Zionism

[nash8]

I never said I support anybody's ideals. I said the fact that they would fight to the death for them is admirable. Admiring someone and agreeing with them are two entirely different things. I think Hitler was a military genius and admire the charisma he displayed in getting so many people to follow him, but I don't agree with what he was trying to accomplish. Do you see the difference?

I see what your saying now, that fighting to the death for your beliefs in and of itself, without regard for what the cause is that your are fighting for, is what you considerable honorable.

I understand, but I still don't agree with you. But I can definitely respect your absolute sense of moral neutrality.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I see what your saying now, that fighting to the death for your beliefs in and of itself, without regard for what the cause is that your are fighting for, is what you considerable honorable.

I understand, but I still don't agree with you. But I can definitely respect your absolute sense of moral neutrality.

People consumed by their sense of "morality" are just as dangerous and just as responsible for conflict and war as those they deem immoral.

 

[nash8]

People consumed by their sense of "morality" are just as dangerous and just as responsible for conflict and war as those they deem immoral.

Agreed, the only morality I consider true morality is when it doesn not intervene in anothers persons thought process, once you step over the line were you are imposing your morality on someone else it ceases to be morality.

But in situations where one group of people is imposing their sense of morality on another group of people, is it moral for a 3rd group of people to intervene only in order to stop the first group? Or is your view is basically that whoever has the strongest force has the most right?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

But in situations where one group of people is imposing their sense of morality on another group of people, is it moral for a 3rd group of people to intervene only in order to stop the first group? Or is your view is basically that whoever has the strongest force has the most right?

I wouldn't say it's "moral"; I don't believe in that. I might find it reasonable, depending on the situation. I'd say more often than not the third party only intervenes because they have something to gain out of their involvement. Israel is actually the perfect example of this. I don't believe the US feels any moral inclinations towards the preservation of Israel, but it definitely makes sense from a tactical standpoint. The US steps in on the Israeli side of the conflict so that we have an assured ally in the Middle East at all times, which doesn't hurt if you want to set up missile defense in the region, which we especially need now that the Middle East is so volatile.

 

[Sha'irullah]

A Chinese person converted to Judaism is only a Jew by religion, not ancestry. That was my point in my original statement, and I thought I made that pretty clear. I never said you were referring to a religion. It seems everyone on this thread loves telling me what my opinions are, but never comprehend (nor want to, for that matter) what I'm actually saying.

Well you were telling me of my opinions by assuming I was somehow referring to religion. You are going to have to try treating this argument as separate because I only read and respond to the ones applicable to me .

I know its hard but if you think I am reading through walls of text you must be plumb crazy .

But do keep in mind I am only referring to ethnicity and demographics as religion means absolutely nothing to me

 

[Assad91]

Zionism. A wish for a "Jewish State". No wonder they pushed most Arabs out and allowed a small few stay.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Well you were telling me of my opinions by assuming I was somehow referring to religion. You are going to have to try treating this argument as separate because I only read and respond to the ones applicable to me .

I know its hard but if you think I am reading through walls of text you must be plumb crazy .

But do keep in mind I am only referring to ethnicity and demographics as religion means absolutely nothing to me

I never said you were referring to religion, nor did I think you were. You've made it very clear that your issue is with the Arab conquest of Israel centuries ago, and that the land rightfully belongs to the native Israelis. My counter argument was that regardless of ethnicity, religion, or any other argument used to justify conquering a land, I still don't believe anybody has a right to any land. That doesn't mean I thought you specifically were using religion as a justification. I hope this is finally clear and we can move past it.

 

[nash8]

I wouldn't say it's "moral"; I don't believe in that. I might find it reasonable, depending on the situation. I'd say more often than not the third party only intervenes because they have something to gain out of their involvement. Israel is actually the perfect example of this. I don't believe the US feels any moral inclinations towards the preservation of Israel, but it definitely makes sense from a tactical standpoint. The US steps in on the Israeli side of the conflict so that we have an assured ally in the Middle East at all times, which doesn't hurt if you want to set up missile defense in the region, which we especially need now that the Middle East is so volatile.

What makes it reasonable as opposed to moral, in one of those, not more often than not cases, where the third party intervenes simply because they hold the belief that no group has the right to forcibly impose it's moralities and/or beliefs on another group, and has nothing to gain from the intervention.

And don't think I'm saying in reality, that the 3rd party doesn't usually have something to gain because they do. I'm just saying that I have intervened in situations where I thought someone was being verbally abused/imposed upon, and I did not gain anything from my intervention. Were my actions in this situation reasonable in your opinion, sense you don't believe in the concept morality?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

What makes it reasonable as opposed to moral, in one of those, not more often than not cases, where the third party intervenes simply because they hold the belief that no group has the right to forcibly impose it's moralities and/or beliefs on another group, and has nothing to gain from the intervention.

It's reasonable that a third party would intervene in that situation because they don't want to be next. It's always easier to stop a problem at its source rather then waiting for it to spread until it's knocking on your door. It's not so much a moral issue as it is one of convenience.

And don't think I'm saying in reality, that the 3rd party doesn't usually have something to gain because they do. I'm just saying that I have intervened in situations where I thought someone was being verbally abused/imposed upon, and I did not gain anything from my intervention. Were my actions in this situation reasonable in your opinion, sense you don't believe in the concept morality?

Depends on the individual situation. If the person was a friend or relative of yours, or has done something for you in the past then yes, I would consider your intervention reasonable. I personally would not help a complete stranger unless it was someone I don't like abusing them. I've seen many a stranger being attacked/robbed/picked on, etc, and if I tried to help them all I would have been dead a long time ago. Sometimes it's better to leave a situation alone for self-preservation's sake; other times I have refused to help out of pure apathy. Either way I wouldn't call the decision not to intervene "wrong", and neither would I expect a stranger's help were I in the same situation.

 

[nash8]

Hmm... interesting philosophy. I can definitely respect the total reliance on self. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can definitely respect it.

What emotion/word would you use to determine whether you liked someone or not? I would consider that right there morality at it's most basic level.

I would also argue that your sense of morality is: if it affects me negatively, it's wrong. If it doesn't affect me, or if it has no ability to affect me at any point in time , it's right.

Not saying that I consider it right or wrong, I just don't believe anyone can have absolutely no morality. I would agree that your sense of morality is the most basic level of morality, but morality none the less.

 

[Juhurka]

Zionism. A wish for a "Jewish State". No wonder they pushed most Arabs out and allowed a small few stay.

It's not a wish, its a reality, wake up and smell the coffee. Keep dreaming, you never had, it was never yours and never will be.

 

[nash8]

It's not a wish, its a reality, wake up and smell the coffee. Keep dreaming, you never had, it was never yours and never will be.

LOL, that's just ignorant.
"Michael Jackson Voice"

 

[Juhurka]

LOL, that's just ignorant.
"Michael Jackson Voice"

No one is kicking the Arabs out but Arabs should realize that they are living in a Jewish country with a Jewish culture and they must respect that, if it is a burden on them they are free to pack their bags and move to an Arab country. To live in a country and to complain that it is not Arab or Muslim enough is being ignorant

 

[nash8]

That was more to the point to you saying the Arabs never "had" the lands known today as Israel. They have actually controlled those lands at many times throughout history, by the same means Israel is doing today - superior military force.

And actually the Palestinian Arabs are not free to move to an Arab country. There are numerous articles that cite that many, many Palestians tried to migrate to surrounding Arab countries but were rejected, or they were not allowed basic civil rights.

Palestinian refugee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arab Apartheid Against Palestinians :: Gatestone Institute

It's the same as everywhere else, if you have money you'll be good, if you don't your probably screwed.

 

[Juhurka]

That was more to the point to you saying the Arabs never "had" the lands known today as Israel. They have actually controlled those lands at many times throughout history, by the same means Israel is doing today - superior military force.

And actually the Palestinian Arabs are not free to move to an Arab country. There are numerous articles that cite that many, many Palestians tried to migrate to surrounding Arab countries but were rejected, or they were not allowed basic civil rights.

[[/url]

It's the same as everywhere else, if you have money you'll be good, if you don't your probably screwed.

If it is the same, why don't those Arabs stop complaining, shooting rockets and blowing them self's up and enjoy the freedom that they are offered in Israel otherwise who knows what their neighboring brothers would do to them.

 

[Assad91]

It's not a wish, its a reality, wake up and smell the coffee. Keep dreaming, you never had, it was never yours and never will be.

Only because the Jews have more money and guns. You think that'll last forever?

Jews kicked the centuries old inhabitants of Palestine out. With no proof of actual ancestry to the land.

Rome used to be an empire once but fell. Israel will one day fall.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I never said you were referring to religion, nor did I think you were. You've made it very clear that your issue is with the Arab conquest of Israel centuries ago, and that the land rightfully belongs to the native Israelis. My counter argument was that regardless of ethnicity, religion, or any other argument used to justify conquering a land, I still don't believe anybody has a right to any land. That doesn't mean I thought you specifically were using religion as a justification. I hope this is finally clear and we can move past it.

Ah ok. I was not understanding you int he slightest bit because I am entirely against religious justification on both ends.

I understand what you are saying about conquering. But Filistinians are saying it is their "moral" right to the land which is not true. They are playing victims as they always do to insight the natural Islamic hatred that permeates the Ummah.

On a realistic level I only see genocide as the answer to this issue. This is not a natter of right it is a matter of ethno-religious cleansing and Filistinians like Muslims in the past wish to continue this cycle. I only see the extermination of the Filistinians as the appropriate measure.
They have no intentions on peace nor do the Islamic nations and especially Jordan which just tries pushing this issue. Israel is far to anti-Islamic to be left alive especially considering their ability to negate Islamic teachings. The Jews hold the original text which the Qur'an was copied from and this only goes to show how this issue is a matter of Muslim dominance int he region.

 

[nash8]

I would say the Jews have no intentions on peace, if they are given the ability to live on the land they wan't peacefully. At the same time, if the Jews gave up that piece of land and lived amongst the rest of the world the Arabs would be peaceful as well. Will either one of those ever be achieved, maybe, maybe not, but I definitely don't consider "Filistinian" genocide as the answer. That's actually kind of offensive.

And what Jewish texts was the Quran copied from. I've never head this before.

 

[nash8]

And I definitely don't agree with Muslim dominance either. The people at the top, who are controlling all of the conflict, don't give a damn about religion or ethnicity. They use this conflict as a way to control. Inciting fear is the easiest way to conrol people.

 

[Sha'irullah]

And I definitely don't agree with Muslim dominance either. The people at the top, who are controlling all of the conflict, don't give a damn about religion or ethnicity. They use this conflict as a way to control. Inciting fear is the easiest way to conrol people.

I am referring to the Arab nations and Islamic nations who are more then willing to enclose upon Israel. Avoiding the issues here I would say