Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
AlasBabylon

Assad: Israelis Helping Terrorists

179 posts in this topic

And all that was in retaliation to Israels occupation of Lebanon and the killing of innocent civilians. If Israel didn't do that then there would be Hezbollah. lol If you advocate the US and European forces fighting in Afghanistan because of 9/11 then you would be a hypocrite to say Hezbollah was not right in fighting back. Yes suicide bombing are not a nice way to do it, but we use airstrikes which flatten areas and kill far more civilians than any suicide bomber. lol I find it hilerious how we are so disgusted by suicide bombing when we allow our military to carry out massacres on a larger scale. lol

And why, precisely, did Israel need to go into Lebanon in the first place? Not to holiday in their beautiful resorts and lovely beaches, that's for sure.

And I'd rather be a live hypocrite than a dead fool.

Both Israel and America, as democracies, fight defensive wars to protect themsleves. They do not have expansionist mentalities, or populations which are militarily aggressive. they are not driven by hatreds ideologies and religious leaders determined to exterminate other countries and peoples. They wish only to secure the integrity of their borders, the safety of their people and the abilty to trade and move freely around the world. Defensive wars, especially in the face of terrorism, or guerilla warfare, may include tactics and strategies not normal in conventional warfare. America has been aware of that particular lesson since losing the war in Vietnam.

One cannot allow an enemy to win just because it uses tactics that mean it hides among civilians, or indeed pretends to be a part of the civilian population. Especially not an enemy that, if it won, would do so much harm to so many human beings in its own region and around the world. For many, the ultimate aim is a religious caliphate which encompasses every person and nation in the world under the banner of islam.

That would mean, for example, that women did not get an education, and had none of the basic rights they enjoy in our part of the world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Both Israel and America, as democracies, fight defensive wars to protect themsleves.

They do not fight defensive wars to protect themselves. LOL

Yeah Al Qaeda's planes and boats could have landed at the US if the US didn't do something. LOL

If The US is fighting Al Qaeda to defend themselves IN Afghanistan why did they support the same group in Libya? lol

Defense. lmfao

As for Saddam, that was a slaughter, Iraqi tanks didn't even have the same range as US tanks. That was a complete offensive war. No defense whatsoever. Same with Afghanistan. If you think that is defense, it's a pretty twisted view.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious differences always bring war and we never learn the lessons to the way of peace and to be good custodians of the world. How sad it is when I can hear John Lennon singing "Imagine" and the part of "no religion too"!

I some times think God would rather us be sceptical athiests than do all the wrong things that are done in his name and religion! If nations could only focus on peace and the golden rule instead of greed and dominance. God's spirit would be with us instead of the religions that are mostly man made preferences toward their own concepts of God's messages. Nations in the name of religions seem to miss the whole point of the Kingdom to come and the way toward peace and life.

Its not really religion that causes wars, it is the psychological and biological nature of human beings. Religion is a part of that nature, but so to is a fear of difference and an inabilty to empathise with more than a limited number of human beings. Before christianity imposed a centralised peace on europe there was constant warfare based on non religious reasons. For a considerable perod of time christianity brought a period of unity and peace where even the vikings once christianised stopped raiding This unification probably saved europe from conquest by the mongols and the muslims (although in both cases luck also played a part) Of course with the reformation, and the division into protestantism and catholicism, it all broke out again.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

~snip

That would mean, for example, that women did not get an education, and had none of the basic rights they enjoy in our part of the world.

YOu are not speaking of Islam Mr Walker .... they are not practicing Islam ..

Women's Rights in Islam

The rights of Muslim women were given to us by Allah (SWT), who is All-Compassionate, All-Merciful, All-Just, All-Unbiased, All-Knowing and Most Wise. These rights, which were granted to women more than 1400 years ago, and were taught by the perfect example of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), were given by the one Who created us and Who alone knows what rights are best for our female natures. Allah (SWT) says in the Quran:

"O You who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at time of marriage) you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honorably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings

through it a great deal of good." (An-Nisa 4:19)

The most basic right of a woman in Islam is the knowledge and recognition that she never has to ask or demand or fight for her rights which are guaranteed to her by Allah (SWT) Himself.

link

~edit : font format adjustment

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOu are not speaking of Islam Mr Walker .... they are not practicing Islam ..

Women's Rights in Islam

link

~edit : font format adjustment

I'm sure this will be wonderful news to the women of Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Pakistan..... But the point does highlight a problem for the west. What is "real" Islam and what is apostasy or "radicalism"? I believe the Qur'an and Hadiths provide all the indictment of Islam that is necessary to prove it to be a warlike religio-political system of domination. By arguing over the purity of Islam as a religion one loses sight of the FACT that it is mostly about the acquisition of power, land and the subjugation of non-believers and always has been since Muhammad came to Mecca. And if you are going to throw the crusades at me don't bother. My examples are a lot more recent - hence the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do not fight defensive wars to protect themselves. LOL

Yeah Al Qaeda's planes and boats could have landed at the US if the US didn't do something. LOL

If The US is fighting Al Qaeda to defend themselves IN Afghanistan why did they support the same group in Libya? lol

Defense. lmfao

As for Saddam, that was a slaughter, Iraqi tanks didn't even have the same range as US tanks. That was a complete offensive war. No defense whatsoever. Same with Afghanistan. If you think that is defense, it's a pretty twisted view.

One doesnt have to be physically invaded to have the need to defend oneself,

if ones trade, commerce or people overseas are attacked, then a country needs to take steps to defend those things.

But israel,of course, has been under physical territorial attack as well as constant guerilla and terrorist attack, since it declared its formation as an independent state in the late forties (And actually before this as well)

America first went to war with saddam because of his invasion and occupation of saudi arabia (remember that) and America was an ally of the saudis (The same sort of reason world wars 1 and 2 began)

The second invasion is more problematical but saddam probably overplayed his propaganda hand. From statements he made and some of his technicians who defected,the allies believed he had either primitive nuclear, or more advanced biological, weapons; and was prepared to use them. He had indeed used chemical weapons against kurds in his own country. He was also rebuilding his military and making threaening noises

The reason for invasion then was more arguable, but given the lessons of history it is better to do something sooner than later with such dictators.

In afghanistan, as with south vietnam America went in to defend a govt (and to the american people, more significantly the people of those countries, against an aggressor. The relative merits of the differentt groups are again debatable, but in my opinion South vietnam was a better place to live than north vietnam and afghanistan under the taliban woud be a far worse place to live than without them in charge. In those cases America went in to aid another govt from overthrow and to protect the peole from oppression.. in afghanistan only about 15 % of women are literate and about 60% are forced into arranged marriages. Part of the american aims for afganistan are to change those statistics, and to free the women from oppression but also to have a free democratic society which allows some differences in religion etc.

Americas greatest and most costly war was the civil war to free its slaves. It has perhaps an idealistic but noble ideal, that people around the world should be as free as Americans are.

There is a war raging around the world between that freedom, and a religious based oppression represented, at its extreme, by what happens when the taliban and other islamic extremists take control of a country.

It is fought within nations and across borders and it affects more civilians than soldiers. it has been going on for decades now with little sign of abating. One side is too militarily weak to ever win it, The other is too "nice" (a wide range of political, philosophical, ethical /moral and social attitudes constrains us) to use the methods needed to do so.

Pick which side you want to be on, and approve of, but be aware everyone will be forced to take and justify their position on this at some time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this will be wonderful news to the women of Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Pakistan..... But the point does highlight a problem for the west. What is "real" Islam and what is apostasy or "radicalism"? I believe the Qur'an and Hadiths provide all the indictment of Islam that is necessary to prove it to be a warlike religio-political system of domination. By arguing over the purity of Islam as a religion one loses sight of the FACT that it is mostly about the acquisition of power, land and the subjugation of non-believers and always has been since Muhammad came to Mecca. And if you are going to throw the crusades at me don't bother. My examples are a lot more recent - hence the problem.

Yes ... and you are part of all that is at the very core of it ....

65125_10152309360520475_800937937_n.jpg

adding to the war cries helps none ... over there yonder where they are or there where you are ....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

YOu are not speaking of Islam Mr Walker .... they are not practicing Islam ..

Women's Rights in Islam

link

~edit : font format adjustment

I am speaking of what actually happens in non western, "Islamic states." In the west women have more rights in general, which imparts those rights to islamic women, but in the cultures and partriachal societies of "the east", women are oppressed and live in conditions last experienced by western women in the 1800s.

It doesnt matter what islam says, when the states under islam do not practice the tenets of Islam. And anyway, why should any one, woman or not, be legally bound by religious laws, UNLESS that is done within a full democratic govt/society.

In a non democratic society, no one has a moral or ethical right to impose their belief on anyone else. In a democratic society their may be a legitimate social consensus to do this.

Ps gee it must be tough for a woman who A. believes she has humans rights beyond what allah grants her (or doesnt believe in allah and his ability to grant her anything) and B. wants more rights than allowed by allah.

The most basic right of a woman in Islam is the knowledge and recognition that she never has to ask or demand or fight for her rights which are guaranteed to her by Allah (SWT) Himself.

You do realise how "old christian" this attitude to women sounds dont you? It is how christians viewed and treated women for centuries, and its not good enough. "Oh i dont have to give my wife any rights She already has all her rights outlined by god, and who am I to argue with god."

Such attitudes create, "a place/space" for women in a society and constrain/limit them to an existence within that place/space. True rights for women (and for anyone) do not constrain them in any way but free them; to be anything and do anything..

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please research why Hezbollah was created. Then you might see who the true terrorists are.

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia:

Sounds like freedom fighters to me, not terrorists. Israeli forces killed a lot of innocent woman and children. That is terrorism.

I know and I agree. Mine was more tongue in cheek when I was asking. The Israeli's are quick to label everyone as terrorists but when it suits them they are supporting groups that are conducting terrorist acts against an official foreign Govt. The hypocrisy is overwhelmingly sickening.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am speaking of what actually happens in non western, "Islamic states." In the west women have more rights in general, which imparts those rights to islamic women, but in the cultures and partriachal societies of "the east", women are oppressed and live in conditions last experienced by western women in the 1800s.

It doesnt matter what islam says, when the states under islam do not practice the tenets of Islam. And anyway, why should any one, woman or not, be legally bound by religious laws, UNLESS that is done within a full democratic govt/society.

In a non democratic society, no one has a moral or ethical right to impose their belief on anyone else. In a democratic society their may be a legitimate social consensus to do this.

They are practically surviving under antagonistic oppression too Mr Walker .... women's rights for women to be influenced by and for the 'enemy' is the last thing on their agenda,

Morals to you has no bearing on the morals of theirs .... how many generations ? The social structure is practically non existent anymore.

603667_580756098615208_986330518_n.jpg

Yes but Strength to and for what purpose ?

YOu can't make or remake a society by way of force or eradication of what you find unsuitable to your purpose of faith or ideals .....

You can't decide what is selective memory or history to your wants and whims ....

How many generations more ?

All Islam wants is to be Islam ... not permission to be the Islam you want it to be or not be the Islam you say it will be ... that's all .... you wants it to be more alike other faiths by means of lies and misinformation .... you too would find that offensive if directed at your faith.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And why, precisely, did Israel need to go into Lebanon in the first place? Not to holiday in their beautiful resorts and lovely beaches, that's for sure.

And I'd rather be a live hypocrite than a dead fool.

Both Israel and America, as democracies, fight defensive wars to protect themsleves. They do not have expansionist mentalities, or populations which are militarily aggressive. they are not driven by hatreds ideologies and religious leaders determined to exterminate other countries and peoples. They wish only to secure the integrity of their borders, the safety of their people and the abilty to trade and move freely around the world. Defensive wars, especially in the face of terrorism, or guerilla warfare, may include tactics and strategies not normal in conventional warfare. America has been aware of that particular lesson since losing the war in Vietnam.

One cannot allow an enemy to win just because it uses tactics that mean it hides among civilians, or indeed pretends to be a part of the civilian population. Especially not an enemy that, if it won, would do so much harm to so many human beings in its own region and around the world. For many, the ultimate aim is a religious caliphate which encompasses every person and nation in the world under the banner of islam.

That would mean, for example, that women did not get an education, and had none of the basic rights they enjoy in our part of the world.

You need to stop trolling mate.

  1. If Israel hasn't got expansionist ideals why are they holding onto occupied territory (just to point out, the UN and the world calls it occupied, not disputed territory)? Answer.....
  2. If the US isn't militarily aggressive as you claim, how come they've invaded Vietnam and Iraq through lies and they've illegally invaded and occupied countries such as Panama and Grenada all in the last 50 years, just to name a few. The CIA has been involved in all sorts of illegal activities since WWII. Answer....
  3. They want to secure the integrity of their borders? I thought their borders were with Mexico and Canada? What are they doing in the ME? Who made the US the police of the world? Answer....

Edited by Black Red Devil
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ... and you are part of all that is at the very core of it ....

65125_10152309360520475_800937937_n.jpg

adding to the war cries helps none ... over there yonder where they are or there where you are ....

Where in my statement did I ask for war? Is even mentioning war an advocacy of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick which side you want to be on, and approve of, but be aware everyone will be forced to take and justify their position on this at some time.

And there is the difference. As I have explained many times. I am not on anyone's "side" i am for peace and equality. Something Israel does not want a sit would be against their prophecy....

I will however laugh my head off is this prophecy nonsense happened to Iran instead and the "messiah" was on their side. LOL

Going by this map, it seems more likely as well:

Iran-wants-war.jpg

And unlike Israel, Iran isn't trying to bring it on. lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One doesnt have to be physically invaded to have the need to defend oneself,

if ones trade, commerce or people overseas are attacked, then a country needs to take steps to defend those things.

Can you provide an example of where this is happening.

But israel,of course, has been under physical territorial attack as well as constant guerilla and terrorist attack, since it declared its formation as an independent state in the late forties (And actually before this as well)

Then again, "terrorists" is subjective right?? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, remember??!

America first went to war with saddam because of his invasion and occupation of saudi arabia (remember that) and America was an ally of the saudis (The same sort of reason world wars 1 and 2 began)

The second invasion is more problematical but saddam probably overplayed his propaganda hand. From statements he made and some of his technicians who defected,the allies believed he had either primitive nuclear, or more advanced biological, weapons; and was prepared to use them. He had indeed used chemical weapons against kurds in his own country. He was also rebuilding his military and making threaening noises

The reason for invasion then was more arguable, but given the lessons of history it is better to do something sooner than later with such dictators.

So, in your opinion, it's OK and justifiable that a million people have died since then, over some threatening noises? You should be ashamed for even thinking of something as sick as this.

In afghanistan, as with south vietnam America went in to defend a govt (and to the american people, more significantly the people of those countries, against an aggressor. The relative merits of the differentt groups are again debatable, but in my opinion South vietnam was a better place to live than north vietnam and afghanistan under the taliban woud be a far worse place to live than without them in charge. In those cases America went in to aid another govt from overthrow and to protect the peole from oppression.. in afghanistan only about 15 % of women are literate and about 60% are forced into arranged marriages. Part of the american aims for afganistan are to change those statistics, and to free the women from oppression but also to have a free democratic society which allows some differences in religion etc.

They went in to protect people and particularly women from oppression?? LOL, Read this.

Americas greatest and most costly war was the civil war to free its slaves. It has perhaps an idealistic but noble ideal, that people around the world should be as free as Americans are.

There is a war raging around the world between that freedom, and a religious based oppression represented, at its extreme, by what happens when the taliban and other islamic extremists take control of a country.

It is fought within nations and across borders and it affects more civilians than soldiers. it has been going on for decades now with little sign of abating. One side is too militarily weak to ever win it, The other is too "nice" (a wide range of political, philosophical, ethical /moral and social attitudes constrains us) to use the methods needed to do so.

Pick which side you want to be on, and approve of, but be aware everyone will be forced to take and justify their position on this at some time.

Well this is the epitome of ignorance.

It's up to the local population to eradicate extremism from their societies. It's up to the local population to eradicate discrimination against women, homosexuals and other religious affiliates from their societies. It's not up to western powers to force their ways of life onto these people through military indoctrination. Sure, we can assist and guide but when we go in and invade, even more so under false pretenses and leave a trail of destruction, do you really expect the locals to thank us for our help and intervention? When new groups of fanatical antiwestern "terrorists" rise, who is to blame?

You can scrutinise and rationalise the situation in the middle east in your simplistic, pro western, Fox News driven, brainwashed and naive method but please spare us your glorification of a society as a bastion of freedom due to the civil war when this same society you glorify was still segregating "negroes" in the 1960's-70's.

Mr Walker, you are a totally biased, brainwashed and gullible media influenced puppy I have to say.

Edited by Black Red Devil
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where in my statement did I ask for war? Is even mentioning war an advocacy of it?

Well .. you sure do a fine job promoting it ...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are practically surviving under antagonistic oppression too Mr Walker .... women's rights for women to be influenced by and for the 'enemy' is the last thing on their agenda,

Morals to you has no bearing on the morals of theirs .... how many generations ? The social structure is practically non existent anymore.

603667_580756098615208_986330518_n.jpg

Yes but Strength to and for what purpose ?

YOu can't make or remake a society by way of force or eradication of what you find unsuitable to your purpose of faith or ideals .....

You can't decide what is selective memory or history to your wants and whims ....

How many generations more ?

All Islam wants is to be Islam ... not permission to be the Islam you want it to be or not be the Islam you say it will be ... that's all .... you wants it to be more alike other faiths by means of lies and misinformation .... you too would find that offensive if directed at your faith.

Islam has no more right to oppress women than anyone else. It has no more right to oppress women than christianity or any man has to.

Freedom comes first. Only in a true informed democracy, where all are educated and can make free and informed choices can any one CHOOSE to be ruled by belief. If a woman in a free, democratic, western, society; where she is educated and can speak freely, wants to folow the rules of Islam, that's fair enough.

Where a woman is uneducated, the property of her father and afraid to voice an opinion contrary to her society, then she CANNOT make a free and informed choice to follow Islam.

This applies to the wider question you raise. Is it justifiable in this day and age for a society to operate on moralities and beliefs that are destructive and oppressive. Should a society like america or Australia just say Oh its their culture. We shouldnt impose our beliefs on them. What if they still kept slaves? What if they mutilate children? Oh Just let them be and do nothing.

Basically, up to this point, that has been the world's attitude, but with increasing globalisation and media coverage/social awareness, it is changing, as is our attitude to the rights of children around the world. Why should women in one country be less free than those in another. We can change things via economic means, through education etc. but sometimes, as with the american civil war, the only way to free people is enforce change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~snip~

Now you are just being a disappointment to your faith and beliefs ... why can't you see the past your discrimination of the situation ?

Why can't you see that both your faith and ISlam shares the same Judaic roots ? How did the present become what it is there now ?

Do you deny all responsibility of the so called well intentions of your cultured civilisation ?

541455_574474499253185_1636819871_n.jpg

Would JC alias Nabi Isa have had approved ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide an example of where this is happening.

Then again, "terrorists" is subjective right?? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, remember??!

So, in your opinion, it's OK and justifiable that a million people have died since then, over some threatening noises? You should be ashamed for even thinking of something as sick as this.

They went in to protect people and particularly women from oppression?? LOL, Read this.

Well this is the epitome of ignorance.

It's up to the local population to eradicate extremism from their societies. It's up to the local population to eradicate discrimination against women, homosexuals and other religious affiliates from their societies. It's not up to western powers to force their ways of life onto these people through military indoctrination. Sure, we can assist and guide but when we go in and invade, even more so under false pretenses and leave a trail of destruction, do you really expect the locals to thank us for our help and intervention? When new groups of fanatical antiwestern "terrorists" rise, who is to blame?

You can scrutinise and rationalise the situation in the middle east in your simplistic, pro western, Fox News driven, brainwashed and naive method but please spare us your glorification of a society as a bastion of freedom due to the civil war when this same society you glorify was still segregating "negroes" in the 1960's-70's.

Mr Walker, you are a totally biased, brainwashed and gullible media influenced puppy I have to say.

1. 368 examples of hezbollah attacks alone documented by homeland security. link previously supplied

2. In part but there are also internationally recognised acts of terrorism that define terrorism In general defence of a nation state is not, by definition, terrorism. Terrorism Is an act designed mostly to create terror in tha citizens of a population for a politiacl end Rather than a military one Acts of war do NOT have that primary design.

3 We disagree just why those million people died and who is to blame for their deaths.

4. The american people, as a whole, only accept american military intervention where it is justified within their ethical and moral beliefs The american govt cannot act very far beyond its constituents beliefs. So yes. When america goes to war, despite every thing its detractors say it is almost always for altruistic purposes America is one of the worlds great "good guys". if anything it is a bit slow to act and intervene, because its people are generally conservative, isolationist, and non interventionist in foreign policy. It took a lot to get them involved in world war 1 and 2., for example

5. No its not ignorance.

Is it up to a local population to overthrow oppressors, to end child slavery, to stop the sexual enslavement of women ?

Not any more. It is a global and international responsibilty. Countries no longer have the moral or ethicla right to treat their citizens as they wish or to indulge in desrtructive and harmful policies.

The only practical problem is what can efectively be done about it. Bu,t for example a country can ban chocolates made from child labour or garments made by women in sweat shop conditions. Of COURSE we have a right and an obligation to do something to end slavery and oppression, and even animal cruelty How can we not, when we know how much hurt and harm it does?

Despite its flaws my comments about america remain. I live in one of the free-est, most equal, most socially supportive and prosperous countries in the world. I am lucky but i also have an obligation to help all other humans to achieve the same life as i have. Make up your mind. Are you on the side of freedom or oppression.

No. One cant force liberation on people, but one can remove the conditions of oppression and allow them the opportunity to grab freedom.

If you are so naive and gullible as to think that america is an Oppresive force in this world you are on the wrong, and the losing, side in this ongoing battle betwen freedom and oppression.

Do you ever read any books by women from some of those islamic countries who have managed to escape from them?

Ps A negro in america in the 1960s was almost certainly freer than any citizen of the soviet union/bloc, at the same time.

Yes america is not perfect, but like australia it is among the "best" of humanity. It is interesting I find that people who do not honour or like their own countries also tend to lack self esteem and respect and honour for themselves. After all, if you are the citizen of a democracy, then by default you are a part of its system of govt society etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now you are just being a disappointment to your faith and beliefs ... why can't you see the past your discrimination of the situation ?

Why can't you see that both your faith and ISlam shares the same Judaic roots ? How did the present become what it is there now ?

Do you deny all responsibility of the so called well intentions of your cultured civilisation ?

541455_574474499253185_1636819871_n.jpg

Would JC alias Nabi Isa have had approved ?

I have NO idea what you are referring to. In my opinion and experience with god, ALL religions which connect humans to the one god, and help them be all that they can be as human beings, are positive and creative. There IS no one true religion only different ways of connecting to the one true god. There is no singular path to god because god is already with us. One only needs to open ones mind and heart and "he" is there, all about you, and within you.

God has no favourites and takes no sides, apart from the internal rules of behaviour he expects from all of us, what ever our religion. It is about your personal connection to, and relationship with, the one true, real, powerful and sapient, god. The god of the jew muslim jainist gaean pagan christian is exacltly the same god. Real, physical, powerful, concerned and loving and connected intimately to every one of us; body mind and soul.

Because I am one with every person on earth via the connection of god I could no more oppress a woman than allow myself to be oppressed. I could no more hurt another than hurt myself. ANd i could no more fail to prevent another being hurt, if i could stop it ,than i could fail to protect myself. We ALL have god within us, and ALL are a part of god, and we ALL deserve to be treated in this knowledge. When you harm or hurt another you hurt or harm both oyurslef and a prt of god That doesn't mean you can never hurt or harm another, but you need a damn good reason to do so.

How can a man demean his wife, or order to do his will, or have sex with her against her desire, when both he and her have god within them, and when god is watching, feeling, and participating in every aspect of their life?

Ps I am not responsible for anything "my society" does. In fact I actually oppose a lot of what my society does and what it stands for and values, but because it is a democracy I respect its laws and rules.

I am responsible to myself and to god for what I do. And i live my life every day acting in that knowledge and on that responsibilty. I can die anytime (and live every second of every day)without fear, guilt or worry, because I live by clear ethical and moral standards and I know, on balance, that I have made the world a lot better place than it was, by my life and actions.

Many, many people are alive today, with good drinking water and sanitation and an adequate diet, educated, with jobs, happier and healthier, because of how (and my wife) have lived life for over four decades.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12365_574471929253442_792603341_n.jpg

exactly ... Mr Walker ... exactly ....

522980_10152371265500475_1926491656_n.jpg

so is everyone else's

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You need to stop trolling mate.

  1. If Israel hasn't got expansionist ideals why are they holding onto occupied territory (just to point out, the UN and the world calls it occupied, not disputed territory)? Answer.....
  2. If the US isn't militarily aggressive as you claim, how come they've invaded Vietnam and Iraq through lies and they've illegally invaded and occupied countries such as Panama and Grenada all in the last 50 years, just to name a few. The CIA has been involved in all sorts of illegal activities since WWII. Answer....
  3. They want to secure the integrity of their borders? I thought their borders were with Mexico and Canada? What are they doing in the ME? Who made the US the police of the world? Answer....

Well duh! Read some real history for a change and find out. I am coming to the conclusion that you can not possibly be as ignorant as you seem to be about the real world and its real history.

This has to be some really clever propaganda campaign

To your first question only. Israel holds territory larger than the original territory of partition because it was continually and unsuccesfully attacked and invaded by arab forces.

If they had not attacked it Israel would not occupy that territory True or false?

Are you sort of suggesting that, after each attack, major or minor, Israel should turn around and say, " Here bro. I dont want this land and it dont need it to secure my borders. Lets put all the pieces back on the chess piece how they were, so that next time you attack we can start from the same place? I mean it only seems fair to give you this bit of land so your rockets are in range of our major cities and this bit to let your fighters infiltrate our border from it."

Oh yea that's really sensible. And would really contribute to the likelihood of peace. Israel has tried trading back land, won in defending itself, for peace. It gave the land back but the attacks continued . Gee, maybe the israelis dont trust those nice little arab guys. What can you expect from those evil devious jews.They never play fair.

Ps You never spent any time in gitmo did you? :devil:

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12365_574471929253442_792603341_n.jpg

exactly ... Mr Walker ... exactly ....

522980_10152371265500475_1926491656_n.jpg

so is everyone else's

There is a practical differnce between conscious presence and unconscious presence and consious absence and unconsious absence. For example I can help you (or harm you) without you ever being aware of my presence. It is differnt to lose, and feel the absence of, a loved one than never to be aware that someone is missing from your life eg a dead or adopted out sibling or indeed a biological parent.

There is only one reality and truth, and only one physical history. That is what was. All the rest is individual knowledge, perception and belief. The role of a human being is always, and in everything, to get the closest to the physical truth, reality, and history, as one can.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~snip

There is only one reality and truth, and only one physical history. That is what was. All the rest is individual perception and belief. The role of a human being is always, and in everything, to get the closest to the physical truth, reality, and history, as one can.

take a deep breath and step a little closer Mr Walker .... I promise you won't fall over the edge ...

181085_569468366410648_1193560451_n.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All political goals are short term.

I agree with you about the uncertainty of what will result. It is highly likely that in; egypt, libya and syria, along with Jordan, much more radical and islamic states will come into place. That will be bad (tragic really) for the people of those states, especially the women, but it will really only make geo- politics more obvious and transparent.

As with Iran we will know exactly what we are facing. It is a pity that the radical islamists in these countries are the best equipped and most battle hardened soldiers, because it allows them a political/strategic advantage with the collapse of any regime. The assad regime, because it is formed from and backed by only a minority religious clan, does not really have the ability to hold on to Syria in any democratic form, given that the big majority of the syrian people belong to a different religious branch of islam.

Goodness Mr. Walker! These short term political goals are counter-productive, leading to long-term crisis and conflict for everybody. I am stunned by the view that sacrificing millions of people and condemning them to decades of oppression as mere collateral damage; or that their guaranteed misery and hardship under the yolk of extremists are acceptable price for "geopolitical transparency".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness Mr. Walker! These short term political goals are counter-productive, leading to long-term crisis and conflict for everybody. I am stunned by the view that sacrificing millions of people and condemning them to decades of oppression as mere collateral damage; or that their guaranteed misery and hardship under the yolk of extremists are acceptable price for "geopolitical transparency".

I agree that Mr Walker's analysis seems pretty cold and void of compassion for the results of this crisis but in his defense I doubt he actually feels that way. Truth is that being dispassionate is all that can be done as far as I can see. When the "leader" of the free (for now) world is willing to casually sell so many into bondage and his party are sycophantic and spineless enough to uphold him in this crime then there isn't much that average Americans (or any other westerners) can do. I agree that this whole situation across the M.E. is going from bad to worse and it will hit minorities the hardest in the not so distant future. God help the Copts and any other minority group once the dust settles and an MB government is finally solidified. Indeed, God help us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.