Islam has its Mullahs who are Islamic moralists, and we have the Ann Coulter style moralists who wants to convert everyone to Christianity and western democracy or kill them....
Hizbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers and killed up to seven Israelis
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Great post Pabst! As always, you sure know how to put the dots on the i's when people don't get it.
True, except for the extent to which they represent democracy since Palestinians have always been denied equal rights including the right to vote.
Quote from EqtTrdr:
Israel has the same amount of will to wipe out the Palestinians that the USA did in Vietnam, Korea and now Iraq.
The Palestinians have nothing to worry about except the inconveniences of power outages and loud booms.
Funny you say that. I was just telling a friend last night over dinner the same thing. The software developer living in a Tel Aviv highrise just wants peace. His life is making money and getting laid. The settlers and the terror they bring upon Israel are a hassle to his lifestyle.
It's the same in Islamic states. The upper middle class guy in Tehran is secular by nature. The rich oil sheik? He may pay homage to Islam but his REAL desire is to drive his Benz into Dubai and watch Cigar race. Bin-Laden is an oxy-moron. The wealthy generally aren't concerned with worldly issues. Bin-Laden is a rich guy with the heart(less) of the uneducated, unemployed young men who compose the Muslim street.
Dave,
If that is the case and it is essentially that simple, then the solution must also lie along simple solutions by choosing that desire as axiomatic in all resolutions.
If pride and respect and honor and is what they seek, why not make that the mindset at the core of living with your neighbor? Israel has many Noble Prize winners and Field Medalists, but maybe they should seek advice from those that are geniuses at making peace?
I realize that is not so simple. I recently witnessed similar dynamics first hand in a squabble over how a new house should be constructed and how far away from the existing house it should be.
Amazing seeing the dynamics of it first hand...
nitro
"HONOR & PRIDE above everything else."
Sounds like a recruiting poster for the U.S. Marines...
Sounds like a recruiting poster for the U.S. Marines...
Lebanon is a sovereign state with elected president and parliament. Lebanon didn't commit and didn't threaten to commit any act of war. As a peaceful soveriegn state, international law demands all other states to honor Lebanon's peaceful existence.
Israel is a soveriegn state with elected parliament. Israel allows only Jews citizenship, thus establishing "Jew" as a preferred person. Israel has invaded Lebanon, shelled residential areas, blockaded ports: all clear acts of war.
Israel claims that Lebanon harbors "terrorists"; this claim is not a fact and is Israel's only justification for committing acts of war. To illustrate the difference between a claim and a fact: if Mexico were to declare war against US and then send soldiers to invade, that the invasion would be an act of war is a fact; on the other hand, should Mexican smuggling-ring members cross the border without Mexico's knowledge or sanction, some right-wing neocon nut job's calling "cross border" an "invasion" or calling "smugglers being Mexican" "tacit sanction by Mexican government" would not by any sane human's reasoning be a fact.
Why then do Jews attack Lebanon?
Israel claims that kidnapping IDF soldiers--regardless of rank--is an act of war. Setting aside the fact that no state sanctioned the recent kidnapping and, also, setting aside the fact that international law nowhere defines soldeir kidnapping as an act of war; Israel doesn't make war on every group that kidnaps soldiers. To illustrate: when an IDF soldier go AWOL in US, does Israel claim kidnap and declare war on US? When a soldier goes AWOL in Israel, does ISR attack the soldier's kibbutz? Israel clearly makes policy dependent not just on an act's nature.
To those of you who still don't get it: in the 70's Italian Red Brigade members kidnapped Getty's son and demanded ransom. Unlike in recent events, there is no doubt at all that Getty's son had been kidnapped, a fact made even more clear when the members mailed Getty his son's severed ear. Using Israel's reasoning, the US had both a right and an obligation in defending a US citizen to invade, occupy, shell, Italy, and kill Italians; no sane human would agree with this conclusion.
Given the above facts, definitions, and proofs, why then does Israel attack Lebanon?
The only significant difference between Lebanon and US or Italy or Israel itself is this: majority population of Lebanon is Muslim. Israel only grants citizenship to Jews which fact makes Israel a racist country like South Africa where Boers granted fewer rights to blacks. Israel's Lebanon invasion, thus, has nothing to with a kidnapped soldier but everything to do with racist killing and racist hate--in other words, genocide.
Israel is a soveriegn state with elected parliament. Israel allows only Jews citizenship, thus establishing "Jew" as a preferred person. Israel has invaded Lebanon, shelled residential areas, blockaded ports: all clear acts of war.
Israel claims that Lebanon harbors "terrorists"; this claim is not a fact and is Israel's only justification for committing acts of war. To illustrate the difference between a claim and a fact: if Mexico were to declare war against US and then send soldiers to invade, that the invasion would be an act of war is a fact; on the other hand, should Mexican smuggling-ring members cross the border without Mexico's knowledge or sanction, some right-wing neocon nut job's calling "cross border" an "invasion" or calling "smugglers being Mexican" "tacit sanction by Mexican government" would not by any sane human's reasoning be a fact.
Why then do Jews attack Lebanon?
Israel claims that kidnapping IDF soldiers--regardless of rank--is an act of war. Setting aside the fact that no state sanctioned the recent kidnapping and, also, setting aside the fact that international law nowhere defines soldeir kidnapping as an act of war; Israel doesn't make war on every group that kidnaps soldiers. To illustrate: when an IDF soldier go AWOL in US, does Israel claim kidnap and declare war on US? When a soldier goes AWOL in Israel, does ISR attack the soldier's kibbutz? Israel clearly makes policy dependent not just on an act's nature.
To those of you who still don't get it: in the 70's Italian Red Brigade members kidnapped Getty's son and demanded ransom. Unlike in recent events, there is no doubt at all that Getty's son had been kidnapped, a fact made even more clear when the members mailed Getty his son's severed ear. Using Israel's reasoning, the US had both a right and an obligation in defending a US citizen to invade, occupy, shell, Italy, and kill Italians; no sane human would agree with this conclusion.
Given the above facts, definitions, and proofs, why then does Israel attack Lebanon?
The only significant difference between Lebanon and US or Italy or Israel itself is this: majority population of Lebanon is Muslim. Israel only grants citizenship to Jews which fact makes Israel a racist country like South Africa where Boers granted fewer rights to blacks. Israel's Lebanon invasion, thus, has nothing to with a kidnapped soldier but everything to do with racist killing and racist hate--in other words, genocide.
I assume you are referring to moral relativism. Z has stated that he is a moral relativist. I too loathe this position.
My comments were solely in response to this Z-GOD statement
"Is it really for us to evaluate another culture psychologically and morally? I say no"
I say yes. As hap pointed out - it is the 'psychological and moral' and cultural evaluation of other cultures that results in human progress, in a sense. Does the rest of the world exhibit a desire to pick up on the less desirable aspects of Western culture (violence on TV and film, blind consumerism at the expense of the environment, etc)? Yes... but the rest of the world also gets good guidance from the US in other ways.
I have never said anything of the sort.
with regard to the rest of your list
Women routinely elect to kill their fetuses for economic reasons or worst yet to peruse[SIC] a freer less encumbered lifestyle.
Yes well... I know this'll be tough for you to understand, but the same moral stance that involves the rejection of bride burning dictates that a woman must be allowed to choose the fate of her own body, without having an arbitrary group of mystics (Christians) tell her that she should behave according to their particular belief system
[all right all right, I know.... A Christian could obviously reject bride burning and support the denial of choice for non-Christian women. I just feel that this analogy is misleading. The majority of own population finds it barbaric that fundamentalists would deny a woman's right to choose. As always, bride burnings and other heinous acts are carried out by a minority group of fanatics. - the acts is rejected by the majority. This is my point. We can morally condemn the acts of these minority groups of fanatics].
A culture that promotes/lionizes violence and sex on the publics airwaves.
I promote sex on public airwaves and in the public's bedrooms. I think it is the repression of sexual desire that results in a lot of problems. With regard to violence, yes, I agree, there is a premium put on violent images in movies and video games and it's not great for young people.
A culture of men who spend untold hours on the internet either gambling or whacking off to pornography.
if our moral perversion is masturbation and theirs is murdering innocent young women in order to restore familial honour... I'll take our system, thanks.
A culture so consumed by thirst for alcohol and drugs that thousands are murdered in pursuit of these substances and tens of thousands killed or maimed on highways by those wasted on mind altering chemicals.
Are you saying that drug use and abuse is a Western problem? I can assure you from firsthand experience that it is not. Humans have been using drugs (including alcohol, a drug) for quite a while now. They actually use drugs in other countries besides Western ones. Your suggestion that thousands are killed on the highways because of impairment by 'mind-altering chemicals' seems dishonest. The vast majority are killed by drunk drivers. The phrase 'mind-altering chemicals' does not suggest alcohol in common usage.
There are certain prices that a society pays for freedom, right? So which do you choose?
My personal belief is that the Western model is the model of the future (and I mean the far future especially) but that is not to say that there isn't a lot we can learn from other cultures. I believe this fully, and I have never said anything other than this. Again, my comments were directed towards Z-GOD's assertions.
By the way... I must have seriously pissed you off if you have been forced into the arms of Z-GOD, against me
