Attack on Israel (2 Viewers)

[MsAccessNL]

The analogy is poor. I am sure the skin colour did not determine if they were scalped or not. And "reserves" is a deliberate misrepresentation. Palestinians have been repeatedly offered their own country, and repeatedly refused.

Palestinians have rights, just like anyone else. In fact they have been given rights that Nazi sympathisers agree with, like the murder of Jewish citizens.

Also, you are comparing different eras which is a common mistake, in my view. Looking at the acceptable values of the past (e.g. carpet bombing) is no longer deemed acceptable now. But you cannot go back and apply todays standards and judge those from back then. Society evolves, as does values. In the past there wasn't even a legal system. Do you think we should judge those based on todays laws when they didn't even have a concept of a legal system?

But yes, nowadays scalping would be considered animalistic, as is the murder, ra**, beheading and burning of innocent civilians, including babies, the elderly, the disabled and so on. These animalistic acts were conducted by the Palestinians. And supported by anti-Semitic views in the West. It seems the scourge of Jew hating has done a full circle.

If we could sent you back 150years as president. How would you solve the problems with the indigenous? What would be your solution? do you think that you could (as a white not indian person) invent a solution that would have been excepted bij the native residents? I am writing this words, not to challenge or attack you, but i want to point out how difficult the solution is when two parties claim the same ground.

 

[AccessBlaster]

If we could sent you back 150years as president. How would you solve the problems with the indigenous? What would be your solution? do you think that you could (as a white not indian person) invent a solution that would have been excepted bij the native residents? I am writing this words, not to challenge or attack you, but i want to point out how difficult the solution is when two parties claim the same ground.

Why limit it to 150 years? Maybe go back to the Roman Empire? Fix all those problems also.

 

[Jon]

Yes, difficult solutions and scalping was normal in their culture. Nowadays, scalping is a no no. I don't know enough about the situation between the Indians and Americans since I am from the UK. What I would say is that most of the world was based on warfare back then, with the winners getting the spoils of war. It was wrong by todays standards, less wrong by the standards back in those days, perhaps even considered normal or "just the way things are". So for the natives, it was unfortunate and little they could do. The most powerful wins. However, nowadays we have a more advanced culture where there is a slew of rights and international standards. The term terrorism may not have existed back in those days, yet nowadays we have definitions for these sorts of things.

I don't considered your words an attack and feel free to challenge me as much as you like. I'm always challenging others so just because I own the forums, it doesn't mean I will get all shirty and ban anyone! I'm just some regular guy like everyone else here, chipping in with my opinions.

 

[Jon]

Why limit it to 150 years? Maybe go back to the Roman Empire? Fix all those problems also.

Good angle! Never thought of that. But why limit it to the Roman Empire?

One argument framework I sometimes use is to go back to the chimp days. I mean my great great great....great uncle was a chimp. He had terrible table manners. No concept of The Geneva Convention or anything like that. Only a taste for bananas!

Edit: And everything is on a continuum from there, as society evolves.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The first species to craw out of the ocean lays claim to everything good and bad.

 

[Steve R.]

If we could sent you back 150years as president. How would you solve the problems with the indigenous? What would be your solution? do you think that you could (as a white not indian person) invent a solution that would have been excepted bij the native residents?

As Jon wrote:

The analogy is poor.

I will use an example which occurred in 1830s, close enough to your 150 year back-in-time hypothetical.

Trail of Tears: Definition, Date & Cherokee Nation | HISTORY

The Trail of Tears was the deadly route used by Native Americans when forced off their ancestral lands and into Oklahoma by the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

www.history.com

At the beginning of the 1830s, nearly 125,000 Native Americans lived on millions of acres of land in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina and Florida–land their ancestors had occupied and cultivated for generations. But by the end of the decade, very few natives remained anywhere in the southeastern United States.

In this case, the US government forced a diaspora of the Cherokee from their native lands to what is now Oklahoma. By today's standards of morality that would be considered repugnant. Back then, one could say that was "lenient" (for the times) because it did not involve the actual killing of the entire ethnic population. Compare that to subsequent actions occurring in the early 1900s that involved the murdering of people, such as pogroms in the old Soviet Union. Armenian genocide, and the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany.

While there is much focus, on the moral values of today versus the moral values of an earlier time period; there is a major geopolitical aspect between the past and today. That is that the world of the 1800s had a lot of "vacant open space" where refugees could be dumped - In the case of the Cherokee that was the area now known as Oklahoma. Today, that is not the case. Both the Palestinians and the Jews are constrained by their respective territories as they are surrounded by land owned/governed by other nations.

The back-in-time hypothetical is a poor analogy.

i want to point out how difficult the solution is when two parties claim the same ground.

In the "old" days the solution was simple, kill the other party or send them away, as discussed above. By today's standards of morality, those approaches are not considered respectable today. In terms of the current Israel/Palastinian conflict, one party (the Palastians) claims all the land and they have indicated no desire to compromise. Addtionally, Jews are one of the indigenous cultures native to the area. Israel in contrast withdrew form Gaza in 2005 and essentially gave the Palastian their own state. (There have been mentions that Gaza could be compared to Singapore, a free city state). The "difficult solution" would be to somehow convience the Palastians to compromise.

 

[Pat Hartman]

A problem with the liberal view today is that they judge history by the moral standards of today rather than what was considered moral at the time. 400 years ago it was perfectly acceptable for one country to invade and conquer another. Depending on the philosophy of the conquer, they killed the men and raped the women or they tried to just occupy the area and hoped everything would settle down and everybody would become friends. The UK, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Russia ALL invaded North America. Even the Vikings probably although they didn't stay. So, prior to 1776, it wasn't even America doing the conquering. After we said enough of this taxation without representation, then it was America doing the conquering of the indigenous people. I'm not sure why anyone would call them "native" Americans since the Human Race is NOT native to North America. Humans came across the Bering strait when it was a land bridge. The Human Race originated near as we can tell somewhere around the Rift Valley in Africa. So, just so you know, we are ALL actually African-Americans and NONE of us are native to America. We are all immigrants.

Just FYI, the liberals are not marching for Ukraine against Russia. Why not? The only people lobbying for Ukraine are in the military industrial complex and they are making mega-bucks.

 

[Jon]

A problem with the liberal view today is that they judge history by the moral standards of today rather than what was considered moral at the time.

Exactly my point. What I find utterly baffling is that this even needs to be explained when it is so damn obvious. We thought the Earth was flat, and so acted accordingly, not going to close to the edge. I liken those who judge the past by todays standards similar to those who still think the Earth is flat, and there are plenty of them!

It is a form of virtue signalling, vilifying our ancestors from the privileged perspective of modern education and hindsight.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Another comment on the "good" and "moral" students of Cooper Union in NYC. Why are they not marching daily around the UN complaining about Russia the aggressor who is decimating the Ukraine and killing innocent women and children? Instead, they are marching with kill the jews signs and terrifying their fellow students who are locked in a library in fear of their lives!!!! They have no clue what "moral" even is.

How is it moral to threaten students with harm? They are probably Americans anyway. How would they have any control over what the government of Israel is doing?

 

[Steve R.]

Alan Dershowitz, raised the issue of the Kurds. Basically, why is there rabid pro-Palestinian outrage for a Palestinian state, but not for a Kurdish homeland?

Following the end of WW1, the Kurds (for some reason) where overlooked in terms of getting their own homeland when the Middle East was carved-up. Since then, the Kurds have been the victims of persecution by the newly created states of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. Yet were are the protests demanding the creation of a Kurdish homeland?

On the surface it would seem that those demanding a Palestinian state, would also demand a Kurdish homeland. Dershowitz speculated, that the Palestinians have been supported for the simple reason that they openly support the elimination of the Jewish homeland.

 

[Pat Hartman]

On the surface it would seem that those demanding a Palestinian state, would also demand a Kurdish homeland.

Hypocrisy rules the left.

 

[Jon]

I learned quite a bit about conflict in the region from this video that I came across yesterday:

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It is clear that the various sects under Islam are as much at each others' throats as they are against Israel. Like my country cousins used to say, it is like someone tossed half-a-dozen cats in a sack, tied it shut, and hit it with a stick. And Israel represents only ONE of the many cats.

 

[ColinEssex]

Like my country cousins used to say, it is like someone tossed half-a-dozen cats in a sack, tied it shut, and hit it with a stick.

That is totally cruel and disgusting. Is that what your cousin does? I can't even comprehend that a sane person would even think of such a cruel act. With respect, your cousin needs to be tied in a sack and hit with a stick to experience what pain and trauma is suffered.
I am a strong supporter of the British RSPCA, anyone who inflicts cruelty on animals should be in jail. Starting with your cousin.
Col

 

[Jon]

That is totally cruel and disgusting. Is that what your cousin does? I can't even comprehend that a sane person would even think of such a cruel act. With respect, your cousin needs to be tied in a sack and hit with a stick to experience what pain and trauma is suffered.
I am a strong supporter of the British RSPCA, anyone who inflicts cruelty on animals should be in jail. Starting with your cousin.
Col

I too am a strong supporter of animal rights. Humans can be insanely cruel.

 

[Jon]

It is clear that the various sects under Islam are as much at each others' throats as they are against Israel.

What shocked me in that video was that Saddam borrowed $64B from Kuwait to help fund his war against Iran. After the war, he asked for Kuwait to forgive him the loan, to which they said no. So he invaded his lender!! Unbelievable!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What shocked me in that video was that Saddam borrowed $64B from Kuwait to help fund his war against Iran. After the war, he asked for Kuwait to forgive him the loan, to which they said no. So he invaded his lender!! Unbelievable!

Yes, but it is certainly a unique way to repudiate a debt.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That is totally cruel and disgusting. Is that what your cousin does? I can't even comprehend that a sane person would even think of such a cruel act. With respect, your cousin needs to be tied in a sack and hit with a stick to experience what pain and trauma is suffered.
I am a strong supporter of the British RSPCA, anyone who inflicts cruelty on animals should be in jail. Starting with your cousin.
Col

Rather obviously, you don't understand USA illustration-by-analogy, or in literature, a simile. We conjure up extreme imaginary visual images as a form of emphasis. You are SUPPOSED to find that image repugnant. It is a symbolic representation of the war in the Middle East - which should ALSO be considered repugnant. It makes the comparison between a sack of cats and the countries surrounding Israel - including that the participants are "trapped in a (geographic) sack" and have no one but each other on whom to visit their hatred, anger, and frustration. Nor does it matter who actually hit the sack to start a particular round in the fracas.

 

[ColinEssex]

Perhaps you can tell your cousin that even to think of such cruelty for whatever reason shows the mind of a total uncaring idiot. Its a shame the sewer brain wasn't ten pin bowling in Maine the other night.
Col

 

[Steve R.]

@Jon posted an excellent video in Post #252. Below are some editorial comments, that are worth highlighting.

• By coincidence, I recently heard two podcasts, (totally independent of each other) were Lebanon was brought-up. These podcast fully support the Lebanon narrative contained in the video clip that @Jon posted. That is that the influx of Palestinians into Lebanon changed it from a prosperous Christian nation into an Islamic client state containing a large Hezbollah terrorist organization. One Christian woman who escaped Lebanon lamented that she prayed for the Western nations to come to the defense of the Christian community, but they never came. (The failure of the West to come to the aid of Christians in the Middle East has been one of my pet peeves.)
• The Kurds where frozen out of having their own homeland. The Kurds of course have their own "freedom fighters", which have been classified by various governments as terrorist organizations.
• The video does a very good job of explaining how the current Middle East states arose. A criticism of the video, is that it does not chastise the Western Powers for failing to promote Christian interests in the Middle East. In the past, there were crusades to liberate Jerusalem and there similar calls to liberate Constantinople, but they all eventually fizzled. Surprising that these "old" liberation concerns were apparently never considered as part of the peace agreement. Finally, a chance to make the crusaders (1000+ year) dream come true and they didn't take it!!!
  
• The video raised a very interesting observation. The US went into action to take-out Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait. Turkey invaded Cyprus and the US did nothing. The Turks still occupy a portion of Cyprus. The obvious reason for the US taking action in Kuwait is: Oil ($$$$$). Nevertheless, it demonstrates a degree of cognitive dissonance. The US goes to war to protect dollars but does not use its military power to protect Cyprus from Turkish expansion. So when there is apparently no financial interest in protecting a friendly neighbor to preserve their land, the US will do nothing? (The video does note Turkish expansionism, but not from the perspective of the US. Outside of the scope of this video, but within the context of my peeve is that the US sided the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia at the expense of the Christians.)