you should read more if you don't understand
Terrorism. Is there anything to be done ?
- Thread starter Humpy
- Start date
well for one thing when modern Israel was established, nobody lived there, it was just a desert with some Palestinians on it. Some orthodox do not accept modern Israel as anything other than another country since it was created by man.
Then i'm sure the incoming Israelis got a good deal, per acre, when they bought desert land from the few who MAY have had claim on the land, perhaps because the latter MAY have purchased the land from someone before them. I'm sure they were compensated. Perhaps there was some abandoned desert land also that found better caretakers.
I am suggesting we might not have the Mohamet problem were it not for the holy books of Hebrew literature, which were incorporated into Christian holy books, as if any of what is described there is/was justified.
Looking at it from a martial perspective, Mohammeeded took what seemed to work, from a priest-craft point of view, and, taking that psychological warfare aspect, included overt military operations in his quest to resist, and overtake Jewish and Christian lands, and any other land.
It's right out of the Judeo-Christian playbook, and really represents some kind of "karma".
That said, Muhemet's game-play is exponentially more evil, representing more of a scorched earth policy, rather than the more modern priest-craft policy of persuasion.
However, we must remember that there was a time, in the history of Israel, when they did conduct military operations in the name of their god.
Perhaps it was because they were oppressed everywhere else, and were living in a desert having escaped from Egypt.
Still, just about everybody was living in a desert in those days, and life itself was hard.
Does anybody, in the name of god, have the right to make life harder for anybody else, by taking their land, instead of buying them out at fair market value?
As a Christian, i don't know why you would want to get involved on the side of Israel for any bookish, or religious reasons.
If i excuse Israel in any way, it's because of a general sense of charity, and fairness.
Theoretically, there are many Mohammmmeed bandito ruled areas that a follower could go to feel at home, and perhaps purchase some land. But apparently none of those places are good enough for many of the bookish types of left-over banditos.
As a general rule, if you make this globe, this "world" a "home", you will suffer.
One reason is because this is actually the proverbial hell.
Personally, i don't own land, and can't own land in a couple of my favorite places.
But there is only one reason i might "buy" land, and it would NOT be to make this world a "home".
I'm not sure what you mean.
Are you saying the book was, and still is, actionable, in favor of the god who fights with the other god "Baal"?
Perhaps when we look back about so many times of different terrorism cycles in the past, each cycle was carried by various religious or political groups. Then we might see there were/are always having a diminishing effect for the terrorism cycles, ending with some sort of peaceful arrangements/developments for each cycle.
Or we could simply say there has been no any terrorism cycle that would last forever without ending in long run. That could be just a natural evolution.
1. There should have been some formal analytical studies about all these terrorism cycles collectively. I would be very surprised if nothing has been done yet by today.
2. I cannot see the current terrorism cycle would be an exception from the above various cycles. I would suppose many peace-builder, including politicians and leaders of faiths and NGOs, have been working on that already.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ester-news/multi-faith-vigil-held-st-13088241
Last edited:
yes, sometimes I think peace is a very rare occurence and violence and war are more day to day normal. Sort of like Peace is just a pause from the daily War.Perhaps when we look back about so many times of different terrorism cycles in the past, each cycle was carried by various religious or political groups. Then we might see there were/are always having a diminishing effect for the terrorism cycles, ending with some sort of peaceful arrangements/developments for each cycle.
Or we could simply say there has been no any terrorism cycle that would last forever without ending in long run. That could be just a natural evolution.
1. There should have been some formal analytical studies about all these terrorism cycles collectively. I would be very surprised if nothing has been done yet by today.
2. I cannot see the current terrorism cycle would be an exception from the above various cycles. I would suppose many peace-builder, including politicians and leaders of faiths and NGOs, have been working on that already.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ester-news/multi-faith-vigil-held-st-13088241
Gulnar Bano Kham Ghadri wears a Union flag head scarf during a vigil by multi-cultural religious leaders from across Manchester in St Ann's Square
The book is factual history written the way we wish it was.
Don't think that answered the question i asked.
Are you suggesting the book is written like a good old fashioned western where the good guys prevail over the bad guys?
Script writers nowadays always draw up a villain, so that later, when the villain is shot down, or burnt up, or blown up, we can all feel good about it, having pushed back against an obvious bully.
Nobody likes bullies, and like to see the underdog prevail.
Is that how the book, Hebrew literature, is written?
I once listened to a Christian speaker retell the story of Sampson and Delilah...lauding Sampson and his god.
Afterward, i probed him, asking questions like, how was Sampson, and his god, not a bully?
How about you, java? Where do you stand on the Sampson and Delilah story?