Hamas

[FFY]

My friend...Hamas would NOT PASS UP an opportunity to kill every last Israeli and reclaim the city. Where or when did you you EVER HEAR Hamas wanting to give up the city of Jerusalem, cause it's total bullshit dude. Both groups want it and want it for keeps, Hamas especially. If they've annouced they no longer want Jerusalem then it's merely a clever scheme to get polictical aid and funds on their side.

Not that the Israeli's wouldn't do the same if they were in Hamas's shoes. Both sides want Jerusalem and won't stop until they get it. The Christian, Jewish, and Muslim worlds will never find peace unless the whole city is completed vaporized from the face of the Earth. I find it ironic we as a race of beings find inanimate objects of historical value to be more important than human lives. It's a pity really.

Jerusalem should be renamed the city of blood and death.

 

[august spies]

My friend...Hamas would NOT PASS UP an opportunity to kill every last Israeli and reclaim the city. Where or when did you you EVER HEAR Hamas wanting to give up the city of Jerusalem, cause it's total bullshit dude. Both groups want it and want it for keeps, Hamas especially. If they've annouced they no longer want Jerusalem then it's merely a clever scheme to get polictical aid and funds on their side.

Not that the Israeli's wouldn't do the same if they were in Hamas's shoes. Both sides want Jerusalem and won't stop until they get it. The Christian, Jewish, and Muslim worlds will never find peace unless the whole city is completed vaporized from the face of the Earth. I find it ironic we as a race of beings find inanimate objects of historical value to be more important than human lives. It's a pity really.

Jerusalem should be renamed the city of blood and death.

i dont think you understood what i was saying. what i meant is that israel would never give up jerusalem, hamas never had control of it, they are a recently formed group. what i did say that hamas would give up armed struggle if israel were to end the occupation of the west bank and arab east jerusalem and that is not bullshit. even though israel hasnt they have still called a truce and held to it, despite provocation.

Israel already has jerusalem and they are litteraly triying to cut it off from the rest of the world and isolate it under their sphere of political and cultural influence. i was walking through the armenian quater a coulpe of months ago to see posters of the armeanian genocide defaced as if they were trying to "steal the holocaust from the israelis". they are also phyiscally sealing the city through a gross network of walls and jewish only settlements.

but as i said there is an active movement on both sides working to live together and they deserve support.

 

[Betchass1]

Does anyone else not see what is obvious? Or are we taking this too lightly?

An organization that has clearly waged war on Israel through guerilla tactics and has professed the destruction of Israel as their ultimate goal is a primary political party. Are the ones who posted before me so obtuse as to not see that merely being labeled as a political party instead of what it is-a terror network- doenst change the leopard's spots?

When you're outnumbered, out-teched, out-financed, and out-gunned, you don't march onto a fuggin battlefield and blow trumpets with your sword in the air. "Guerilla tactics" are merely ways of not being obliterated outright.
To take the judgments and indignation out of the equation, you either win or get crushed. Unless you are already being crushed, there is no need for guerilla warfare. It's an act of desperation, not evil.

People act like peace is the norm, and therefore, if war is going on, the other guy must have started it. Mass media and communication has made it harder and harder to simply dehumanize the other side wholesale so there's no guilt, at least for intelligent people. But there's no precedent for the number of people that are alive today. Never happened before. There's no model for peace with that many human beings.
You can't point to a group of millions of people and say "They're innocent" and point to another and say "They're guilty" as though you were talking about two people.

 

[Betchass1]

but as i said there is an active movement on both sides working to live together and they deserve support.

Somebody set up a middle east football league already. Then they can scream at their TVs and call it a day.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"Peace is just war by another name."

 

[Betchass1]

"Peace is just war by another name."

Yeah. It's just being useful enough to someone that they do the killing for you and don't make you think about it.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"You want the hamburger, but you don't want to hear how I slaughtered the cow?"

 

[jj82277]

peace is not the absence of conflict, It's the presence of Justice

 

[Betchass1]

peace is not the absence of conflict, It's the presence of Justice

But those are all abstract nouns. None of those are things you can hold in your hand and say they exist. Peace and conflict are things that happen, and justice is an idea.

 

[jj82277]

just because you can not hold a thing does not mean that it does not exist. come on betcha,

love is also an abstract concept, but it does not mean that it does not exist, the same with hate, and the enire array of human emotions.

justice is a very abstract state of being, but non the less we know that it exists.

forget not that the entire system of advanced mathematics is based on three concepts that have yet to be fully defined by man. there is no definition for a point, no definition for a line, and no definition or tangiable measure for infinite planes, but if you were to ask Neil Armstrong if it were possible to transverse the stars using these intangiable, undefined concepts, what do you think taht he would say.

 

[Betchass1]

just because you can not hold a thing does not mean that it does not exist. come on betcha,

love is also an abstract concept, but it does not mean that it does not exist, the same with hate, and the enire array of human emotions.

justice is a very abstract state of being, but non the less we know that it exists.

forget not that the entire system of advanced mathematics is based on three concepts that have yet to be fully defined by man. there is no definition for a point, no definition for a line, and no definition or tangiable measure for infinite planes, but if you were to ask Neil Armstrong if it were possible to transverse the stars using these intangiable, undefined concepts, what do you think taht he would say.

That doesn't change the fact those are not things that exist. Love is not a thing, it is an action. A feeling. If it exists then someone somewhere should be able to photograph it, to at least detect it with some inanimate instrument.
You can pontificate about justice all day long, but if someone takes the opposite view as to what is just, you're just two people talking. Justice is a thought in your head, nothing more. It affects how you behave, but it certainly doesn't change anything except by your actions.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"If evil can love, then what is evil?"

 

[jj82277]

so what you are saying is that you are bowing to the soverign omnipetance of human created inanimate instruments to give you a clear picture of what true reality, and philosophy are. Those same inanimate instruments do not even have the ability to recognize familiar optical patterns and classidy them as objects in a known database (to see).

the truth of the matter is that the reason most people including myself in the past leave the interpretation of reality to instruments of the human intellect is because they are controlled. they by definition won't give us any answer that was not already within our level of human understanding. my proposal to you sir is that certain concepts like true love, justice, caring, and an entire array of human emtional and philosophical states of being, just like the foundations for geometric measurement, lie slightly beyond the human capacity to completely comprehend. and that does not eman that hey do not exist in my oppinion, that just means that we have yet to develop the capacity to completely comprehend the levels of being on which they exist. when two people discuss what the accurate definition of a point is, they are still just alking as you have said, but that does not change the fact that using these abstract concepts we were able to rondevous two space raft thousands of miles apart, and hundreds of thousands of miles away from earth. Just as love may not be completely and totally understood and comprehended by all, but would you assert to me sir that when my grandparents stayed together through all the turmoil and trial that accompanies a half century long commitment to another flawed human being, even as they both reached senility that there was not a force at work beyond the limited full comprehension of mankind.

When i was asked in my first college level philosophy class for my definition o faith, I came up with this analogy. I believe it that there is in the world an infinately true reality, like the sky being blue, and all the things that are true wether a human being understands it or not, and then there is the human level of understanding, or what we know absolutely and without question to be true (that which can be proven by our inanimate nstruments), and the valley between the two perceptions in my oppinion is very vast. the bridge i believe is the unique human ability to have faith and believe with out complete evidentiary suppport for believing. like any bridge, you can attatch it to any multitude of incorrect destinations on the far side of the philosophical river bank, but the only other choice would be to stay on the side of what we already know and can prove, and never truly experience all the wonders that this existance has to offer. imagine if the wright brothers, JFK, Vivian Thomas, Aristotle, or any host of others would have wasted, had they simply relied on what could be proven at the time by the omnipitance of mans inanimate instruments.

 

[Betchass1]

so what you are saying is that you are bowing to the soverign omnipetance of human created inanimate instruments to give you a clear picture of what true reality, and philosophy are. Those same inanimate instruments do not even have the ability to recognize familiar optical patterns and classidy them as objects in a known database (to see).

the truth of the matter is that the reason most people including myself in the past leave the interpretation of reality to instruments of the human intellect is because they are controlled. they by definition won't give us any answer that was not already within our level of human understanding. my proposal to you sir is that certain concepts like true love, justice, caring, and an entire array of human emtional and philosophical states of being, just like the foundations for geometric measurement, lie slightly beyond the human capacity to completely comprehend. and that does not eman that hey do not exist in my oppinion, that just means that we have yet to develop the capacity to completely comprehend the levels of being on which they exist. when two people discuss what the accurate definition of a point is, they are still just alking as you have said, but that does not change the fact that using these abstract concepts we were able to rondevous two space raft thousands of miles apart, and hundreds of thousands of miles away from earth. Just as love may not be completely and totally understood and comprehended by all, but would you assert to me sir that when my grandparents stayed together through all the turmoil and trial that accompanies a half century long commitment to another flawed human being, even as they both reached senility that there was not a force at work beyond the limited full comprehension of mankind.

When i was asked in my first college level philosophy class for my definition o faith, I came up with this analogy. I believe it that there is in the world an infinately true reality, like the sky being blue, and all the things that are true wether a human being understands it or not, and then there is the human level of understanding, or what we know absolutely and without question to be true (that which can be proven by our inanimate nstruments), and the valley between the two perceptions in my oppinion is very vast. the bridge i believe is the unique human ability to have faith and believe with out complete evidentiary suppport for believing. like any bridge, you can attatch it to any multitude of incorrect destinations on the far side of the philosophical river bank, but the only other choice would be to stay on the side of what we already know and can prove, and never truly experience all the wonders that this existance has to offer. imagine if the wright brothers, JFK, Vivian Thomas, Aristotle, or any host of others would have wasted, had they simply relied on what could be proven at the time by the omnipitance of mans inanimate instruments.

"Those same inanimate instruments do not even have the ability to recognize familiar optical patterns and classidy them as objects in a known database (to see)."

Yes they do.

Science involves thesis and hypothesis, testing theories and recording the results. Technically it can never reach the point of 100% fact that can't be disputed. Scientists are more likely to say "there is a 72.3 percent likelihood" than "well it seems that way, so it's true." Aristotle was brilliant, but no measure of what is fact. Same as Descartes, who believed the circulatory system was meant to warm the blood, because life depended on warmth. He came up with the two-dimensional plane (which also does not exist, being infinitely thin). JFK?

Concepts are great, but it was a huge metal casing with fire blasting out of the back of it that put a man on the moon. That existed. The process of making it exist and of determining where to point it was just that, a process, not a thing. It happened, and then stopped happening, as all events.
The concept of justice spurs people to do very significant things, like burning each other at a stake or hanging each other from trees, but justice strictly takes place inside a skull. The word refers to a judgment.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and be right."

 

[jj82277]

excellent quote vlad.

and you are wrong Betchass, there has never been an instrument created by man that has the capacity of the human eye-brain combination, we have telescopes that can take pictures when we point them to a target light years away, and then we have indepth human analysis of those pictures by human being s to determine them. Look it up.

and in the ilagitimate persuit of that huge metal casing, when individuals leet deadlines and launch dates interfer with the search for truth and the saftey of its crew, human error cost some astronaughts their lives in the apollo explosion etc.

let us not forget that science in of itself is a concept, it is definded as the ultimate persuit of truth. science like justice can be perverted by those who have an alternate agenda than the true heart of science or justice. look at those who would conduct inhuman experiments and devise the slaughter of millions during the hollocaust. look at the pride of accomplishment that was present during the manhattan project, listen to the cries of the 46 million unborn children that are sucked form their mothers wombs with the big metal vaccums of scientific creation.

there are many concepts and ideals, but becausse of human flaw they are all flawed one we touch them, all can be corrupted and have been corrupted by human agendas and intervention. the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools itself was the result of the most agregeous SCIENTIFIC hokes that there ever was. but my origional point still stands. there are absolute truths. i don't need a percentage of correctness to know that the sky is blue. I don't need to make a detailed hypothesis to know that there is an unexplained ilogical supernatural bond between myself and my mother that would prevent me from harming her (love "greek word philia").

there are those that think that science is the enemy of all others systems of belief, eligion in particular, and i owuld offer the antithesis that if a religios belief is true, and science is the persuit of truth that eventually after all of the human inequity one will not necessarily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but lend validity to the other, as it already has.

 

[august spies]

can somone relate this back to the topic

 

[strider1]

Things could go any way from here. I don't think even Hamas expected to get as much of the vote as they did, and now they're deciding what the hell to do.

 

[Betchass1]

excellent quote vlad.

and you are wrong Betchass, there has never been an instrument created by man that has the capacity of the human eye-brain combination, we have telescopes that can take pictures when we point them to a target light years away, and then we have indepth human analysis of those pictures by human being s to determine them. Look it up.

.........

there are those that think that science is the enemy of all others systems of belief, eligion in particular, and i owuld offer the antithesis that if a religios belief is true, and science is the persuit of truth that eventually after all of the human inequity one will not necessarily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but lend validity to the other, as it already has.

You said "Those same inanimate instruments do not even have the ability to recognize familiar optical patterns and classidy them as objects in a known database (to see)." They do. I never said they have "the capacity of the human eye-brain combination". But they can do what they need to do.
http://www.evolution.com/core/vipr.masn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition
Some of the ways the brain makes sense of what it sees are pretty well understood.
A very basic page on Gestalt perception:
http://homepages.ius.edu/rallman/gestalt.html


Galileo Galilei attempted to use your other point in his defense, saying that god gave man the capacity to reason, and so we ought to use it. Of course, the Church wasn't having that.
I never said science by its nature discounts religion. Not sure where you got that. I would say that science and religion are both processes, not things.

I won't ask for resources backing up your claim that evolution is a hoax that has been abandoned by science, because it isn't. This is why we need a new flu vaccine every year, and they never know how effective it will be.

 

[usgrant]

They are in charge now! What liberals and other assorted assholes miss! If Arabs, Muslims, and other assorted militant ... assholes are now the Democratic Government! Well now it's time to shit or get off the pot. Have a legitimate government or get hammered! This applies to Hamas, so called Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Libya. You elect militants! Launch a terror attack from your borders and you are now responsible, no more hiding among the civilians. E.g... If Palestine keeps on launching terror attacks NOW they are a recognized government and will be met (possibility) by stronger force from Isreal. Since now they have elected a Militant Government. They may have legitamized terror and now will be subjected to retribution by the people they attack. Liberals always miss the point on stuff like this!

 

[Betchass1]

They are in charge now! What liberals and other assorted assholes miss! If Arabs, Muslims, and other assorted militant ... assholes are now the Democratic Government! Well now it's time to shit or get off the pot. Have a legitimate government or get hammered! This applies to Hamas, so called Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Libya. You elect militants! Launch a terror attack from your borders and you are now responsible, no more hiding among the civilians. E.g... If Palestine keeps on launching terror attacks NOW they are a recognized government and will be met (possibility) by stronger force from Isreal. Since now they have elected a Militant Government. They may have legitamized terror and now will be subjected to retribution by the people they attack. Liberals always miss the point on stuff like this!

No, liberals just know that terror is just a feeling; warfare, on the other hand, is mutual. Israel has plenty of U.N. resolutions against it, and plenty of security council resolutions that were vetoed *only* by the U.S. These resolutions are demanding that Israel stop brutalizing Palestinians.
Hiding among civilians, please. I don't see Donald Rumsfeld walking out into a field with a target on his head. He's surrounded by millions of people, some of them civilians, many of them armed guards. He's not "showing himself" either.

What possible reason could you have for believing wholeheartedly that no one has done anything to these people to deserve their hatred? Have you ever read any of the published statements of bin Laden? I'm not asking you to believe them, just read one and see what it says.