Preserved Topic: What are your thoughts on this... (Page 2 of 3)

Not even going to try and argue with that. I agree completely.
But there's always 2 sides to the story, or else people wouldn't let the US give billions of dollars to one country, funding it to demolish another, they wouldn't let the US determine how life should be for everyone everywhere. People wouldn't stand for it if they didn't have enough reason to justify it.

Blame it on ignorant North Americans, or propaganda. But somewhere there has to be a reason that people feel the way they do, or else all these conflicts would never arise in the first place. And saying one side is definately right, and the other is definately wrong seems just as ignorant as saying terrorism is only terrorism if it is used against the US.

Still though, I can't disagree with what you're saying, some of the things you mention that the US has done are as unforgivable as anything that any other nation has done to America, and the fact that every country in the world is not on the same playing field, that some have much more than others, creates a scenario where it would be impossible to punish the US for everything they've done. And maybe thats the biggest tragedy of all.

quote:

---

Animals have bodies whereas we have bodies and spirits.

---

Im sorry to be digging way back in the thread but...

Bugs: How do we know animals dont have spirits? You seem to be stating this as fact. What is the proof?



[This message has been edited by CarltonCig (edited 03-05-2002).]

CarltonCig, the burden of proof must fall on those who would prove they do have spirits. I cannot prove a negative. i.e. that they don't have spirits.

I've been in enough arguments with atheists to be reminded that it is up to me to prove God to them, not the other way round. I think that's actually quite fair.

Personally, I hope they do. I also hold out hope for the discovery of extra-terrestrial life even though it seems we currently have no tangible proof it exists.

<<the burden of proof must fall on those who would prove they do have spirits. I cannot prove a negative.>>

If you cannot prove that they don't, why state it as fact?

[This message has been edited by CarltonCig (edited 03-05-2002).]

burden of proof...

prove that you *do* have a spirit then.

*pulls out spirit*

there, see? that's my spirit.

*puts back spirit*

- - r e i t s m a - -
(tifkab)

DL-44: I was going to say that - you spoil all my fun!! My supplementary question would then be if we evolved from a last common ancestor with the chimpanzees (and around about the same time we shared a LCA with gorillas), which we must assume from the above comments didn't have a soul, when in the last c. 6-9 million years did we develop a soul? And just for fun: believers in reincarnation think that all creatures have a soul (or some kind of spirit essence separate from the physical) why are they wrong? Sorry about the last one but I can never really get a straight answer from people to the question 'why is your Book better than theirs?'.

reitsma: I only walked in when you were putting it away but that most certainly wasn't your soul...

Emps

Actually, CarltonCig, I'm not stating it as absolute fact and that is why I put a smilie after one of my comments and mention that the day it is demonstrated that they do, I'll accept it. I am simply stating things that way in the same way we say that we evolved from less complex organisms. Very few people complain when evolution is stated as fact, when it is really just the predominant theory we currently hold. As the data continues to roll in we will probably come up with some better theories as to the origin of the species.

If you need me to qualify everything I say that is really based in my basic assumptions about reality, then... nah! it's much easier to just keep doing it

DL-44 & Emps, I thought I've been trying to do that ever since I was committed to the Asylum Like I said, it's fair to ask us to prove the existence of something. But you both know that no one can prove either the existence of God or that we have spirits. The best we can do is offer as much evidence as possible to support these claims.

I'll offer this one for now. I remember hearing about an experiment to determine what portions of the brain controlled what in the human organism. A doctor was able to poke, very carefully of course, at certain areas of a patient's brain while the patient was still awake. What he discovered was that he could poke a certain area and cause a twitch in the leg, a sensation in the arm, and such things all the while the patient was telling him what he was experiencing.

The wierd thing was that the doctor realized that no matter what he stimulated, the patient was always aware and was able to describe everything as if he was detached from the actual experiment. In other words, the doctor was really trying to find areas that could cause emotions or cause the patient to say something totally of the wall. He never succeeded in that.

It is my working theory that our spirits transcend our bodies such that we can override our animal or carnal natures. I think this ability we, and not our animal friends, possess points to an external source, i.e. the spirit.

More directly to your follow up, Emps, Genesis says that the first man received the "breath of life". I firmly believe that this point in time in the development of modern man was precisely when we became "human".

And just for clarification, I don't believe there is such a thing as a soul. I believe we are dealing with bodies (arms, legs, brains, reasoning) and spirits (our will and self awareness).

I just don't see how that establishes anything...other than perhaps an unhealthy fascination with poking people's brains

Bugs: That isn't very convincing evidence of a soul (or a spirit or whatever you wish to name it) - although it goes to show that the stimulation of gross physical features in the brain can't tell us an awful lot about the subtleties of the mind.

The best evidence I'm aware of for the survival of some kind of soul after death tends to come from claims for reincarnation. I'm sceptical of the Buddhist's searches for te reincarnation of their holy men as the child picking out his belongings could be responding to subconcious cues from the monks (I've seen body language experts to similar things as tricks). However, some of the other evidence (often from people who don't actually believ in reincarnation) is very strange but it is all anecdotal and difficult to prove anything. If that is the best evidence there is then I remain unconvinced.

If you can't prove that we have a soul then it is a little difficult for me to prove that animals do. The most reasonable explanation (pending better evidence) would be that neither we nor the animals do.

I'm still unsure about the 'breath of life' business - this would imply either a Garden of Eden (and a very strict interpretation of the OT) or that God chose one 'apeman' somewhere and raised him up to the status of a 'manape' (which would imply a very interventionist God and some convoluted, unsupported/unsupportable assumptions).

Emps

Trying to prove we have spirits is like trying to prove the existence wind. The best I could do is to show the effects of something that can't be seen, right?

I might say, "look at that tree over there and how it is moving all about, well the wind is doing that".

But someone else would say that was unconvincing because everyone knows that trees just do that sometimes.

But we have much more to explain and prove the existence of wind.

If the only evidence we had was trees moving around, I'd be skeptical of wind too

For the record, I'm not necessarily saying that we *don't* have spirits. Just don't see where we have them and animals don't.

Since we are just animals like the rest.

I know nobody asked me, but I've some time...

As far as a spirit goes, I have one. I think I do, so I do. Plain as that.
Do you have a spirit? I don't know, and I really don't care.
Animals? More of the same.

I kinda feel that way about heaven and hell too. If I'm happy with the way I'm living my life...I mean really happy with me, not just joyed for the moment at some external stimulus...I'm most certainly in heaven. Same (in reverse) for hell. And when I die...or actually just before I die, I'll think about the kind of person I have been, the life I have lead, what I did productive, what I did harmful. If I'm content, I'll most certainly be in heaven, if not, I'll be in hell.

Some might argue there is more to it than that. Maybe there is...I don't know and I really don't care.
Life as a being with the ability for abstract thought and a conscience is kinda like that, for me anyway. Make the most of it while you're here...

mobrul

mobrul, do you think you will survive your physical existence?

I'm not sure I understand the question...I'll take a guess?
If you meant something else, just say so.

If you meant - do I think I'll exist, in some form or another, past my physical death - then, well, I have a couple different answers.

I think my physicalness - that is the molecules that make up my body - will go on to nurture plants & animals forever (or at least as far as I care to think about) into the future.

I think my spirit will live on past my physical death...at least in the form of memories in others, stories and whatever legacy I leave behind.

Will I be 'aware' of my existance after my physical death...good question. If I were to take a guess (as I don't really know) I would say, no. A more appropriate answer for me, though, would be, I don't care.

There is absolutely nothing that I feel I can do in this world to prepare myself for something that, if it even exists, would likely be so far removed from this worldly experience. I suppose I'll cross that bridge when I get there. (Is that the bridge that passes over the river Styx??)

Sure, there are innumerable rituals and beliefs and books and prayers that are supposed to prepare one for this supposed journey...not my cup of tea. I could go into a long explanation of why not...but let's try to keep this (relatively) short. (hehehe) Nothing intrinsically wrong with these rituals and beliefs, just not for me.

So, that being said, I'm not to worried about that journey yet. There is so much to do here on earth, the now, the present, the definate, I don't have time to get all concerned about what's next. The way I figure it, whatever IT is, it's next for a reason. Let's leave it there.

When I wrote about heaven and hell and the spirit earlier, I think I maybe didn't make it clear. They are metaphors. One can call them whatever name one wants...but they are metaphors used to describe an aspect of being human that is difficult to think about/explain in other ways...that whole 'abstract thought' thing again. Maybe there are better metaphors for others...maybe it's just cause I have (as most of us do) a fair amount of cultural baggage I'll never be free of...that's the metaphor I use.
Maybe if I lived in Southern California I'd burn patchulli incense and call it 'good karma' and 'bad karma'...whatever. It's all the same, just a different illustration of the same unmentionable...what was that about the Hebrew god's name being unmentionable...and Zen Buddhism being impossible to describe...

Answer your question...at least part way?

mobrul
[As I reread this, Bug, I remembered you are from So Cal. Unintended coincidence with that patchulli comment...though kinda funny, in an ironic sort of way.]

mobrul, thanks. That was what I was asking all right. That SoCal reference killed me, LOL!

Ok, so I get into my car to go get a burrito and what is on the radio? A discussion about a new book entitled "Does the Soul Survive?" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580230946/qid=1015533821/sr=2-1/002-8774089-8730464

What are the odds? Or was it meant to be?

Anyway, I caught the tail end of the discussion but the author was answering questions from callers that were challenging the idea. It was very interesting. Actually, the kind of evidence he was presenting was the kind that I'm very skeptical about. He was talking about people who, for instance, were "visited" by a distant relative one day only to find out the next day that they had died and the visitation coincided with the moment of their death. Could happen but that's a hard one for me to swallow.

I find myself much more swayed by the simple fact that someone can make a 180 degree turn in life against all genetic and physical predilections. That always makes me think there has to be something physically transcendent at work.

Bugimus - on a msotly unrelated note: have you kept up with reading the Thomas Cahil 'hinges of history' series?

Just curious.

I think

quote:

---

^^^ 100% ACK

---

might mean 100% acurate.

DL, I've only read the Irish one so far. I really liked it and I look forward to getting to the other ones.

I disagree with the "they hate us for no reason" statements. If you really think about it, I'm sure there is some good to desent reason. the whole supreme species thing, I don't know, but we can go to the moon

My people believe that all things have spirits...that means, that things don't just exist in this world. One can contact these spirits, when one knows how. Through contact, this is enough evidence for me.

One thing that I would like to point out: America does not train its youth to kill other human beings. Instead, America waits until someone is of age, before training them. IMHO this is a great difference, because it allows a child to develope his/her own mind and beliefs before teaching them how to kill the enemy. However, many middle east lands do train their children to kill other human beings. How is someone supposed to learn of peace and tolerance, when one is trained as a child that certain groups, or lands ,are to be seen as enemies, and killed on sight?



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2002).]

Excellent point, WebShaman. I believe Golda Meir said, "As long as the Arabs hate us more than they love their children, there will never be peace."

When this topic came up a few months back, I said I was very pessimistic about the prospects for peace in the Middle East precisely because the Palestinians were teaching their children to hate and the Israelis were not. You won't see this on the nightly news http://wtvt.com/investreptr/jihad.html

. . : newThing

I would say that the way things are currently going, there is almost no chance for peace, but certainly a chance for a real eskalation (to all-out war).
BTW - Bugs, you read Golda Meir? Or was that from an old newsreport? Very nicely quoted, if I don't say.

I just 'read' that sickening slop from the link you gave....now I'm angry To do something like that for (to) children....that's sick. And singing! Is that for real? At least the Russians loved their children (and still do...), maybe that's why the cold war stayed cold. But this!...speechless...





[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-02-2002).]

I just went to the link that Bugimus put in his post, and it further confirmed my opinion of religous practices. I have to say that as a people Muslims are not that different from Christians. Not being either, I am not really blinded by what some would call a wall of faith. The people that founded many of the western religons, and indeed America, realized the importance of people being able to disagree. The fact that some people are still teaching their children to hate should not surprise anyone, especially with the global audience we have here. The fact is. in the Muslim countries, their culture and religon are so tied together that one cannot truely exist without the other. The only reason why some of the other countries in that region are not as opposed to Western culture is that their leaders were educated elsewhere. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and so forth, the culutre is dominated by their faith. Where here in the US, our culutre is dominated by (let's be honest here) the dollar. Everything we are told to do as children is geared toward having a better life than one's parents. Every American kid has heard the stories of his grandma walking to school uphill both ways in 3 feet of snow. The reason for the stories is to make children appreciate what they have, and if they can really do that then they will be less likely to give it up. I really think the answer to the problem in the middle east is not war, but changing leadership in these countries. Give the children something positive to learn, and give the people the freedom of education. Helen Keller said, "The highest result of education is tolerance." Obviously she said that for different reasons, however I think it certainly applies here. Show the people that there is more to life than killing people who don't feel the same way you do. If we can change that then there will be peace. The only way to keep people enslaved is through ignorance. I would argue that these people are no more than slaves to their own leaders, political and religous. That's really all I can think of right now, but please remember that this is just my opinion.

John D.

Yes, I'm considering that it is just your opinion...however, christians are not 'training' their children to kill people with weapons (though in Ireland, it comes pretty close to that...). And christians do not train their children to be suicide bombers (glorifying death). IMHO this is the big difference. Sure, the 'programming' of children occurs across the planet, in every society. The difference is in what is programmed, I guess.

If someone really loves their children, then how can one send them to their deaths? IMHO, this is wrong, and goes against everything that I believe in.

I just thought I'd pop in to add my cherry to the pile and I quote:

"We think were smarter then the dolphins because we can read and write, build sky-scrapers, discuss philosophy and wage war on our enemies when all the dolphins do is swim around in the water all day.

The dolphins think their the smarter species for the exact same reason"

- D.A.A.S. Paul McDermott

Shaman, I agree with you. When they train their children to kill, and become suicide bombers, what do you think they feel? I think they look at that with some sort of honor, or pride. I think it's twisted, but as far as their culture and religon go, that kind of training is alright, and sometimes neccesary according to their view on the world. It is horrendous and needs to stop, but how can we do that without damaging their culture, or society? I think we would have to condemn their religon, and how can we do that in a politically correct war?

Jon D

Whoaaaa, john_dough.
You're looking at it all wrong.
You are confusing the reactions of a people to a desperate situation and a culture and religion.

When people are put into desperate situations, when all other hope seems to be lost, people do wierd things.
Sometimes they justify those wierd actions with religion.

This does not mean the religion itself is flawed. This does not mean the culture is flawed.
It means it is easy for people to take advantage of the name of god (Allah, Yahweh, Christ, etc) to do stupid things. It's god, afterall, we don't have to understand it...we don't have to think about it.

We should look at the conditions that brought about the rise of Wahhabism as a serious force in the Islamic world. Getting rid of Islam, or the culture and traditions of the arab people is of no use...just as it was equally foolish for Nazis to think ridding the world of Jews (or Gypsys or homosexuals or ...) would solve all their problems.
Islam is not the problem.
Putting people in desperate, degrading, no hope situations is what causes people to act in a way that would, to our niave western eyes, seem foolish.
That is the problem (or, at least most of the problem).

mobrul

Mobrul - How can you say that it is not the religon? It states very clearly in the Quran (sp) that if 'your Muslim brother' should switch sides and become Christian then he should be killed. The Quran says many things, and I know people out there are going to say that I am taking that out of context, and you are right I am. So? Does it really change the meaning that much? No. Anyway, all religon is rooted in mysticism and fear over what we cannot, or couldn't at the time, explain. There is no denying that. We still don't know everything there is to know, but we have come a long way toward science and away from religion. For thousands of years people have fought and died over something that is so trivial, to me anyway, and ultimately pointless. Really is it worth destroying a nation and a creed over whether or not some guy 200 years ago was who he said he was? And if the remaining Jews are the 'Chosen People' of God, then why are they dying in the street like dogs at the hands of the infidel? I have never bought into all that religious voodoo, and I know this may upset a vast majority of people but this is what comes to mind whenever someone talks to me about culture and religion.

To try and make a point out of all this:

I do agree with you Mobrul when you said, "When people are put into desperate situations, when all other hope seems to be lost, people do wierd things. Sometimes they justify those wierd actions with religion." - All of that I agree with, but what is really desperate about their situation? Arafat has had several chances to make peace, and get everything he wants, but he has not done so. Why? Because he wants this.

I cannot agree with this - "This does not mean the religion itself is flawed. This does not mean the culture is flawed.
It means it is easy for people to take advantage of the name of god (Allah, Yahweh, Christ, etc) to do stupid things. It's god, afterall, we don't have to understand it...we don't have to think about it." - It's precisley why we must question religon and our faith, to ensure that if we are doing something it is really what God, or whoever, wants. Also, IMHO if a particular religon sponsors suicide and killing those who are different than you, then yes it must be wrong. I am not saying I am religous, but isn't God supposed to be benevolent? I thought God promised Moses that he would never do anything to hurt his people after the flood. Or at least that was the impression I got.

To end this I'll just say that I am, for various reasons, a proponent of church and state seperation, and that's what I meant when I was talking about changing the Islamic culture and religon. I think a country's leader should not be some fanatic that wants everyone to think the way he/she does about spirituality. Anyway, I hope I sleared that up a little. If not, oh well I'll be back later anyway.

John D - <stepping of the soapbox for the evening>

"This does not mean the religion itself is flawed. This does not mean the culture is flawed."

If you ask me then I'd say yes.

We live in a world where religion, culture and society dictate our laws and tell us what is right from wrong. Legally, ethically or morally we are rarely encouraged to seek out the answers to this ourselves.

The whole eye for an eye system that seems to dominate the world is fundamentally flawed. That's not to say that justice should not be carried out, indeed it should. But is this really the best way to deal with situations? Is revenge really going to help anything? Although in truth you could spend years debating over the topics that have been raised here and still not reach a mutual understanding. Which is why I think it needs to be stripped down to a bare minimum. Is killing wrong? Fundamentally, Yes, yes it is. Is there anything that could possibly justify it. No!

Question your faith, and do it often! Truth is a greater virtue than faith for without the truth, your life is a farce. You owe it to yourself to seek out the truth wherever and whenever possible. It's your life, you may only get one chance at living it. I couldn't think of anything worse then discovering at age 90 (or worse yet, after your dead) that your beliefs are actually false simply because you didn't question them. And most importantly, live up to the truth you find.

Good job. I like that part about truth, very well written I am impressed. Thanks.


John D.

For anyone who is attempting to understand what the real reasons are for the conflict in the region:

http://www.mediareviewnet.com/jewsforjustice.htm

I didn't know this before, and upon reading the complete article, my beliefs have changed, somewhat regarding the situation. I especially like this passage:

Gandhi on the Palestine conflict ? 1938

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French?What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct?If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs?As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."

Mahatma Gandhi quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr

Ok, I still don't agree with using children as bombs, but at least I now understand why the Palestinians are so desperate in this case...I mean, let's face it, who wouldn't react against 'invaders' in one's own land, supported by other great powers of the world...seems that the Palestinians have a real reason for grievence...

This part disturbes me deeply...

Expansionism ? continued

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt`s personal diaries, there in an excerpt from May of 1995 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows:"[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no-it must- invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation- and ? revenge?and above all- let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we nay finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space."

Quoted in Livia Rokack, "Israel?s Sacred Terrorism."




[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-11-2002).]

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-11-2002).]

Perhaps I didn't write clearly enough...
...or perhaps I took for granted many people around here have a good idea my thoughts on religion, state, and power.

Seperation of church and state = I absolutely agree
Religion is often used to justify doing stupid things = I absolutely agree
All religion is rooted in mysticism... = I agree
...and fear over what we cannot...explain = I agree

That being said:
The Israeli / Palestinian conflict is not about religion. Clerics and rabbis and leaders, generals, and polititions of both sides may try to convince the world of that -- especially their own followers -- but at its heart, this is not about religion. This is about land. This is about the oppression and terror brought upon a desperate population for 35 years or more. Religion is a clever way to get them to go kill themselves in defense of their homeland. Fighting for god is a much more motivating factor than fighting for a person...even yourself.

There is a saying 'there are no atheists on the battlefield'.
While I'm not entirely sure that is true, I would believe that many people facing death suddenly take a great interest in some god somewhere. It's easier to face death when you think god is on your side...

When I said "It's god, afterall, we don't have to understand it..." I was being sarcastic. Many people here are familiar with my thoughts...I assumed (incorrectly) you would be too. I apologize.

And, as for Arafat having many chances to make peace....
Everybody wants peace, the important question to ask it, "at what cost?"
Hitler wanted peace...but it was not a peace the world could live with.
Sharon wants peace...as long as the Palestinians are all treated like dogs, squirming under his boot...or better yet, dead.
Do you really think Sharon wants an equitable peace?
If so, why would settlement populations double since Oslo was signed?
Why did Sharon do what he did, Sept 1982?
Why would he advocate keeping the Palestinians in bantustan style villages, seperated from their families, commerce and the ability to build infrastructure, schools, etc?

After every single suicide bombing in this most current intifada, Arafat has said, publicly, in Arabic, he detests and is against the taking of civilian life...on both sides of the conflict. He is against suicide bombers who target civilians.
Still, what do we hear in America...what does Sharon say, "Arafat isn't speaking out against terrorists."
Ever hear Sharon say he detests the fact his soldiers, on his orders, shot dead a 12 yr old boy hiding behind his father?
Ever hear Sharon say he detests his tanks driving into Palestinian orchards and villages, knocking down their trees, their commerce and their homes?
Ever hear Sharon say he detests that Palestinian children can't go to school because his soldiers use them for Apache gun ship target practice?

Who's not speaking out against what terror?

This is the desperate situtation.
This is the cause of the problem.
It's not religion.
It's the occupation.

mobrul

<edit>stupid spelling mistake</edit>

[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 04-11-2002).]

I would agree that the creation of the Jewish nation in 1948 is a mitigating factor in the conflict. However it was Arafat who declined to sign the agreement with Sharatt under the C*****n administration. Sharatt was going to give Arafat everything the Palestinians have been asking for since the late 60's, and yet he still declined. I know that both sides are wrong on this issue, but what is the solution? We couldn't very well throw the 6 million Jews out in the cold, and the Palestinians will not stop until they have their land back. They can't really co-exist because of the cultural and religous differences. To force them to live together under one nation would be tantamount to genocide for one or the other. The sad thing is IMHO they don't know what else to do but fight. If someone was doing to the US what Arafat is doing to Israel then the US would wipe them out. No question about that. On the other hand, the US took all the land the belonged to the Native Americans, and killed them or forced them to move. Now there are only a handful of "reservations" in the US. As a result, several tribes of Native Americans are gone, or on their way out. Is that what we should do with the Jews or the Arabs? <sarcastic>

John D. (why does former Prez. C*****n's name get astriked out? That's pretty funny.)

[This message has been edited by john_dough (edited 04-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by john_dough (edited 04-12-2002).]

Mobrul, when the West Bank wasn't occupied and was held by the Arabs, why did they attack Israel? Can't you see this is not about the occupation? The Israelis occupied land *after* the Arabs attempted to drive them into the sea.

Now either you agree with them that eliminating the Jewish state is the solution or you have to come to terms with why the Arabs are unwilling to work out a peace deal... which means there must be compromise from both sides.

Webshaman, at this point it doesn't matter that some Israeli leaders envisioned more land than what the 1948 borders encompassed. What matters is how to work out a peaceful settlement for the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Israelis have demonstrated that they are willing to strike a deal. It is the Palestinians right now, as we speak, who are unwilling to do this. Hamas has publicly announced its goal which is to oppose any peace agreement and desires the destruction of the Jewish nation. Over half of the Palestinians say they support Hamas! Not to mention all the other hostile nations that with the exception of Jordan and Egypt have never ever recognized Israel's right to exist.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-12-2002).]

john_dough, I was just re-reading your last post and thought I would point out that I think most Israelis are going to support the construction of a wall. I mean, literally a barrier between them and the West Bank just like they've already done around Gaza. I think they realize that an entire generation of Palestinians has rejected a peace settlement and the best thing to do is wall off and ride it out.

Well Bugs, normally I expect from you a pretty accurate view of the things...and, in the past, this has mostly been the case. However, on this point, you are wrong. Why? Well, first of all, though it may appear correct to say that the Israeli's didn't occupy land until after the war, one first has to consider that a) the establishment of Israel was occupying someone else's land and b) the Israelies 'instigated' the war (just read the article that I posted, it's all in there).

To the point: The Israelies (as a group) I think very much would like peace. However, the track record of their government disputes this at every level. For all the UN resolutions that have been made (and signed), the Israelies have yet to uphold 1 (one) of them. Combined with all the events of the past, it is little wonder that groups like Hamas have sprung up, that the Neighbors of Israel no longer have any 'trust' in Israeli's government, or intentions. Also, the taking of land, even after a war (i.e. occupation) is against International Law. And why is it impossible for a Palestinian to have equal citizenship (rights, etc) in Israel? Even Palestinians that were born in Israel don't have equal rights under the law. And that is justice? No, it's not just the Palestinians that have caused the problems here, and to be blunt...they didn't start the problems, have mostly been victims of Israeli aggression. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Palestinians are somehow 'innocent'. That is clearly not the case...they could of course choose non-violent means to express their indignation and outrage. However, to say that the Israelis want peace and that the Palestinians do not, is hardly accurate.

At this point in time, not going back over history, the Palestinians are not interested in peace. I stand by that and I will continue to offer evidence for it. I'm not interested in bashing them and I'm not trying to take sides.

I totally understand that there is a lot of history here and that page you posted offers a biased view (against Israel) just like most sources of information will. [edit]that didn't come out right, I mean that most sources are biased one way or the other it depends on where you're looking.[/edit] Actually, this problem is so complex that I will fully admit to having a biased view. I don't think anyone on this particular issue can be objective simply because it is so complex and there are so many different variables to consider.

The best I feel I can do is process the facts that I come across and filter them through my agenda for the region. This is that there be stability. This does not mean that all injustices will be rectified overnight or for that matter any time soon.

What I want to see is for both sides to agree to talk this out at the bargaining table. The suicide bombings are completely unnacceptable and are the biggest barrier to the peace process at this time. The bombings are celebrated by the Arab world. When the 12 year old kid was gunned down by the Israelis you will have an outcry against that in the Israeli population but when mothers and children are blown to bits the Palestinians immediately start passing out candy and celebrating, not to mention the families of the "martyrs" are compensated by the Saudis.

So about this history. The question becomes how far do you go back? I ask you, Webshaman, because I truly don't know the right answer. But how far do you go back? Do you say it belongs to the Arabs because they invaded that land centuries ago? Do you say it belongs to the Jews because it used to be their nation before the Romans destroyed it?

Or do we abide by the UN and allow the Jewish state to exist. Yes, the UN recognizes Israel as a legitimate nation. Don't forget that most of the Arab nations have yet to accept this. Does the UN want Israel back to its original borders? Of course, but what is the UN saying about the Arabs? Appeasement has *never* worked in the past and I don't see how it's going to work now. Maybe there's a first time for everything.

I look forward to your responses. This is a very difficult topic to have a comfortable position on, and believe me, I'm not comfortable right now but I am trying. Perhaps we can help each other come to a better view of it.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-13-2002).]

Information will help us all better understand the turmoil. Here are some excellent maps showing details of the last attempt at peace.

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

... under &#67;&#108;&#105;&#110;&#116;&#111;&#110;

Ok, now that you have clarified your point, I'm starting to get the gist of it. Now, how do we go about solving the problem?

I believe that Begin had the right idea (unfortunately, he was killed by his own people). Both lands must be recognized by the UN. That, though it sounds simple, is the main stumbling point, I think. The underlaying reasons for the conflict must be 'appeased' for both sides. Why? Well, to negate 'bias-ism' on our behalf. Look, we can't start getting 'moral' over the problem here, until we get to a neutral point. That is, forming two (internationally) recognized lands here. From there, we can start to moralize on actions taken after this point. To be blunt: Such a resolution by the International community would 'force' the real agendas into the open. Only then are we able to deal with the real problems involved here, namely the intent on both sides. From there, we can start forming real solutions to the problems (and apply real pressure ). As it is now, we all are stumbling around half-blind in a minefield. And that is precisely what the two sides want (though for different reasons). We need to free ourselves of this situation. That is my thinking on this subject...