization of a "crusade" to the North. Case remained only a "small" - to draw the South Vietnamese people to Catholicism. From this mad venture was abandoned in their time, even the French colonialists, who had extensive experience in this field, but hard to follow this general line of American curators and their Saigon protege alienated from them a large part of the Buddhist population, which created additional support to the Communists and thus deprived the support regime. As a result, received from the French free from the Communist threat to South Vietnam regime of Ngo Dinh Diem in a few years has brought the situation to a critical level. Press came from the United States a new job, and the same newspapers that in the mid-1950s called him a Democrat, in the early 1960s began to call him a dictator, while all the time he was just a puppet president, who had to answer for the mistakes their supervisors.

Despite the change of the "political leader" in Saigon, the situation for the United States continued to develop not the best way, the puppet troops and American advisers who developed expensive and ineffective programs "pacification", were unable to cope with the growing liberation movement. In an effort to keep from decay puppet regime and keep under control of South Vietnam, Washington blamed all his failures Hanoi and headed for the outbreak of hostilities against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV).
....

It is unlikely that you will want to read the continuation.
Do you still believe the statements the United States and the American press?

[quote="The "Middle Ground" Fallacy in Gaza"]

Doug DiPasquale
Sott.net
Thursday, July 31, 2014 05:09 CDT

I had a discussion on Facebook recently over the Gaza conflict. I was posting about the horrific abuses of Israel, he was countering with the supposed equal abuses of Hamas. After we traded points a few times I came to see where our difference of opinion actually lay. You see, fundamentally we both see things from the same side - war is ridiculous and the atrocities of this conflict are completely inexcusable. Killing children or civilians is completely psychopathic. We both want an end to this conflict. And yet we were arguing.

Where my friend was hung up was that the article I had posted wasn't "balanced". It was calling out Israel on war crimes, human rights violations and the like, but it wasn't citing any of the equally horrific things that Hamas has done. The familiar "human shield" argument was trotted out, as could be expected.

On the one hand, this position is really indicative of someone who is not properly informed and relies on liberal media for information. In other words, it's the Zionist position, that both sides are equally at fault and that the situation is "complicated", and that Israel has a right to defend itself (against its prisoners, apparently).

But at the same time, I could see where he was coming from and the error in his thinking became glaringly obvious. It actually enlightened me as to the perspective of most people in the West, absorbing their CNN news bites, reading HuffPo, or other liberal outlets. As human beings, watching the actions of other supposed human beings, one naturally assumes that there is some form of logic behind their actions. The situation is "complicated" because the 'rights and wrongs' of it are difficult to tease out.

And because it's assumed that our leaders are logical people, there's a natural tendency to believe that the truth of the Israel/Palestine conflict lies somewhere in the middle, everyone has a perspective and all perspectives should be considered and validated to some extent. Certainly, it is not reasonable to totally reject one perspective in favor of another, because that's being 'biased'. One side says x, the other side says y, so the truth of the matter must lie somewhere in between. Both positions are taken as extremes upon a continuum, each party's natural bias pulling in the opposite direction.

This is what is commonly referred to as the "middle ground fallacy", where it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. It's an understandable mistake to make when seen from the perspective of two extreme positions like "too much" and "not enough". Take exercise, to use an example from the above link. Too much is bad and can lead to injury. Not enough is ineffective. In this case, it would, of course, be the correct answer to look to the middle ground, enough exercise to be effective but not too much.

But what do we do when the two positions equate to truth versus lies?

Here's a hypothetical situation. Two neighbours are in court over a dispute - one neighbour shot and killed the other's dog. The dog owner holds that his neighbour was in a fit of rage over a property dispute and shot the dog out of spite. The other holds that the dog attacked him and that he feared for his life. For the purpose of the exercise, let's say that the dog owner is telling the truth, that the dog was not attacking and the neighbour acted out of malice and the neighbor deliberately lies to cover up his abuse.

The judge, confronted with the two sides of the story, decides that the truth of the matter must lie somewhere in the middle. He therefore hands out a lenient sentence, a fine perhaps, and closes the case. Has justice been served here? The middle ground fallacy has impeded any possible justified recourse. It only serves to benefit the liar in this situation. The truth is done a disservice.

Now bring things out to a macro scale of world conflicts. It's a natural tendency to assume that both sides are on opposite sides a continuum and that the truth of the matter is somewhere between the two extremes, invoking the middle ground fallacy. My friend had said to me at one point in our Facebook back and forth, "there's evidence of war crimes from both sides of the conflict. Suggesting it's all Israel's fault or all Hamas' fault is not taking all the available evidence a looking at it from a balanced perspective."

But let's look at a case from history. What about the enslavement of Africans by the the white man for 200 years of American history? If one side of the continuum is "slavery is perfectly OK" and the other side is "slavery is fundamentally wrong", is the truth somewhere in the middle? Maybe a middle ground, like "slavery is wrong, but other forms of oppression are OK". Or "slavery is wrong but forced indentured servitude is OK"?

Of course not! There is a very clear answer and it doesn't lie between the two positions. The truth speaks loudly here; slavery is absolutely wrong on all levels and should never have existed in the first place, in any form.

The above is a simplistic example, but what we see playing out on the world stage is similar. There is a fundamental truth to the conflict in Gaza; the situation is not "complicated". The waters are further muddied, however, when one side of the argument is psychopathic, meaning completely devoid of human conscience. In this case, the middle ground fallacy only serves to further the psychopathic agenda. Any time an arbitrator invokes the middle ground, the psychopathic agenda is furthered and the truth is set back. As is the case with the dog, justice is not served.

And this brings up another fundamental issue with the common perspective on the Israel-Gaza conflict - the woeful lack of education about the existence and actions of psychopaths.

Regular readers of SOTT are more than familiar with the research on psychopaths and that they comprise the upper echelons of our societal elite. As I stated in my last article, with Joe Quinn:

Regular readers of this website should be familiar with the idea that psychopaths are the ones 'in charge' here on planet Earth. Or, at the very least, the actions taken by these 'elite' are not informed by a conscience as it is normally understood by normal people. It's not that SOTT.net editors are imbued with the ability, or the qualifications for that matter, to diagnose psychopathy at a distance. It's simply the fact that it's easy enough to determine whether or not actions taken on both a micro and macro scale are informed by a conscience.

For example, the ordering of drone strikes against civilians, no matter how many alleged 'terrorists' are 'taken out', is an act that is devoid of conscience. Lying about weapons of mass destruction, chemical attacks against civilians or 'homegrown terror plots' in order to justify violent military or police action against foreign or domestic populations is a conscienceless act. Deceptively spying on the private communications of your own citizens, and then lying about it to the world, is acting without conscience. In short, the maxim: "By their fruits, ye shall know them" can take us a long way in separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak."

One could add that bombing a UN school full of displaced people, including children, in the dead of night in Gaza is also a conscienceless act:

Pierre Krahenbuhl, commissioner-general of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, condemned "in in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israeli forces".

He said in a statement: "Last night, children were killed as they slept next to their parents on the floor of a classroom in a UN-designated shelter in Gaza. Children killed in their sleep; this is an affront to all of us, a source of universal shame. Today the world stands disgraced."

Or perhaps the United States "resupplying Israel with ammunition even after condemning shelling of Gaza school":

According to [CNN], Pentagon officials have confirmed that the US will honor a request from Israel for several types of ammunition, including 120mm mortar rounds and 40mm ammunition for grenade launchers. The exchange will not be an emergency sale, the unnamed officials said, and is coming from a stockpile of weapons maintained by the US in Israel worth more than $1 billion.

Only moments beforehand, however, the White House officially spoke out against an attack attributed to the IDF from earlier that day on an UN Relief and Works Agency school in Gaza's Jabaliya refugee camp. Officials in Gaza say the shelling killed at least 15 and wounded 90 others, and is but the latest strike waged by the IDF in a war against Hamas that continues to claim the lives of Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire.

As this blatantly illustrates, we need to pay attention to the actions, not the words. Profits are valued over the life of children.

Again, from my piece with Joe Quinn:

Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Mary Ellen O'Toole, Ph.D., describe the psychopath in this way:

Beneath the cleverly formed façade - typically created by psychopaths to influence their targets - is a darker side, which people eventually may suspect. They can be pathological liars who con, manipulate, and deceive others for selfish means. Some corporate psychopaths thrive on thrill seeking, bore easily, seek stimulation, and play mind games with a strong desire to win. Unlike professional athletes moved by a desire to improve performance and surpass their personal best, psychopaths are driven by what they perceive as their victims' vulnerabilities. Little research exists on their inner psychological experiences; however, they seem to get perverted pleasure from hurting and abusing their victims.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) research indicates that psychopaths are incapable of experiencing basic human emotions and feelings of guilt, remorse, or empathy. This emotional poverty often is visible in their shallow sentiment. They display emotions only to manipulate individuals around them. They mimic other people's emotional responses. Some lack realistic long-term goals, although they can describe grandiose plans. The impulsive and irresponsible psychopath lives a parasitic and predatory lifestyle, seeking out and using other people, perhaps, for money, food, shelter, sex, power, and influence.

Sounds like an apt description of our political and financial world leaders, does it not?

Again, we see here a psychopathic agenda played out on the world stage. There is no middle ground in this situation. Innocent civilians are held in an open air prison, their food metered out by the calorie, denied access to building materials, educational materials, all the things we take for granted in daily life, and then attacked and killed without provocation (say what you will about Hamas rockets, however ineffective, the civilians have done nothing to provoke these attacks). These are actions not informed by human conscience.

Unfortunately, as we watch actions play out on the world stage, one fundamental flaw in correctly understanding these events lies in the belief that we are dealing with the actions of human beings. We automatically assume that 'They're like us. They have their biases and blind spots, but at the core they can be reasoned with and a resolution can be reached.' But we're not dealing with human beings. What we're observing on the world stage are the actions of psychopaths. Not drawn along racial lines, as many racist philosophical tenets would have you believe, but lines of power.

Again, from Joe Quinn:

As clinical studies on the psychopathic mind make clear, psychopaths periodically experience a compelling drive to give vent to their destructive instincts. In the case of psychopaths in positions of power, this usually means some kind of 'war' where innocent civilians (aka 'non-combatants') are targeted for the most brutal suffering. In the specific case of the Israeli psychopathic 'elite', the psychological profile goes something like this:

Netanyahu and his ilk have a deep, almost unconscious desire to obliterate the Palestinians, to 'erase them from the pages of history', because the Palestinians stand in the way of them achieving their goal of a idealized Jewish state where they reign supreme. The Israeli/Zionist ideologues are frequently and privately enraged at the Palestinians because the Palestinians force the Zionists to struggle to find a way to achieve their racist goals without tarnishing their own self-image as 'seeking peace' 'defending the Jewish people' being 'the only Democracy in the Middle East' etc. To the psychopaths in Israel therefore, all Palestinians are 'evil', but there's a problem: the Palestinians are not evil and their cause is just by normal human standards.

But what about Hamas? Aren't they equally guilty of psychopathic actions against Israeli citizens? While the world looks on, the media portrays the conflict as Israel versus Hamas. But at their root, again, if you look at actions, not words, from the perspective of who wants the conflict to end and who wants it to continue, Israel and Hamas are both on the same side - working to further the conflict rather than end it. Both their efforts serve to continue or escalate the conflict, both maximize the number of casualties and both ensure the audience will be forever polarized. Are they in cahoots? It's hard to say, but Joe goes into some detail on this here.

Here's just a little taste from Yasser Arafat to Corriere della Sera on Dec. 11, he said:

"We are doing everything possible to stop the violence. But Hamas is a creature of Israel which, at the time of Prime Minister [Yitzhak] Shamir [the late 1980s, when Hamas arose], gave them money and more than 700 institutions, among them schools, universities and mosques. Even [former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin ended up admitting it, when I charged him with it, in the presence of [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak."

In an interview with L'Espresso on Dec. 19, Arafat said:

"Hamas was constituted with the support of Israel. The aim was to create an organization antagonistic to the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization]. They [Hamas] received financing and training from Israel. They have continued to benefit from permits and authorizations, while we have been limited, even [for permits] to build a tomato factory. Rabin himself defined it as a fatal error. Some collaborationists of Israel are involved in these [terrorist] attacks. We have the proof, and we are placing it at the disposal of the Italian government."

As a caveat to the above and the idea that the Hamas leadership are 'in it together with Israel'; both normal human beings and psychopaths will engage in resistance to a brutal military and economic occupation against a defenceless civilian population, but only the psychopath or seriously 'ponerized' individual will engage in that kind of brutalization of the innocent. There is a clear qualitative difference between the crimes of an aggressor and occupier and the 'crimes' of someone resisting that aggression and occupation. The 4th Geneva Convention makes this very clear, as Richard A. Falk (american professor emeritus of international law and UN Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories") explains:

"...in international law, Palestinian resistance to occupation is a legally protected right.[...] Israel's failures to abide by international law, as a belligerent occupant, amounted to a fundamental denial of the right of self-determination, and more generally of respect for the framework of belligerent occupation -- giving rise to a Palestinian right of resistance.[...]

Throughout the occupation and very visibly during the two uprisings, Israel has reacted to Palestinian resistance with the excessive use of lethal force, including the targeting of civilians and children. Both the "creation of facts" and the use of such force -- greatly escalated during the fall 2000 uprising -- constitute repeated violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

How many dead civilians will it take before we realize that the people in charge are the cause here? We can't expect human actions of conscience from those who don't possess one. So let's all stop waiting for a solution from that particular source.

My friend and I ended our interaction on civil enough terms, but he remains convinced that the truth lies in the middle ground. There is no middle ground when it comes to the Israel-Gaza conflict. There never is when you're dealing with psychopaths. Because in the end, it's not about a battle between Israel and Hamas, it's about psychopaths versus thinking, feeling human beings. With the middle ground fallacy so firmly embedded in my friend's thinking, he'll probably never see the truth about what's going on on the big blue marble. And in this day and age, that's a dangerous position to be in, as is made clear in this extremely important book.[/quote]

callmeslick wrote:
Jews were largely displaced to Europe for FAR longer than Native Americans were displaced to 'reservations'. The Nation of Israel was a creation, not of the regional residents, but of EUROPE. That is almost the root cause of the problem, frankly. No one asked Palestinian Arabs and Christians if they wanted to abandon their farms and orchards. Worse, that takeover keeps going to this day(called the cute term-'annexation'). What has transpired in the name of Israeli sovereignity is little short of a 50 year war crime. Not to excuse much of the response, but the response from the Palestinians is one of pure desperation, which is understandable, to my eyes.

Funny thing slick...did we commit war crimes against the native americans when we "annexed their lands? Perhaps you should read up on the modern day battle of Wounded Knee (1973) and find out what happens when a group of original land owners try to exert their rights. Like the Palestinians, no one asked the red man if they wanted to give up their lands. And yet you want us to get down on the Israeli's when we are far less able to preach from the high ground.
at least the Israeli's were sanctioned to take the land, we weren't.

woodchip wrote:Funny thing slick...did we commit war crimes against the native americans when we "annexed their lands?

by modern thinking, or frankly, any rational thinking, yes.

Perhaps you should read up on the modern day battle of Wounded Knee (1973) and find out what happens when a group of original land owners try to exert their rights. Like the Palestinians, no one asked the red man if they wanted to give up their lands. And yet you want us to get down on the Israeli's when we are far less able to preach from the high ground.
at least the Israeli's were sanctioned to take the land, we weren't.

not arguing that reality in the least, Woody. My whole point, as an American, is to stop meddling in the region. I never have been one to suggest that the US can deal in moral high ground, especially over the past 50 years.

Sky, your friend who rejects the middle ground fallacy has embraced the 'comet-of-ultimate-destruction-bazillions-of-light years-away-is-making-them-do-it' theory.

Sort of kills his credibility in my opinion.

Will Robinson wrote:Sky, your friend who rejects the middle ground fallacy has embraced the 'comet-of-ultimate-destruction-bazillions-of-light years-away-is-making-them-do-it' theory.

Sort of kills his credibility in my opinion.

You're not paying attention to the ones that are already here? It's not like these are new. But then, there is the "not in my lifetime" fallacy, too...

Skyalmian wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Sky, your friend who rejects the middle ground fallacy has embraced the 'comet-of-ultimate-destruction-bazillions-of-light years-away-is-making-them-do-it' theory.

Sort of kills his credibility in my opinion.

You're not paying attention to the ones that are already here? It's not like these are new. But then, there is the "not in my lifetime" fallacy, too...

If 'our suns twin was approaching at a rate to impact earth' within my lifetime I'd be watching it on The Discovery channel. So there goes that part of your rebuttal. Unless you have been tracking it approaching at a faster-than-light speed ...(which would be impressive that you have such ability!)

Now, can you show us any proof that meteors cause people to become psychopathic and why the Israelis and Palestinian faction are so much more effected than the others?

If not there goes the rest of it...

Will Robinson wrote:Now, can you show us any proof that meteors cause people to become psychopathic?

THE PSYCHOPATH - The Mask of Sanity wrote:In other words: they are born that way and you can't fix them.

To many people, the idea of a child psychopath is almost unthinkable. But the fact is, true psychopaths are born, not made. Oh, indeed, there is the psychopath that is "made," but they are generally different from the born psychopath in a number of ways.

The fact is, clinical research clearly demonstrates that psychopathy does not spring unannounced into existence in adulthood. The symptoms reveal themselves in early life. It seems to be true that parents of psychopaths KNOW something is dreadfully wrong even before the child starts school. Such children are stubbornly immune to socializing pressures. They are "different" from other children in inexplicable ways. They are more "difficult," or "willful," or aggressive, or hard to "relate to." They are difficult to get close to, cold and distant and self-sufficient.

What is happening is that, as this ★■◆● approaches, "The Mask of Sanity" they wear is and has been dropping more and more.

People become more like these.

Both are obvious to those who are truly paying attention.

why the Israelis and Palestinian faction are so much more effected than the others

It's just worse than usual.

Psychopathic 'Morality': The Truth Behind the Kidnapping and Murder of 3 Israeli Teens wrote:The problem with Israel is not necessarily that it was founded on stolen land and has imprisoned and regularly bombs the dispossessed Palestinian population into submission, the problem is that Israel engages in such brutality while simultaneously attempting to manipulate the world into believing that it is a little piece of victimized 'Western democracy' and 'civilization' in an atavistic Middle East dominated by Neanderthal Arabs from whom it is merely 'defending itself' and that all Western peoples should support Israeli genocide of Palestinians because, if you don't, we'll shove the Jewish holocaust card down your throats at every turn. The massive and shocking irony in the FACT that the Israeli government and people are using the memory of the Jewish holocaust to justify doing precisely the same thing to the Palestinian people has been made by many others elsewhere, so I won't labor the point, but it does bear repeating, often.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is the world's longest running major conflict. Since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Israeli forces circa 1948, many attempts have been made by many people to find a solution, yet all of them have failed, and for one simple reason: most people misunderstand the Israeli political psychopaths when they say they want 'peace'. 'Peace' for Israeli politicians means the peace of not having to face each day the living testimony to their inhumanity against the Palestinians and the fact that their 'nation state' is a racist, Jewish Apartheid state founded on the theft of the land of the people they now hold in literal servitude in the world's largest open air prison camps.

Israel does not want peace with Palestinians, it wants to finish the job it started in the 1930s and 40s. It wants every Palestinian either dead or exiled to other Arab nations. When you understand the truth of that (and you can see the truth of it in Israeli actions over the past 60 years) you understand that there can be no peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict until either the Jews or the Palestinians are wiped out, in one way or another.

Ok, here's one for you. Chicken Little.

You hit rock bottom fast, like two others did. We're done here; The end.

Basically, I agree with you, Skyalmian. But I kind of disagree with you that the behavior of people who belong to the elite, is their congenital pathology. Rather, it refers to the question of what determines the mind of man - "being or consciousness?". I know this simply because about ten years I myself was one of the elite. And I know very well that such a power. Long belonging to the elite and power corrupts even the psychology of healthy people. For example, I could violate virtually any law, and I knew it would be impunity.
Conclusion - must be fresh blood into power, rotation of personnel, even in the highest echelons of power. In Russia, the rotation of power happens quite often, but in the United States, this does not happen for a long time, as I can see. In my opinion, this is one of the main problems the United States, where the elite does not want to be updated.
On American news sites, I often see that the comments of ordinary Americans to the articles of journalists, a lot smarter than even the these articles.

sigma wrote:Basically, I agree with you, Skyalmian. But I kind of disagree with you that the behavior of people who belong to the elite, is their congenital pathology. Rather, it refers to the question of what determines the mind of man - "being or consciousness?".

That last part makes me think of the "Knowledge and Being" videos, which not even I have gotten to yet, though such could be unrelated to what you're speaking of.

I know this simply because about ten years I myself was one of the elite. And I know very well that such a power. Long belonging to the elite and power corrupts even the psychology of healthy people. For example, I could violate virtually any law, and I knew it would be impunity.

Ah, that gets into the subject of 'ponerization', which I went into in an article here. (Note: The excellent 'enpsychopedia' site is gone, argh.)

Rules for the Sake of Rules wrote:In general, people just want to be left alone to do their own thing, to live the lives they want to live, create the things they want to create ("let humans be human"), and in the process grow, learn, and ultimately self-improve and be self-empowered—except that this is precisely not what is happening, because the world is and has been deeply ponerized for some time:

Ponerization, from ancient Greek poneros ('evil'), is a term created by Dr. Andrzej M. Lobaczewski as part of ponerology, the scientific study of macrosocial evil. Ponerization is the influence of pathological people on individuals and groups whereby they develop acceptance of pathological reasoning and other pathological characteristics.

On the individual scale it can be described as transpersonification, where people susceptible due to a psychological weakness or more severe pathology of their own assimilate the psychology of other pathological people. People not themselves characteropathic or psychopathic may be affected so as to lose the ability to distinguish between healthy and pathological actions and reasoning, accepting paramoralistic and paralogistic justifications and doctrines.

On the group scale it consists of either the formation of or the infection of a group with pathological people, resulting in a ponerogenic union (that is, a group that contributes to the formation and development of evil).

• Primary ponerization (which gives rise to primary ponerogenic unions) involves the forming and development of a group where pathological individuals are active from the beginning. It creates groups that are overtly deviant as is the case with organized crime, and they are generally rejected by society.
• Secondary ponerization (which gives rise to secondary ponerogenic unions) is the process where pathological individuals infiltrate a group of normal people and gradually take over its ideology and leadership for their own purposes. The group is eventually divided into two distinct parts—the pathological individuals that have risen to the top and the people below. Such a group, if circumstances are opportune for its leaders, may eventually come to power in society and transform it into a pathocracy.

Society becomes more vulnerable to ponerization during periods of hysterization, where widespread conversive thinking increases susceptibility to ponerization.

sigma wrote:Conclusion - must be fresh blood into power, rotation of personnel, even in the highest echelons of power. In Russia, the rotation of power happens quite often, but in the United States, this does not happen for a long time, as I can see. In my opinion, this is one of the main problems the United States, where the elite does not want to be updated.

Yep, of course not.

Hamas’ war strategy works like this:


1. Episodically attack Israel’s civilians in such as way as to provoke a counter-attack.

2. Hide behind Palestinian civilians (preferably in crowded neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals), while encouraging them, even forcing them, to stay, guaranteeing that the return fire wounds or kills civilians and damages civilian structures.

3. Encourage the Western news media to play up the civilian suffering, play down Hamas’ role in it, and accuse Israel.

4. Conjure a firestorm of outrage around the world that eventually pressures Israel into desisting from counteroffensive measures.

5. Survive to reap the propaganda victory and prepare the next round of hostilities.

6. Repeat, with each exchange hurting Israel more, and each round of international news coverage further savaging the Jewish State’s international reputation.



Hamas shows full cognizance of the media’s importance. It has even issued detailed directions to Gazan “social media activists.” And although Hamas addressed them to Palestinian social media activists, the guidelines clearly apply to their media “fixers,” who direct all the foreign journalists working in Gaza. One might call these directives the “Hamas media protocols.”


1. not to show Hamas fighters, certainly not firing from hospitals and schools;

2. to attribute all the casualties to Israeli attacks;

3. to call all dead “civilians”;

4. to give the statistics Hamas supplies as facts, emphasizing how the “vast majority” of casualties are civilian;

5. to show the face of Palestinian suffering 24-7;

6. to give voice—their own and those of invited guests—to indignation and outrage over the appalling carnage.

Hamas is a Creation of Mossad wrote:
Global Outlook, No 2, Summer 2002
www.globalresearch.ca 23 March 2004

Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation.

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".

[...]

Quite unexpectedly, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered Sheik Ahmed Yassin to be released from prison ("on humanitarian grounds") where he was serving a life sentence. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, together with President Bill Clinton, was putting pressure on Arafat to control the Hamas. In fact, Netanyahu knew that he could rely, once more, on the Islamists to sabotage the Oslo accords. Worse still: after having expelled Yassin to Jordan, Prime Minister Netanyahu allowed him to return to Gaza, where he was welcomed triumphantly as a hero in October 1997.

[...]

The Hamas had built its strength through its various acts of sabotage of the peace process, in a way which was compatible with the interests of the Israeli government. In turn, the latter sought in a number of ways, to prevent the application of the Oslo accords. In other words, Hamas was fulfilling the functions for which it was originally created: to prevent the creation of a Palestinian State. And in this regard, Hamas and Ariel Sharon, see eye to eye; they are exactly on the same wave length.

Also, if you're going to quote something, 1. put it in quotes and 2. provide the link.

Well, the 72 hour cease fire seems to be holding so far and Israel has pulled a division back to the northern border (i know that cause one of the transporters had engine problems outside the kibbutz and i gave him some mangoes...which ironically were a part of a shipment to Gaza..only in Israel!!) If i could sum up the mood of the country i'd say it's one of frustration and sadness. Frustration at not being able to finish the job, and sadness at the loss of life...on both sides.

On a personal note, i've accompanied my eldest daughter to two funerals so far, but she just called me from Soroka hospital to tell me that the son of a close friend of the family has awakened from an induced coma, so it looks like we've been spared a third.

My hopes are that this cease fire holds, and we can reach an agreement to build Gaza, free of weapons, and help the people over there to take advantage of the assets they have (Gaza sunsets are beautiful)

glad you don't have to go to more funerals at the moment, Flabby. One question, if you stop back to check in--don't you get frustrated at what seems to be an endless cycle(at least for a couple decades or more), that is almost pathetic in its predictability? I mean, Palestinians get frustrated, launch rather feeble(comparatively) attacks, almost wishing to incur an Israeli response, which almost always gets carried away and televised, the world is revulsed, a cease fire is brokered, then Israel expands settlements on the west bank or something, the process starts anew. It seems that(despite your stated, seemingly benign hopes for Gaza and all) without something forcing a REAL, REGIONAL discussion with BINDING and agreed-upon outcomes, this never stops.
It is exactly this cyclical failure of the status quo which makes me question whether the US has actually been beneficial in our mainly one-sided support of Israel. It's almost as if we are propping up the status quo, and, from our standpoint, creating ever more enemies around the globe.

callmeslick wrote:glad you don't have to go to more funerals at the moment, Flabby.

Thankyou for that, there's been too many all over the place.

callmeslick wrote:One question, if you stop back to check in--don't you get frustrated at what seems to be an endless cycle(at least for a couple decades or more), that is almost pathetic in its predictability? I mean, Palestinians get frustrated, launch rather feeble(comparatively) attacks, almost wishing to incur an Israeli response, which almost always gets carried away and televised, the world is revulsed, a cease fire is brokered, then Israel expands settlements on the west bank or something, the process starts anew.

There is a difference between the Palestinians and Hamas, but yes, i do feel frustrated on many levels. One is ...4000 rocket attacks in the last 2 weeks alone, is not feeble. Two is, they are craving for an Israeli responce, rather than wishing...we all just have to widen our lens a little to see who "they' actually are....i mean the ones who actually told Hamas to start this in the first place.

callmeslick wrote: It seems that(despite your stated, seemingly benign hopes for Gaza and all) without something forcing a REAL, REGIONAL discussion with BINDING and agreed-upon outcomes, this never stops.

Israel is in constant internal dialogue, with kazzillions of opinions on what the hell to do with the Gaza situation. We have a press here that second guesses every move the government makes and shows every dead Gazan child...we're even in the middle of a debate that we don't show enough. The end result of all opinions though is to build it for its people so they have a future to care for, because at the moment they probably couldnt care less being placed between the terrorists and Israeli bombardment.

callmeslick wrote:It is exactly this cyclical failure of the status quo which makes me question whether the US has actually been beneficial in our mainly one-sided support of Israel. It's almost as if we are propping up the status quo, and, from our standpoint, creating ever more enemies around the globe.

My family is multi ethnic (if that's the expression) i'm Christian (born, not really practicing) and my wife and kids are Jewish, we have passover and easter eggs, Christmas and Channuka, i consider myself the most tollerant of people when it comes to faith. I have close Muslim friends, with whom we just celebrated eid al fitr last week which involved way too much sugar. The thing is, i think, if America, and especially Europe, because they are so close at the moment, bury their head in the sand an ignore this bastardization of Islam then, without exaggeration, it's an end game scenario within the next 50 years.

Sorry if i dint get me point across too well, its been an awful long day.

Wow, Flabby. Outstanding response.....I think you communicated your points very well. The one point I'd toss back at you is this: I don't feel that the US, or to some extent Europe are so much burying heads in sand over the bastardization of Islam. I feel it is more a case that the vast majority of the citizens(in the US), don't have the first clue about either Islam or Middle Eastern culture and backhistory. The view is, thus, cartoonlike. They then respond as if the bastardization affects all Muslims. They respond as if Western Democracy is the region's ideal for governance. They(in the past) created national boundaries in a region where the demographics defy simple map lines.
And, so on.......not so much hiding from the truth, and failing to learn enough to KNOW the truth.

callmeslick wrote:Wow, Flabby. Outstanding response.....I think you communicated your points very well. The one point I'd toss back at you is this: I don't feel that the US, or to some extent Europe are so much burying heads in sand over the bastardization of Islam. I feel it is more a case that the vast majority of the citizens(in the US), don't have the first clue about either Islam or Middle Eastern culture and backhistory. The view is, thus, cartoonlike. They then respond as if the bastardization affects all Muslims. They respond as if Western Democracy is the region's ideal for governance. They(in the past) created national boundaries in a region where the demographics defy simple map lines.
And, so on.......not so much hiding from the truth, and failing to learn enough to KNOW the truth.

Hey slick? How come all of Islam is deserving of your ability to separate the haters from the regular folks who have legitimate grievances but Americans who oppose your party's leadership are all conveniently lumped into the hater category without any consideration for their grievances being legitimate?

Are you just posing as a rational thinker in this thread?

Go back in history and you will find that Islam was a very brutal religion, but also one of the most enlightened and tolerant religions.

So what is “the real Islam”

Did you know there are billions of Muslims living ordinary peaceful everyday lives?

Spidey wrote:?....Did you know there are billions of Muslims living ordinary peaceful everyday lives?

Just like most gun owners in America....or most Tea Party members.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Wow, Flabby. Outstanding response.....I think you communicated your points very well. The one point I'd toss back at you is this: I don't feel that the US, or to some extent Europe are so much burying heads in sand over the bastardization of Islam. I feel it is more a case that the vast majority of the citizens(in the US), don't have the first clue about either Islam or Middle Eastern culture and backhistory. The view is, thus, cartoonlike. They then respond as if the bastardization affects all Muslims. They respond as if Western Democracy is the region's ideal for governance. They(in the past) created national boundaries in a region where the demographics defy simple map lines.
And, so on.......not so much hiding from the truth, and failing to learn enough to KNOW the truth.

Hey slick? How come all of Islam is deserving of your ability to separate the haters from the regular folks who have legitimate grievances but Americans who oppose your party's leadership are all conveniently lumped into the hater category without any consideration for their grievances being legitimate?

Are you just posing as a rational thinker in this thread?

No, you are simply lying about my words. As usual.

Im not lying about your words. When I asked you about your comments that described the whole Tea Party as a hate group, some focused on race but all haters...
Your response was 'if it walks like a duck...'

You seem to be willing to examine the individual make up of Islam but not of those who oppose Obama. I think most rational people would find the Tea Party makes a lot of noise about policy and very very little hate is coming from them.

You are the one lying about your words.

stand by my words, but not your extension into exclusivity.....then again, I'm used to you exaggerating, fabricating and lying.

Slick never fabricates or lies even though he has been caught at it time and time again.

woodchip wrote:Slick never fabricates or lies even though he has been caught at it time and time again.

show one here. I dare you.

Well for one you inferred the Tea Party was racist and then in another thread you claimed you never did.

woodchip wrote:Well for one you inferred the Tea Party was racist and then in another thread you claimed you never did.

you read the infer part, which wasn't there.

The readers here would disagree.

woodchip wrote:The readers here would disagree.

beyond the predictable two or three, no, they haven't.

I haven't heard any that have disagreed, so where do you get your info?

woodchip wrote:I haven't heard any that have disagreed, so where do you get your info?

please cite the throng who agree with your nutty assertion first.....(should I write down my guess of the folks here that would agree? I'll bet I could hit it on the nose).


At any rate, hasn't this now reached the level of silliness that Foil frowns upon?