Gaza Aid Convoy

So according to you if an American blows himself up somewhere we should also condemn all Americans and call them barbarians and just revoke all their rights. WTF?

I guess you really have no clue what the Palestinian narrative is. You are just restating what the Israeli one is. You certainly can't pretend that Israel was innocent and the victim of the peace process. Sure there were security issues that Palestinians had to deal with, and sure they weren't perfect. But this victim syndrom is honestly just pathetic. Own up to the actions. Be brave enough to criticize your own when it necessary. Israelis themselves do it. Jews themselves do it. Yes not all Jewish people agree with what the state of Israel is doing and they do not feel it represents them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2

The PLO renounced violence? Really? Was this before, or after the rocket attacks after the Oslo accords? The Oslo accords were wonderful. The Palestinians were offered EVERYTHING they wanted. All they had to do was quit attacking Israel. That's it. Simple.

And then they decided to lynch two IDF members. And then they decided to send in a wave of suicide bombers. No. The PLO, nor the PLA, nor the Fata, nor the Hamas has ever been peaceful.

Yes, I've heard the Palestinian narrative. And before 1967, they had a case. Since 1967, they've become extremists. Extremists don't have a case. People who believe that blowing up busses, and shopping centers, and attacking civilian population centers don't have a case. They lost any validity due to their actions.

Vowing to eliminate the state of Israel is the same as vowing to eliminate the Jews. Ordinarily I'd say we were splitting hairs, but here I can't just chalk it up to that In fact, Not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda leader Al Zwahari stated on several occasions that Jihad against the Jews would not be limited to the region of "Palestine" (his word) but would be affected across the Globe. He has said, at least once, that no Jewish child anywhere is safe.

Pasa

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkeyes

...me an all Heph..an the sad reelly screwy thing is ther names will b used by unscrupulous shitbags 2 recruit even more.... such is the lot of those who create martyrs... on wicheva side...:(

---

Now that is something I can agree wholeheartedly with Fran. Snogs you and hands you a glass of cognac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariersa

I knew it, the suicide bombers are indeed martyrs:rolleyes:

Praciticing that screwy distorted view of Islam, 10,000 virgins, before I'd sign up, tell me their gender, please!!

---

Wow! Yours must be the deluxe version of Islam. UK muslims are only promised 17 (why 17?).

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hephaestion

Wow! Yours must be the deluxe version of Islam. UK muslims are only promised 17 (why 17?).

.

---

Not sure ther r 17 virgins in the UK Heph..reckon that mus b it....:bigrin:

bugger the virgins, too unexperienced and I am too old to teach them anything...... now if there was a open bar tab that never needs paying..... mmmmmmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

bugger the virgins, too unexperienced and I am too old to teach them anything...... now if there was a open bar tab that never needs paying..... mmmmmmmm

---

Been a wile since me wos a virgin Duckie.. but didn haff enjoy bein tot..well most a bein tot.. sum wos a bit grim an even that tot me a lot an all.. but as me grew up an got more experienced..didn haff enjoy teachin...:bigrin:

Oh he's not bad at teaching some things, Fran, but then I taught him a thing or two myself :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkeyes

Been a wile since me wos a virgin Duckie.. but didn haff enjoy bein tot..well most a bein tot.. sum wos a bit grim an even that tot me a lot an all.. but as me grew up an got more experienced..didn haff enjoy teachin...:bigrin:

---

puts fingers in ears ... la la la la fran is a virgin..la la la la fran is innocent..... la la la la fran is well behaved la la la la la la....... :tong:

Have the world fogoten that it was the jews that INVADED PALESTINE???? and since then their territory ( ISRAEL) is been growing all the time by taking more and more land from the Palestinians.
There are many Jews groups world wide that are agains the behaver and greed of the Israelites.
No i am not Arab or follow eny religion of any type, just sick of any group claim land or anything else in the name of some GOD.
It was said long time a go that religion is the "opium of the people".
To much one side reporting by interested groups.
Churchil said. We are making a big mistake sending the Jews to Palestine, it only will good for the arms and wepons manufacturers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oralplus

Have the world fogoten that it was the jews that INVADED PALESTINE???? and since then their territory ( ISRAEL) is been growing all the time by taking more and more land from the Palestinians.
There are many Jews groups world wide that are agains the behaver and greed of the Israelites.
No i am not Arab or follow eny religion of any type, just sick of any group claim land or anything else in the name of some GOD.
It was said long time a go that religion is the "opium of the people".
To much one side reporting by interested groups.
Churchil said. We are making a big mistake sending the Jews to Palestine, it only will good for the arms and wepons manufacturers.

---

There is something in what you say, sweetheart, but alas what is done is done when we consider in the influx of Jews in the first half of the 20th century, and into Israel since 1948. That that influx and the creation of Israel has been a destabilising influence is unarguable. But it is in reality pointless looking back and both Israeli and Palestiinian must look forward. The whole argument in these pages is about the intransigence of both sides to do that and in particular, in my opinion, that the reluctance of the most powerful and well equipped and most well equipped to truly be committed to finding a solution.

That God keeps cropping up in the entire argument makes it doubly difficult to reach a solution because faith in a God often brings out the worst in us. This can be seen throughout history, and in my view Christianity has been the worst offender.. not Christianity itself but those who run it and have stalked the globe in its name. Islam, historically a much more tolerant religion even although every bit is expansionist as Christianity, has in the last century and in particular since the fall of the Shah in Iran began to articulate itself in a much more odious and radical way, with its more progressive and tolerant sects increasingly being sidelined and defensive. We can argue why this is, and the frustration of millions in the middle east in general and the Palestinians in particular has much to do with that movement. Isarel's intransigence and the west's actions in the region also play their part in making a large part of Islam much less tolerant.. yet like the odious nature of those who ran Christianity, now we have people running much of Islam and performing many things in its name who are every bit as odious as those historical Christians.

Islam, like Christianity is an extremely tolerant religion.. unfortunately many of those who act in its name use it for their own ends.. even more unfortunately, in both Christianity and Islam, the more unpleasant are in the ascendancy.. many do not even believe in a God.

The quotation was that of Karl Marx, but he was not the first to use such a claim.. The Marquis de Sade, no lover of priests and religion, used something very similar half a century earlier in his novel "'L'Histoire de Juliette".


"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Karl Marx 'Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right' (1843)"

''the vid you watched but is not a video according to you''

I was referring to the links I posted. Perhaps you need to read things properly.

''the bloody video is in english, plus text, the person spoke in english....and clearly said they wanted to be a martyr twice''

I watched that video. I heard the man say the word martyr. It depends in what context he meant the word martyr to mean.

''step one, turn the sound on your computer....''

The sound is always turned up on my computer...thank you for trying to treat me like a fool....I am not one.

''step two, turn brain on''

My brain is very turned on. it's a very good brain and understands many things it comes across.

''step three, stop ranting''

I don't rant. I express myself, my way. Got it!

''step four, watch the non existent video that you claim is propaganda, not a video and only text''

I think that you are the one getting confused, here.

''step 5 explain how you watched a video, listened to a video, argued the meaning of the words in the video.... yet now claim there is no video only text......''

Refer back to where I said that it was the links which I posted that were text only. You are twisting my words.

''DD, myself and tenni and you and I believe a few others all read the text, heard the remarks by the person and understood it was said in english, it had subtitles in english and its a bloody video''

Yes, I saw that video too. isn't that funny!!!

''I posted the link to the video, you viewed the video, you argued the meanings of jihad and martyr with me, and now you say there was no video ????? only text ????..''

I have said no such thing......AGAIN.....I said my links were text only.

''as for you and adam and your history ??? don't care, not interested, nothing to do with me, can not give a shit, do not want to hear about it, never mentioned your relationship with adam, have no interest in your personal life etc etc.... take your pick....''

Then why the hell did you mention a certain person and say that this person had been vindicated and was truthful? Was it a mistake?????

''I made one statement about adam, nothing about you or your personal life..... you are the one with the issue over that statement and you need to get over it..... your relationship and personal life is none of my business and nor do I want to know about it at all.......''

You made a statement about a particular person, knowing that I had been asscociated with that person. You made the post a personal one, when there was no need. You cannot deny that. Why even mention that person?

''now there is a reason why israel will stick to their story about shooting 9 protestors..... and that reason would be cos they shot nine protestors..... they are not denying it at all..... they have never denied it..... what israel has said, is consistent with the videos they released and what protestors have said...
the israelis boarded the ship, were attacked and they opened fired on the protestors.......''

Known

''now some force was over the top.... yes.... including throwing a person over the side of the deck of a boat, a action that could kill a person..... done by the protestors... that would be a active act of intentional and hostile resistance.....and in neutral country, a act of attempted murder.... add to the fact that the protestors were waiting for the israelis to board the boat ( the protestors own videos ).. you have a case for premeditated intent......''.

So once again you are stating that you support the IDF

''the overwhelming odds were in the favour of the protestors.... 700 to 45..... how many of the protestors were not offering resistance, may never been known..... by anybody......''

I disagree...not when the IDF is armed....and dangerous.

''but again, the israelis have not denied anything, videos from both sides support israels side of things and prove that the aid mission was not just a aid mission, as aid workers and missionaries are generally pacifists, they are there to aid and assist people, not try and kill people......''

Well...if you believe that....you'll believe anything....including a warped idea that to make your post to me, personal, was OK.

''you quoted what I had said
''as for the jihad / martyr issue.... again, it was between DD and tenni.... I am not going to decide what a person said in a video, according to dictionary definitions...... the person that said it in the video, knows what they mean, we do not....... I know the different definations of jihad and martyr.... but I do not know in what context the person in the video, was using them
as raddick said in the chronicles of riddick " not my fight *.....'' ''

I am not even going to try to decipher this, because you can be so obscure at times and mix things up in your posts.

''and then you said
There was no video...it was text and if you don't read the links other people post...what is the point of this whole exercise?''

My links had no video...it was text only.....MY LINKs......sheesh!!

''now before you say that you were talking about the link you posted...... ( which would then clearly show that not only did you ignore what I was clearly talking about.... but that you replied and referred to something that I clearly was not talking about..... which means
A) your ability to read and comprehend things is seriously in need of work
B) your ability to convey your stance in a clear and concise form, is in need of work
C) you are out of your depth when it comes to understanding what people are and are not saying..... as you are constantly adding in your own spin and walls of text to things that people are not saying or talking about''

This is not only insulting my intellect, which I can assure you is quite high, it is a load of rubbish and you are also flaming me. It is not even accurate.

''I will remind you again, dictionaries give definations of words, NOT context of what a person is saying......''

Not so.

''I was not debating the context or meaning of the words as the guy said them, as there is no way to be sure what he was refering to, beyond personal opinion..... and the moment you imply he is saying something other than what he meant.... you are making propaganda statements as you are putting your own interpretation on their words......''

Once again, you are twisting words and deciding for me, what I may mean. I call this flaming.....but you won't....of course you won't.

In all truth...this post of yours did not even deserve a reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

now canticle..... humour me......

using your posted links about jihad and martyr
If I am to use the defination ( according to your links ) for martyr ( martyr refering to the greek word for a witness in a court case
canticles defination of martyr

the gentleman sitting in the chair at 32-40 seconds into the video, is talking about being a martyr
he is sitting there saying I wanted to be a witness in a court case, I was not so lucky, now god willing, I will be a witness in a court case

ahhh yes..... people that were martyrs in the name of their cause.... are not witnesses in a court case.... they are dead.....

so we have 9 witnesses in a court case / martyrs.....

according to the definitions you posted..... jihad means struggle, in one of 3 areas,
a visible enemy
ones own failings
spiritual confusion

yet I failed to see the guy refer to a struggle to be a witness in a court case ( a jihad to be a martyr )

no... he was clearly referring to his desire to be a witness in a court case......

now.... please show me, how that statement fits him being on a aid ship going to the gaza strip....... cos it makes no bloody sense to me....


but if I research the word martyr.... I get something else

mar·tyr
(märtr) [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Late Greek martur, from Greek martus, martur-, witness.]
n.
1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3.
a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.
tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs
1. To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs.
2. To inflict great pain on; torment.

martyr [ˈmɑːtə]
n
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a person who suffers death rather than renounce his religious beliefs
2. a person who suffers greatly or dies for a cause, belief, etc.
3. a person who suffers from poor health, misfortune, etc. he's a martyr to rheumatism
4. Facetious or derogatory a person who feigns suffering to gain sympathy, help, etc.
vb also 'martyr"ize, 'martyr"ise (tr)
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) to kill as a martyr
2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) to make a martyr of
[Old English martir, from Church Latin martyr, from Late Greek martur-, martus witness]
martyrization , martyrisation n


now if we apply 2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.

the guy is saying, I want to suffer or make a sacrifice ( of what, is debatable ) for my cause / belief / principle...

that makes a dammed sight more sense if you compare that sentence, to what happened on the ship.......

---

I said it before..you waffle and you also mix things up and twist things so that they seem different. you may not do it deliberately, but do it, you do.....and this really does make youe posts...to me...totally pointless....from the reading aspect. You also turned your ''attack'' on me into something personal. You had no need to mention a certain person....yet you did...and then went on to say you were not interested in my association with that person. So why mention that person and say that the person was truth ful and had been vindicated. to come to that conclusion, you must have been reading.....or have a photographic memory and remember all that has ever been written. The only thing is your understanding and interpretation, are way out....way, way out. You don't understand what you are commenting upon, in that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

canticle, I address your points, your links.... without a life history........ point out the areas, you need to address to clear up your stance..... so you call it waffle and put me on ignore ????

I take it to mean that no, you will not clear up the confusion over your own opinion ......... and yes, you will run away ....

btw a simple no and yes will suffice.....

---

I do not run away...as you can plainly see.

You tried to flame me.

right I asked you what the hell you were referring to with your links and the stuff about jihad and martyr.... as I pointed out time and time again, it was between DD and tenni....

I finally gave up asking you for a explanation and addressed what you were saying with your links.....as it made no sense.....

as I have pointed out, the guy in the vid referred to wanting to be a martyr, he never said how.... so its a neutral term.... he was not indicating that he was one of the people that attacked the soldiers, he was not saying that he was involved with them...... for all intentions and purposes he may have been saying that he will be a martyr for the aid cause and break any blockade to get the aid thru.....WE DO NOT KNOW.... hence I said it was a neutral statement and I was not reading anything into it....

you did, and told us, we were misunderstanding his meaning.....

again, the guy made a ambiguous statement without context...... and I never read anything to it.... nor did I ever read anything into it....so I could have not misunderstood what he was saying

as for adam.... all I said was
adamlkadmon was vindicated....

you have implied that I have questioned his intelligent, said he is truthful etc and made a big great drama about your personal life and how I know nothing about your personal life etc etc

now who is twisting whose words, canticle.....

thats the second example of you reading your own meaning into something and turning it into propaganda.....

I warned you about using my posts for your long winded rants.....

there is a old saying, many people will say many things and profess wisdom.... yet it is truely the wise man that does not profess wisdom.... in truth he says nothing at all

DD.....I do believe in Christ...Christ the man and his teachings.......not the faerie stories, the mistranslation and the deliberately altered text. Many of the words of Jesus, as related in the New Testament, are even arranged, out of sequence, therefore giving them a totally different meaning.

The Convention at Nicea chose the four ''safe'' Gospels (the three Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of St John), and hoped that they could hush up any other gospels...the Gnostic Gospels. If every single work was known to everyone and was common knowledge and if the early Church had not tried to stifle and stop these Gospels from being read....if they had been part of Christian teaching.....Christianity today, would be a very different religion and far more in tune with so many other spiritual teachings,

Never say I do not believe in Jesus....for I do. I believe in his teachings and I believe in a Son of Man......not a Son of God. There have been many who could be called Son of Man, in one way or another, but there was something very different, as far as I am concerned, about this Jew who wanted to see renewal, inclusion and an all encompassing Judaism.

Christ meaned anointed....it wasn't his name.

My belief is personal to me and just as I respect your Pagan belief (though I believe it is wrong to call any belief Pagan), and I respect Fran's Atheism, I would ask you to respect my beliefs. Our personal belief, is sacred to us, as individuals and we should all respect one another, in that aspect. That is the beauty of Spiritualism. We believe in respecting another's personal faith and belief.

Fran

I am most sorry, that this has occurred, but I did not begin it. I hope that I have remained as polite as possible. Certainly, I was not the one to make the posting, take on a rather unsavoury, personal twist and with no explanation forthcoming.

With that, I will bow out. Perhaps the whole thread, needs to do the same thing. However, thank you for raising the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

right I asked you what the hell you were referring to with your links and the stuff about jihad and martyr.... as I pointed out time and time again, it was between DD and tenni....

I finally gave up asking you for a explanation and addressed what you were saying with your links.....as it made no sense.....

as I have pointed out, the guy in the vid referred to wanting to be a martyr, he never said how.... so its a neutral term.... he was not indicating that he was one of the people that attacked the soldiers, he was not saying that he was involved with them...... for all intentions and purposes he may have been saying that he will be a martyr for the aid cause and break any blockade to get the aid thru.....WE DO NOT KNOW.... hence I said it was a neutral statement and I was not reading anything into it....

you did, and told us, we were misunderstanding his meaning.....

again, the guy made a ambiguous statement without context...... and I never read anything to it.... nor did I ever read anything into it....so I could have not misunderstood what he was saying

as for adam.... all I said was
adamlkadmon was vindicated....

you have implied that I have questioned his intelligent, said he is truthful etc and made a big great drama about your personal life and how I know nothing about your personal life etc etc

now who is twisting whose words, canticle.....

thats the second example of you reading your own meaning into something and turning it into propaganda.....

I warned you about using my posts for your long winded rants.....

there is a old saying, many people will say many things and profess wisdom.... yet it is truely the wise man that does not profess wisdom.... in truth he says nothing at all

---

''as for adam.... all I said was
adamlkadmon was vindicated....

you have implied that I have questioned his intelligent, said he is truthful etc and made a big great drama about your personal life and how I know nothing about your personal life etc etc

now who is twisting whose words, canticle.....

thats the second example of you reading your own meaning into something and turning it into propaganda.....

I warned you about using my posts for your long winded rants.....

there is a old saying, many people will say many things and profess wisdom.... yet it is truely the wise man that does not profess wisdom.... in truth he says nothing at all''

I don't rant. I am not long winded and I do not misread anything. You made a statement which implied, that you had a great knowledge of something, which you have no realistic knowledge of and cannot be expected to have.

You made the statement and you will not explain, what you meant by it.

I do not remember you warning me off anything at all and who are you to tell people such a thing, anyway. I have this funny feeling that you are the one who thinks yourself wise. Me....I just express my opinion and this is a forum, not a court of law, or a government debating it's policy in a political house. You become so very serious (apart from the frequent lapses into frivolity), and you demand that someone supply proof to support their opinion. An opinion of what they have viewed and read. You turn the thread from what could be an interesting one, with the observations and views of individuals, posted, into personal attacks.

I believe that you should feel shame and remorse and if I raised a certain item, in my reply to you, when you made a statement (which you refuse to explain), about a certain person, then it was for a good reason and my right to do so.

Don't warn people about answering your posts in a certain manner. It doesn't wash and it is not clever.

By the way, if you know nothing about my person life and have no interest in it, what was the point of making the statement that a certain person had been vindicated and was proven truthful. Explain that!!

And I think it is you, who are not understanding me....and I do write in plain English. Not too hard to understand.

my statement was one sentence, thats it.... nothing more.....
and once again, I never said he was truthful.... you said I said that....

once again, you have proven you misread things....

yes I asked you a few times to stop multi quoting everything I say... as I already know what I have said in my posts..... but multiquoting is how other people get their facts wrong.... as you have proven

now once again.... I do not give a rats ass about you and adam..... its NONE of my business and nor am I interested in the bisexual.com version of *coronation street *

so will you please stop trying to drag me into your drama / personal life....... whatever you call it....... if that type of rubbish interested me, I would watch american daytime dramas.....

Well said :)

Reality on the ground dictates that we take good care of the people living on the land today with all the facts on the ground. It means Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Arabs or whoever it is that is there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkeyes

There is something in what you say, sweetheart, but alas what is done is done when we consider in the influx of Jews in the first half of the 20th century, and into Israel since 1948. That that influx and the creation of Israel has been a destabilising influence is unarguable. But it is in reality pointless looking back and both Israeli and Palestiinian must look forward. The whole argument in these pages is about the intransigence of both sides to do that and in particular, in my opinion, that the reluctance of the most powerful and well equipped and most well equipped to truly be committed to finding a solution.

That God keeps cropping up in the entire argument makes it doubly difficult to reach a solution because faith in a God often brings out the worst in us. This can be seen throughout history, and in my view Christianity has been the worst offender.. not Christianity itself but those who run it and have stalked the globe in its name. Islam, historically a much more tolerant religion even although every bit is expansionist as Christianity, has in the last century and in particular since the fall of the Shah in Iran began to articulate itself in a much more odious and radical way, with its more progressive and tolerant sects increasingly being sidelined and defensive. We can argue why this is, and the frustration of millions in the middle east in general and the Palestinians in particular has much to do with that movement. Isarel's intransigence and the west's actions in the region also play their part in making a large part of Islam much less tolerant.. yet like the odious nature of those who ran Christianity, now we have people running much of Islam and performing many things in its name who are every bit as odious as those historical Christians.

Islam, like Christianity is an extremely tolerant religion.. unfortunately many of those who act in its name use it for their own ends.. even more unfortunately, in both Christianity and Islam, the more unpleasant are in the ascendancy.. many do not even believe in a God.

The quotation was that of Karl Marx, but he was not the first to use such a claim.. The Marquis de Sade, no lover of priests and religion, used something very similar half a century earlier in his novel "'L'Histoire de Juliette".


"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Karl Marx 'Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right' (1843)"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

my statement was one sentence, thats it.... nothing more.....
and once again, I never said he was truthful.... you said I said that....

once again, you have proven you misread things....

yes I asked you a few times to stop multi quoting everything I say... as I already know what I have said in my posts..... but multiquoting is how other people get their facts wrong.... as you have proven

now once again.... I do not give a rats ass about you and adam..... its NONE of my business and nor am I interested in the bisexual.com version of *coronation street *

so will you please stop trying to drag me into your drama / personal life....... whatever you call it....... if that type of rubbish interested me, I would watch american daytime dramas.....

---

Nothing you say about me is correct, absolutely nothing. You are the one who is getting things wrong and muddled.

And if you don't give a ''rat ass,'' why mention a certain person, in the manner, you did? There has you be a reason, you would bring up that person and comment that the person, was vindicated and truthful. Such a thing does not get mentioned, without a reason and you won't say what that reason was.

By the way.....I don't ''do'' Coronation Street, or any day time American (or British), drama! I like my dramatic entertainment to be classy and have some merit, the players upon the stage, or screen, being seasoned and highly talented actors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardnbubbly

Well said :)

Reality on the ground dictates that we take good care of the people living on the land today with all the facts on the ground. It means Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Arabs or whoever it is that is there.

---

Yes, it was well said and that reality should most definitely be humans caring about their fellow humans, no matter what their race, creed, colour or sexuality might be. We don't have to agree with someone, approve of their behaviour or even like a person/people, to care about them. Maybe one day humanity will act in such a manner. However, I fear that the dawning of that day, is a long way off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardnbubbly

Well said :)

Reality on the ground dictates that we take good care of the people living on the land today with all the facts on the ground. It means Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Arabs or whoever it is that is there.

---

This thread like so many others has expanded into other linked areas.. I intend this to be my last word on the subject for now..until something stupid and nasty occurs again to reopen the debate..for it will happen and it will prove nasty..

That attack on the convoy and the death of so many people is a tragedy.. the interception was in my view, and the view of most nations and indeed the United Nations, illegal..the blockade of Gaza is illegal and Israel is the principle culprit for its intransigence and its intent on neutering any and all opposition to its hegemony in the region.. it rules by fear and overpowering military force.

Yet whatever the rights and wrongs, if ever peace is to be reached in the region a properly constituted and recognised Palestinian state must be created.. one which for preference is not Islamic, but secular and run on lines as decided by the Palestinians themselves, not as decided by Israel or the international community. It may be that such a state, being secular is unnacceptable to Palestinians, it will almost certainly meet considerable opposition from many Islamic groups and groups who claim to be Islamic, yet given proper support and not dictat from outside, I believe that such a state is not only feasible and possible, but essential to achieving the aim of perpetual peace in the region. This state, being secular must be open to all to participate in daily political, business and social life, irrespective of ethnic origin, creed or religion. That all are considered equal under the law is a necessary prerequisite to ensuring all are treated equally. Proper protections for all must be put in place and all parties have to understand just what is at stake..

That the world will require to provide masses of aid, technical, economic and logistical, goes without saying, for unless such aid is forthcoming the new state would quickly degenerate into chaos and we would potentially be back to square one. The new state must be gievn a real opportunity to thrive and prosper to give it a real chance of fighting off what will be an undoubted move by extreme Islamic and other groups to change its secular status and use the resources of the country for its own ends.. yet what better way of fighting them off than providing a state which is prosperous, has good justice and gives its citizens a decnt opportunity to better their lives.

Israel naturally has to play its proper part and assist the new state in achieving prosperity. It must not respond as it has in the past to any attacks on its soil by paramilitary groups, by invading the sovereign territory of the new state.. this will be a hard temptation for them to resist but it has to be made clear that such activites will only return the region to the chaos of the past and are unnacceptable.. the United Nations has to be guarantor of the sovereignty of the new state and it must be made doubly clear to Israel that any invasion of Palestine the state will meet with the most severe sanctions. Equally, the UN must be the guarantor of the sovereignty of Israel, and all states in the region have to be made to understand that Israel exists, has the right to exist and that UN sanctions will be applied to any which breaks with that international edict.

Israel could go farther in easing the situation.. it should and could if it wished, renounce zionism and repeal all law which is racist and designed to keep Israel as a Jewish state and promote Jewish supremacy and reverse many of the acts which has so isolated and marginalised a dwindling arab population.. the Jerusalem wall has to be demolished many new Jewish settlements abandoned and those displaced by their creation have to be allowed to return home..I talk here of those settlements which have been built over the last 40 years.. the issue of arabs who were forced to leave in 1948 is a matter which has to be considered but to which there is no easy answer, but some form of return must be cosidered, and/or compensation for displacement paid. Israel must realise that it can no longer continue to be the state as we now know it. Israel can and should become a true member of the international community by truly encompassing all within the state who are citizens of Israel and provide for them the same equal protections and access to daily political, business and social life that Palestine will offer. Equal opportunity for all and a move to truly integrate all the peoples of Israel into a single people of the nation. I am on record as saying I believe the days of the nation state are numbered and I still believe that. But their day is not yet done and we must face the reality of where we are now. I doubt Israel will wish to move in that direction but every effort must be made to convince it that it would be an immense aid to achieving a lasting peace, but the process must not be derailed because of it.. time and common sense after Palestine is created may well resolve the issue of zionism within Israel.

The middle east is a powder keg getting drier by the day.. Palestine even more so.. resolving the Palestine issue which more than any other would help defuse the situation and help all nations in the region truly begin the move of coming together and begin to try and understand each other. For the pruposes of this discussion I have omitted reference to Iran. Resolving Palestine would substantially neuter Iran and it would be even more of a voice in the wilderness than it is now. It too of course would be bound by the UN to accept any settlement and in time it would begin to see the sense of it.. I have never believed Iran to be the bogeyman that so many others, particularly in the US do, but I do believe it extremely important in achieving peace and it is potentially a spanner in the works the world could well do without.

What I suggest is not set in stone.. it is hugely problematical, and filled with bloody great holes, but it is a framework for a way forward. Whoever we think is responsible for the mess isnt relevant to sorting the mess out.. recrimination has to be kept to a minumum but somehow, Israeli and Palestinian have to sit down someday and work things out.. the international community has an obligation to facilitate that, but not control it. And with that, Fran has said her bit. Now I suggest for now, we allow this thread to at least sleep for a while...

Fran....let me say that I agree with every word you posted here and echo your final sentiments......totally.

"Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare."

The video in question is a good professional quality video. It presents facts to sway people to believe that Israel' position and actions were appropriate. It is rather one sided. An unbiased reporter might have inquired what the man meant when he referred to wanting to be a martyr as an example. The posters who are questioning the propaganda value of the video are posters who see Israel as an innocent. It reinforces their perspective. The same reverse argument may also be made. The difference is that the video is one sided and it only presents one perspective rather than both.

[QUOTE=Canticle;173121]though I believe it is wrong to call any belief PaganQUOTE]

Uhhh....what...:/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenni

"Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare."

The video in question is a good professional quality video. It presents facts to sway people to believe that Israel' position and actions were appropriate. It is rather one sided. An unbiased reporter might have inquired what the man meant when he referred to wanting to be a martyr as an example. The posters who are questioning the propaganda value of the video are posters who see Israel as an innocent. It reinforces their perspective. The same reverse argument may also be made. The difference is that the video is one sided and it only presents one perspective rather than both.

---

questioning it, or just not accepting the video as the truth but part of it???

I do agree that the martyr statement is open to personal opinion.... hence I did not touch on it and speculate as to the meaning......

personally, I think that the video is not israeli in origin.... its from a person that is trying to say that the people that attacked the soldiers were martyrs to a cause...a bit like suicide bombers.....
I can see no proof of that.....

the evidence I have seen and heard from a number of sources, indicate to me that the people on the boat that attacked the soldiers, were activists of turkish origin...... however there is no proof that they were martyrs or that their reason for being on the ship, was to attack the soldiers... as that would require them to have fore knowledge that the israelis would board the ship....

now I do not see israel as innocent, I have never denied the fact that they shot and killed 9 people on a ship.... and I have not denied the fact that they acted in the same manner as most people that get attacked.....
but I refuse to say that israel is totally in the wrong for defending themselves from a hostile attack from armed people on a aid mission

that would be like saying the police should not defend themselves in the midst of a riot as people have the right to protest....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canticle

Nothing you say about me is correct, absolutely nothing. You are the one who is getting things wrong and muddled.

And if you don't give a ''rat ass,'' why mention a certain person, in the manner, you did? There has you be a reason, you would bring up that person and comment that the person, was vindicated and truthful. Such a thing does not get mentioned, without a reason and you won't say what that reason was.

By the way.....I don't ''do'' Coronation Street, or any day time American (or British), drama! I like my dramatic entertainment to be classy and have some merit, the players upon the stage, or screen, being seasoned and highly talented actors.

---

so i am wrong when I say that you were calling me out over tenni and DD's issue with the video ???

so I am wrong when I remind you that it was tenni and dd and you ignore it

so I am wrong when I point out that I have no interest in your personal life and you continue to bring it up again and again

so I am wrong I tell you, that I never said adam is truthful.... and you are arguing that I did say it....

on brother jack / canticle / falconangel / jeannie...... LDD is wrong as always.... shrugs..... I am happy to be wrong.... yet again......

now..... let the matter rest canticle, so the choice is in your hands.... keep your personal issues and personal life to yourself and leave me out of it..... as you already have one banned account cos of mails to drew... and I already know that people are close to contacting him again.....

I trust you are intelligent enuf to realise that I am protecting your ass now...... so smile and run with it

[QUOTE=rissababynta;173186]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canticle

though I believe it is wrong to call any belief PaganQUOTE]

Uhhh....what...:/

---

Nah...you misunderstand what I said Rissa and that is my fault, for wording something badly. With that comment, I meant that no belief is a wrong belief. For Christians and others, to refer to pagan beliefs in a derogatory manner and in doing do, try to make them sound like evil beliefs.......is not right. To the Roman's, until Constantine adopted Christianity, as the religion of the empire, Christianity and Judaism and any other religious belief, of those the peoples the Roman's conquered, were deemed pagan. I guess every religion is likely to say the same sort of thing about other beliefs.

I meant calling pagan beliefs, pagan, in a derogatory sense......not that there were no pagan beliefs. How can any ''official'' religion have the right to call pagan beliefs evil. The beliefs of the ancients, which are still believed by some, today, can only be evil, if they are used for evil purposes, just like all the belief systems are capable of doing.

To venerate the earth and all that is upon it and to find it sacred and to believe that the cosmos is also sacred and wonderful....is a rather beautiful thing to believe. I hope that clears that matter up, for I can assure you, that Spiritualists have every respect for pagan beliefs, as we do all belief, or disbelief.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to get misunderstood in type.....something which would not happen in conversation.

If only the many Christians who celebrate Christmas, Easter etc, would realise that Christianity muscled in on those special, pagan celebrations and took them over. Many of the traditions associated with Christmas, have stayed with Christianity, from pagan times and I am very glad that they have.

This posts in this thread have considerably re-enforced a theory that I have held for quite some time. That theory being that people, for the most part, decide what they want to believe based principally on how they feel about something. They then proceed to construct their arguments to fit their beliefs. They start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it.

I would suppose that no one's initial opinion about anything ever gets much changed regardless of all the bantering back and forth.

But it is interesting to watch.

thank you adam....... and thats why I made the remark you were vindicted.....
we crossed swords once or twice.... and indeed, you were correct.... I just never saw it, until this thread.....

so, I concede that I was incorrect, and you were indeed right