1.8L

Hello,

Chris, help create that future. What suggestions do you have? Ignore the past claims to the last. Just start with today. What should happen?

Joel

Group B

iTrader: (3)

I believe that suicide bombing & ambushes will continue in Israel until all Palestinians are sent to Jordan.

Palestinians will continue to breed hatred & violence, and they have the backing of many of our Muslim enemy terrorist groups, as well as these nations:

Syria
Iran
Iraq

There will be no peace until the land is occupied by a single group, either Israelis or Palestinians.

Until then, there will only be more bloodshed & rubble.

BADWRX

iTrader: (5)

And the Isrealies have more guns, money, nukes. They are tougher, smarter, and better trained.

If anybody is giong away from Isreal, it will not be the Isrealies!

I still think that they should bust a cap in the **** of every immediate, and extended family member of any homocide bomber. That is how you curb Arab violence. They should have learned this from the Russians in Beruit (I am pretty sure that is the location).

Not only did they wax the families, but the placed the heads on stakes around the villages. There was never any more problems with fundamentalist terrorists or hostage taking.

God bless the Russians. I am so glad that they assasanated the people that took the hostages in Moscow last month. Too awesome. A bullett in the head while they were sleeping. I love it! I hope they rot in hell...

BADWRX

iTrader: (5)

The Russians realize the importance of culture and example. I only wish that America was a tougher society. Then we would have less problems.

But, we have to give the criminals and terrorists a bin uckfing hug and try to understand "Why" they want us dead. Kill or be killed...dog eat dog. We must become a more savage nation in order to survive as a nation.

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

Joel suggested that this should be posted here....

Hmmm in histories that I've read, it seems there wasn't much tension between Arabs/Muslims and Jews until Europe got involved. Almost every time Jews got persecuted or pushed out somewhere, where'd they go? With the uncharactistic exception of Holland and the ever-tolerant Dutch, they ended up with the Muslims. In southern Spain it was the Moors who took them in and shared mutual admiration in faith, mathematics, sciences, literature, etc. And then again after the Spanish Inquisition one quarter of a million Jews went to Turkey (which was far more muslim then than it is now).

The European Jewish immigration to Israel which began in the 1800s was in addition to Jews who lived there peacefully already. Having acquired land through peaceful means with often very happy absentee Arab landlords things were fine.... until minor complaints from both sides were blown out of proportion by the British, and then perpetuated by more of the land and power hungry European Jews. Please note this was not the norm. Most of the Jews and Arabs there had no problem with eachother, until things escallated and immigrations tensions escallated and was compounded by stupid decisions by the British which just made matters worse. Problems were not so much socio-religious tension as they were socio-economic.

Today's problem is that Israel won't leave the West Bank and the hardliners make matters worse. In recent years I have all but lost a desire to personally support Israel. In the past they have made consessions (Sinai) for the sake of peace... but in the end it was land they conquered in the first place. In reality the WB should go back to Jordan (remember, it used to be called the Transjordan ? ) And infact, historically, what we call "Palestinians" are "Jordainians". But just as the Israelis spite the Palestianians, so does the Husseinite clan of Jordan and so does Egypt. No one wants to take them in. When Israel returned the Sinai, Egypt declined to take Gaza. Heck, Egypt could have received the Gaza and then liberated it! It would have been a HUGE step for the Palestianians. Why did Egypt and these displaced Transjordanians skip this prime opportunity?

The truth is, all the wars in the Middle East are not and never have been about land for the Palestianians. Historically the WB is part of Jordan and the rest of Israel is actually part of the kingdom of Syria. The Arab nations want their land back. There's no pan-Arab agenda to save or vindicate the Palestinians. If one of the great Middle Eastern wars had been lost by Israel, it would have been divided up between Lebennon, Syria, Jordan and possibly Egpypt. There still would be no "Palestine". The only acquiescense by the Arab nations to support Palestinians is that atleast these Europeans, Westerners who call themselves Jews (which is actually how I see it too, despite my own Jewish heritage) will no longer have control in the region.

So if you've read this and think I take one side or another? I really don't. I think the history is cloudy and lots of lies have been told. But we can discern a lot from behavior patterns that go back one or two hundred years by both sides and the Western influence.

Israel as a nation, once again, now exists. Its a reality. The question is then, Will Israel stand beside its own heritage and faith that has formed it and sustained it for thousands of years... to care for the oppressed and the orphan and the widow and the homless and bring justice? Or will it continue to confuse justice with demanding ones own rights and retribution? By the cultures own historical records it losts its heritage because it lost the core of its heart and reason for being. Will it happen again? Will Israel self-destruct because it refuses to remember who it is? Honestly, I would rather that than see more war and more oppression against the Palestinians.

jason

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

Just an interesting little note about the english name "Hebrew" and the ancient Egyptian word "apiru" that you might find interesting, Joel.

In Hebrew, "hebrew" is "eevreet", which comes from "Avraham", or Abraham. Makes sense, doesn't it

jason

joltdudeuc

iTrader: (6)

Yeah, from what i've generally known, it matches fairly closely to what jason has stated.

But think above all, chris is right. Let go, and move on. But how do you tell someone who's so enraged. For me, i can only see more bloodshed on the horizon. the third world war. It just seems like world war is what's going to happen eventually. And it's soo sad.

If the leadership changes from all sides, to those people who are willing to sit down, and talk together, slowly, they may be able to bring change.

-Gagan

Group B

iTrader: (3)

As you know Gagan, the Middle-East isn't the only hot-spot in the world....some interesting warfare involving China, India, and Pakistan could erupt over Kashmir....

1.8L

Hello,

mmboost, that is true of the language, but is it of the peoples? It's been a while, but I don't think I've heard of the Hebrews being refered to as ha eevreetim?

BTW, that "other" hotspot, India-Pakistan, is "hot" because of religion as well. That's why the problem is so intense.


Joel

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

India and pakistan scare me more than the Israel conflicts. Those two countries are poor, which is a great motivator for war, but just barely advanced enough and wealthy enough to have developed and tested nukes. And they hate each other as much as any other two countries. Scary.

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

I wonder though, is the problem religion, or is the problem people All these religions (with some exceptions, and those often limited at that) teach love and self-sacrifice. Adherents to every faith professing those things seem to forget those tenents.

jason

p.s. (As for "eevreetim", the word for the language is "eevreet", at least in Modern Hebrew. As for my etymology, the "Hebrews" were the "Eevreem", ref. Exodus 2:13 for example, "sh'nay anashim eevreem", "two men of the Hebrews". There's many other ref.s throughout Exodus and 1 Samuel. After that, its usually "Israelites", and the "Jew" as you correctly stated comes from "Judean" which I have always learned is a Babylonian colloquialism that came out final Israelite exile. While the Northern Kingdom was evetually lost forever, the Southern Kingdom, Judah and Benjamin with Judeans comprising the majority, were "Jews". )

1.8L

Hello,

See, teach me a lesson. I've completely forgotten Hebrew, which is sad, because it was my first language... And I haven't owned a bible in English or in Hebrew in more than a decade, so I couldn't even remind myself.

All religions teach love and happiness. But you explain that to the hundreds of thousands of people who died in each major stopping point of the crusades. 70,000 Muslims were killed in Jerusalem in 1099. A thousand years ago, I can imagine that comparatively, that would be like killing a million or two today with our significantly larger populations. And the crusades went throughout Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East.

The Muslims killed tens of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of Jews in the 7th Century wars to bring Islam to the entire middle east.

When the Jews returned to Palestine after the Persians gave them their state back, they forbade the practice of any other religion. I have no history to back me up, but I would guess that they decimated anyone of a differing religion in the area.

Heck, Hitler only killed a few million over the course of his whole reign. The crusaders, the army of Mohammad and Omar, the Jews, the Pharaohs (they were Gods themselves), the Romans (in the name of their Gods, etc. all made Hitler look like chump change, it seems. In the name of peace and loving religion.

That's one of the reasons I find it sad when a religious person tells me that without God, I cannot possibly have as strong of a moral and ethical code by which to live. I, in fact, have a moral and ethical code that mirrors the one preached by the major religions, except I also have tolerance of others with the same moral code, even if they have a different reason for that code (their God demands it). The religious folks don't seem to have that tolerance of others with the same code, but a different "reason" (different god, no god, etc.).

Joel, enjoying this tangent.

joltdudeuc

iTrader: (6)

I agree, with you. I've also had some people tell me that. It's very true that many religous people are indeed not tolerant of others beliefs.

I'm just going off what you and Jason are saying, as my history knowledge is limited <yet probably more than most... just different topics>

I would like to comment on the India/Pakhistan:

Having visited last in 99, and having a good friend of mine be there last summer when there was seriously some tension, well, she told me it's all kosher there. No one feels any threat from them. There was no heightened security. A lot of hype over pretty much border pickings. Yes, having nuke in such much what i consider close to 2nd world countries is kinda scary when you have such a hatred between the two over a small area of land in the west hymalayas. I find it so unfortunate that Hindus <mostly> are fighting against Muslims <mostly> for Kashmir. I don't either really has asked the people that live there what they want. But i was told by a close friend who was there at the time of the great tension that it was a lot of hype in the world media.

-Gagan

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

In response to what Joel and Gagan just said about religion vs people (of faith):

Well, hmmm... its the old story of how religion destroys faith, and how "religionists" distort and make faith the most undesireable thing imaginable for just about anyone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Down with organized religion!". Religion is a way of life, unlike faith, which doesn't actually demand action or risk. Its more often than not something for self-promotion that's accepted when the adherent feels it works for them (via experience or some sort of proof, however intangible the rest of us see it to be). Unfortunately, in this situation, it works better when everyone else is following suit. By doing something else you're cramping the style of their little piece of Heaven

Enter faith. Faith is not a feeling or a belief, as most people want to think and then use as a basis for ridicule ("blind faith"). Faith is actually an action. The greatest faith is acting when you don't believe or at best have the sketchiest of proof. Abraham trusted God and left his home without knowing what the outcome would be. Paul preached to the point of death spurred on by an unseen and futuristic hope.

People who war out of religious belief generally do so because they are unwilling to practice faith. And this is some sort of warping of the tenents of their faith to compensate for succumbing to fear when faith is required. This is why Christians and Jews kill people in the name of God. Its also why they are wrong to do so, by their own belief system. Muslims, well, I don't know enough of the Koran. But from what I hear, killing the infidels gets you the big kahuna prize. But just as Christian and Jewish war mongers will use the Bible grossly out of context to support their own wars, I am sure the same people use the Koran in a similar fashion to "prove" that Islam is a religion of hatred and violence.

People who are faithful are primarily concerned with their own obedience (acting with a lack of proof is hard enough for one's own self) and of those who already travel with them. When you're practicing faith, no one can cramp your little piece of Heaven. Its surely something you want to share if you care about other people. But there's no need to cram it down other peoples' throats. Faith derails fear, religion promotes fear: more often than not, the fear of anything different. I might believe you're wrong, but since I believe God is my vindicator I have no need to vnidicate myself. So why then do Christians like to kill people so much? For the same reason the Bible lauds martyrs and "religionists" go around killing abortion doctors and oppressing Arab nations. Faith produces behavior or action based upon the future that God produces, while religion demands that adherents make the future happen. Don't infringe on a "religionists" little piece of Heaven or they'll make you pay for it.

So, I think this is good case for separating out the people and the form of faith. Truthfully, every religion has relatively very few true adherents. The Judeo-Christian tradition in particular teaches that there is a God who frees you up from having to fight for your rights or your very own existance by taking that burden on himself. Unfortunately, when that sort of providence doesn't match up to our expectations we clamour for our own needs and rights and end up killing eachother in God's name. Its just like everyone else who doesn't believe in God, "religionists" just find a different rallying cry. Pretty much almost everyone I know from every religion worries about money and food and clothing for themselves before others. So what's the problem, the people? Or the tenents of faith? I think its clear, at least for the Judeo-Christian tradition, that the problem is not the faith itself, but the people. I would hope then in our discussions that we try to rethink which it is that we so readily condemn or at best dismiss.

To say "Down with organized religion!" is to condemn faith because of its corruption... without condemning the corruptions of which we are all guilty of.

jason