Up until the 70's-80's Australia had similar gun laws to those of the US but not the same "gun culture",
Same in Norway, we have a very different "gun culture", which is why we have fewer homicides using guns than in the US despite of the fact that we have more guns per capita than does the US. As an example, and I am not entirely a-typical, until recently i had, in my house, a shotgun, a rifle, a machine gun (military issued, so that went when I turned 45) and two hand guns. I would guess the average Norwegian house hold has at least a shot gun and/or a rifle.
Even with the nutter on the Island, we have very, very few gun-related homicides in Norway. Not because of lack of access, but because of a different culture.
It basically comes down to this: In the US the prevalent notion is that violence can be used as a problem solver (which is why they have capital punishment). In most civilized countries people do not think that violence can be used to solve all kinds of problems (but some have to be). Irrespective of the number of guns per capita, the attitude that guns can solve problems will lead to higher gun-related mortality rates.
so by definition the number of homicidal maniacs with access to guns is lower
BZZT! WRONG! You are assuming the same level of motivation in the homicidal manic group as you are in the population in general. Access to guns in the UK is more difficult, but it is still rather easy. You can get them illegally in a number of ways, for example from abroad, and border crossings are not that tight (unless you are dumb enough to fly).
but I don't see how you can disagree that the number of gun crimes is reduced
Since there is no correlation between number of guns and number of gun crimes, I don't see how you could argue there is one unless you set the available number of guns to zero. Please note that, for example, Norway, Switzerland and Finland all have a higher gun count per capita than does the US but nowhere near the number of gun crimes. Also, there is no correlation in the various US states between gun access (very difficult in California, very easy in Alabama) and gun crimes. HOWEVER, I was not arguing gun crimes in general, I was arguing that someone with the motivation to kill a president or other prominent people are not under the same statistical variation as the "average jilted lover".
There is 300 million people in the United States. Even with just the normal number or nuts in any society, the number of people in the US wanting to murder a (any) president would be rather high. The number of people with the motivation and skill will on any given day be in the hundreds at least, irrespective of what president you have.
Are you saying that the US should cull the population so that statistically there are fewer crazy nuts with access to guns? Would that not be a tad extreme? I mean, to get the number of nuts down to a manageable number the population would probably have to be reduced to some 10-50 million. Killing off 250 million people just to lower the cost of presidential security seems a little like the wrong prioritization.
You could argue, as many clueless morons do, that one could reduce the number of guns, even though all evidence shows that reducing access to guns do in fact not reduce the number of homicidal maniacs with access to guns.
Why aren't the US and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens that are effectively stealing from the US and European treasuries
Hmmm, let's see, companies are using legal avenues to prevent the government from stealing their profits, and you call that "stealing"? I thought this kind of "logic" was less prevalent in people who are actually capable of putting together the words that form a/. article.
Rubbish. A number of treatments, rationing, remember, are never used in Europe simply because they are not deemed worth it. This goes for life-prolonging treatments for certain types of cancer, for example. In the US they are available if you are insured, in most places in Europe they are not. If I had pancreatic cancer, for example, I would love another six months to live, no matter what the cost, but that is not available to me in Scandinavia, the UK and most other European countries.
Me, I am Norwegian, currently living in Norway, formerly a resident (for a decade or so) of the US. Since I was working and work supplied insurance (that I had to pay parts of) I had access to treatments that simply are not given in Norway due to cost. Also, for a few hours my doctor in the US suspected I might have epilepsy. He suspected for a few hours (from about 9 in the morning 'til about 3 in the afternoon) since I was in the US. In Norway getting the suspicion confirmed or falsified would have taken from four to six months, a period in which I would not be allowed to drive, have certain types of jobs etc.
As an insured person I had health care at an order of magnitude higher quality in the US than in most countries, most of Europe included. For the insured, the US has the best health care system in the world. Bar none. It is tremendously expensive though. Nobody spends more on their health care systems than the US, both the private and the public systems are better funded than in Europe.
Sorry, that happens more when government runs health-care, not less. Lots of treatments are never used in many places in Europe at all because they are too expensive.
Wow, you really are that ignorant, aren't you. Well, it is in the very definition of science. Science (as mentioned outside of maths) is about creating theories, and about falsifying, not proving, those theories. That is what science is, by definition. Simplified, but I doubt you would understand the longer version. Scientists are not engaged in proving things. Read Popper before continuing to make a fool out of your self.
You have no idea if creation is real or superstition
Yes, I do. There has never even been set forward a theory that covers creation. If there isn't even a theory, it is highly unlikely there is a reality. That was what I alluded to when I said "Creation" isn't even wrong. As long as there is no falsifiable theory available to explain "Creation" we can not even discuss whether it is real or not. Before any validity of "Creation" can be determined, there must be a theory. Until there is a theory it is conjecture only (at best) and conjecture that people believe is real is superstition. By definition. So, yes, until there is a theory for Creation, Creation is, by the very definition, superstition.
then someone who checked to find there is no connection between the two
Nobody ever did. You are again showing that you do not understand what science is. People didn't check if there was no connection, they checked, again and again and again, if there is a connection. Even the fact that you thought it would be possible to check if there is no connection indicates a huge problem. It is impossible, scientifically, to prove a negative. In other words, we can not prove that there is no connection, but as long as nobody has found any indication of a connection, it is absurd to think there is one. Superstition again. Nobody has ever found one, so the theory that there is no connection has never been proven false, and it is reasonable to assume there is no connection. Until someone finds a connection, there is only one valid theory, and that is that there is none. You can sit down and create a theory that says there is, but that theory has to be falsifiable. Please explain how you would do that. Until you have a fully falsifiable theory that there is a connection between vaccinations and autism, there is not even a possibility of making a the case for a probable connection.
please point me to the work that says in the history of vaccines, no one has ever gotten ill because of the vaccine
How could I? There is ample data indicating that a number of vaccines have various side effects. What relevance does that have?
and all these people using their built in mental processes that have normal healthy children who all the sudden develop or start displaying signs of autism shortly after a round of vaccines
No such case has ever been documented. I think that bears repeating. Nobody has ever documented a case where autism unexpectedly appeared shortly after a vaccination. Nobody. There is a doctor who claims he has documented it, but his work has been shown to be a fraud. Yes, a fraud. He did it to make money! Now, before continuing, read up on what "documented" means, and also read about the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallasy.
how about where the research is that shows every single instance of claims of autism from vaccines had properly prepared vaccines that were not contaminated with anything at all, that were transported correctly and store correctly and administered correctly- each and every time
We don't need this. We need one out of two things, the former would prove inconclusively that vaccines cause autism, the other would only make a case for it being highly likely. The second has two different paths, but the result is the same.
1/ Show that a vaccine, possibly a component of the vaccine, causes autism. The problem with this is tha
And that was all that was needed to show that you know nothing at all about science. No, outside of maths, scientists do not prove things. They can invalidate, but they do not prove. Heck, I expect you do not even know what a theory is.
creation is in no way in conflict with science
Creation isn't even wrong. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. It is "in conflict" with science in the same way that astrology and reading tea leaves is "in conflict" with science. Creation is just childish superstition, it doesn't overlap with science in any manner. For creation to be even remotely interesting someone has to come up with a theory, so far nobody has.
In the case of the anti-vaccines, they aren't rejecting the science
Actually they are. The prevalent scientific theory is that there is no co-variance (even) between vaccines and autism and currently there is no data to show that this theory is wrong. So, if you think there is a causation, you are arguing against the current scientific theory. You can prove current scientific theory wrong by showing that causation is plausible, heck even co-variance would be interesting. Such has yet to be done. Until it is done, saying there is causation is in direct opposition to science.
They reject the claim or insert an alternative claim they consider more important
Science doesn't deal with "claims" so there is nothing to reject. What they consider "important" is of utter irrelevance since importance has nothing to do with science. Science deals with theories and data, and I assume you know nothing about either.
No, you do not get it. X and Y is the product of the scientific method and rejecting either does not mean you reject the scientific method
If X and Y is the result of scientific method, yes, rejecting X means you reject scientific method, if you at the same time accept Y it means you suffer from schizophrenia in addition.
but you simply have to give up this idea that anything science is irreproachable
I don't have that idea. I see the schizophrenia though. Hallucinations are common.
There is no- you have to support X if you support Y in science
You don't get it. There is no X and Y in scientific method. There is only scientific method. They reject that. Without scientific method there is no science.
No, I am not at all bigoted. There is a Jesus-believing anti-science crowd out there. Pointing it out doesn't make you any more bigoted than saying there are African Americans out there.
Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant
Sorry, the only person showing any kind of ignorance here is you.
Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is
Scientific method is rather simple. It is a way of thinking. That way of thinking basically has a set of rather simple steps that you have to follow in order to be scientific. There are things like a hypothesis, a theory, conjecture, testing etc. As an example, outside of a very specific part of science, scientists never prove anything. That is not part of scientific methodology (with the exception of Maths). This methodology is science. Rejecting it out of hand is anti-scientific. The Anti-vaxxers reject scientific methodology out of hand. The young earthers do to. As do the Intelligent Design people in all their variations. The summarily and utterly reject everything about scientific methodology. They have varying reasons for rejecting it, but they reject it fully.
That is anti-science.
Now go find a adult that can explain to you what scientific method is.
They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science
This is not semantics. This is ignorance. Yours. They do not disagree with one or two things in science, they reject scientific methodology entirely. The absurdity is that they only apply the rejection to a select set of scientific fields, but they do in fact reject the methodology entirely. There is no such things as "I accept the methodology as it applies to sub-atomic physics but reject it as it applies to organic chemistry". Accepting scientific methodology is a binary thing, either you do or you don't. The anti-vxxers and the intelligent designers reject scientific methodology as such, but they argue their rejection from different view points.
Your next task is to find out what "scientific methodology" actually entails. You seem not to know.
So, the anti evolution guys are not anti-science if they believe in electrons and chemicals? Then there are not anti-science people left in the world. Moron.
To invoke Godwin: And Hitler was a nice, children-loving vegetarian and a strong anti-smoker who never harmed a single person in his life. Even though he had a bit of a racist streak. I have heard he was a really, really nice guy. He can't be held responsible for what others did.
someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter
Yeah, really authorative. A Model who's claim to fame is that she managed to make Jim Carrey say "I do".
it's not a with us or against us situation
That's not it. The problem is that this nude models statements have caused the lives of more than one thousand children is the problem. That many, many more now have disabilities and brain damage because of her. Her statements and those of the fraud she uses as justification have been proven wrong. Still she keeps pushing the issue, thereby killing more children. Not only is she killing children whose parents refuse the vaccine, but by punching holes in the herd protection, she is also killing children who for other reasons can not have these vaccines (allergies etc).
The Jesus anti-science crowd holds back the education of a portion of the population. That's bad. This anti-science crowd, lead by this particular nude model, is killing children. That's pretty serious as fringe nutters go.
As someone else pointed out, willing human shields are combatants. If the majority of Palistinians actually wanted peace, there would be no Hamas, there would be no (or very few) terrorists. These terrorists have broad popular support. If a terrorist group took up arms around children where they live, the would be dead before the fired a single rocket. Strung up on lamp posts like they deserve. As long as the terrorists have popular support, the populace is sadly valid targets.
As an Israeli once said, there will not be peace in the Middle East until the Arabs start loving their children more than they hate Israel.
When someone starts a war, they might lose territory. Poland stole huge parts of Germany after WWII. The problem with the Arabs is that they have never accepted that they lost and they have continued to fight since their first attack. Israel has never done anything but engage in a defensive war against an enemy that is not only set on destroying their country, but all non-Arabs in the region. The goal of Hamas, the PLO etc is not the creation of an Arab state, it is the genocide of all non-Arabs, Jews, Christians, Copts. Anything non-Arab.
The problem is, they lost. Every time. Then they lose territory. Tough shit. Now stop fighting or forever be condemned to live under occupation.
Here is an analogy for you. What would Germany be today if they had refused to sign a peace treaty and continued with terrorist attacks in London, New York, Washington, Paris and Moscow today. Every day since 1945. That is what the Arabs in the region have done. Non-stop terror since they lost a war. They refuse to sign a peace treaty. When Arafat came back after signing the Oslo treaty he said on Egyptian news that his signature had no meaning, that he had no intention of keeping to the treaty and that the PLO ten point plan was still in effect. That plan calls for the extermination or deportation of all non-Arabs from the region (that is, of course, unless they convert to Islam),
If the Arabs lay down their weapons, that means the end of this conflict.
If the Israeli lay down their weapons, that means the end of Israel.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading comprehension issues?
Up until the 70's-80's Australia had similar gun laws to those of the US but not the same "gun culture",
Same in Norway, we have a very different "gun culture", which is why we have fewer homicides using guns than in the US despite of the fact that we have more guns per capita than does the US. As an example, and I am not entirely a-typical, until recently i had, in my house, a shotgun, a rifle, a machine gun (military issued, so that went when I turned 45) and two hand guns. I would guess the average Norwegian house hold has at least a shot gun and/or a rifle.
Even with the nutter on the Island, we have very, very few gun-related homicides in Norway. Not because of lack of access, but because of a different culture.
It basically comes down to this: In the US the prevalent notion is that violence can be used as a problem solver (which is why they have capital punishment). In most civilized countries people do not think that violence can be used to solve all kinds of problems (but some have to be). Irrespective of the number of guns per capita, the attitude that guns can solve problems will lead to higher gun-related mortality rates.
so by definition the number of homicidal maniacs with access to guns is lower
BZZT! WRONG! You are assuming the same level of motivation in the homicidal manic group as you are in the population in general. Access to guns in the UK is more difficult, but it is still rather easy. You can get them illegally in a number of ways, for example from abroad, and border crossings are not that tight (unless you are dumb enough to fly).
but I don't see how you can disagree that the number of gun crimes is reduced
Since there is no correlation between number of guns and number of gun crimes, I don't see how you could argue there is one unless you set the available number of guns to zero. Please note that, for example, Norway, Switzerland and Finland all have a higher gun count per capita than does the US but nowhere near the number of gun crimes. Also, there is no correlation in the various US states between gun access (very difficult in California, very easy in Alabama) and gun crimes. HOWEVER, I was not arguing gun crimes in general, I was arguing that someone with the motivation to kill a president or other prominent people are not under the same statistical variation as the "average jilted lover".
There is 300 million people in the United States. Even with just the normal number or nuts in any society, the number of people in the US wanting to murder a (any) president would be rather high. The number of people with the motivation and skill will on any given day be in the hundreds at least, irrespective of what president you have.
Are you saying that the US should cull the population so that statistically there are fewer crazy nuts with access to guns? Would that not be a tad extreme? I mean, to get the number of nuts down to a manageable number the population would probably have to be reduced to some 10-50 million. Killing off 250 million people just to lower the cost of presidential security seems a little like the wrong prioritization.
You could argue, as many clueless morons do, that one could reduce the number of guns, even though all evidence shows that reducing access to guns do in fact not reduce the number of homicidal maniacs with access to guns.
Why aren't the US and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens that are effectively stealing from the US and European treasuries
Hmmm, let's see, companies are using legal avenues to prevent the government from stealing their profits, and you call that "stealing"? I thought this kind of "logic" was less prevalent in people who are actually capable of putting together the words that form a /. article.
Rubbish. A number of treatments, rationing, remember, are never used in Europe simply because they are not deemed worth it. This goes for life-prolonging treatments for certain types of cancer, for example. In the US they are available if you are insured, in most places in Europe they are not. If I had pancreatic cancer, for example, I would love another six months to live, no matter what the cost, but that is not available to me in Scandinavia, the UK and most other European countries.
Me, I am Norwegian, currently living in Norway, formerly a resident (for a decade or so) of the US. Since I was working and work supplied insurance (that I had to pay parts of) I had access to treatments that simply are not given in Norway due to cost. Also, for a few hours my doctor in the US suspected I might have epilepsy. He suspected for a few hours (from about 9 in the morning 'til about 3 in the afternoon) since I was in the US. In Norway getting the suspicion confirmed or falsified would have taken from four to six months, a period in which I would not be allowed to drive, have certain types of jobs etc.
As an insured person I had health care at an order of magnitude higher quality in the US than in most countries, most of Europe included. For the insured, the US has the best health care system in the world. Bar none. It is tremendously expensive though. Nobody spends more on their health care systems than the US, both the private and the public systems are better funded than in Europe.
Nothing much to do with health care, but lots to do with health. Nationalized health care doesn't prevent you from over-eating junk.
No, it is not. It is more prevalent.
Sorry, that happens more when government runs health-care, not less. Lots of treatments are never used in many places in Europe at all because they are too expensive.
Prove their work is not proving things
Wow, you really are that ignorant, aren't you. Well, it is in the very definition of science. Science (as mentioned outside of maths) is about creating theories, and about falsifying, not proving, those theories. That is what science is, by definition. Simplified, but I doubt you would understand the longer version. Scientists are not engaged in proving things. Read Popper before continuing to make a fool out of your self.
You have no idea if creation is real or superstition
Yes, I do. There has never even been set forward a theory that covers creation. If there isn't even a theory, it is highly unlikely there is a reality. That was what I alluded to when I said "Creation" isn't even wrong. As long as there is no falsifiable theory available to explain "Creation" we can not even discuss whether it is real or not. Before any validity of "Creation" can be determined, there must be a theory. Until there is a theory it is conjecture only (at best) and conjecture that people believe is real is superstition. By definition. So, yes, until there is a theory for Creation, Creation is, by the very definition, superstition.
then someone who checked to find there is no connection between the two
Nobody ever did. You are again showing that you do not understand what science is. People didn't check if there was no connection, they checked, again and again and again, if there is a connection. Even the fact that you thought it would be possible to check if there is no connection indicates a huge problem. It is impossible, scientifically, to prove a negative. In other words, we can not prove that there is no connection, but as long as nobody has found any indication of a connection, it is absurd to think there is one. Superstition again. Nobody has ever found one, so the theory that there is no connection has never been proven false, and it is reasonable to assume there is no connection. Until someone finds a connection, there is only one valid theory, and that is that there is none. You can sit down and create a theory that says there is, but that theory has to be falsifiable. Please explain how you would do that. Until you have a fully falsifiable theory that there is a connection between vaccinations and autism, there is not even a possibility of making a the case for a probable connection.
please point me to the work that says in the history of vaccines, no one has ever gotten ill because of the vaccine
How could I? There is ample data indicating that a number of vaccines have various side effects. What relevance does that have?
and all these people using their built in mental processes that have normal healthy children who all the sudden develop or start displaying signs of autism shortly after a round of vaccines
No such case has ever been documented. I think that bears repeating. Nobody has ever documented a case where autism unexpectedly appeared shortly after a vaccination. Nobody. There is a doctor who claims he has documented it, but his work has been shown to be a fraud. Yes, a fraud. He did it to make money! Now, before continuing, read up on what "documented" means, and also read about the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallasy.
how about where the research is that shows every single instance of claims of autism from vaccines had properly prepared vaccines that were not contaminated with anything at all, that were transported correctly and store correctly and administered correctly- each and every time
We don't need this. We need one out of two things, the former would prove inconclusively that vaccines cause autism, the other would only make a case for it being highly likely. The second has two different paths, but the result is the same.
1/ Show that a vaccine, possibly a component of the vaccine, causes autism. The problem with this is tha
Actually, they prove the results of their work
And that was all that was needed to show that you know nothing at all about science. No, outside of maths, scientists do not prove things. They can invalidate, but they do not prove. Heck, I expect you do not even know what a theory is.
creation is in no way in conflict with science
Creation isn't even wrong. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. It is "in conflict" with science in the same way that astrology and reading tea leaves is "in conflict" with science. Creation is just childish superstition, it doesn't overlap with science in any manner. For creation to be even remotely interesting someone has to come up with a theory, so far nobody has.
In the case of the anti-vaccines, they aren't rejecting the science
Actually they are. The prevalent scientific theory is that there is no co-variance (even) between vaccines and autism and currently there is no data to show that this theory is wrong. So, if you think there is a causation, you are arguing against the current scientific theory. You can prove current scientific theory wrong by showing that causation is plausible, heck even co-variance would be interesting. Such has yet to be done. Until it is done, saying there is causation is in direct opposition to science.
They reject the claim or insert an alternative claim they consider more important
Science doesn't deal with "claims" so there is nothing to reject. What they consider "important" is of utter irrelevance since importance has nothing to do with science. Science deals with theories and data, and I assume you know nothing about either.
Since it didn't happen, no.
No, you do not get it. X and Y is the product of the scientific method and rejecting either does not mean you reject the scientific method
If X and Y is the result of scientific method, yes, rejecting X means you reject scientific method, if you at the same time accept Y it means you suffer from schizophrenia in addition.
but you simply have to give up this idea that anything science is irreproachable
I don't have that idea. I see the schizophrenia though. Hallucinations are common.
There is no- you have to support X if you support Y in science
You don't get it. There is no X and Y in scientific method. There is only scientific method. They reject that. Without scientific method there is no science.
No, I am not at all bigoted. There is a Jesus-believing anti-science crowd out there. Pointing it out doesn't make you any more bigoted than saying there are African Americans out there.
Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant
Sorry, the only person showing any kind of ignorance here is you.
Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is
Scientific method is rather simple. It is a way of thinking. That way of thinking basically has a set of rather simple steps that you have to follow in order to be scientific. There are things like a hypothesis, a theory, conjecture, testing etc. As an example, outside of a very specific part of science, scientists never prove anything. That is not part of scientific methodology (with the exception of Maths). This methodology is science. Rejecting it out of hand is anti-scientific. The Anti-vaxxers reject scientific methodology out of hand. The young earthers do to. As do the Intelligent Design people in all their variations. The summarily and utterly reject everything about scientific methodology. They have varying reasons for rejecting it, but they reject it fully.
That is anti-science.
Now go find a adult that can explain to you what scientific method is.
They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science
This is not semantics. This is ignorance. Yours. They do not disagree with one or two things in science, they reject scientific methodology entirely. The absurdity is that they only apply the rejection to a select set of scientific fields, but they do in fact reject the methodology entirely. There is no such things as "I accept the methodology as it applies to sub-atomic physics but reject it as it applies to organic chemistry". Accepting scientific methodology is a binary thing, either you do or you don't. The anti-vxxers and the intelligent designers reject scientific methodology as such, but they argue their rejection from different view points.
Your next task is to find out what "scientific methodology" actually entails. You seem not to know.
So, the anti evolution guys are not anti-science if they believe in electrons and chemicals? Then there are not anti-science people left in the world. Moron.
To invoke Godwin: And Hitler was a nice, children-loving vegetarian and a strong anti-smoker who never harmed a single person in his life. Even though he had a bit of a racist streak. I have heard he was a really, really nice guy. He can't be held responsible for what others did.
someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter
Yeah, really authorative. A Model who's claim to fame is that she managed to make Jim Carrey say "I do".
it's not a with us or against us situation
That's not it. The problem is that this nude models statements have caused the lives of more than one thousand children is the problem. That many, many more now have disabilities and brain damage because of her. Her statements and those of the fraud she uses as justification have been proven wrong. Still she keeps pushing the issue, thereby killing more children. Not only is she killing children whose parents refuse the vaccine, but by punching holes in the herd protection, she is also killing children who for other reasons can not have these vaccines (allergies etc).
The Jesus anti-science crowd holds back the education of a portion of the population. That's bad. This anti-science crowd, lead by this particular nude model, is killing children. That's pretty serious as fringe nutters go.
people who come to a DVD shop
If people actually came to a DVD shop, there would be no discussion here now.
left leaning people support democracy and its core principles
In just about the entire world, the left is (today) pretty anti-Israel and pro Terrorists.
As someone else pointed out, willing human shields are combatants. If the majority of Palistinians actually wanted peace, there would be no Hamas, there would be no (or very few) terrorists. These terrorists have broad popular support. If a terrorist group took up arms around children where they live, the would be dead before the fired a single rocket. Strung up on lamp posts like they deserve. As long as the terrorists have popular support, the populace is sadly valid targets.
As an Israeli once said, there will not be peace in the Middle East until the Arabs start loving their children more than they hate Israel.
When someone starts a war, they might lose territory. Poland stole huge parts of Germany after WWII. The problem with the Arabs is that they have never accepted that they lost and they have continued to fight since their first attack. Israel has never done anything but engage in a defensive war against an enemy that is not only set on destroying their country, but all non-Arabs in the region. The goal of Hamas, the PLO etc is not the creation of an Arab state, it is the genocide of all non-Arabs, Jews, Christians, Copts. Anything non-Arab.
The problem is, they lost. Every time. Then they lose territory. Tough shit. Now stop fighting or forever be condemned to live under occupation.
Here is an analogy for you. What would Germany be today if they had refused to sign a peace treaty and continued with terrorist attacks in London, New York, Washington, Paris and Moscow today. Every day since 1945. That is what the Arabs in the region have done. Non-stop terror since they lost a war. They refuse to sign a peace treaty. When Arafat came back after signing the Oslo treaty he said on Egyptian news that his signature had no meaning, that he had no intention of keeping to the treaty and that the PLO ten point plan was still in effect. That plan calls for the extermination or deportation of all non-Arabs from the region (that is, of course, unless they convert to Islam),
If the Arabs lay down their weapons, that means the end of this conflict.
If the Israeli lay down their weapons, that means the end of Israel.
No
That would be a good long-term investment too, since all those Texans would eventually become new oil to harvest.