Israel approves plan to uproot 30,000 Bedouin

Discussion in 'Politics' started by S.A.M., Sep 11, 2011.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Yes of course there would. Zionism is just the Jewish equivalent of what happened in all the East European countries under Russian dominance. Except that Jews decided to found their homeland based on their racial history - real or fictional - rather than in one one of the breakaway parts of the Soviet Union. Don't forget that religious Jews have lived in Palestine for over a thousand years preceding Zionism. And that the architects of Zionism had a very deprecatory view of the religious and were in fact, secular or athiest like the majority of Russians at the time. And the reason for wanting a separation was discrimination by other atheists against their community



    see also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

    So what is the problem, is it Jews wanting to follow their own tribalism/nationalism/religion or is it the atheist Russians wanting to suppress all ethnic minorities? The break up of the Soviet Union is IMO, an answer to that question.

    http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/judaism/bldef_zionism.htm
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Note the Christian Slavic generals in the Ottoman army ... blah blah blah the harshness of Dhimmi status in actual practice in most places and times was not nearly as severe as the people itching for a crusade against Islam would have us believe.

    I agree with the idea but 60 years is a short time for the colonizer to acculturate the colonized. Who knows, the acculturation may be happening without us noticing. Israeli Palestinian citizens do learn Hebrew, may try to pass as Jewish occasionally and are occasionally marrying the children of the colonizers.

    Jews, Roma and Parsis are interesting in their rejection of intermarriage and conversion. Yet clearly in different times and places and subgroups the taboo on intermarriage and conversion would strengthen and weaken for local cultural reasons.

    Behar was wrong. Jews (also Roma and to a lessor degree Parsis) are majority descended from people other than from the land in which their culture originated.

    Out-marriage and out-conversion without in-marriage and in-conversion means extinction.

    The far flung Jewish communities around the world are predominately a product of conversion and intermarriage. Ancient Israel was not that large of a population. Even if we pretend that the genetic diversity of Jews does not exist we would have to say that Jews outbred and outsurvived non Jews to account for their population size. This does not even consider the Holocaust, the Inquisition, pograms and alleged earlier historic genocides by Romans and others.


    From http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/09/gypsies-on-a-genetic-island/ regarding the Roma:
    99% endogamy per generation would imply that they’d be 79% South Asian today. 95% endogamy would result in them being 29% South Asian. 90% endogamy would mean that they’d be 8% South Asian. Reality is more complex.

    Good example. Respect for the conquered seems to be an exception rather than the norm at least until the conquest is well established. In the USA we like our Native American place names and are no longer so disrespectful towards native American culture.


    Internal stealing, lawlessness and political corruption correlate with weak nations. To be strong and utilize your people's ambition to enrich and empower your nation criminality must be suppressed. You could in theory suppress criminality with threat of law enforcement alone but I have doubts at how effective that would be. Getting children to believe in morality seems to be important.

    You could in theory get children to believe in morality without a moral myth. Communism tried to do that but did it work? Confucianism may be an example of a moral order that does rely on myths. Atheists seem to be more moral on average than your average theist who was born into rather than choose their religion but this might be more about the ideologically thoughtful people being more moral than the ideologically disinterested people are.

    When it comes to the ideologically disinterested I think group myths help restrain selfish criminality.


    But looting another people and stealing their resources can strengthen a nation the way gold looted from native Americans temporarily made Spain more powerful than Spain would have been without looting. But how could Spain maintain it's domestic taboo against stealing while engaging in a national program of mass theft? The Myths that ban stealing domestically were modified to allow stealing so long as the stealing in some way advanced Christianity. The Spanish position was that requiring forced labor from native Americans was not criminal if it paid for the program to do service for the Native Americans by converting them to Christianity.


    Yes

    Yes Clinton wanted to expand US influence but I think he needed a cover story not so much for others as for himself. He would need a reason why expanding US influence is good rather than amoral.

    Hitler had his ideas why Germany should dominate the world. To us now Hitler's reasons why Germany should dominate the world look absurd but I don't doubt that he and Germans believed them.

    Mom said "share your toys", "don't take things that don't belong to you" and these ideas were accepted and the church reinforced these ideas with theology, and then a cultural overlay was added to explain that you don't have to share with those undeserving people and that taking things that don't belong to you are OK under certain circumstances. For instance advertisers and lawyers feel no shame at separating stupid people from their money. It is stealing when a physically strong man exploits the physical weakness of somebody to take their money but is not stealing when a mentally strong person exploits the mental weakness of somebody else to take their money from them.

    Smart decent US "founding fathers" bought arguments that slavery did not need to be immediately abolished for it's immorality. The arguments for tolerating slavery were like Hitler's argument for dominating the world and yet smart good people chose to believe these arguments. Maybe the difference between Psychopaths and the rest of us is that Psychopaths are honest to themselves about their selfish amorality and accept their amorality while the rest of us lie to ourselves and try fool ourselves into thinking we are moral while still at our core being amoral like the psychopath.

    Our learned conditioned morality is bogus and our learned compassion is bogus; only our real compassion/empathy can't be circumvented with some bullshit loophole in the laws of morality which we can use to steal what we want while still believing we are moral and good.

    I don't think Clinton is a psychopath therefore I assume that he told himself the lies he needed to tell himself in order to selfishly accumulate power for the sake of power on the behalf of the USA.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    Back in the days of the Shoah, one of the slogans of the Jew haters was: “Jews to the Ovens.” Now, it causes me anguish to say, we have Israeli Orthodox rabbis saying the same about the Palestinians.

    Thanks to Cicero for pointing me to a shocking passage in an Israeli Orthodox “family magazine,” Fountains of Salvation, which suggests that Israel will create death camps for Palestinians in order to wipe them out like Amalek. The article attacks Israeli rabbis who dispute the letter recently circulated from pro-settler extremist rabbis which urged that no Israeli Jew rent apartments or homes to Israeli Palestinians. It chided them for being “politically correct” and refusing to do their jobs and educate the populace in the true path of Torah (which is presumably to hate Palestinians).

    The last paragraph (page 4 of the original) though is the whopper:

    It will be interesting to see whether they leave the assembly of the Amalekites [Palestinians] in extermination camps to others, or whether they will declare that wiping out Amalek is no longer [historically] relevant. Only time will tell…

    A few words of explanation. There is a Biblical command for Jews to wipe out Amalek because of the viciousness with which that people attacked Israelites. Essentially, this is a Jewish call to commit genocide against Amalek. We should note that the Bible records such Jewish campaigns against other tribes as well (Moabites, Jebusites) and no doubt others did the same to their enemies.​
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page