Israel in the Gaza Strip

[lucas]

Don't you know how WWII was ended?

It's true - you are a pompous twat.

 

[Whiskers]

It's true - you are a pompous twat.

Oh dear. :

Just clearing up the context of my quote.

I'll be damned if I know how you related "agree that they were hopelessly misled and are genuinely remorseful" from what I said!

As far as I know the Japanese army was neither.

 

[lucas]

Most Japanese who are not young and uninformed, regret deeply how the Japanese military brought them to their knees. They don't, however, make a big show of it. (Incidentally, the kamakazis were quite unlike the suicide bombers and many seriously wanted to live.)

But I was referring mainly to the end of WWII in the the region we are discussing.

 

[slim pickins]

well look at the foundation of the religion. jesus is well documented as cruising around palestine healing the sick, preaching peace, tolerance, loving thy neighbour and suffering the little children to be brought unto him. mohammed on the other hand rampaged around the middle east killing jews, taking and raping slaves, pillaging trade caravans and having sex with underage girls.

by their works shall ye judge them. why is that so difficult to understand??

lol..... did you get this from a rev. billy graham website or the KKK?

yeah, like european christians didnt have sex with underage girls. you know... when your polulations life expencancy is 30 you can be assured of underage sex. ok that was 1000 years ago. i think islam and christianity are not that different in thsi respect.

when elvis met pricilla she was 14 and he 24. they dated soon afterwards. hmmmmm jerry lee lewis (grown man) married his 14 year old cousin in alabama ?!?!?! both devoted christians

jesus might have healed the sick but i think you will have to agree that christians have kileld more people than anyone in history.

the pope sanctioned crusades and subsequent massacres, inqusitions, new world conquests, WW1 WW2, korean war, vietnam war. even recently, genocide committed in europe againt jews and 10 years ago in srebrenica, you had orthodox priests blessing the soldiers carrying out the srebranica genocide.

but the greatest victims of the christians are guess who?..... correct... other christians.

st bartholemews day massacre in paris... rivers of protestant blood were flowing, cromwells massacres of the irish catholics, then carpert bombing of germany killing millions of christians. right after the germans tried to wipe out poland as a nation who also happen to be the same religion as the germans.

so your stories of christianity and peace dont hold much water... yes in the last 50 years.... but only in USA and western europe.

you keep trying to promote your religion in this thread which is about a fight for land and democracy.

 

[mayk]

Off topic:

Well as some people have definite interest in the consequences of WWII. Isn't it time that the nations of Germany and Japan again allowed a free reign? Are they still a threat? By free reign I mean militarily, not economically. Is it still a taboo?

 

[rowie]

Quite correct. Which is why adherence to any of them is, in some small way, a step in the wrong direction and will ultimately cause hurt and pain in the world regardless of one's best intentions.

Muhammad's views on women are not the point. He wanted to rid the world of other beliefs. Enough said.

Yes, I see what you are saying and I agree mostly. But I think its only in the wrong direction if you start preaching that one religion is better than the other and one is right while the other is wrong. Conflict inevitably arises from this view or mindset. We have to be able to realise that the core at all religions is to teach or guide humans to lead a principled way of life. Some people require religion as a guide in their lives. If you are principled and hold high morals and do no harm to others or yourself then to hell with religion I say. I think the prophets in the past had this message alone in mind. However most were misinterpreted by established religious bodies that came after and used for self serving purposes and hence you have a world full of conflict then and now. The message and the messenger were not at fault, the people that came after with their self serving goals were.

 

[tigerboi]

ill stand corrected on this but i dont think the constitutions of germany/japan allow any decent sized armies...only for self defence i believe

 

[rowie]

lol..... did you get this from a rev. billy graham website or the KKK?

yeah, like european christians didnt have sex with underage girls. you know... when your polulations life expencancy is 30 you can be assured of underage sex. ok that was 1000 years ago. i think islam and christianity are not that different in thsi respect.

when elvis met pricilla she was 14 and he 24. they dated soon afterwards. hmmmmm jerry lee lewis (grown man) married his 14 year old cousin in alabama ?!?!?! both devoted christians

jesus might have healed the sick but i think you will have to agree that christians have kileld more people than anyone in history.

the pope sanctioned crusades and subsequent massacres, inqusitions, new world conquests, WW1 WW2, korean war, vietnam war. even recently, genocide committed in europe againt jews and 10 years ago in srebrenica, you had orthodox priests blessing the soldiers carrying out the srebranica genocide.

but the greatest victims of the christians are guess who?..... correct... other christians.

st bartholemews day massacre in paris... rivers of protestant blood were flowing, cromwells massacres of the irish catholics, then carpert bombing of germany killing millions of christians. right after the germans tried to wipe out poland as a nation who also happen to be the same religion as the germans.

so your stories of christianity and peace dont hold much water... yes in the last 50 years.... but only in USA and western europe.

you keep trying to promote your religion in this thread which is about a fight for land and democracy.

Slim, as I have said in previous posts, disarray has a seriously flawed view on religious history. He is going to come right back at you to try and justify his narrow viewpoint.

 

[Julia]

There are five methods of conflict resolution... avoidance, accomodation, compromise, competition and problem solving.

But, the best method for a permenant resolution of the conflict is the problem solving method... but if both party's don't come to the table in good faith and engage in dialogue as opposed to debate then the inevetiable result is competition.

A compromiser 'stands between the party's'... a problem solving conflict resoluter invites the party's to engage in 'dialogue'.

An accomodator or compromiser 'walks in the party's moccasins'... a problem solving conflict resoluter already understands the psychology of the way people 'walk', and purposely and deliberately does not walk in the footsteps of either party, but tries to get the party's to walk in different footsteps.

I expect a difficulty in the situation being discussed is finding a mediator who is genuinely objective. Any nominations? I'd think most people (certainly soon to be Secretary of State Hilary Clinton) will at least be perceived to hold bias by one or both sides.

The rules for negotiating are:

1. Make a distinction between the people and the problem.
2. Concentrate on your and the other party's interests, not on defending your position.
3. Try to find options that satisfy both party's.
4. Bargain to onjective criteria.

Avoidance, accomodation and compromise have all been tried in the middle east in the past with no lasting resolution.

Currently by mutual agreement they are in competition mode and as mentioned above it just may be that a similar result to the end of WWII eventuates.

Whiskers, I'm not sure that 'conflict resolution' as a tool is a "one size fits all" sort of instrument. I don't know the context of the conflict resolution training you've had, but I'd suggest a workplace model, e.g. wouldn't necessarily be the perfect for mediation between warring countries.

 

[gordon2007]

I would also like to know why someone who claims to be a "conflict resoluter" is involved in so many conflicts on the forum. As far as an ability to put people off-side, whisker's inherent talent is second to none.

I can understand what Wayne is trying to say. Basically, to be a conflict resolution practictionar, to me one should have complete and total neutrality on a cause. Whiskers is not neutral. He's only posted pro israel and anti hamas statements. To which one can easily surmise that if you favour one group over the other, how can one be considered neautral?

There is a difference between being a negotiator and a conflict resolution fixer upper.

Whiskers comes across as trying to negotiate a favourable outcome for israel instead of being a neutral resolution conflict fixer upper.

 

[gordon2007]

Maybe then the two can have a competition on producing the most number of babies to win the next election....

That's quite funny in a twisted good way.

 

[lucas]

Yes, I see what you are saying and I agree mostly. But I think its only in the wrong direction if you start preaching that one religion is better than the other and one is right while the other is wrong. Conflict inevitably arises from this view or mindset. We have to be able to realise that the core at all religions is to teach or guide humans to lead a principled way of life. Some people require religion as a guide in their lives. If you are principled and hold high morals and do no harm to others or yourself then to hell with religion I say. I think the prophets in the past had this message alone in mind. However most were misinterpreted by established religious bodies that came after and used for self serving purposes and hence you have a world full of conflict then and now. The message and the messenger were not at fault, the people that came after with their self serving goals were.

This is largely off topic so I don't think we should continue in any depth here. (A new thread if you like?) I respect your opinion, but personally I don't see the value in holding hands with another human being and agreeing about something neither of us can verify. It may be harsh, but religion is the art of choosing to agree about the indeterminate, and I can't see the logic in that.

High morals and principled behaviour? We are not witnessing much of either in Gaza at the moment. But if we could extract religion from the equation it could all be over a lot sooner. WWII was not a religious war, but it had an end. This war will never truly end precisely because religion is involved. That ought not to enjoin anyone to practice it.

 

[lucas]

Yes, I see what you are saying and I agree mostly. But I think its only in the wrong direction if you start preaching that one religion is better than the other and one is right while the other is wrong. Conflict inevitably arises from this view or mindset. We have to be able to realise that the core at all religions is to teach or guide humans to lead a principled way of life. Some people require religion as a guide in their lives. If you are principled and hold high morals and do no harm to others or yourself then to hell with religion I say. I think the prophets in the past had this message alone in mind. However most were misinterpreted by established religious bodies that came after and used for self serving purposes and hence you have a world full of conflict then and now. The message and the messenger were not at fault, the people that came after with their self serving goals were.

This is largely off topic so I don't think we should continue in any depth here. (A new thread if you like?) I respect your opinion, but personally I don't see the value in holding hands with another human being and agreeing about something neither of us can verify. It may be harsh, but religion is the art of choosing to agree about the indeterminate, and I can't see the logic in that.

High morals and principled behaviour? We are not witnessing much of either in Gaza at the moment. But if we could extract religion from the equation it could all be over a lot sooner. WWII was not a religious war, but it had an end. This war will never truly end precisely because religion is involved. That ought not to endear anyone to practise it.

 

[disarray]

yeah, like european christians didnt have sex with underage girls. etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah omg what about the christians???!!1?

hi, this isn't about christianity, this is about islam. you want to start a thread about christianity then go right ahead. so instead of bring up the usual "yeah but what about the christians" argument, how about refuting the points made about islam and mohammed? a novel idea i know.

when elvis met pricilla she was 14 and he 24. they dated soon afterwards. hmmmmm jerry lee lewis (grown man) married his 14 year old cousin in alabama ?!?!?! both devoted christians

so what? last i looked neither of them spawned a religion with 1 billion adherents that is responsible for 12,561 terror attacks since 9/11. do try to be relevant.

so your stories of christianity and peace dont hold much water... yes in the last 50 years.... but only in USA and western europe.

i never said the christians were peaceful, i said islam is violent. nice attempt at deflection though.

you keep trying to promote your religion in this thread which is about a fight for land and democracy.

i'm an athiest, but keep those assumptions coming!! to whitewash the role of islam in this conflict completely misses a fundamental piece of the puzzle, and call me crazy, but when there is tons of media around with people yelling "allah ackbar" then i think maybe islam is relevant to the discussion.

look to you and rowie, i've made my points about the evils of islam perfectly clear, i have yet to see 1 argument from any of you refuting the charges that mohammed was a paedophile, a rapist, a mass murderer and general all round psychopath.

i'll post it again with links, you go right ahead and refute the charges, and if you can do it then you can win $50,000 US dollars!! how good is that?

The prophet Mohammed was a narcissist, a misogynist, a rapist, a murderer, a paedophile, a torturer, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a looter and a bunch of other nasty things

refute the points or build a bridge and get over it.

p.s. the points don't come from billy graham or the kkk, they come from arab ex-muslims. maybe they are racist??

for more reading i suggest jihadwatch.org, guaranteed 100% al taqiyyah free!

 

[wayneL]

Whiskers,

Seeing as you want to play the semantics game re conflict resolution, there is a difference between playing the man and playing the behaviour. I don't play the man, I play the behaviour, read the posts properly.

Look, even the ww2 allies who indulged in annihilations of whole cities, held out a compassionate and facilitating hand to their enemies post surrender. Exemplary behaviour, even if the means to the end wasn't (depending on opinion etc).

Palestine has never had that luxury from the Zionists, who continue to be oppressive. We can condemn the behaviour of Hamas etc, but at the same time, we must understand the motivations for it. Hamas is first and foremost a social movement, and second a guerrilla movement. We call them terrorists.

But if they are terrorists, then we must accept that the French/Dutch/Norwegian/etc resistance were also terrorists, as were the early Zionists (and can be argued still are).

Not understanding these points disqualifies your hypothesis in this thread as distasteful nonsense, duplicitous in fact, no matter how many terms & concepts learned by rote are regurgitated from some TAFE course.

There is qualification, then there is experience. Your stance here exposes a dearth of the latter as a conflict resoluter.

 

[disarray]

Actually they did. Muhammad changed many laws that oppressed women at the time. They were afforded equal rights in business and money and given senior positions in running of the community he set up. This was unheard of at the time in vast majority of the region. Pre-islam (and post) period was notorious for awful subjugation of women. Muhammad attempted (vainly) to change all that. It certainly had no lasting effect as the caliphates after him ensured status quo treatment.

wrong. please try again.

such passionate debate in this thread. what a great site

 

[lucas]

Hamas is first and foremost a social movement, and second a guerrilla movement. We call them terrorists.

But if they are terrorists, then we must accept that the French/Dutch/Norwegian/etc resistance were also terrorists, as were the early Zionists (and can be argued still are).

I am happy to sit down and have tea with any resistance fighter from France Norway Holland etc. but I'll pass with Hamas. First and foremost they are religious bigots not social reformers.

Your other points make sense, it's just you can't bring yourself to seeing Hamas as equally dangerous as, if not worse than Zionists.

 

[wayneL]

I am happy to sit down and have tea with any resistance fighter from France Norway Holland etc. but I'll pass with Hamas. First and foremost they are religious bigots not social reformers.

Your other points make sense, it's just you can't bring yourself to seeing Hamas as equally dangerous (if not worse) than a Zionist.

No you're wrong. I'm under no illusion about Hamas. But I think that they probably would not exist if Israel had behaved differently.

 

[lucas]

But you are trying to equate Hamas to WWII resistance fighters in order to advance your case against Israel. It doesn't seem a fair comparison simply because the Germans called resistance fighters terrorists and the Israelis call Hamas terrorists. Apples and oranges are both fruit, but they taste quite different. Israel is bad enough and easy enough to criticize without inventing faulty (IMO) moral equivalence arguments.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

jesus might have healed the sick but i think you will have to agree that christians have kileld more people than anyone in history.

Rubbish.

Phillips and Axelrod in the Encyclopedia of Wars shows that religion is involved in around 7% of conflicts out of 1763 surveyed cases. 50% of those religious conflicts involved Islam.

Further, the democide project shows that by far, secular states (particularly of the 20thC, where incidentally, religion was marginalised) are responsible for killing more people than any other ideology.

Historically, somewhere in the order of 2% or so of deaths by mass atrocity have a religious basis.