Scott Mayers

The person initiating this thread is absent and we've evolved this without. I didn't make any claim to the specifics introduced but am defending the LOGIC here. This requires stepping back to question the language of terms like "terrorism". This word is DICTATED as true of the role the Palestinians play when you or others feign Israel's own imposition to steal their lands as presumably non-terroristic. We only see the biased presentation from media which FAVORS the Israeli view to which the link to Anna is just one example of a counter argument and one of which you simply dismissed trivially. I don't believe you would bother to give a fair trial without trying here.

I stated the appropriate concern of you and see you ARE doing just as I thought. I already caught you previously in your own slip-up for asserting yourself an American. And so I'll leave you on your own unless you've got actual reasons to justify Israel's presence in Palestine. They ARE the terrorists merely for being there. And any excuse to assert justification by the supports from external 'authorities' for which even the American's would NOT themselves EVER accept, requires a non-hypocritical argument from you or others for why you are purposely overlooking Israel's own actions against humanity.

You're simply trying to bypass the evolved arguments by distracting attention away from it. The OP accuses Israel of war crimes to which your addition above adds nothing more than repetitive declarations of the bias for the Israelis perspective. The data supplied by the accused is insufficient to defend them without externally observing ALL data without bias. Your tactic is also a distraction to overburden with useless data in hopes someone would either give up or attempt to challenge it by hoping one positively denies it. Instead, I challenge you to the argument to demonstrate how or why the Palestinians are at fault and how the Israelis were not. What makes the Palestinians 'terrorists' and the Israelis 'defenders-only'? How is Israel NOT committing a 'crime'?

Hoser360, Thanks for the link. I finished watching this and highly agree to Anna's position, approach, and am a little more hopeful because of it. bush_cheney2004, ?? I'm guessing you're not even trying to pay attention here or are a little steadfast to your own ideas. Personally, why do you not question even the potential of relative perspective of what you consider as "terrorist" here? Watch Hoser360's link if you can and explain what you find contentious about that view with respect to what you said above. Edit: Here's the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_MDC2Gty4I

So far I've been watching this for the last twenty minutes or so and I was convinced from the get-go that I'd sign on to anything she said without remotely any complaint. But then I realized I had the volume off and have to rewatch with the volume on to hear what she actually believes. I'm relieved so far though. I'd already committed to her view without caring if she were the devil herself! Ha ha. Damn, she's hot!! Okay, seriously, I'll get back to watching.

Thank you, I'm watching it now and may comment after for that. I already understand that economics, not religion itself, is to blame for much of the problems INITIALLY. Religion is a product of often secular reality that was transformed through time to become religions. But these are still the technical tool to which the oppressors often use to BACK their ownership claims and/or behaviors elsewhere that lack any natural justification. Then the oppressed are often the source of new religions (or interpretations of old ones) that reactively define them in direct opposition. If you took the power of these out of the equation, the problems are then reduced to relatively arbitrary differences of perspective and they would likely agree to each others virtues and vices in kind. [This is why Hitler opted to enhance a folklore regardless of the truth. He recognized the power of the collectivity that occurs when backed by strict beliefs. It is easier to accept the radical behaviors one does against others if they feel they have a higher command and purpose.]

Thanks for this link. I'll watch the "Building the Occupation" series right away. I have watched others that I might recommend but can't think of at the moment. These help to particularly paint the specific reality of the people that we 'hear' but cannot internally 'listen' to from our own biases. Edit: I just noticed these series are writings, not videos. So change that 'watching' to 'reading' above.

There seems far too many Arab Muslims living in present day Israel for you to presumptuously state they were 'replaced' by Jews. I wonder why people like you never seem to focus on the odd fact that even in a Jewish state these Arab Muslims enjoy more rights than in any Muslim state on Earth EXCEPT for the right to treat other religions as beneath their contempt. They certainly lead better lives with more freedom than they would enjoy in any Arab state, though I'll grant you in the wealthy oil sheikdoms they'd have more money. But if you compare the lives of Israeli Arabs over the past thirty years with Arabs in the surrounding states no honest person can fail to note the Israeli Arabs have things pretty good. I wonder why people like you seem to assume people's capacity to compete is as equally found on your own default of relative privilege. I have a 'freedom' to buy a Cadillac. But I don't have the freedom to, IN THE LEAST, inherit the privileged 'starter kit' that is NECESSARY to initially compete that you arrogantly think we ALL have. Your a spoiled brat in that you don't SEE what you yourself have INHERITED as a foundation required to play fair. The Israeli-Zionists naturally outbid the potential of any Arab in desolation, isolation, and lack of inherent finances to competitively BEGIN to help themselves let alone to use such potential appreciation of what may or may not be deemed 'available' options. I can guess, for instance, without knowing you personally, that it is most likely you had your first car given to you by one of your parents; ...that you had some 'allowance' to enjoy recreational luxury as a teen to learn of the pleasantries of life; ...that you worked while living at home in some part-time McJob in which you got to KEEP it all rather than to contribute to rent. While this is a 'stereotype' in some respect, it is of exactly the same form you just declared of the Palestinians reality with one major difference: they DO NOT HAVE EVEN HALF of the initial necessary inheritance that you likely have if you were of a mere Middle-class family. Add to this, they are ghettoized forcibly. The effect of larger groups of similar economically deprived people makes even the strongest require overcoming 100 times more 'willpower' than you could nor would EVER realize based on your own socially supportive environment. In such ghettos, if one even had the luxury to get a McJob, besides requiring to have to then require paying their parents a contribution of rent and sustenance, their relative 'wealth' in such a job would be either expected to be shared among friends or you'd have it stolen from you. The gang mentality takes over and the extremes of these are precisely what creates a new breed of potential terrorists who when they act out, even contrary to the vast majority of their community, they get opposing stereotyped as a WHOLE to be at fault. And if pressured to maintain their own, how do you suppose such impoverished communities could even have a possible reliable means to organize collectively. This is why I say the SACRIFICES must come from the Israelis, as they are even more absurdly more privileged with those seemingly 'trivial' advantages you assert the Palestinians should be more 'appreciative' of. I heard this comment from a local conservative associate: He told me how those complaining on here in Canada who are on the bottom of the economic ladder as severely unappreciative of what Canada has to offer. He then goes on to back his belief of this by mentioning how when he was on his recent vacation in Mexico, all the poor people there were so 'happy and prosperous' for their condition, always smiling and treating him and his entourage with unusual respect in their MORE desperate conditions. It didn't dawn on him that these apparently 'happy-to-be-so-fortunate-for-what-they-have' people were behaving no different than any servant at a McRestaurant who smiles at you. It reminds me of those who then think, "Oh, she's so in to me!" for just doing what is necessary. If these desperados DIDN'T smile, they wouldn't even have the 'fortune' of the pennies that those like yourself would toss at them for good-luck. I agree that it isn't the fault of the children to 'own' the problems inherited down by their parent's debts. Yet, IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER IN INHERENT WEALTH, such as Israeli Nationalists would default to, it implies, just as others here in Canada, that you believe it alright for one to INHERIT factors that a benefit but exclude the accountability to the debt by distributing it upon the rest of society instead. So yes, if you believe in such inherent privileges as a 'right', you HAVE TO ACCEPT the Debts of your parents as well. You no doubt think this absurd. I disagree with our own Constituted setup as it imposes debt to be distributed to the whole by the very people who inherited the virtues of their wealth independently. But if you were an Immigrant's grandchild who inherited direct benefits based on what they stole from others, while it isn't comfortable, if you accepted what your parents passed on favorably to you, you have to take on the debt too. This doesn't happen. Instead, the impoverished still take the load of that burden. It would be to the grandchild of the Immigrant who lacked the benefits of fortunate inheritance who WOULD be penalized for which I don't agree to. Similarly, I don't think those children in Israel who were born into their condition BUT also don't inherit fortune, who should be held unaccountable. It is to the hypocrites who DO inherit their parents fortunes for their crimes BUT still keep the gold knowing of this, who I think require 'owning' the debt and burden of their parent's crime. This is where the 'sacrifice' must come from voluntarily. Really? This notwithstanding the hundreds of millions of people around the world with a violent hatred of Jews, especially in the Muslim world?Consider what I said above to apply here too. The hatred is on all extremes (even central forms). But only the most obvious ones get noticed. And why? Duh,..??, because they are too desperate to realistically compete. They DO NOT have the fortunes nor respect you presume. The more fortunate side (economically) of any extreme has the capacity be more violent but just do it indirectly. Would you say that if you own property that surrounds the property you DON'T own makes you eligible to be considered non-violent should you prevent the owners trapped within your bordering control from moving, competing, or using their disadvantage to tax and gain from their necessary access to the rest of the world? You corner even the most friendly family dog in a cage, then presume that it shouldn't bark if it were hungry because they have the same privilege you have to competitively seek food independently, who are the deluded here should the dog then bark louder and start biting? You arrogantly think that the Arabs are like these mad dogs with the same kind of ignorance as the owner in this scenario. You pretend that the Arabs actually have opportunity like the Israelis but they are just opting to squander it in an opposing greater 'greed'. Where's your head at? It is a selective democracy only. Your prerequisite to participate requires you BE Jewish or Israeli. Otherwise, you have to support those by default who ARE Jewish or Israeli. That's not 'democracy for even those 'non-Jews' REQUIRING to support unconditionally because this is conditionally REQUIRED! You mean like the Muslim world does? Its holy books, its national laws, its culture are all rife with categorizing those who are non-Muslims as "infidels' and "unbelievers" who are all much less moral than Muslims. There are 8 million people in Israel and 1.6 BILLION Muslims worldwide, yet your frantic and determined condemnation is reserved exclusively for the Jews - for some mysterious reason.I am strongly against ANY religion, no matter how apparently 'moderate', because of this. I could accept those who maintain a 'liberal' type of support for the philosophy of some religion without assuming people 'own' some heritage to it specifically. But even most who do think this secularly are confused at the difference. You could be a 'Christian' or a 'Jew' but BE atheistic and lack any intrinsic belief that you OWN some special right to inherit because of it. It is again hypocritical though, should you assert a non-religious belief but then still maintain a right to own the privileges of that religion's ethnic claims. I already expanded on this point above by showing that to accept any heritage/inheritance, requires accepting the debts of them too. Otherwise, abandon it and stop supporting it.

From Rue responding to Hoser360: Religion IS the norm of excuse to assert one's justification for acts that are either arbitrary to nature or relative morals. But you are wrong that religion to the State of Israel has nothing or trivial relationship to its founding. You have zero justification to reference what a "Jew" or "Jewish Nation" is if you are not asserting something that connects those who call themselves such. I already mentioned too, if you think religion has no significance, than you have to ask what then 'qualifies' one as being Jewish if it is not about physical ancestry as the remaining option. That is, you must logically imply a racial component as a significant qualifier. But note this quote of the original Zionist pioneer: I think you need to very precisely define, "Anti-Semitism". If this is interpreted by you to mean some 'derogatory selective hatred against Jewish peoples', I think you need to address your own or the Zionist beliefs of similar belief in reverse. You ignore that any Jewish claims to Palestine were derived from their presence there 2000 years ago. But to establish the present contemporary state required dismissing the same 'inherent' rights you actually assert of the Palestinians the Jews replaced. You can't just assert the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank go 'elsewhere' as if they were so sincerely foreign. They have more claims to the region than the Jew from such a lapse in time in their Diaspora. Israel just created a new Diaspora of the Palestinians. It should also be noted that even the Jews in the first thousand years B.C.E., they evolved from the Egyptians Assyrian rule there. Palestine was NOT the 'promised' land and why Abram went to Egypt. The story was double told and likely hides the significant relations to Ahkenaten, Tutmoses, and Ramses prior to its final downfall. Palestine was merely an out-post of the Egyptian reign to which the later 'Jew' redefined themselves from in Palestine. But even according faith in the present understanding through scriptures, etc, the Jews even then conquered those supposedly there with severe violent extremes (="terrorism"). So who's to say those there were not the ancestors of the present Palestinians with more justice. The Jews only had a temporary rule there. Either way, there is NO justice to hypocritically assert a right to lands as if the Palestinians were somehow themselves "more foreign"!! Yes. Zionism IS Nationalism. AND foremost, since it accepts the innate "Social" function to be reserved for those of that heritage with utmost exclusion, they are perfectly defined as "National Socialists" for those of Jewish decent. Just translate that term to German and what have you got? This is NOT unique to Jews as all cults/religions define themselves through past intolerances which created their existence. Initially they had non-religious associations, to which you seem to already appear to agree, and then excuse themselves as 'just' to which evolves to become a religion and later 'ethnicity' through time. There is NOTHING unique to Jews requiring protection/conservation; progress NECESSARILY evolves and it is only to those demanding to DICTATE to their offspring that they require passing on the old ways which you think is more important. But it insults the right of people to choose their preferred lifestyles and beliefs. Nationalism fosters more Nationalism and increasing division, hatred, war, etc. And it imposes its arrogance on those who see ourselves as all equal Earthlings by deeming our own individuality as Anti-YOU. We then DO become those you eventually accuse us of just as the past groups originated from other similar discriminatory accusations until they posit some NEW cult and ethnicity of the same type in never ending cycles. You 'make your bed' by defining yourself a type of distinct species apart from other humans. And you add further insult by EXCLUDING others based on your beliefs. If you choose to define yourself belonging to some 'group', you agree to associate to the definition of that group and can't pick and choose which emotional stereotypes OTHERS MUST think of you. That is, you can't DEMAND others how to perceive you with the stereotypes you approve of but denounce the negative ones as well. You have to accept the good with the bad.

So, if I made a law like, "Scott's Law: Anyone disagreeing with me personally is caused by those disagreeing with me personally. AND I declare this a 'fallacy' of absurd irrational circularity." I too can then use this 'law' to dismiss you offhand. If you don't like the Nazis, you have to NOT behave as them. I've established the appropriate comparisons to demonstrate Israel as not only being of the same belief, but is precisely WHAT the Nazis modeled their own perceived virtues they interpreted from Jewish Nationalists. Would the Nazis have been any 'better' had they simply NOT caused a Holocaust? If you define the only evil as this specific factor to nationalism, then you still agree to the other things, like creating ghettos, or concentration camps, or reserves, or, in general, segregated communities, right? Who do you suppose I am? Where did you presume I support AND benefit from any status here? The American slaves had real support of the same non-Black community to derive their freedom. That's the point I made about the voluntary sacrifices of the prior oppressors requiring to have the power to alter things. They had to sacrifice AND voluntarily. Had this NOT occurred,the desperation would foster this and does. "Aboriginal" is a term to reference the 'first humans ancestral to the territory of some country'. The German-nationalists were the 'aboriginals' of Germany. But your suggested example is precisely an example of why I am concerned. The Israelis falsely believe that since their long-ago ancestors had once been relatively 'native' to that land, that they have rightful justice to it. But the same is to the Arabs and in fact, they have MORE justice to it since they've been there for the last 700 years and MORE, considering "Arab" does not imply only the history of "Islam". I am NOT the one proposing such extremes. Nationalism is itself the fault to which you illogically think is just. It is counter to 'civilization' though. And since the idea of even government is about organized rational systems to appeal to the people, and NOT about reverting to nature, the Israelis are forcefully acting uncivil towards ALL people there equally. They only reserve 'civil' treatment for Jewish or Jewish-favored peoples and treat the Arabs as garbage and 'uncivil'. So their very treatment of them and beliefs in the the supposed Arab's lack of 'civil' nature, should it be surprising should these innately assumed animals act like the very animals they are treated as? Reminds me of some lyrics ("Beautiful People" by Marilyn Manson): "Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free? Hey you, are you trying to be mean? If you live with apes man, it's hard to be clean ... The horrible people, the horrible people It's as anatomic as the size of your steeple Capitalism has made it this way, Old-fashioned fascism will take it away" You think Israel is somehow 'beautiful' but they require the contrast extreme of 'ugliness' to justify their arrogant belief in their segregated virtue. It isn't the fact one should perceive themselves as 'beautiful'; it is a problem when you internalize this quality as something intrinsic and special to your own with extreme.

And then this justifies why those like Hitler and the Nazis behaved the same way. If we have to believe that this world is hopelessly unable to be repaired, then any Nationalists have as equal validity and only require being able to be sufficiently powerful to impose their own will. But the alternative to treat individuals as the most qualifying minority or 'nation' AND the whole collectively, we at least have hope to optimally improve civilization where we progress using shared interests. Nationalism only 'shares' its interest to some specific group and creates the dichotomy of 'an us versus them' mentality. Nationalism is a means to revert to our native state of being non-civil and so by default an enemy to civilization. Yes, to the first question. No to the second. How are you assuming I'm being inconsistent here? Hadn't you seen my concerns elsewhere on Native issues? I don't believe it was appropriate to reserve natives as if they were distinct beings. Canada's formation (accidental) was itself about clashes between desolate groups who believed in Nationalistic ideals. They only 'agreed' to live together but in segregated areas. The remnant survivors of this was to the Confederates of the Southern states who believed in their right to distinctively think of some subset of humans as intrinsically inferior to another. They also denied this too because they perceived themselves as merely 'proud' of their own ingroups and that nature itself, while 'unfair', makes some groups unfortunate by nature (and their 'gods'). To them, the blacks WERE treated 'fair' by nature, and that 'slavery' was representative of the innate volition of the Blacks for their own lack of sufficient WILL to succeed. (Sound familiar?) The Palestinians ARE the present 'slaves' who upon resisting this were ALSO reserved like the North American natives. That is, while today we already recognize errors of the past and some are at least trying to repair this, this attitude is still prevalent in Israel-Palestine as the Palestinians are both treated like the Blacks AND the Natives we deem inappropriate yet persists and is unfolding NOW! Israel also adds the extra problem that their concerns affect us GLOBALLY as both they and the Palestinians/Arabs are stealing the stage of attention. This is absurdly disrespectful of similar problems we should be each attending to in our own countries.

Sure. That's why the idea is to find the most effective and efficient means here, not simply any means. Nationalism is based on giving up appealing to the whole or the individual because they believe it is impossible to operate or do NOT want it to operate. As such, they then oversimplify it by appealing ONLY to some group interest with exclusion to all others and so place significance on culture, religion, ethnic protections, etc, to strengthen their own group AT LEAST. This conservatism is prevalent in ALL our political sides to some degree and so your follow-up concern on multi-culturalism is also justly suspect. Multi-culturalism is just the dishonest pretense to favor segregation of Nations among those Nationalists who are relatively disempowered in their present condition. But by collectively negotiating between similar Nationalists, they feign the pretense of believing in "diversity" but hide the fact that such diversity is defined by the cult, not individuals, as THE ultimate sincere minority. As soon as any one Nationality gains economic high-ground, they too then just take the more right-wing stance of a MONO-culture instead. And NO, contrary to most, the idea of America's Melting Pot is NOT about creating such a MONO-culture. It IS a more sincere means of being truly 'multicultural' or liking 'diversity' but treat people's choices as individuals to be the ones to define their association, not some parental imposition that locks in their children's fate to be tied to their own beliefs or traditions. No to your underlined quantifier I did not remotely imply. We were discussing Israel here. The Israeli Zionists began around the turn of the twentieth century when the first group of devout Jews from Russian origins decided to set up settlements with very clear resolve to favor a Jewish-only country. They religiously believed that God had granted them a natural right to Palestine. The original Palestinians there had been relatively welcoming of them [not 'terrorists'] and only as their homelands were deceptively being taken from them under the veil of 'legitimacy', did they begin to have real concern to find stronger resistance in kind. Asking for some specific date is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the strongest 'wrongs' are occurring PRESENTLY from the Israeli side. Pointing fingers to the 'wrongs' of the Palestinians is more discriminatory because Israel treats ALL Palestinians as unwelcome citizens and have the power to limit Palestinians from even being ABLE to realistically have economic stability. It is Israel's paranoia that should the Palestinians get equal respect and treatment that they would effectively diminish the Nationalists intent to have a predominantly Jewish-favored system to the extremes the Nationalists among them DEMAND! (I know that even within Israel, the newer offspring also do not approve of the extremes but have inherited their own places due to their own parents and so are stuck too to require leaving it to the extremes of Jewish Nationalism to dictate the status, even if in potentially increasing minority.)

I'm not in disagreement with this at all. My own personal philosophy on morality is that by nature itself, it is not 'real'. But morality is still something we 'have' if we interpret the 'ideals' they could represent to aid in special goals. For humans, our goals serve best when we try to find the most efficient means to be most civil, as it also serves our selfishly derived values most by negotiating rules (morals) between each other to optimize EACH of our selfish drives. The question to which ones are most efficient and balanced become the collective ethics we use to adjust laws to aid in making this happen. But some ideas are less effective. And the major one I think is most destructive is "nationalism", by how I tried to define it previously here. It is generically understood as different things in different places. But in general, I use this to describe GROUP FAVORITISMs. This opposes the INDIVIDUAL or the WHOLE, both of which we need to attend to rather than setting our standards to optimize the 'group'. Nor am I saying that groups themselves are bad. But I think that how the group is defined without sincere relevance to the claims for being such groups are problematic. The 'group' (classification of) "Red-heads" is understood to define those who have red hair. But if I imposed some other additional quality that has no logical relevance to the fact of having red hair, like by creating a group of 'red-heads' who believe they are intellectually distinct, this added quality has no sincere relation to hair color. Ethnicity is this type of combining ones' external, genetic, qualities based on ones ancestry, and falsely adds one's optional environmental qualities as being OWNED by one's roots. Culture and ones ancestral history, for instance, is treated as though they have logical Necessity to the definition of ones accidental roots. If your parents and your parents parents and their parents, etc, have always had a Christmas tree to celebrate their yearly solstice, while comforting as a tradition to CHOOSE or not CHOOSE to carry on, they are not compelled to nor 'own' the quality of requiring a Christmas tree to continue. The problem occurs when some set of people religiously think that these type of qualities are intrinsic to ones offspring genetically. The State of Israel is specifically an extreme type of group that defines themselves as requiring necessarily genetic and cultural qualities to be combined. This is no doubt similar to even many Palestinians but they aren't the actual ones empowered to make their own Nationalists succeed. Yet Israel IS empowering them even where they could be minimized because they ARE the same as the extremes they purport to defeat. P.S. The 'cutoff'? The early 1900s of which (those specific) Jews began with the CLEAR goal to move into Palestine to forcefully found a Jewish-only (controlled) Nation, their religious homeland. Even today the building of the walls, the forceful settlements, etc, are just examples that they are NOW acting in direct violation of all those they accused of against them in previous eras. You don't correct a 'wrong' by balancing it with another 'wrong'; And when it creates accelerated wrongdoing by the relatively victimized people in the present, their responses, while 'wrong' still, require the ones in recent power of oppression to change first by doing a 'right' in voluntary sacrifice of their own comforts, not impose the 'others' to do the changing. Vice verse, if this is begun, the Palestinians will also then have to volunteerily alter their attitudes. But they at present lack their own capacity to sacrifice anything because they don't have anything but their own lives to sacrifice.

Who's being single-minded here? I don't like ANY NATIONALISTS in the Middle East and know that each have roles in the abuses. You and your supporting side inappropriately DOMINATE the reality that regardless of abuses, treats Israel as innocent. They STOLE the lands in relatively RECENT times. You no doubt believe this was done 'legitimately' to which I have complete disagreement, as do most people. Yet this gets trivialized to absurdity as Israel continues to dominate with immunity of their MORE VIOLENT behaviors towards the Palestinians that CREATED the Palestinian's present extremes in response. The ONLY DIFFERENCE to each extreme is that Israel has the unusual financial supports that grant them the means to build strong armies, and the religious zealous supports of Judaism AND the Christians who intend to fulfill religious prophesies and give validity to their beliefs for these two general cults. And you arrogantly think that the overt violence that is most extreme by the Palestinians regardless of their desperate positions IS somehow more vile than the means Israel is behaving. FACT: Given any two opposing 'evils' in some conflict, the ones with the economic upper-hand uses INDIRECT tactics that make their actions appear as 'defensive' to justify their own oppressive behaviors. This kind of behavior is done effectively by using 'posited' means that appear to FAVOR some in-group but designed to hideously blur the fact they are corning, isolating, demeaning, and starving-out, their targeted group. Example: Imagine a family of ten 'dependents' of parents (the relative Power of the house) who are composed of five children genetically related to the parents and five who are adopted. The parents only adopted before they realized they could have children of their own. But now that they were able to do so, they find FAVOR of their own genetic children and wish they hadn't had their adopted kids and now can't figure out what to do because they 'know' it isn't appropriate to simply kill off these disliked adopted children and would make others clearly recognize their disgusting hatred for doing so. Instead of overtly killing them, then, they try to find some indirect way to do this by neglecting them with purpose in some way that makes these adopted kids SELF-DESTRUCT. If they do, the hope is that those kids will either kill themselves OR, should they ACT OUT in some way in their desperation by behaving in ways NO ONE would question is evidently vile, they have a 'legitimate' justice to directly defeat these unwanted children for their extreme responses. An example might be to distribute the food at the dinner table first and foremost to all your 'favored' children and encourage them to eat as heartily as they wish. Then to the adopted children they don't favor, they leave the scraps or nothing at all which makes them undernourished and leads them to real physical and psychological problems. In time, as these unwanted children become more and more unhealthy and sick, one of these children begins to try to steal from the better-off children. Yet, for the act, they are doubly penalized with apparent 'justice' by the parents halving the remaining scraps to all the adopted kids on the realization that it would only entice more poor behavior. The poorer and more clearly violent, the better. This way they can later most justly eliminate them with the approval of onlookers. Now, this is what is happening with Israel, as the parents (power) and their favored children to create the extremes of "terrorism" of the Palestinians, to which they can then excuse their own hated actions. To me and others, the Israelis are clearly acting with sufficient circumstantial evidence that proves their sincere hatred AND purpose to annihilate the Palestinians and Muslims. And while I don't approve of ANY violence by the Palestinians, I also see they have no other choice unless you expect them to all collectively commit suicide. And this is the very reason you see some of them go to such extremes. If they are being pressured to self-destruct, their thinking is that if they are doomed anyways, why not take down others with them? No. My passion in argument here is to the lack of logic that keeps the cycle of abuses alive. I'm also as passionate on most issues if you've read my postings. So no, I'm also not targeting Israel without the recognition this occurs everywhere. But for this thread, I believe the Israeli conflicts are only resolvable if THEY change as it is in their POWER, not their desperate 'enemies' who are the trigger problem in the Middle East.

I think Rue may be just too hyped up at this moment for personal reasons unknown. I didn't interpret your words as he did either.

Wow Rue, Did you mean to spell "Rue" as "Rude"? At least I have the respect to not PURPOSELY misspell ones name! You are clearly too deluded on your interpretation of me and incapable of treating people's words with the charity they deserve. I hadn't read what you'd mentioned of Ghost's reply as you state and definitely know this is unlikely his own interpretation as you seem to be doing this with me too. I have zero concern to care what roots people have as I judge each person independently and NOT based on any of their preferred associations. It is you who think you speak for all of some group of people, called "Jew" here, as if this group is some differentiated species apart from all others. In this light, it makes you perceive me or others as an OPPOSING Nation or set of Nations. This is where you have blinders on. I, to you, am "Goyim" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goy] and whether you interpret everyone as necessarily belonging to some "Nation", I severely oppose the whole concept as I believe each and every person is unique, essential, important, and of the same species. As to volition, if you also believe you OWN some culture based on your ancestry, it is such extreme "pride" you have that is preventing you from not recognizing your own bias. I don't believe in ANY Nationalism as I've repeatedly said to you. I don't own 'red-headedness', 'maleness', my Old World ancestral groups (they are from various places, not some single cult), or any non-voluntary association. I have a right to CHOOSE my associations based on my environmental preferences and do so. But for those like yourself, you forcefully DEFINE everyone as necessarily belonging to some 'God-given' association based on some genetic factor ('genetic' here implies not simply one's biological genetics, but to one's inherent privileges to OWN specific rights merely for being born into it.) Try thinking of the recent Elephant stampedes in India. These DO represent two distinct species and so justifies why Elephants are acting 'terroristic' with respect to innocent humans. You are ACTING as if you ARE a species with distinction. I like Elephants even while recognizing our distinction. But this is still very REAL because we DO have actual genetic distinctions between us and Elephants. What you are doing when you assert a right to define your "NATIONALITY" is to act as if you are a REAL different species. And while you may possibly 'respect' Goyim with compassion, this still treats the rest of us as essential aliens or different species with inappropriate behavior. So it is you who is begging me to act in a way to respect a distinction I do NOT agree to with complete disrespect of my own individuality. Why are you so angry?

So if it is not 'official' [PC], we are not allowed to speak until the authorities deem us eligible to? He could have titled it "war love", instead. Would that have been most acceptable and sincere to the OP? Should a "terrorist" agree to use the term "terrorist" to describe themselves when speaking to others because this is how they are 'officially' defined by their listeners? Would that help their cause? The subject involves Israel and Gaza or, generally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and their related causes as we understand them.

Rue, I'm sorry you believe me to be Anti-Semitic. I don't believe you can easily step out of your emotional impulse to keep thinking of yourself as a PEOPLE, uniquely distinct from others. To me, I belong to the class ALL PEOPLE and prefer to see you as my equal. Do you not think that your own belief that you ARE a distinct class and that this is somehow intrinsic to everyone to be such, is what makes you feel certain I MUST also believe in this regardless of my continued denial of this? I have red hair and am mostly of Scandinavian decent. I likely also have Semitic genes in me too. I'm certain that at least we all are related back far enough that we'd have more genetic factors in common than not. So you have no need to perceive me (or others) as an enemy here.

Thanks. But I try with sincerity NOT to give off bad emotional vibes. But it is unavoidable, I've discovered, regardless. I'd either have to sit back and let those like yourself speak with your own 'superior' wisdom and let you win by default. I'm competent with my intents and capacity to argue. While it may offend you that my confidence is of some delusional arrogance, so be it. But thanks for responding to my "sanctimonious hot air" If you heard me, does that now make you "no one"? .....

I always believe in giving others charity to reason and yet find it frustrating when you can't get the same respect in return no matter how well-intentioned you try to appeal. It seems to only make some MORE disrespectful of you for trying. Yet, if I (we) gave up, THEY win. But thank you too.

The topic is "Israel's war crimes in Gaza" and to what I'm focused on here. This does NOT diminish any Nationalistic extremists elsewhere either. But the REALITY is that the Israeli side is defaulted to being relatively 'innocent' here AND by most, politically, it is deemed to be a crime, if not real, at least virtual, to speak against Israel. As such, those like yourself presume we have to default to assume the Muslim side as PURE UNADULTERATED EVIL and the Israelis as PURE UNADULTERATED ANGELS who are 'victims' unresponsible for their own actions. You insult the Muslims as if they are somehow inferior intrinsically which disables them from succeeding, and so blame them for their own extremes. Yet inversely, you think it is alright to ignore the fact that economics and power reside with the Israelis, regardless of any of their own intrinsic virtues distinct from the extremes of the Muslims. The ban of a Jew in Mecca is only a reactive response of the aggression derived from the Jews initially. The hatred is reflective hatred. If you were sincere and correct, the Israelis would not have had a need to build walls, impose 'settlements' by stealing controversial lands by brute force. Your arrogant thinking is as follows: A very strong man manning costly and powerful guns is walking down a busy city street. As he walks, he focuses precisely on where he wants to go and doesn't bother to respect the same standards as others on the same streets. For instance, if you have a group of people and are walking in the opposite direction, this man would keep walking as if no crowd were in front of him and step on them should anyone NOT move out of the way. The crowd requires being extra cautious around him for this behavior and so someone challenges him by reflecting the same behavior as an 'equal'. But upon trying, this strong man with guns steps on the other then blames him for NOT moving out of the way. To you, you'd blame the crowd for their own weakness and the man who challenged this giant as simply being 'stupid'. Yet, who is the one behaving with unfairness here? If you think ones' strength alone justifies him to behave, then you perhaps understand those like Hitler who would surely agree: 'Weed out the weaklings. Those with the POWER to command their WILL is all that matters. The weak are terrorizing the strong for their own incompetence to chose to BE strong.'

In reference to etymology, many words with respect to people's identity are politically altered often as one term becomes pejorative at some stage and so gets reinterpreted, often by the in-group, to dissociate its origins and/or to place it in some better light. The term, "gay", was originally a preferred term that the homosexual community wanted society to adapt. The problem is that those who created this preference believed intrinsically in a universal nature of those who were homosexual, as just another stereotype, "one who seems unusually prissy, happy, effeminate as women". This just became the newer derogatory title rather than defeating it because it was defined by an extreme who were initially most obviously victims of the past targeted. Thus they presumed a positive association of just a limited subset of people only. I personally don't care which etymology you prefer is true or not, for "Jew". The understanding of the term for 'intermitten wanderer' is sufficiently understood. It became as much a derogatory term depending on times and places. It implied one who is foreign, like another term, "barbar-ian" (for what some thought the foreign speaker sounds like). The term, "jewel", was derived from this as well since this was what one who wanders who carries and trades in money of the past were equated with. "Jew -el" == the "Jew god" in a derogatory reference to what they carry and trade as their 'god'. "Jesus" = "joshua" = "I am (the same as)"; "Christ" = "one who is officially anointed as ceremonially officiated leader or King by God". YHWH = "Yah wey" = "je ovah" = the 'ova*' = "The source of life" from some of those using this language. The egg was the earthly reference of the sun, as a Perfect shape and source of all. There are many others of which I could go into. But I have noticed that for most religious-related ones, much of the terms are contested everywhere and likely intended to try to dissociate unpreferred past associations. EDIT at *. changed 'oval' to 'ova'. They relate as meaning "egg" or its shape, "imprecise circle-like (oval)".

This is a lot to respond to and I'll try to. But, Rue, or others who may feel offended, just breathe. I do appreciate your responses even though I strongly disagree. Note my own response to accuse you as being anti-non-Jew/Semitic is as much a reflection of you and others calling me or others Anti-Semitic inappropriately. This is a scare tactic to prevent people from inquiry and I'm getting tired of it personally as it affects me and others indirectly and VERY realistically when one can literally be penalized here in our country for speaking up. Our present society is often against some subset of other people merely for a form of vengeance in the same ironic behavior that created the prior discrimination against the accusers. That is, ALL MEN, for instance, may get penalized by women who were prior victims of some subset of MEN as a class. What ends up happening is that instead of targeting the actual problem, the act of some inappropriate discrimination among 'equals', the tactics to try to FIX the previous problem is to inversely HARM the other. It is often done indirectly by framing the actions one chooses to pose politically to the 'victimized' group in some uniquely special way. For this example, these women might (and do) form a "women's coalition" or group to demand specific FAVOR of their ingroup rather than to derive a coalition of ALL PEOPLE who want to seek to stop discrimination against each other based on ANY SEXUAL BIASES. What occurs by favoring ones' in-group (what I refer to as Nationality/Ethnicity/Gender/Identification) serves to AMPLIFY the problems that initially caused them to associate because they inappropriately interpret some opposing group as a UNIVERSAL NATION in some false cohesion intent on defeating them. Thus a strict "Feminist" will interpret ALL MEN as the set of those who created the problem. And so they interpret a need to act in sync but in FAVOR for women-ONLY. The neglect of the positive things granting these feminists their justice is oppositely in some way that harms some men as a class. What actually ends up happening is that the particular men who suffer the penalties of such changes are NOT the types of men who initially caused the very problems. AND, the type of men who actually created such problems against those women in the previous conditions, lack the penalties for these changes. Instead, they appear as the ones agreeing to the feminist's stance because those men DO believe that women ARE a segregate being! The same is for Nationalism and this particular topic. To me, the State of Israel is ACTING with the identical biases to which placed their previous people at stake. But going back in time, for each set of those being victimized, they become the next victimizors because they haven't learned what actually created the problem in the first place. To assert the Jews of Europe as always victims is wrong. The Jews benefited in sync with any Christian biases as each literally 'agreed' to their segregated differences and utilized those differences for each other's benefits as much as to the other's loses. Thus, where the Christians interpreted it 'illegitimate' to profit upon middle trades (usury), the Jews benefited by this because their religion did not. This is one of the discriminatory factors of the extremes of each religion who caused the more liberal and relatively innocent of either groups in between to be the ones who suffer the consequences. Those Jews or those Christians who did NOT believe in some intrinsic Nationalism, were the ones who protested as it was those Nationalists of either the Jew or Christian who commanded these distinctions MUST exist. And this is just why Zionism is as equally at fault as the Nazis because both believe they are doing nothing wrong for merely FAVORING their own in EXCLUSION of others. If you, Rue, believe that I'm not understanding what Zionism is, I'm unsure if you are attempting to merely beg me from some legitimate use of terms or you really are ignorant of the intentional means by which others understand. I used the 'X' to demonstrate your irrationality without requiring a need to specify any particular nationalism/ethnicity/race/etc. If you DEFINE yourself as X, you believe that X stands with some clear understanding of some non-X or "complementary" identifier either Universally or Relatively. If I say I'm an X where X=Redhead, this is complementary to non-Redheads, correct? If we restrict ourselves to the 'relative complement' in the universe of (PEOPLE Based on HAIRCOLOR), anything I speak of this in-group, requires relating the significant qualifying factors associated with HAIRCOLOR. However, if I collectively group Red-heads together due to some concern of others who might discriminate against us for HAVING RED_HAIR, would it solve the problem to demand ONLY that others stop discriminating against Red hair, but not any potential discrimination I or others have for other hair color biases? If I want to stop those from interpreting Red-haired people from discrimination, my LOGICAL means to do so should be to focus on stopping ANY discrimination for ANY hair color by demonstrating equivalence in significance to each person regardless of hair color. It is antithetical to collect other red-heads together as if we DO in fact have some differences we want to enhance of others distinctively. That is, it is stupid to try to encourage others to think of red-heads collectively as having some unique quality of intelligence, for instance, as this only attempts to create a stereotype, while 'positive', is STILL a stereotype and equal in irrelevance to what is common among all people with hair. If I persist in collecting Red-heads as some segregated group, I would be defeating the means to STOP discrimination but only enhance it instead because I'd merely be agreeing to those thinking Red-heads are different, but disagreeing to which things I WANT others to particularly stereotype me as. The Zionist Jew fosters the stereotype regardless by demanding MORE distinction rather than to demonstrate equality amongst us all as humans. This is no different to the present Palestinian Muslims in equal belief of their nationalism. But they are the RELATIVE victims of those Jews who act nationalistic to defeat the opposing nationalism from their prior state of being victimized. Its circular and unending until we recognize the logic of what is going on here. If one establishes X against some non-X, non-X begins to see themselves in some clear Y but falsely interprets all non-Y as X, when non-Y only includes X (as Some non-Y). Sorry for the math/logic here but just replace the variables for any thing where X + non-X = All people = Y + non-Y and X = Some non-Y and Y = Some non-X The error occurs when one defines themselves specifically as X or Y because of the other's distinction and then interprets all who are not themselves as their opposing complement. You, Rue, thus falsely accuse me of speaking 'anti-Semitic' because you identify yourself as "Semitic" with distinction and since past Anti-Semites helped define you by their own interpretation of you as being the whole complement of those they despise, you impose others to see you distinctly from the non-Semitic class and anyone who disagrees is by your definition, Anti-Semitic.

That's why I tried to use an elephant attack example. It might help if we can shift to using different analogies so we can all relate without getting too personally hurt. Oh,...and thank you for acknowledging support too. It's hard to determine if people don't speak because they agree without need to add more or find it unworthy of response out of disgust.

The 'fear' is reasonable, even if one may favor him in any way. Remember how he stated how he'd build a wall on the Mexican border and then make them pay for it? While many even in Mexico could 'agree' possibly to certain realities that Trump could raise of those entering the U.S., this demonstrates reasonable concern to be wary of Trump for his Nationalism (if actually sincere). Similarly, for Canadians, we'd likely lose if and where the strength of resolve of a potential leader in the U.S. comes along who openly demonstrates their willingness to ABSOLUTELY discriminate at all causes against non-insiders (non-U.S. citizens) AND to a very great degree.