|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Chinaski wrote: |
First, bucheon bum how can you justify this 'clean operation' (as you call it)? I'm not questoning the fact al-Zarqawi was a bad guy, but was it worth killing citizens as well to achieve this goal? Imagine if he was hiding out with a group of American hostages, could you still justify the attack? Hell, imagine if some of those hostages were your family members or friends. Would you still give the attack the green light?
|
Yup. Although if he did have hostages, I think the US would have used Special Forces instead of a couple bombs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Different forms of which take place in most countries--but that's neither here nor there. |
Different forms of what take place in which countries? Again, you do not bother to explain or elaborate. It sounds a lot like moral equivalence to me. |
I've seen you throw this phrase around quite a bit--I don't think you understand what it means. I think you think it means: "Don't even try to stop me from exceptionalizing the evils aspects of the history Islamic lands, peoples and cultures since 611 CE! Nyah-nyah-nyah!"
By comparing morally reprehensible acts, one doesn't justify or erase the crimes commited, one reminds oneself of what his house is built of. Which assists in coming to a rational understanding of an issue, with the ultimate goals of its resolution unclouded by hatred and prejudice.
And I meant forms of dhimmitude--social discrimination. And don't even start: I know dhimmitude has a unique character, but all forms of discrimination do, and this is where the moral comparison is essential: at their base roots, how different are the discriminations faced by peoples under different religious and economic systems? Now, give yourself a fighting chance and refrain from shooting back with some cut and paste anti-PC/academic rhetoric: I'll eat you alive if you do.
| Quote: |
| Muslim leaders acting for reasons other than religion? Like almost every ruler in every land with religious affiliation(or without it) throughout history? |
| bigverne wrote: |
| But I never said anything about how Muslim leaders have behaved. I was making a point about how Islam views polytheists. The fact that some Muslim leaders at certain points in history have not applied certain aspects of Islam does not mean those aspects do not exist. |
So what are you suggesting? You do worse than talk about how Muslim leaders behave: you make sweeping generalizations about a monolithic ISLAM that doesn't exist. Zoroastrians were given a pass on the people of the book stipulation right from the get-go. (This goes back to your homework assignment). Hindus, Buddhists and Jains(among others) didn't even suffer the jizya under many of the Mughals, and yes, for every Akbar there is an Aurangzeb--but which of the two's motives and actions where more inspired by religious thought or experiment?
If you know anything about Islam(and your posts suggest you know a little), you know that until the late 19th century many Islamic states operated without excessive dhimmitude(Since you abhor context, I will spare you the obvious comparisons with contemporaries here, if you spare me the "But Islam is more EVIL  than Dr. EVIL" spiel.) and by the late 19th century, pressure from the more powerful European states(or outright military action or colonialism[again political-economic initiatives]) had convinced most Muslim nations to make the practice illegal.
Quite simply, from Cordoba to Marawi, different religious groups have had different power relationships with Muslim leaders and subjects for centuries--and it was so almost absolutely always based more on political and economic considerations (really, really close to just "always"), arguments could be made that is just always. But again, sweeping generalizations never pan out, do they?
I don't even think you'll argue that you don't excessively generalize, and maybe it's out of some rage that stems from an affront you received, some prejudice you suffered, when you were younger; but that's just immoral equivalence--and arming yourself for years with lopsided rhetoric while all pent-up in your bedroom, then spewing your hate-filled bile all over the Internet, masked as informed opinion, is not to my mind the way forward to your goals.
The goal, as even you have stated in this very thread, is peaceful co-existence. How do you feel your thoughts and writing are helping achieve this?
Last edited by flotsam on Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chinaski
Joined: 13 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yup. Although if he did have hostages, I think the US would have used Special Forces instead of a couple bombs. |
Why should the Special Forces only be used to save American lives? Why not try to save Iraqi lives as well? Oh yeah, I forgot - American lives are worth infinitely more... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan The Chainsawman
Joined: 05 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why in the world would they be interested in taking him alive? Have you not followed the Saddam trial fiasco? Tactically they acted quickly and decisively to end a threat to the security of Iraq and American forces by bombing Al Wacko into the stone age. In all probability had special forces been sent in he may have escaped. Speed, precision, and good intellegence won the day for America and Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patchy1
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: No, not patchy's sock. New account because old account got mucked up.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Posters state "too bad" that family members were killed in that attack and yet they preach ad nauseum about 'family' when it comes to NK.
The USA should not be in Iraq in the first place. They are just as illegal as Al Qaeda, the Iranians etc who are over there.
Don't be fooled by all the pro-Zionists' propaganda about Islam, the Jihad etc, this is as much a war being fought for political reasons by the Middle Easterners, as it is a political war for the USA and Zionists.
This is a Zionist war on Iraq, and though I am not a fan of David Duke, especially about what he says about African Americans, he does say some things that are correct, especially when the CIA proves him right. Here is one of them:
CIA Official Confirms Duke is Right
| Quote: |
CIA Official Confirms Duke Was Right
By David Duke
Broadcast of 6-29-2004
The media never tires of telling you what a bad guy I am, in fact it seems these days that they use my name pejoratively for everything that is wrong in America. Any Google news search will show that hardly a day goes by when a media hack doesn�t take my name in vain.
But, it is interesting when a government insider offers evidence that this guy who everybody loves to hate was clearly right on a major issue.
Most Americans and just about 99 percent of the rest of the world now realize that the Iraq War was a huge mistake, one that has not only cost America an enormous price in money and blood, but one that will only fuel more hatred and terrorism against our nation.
At this moment our brave young soldiers are enduring terrible personal sacrifices, danger, and sometimes even disfigurement and death in a contrived war not for America but for the state of Israel. To get us into this Jewish holy war against Israel�s long-time enemy, Saddam Hussein, Americans had to be lied ..... |
How about the US and the Middle East make a deal: the US doesn't let in any immigrants from the ME in and pulls out of the ME, and the Middle Easterners will leave the US alone - no terrorist attacks on US soil?
I don't think Americans should be celebrating Al Zarqawi's death, as it probably means the conflict is going to drag on fruitlessly a bit longer, because Bush is now going to say the war is turning in the US's favor. I think this is another Vietnam, a hopeless cause, and the Middle Easterners are not going to give up, it's their land/region, just as Americans would defend their country to the last man if it were ever invaded.
(Well, it has been invaded (by the Zionists), but that's another subject.)
http://www.davidduke.com/
List of Jewish people (mostly Zionists), in the US government (a bit outdated though as it refers to the Clinton administration):
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/collect.htm
After Iraq (and Korea and Vietnam), what's it going to be? Iran? And after these "towel-heads", whose turn is it going to be? ... Maybe one day, the US itself?
The average person in the USA does not benefit from these wars and the meddling it does in other countries' affairs. These wars are not being fought for America's interests.
Interesting article, but I am not sure about what it says about the origin of the Jews:
A Jewish Defector Warns America
| Quote: |
Zionists Rule the US
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
The First World War
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed..... |
When the rightwing (David Duke etc) and the communists start sounding the same,
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm
and even some Jews are saying it, you've got to wonder whether their message could be right.
AIPAC - a Jewish lobby group that lobbies the US government for money for Israel and Zionist causes and gets it, 3 billion dollars of it annually, because the government is filled with pro-Zionist Jews. Some of it goes back into AIPAC so that it has the power to lobby more successfully for Israel and Zionist causes and influence the composition of the government so that it is under even more Zionist control. And the cycle goes on. It's a pretty good gig.
It was obvious what was going on but anyway two Harvard political science professors have written a book about it recently, and the issue is now getting the attention it deserves:
The Storm over the Jewish Lobby
| Quote: |
The Storm over the Israel Lobby
By Michael Massing
Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force as "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Published in the March 23, 2006, issue of the London Review of Books and posted as a "working paper" .....
A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations ....... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patchy1
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: No, not patchy's sock. New account because old account got mucked up.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seems like they've put their plan into action, with other people's troops doing the fighting, of course:
The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
| Quote: |
In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates."
Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon." |
| Quote: |
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon
This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14--Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.
1
At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has ....
2
The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel's satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.......
|
Last edited by patchy1 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chinaski wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yup. Although if he did have hostages, I think the US would have used Special Forces instead of a couple bombs. |
Why should the Special Forces only be used to save American lives? Why not try to save Iraqi lives as well? Oh yeah, I forgot - American lives are worth infinitely more... |
FYI, there's a war going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tarheel13
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: American and Jewish Behaviors |
|
|
First of all, Flottie, don't be ending your sentences with a preposition. If you wish your ramblings to be perceived as rational thought, basic grammar is required.
Now, let me throw this into the pot. It is little wonder that people loathe each other. I have a friend who owns a convenient store in Eastern North Carolina. He and his children went to visit grandma a couple of days ago, who lives on the outskirts of Jerusalem. There are some people you enter into a conversation wtih the first time and you just know they have the good attributes of humanity. Sam is one of them. I digress. When they landed at Tel Aviv, the children were permitted to stay with their cousin and grandma, who were there to meet them. Sam was not allowed to stay. He was turned around. He is now in New Jersey, awaiting a series of flights that will take him to the backside of Jordan, where he will be able to enter the country (don't ask me how) and re-unite for the family visit. Shlt happens.
My point: Sam came to this country with his father at about 3 years of age. They settled in New York where his father carved out a living for the family. The mother attempted to live the American Dream, but missed Jerusalem and the extended family. She returned home. All were sad, and family visits have been few and far between. This most recent happening has Sam upset, but not angry with anyone in particular, that I am certain. If it was I, the Jewish State and its American benefactors would be on my ultimate shlt list, not from any violent perspective, but more from my view of them with a plentiful lack of respect and care.
Now, if I may ramble further. I'm a Canadian. The late Lester B. Pearson, a former Prime Minister of my lethargic country, but loved in the North, was one confused fellow. He perpetrated at the U.N. the creation of the Jewish State. People define boundaries and countries, not worldly statesman out of New York City. But I guess they didn't understand underlining principles of nations and states back in the 1950s.
It's as Sam says: "You know, before they created Israel, we were able to live together, maybe not always with the best of peace, but with more peace than they'll ever see the way it is now."
Let me finish. There will be those out there who will say that I know not what Sam and his family have really been doing on their convenient store phones for the past 40 years. This point I will give you all. Peace can only happen with respectful treatment of each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: Re: American and Jewish Behaviors |
|
|
| Tarheel13 wrote: |
| First of all, Flottie, don't be ending your sentences with a preposition. |
Like plural agreement?
| Quote: |
Prepositions at the End.
Along with split infinitives, a favorite bugbear of the traditionalists. Whatever the merit of the rule � and both historically and logically, there's not much � there's a substantial body of opinion against end-of-sentence prepositions; if you want to keep the crusty old-timers happy, try to avoid ending written sentences (and clauses) with prepositions, such as to, with, from, at, and in. Instead of writing "The topics we want to write on," where the preposition on ends the clause, consider "The topics on which we want to write." Prepositions should usually go before (pre-position) the words they modify.
On the other hand � and it's a big other hand � old-timers shouldn't always dictate your writing, and you don't deserve your writing license if you elevate this rough guideline into a superstition. Don't let it make your writing clumsy or obscure; if a sentence is more graceful with a final preposition, let it stand. A sentence becomes unnecessarily obscure when it's filled with from whoms and with whiches. According to a widely circulated (and often mutated) story, Winston Churchill, reprimanded for ending a sentence with a preposition, put it best: "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put." |
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html
Make it a little more challenging, will you?
And I like your last sentence, but I have no idea what the hell that middle part is all about. More merlot this evening, sir?
==========
Dude, you are good.
You did indeed make me look. Nice work.
Last edited by flotsam on Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| patchy1 wrote: |
The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
|
 they could've had all that and more decades ago if they wanted.
But the fact is that the borders of israel were strictly laid down thousands of years ago in the bible, and Israel has never been nor will ever be an imperialist state. they're just trying to hold whats theirs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Man known as The Man
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: 3 cheers for Ted Haggard oh yeah!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| He and Yasser Arafat are both in a better place now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tarheel13
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Flottie: I am disappointed. The "middle part" is all about tone. You, above all the flotsam on this board, should understand as much.
Hmmm, Rutgers, that bastion of learning is it?
I confess, I did look. Those rules, or lack thereof, remind me of something F. Scott Fitzgerald once said: "If it sounds good, use it," or something to that effect. Then again, why not? If it looks like and Arab, talks like an Arab, and walks like an Arab, then it's got to be Bin Laden, right?
Now, Flottie, the above would be a metaphorical argument to point, not some obscure and hardly significant Rutger website on proper grammar.
Good stuff. Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tarheel13
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: Ooops...a final point... |
|
|
| Oh, Flottie, please don't get me wrong and misinterpret my words and tone. I do admire your mind at work here. You are not bereft of talent, albeit a nascent talent that will hopefully improve with the years and a fine honing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| know dhimmitude has a unique character, but all forms of discrimination do |
The difference is that dhimmitude is a codified, legalized social system, much like apartheid, which still exists in many forms today. This is why it is still illegal in many Muslim countries (and not just the Shariah ones) to convert from Islam to another religion. You cannot compare legalised discrimination to discrimination which exists in all societies, and to do so is to engage in moral equivalence. It's like saying, 'well apartheid is wrong, but discrimination exists in all societies, so who are we to criticise?'.
| Quote: |
| at their base roots, how different are the discriminations faced by peoples under different religious and economic systems? |
In most Western countries religious minorities have legally enshrined rights to practice their religions, to build houses of worship and to seek converts. The same rights do not exist in the Muslim world, and even in so-called 'moderate' Muslim nations, there is legal discrimination against religious minorities. The more Islamic a country, the more oppressed its minorities are. What a coincidence!
In the West, legal codes discriminating against minorities have been done away with (for the most part), and there was a recognition that such practices were morally wrong. When you attempt to draw a parallel between legal discrimination in the Islamic world against women, apostates and religious minorities and the kind of discrimination that exists anyway, in all societies, you reveal yourself to be a moral coward, unable to criticise what is wrong because you are desperate not to be labelled intolerant. For people like yourself, being seen to be 'tolerant' and 'compassionate' trumps any recognition of the truth.
Shariah Law is morally reprehensible, as is the ideology of Jihad against 'infidels', and both are fundamental aspects of Islam. That is why Zarqawi's death will have little effect. The ideology that gives rise to such people will still be very much alive and well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patchy1
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: No, not patchy's sock. New account because old account got mucked up.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
they could've had all that and more decades ago if they wanted.
But the fact is that the borders of israel were strictly laid down thousands of years ago in the bible, and Israel has never been nor will ever be an imperialist state. they're just trying to hold whats theirs. |
And America should be given back to the Native Americans.
Israel was only established there because the British owned Palestine. The Zionists didn't care about historical claims to a country, they just wanted to have their own land, anywhere, they even considered Kenya at one point.
And how do you know Palestinian ancestors didn't live in Israel 6000 years ago? The argument that the Jews lived there at one point in time 3000 years ago or whatever is spurious. Everybody came from Africa originally, should we all go there and make our claims? Should every continent in the world reorganize their populations to reflect what they were like 2000 years ago?
These sorts of flimsy justifications show how tenuous the morality of the Jewish claim to Palestine is. They need to be honest and just admit that they are holding the land by superior force and nothing else, except America's support.
Once America decides to wash its hands of the Israelis, the state of Israel will fall to the people who have lived there for the past 2000 years, just like how South Africa fell back into the hands of the blacks once the ANC insurgency toppled the racist white government. And I think it is inevitable this will happen. The Israelis will only have themselves to blame, for practising apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They think nobody knows what they've been up to but they forget that not everybody reads the Jew-controlled media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
