Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Politics (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=260)
-   -   Why support Israel? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=47456)

  • Jul 1, 2007, 11:49 AM
    ScottGem
    Again you have offered no proofs that my contentions are unreasonable let alone "preposterous".

    Let me ask you point blank. Why do you think the countries who voted for partition did so? And why do you think that way?

    Are you saying that the Jews who established settlements in Israel were conquerors? You already admitted that much of the land was sold to them!

    Are you saying that the reason arabs have been out to destroy Israel is not do to religious hatred? If that's not the reason, then what do you think it is and why?
  • Jul 1, 2007, 01:27 PM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    Again you have offered no proofs that my contentions are unreasonable let alone "preposterous".

    Let me ask you point blank. Why do you think the countries who voted for partition did so? And why do you think that way?

    Are you saying that the Jews who established settlements in Israel were conquerors? You already admitted that much of the land was sold to them!

    Are you saying that the reason arabs have been out to destroy Israel is not do to religious hatred? If that's not the reason, then what do you think it is and why?

    The Hebrews, as a British colony, won their independence just as Americans won theirs; no one gave either a snow balls chance in hell- they each threw the British out against all odds. To say that either was given anything would be a gross misrepresentation of fact. The UN has no authority to grant anything beyond recognition. So the reason why any country voted for recognition is moot.

    No, I am not suggesting the Hebrew came as conquerors. I am flatly stating that the colonist who came to America did not come as conquerors, any more that the Hebrews did. In both cases they came as settlers of land- farmers for the most part.


    Jews and the inhabitants of Palestine lived as neighbors for 5 thousand years; so no, religious hatred came with the British.

    EDIT: As I said, your premise is wrong, and now I see why: It is based on the false assumption that Israel was established by the UN and not by the effort of the Jews.
  • Jul 1, 2007, 02:51 PM
    ScottGem
    Boy do you have a twisted view of history. While its true that not all colonists of America came here with the thought of conquest, some did not consider living peacefully with the natives. But the shame of America's treatment of native Americans is not from the initial colonization, but the settlement of the west.

    Palestine was not a British colony in the same way that India or the US was, it was a protectorate left over from WW I ans the dissolution of the Ottoman empire.

    And yes all the UN granted was recognition, but you seem to have a false idea of the importance of that recognition. Without it there probably would not be a State of Israel.

    I'm not, in anyway, trying to diminish the efforts of the zionists and other refugees in fighting for, both militarily and politically, the establishment of an Israeli state. But, unlike you, I recognize that there were other factors that contributed. If you want to ignore those factors, be my guest, but I won't.
  • Jul 1, 2007, 03:38 PM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    Boy do you have a twisted view of history. While its true that not all colonists of America came here with the thought of conquest, some did not consider living peacefully with the natives. But the shame of America's treatment of native Americans is not from the initial colonization, but the settlement of the west.

    Palestine was not a British colony in the same way that India or the US was, it was a protectorate left over from WW I ans the dissolution of the Ottoman empire.

    And yes all the UN granted was recognition, but you seem to have a false idea of the importance of that recognition. Without it there probably would not be a State of Israel.

    I'm not, in anyway, trying to diminish the efforts of the zionists and other refugees in fighting for, both militarily and politically, the establishment of an Israeli state. But, unlike you, I recognize that there were other factors that contributed. If you want to ignore those factors, be my guest, but I won't.

    I’ll not get into the anti-American sham of the shame of America's treatment of native Americans, it is too far off topic. Whatever the case, it has nothing to do with the topic of the establishment of an Israeli state, or America.
    I know you’re not trying to “…diminish the efforts of the zionists and other refugees”. You just ignore them completely by attributing the establishment of the State of Israel to the pity of the UN.

    Thank you for the conversation.
  • Jul 2, 2007, 08:15 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    Finally, you have to be kidding, a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what side they fight on. Yes, the Irgun were fighting for jewish freedom and a jewish state. But they did it by bombing both military and civilian targets. That's terrorism!

    Whoops!! I agreed with you 100% right up until this statement, Scott.

    The bombing of the King David Hotel, which is what you are referring to, was not a terrorist act for several reasons.

    1) The King David Hotel was a military and government installation, and thus a legitimate military target.

    2) There was a bomb-threat warning called before the bomb went off. There was ample opportunity to evacuate the entire installation of all civilian and military personnel. Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews," and he had insisted that nobody leave the building. A sepperate warning was sent at the same time to the French consulate and another to the Palestine Post in an effort to make sure that the British would listen to the warning. They didn't.

    3) After placing the bombs, the Irgun men quickly escaped and detonated a small explosive in the street outside the hotel to keep passers-by away from the area. The Arab workers in the kitchen were told to flee and they did. At all levels, the Irgun attampted to minimalize casualties, including British military casualties and casualties among the Arab civilian population.

    The bombing, therefore, does not constitute a terrorist attack. It was political violence, it was guerrilla warfare, and if whoever planted the bomb had been caught, they could have been tried as unlawful combatants for not being in uniform as they fought. But it wasn't TERRORISM.

    Elliot
  • Jul 2, 2007, 08:55 AM
    ScottGem
    Yes the attack on the King David is the most well-known of the Irgun's activities, but it was far from the only one. Doing some more research, confirms, in my mind, that the Irgun did commit terrorist acts in their fight for Israel's freedom. As terroists go, however, that were a lot more moralistic then the terrorists of today. They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.
  • Jul 2, 2007, 09:22 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    Yes the attack on the King David is the most well-known of the Irgun's activities, but it was far from the only one. Doing some more research, confirms, in my mind, that the Irgun did commit terrorist acts in their fight for Israel's freedom. As terroists go, however, that were a lot more moralistic then the terrorists of today. They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.

    Hello Scott:

    While we have certainly had some differences of opinion and I hope that in no way influences future dialogue. I think we wore out our arguments on the previous differences.

    That said I have a question.

    Isn’t what you say here, “They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.” the very essence of the difference between a terrorist action and guerrilla action?
  • Jul 2, 2007, 10:35 AM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dark_crow
    While we have certainly had some differences of opinion and I hope that in no way influences future dialogue. I think we wore out our arguments on the previous differences.

    That said I have a question.

    Isn’t what you say here, “They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.” the very essence of the difference between a terrorist action and guerrilla action?

    Well, I appreciate the sentiment.

    And no, I don't think that is the difference. I still feel that they Irgun was willing to go beyond what I would consider guerilla actions.
  • Jul 2, 2007, 11:20 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    Yes the attack on the King David is the most well-known of the Irgun's activities, but it was far from the only one. Doing some more research, confirms, in my mind, that the Irgun did commit terrorist acts in their fight for Israel's freedom. As terroists go, however, that were a lot more moralistic then the terrorists of today. They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.

    I'm sorry, Scott, but I have to disagree with you yet again. In fact, if anything, the Irgun was the victim of terrorism by its own "allies" in Hagganah. The "Saison" (Hunting Season) in which approximately 1,000 members of Irgun and Lechi were arrested by Haganah and turned over to the British for "justice" and the sinking of the Altalena by Hagganah were clearly unprovoked attacks against them, and probably border on terrorism. But that is arguable.

    As a general rule, Irgun attacked police, military and government targets under the British Mandate. They fought against restrictions to Jewish immigration. There are very few, if any, attacks by Irgun that can be argued to have been against civilian targets. The only one I can come up with is Deir Yassin (currently called Har Nof). But what most reports fail to note is that there were Iraqi military forces stationed in Deir Yassin, which made the village a legitimate military target. Furthermore, breaking Deir Yassin was absolutely necessary to break the siege of Western Jerusalem, since Deitr Yassin covered the only road into and out of Western Jerusalem at the time. This made attacking the village of Deir Yassin to relive the road absolutely critical from the military perspective. And finally, witnesses (including Arab witnesses) have stated that most of the deaths in Deir Yassin were not the result of Irgun & Lechi targeting civillians, but rather collateral casualties as a result of ongoing combat operations. All claims of rapes and torture of civillians and such have been dismissed as fabrications. And even the number of casualties reported (usually around 250) has now been found to have been exaggerated to make the Israelis look bad... the actual number of dead is somewhere between 107 and 120 according to a study published in 1987 by Bir Zeit University (a Paletinian University located near Ramallah). So what we have here is an attack that some claim was a terrorist act, but which was done because of military necessity, and in a way in which as much as possible was done to limit civilian casualties. I don't call that terrorism.

    So I have yet to find a single non-contravercial case of terrorism performed by Irgun. Can you provide me with any such case where there is clear proof that terrorism by Irgun forces took place during the 1948 war or earlier?

    Elliot
  • Jul 2, 2007, 11:52 AM
    ScottGem
    Well I'm not going to belabor the point. Mainly because I don't have the time to research this thoroughly enough.

    I do remember that when Begin became PM, there were a lot hoopla about his alleged terrorist activities with the Irgun. If one googles Menachim Begin terrorism, there are a lot of hits. Though I was especially amused by the one that purported to be a scholarly journal about jewish issues, but seemed clearly being used to do a hatchet job on jews.

    P.S. to Dark Crow. I'm curious as to what your background is here. Have you lived in Israel or are you an Israeli? I'm not asking to show bias, just curious because your knowledge of events seems to be very in depth.
  • Jul 2, 2007, 11:57 AM
    ScottGem
    Comments on this post

    Morganite agrees: There are those who say that the State of Israel was a reward for terrorism. Do you have any thoughts about that?


    Yes, it's a pack of baloney.
  • Jul 2, 2007, 02:44 PM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    Comments on this post

    Morganite agrees: There are those who say that the State of Israel was a reward for terrorism. Do you have any thoughts about that?


    Yes, its a pack of baloney.

    It seem to me that if we were to allow that Israel became a State as a reward for terrorism, it would appear to follow that all States were a reward for terrorism, which would dilute the concept of terrorism to a common violence.

    We could have course discard the slippery concept of terrorism in general, and just stick with human rights violations. After all, Walter Laqueur, in 1999, counted over 100 definitions and concluded that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
    Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The most often use of the term appears in a Pejorative sense.

    P.S. I’m neither Israeli nor Jewish; I’m just a simple Philosopher who enjoys History.
  • Jul 13, 2007, 07:11 AM
    Jiser
    Anti-British following here?
  • Jul 13, 2007, 07:20 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jiser
    Anti-British following here?

    Against the famine and the Crown

    I rebelled, they shot me down:)
  • Jul 14, 2007, 01:20 AM
    Marily
    I know that this does not fit in anywhere concerning politics but I just had the urge of mentioning it. ' Did all of you know that the parable of the fig tree in the bible is actually referring to Israel? The answer to this post is only scripture that's being fulfill
  • Jul 14, 2007, 08:32 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marily
    I know that this does not fit in anywhere concerning politics but i just had the urge of mentioning it. ' Did all of you know that the parable of the fig tree in the bible is actually refering to Israel? The answer to this post is only scripture thats being fulfill

    So you support Israel because you believe its existence is fulfilling scripture. From that it appears to follow that you believe you are helping God with his plan?
  • Jul 14, 2007, 09:01 AM
    Marily
    I never said that I support Israel, all I said was that scripture is being fulfill.
  • Jul 14, 2007, 09:13 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marily
    I never said that i support Israel, all i said was that scripture is being fulfill.

    You responded to a Question, “Why support Israel”? If you are not answering the question why are you positing on this Board?
  • Jul 14, 2007, 09:48 AM
    Marily
    Spot on excon spot on!!
  • Jul 14, 2007, 09:57 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marily
    Spot on excon spot on !!!

    As your signature says, “but God doesn't give merits on good intensions”-especially when your behavior dissuades potential converts rather than draws them towards good Christian behavior.


    You are not spreading the Gospel, you just have that intention

    Edit: If you want to discuss the parable pose an appropriate question on a new thread..
  • Jul 19, 2007, 05:51 AM
    Mario3
    I think the whole reason is money and we support them because there will be economic gains for us in the end... after all one of Hitlers biggest supporters was the catholic church. Everyone should see this free online movie and you will be very changed Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007 it's zeitgest the movie and you should see all of it and pay attention. The start of it is dumb but it gets great after 20 minutes and it will make you see the light.
  • Jul 19, 2007, 06:21 PM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by VBNomad
    Why does the USA support Israel? What do we as a county gain from supporting them, when the negatives are so obvious and numerous? Is it political, moral, financial, romantic? Why is the existence of a Jewish homeland still important to America?


    Because outside of Israel there are about six million plus Jews in the U.S. and I'm one of them. Read the words to the Shema and then Hatikvah. :)
  • Jul 20, 2007, 06:50 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Oracle Monroe
    I think one of the reasons Israel is supported so profoundly by America is because there is a proxy-war going on between America and Iran. While America supplies weapons to Israel, for example, Iran supplies them to Lebanon. This results in both Israel and Lebanon going to war, but one with the support and interests of two other stronger nations.

    I think there is an error of cause-and-effect here, Oracle. (BTW, did you know that your screen name is that of two comic book characters? Oracle is the former Batgirl of DC Comics, and Ororo Monroe is the real name of Storm from the X-Men of Marvel Comics fame.)

    Israel isn't at war with Lebanon because we suplied them weapons. We are supplying them with weapons because they are at war with Lebanon and the rest of the Middle Eastern Islamic countries. And the USA's support of Israel predates any connection we had with Iran. So I question your premise.

    Quote:

    There is also a very influential Jewish community in America that continuously lobbies the American government for Israeli support. And at the end of the day, one does answer to the pay cheque.
    True enough. But please keep in mind that the Jewish community in the USA is roughly 1% of the total population, compared with about 13% for the Hispanic community. So I wonder how much of a pay cheque the Jewish community weilds as compared to other groups.

    Quote:

    The homeland is not only for Jews; my Grandfather and relatives are Jewish and they acknowledge that Israel is dear to Christians and Muslims, all of whom have great respect for the Jewish religion of which they've branched from. The people who do not have respect for this land, or any other land on this earth, are wolves disguising themselves as sheep.
    Notice the difference between Jewish control over the Temple Mount and Muslim control over the Temple Mount. Before 1967, the Muslims controlled the Temple Mount, and the only ones allowed there were Muslims, despite the fact that it was Judaism's holiest site. After 1967's Six Day War, the Jewish population took control of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and opened it up to everyone; Jewish, Christian Muslim and any other religious belief (or disbelief).

    By contrast, in the city of Nablus in the West Bank, Jews controlled the site of Joseph's Tomb from 1948 (and earlier) until 1995, when the city was turned over to the Palestinians for autonomy. When the current Intafada broke out in 2000, the Tomb, the Yeshiva that sat next to it were destroyed. It was repaired shortly thereafter, but destroyed again in 2003, and repaired again. The site was painted green, which is the color of Islam, but after a world outcry, it was finally repainted a neutral color. Since 2000, no Jews have been permitted to visit the shrine. A group of Breslov Chassidim visited the shrine anyway in May 2007 to pray, but were fired at by Palestinians, and were forced to pray under gunfire.

    This is the difference between how Jews treat holy sites of other religions and how Muslims treat holy sites of other religions.

    Quote:

    God, I believe, is not racist or prejudice. God, I think, does not necessarily feel that the land of Israel is superior than the First Nation lands like America or Canada… to think otherwise is a process of taking religion out of a spiritual realm and to put it into a material one (or to at least interpret religion in this fashion). But, when governments start supporting some lands over others with obscene amounts of money or political favours, the reasons should be vigorously examined; for this may not be God’s will, but man’s will.
    Which is why I do not believe that Israel should be supported by the USA for any religious reason. The reason for the USA to support Israel is because Israel is an ally that has given the USA as much as it has gotten from the USA. As I mentioned in my earlierst post in this string, Israel is a staunch ally, and America's best friend in the region. What I wrote was this:

    Quote:

    In the UN, only two members have consistently voted the same way as the USA on almost every topic. The two members? One is Micronesia. The other is Israel.

    Then there is the fact that Israel's intelligence network has supplied the USA with important information it has needed to keep this country safe and stop its enemies.

    How about the fact that Israel trades openly with the USA for all sorts of goods and products from fresh food to electronics to automobiles to grey goods. That computer you are using... about half the parts and about half the programming were developed in Israel for Microsoft or other companies.

    How about intergovernmental military assistance? Israel's elite fighting units regularly trains with the USA's elite fighting units. We cross-train our fighter pilots. We cross-train our security and anti-terrorist agencies. Israel grants the USA its only truly safe harbor for US naval vessels in the entire Middle East.

    How about their sharing of Medical technology and other scientific breakthroughs. Israel is the world leader on prosthetic technology (a product of bombs always going off around them, I guess). They have gladly and openly shared this technology not just with the USA, but with all countries. They are also the worlds leaders in the development of agrarian technology... development of better farming methods and technologies. This they also share with the world.

    Then there's the whole Democracy thing. We are supporters of democracy. Israel is one of perhaps 3 democracies in the Middle East right now, and the others are shakey. We should be supporting the only fully developed democracy in the Middle East.

    And how about the fact that we OWE Israel big time for holding off on responding to attacks by Saddam Hussein in 1991 so that we could maintain the coalition against Iraq in the first Gulf War. Israel took a big hit at our request. No other country in the world has ever taken that many hits from a declared enemy as a favor for a friend. Israel did it because WE asked them to. And we have asked them to hold off on responding to other provocations by their enemies as well since then (and before as well). We owe them for that. They did us a favor... a bunch of them actually. You don't turn your back on that sort of favor.
    Quote:

    I do believe that this has more to do with economics and political ends than it does with respecting a nation which Jews, Christians, and Muslims love dearly and regard as a holy land.
    You say that like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't the USA support a country that is an economic and political ally? Why wouldn't that be a legitimate reason to support an ally?

    Elliot
  • Jul 20, 2007, 09:47 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Oracle Monroe
    In regards to your claims about how Jewish people treat holy sites versus how Muslims treat holy sites; I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but Arabs are a minority of Muslims in the Muslim world. In fact, the biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. So I am a bit uncomfortable with you insinuating that Muslims treat holy sites poorly. There is a great difference from one Muslim country to the next. For example, in Sudan (black Muslims), women don’t really cover their hair. Another example is Iran (Persian Muslims), where women are university professors and more women go to school than men. Then there is Afghanistan (I’m not sure what they are but they are not Arabs) where a woman was not even permitted to wear lipstick!

    The Taliban's destruction of millennia-old Buddhist landmarks;
    Al Qaeda's bombing of one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines in Samarra, Iraq;
    Hamas's attack on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem,
    Iran's destruction of the BaHai holy site of the grave of Quruun,
    destruction of holy sites in Gaza by Hamas terrorists,
    Destruction Monastery of SS Cosma and Damian at Zociste (holy sites of the Serbian Orthodox Church) by Albanian Muslims,
    destruction of Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi (Hindu holy sites) by Muslim invaders during the Middle Ages, etc.

    I could go on and on. The fact is that the deliberate targeting, desecrration and descruction of other religions' holy sites by Muslims is a typical tactic of theirs, and it is widespread, not just among Arab Muslims.


    Quote:

    If anyone is treating a holy site poorly, they are not Muslim. I have given this example before: the Jewish buses in Israel (only the Orthodox buses that are owned by the Orthodox Jews) make women sit at the back of the bus and have beaten women for trying to sit at the front (where it is a man’s place). Does this mean that Jews treat women poorly? You can research this fact on the BBC, and CBC news (both publicly funded, not privately owned, news stations in England and Canada).
    I've been on those busses. First of all, there is a curtain sepparating men from women. Second, the curtain runs down the LENGTH of the bus, so that one side is for women and the other side for men... not front and back. Third, there has never been violence in this regard. If a woman wants to sit in the mens' section, the men will generally get off the bus. Fourth, these are private busses, not public. The private owners can set up their busses however they want and seat passengers wherever they want. So it is hardly like the black/white segregation of public busses in the early half of the 20th century. Fifth, the bus only has segregated seating when the men are praying, which means during morning rush-hour times. The rest of the time, the busses are fairly open. So the entire depiction by these news stories incorrect.

    Quote:

    My grandfather is Jewish and I can assure you that NO, a real Jewish person would never do that to a woman.
    Being an Orthodox Jew myself, I would tend to agree.

    Quote:

    Keeping this in mine, a real Muslim would never disrespect a holy site. Those are just people; evil people pretending to be Muslim,
    But a widespread activity, nonetheless.

    Quote:

    I think then, if you are going to compare religion and say that one is being brutal while the other one is not, you were going down a dangerous path and not being entirely fair.
    I disagree.

    Quote:

    I don’t want those orthodox Jews and the cases of the buses to be representative of what Jewish people are like; it’s an insult to my heritage.
    Actually, if I were to believe the way those busses were portrayed to the public by the media, I'd be insulted too. But I know better. The story was a terrible misrepresentation of the facts. Unlike the historical actions of Muslims toward other religions' shrines, which is widespread and repetitive behavior.

    Quote:

    And the example you presented is an insult to peaceful Muslims (the real ones), who are the brothers of Jews. If people can only “see” this and separate the REAL GOOD from the REAL BAD, instead of making us think that this is only a “Muslim” versus “Jewish” problem, then we would actually get somewhere.
    I agree. So where are the REAL GOOD Muslims, and why aren't they decrying and standing up to the REAL BAD Muslims? There are plenty of Jews who stand up to Israeli leaders who they disagree with and do so with gusto. Why is there no similar action coming from those Muslims who disagree with radical Islamist leaders?

    Quote:

    Let us not forget the Crusades, where we were taught to think that the reason why Christians butchered Jews had to do with “Christians” and “Jews”…when we can see today that, no, those people who committed those crimes are plain evil and this isn’t, underneath it all, about two religions.
    Here I disagree completely. If the Crusades and Inquisitions had been performed by gangs of individuals, then I might agree. But they were perpetrated by the Church acting as the leadership of Christianity, with the aid of Kings and Queens and their Knights under their Divine Authority with the specific intent to target Muslims and Jews, in reaction for the Muslim attacks against Europe in an attempt to conquer the world and make it Muslim. And the Jews got caught in the middle, being found "guilty" by both sides for not belonging to eithe religion. Historically speaking, it was about the three religions, and the actions of all parties were religiously driven. So I have to disagree with you on this point.

    Quote:

    In regards to your questions about economics being our primary reason why we support Israel; the importance of this would have to do with morals and values. I say you are somewhat right Wolverine; it can somewhat be moral to support a nation for economic reasons, but “only” if you admit this and do not make this seem as though it’s a story about “the good versus the evil”.
    Has anyone in the government stated that our support of Israel is about good vs. evil? If they have, I neve heard it, and I tend to keep up with what people in positions of authority say about Israel. Can you give me an example of someone saying this?

    Elliot
  • Jul 20, 2007, 09:54 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    I agree. So where are the REAL GOOD Muslims, and why aren't they decrying and standing up to the REAL BAD Muslims?
    Elliot


    Because unlike civilized people, they kill dissenters.
  • Jul 20, 2007, 10:03 AM
    ScottGem
    Comments on this postMario3 disagrees: no they did not turn the desert into a productive land through hard work. It was done through the water supply they keep going to lebanon for through wars. Why are you so brainwashed to not have said that?

    Excuse me? I AM brainwashed? Where do you get that garbage? First, the settlements that the jews built in the deserts of Israel were done BEFORE there were any wars. These settlements were started in early 1900s and continued until the second world war. There were built on hard work and gambling on modern agricultural advances. As for going to Lebanon for water?? Who has been feeding you this? You don't farm by stealing water from another country. That's one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard. There is no way you can steal enough water to make that successful.

    And Mario, giving someone a negative comment should ONLY be done if their post was factually incorrect. Not if your opinion differs. What is worse here is you gave my answer a negative comment based on garbage that is not historical fact nor does it make any sense. Based on this and other things you have posted, I can see that YOU have been badly brainwashed by some communistic/socialistic society.
  • Jul 20, 2007, 10:46 AM
    tomder55
    OK here's my problem .when I first joined Askme I did not know I could disable option on e-mail notifications . I first answered this post on page # 5 posting #41 This one is post #190 and every response since my first has generated an email notification

    How do I disable it for a question in progress.

    BTW . Congratulations this debate has been ongoing since Dec 2006 .
  • Jul 20, 2007, 11:09 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    ok here's my problem .when I first joined Askme I did not know I could disable option on e-mail notifications . I first answered this post on page # 5 posting #41 This one is post #190 and every response since my first has generated an email notification

    How do I disable it for a question in progress.

    BTW . Congratulations this debate has been ongoing since Dec 2006 .

    This may help:

    Go into your profile.

    On the left side menu, there should be an option for "subscribed questions". Choose "List Subscriptions".

    There should be a check-box for "Notification" on the right side of each question you have subscribed to. Make sure that it is UNCHECKED for all questions. You may need to go though each page to take them off individually for all the posts in this question. Tedious, but not TOO bad.

    Hope it works.

    Elliot
  • Jul 20, 2007, 11:15 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Oracle Monroe
    Wolverine,

    This is where you are wrong I think. They have portrayed it as good versus evil. I will give you an example of how we have been misled cleverly, and then tracks have been covered by politicians saying, “well I never said it, now did I?” Shame.

    Here is an analogy: 9/11 and Iraq were continuously juxtaposed until people assumed in their heads that the two were intrinsically linked, if not the same. The 2001 anthrax threats (which have mysteriously gone out of the picture…odd because all facts point towards this being homegrown terrorists…) have also been juxtaposed with 9/11 until people started to believe that Middle-Easterners must have been the cause. So, to ask me to provide you with evidence of the “exact words that describe the Israel-Palestinian conflict as good and evil” is somewhat, forgive me for this, juvenile (not that you are juvenile as a person, but I am saying what was said or asked for was).

    I can list a million despicable things that the Orthodox Jews and Christians have done too, taking into mind that you have insinuated that the disgraceful things Muslims have done are “telltale signs”. The following I am deeply sad to list because I adore Jews (being of this heritage) and Christians (being of this heritage due to my step-mother) I am not fully sure of this and have not researched this, but my Grandfather tells me, and a Jewish professor of religion I knew, that Jewish Orthodox men still say in some of their prayers “Thank you God for not making me a woman”. Christians burned women for being witches, Christians continue to believe that women are not as important as men (straight from the former Pope’s mouth: John Paul). What about the 65-page report on Israeli war crimes violating the Geneva conventions that Israel doesn’t even recognize (again, you can research this outside the American media, like on the BBC which covered this). Christians have a high rate in molesting children in the house of God…to the point that some less educated people just think it’s a ‘priest thing’; how awful. What about the ethnic cleaning of thousands of Palestinians by Jews in Deir Yassin? What about the relatively recent and absurdly disproportionate measure Israel took against the south of Lebanon; demolishing it? There are also many manipulative facts out there like, “how the current Pope was a former Nazi”. This fact, although irrelevant because he’s not a Nazi now, could be used one day to shun Christians. And yes those buses are privately owned, but they function within Israeli law, which also allows torture in their jails.

    Oh yes, those buses do make women move to the back, so you must be talking about an entirely different bus when you say that you have been on some that only divide men and women down a straight line…I wasn’t aware that those existed in addiction to the ones the news is covering, so thank you for bringing that to my attention…I guess we both learned something from each other.

    Those Jewish buses make women go straight to the back and have beaten women who don’t obey. Here are some links showing that indeed women have to go sit at the back, and men get to sit at the front…I wonder why many Americans are not aware of this and other countries around the world have covered this:
    BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel's 'modesty buses' draw fire
    Women fight ultra-Orthodox bus ban | The Australian
    Bus Beating Puts Orthodox Women on Online Alert

    Religion is suppose to bring people together, so we should stop empowering those who use it to divide and make us believe that it is “inherently” bad, and start to get together as “good” brothers; whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Please never insinuate that any religion is bad, especially when it is so close to our own Jewish one.

    I don’t buy it one bit…to have us fight and cause bloodshed does not benefit the average religious person, so who does it benefit? This isn’t benefiting the average man, so who is benefiting?

    Your whole post is a testimony to the failure of Religion.
  • Jul 20, 2007, 11:35 AM
    tomder55
    Thanks Elliot fortunately that was the only question with the issue.
  • Jul 20, 2007, 12:28 PM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    ok here's my problem .when I first joined Askme I did not know I could disable option on e-mail notifications . I first answered this post on page # 5 posting #41 This one is post #190 and every response since my first has generated an email notification

    How do I disable it for a question in progress.

    BTW . Congratulations this debate has been ongoing since Dec 2006 .

    You just need to unsubscribe to the questions you no longer want to get notification for. There is an unsubscribe link in the e-mail notification or you can do it from the profile.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:35 PM.