What are you doing that takes that long to shutdown? Is this just that you're doing work in 10-minute blocks and not stopping until the end of a block? Staggered app shutdown? Syncing a ton of uncached writes? Using 1980s hardware?
So. If you insist on a point-of-view that is crafted by two-generations of Zionist psyops, there is little left to say.
It's a shame you have to play this game. I'm trying to tell you why the peace process is derailing and you won't listen because I'm not being politically correct.
As long as you see religion as being above reproach you'll be totally unable to understand the role it does play. To the non-religious it's simply another group, usually filled with closeted haters, that gets a free pass on anything its members say.
Yes, much of the bad-blood between religious jews and muslims has been caused by jews. And much of the rest by muslims. But as long as you're focused on a certain part of it (these Israeli psyops) you'll miss how it would all go away in a generation or two if you'd just shut-up.
You need to understand, young non-religious jews are looking around and they seeing racial hatred aimed at them and their families. Real race-hatred by otherwise sane people, for whom hating is unreasonable unless it's against a jew. If anything will perpetuate this nonsense, it's these people growing up knowing they're hated and watching the world deny it, or blame them for not only sins of their fathers but as if their fathers started this mess instead of carrying it on for a thousand years like the other side's fathers...
You think I'm asking a loaded question, for an easy political victory. But try to look at it another way: as the most important question you'll ever hear around this issue!
"Why should anyone trust a group, many members of which want them dead?"
I think you refuse to answer this because it's so crazy - there is no answer. No sane person would trust group X, or a voluntary (non-racial, etc) member of that group, if the group called for their death.
If scientologists had marked you for death (or merely as "fair game"), would you be friendly to Tom Cruise, or would you expect him to renounce the unfair threats and leave the church before you'd deal with him?
And that is why people will keep dying over this issue for centuries to come. Hope you like it, because you're playing as large a part in it as the psyops or those encouraging the bombers.
Suck up your fucking pride and look at this, not only from the "other" side, but from the outside.
No, I insist on acknowledging the current reality, that jews feel threatened by muslims based on the current anti-jewish propaganda. That jew is not a voluntary grouping but muslim is.
The secular jews living in Israel today didn't create these feelings, or choose to be born jewish, yet here they are hated. Whatever the truth about the creation of these feelings you'd have to be blind to miss the anti-jew nature of much current religious-based propaganda (mainly muslim).
Muslims lived peacefully - mostly - with a protected and prospering Jewish minority in their midst for 1400 some-odd-years.
So did most christians, until they turned and murdered the jews who they had tolerated but treated as inferiors. It's the act of drawing these distinctions itself that matters. Without these class distinctions the conversation would be totally restricted to the facts about Israel, with these distinctions it almost immediately becomes "jews this" and "jews that".
So being that the main message a non-muslim hears from muslims, about jews, is death to them all, how do you expect peace? Why would a jew care that someone is pissed off at them because of something someone said two generations back or fourteen centuries ago?
If you're disgusted at the racial hatred you (generic you) could stop calling yourself a muslim, but how many people do that? (Ideally dropping all religion...) Instead the religion keeps on going, people denying the propaganda instead of acknowledging and denouncing it.
There is current, recent hostility - directly attributable to European Jews [...]
But it's racist. Even if you're right, that's the actions of one guy reflecting badly on another just because they're related. The innocent person just sees a wave of racial hatred directed at them.
And that's why they distrust other people who self-identify with the haters.
How could you not, it's a discussion about murderous political ideologies, wrapped in the thin veneer of acceptability via politics, religion, etc. The nazis went out of their way to be our prime example in that respect. (People who cry Godwin are not only wrong about the nature of the 'law', but also that it matters.)
A truly one-state solution, [...] democratic inclusion [...] would satisfy all concerns.
I don't think so. For one, there are many involved who seem to want the end to all jewish people. How do you satisfy these people? Offer them a chance to run against their hated foes in an election?
That's good enough for Denmark, Malaysia and Canada. Why the Israeli exception? The political model there creates violence against the natural-born generations you cite.
It's good enough for Canada because we largely started peacefully (too few natives, and they were scattered before Canada became a country).
Israel+neighbors are NOT peaceful, and won't be until the last radicalized person dies of old age. You can't just draw a border around them and turn them to friends.
Yes, steps need to be taken to ensure that conditions improve or the politics never will, but to pretend that what works in Canada will work in Israel is highly unreasonable.
Not much of the world has had to live with terrorists who believe the other side are unclean and should die, as part of the main population. Even the IRA in Ireland, against the Brits, wasn't against any given Brit, just the country as a whole and their control of Ireland. But in Israel/Palestine you have actual racist terrorists. How do you integrate them?
Most Palestinians don't want to kill anybody. Period.
You keep taking this away from my question.
Muslims want jews/Israel destroyed. Not all muslims, but enough that it's a pretty common correlation. How can we not expect the jews in Israel to be distrustful of the larger muslim community (and supporters) by association?
Feel free to expand the conversation, but please don't keep ignoring my question.
While I feel peace is possible I don't think it is if we keep ignoring uncomfortable issues, like someone's religion calling for the death of someone else. How do you expect the innocent jews (a racial group) to feel about muslims (a voluntary group), when they see racially motivated hate messages continually attributed to this group?
I'd imagine the religion in the area needs to change significantly, or go away, before there can be serious strides toward peace. How can you ever make peace between the chosen and the infidels when people continually call for death for the infidels?
Isn't this a peace breaker? I certainly wouldn't let you be near me if you'd talked about wiping out my race.
What a single-minded effort to be an idiot. This hasn't been a conversation at all, you've done nothing but ask trollish questions and latch onto any stupid thing you can. Because of course in your little mind I advocate invasion of nursery schools because kids won't go to sleep on time.
It's a slippery slope indeed that led you from the well-intentioned concern for the plight of an abused populace to a full-fledged invasion that would dwarf [...]
It's not a slippery slope, it's the ultimate necessary outcome. We can't just sit back and leave a madman with his victims. We don't do it when it's one guy with his wife and kids hostage, or a group of bank-robbers with hostages, and we shouldn't do it when someone holds an entire country hostage.
I'm sure you didn't notice, but I said invasion after all other options (short of walking away and forgetting about it) have been tried.
Of course, you also missed the whole international coalition thing when you ranted on about how "we" can't afford to be the world's police. An astute reader would note that we are not indeed in the same country, and that I didn't say anyone needed to foot the bill directly.
over one bad election.
The dumb (dishonesty) is deep in you. There's been a bad election, protests, riots, the unilateral repression of riots via lethal force, calls for the death of citizens whose "crime" is communication, etc.
All over the constant calls for help... What do you think the election protests were? Simple hope the bad guys would be ashamed and pack it in?
Thank god the rest of the world doesn't feel that way over our fucked up elections.
Do you remember the riots in Florida in 2000? How the cops killed over a hundred protesters? How the secret service killed a bunch of students in raiding a campus? How all international communications have been slowed and monitored since then?
Oh yeah, because the 2000 US election, though bad, didn't go that far. Amazing!
So the appropriate thing there is for the first-stage responses I mentioned to be tried. Such as the UN forcing the USA to have election monitors if they wanted to maintain their position in international bodies.
Let us lay to rest the idea of a people returning to homeland.
Yes, let's. I don't care *how* they got there, I was merely asking why current people (who didn't manipulate anything, and don't know the history) should trust members of a group that has sworn to kill them?
If you are so dismissive of religion, you cannot possibly support a claim that is substantiated in the mythology of peripheral scriptures!
Didn't say I did. And yes, dismissive of both religions and all the rest.
But now you've got young jews in Israel who are surrounded by religious extremists who want them dead for racial reasons.
Now. Not then. Not yada yada about how Joe McBomber was radicalized by his whatever.
Why should people trust self-identifying members of a group that CURRENTLY threatens to kill them?
The root of this individual thread was Israelis being distrustful of Obama because of perceived ties to muslims. Whatever the truth of these ties, can we blame them for being distrustful?
If the Hell's Angels threatened to kill me, would you expect me to support a (reportedly) pro-Angels mayor in my town?
Why is this being cast as unreasonable on the parts of the young jews, whose only part in this issue is being hated because of who they are?
I couldn't give a fuck what caused it and can sum it up in two words, religious imbecility. Many countries have fought, bitterly, and then gone on to have friendly relations. The thing keeping these particular historical issues (of greed, etc, as you point out) from fading away is the insistence of the people involved to keep these religions alive.
So why don't we agree that it's all a crock of shit and laugh at anyone who self-identifies with the nonsense? By placating the extremists and pretending they've got a real issue we just encourage them.
Remember that women were not beaten and killed any more in Afghanistan for attending school _before_ US invasion. They are now, _after_ the invasion. And they get to wear burkas.
Strange, I remember stories from '99 of women getting beaten for going to school, and families getting attacked for allowing it, etc.
Invading a country is not cool. For instance, Iraqis were living a lot better under Saddam than now. It's been 8 years.
Had we been rescuing Iraq we'd have gone in when they asked, back in Iraq-1. Instead we did nothing until GWB decided Saddam was allied with Osama, and rescuing the people doesn't seem to have been one of his goals.
The only quotes I've seen from protesters, bloggers, etc
Strange, it's only the government (ie, pro-faked election) supporters who want everyone to stay out of their business.
Not that people want to be USA Jr., but they certainly want the world to try to force the parties to a reasonable solution. (ie, count the damn votes.)
So what should we do that we're not doing?
Telling Iran in no uncertain terms that they will take UN peace-keepers and election monitors.
For a start, to back it up, kick out their diplomats, offer refuge (foreign citizenship) to their people.
Make it clear that they are NOT a valid government as long as they play these election games and attack their own people for what started as peaceful protests.
If they don't, then yes, invasion. A coalition of countries and NGOs with a clear mandate to jail the leaders and offer unbiased elections.
Ideally seeing the world poised to rescue hostages would force the situation.
What else would you want people to do? Leave you with your abuser just because of a line on a map or genetic coincidence?
I specifically asked you this question about North Korea, and you didn't answer.
Oh yeah, just keep changing the topic and acting hurt when people don't jump to follow.
NK is more difficult because we've left them alone to build weapons so long. They've openly threatened to attack SK's civilian population (and their own) no matter who attacks them (or cuts off their food shipments, etc).
Pass around a petition?
Essentially, yes. See which other countries/etc are willing to help free the people of another country.
With Kuwait in Iraq-1 there were many supporters. In Bush's Iraq-2 there were very few because it wasn't designed to save the people. (Well, from Saddam, but he wasn't considered dangerous until it was handy.)
What open source projects do you contribute to, or watch?
Very few people get told to do anything - they'd leave if they got ordered around.
People join a project and do what they want. Some people want new features, some want to clean up code... The difference is that with open source there's always a space open for anyone to try anything.
Yes they do (lose their jobs). Even maintainers of projects have been replaced simply by a new volunteer doing the work.
Besides, it's not like you get the order 'Go fix up our code' in a business environment. There, more than anywhere, you get given a minimum of time to prevent some problem (with more band-aids and technical debt) because the short-term profits are more valuable than long-term success. Pretending closed-source code is good code is a joke - why would it be better than it had to be (remember that it's not seen by customers) when that time could have been spent adding a new feature?
The question should be, if you're only an employee what motivation do you have to make sure the code is good code when you aren't judged on that?
Realistically with proprietary software, it never gets done. You band-aid over it and hope customers won't notice - they still do but few enough that you can ignore them.
So really, you're better off with open source. Software companies are far from responsive unless you're their biggest client and you have to wait for their schedule even if the fix is essential to you. Volunteers aren't reliable either, but you can do the work yourself (trivial for a company to hire a contractor).
This last one may have been rigged, and yes that is the point, but they need to work that out without foreign meddling, AS THEY HAVE ASKED.
Which Iranians have said they don't need help? From what I've seen, ONLY the 'winners' of this election. The pro-government militia has been very clear that they don't want foreigners, the Ayatollah likes the result and doesn't want interference, the winner of the 'election' is pretty happy, etc.
But the thousands of protesters I've personally met in Montreal, Vancouver, etc, have been VERY clear in wanting foreign help in getting a new and trustworthy election.
Nobody has called for us to bomb them, but then that's rarely how you rescue people. They have however called for peace-keepers when the majority of the riots were going on, for election supervisors, etc.
So bullshit on your 'nobody asked'. Thousands of people have asked.
The point of the protests was to get foreigners to apply pressure on their governments/local Iranian embassies, and get MORE foreign assistance.
North Koreans haven't asked to be liberated.
Except those who try desperately to escape, often dying or dooming their remaining family. That's a pretty obvious cry for help, especially to the people they ask for sanctuary.
Iraqis didn't ask to be liberated.
Which Iraqis? The Kurds certainly asked for help. Many Iraqis asked for help.
Do they like the help they got? They'd have had more help to choose from if the whole world was willing to help - they wouldn't need to wait for the USA to come and try to build an empire just to get some help.
Afghanis didn't ask to be liberated.
Which Afghanis? The women being beaten and killed for attending school? The families fleeing across the border to escape the Taliban?
Or do you mean the warlords and friends? Because they're quite happy there...
So you really have no argument at all.
Yeah, close your eyes and scream "lala" and you can't hear anything.
But our reputation as imperialists, rightly earned, should give us heed.
Yes, we should all learn from the mistakes of the past. Calling for help isn't calling for new masters. That's pretty obvious.
But [the Iranians] have repeatedly said they want no help from the US, so my whole argument is that we should do as they ask and let them figure it out.
Which Iranians have you seen say that? The Ayatollah doesn't count.
I've seen (in person) Iranians beg foreigners to notice their plight and help in some way.
Honestly, your "it's behind a border and the tyrant doesn't want help" argument is a fucking rejection of all responsibility.
Why is it loaded? The people on the street being polled didn't arrange any religious extremism?
It's the question on everyone's mind - why should I trust someone who self-identifies with the people who attack us?
It's a loose analogy, but if members of a fraternity had been continually arrested for rape you'd expect people to get wary of the whole frat's membership after a while. At some point someone would ask "why are you still part of that rape-factory?" People who kept joining, or didn't leave, would be seen with ever-greater suspicion.
Why is it different when it's belief in a space ghost? Why can't we discuss association when it's around this set of beliefs?
It seems that the sooner we (large numbers of uninvolved people) started to treat religion as a shared delusion that powers this war (on both sides) the sooner we can get past it. As long as it's reasonable to listen to a god (schizophrenia?) for orders many of those orders are going to be crazy things like killing a bunch of people to make the god happy.
Of course you don't actually have a clue or I'd ask you to share. Not only are you delusional about religious extremism but you're incapable of answering a straight-forward question.
Isn't it reasonable to be wary of a group whose members have sworn to kill you?
You're wrong (The threats against Israel in 1948 were to wage a war of extermination and to drive the jews into the sea.) but you didn't even bother to answer the question.
Should you not be wary of a group of people who have sworn to kill you for religious/racist reasons?
They were also similarly disarmed during the 79 revolution, so that clearly isn't a requirement to enact change
No, just a requirement to surviving the government militia and enjoying the changed society.
That a state with the same name exists is little comfort to those killed in any outbreaking of violence while merely seeking freedom.
What is your point here exactly? That we should overthrow North Korea?
That sovereignty, and international recognition, and "legitimate government" are all useless terms if there's a dictator keeping the people in slavery.
If any given person voted for the NK leaders, fine, let them suffer justly in the circumstances they created. Since you seem to support this kind of slavery why don't we let you live in it?
For everyone else the fine details of international diplomacy are lost and they simply want some freedom. We should rescue them when they ask, as we'd rescue someone buried by an avalanche or trapped by a forest-fire.
the US has meddled in the affairs of many nations, and invaded a few, and it has rarely turned out well.
I see. The USA, in trying to control other countries, has done terrible things. Thus people must never try to influence events on the other side of a border.
Leave the leaders to their killing and eventually they'll just tucker themselves out and recognize peace is the answer?
Idiot.
You're doing such a bang up job in Iraq and Afghanistan
Kind of amazing, because I'm not even there and my policies aren't being practiced.
Please, beseech your leader to enforce the indomitable will and unwavering ideology of Western Society on another Middle Eastern territory.
Oh, I see, you have my actions conflated with those of the ruling parties.
If my government was threatening to kill me or some group of my neighbors for some arbitrary reason I'd sure like any help I could get, foreign or domestic. I wouldn't want to trade one ruler for another, but I'd sure want to get rid of the looming threat.
The USA was also founded on the principle of arming the people and letting them choose their own future.
Oh yeah, the Iranians are disarmed and not allowed to choose anything. Sucks to be them.
So you mean, sit back and let the thugs who've declared themselves to be the just rulers of everyone within Iran's borders go ahead and rule those people, even if it involves killing and maiming huge numbers of them?
I wish we could airlift you to North Korea and let you experience the bliss of being ruled by a thoroughly legitimate (internationally recognized) dictator.
You're saying it'd be wrong for King Jong-Il to kidnap and abuse you, but hunky dory if he kidnapped and abused someone from North Korea because he legitimately owns them?
I hope you rot, you pestilent motherfucker. Rot while others could save you but won't because of some technicality.
Apparently they don't have the right to do what they want in their own country.
Neither does anyone else. That's a good thing.
Imagine if Jeffery Dahmer could keep killing just by closing his door and declaring his house sovereign? Why should the Ayatollah, or any other murderous bastard, be able to do the same?
no more apt than me saying that Christianity tells Christians to be oppressed.
It does. Have you ever read any christian works? Everyone is worthless - a damned sinner - at birth because of sins of the father. The only way they acknowledge to bypass this is eternal servitude to god's rules.
Indeed, speaking for any religion that has hundreds of diverse sects is a ridiculous act in and of itself.
Not at all. Belief in a god is ridiculous and pathetic. Knowing someone is religious is no indicator of which style of pizza they like but it does indicate they're almost totally incapable of self-directed logical thought.
Any answer derived in any way from broken thought has to be treated at broken. A religious person might ask god which bus to take, and might guess right, but you still wouldn't want to take their advice.
he did point out to me that I do not know the average life of a regular citizen in Tehran
So? Do we have to sit through slide-shows of Timothy McVeigh's life, seeing what brand of TV dinner he ate, if he loved his mom, etc, or can we just call him a murderer because he killed a bunch of people?
The USA (Canada, Britain, etc) are judged on the things they do in extreme circumstances. Nobody cares what it's like on the good days, they only care if you'll be thrown in Guantanamo and water-boarded for no reason on the bad days.
That you can (and will) be hung for simply disagreeing with the people in power is the only comment one needs to know to declare Iran (the political entity) a shithole.
The Ayatollah doesn't care one bit about the rich persian history etc, etc, except to use it to make himself look more legitimate. To him it's all about hanging people who disagree with him (and with god of course).
Of course, if people were more able to see their own countries as shitholes maybe we could change them... GWB didn't seem much different than a religious leader, what with his widely publicized belief in god and religious guidance, and his authorizing of kidnapping people and throwing them into dungeons, spying programs, etc.
But Iran is not some beautiful and misunderstood relic of history, it's a prison, as are all the other places you can't leave without the permission of the rulers. North Korea, etc.
When you're surrounded by religious extremists who have sworn to kill you because of their religion, isn't it reasonable to be wary of everyone who appears to be in the same religion or sympathetic to it?
It seems like it should be handled under truth in advertising laws, not trademarks, and especially not treaty-backed ones.
It's not California Champagne, because that's like saying France Italian! It's Champagne-style California-produced sparkling wine. They aren't Idaho potatoes unless produced in Idaho, but Idaho-style potatoes is accurate and reasonable.
Oh the crap we incorporate into law when we let one group demand special privilege.
But are they making these decisions for YOU, or for a class of people your age/etc? From what I've seen these panels will choose a level of support that will be provided, instead of promising support (like an HMO) and then removing it later based on technicalities in your paperwork or circumstances.
While that does leave it open to a GWB changing it all at least he should have a hard time targeting anyone specifically. He'd just deny all care by throwing you into Guantanamo, HMO or otherwise.
I think government spending like this should be outsourced, even the administration of it, but not with long-term contracts. Whenever we reward a long-term contract or sell a public resource the company that gets it immediately becomes a cesspool of inefficiency (as if they know the easy money will never dry up) and does a crappy job at what they were hired to do. If they had to keep winning the customer-satisfaction survey or the other businesses in the field would get their slice of the market they'd stay (more) responsive.
One could also argue that US sponsorship of Israel represents an act of war against the entire region that didn't want Israel put there in the first place.
Where could you find one dumb enough to argue that?
We all have to deal with neighbors we don't like. We can't declare that we're launching a war to drive them into the sea like the dogs they are.
But the Arab nations around Israel announced just that. And tried to follow through many times.
It's pretty easy to see who the civilized people are - they're the ones who haven't announced a holy genocide. That's why we support them.
That's just standard anti-federal government crap. Sure, it's true, but then just say (to begin with) "I'm against all programs implemented at the federal level".
That's what I mean, there are rational complaints (and you showed you could come up with one when poked) and there are republitard complaints about death panels.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you doing that takes that long to shutdown? Is this just that you're doing work in 10-minute blocks and not stopping until the end of a block? Staggered app shutdown? Syncing a ton of uncached writes? Using 1980s hardware?
So. If you insist on a point-of-view that is crafted by two-generations of Zionist psyops, there is little left to say.
It's a shame you have to play this game. I'm trying to tell you why the peace process is derailing and you won't listen because I'm not being politically correct.
As long as you see religion as being above reproach you'll be totally unable to understand the role it does play. To the non-religious it's simply another group, usually filled with closeted haters, that gets a free pass on anything its members say.
Yes, much of the bad-blood between religious jews and muslims has been caused by jews. And much of the rest by muslims. But as long as you're focused on a certain part of it (these Israeli psyops) you'll miss how it would all go away in a generation or two if you'd just shut-up.
You need to understand, young non-religious jews are looking around and they seeing racial hatred aimed at them and their families. Real race-hatred by otherwise sane people, for whom hating is unreasonable unless it's against a jew. If anything will perpetuate this nonsense, it's these people growing up knowing they're hated and watching the world deny it, or blame them for not only sins of their fathers but as if their fathers started this mess instead of carrying it on for a thousand years like the other side's fathers...
You think I'm asking a loaded question, for an easy political victory. But try to look at it another way: as the most important question you'll ever hear around this issue!
"Why should anyone trust a group, many members of which want them dead?"
I think you refuse to answer this because it's so crazy - there is no answer. No sane person would trust group X, or a voluntary (non-racial, etc) member of that group, if the group called for their death.
If scientologists had marked you for death (or merely as "fair game"), would you be friendly to Tom Cruise, or would you expect him to renounce the unfair threats and leave the church before you'd deal with him?
And that is why people will keep dying over this issue for centuries to come. Hope you like it, because you're playing as large a part in it as the psyops or those encouraging the bombers.
Suck up your fucking pride and look at this, not only from the "other" side, but from the outside.
No, I insist on acknowledging the current reality, that jews feel threatened by muslims based on the current anti-jewish propaganda. That jew is not a voluntary grouping but muslim is.
The secular jews living in Israel today didn't create these feelings, or choose to be born jewish, yet here they are hated. Whatever the truth about the creation of these feelings you'd have to be blind to miss the anti-jew nature of much current religious-based propaganda (mainly muslim).
Muslims lived peacefully - mostly - with a protected and prospering Jewish minority in their midst for 1400 some-odd-years.
So did most christians, until they turned and murdered the jews who they had tolerated but treated as inferiors. It's the act of drawing these distinctions itself that matters. Without these class distinctions the conversation would be totally restricted to the facts about Israel, with these distinctions it almost immediately becomes "jews this" and "jews that".
So being that the main message a non-muslim hears from muslims, about jews, is death to them all, how do you expect peace? Why would a jew care that someone is pissed off at them because of something someone said two generations back or fourteen centuries ago?
If you're disgusted at the racial hatred you (generic you) could stop calling yourself a muslim, but how many people do that? (Ideally dropping all religion...) Instead the religion keeps on going, people denying the propaganda instead of acknowledging and denouncing it.
There is current, recent hostility - directly attributable to European Jews [...]
But it's racist. Even if you're right, that's the actions of one guy reflecting badly on another just because they're related. The innocent person just sees a wave of racial hatred directed at them.
And that's why they distrust other people who self-identify with the haters.
Nazi Germany (yes, I went there)
How could you not, it's a discussion about murderous political ideologies, wrapped in the thin veneer of acceptability via politics, religion, etc. The nazis went out of their way to be our prime example in that respect. (People who cry Godwin are not only wrong about the nature of the 'law', but also that it matters.)
A truly one-state solution, [...] democratic inclusion [...] would satisfy all concerns.
I don't think so. For one, there are many involved who seem to want the end to all jewish people. How do you satisfy these people? Offer them a chance to run against their hated foes in an election?
That's good enough for Denmark, Malaysia and Canada. Why the Israeli exception? The political model there creates violence against the natural-born generations you cite.
It's good enough for Canada because we largely started peacefully (too few natives, and they were scattered before Canada became a country).
Israel+neighbors are NOT peaceful, and won't be until the last radicalized person dies of old age. You can't just draw a border around them and turn them to friends.
Yes, steps need to be taken to ensure that conditions improve or the politics never will, but to pretend that what works in Canada will work in Israel is highly unreasonable.
Not much of the world has had to live with terrorists who believe the other side are unclean and should die, as part of the main population. Even the IRA in Ireland, against the Brits, wasn't against any given Brit, just the country as a whole and their control of Ireland. But in Israel/Palestine you have actual racist terrorists. How do you integrate them?
Most Palestinians don't want to kill anybody. Period.
You keep taking this away from my question.
Muslims want jews/Israel destroyed. Not all muslims, but enough that it's a pretty common correlation. How can we not expect the jews in Israel to be distrustful of the larger muslim community (and supporters) by association?
Feel free to expand the conversation, but please don't keep ignoring my question.
While I feel peace is possible I don't think it is if we keep ignoring uncomfortable issues, like someone's religion calling for the death of someone else. How do you expect the innocent jews (a racial group) to feel about muslims (a voluntary group), when they see racially motivated hate messages continually attributed to this group?
I'd imagine the religion in the area needs to change significantly, or go away, before there can be serious strides toward peace. How can you ever make peace between the chosen and the infidels when people continually call for death for the infidels?
Isn't this a peace breaker? I certainly wouldn't let you be near me if you'd talked about wiping out my race.
What a single-minded effort to be an idiot. This hasn't been a conversation at all, you've done nothing but ask trollish questions and latch onto any stupid thing you can. Because of course in your little mind I advocate invasion of nursery schools because kids won't go to sleep on time.
It's a slippery slope indeed that led you from the well-intentioned concern for the plight of an abused populace to a full-fledged invasion that would dwarf [...]
It's not a slippery slope, it's the ultimate necessary outcome. We can't just sit back and leave a madman with his victims. We don't do it when it's one guy with his wife and kids hostage, or a group of bank-robbers with hostages, and we shouldn't do it when someone holds an entire country hostage.
I'm sure you didn't notice, but I said invasion after all other options (short of walking away and forgetting about it) have been tried.
Of course, you also missed the whole international coalition thing when you ranted on about how "we" can't afford to be the world's police. An astute reader would note that we are not indeed in the same country, and that I didn't say anyone needed to foot the bill directly.
over one bad election.
The dumb (dishonesty) is deep in you. There's been a bad election, protests, riots, the unilateral repression of riots via lethal force, calls for the death of citizens whose "crime" is communication, etc.
All over the constant calls for help... What do you think the election protests were? Simple hope the bad guys would be ashamed and pack it in?
Thank god the rest of the world doesn't feel that way over our fucked up elections.
Do you remember the riots in Florida in 2000? How the cops killed over a hundred protesters? How the secret service killed a bunch of students in raiding a campus? How all international communications have been slowed and monitored since then?
Oh yeah, because the 2000 US election, though bad, didn't go that far. Amazing!
So the appropriate thing there is for the first-stage responses I mentioned to be tried. Such as the UN forcing the USA to have election monitors if they wanted to maintain their position in international bodies.
Let us lay to rest the idea of a people returning to homeland.
Yes, let's. I don't care *how* they got there, I was merely asking why current people (who didn't manipulate anything, and don't know the history) should trust members of a group that has sworn to kill them?
If you are so dismissive of religion, you cannot possibly support a claim that is substantiated in the mythology of peripheral scriptures!
Didn't say I did. And yes, dismissive of both religions and all the rest.
But now you've got young jews in Israel who are surrounded by religious extremists who want them dead for racial reasons.
Now. Not then. Not yada yada about how Joe McBomber was radicalized by his whatever.
Why should people trust self-identifying members of a group that CURRENTLY threatens to kill them?
The root of this individual thread was Israelis being distrustful of Obama because of perceived ties to muslims. Whatever the truth of these ties, can we blame them for being distrustful?
If the Hell's Angels threatened to kill me, would you expect me to support a (reportedly) pro-Angels mayor in my town?
Why is this being cast as unreasonable on the parts of the young jews, whose only part in this issue is being hated because of who they are?
I couldn't give a fuck what caused it and can sum it up in two words, religious imbecility. Many countries have fought, bitterly, and then gone on to have friendly relations. The thing keeping these particular historical issues (of greed, etc, as you point out) from fading away is the insistence of the people involved to keep these religions alive.
So why don't we agree that it's all a crock of shit and laugh at anyone who self-identifies with the nonsense? By placating the extremists and pretending they've got a real issue we just encourage them.
Remember that women were not beaten and killed any more in Afghanistan for attending school _before_ US invasion. They are now, _after_ the invasion. And they get to wear burkas.
Strange, I remember stories from '99 of women getting beaten for going to school, and families getting attacked for allowing it, etc.
Invading a country is not cool. For instance, Iraqis were living a lot better under Saddam than now. It's been 8 years.
Had we been rescuing Iraq we'd have gone in when they asked, back in Iraq-1. Instead we did nothing until GWB decided Saddam was allied with Osama, and rescuing the people doesn't seem to have been one of his goals.
The only quotes I've seen from protesters, bloggers, etc
Strange, it's only the government (ie, pro-faked election) supporters who want everyone to stay out of their business.
Not that people want to be USA Jr., but they certainly want the world to try to force the parties to a reasonable solution. (ie, count the damn votes.)
So what should we do that we're not doing?
Telling Iran in no uncertain terms that they will take UN peace-keepers and election monitors.
For a start, to back it up, kick out their diplomats, offer refuge (foreign citizenship) to their people.
Make it clear that they are NOT a valid government as long as they play these election games and attack their own people for what started as peaceful protests.
If they don't, then yes, invasion. A coalition of countries and NGOs with a clear mandate to jail the leaders and offer unbiased elections.
Ideally seeing the world poised to rescue hostages would force the situation.
What else would you want people to do? Leave you with your abuser just because of a line on a map or genetic coincidence?
I specifically asked you this question about North Korea, and you didn't answer.
Oh yeah, just keep changing the topic and acting hurt when people don't jump to follow.
NK is more difficult because we've left them alone to build weapons so long. They've openly threatened to attack SK's civilian population (and their own) no matter who attacks them (or cuts off their food shipments, etc).
Pass around a petition?
Essentially, yes. See which other countries/etc are willing to help free the people of another country.
With Kuwait in Iraq-1 there were many supporters. In Bush's Iraq-2 there were very few because it wasn't designed to save the people. (Well, from Saddam, but he wasn't considered dangerous until it was handy.)
What open source projects do you contribute to, or watch?
Very few people get told to do anything - they'd leave if they got ordered around.
People join a project and do what they want. Some people want new features, some want to clean up code... The difference is that with open source there's always a space open for anyone to try anything.
Yes they do (lose their jobs). Even maintainers of projects have been replaced simply by a new volunteer doing the work.
Besides, it's not like you get the order 'Go fix up our code' in a business environment. There, more than anywhere, you get given a minimum of time to prevent some problem (with more band-aids and technical debt) because the short-term profits are more valuable than long-term success. Pretending closed-source code is good code is a joke - why would it be better than it had to be (remember that it's not seen by customers) when that time could have been spent adding a new feature?
The question should be, if you're only an employee what motivation do you have to make sure the code is good code when you aren't judged on that?
What if the EMPLOYEE QUITS?
Then they get someone else.
Realistically with proprietary software, it never gets done. You band-aid over it and hope customers won't notice - they still do but few enough that you can ignore them.
So really, you're better off with open source. Software companies are far from responsive unless you're their biggest client and you have to wait for their schedule even if the fix is essential to you. Volunteers aren't reliable either, but you can do the work yourself (trivial for a company to hire a contractor).
This last one may have been rigged, and yes that is the point, but they need to work that out without foreign meddling, AS THEY HAVE ASKED.
Which Iranians have said they don't need help? From what I've seen, ONLY the 'winners' of this election. The pro-government militia has been very clear that they don't want foreigners, the Ayatollah likes the result and doesn't want interference, the winner of the 'election' is pretty happy, etc.
But the thousands of protesters I've personally met in Montreal, Vancouver, etc, have been VERY clear in wanting foreign help in getting a new and trustworthy election.
Nobody has called for us to bomb them, but then that's rarely how you rescue people. They have however called for peace-keepers when the majority of the riots were going on, for election supervisors, etc.
So bullshit on your 'nobody asked'. Thousands of people have asked.
The point of the protests was to get foreigners to apply pressure on their governments/local Iranian embassies, and get MORE foreign assistance.
North Koreans haven't asked to be liberated.
Except those who try desperately to escape, often dying or dooming their remaining family. That's a pretty obvious cry for help, especially to the people they ask for sanctuary.
Iraqis didn't ask to be liberated.
Which Iraqis? The Kurds certainly asked for help. Many Iraqis asked for help.
Do they like the help they got? They'd have had more help to choose from if the whole world was willing to help - they wouldn't need to wait for the USA to come and try to build an empire just to get some help.
Afghanis didn't ask to be liberated.
Which Afghanis? The women being beaten and killed for attending school? The families fleeing across the border to escape the Taliban?
Or do you mean the warlords and friends? Because they're quite happy there...
So you really have no argument at all.
Yeah, close your eyes and scream "lala" and you can't hear anything.
But our reputation as imperialists, rightly earned, should give us heed.
Yes, we should all learn from the mistakes of the past. Calling for help isn't calling for new masters. That's pretty obvious.
But [the Iranians] have repeatedly said they want no help from the US, so my whole argument is that we should do as they ask and let them figure it out.
Which Iranians have you seen say that? The Ayatollah doesn't count.
I've seen (in person) Iranians beg foreigners to notice their plight and help in some way.
Honestly, your "it's behind a border and the tyrant doesn't want help" argument is a fucking rejection of all responsibility.
Why is it loaded? The people on the street being polled didn't arrange any religious extremism?
It's the question on everyone's mind - why should I trust someone who self-identifies with the people who attack us?
It's a loose analogy, but if members of a fraternity had been continually arrested for rape you'd expect people to get wary of the whole frat's membership after a while. At some point someone would ask "why are you still part of that rape-factory?" People who kept joining, or didn't leave, would be seen with ever-greater suspicion.
Why is it different when it's belief in a space ghost? Why can't we discuss association when it's around this set of beliefs?
It seems that the sooner we (large numbers of uninvolved people) started to treat religion as a shared delusion that powers this war (on both sides) the sooner we can get past it. As long as it's reasonable to listen to a god (schizophrenia?) for orders many of those orders are going to be crazy things like killing a bunch of people to make the god happy.
Of course you don't actually have a clue or I'd ask you to share. Not only are you delusional about religious extremism but you're incapable of answering a straight-forward question.
Isn't it reasonable to be wary of a group whose members have sworn to kill you?
You're wrong (The threats against Israel in 1948 were to wage a war of extermination and to drive the jews into the sea.) but you didn't even bother to answer the question.
Should you not be wary of a group of people who have sworn to kill you for religious/racist reasons?
Iranians have elections
Bullshit. That's the whole problem.
They were also similarly disarmed during the 79 revolution, so that clearly isn't a requirement to enact change
No, just a requirement to surviving the government militia and enjoying the changed society.
That a state with the same name exists is little comfort to those killed in any outbreaking of violence while merely seeking freedom.
What is your point here exactly? That we should overthrow North Korea?
That sovereignty, and international recognition, and "legitimate government" are all useless terms if there's a dictator keeping the people in slavery.
If any given person voted for the NK leaders, fine, let them suffer justly in the circumstances they created. Since you seem to support this kind of slavery why don't we let you live in it?
For everyone else the fine details of international diplomacy are lost and they simply want some freedom. We should rescue them when they ask, as we'd rescue someone buried by an avalanche or trapped by a forest-fire.
the US has meddled in the affairs of many nations, and invaded a few, and it has rarely turned out well.
I see. The USA, in trying to control other countries, has done terrible things. Thus people must never try to influence events on the other side of a border.
Leave them to it and they will get there.
Leave the leaders to their killing and eventually they'll just tucker themselves out and recognize peace is the answer?
Idiot.
You're doing such a bang up job in Iraq and Afghanistan
Kind of amazing, because I'm not even there and my policies aren't being practiced.
Please, beseech your leader to enforce the indomitable will and unwavering ideology of Western Society on another Middle Eastern territory.
Oh, I see, you have my actions conflated with those of the ruling parties.
If my government was threatening to kill me or some group of my neighbors for some arbitrary reason I'd sure like any help I could get, foreign or domestic. I wouldn't want to trade one ruler for another, but I'd sure want to get rid of the looming threat.
The USA was also founded on the principle of arming the people and letting them choose their own future.
Oh yeah, the Iranians are disarmed and not allowed to choose anything. Sucks to be them.
So you mean, sit back and let the thugs who've declared themselves to be the just rulers of everyone within Iran's borders go ahead and rule those people, even if it involves killing and maiming huge numbers of them?
I wish we could airlift you to North Korea and let you experience the bliss of being ruled by a thoroughly legitimate (internationally recognized) dictator.
Iran, a sovereign nation
Yeah, so?
You're saying it'd be wrong for King Jong-Il to kidnap and abuse you, but hunky dory if he kidnapped and abused someone from North Korea because he legitimately owns them?
I hope you rot, you pestilent motherfucker. Rot while others could save you but won't because of some technicality.
Apparently they don't have the right to do what they want in their own country.
Neither does anyone else. That's a good thing.
Imagine if Jeffery Dahmer could keep killing just by closing his door and declaring his house sovereign? Why should the Ayatollah, or any other murderous bastard, be able to do the same?
no more apt than me saying that Christianity tells Christians to be oppressed.
It does. Have you ever read any christian works? Everyone is worthless - a damned sinner - at birth because of sins of the father. The only way they acknowledge to bypass this is eternal servitude to god's rules.
Indeed, speaking for any religion that has hundreds of diverse sects is a ridiculous act in and of itself.
Not at all. Belief in a god is ridiculous and pathetic. Knowing someone is religious is no indicator of which style of pizza they like but it does indicate they're almost totally incapable of self-directed logical thought.
Any answer derived in any way from broken thought has to be treated at broken. A religious person might ask god which bus to take, and might guess right, but you still wouldn't want to take their advice.
he did point out to me that I do not know the average life of a regular citizen in Tehran
So? Do we have to sit through slide-shows of Timothy McVeigh's life, seeing what brand of TV dinner he ate, if he loved his mom, etc, or can we just call him a murderer because he killed a bunch of people?
The USA (Canada, Britain, etc) are judged on the things they do in extreme circumstances. Nobody cares what it's like on the good days, they only care if you'll be thrown in Guantanamo and water-boarded for no reason on the bad days.
That you can (and will) be hung for simply disagreeing with the people in power is the only comment one needs to know to declare Iran (the political entity) a shithole.
The Ayatollah doesn't care one bit about the rich persian history etc, etc, except to use it to make himself look more legitimate. To him it's all about hanging people who disagree with him (and with god of course).
Of course, if people were more able to see their own countries as shitholes maybe we could change them... GWB didn't seem much different than a religious leader, what with his widely publicized belief in god and religious guidance, and his authorizing of kidnapping people and throwing them into dungeons, spying programs, etc.
But Iran is not some beautiful and misunderstood relic of history, it's a prison, as are all the other places you can't leave without the permission of the rulers. North Korea, etc.
When you're surrounded by religious extremists who have sworn to kill you because of their religion, isn't it reasonable to be wary of everyone who appears to be in the same religion or sympathetic to it?
It seems like it should be handled under truth in advertising laws, not trademarks, and especially not treaty-backed ones.
It's not California Champagne, because that's like saying France Italian! It's Champagne-style California-produced sparkling wine. They aren't Idaho potatoes unless produced in Idaho, but Idaho-style potatoes is accurate and reasonable.
Oh the crap we incorporate into law when we let one group demand special privilege.
But are they making these decisions for YOU, or for a class of people your age/etc? From what I've seen these panels will choose a level of support that will be provided, instead of promising support (like an HMO) and then removing it later based on technicalities in your paperwork or circumstances.
While that does leave it open to a GWB changing it all at least he should have a hard time targeting anyone specifically. He'd just deny all care by throwing you into Guantanamo, HMO or otherwise.
I think government spending like this should be outsourced, even the administration of it, but not with long-term contracts. Whenever we reward a long-term contract or sell a public resource the company that gets it immediately becomes a cesspool of inefficiency (as if they know the easy money will never dry up) and does a crappy job at what they were hired to do. If they had to keep winning the customer-satisfaction survey or the other businesses in the field would get their slice of the market they'd stay (more) responsive.
One could also argue that US sponsorship of Israel represents an act of war against the entire region that didn't want Israel put there in the first place.
Where could you find one dumb enough to argue that?
We all have to deal with neighbors we don't like. We can't declare that we're launching a war to drive them into the sea like the dogs they are.
But the Arab nations around Israel announced just that. And tried to follow through many times.
It's pretty easy to see who the civilized people are - they're the ones who haven't announced a holy genocide. That's why we support them.
That's just standard anti-federal government crap. Sure, it's true, but then just say (to begin with) "I'm against all programs implemented at the federal level".
That's what I mean, there are rational complaints (and you showed you could come up with one when poked) and there are republitard complaints about death panels.