twinzen Wrote:With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg

People are impulsive, forgetful, everchanging.
It's just a quote to blame religion, but it doesn't have any meaning in itself.

I don't think that there are good or bad people, it all depends on your perspective.

KMDES Wrote:

twinzen Wrote:With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg

Or a paycheck.

Yeah, and what about evil people working to help poor people and giving them charity because of religion, despite them hating all poor people. I.e. but for evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

SheekuAltair Wrote:

KMDES Wrote:

twinzen Wrote:With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg

Or a paycheck.

Yeah, and what about evil people working to help poor people and giving them charity because of religion, despite them hating all poor people. I.e. but for evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

Again, see pay check. Though most call it a donation tax write off.

KMDES Wrote:Again, see pay check. Though most call it a donation tax write off.

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, to be more specific I implied that I as a Muslim am required to give yearly charity of 2.5 % of what we own to poor people, regardless if I liked it or not. So yes: Usama Bin Laden was in charity business, lol.

SheekuAltair Wrote:

KMDES Wrote:Again, see pay check. Though most call it a donation tax write off.

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, to be more specific I implied that I as a Muslim am required to give yearly charity of 2.5 % of what we own to poor people, regardless if I liked it or not. So yes: Usama Bin Laden was in charity business, lol.

So you just equated giving money as to justify anything else a religion may cause in harm?

KMDES Wrote:

SheekuAltair Wrote:

KMDES Wrote:Again, see pay check. Though most call it a donation tax write off.

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, to be more specific I implied that I as a Muslim am required to give yearly charity of 2.5 % of what we own to poor people, regardless if I liked it or not. So yes: Usama Bin Laden was in charity business, lol.

So you just equated giving money as to justify anything else a religion may cause in harm?

What? Only evil actions count when it comes to religion, you won't give it some slack when it comes to good things?

Okay how about:
Do not murder
not steal
not lie
not cheat on wife etc
be just
孝

You could say one doesn't have to be religious to do these things, sure... But a religious evil person would still have to follow those rules, if they are religious.

SheekuAltair Wrote:

KMDES Wrote:

SheekuAltair Wrote:Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, to be more specific I implied that I as a Muslim am required to give yearly charity of 2.5 % of what we own to poor people, regardless if I liked it or not. So yes: Usama Bin Laden was in charity business, lol.

So you just equated giving money as to justify anything else a religion may cause in harm?

What? Only evil actions count when it comes to religion, you won't give it some slack when it comes to good things?

Okay how about:
Do not murder
not steal
not lie
not cheat on wife etc
be just
孝

You could say one doesn't have to be religious to do these things, sure... But a religious evil person would still have to follow those rules, if they are religious.

The things is when it comes to wars and what not, despite the fact the religious people should be following these rules, they still go ahead break them. The worst part is the fact that people will twist the words of religiou text to justify breaking the rules. Usually texts written in a language that's not the original one it was written in, and anyone here knows, stuff gets lost or 'made up' in translation.

So I'm saying, if these same warring/cheating/thieving people had religio taken away from them, they would still find some other justification to do said things. Some religions just make the justification easier than others.

KMDES Wrote:

twinzen Wrote:With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg

Or a paycheck.

Or the fact that a lot of "good" people, aren't.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders

It does seem a little strange that America has supported Israel occupying territories they gained through military invasion.

bodhisamaya Wrote:Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders

It does seem a little strange that America has supported Israel occupying territories they gained through military invasion.

Why is that strange?

America has supported or tolerated a lot of countries holding on to land they gained in wars.

It does seem that the countries in the Middle East who dislike America because of its support for Israel do have a legitimate gripe.

Israel wasn't the aggressor nation when they took that territory.

Anyway, Obama said this.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

kitakitsune Wrote:Israel wasn't the aggressor nation when they took that territory.

Settles in the American continent and Australian continent among others has done the same thing, and no one would call what's left of the natives the aggressors today.

kitakitsune Wrote:Israel wasn't the aggressor nation when they took that territory.

is this pure trolling? it's probably the most ridiculous statement i've heard this year...

IceCream Wrote:

kitakitsune Wrote:Israel wasn't the aggressor nation when they took that territory.

is this pure trolling? it's probably the most ridiculous statement i've heard this year...

Why's that?

IceCream Wrote:

kitakitsune Wrote:Israel wasn't the aggressor nation when they took that territory.

is this pure trolling? it's probably the most ridiculous statement i've heard this year...

Palestinians were stealing bullets by hiding them in their skulls.

bodhisamaya Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:

kitakitsune Wrote:Israel wasn't the aggressor nation when they took that territory.

is this pure trolling? it's probably the most ridiculous statement i've heard this year...

Palestinians were stealing bullets by hiding them in their skulls.

I thought we were talking about 1967.

Israel took territory without being an aggressor?

Allot of Jews were protected by Arabs and the middle east from Hitler his killing frenzy during WWII. The middle east was protecting their jews , contray to how allot of european countries just betrayed their Jewish fellow country men . Allot of western immigrated jews might not even know this.

And lets go back to even an earlier time , pre-Crusades , Jews Christians and Muslim all lived in peace together in Israel .

Its politics and degressive thinking by some that ruined Israel (on both sides Israeli and Palestinian).

I mean its not all hate there, Ive seen documentaries were Israeli Engineurs who go to the palestinian side of Israel to help the people with setting up electricity as charity workers, and the Palestinians welcome them.

Ive seen Palestinian fathers sending their childeren to a local music school run by a Jewish man who helps Palestinian childeren learning music .

HECK even the mayor of Ramallah an Important city in Palestine is Christian and the people of ramallah do not seem bothered by it at all heck I think they are maybe even proud of her.

But Jews who say things like ''a million Arabs are not even worth one nail of a jew'' or Muslims who scream stuff like ''Every jew is evil'' prevents the proces of peace of moving forwards.

The ''we were right no we were right'' Bickering should stop and just learn to deal with each other .

But the ones who are hurt most are still the palestinians that I cannot deny .

bodhisamaya Wrote:Israel took territory without being an aggressor?

When America occupied Japan, were they the aggressor? Yes, i'm aware of the events in the lead up, but technically Japan started the war with the US. When you're the one that started the war, and lost, people often find it hard to have sympathy that you've lost territory. That's one of the risks of starting a war. The US would have been well within their rights to make Japan a permanent territory of the US. The fact that they have been nice enough to settle for the current permanent occupation instead doesn't mean other nations have to make the same choices.

Having said that, 1967 was the 6-day war... which had a very ambiguous start. Technically, Israel made the first incursion... and hence *was* the aggressor. They claim it was a legitimate preemptive strike in response to a clearly imminent attack by the Arab forces, who were making very war-like preparations. Most countries would prefer to preemptively attack than sit and wait. For starters, it means the fighting is done on someone else's territory. Whether you agree with them or not is a different matter, it's still controversial to this day.

kitakitsune is clearly of the view that Israel was simply defending itself, and hence have some right to retain the territory they gained during the war.

kitakitsune Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:is this pure trolling? it's probably the most ridiculous statement i've heard this year...

Palestinians were stealing bullets by hiding them in their skulls.

I thought we were talking about 1967.

taking territory is always an act of aggression. unless someone gives it to you, of course, which obviously didn't happen.

besides which, an act of aggression by terrorists or even a government never justifies taking their land. It may justify going to war in some cases, but not attacking towns near your border, driving out or killing everyone there, and then claiming it's part of Israel now. (did the PLO attacks even come from that town?!?)

Besides which, their doing this over and over again, and taking every inch of territory they can is the cause of the PLO attacks in the first place. Even if the PLO didn't resist, they would have found some other way of encroaching other countries borders, because that's what they've always done. They're still doing it right now, as we speak, creating new settlements.

Even how they went to war in the 6 day war was a massive act of aggression, using any act of defense as a pretense for going to war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War...ing_to_war
well, i'm not saying wikipedia is definately correct, of course, but unless there are specific points people dispute in that article, it's hard to see how Israel wasn't the aggressor in taking territory along every single point of the way there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emptive_war

The Six Day War was in response to multiple Arab nations hostile to Israel's existence calling up their reserves and massing 500,000 troops on Israel's borders, imposing a blockade, and making a whole ton of speeches about how they were going to drive the Jews into the sea and soak the land of Palestine in blood.

IceCream Wrote:taking territory is always an act of aggression. unless someone gives it to you, of course, which obviously didn't happen.

Fighting a war is always aggression. True pacifism would be to put up no resistance and lose. That's not the meaning of the word that kitakitsune intended though, which was to mark the one who started the fight.

IceCream Wrote:besides which, an act of aggression by terrorists or even a government never justifies taking their land. It may justify going to war in some cases, but not attacking towns near your border, driving out or killing everyone there, and then claiming it's part of Israel now.

Correct, while you are more or less allowed to retain territory, evicting civilians and not letting them return is more or less a war crime. It's ethnic cleansing pure and simple. It's a lot greyer when those civilians voluntarily fled, rather than being forced onto trains heading to the border, but i think it's absurd to expect civilians to do anything but that during a war.

To use my previous analogy, the US had the right to retain Japan as a territory, but they did not have the right to evict the Japanese or prevent Japanese people who had fled from returning home after the war was over.

Honestly, i think the big problem with israel is that it is in an extremely hostile part of the world (surrounded by powers who openly declare their intention to destroy it), while being so tiny that it is virtually impossible to defend from attack (with 1967 borders), at least without massive civilian casualties. The occupied territories are a bit like the Russian's desire to hold onto Eastern Europe after WWII to give themselves a bit of a buffer from future attacks.

zigmonty Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:Israel took territory without being an aggressor?

When America occupied Japan, were they the aggressor? Yes, i'm aware of the events in the lead up, but technically Japan started the war with the US. When you're the one that started the war, and lost, people often find it hard to have sympathy that you've lost territory. That's one of the risks of starting a war. The US would have been well within their rights to make Japan a permanent territory of the US. The fact that they have been nice enough to settle for the current permanent occupation instead doesn't mean other nations have to make the same choices.

Well, maybe if we were living in the 1700's, you would have a lot of people who would agree with you. But we're not in the age of empires any more, and that kind of thing is pretty much viewed as internationally unacceptable.

Saying that, even if we were still a world of empires, and America HAD made Japan a permenant US territory, i'd hope that even those people who thought that was justifiable would object if the USA started driving out all the native Japanese people or killing them if they resisted, in order for Americans to go and live there...

Whatever the solution is for the middle east, i really can't see how anyone can honestly try to justify Israel's behaviour.

EDIT: sorry, posted this before i saw your reply, Zigmonty... then yeah, i pretty much agree.