Cynical Nation

This was more than I imagined. Sickening.

I was thinking to myself that despite the problems of the development of Israel, should anything happen to it, all of the liberal Jews sympathetic to Palestine would get nervous. Mostly because the impact would be psychologically personal. While the US has more Jews in the US than anywhere else, someone knows someone who lives in Israel. Therefore Jews around the world could get more militant about maintaining an Israel state to the point of nuclear war.
Of course this is just one idiot, but this incident just made that theory more sound, unfortunately.

You know, I believe that it was just the one person yelling that, but to not condemn it? To simply say it's insensitive? I'm pretty sure calling for a return to genocide can accurately be termed "insensitive".

Also, I'm somewhat appalled that your link felt the need to remind people of why the woman would have called for ovens. Gah.

Whoops, I meant it's a bit worse than "insensitive". Bit being a slight understatement.

Despicable and sickening. Hard to believe that someone said that, but it was clear. Disgusting.

"Despicable and sickening. Hard to believe that someone said that, but it was clear. Disgusting." (BW)


Hey! A belated welcome to the WoT, BW!

Funny story....(that's funny "strange", NOT funny "ha-ha")...I've been sent to Israel twice times since 2001 (btw, thanks for paying your taxes y'all) and one extremely interesting tidbit I picked up while over there is that the Israelis (that's "Izz-Rah-ail-eeez" in Arabic) know what Western peaceniks DON'T....simply put, "You CAN'T negotiate or "dialogue" with jihadists."

Ironically enough, the Izz-rah-ail-eeez learned this by, well by attempting to enjoin the jihadists in Hezbollah and Hamas in endless verbal dialogue. Then they tried free lunch programs, ceding territory, and basically everything but sucking every jihadist c*ck in the region and that was only bypassed due to a host of both hygenic and strategic reasons that are probably pretty obvious to even the most ardent "peace advocate."

OK, here's the funny part - you know what that foray into suppine negotiation taught the Izz-rah-ail-eeez?

Yeah! I'm betting you guessed right.

They realized that by "dialogue" the jihadists DIDN'T mean verbal negotiation, fawning gabfests and free BJs....nah, they meant, a friendly exchange of rockets and automatic weapons fire!

Seriously! No shit.

It's just one of those things you've got to chalk up to those delightful "cultural differences" that American multiculturalists are always getting positively orgasmic over. Sure, sure, this one's slightly LESS "delightful" than some other disgusting Arabic habi-....I mean "cultural differences", like the one where they stand about an inch away from your face and blow their fetid breath in your face. I mean what do they eat over there, carrion?!

Anyway, the Izz-rah-ail-eez have taken to training a lot of American First Repsonders, Military and Intelligence personnel on the joys of "dialoguing" with jihadists, in an attempt to spread the word that the term "peace negotiation" (to Hamas, for instance) really means firing an RPG from a school filled with Palestinian children...funny stuff, alright.

This is almost certainly why the incoming Obama administration has kept Robert Gates on the job, put Janet Napolitano in as head of Homeland Security and tabbed former admiral Dennis Blair as DNI...it seems that the incoming administration is learning what the Izz-rah-ail-eeez taught the previous administration - that "negotiations" with jihadists are best carried out with a hammer, not a microphone and "dialogue" with artilary and automatic weapons fire....free lunch and crap like that, not so much.

At any rate, good to have you aboard on the ongoing WoT.

And the equivalent to that woman on the other side is republican representative Mark Kirk (R-IL). Take a look at this. Despicable.

There’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with the sentiments of Rep Mark Kirk, “To misquote Shakespeare, something is rotten in Gaza and now it's time to take out the trash," OR Rep Robert Wexler's (D-FL) even MORE “hate-filled” and “warlike comments” (at least according to many “peace-activists”), “...peace can only be achieved from a position of strength," said Wexler (YEAH, “PEACE through superior fire power” - true enough), "and it is unrealistic to believe that Israel should continue to exhibit restraint endlessly when Hamas continues to fire untold numbers of rockets. In the past, if history is a judge in the Middle East, progress is most often made after Israel and the West show strength and resolve. Weakness tends to promote further aggressive activity by Palestinian rejectionist groups."

Wexler’s comments pissed off anti-war groups even more, with many calling them, “An argument in favor of Israel's genocide of the Palestinian peoples.”

The REALITY is exactly as I’ve stated it many, MANY times, “There really is no ‘right and wrong’ between nations, there is only perpetual national self-interest,” OR perhaps better put, “There is NO individual morality between nations, ONLY mutual, often fleeting self-interests.”

I went to the Balkans twice and I saw the mass graves – the 3,000 Albanian Muslims that Milocevic’s forces killed, in RETALIATION for the 10,000 Christian Serbs the Muslims killed first. That oft overlooked fact (Serbian retaliation) is exactly why the Hague was not able to convict Milocevic of "war crimes."

Both English Common law and Talmudic law dictate that “The initiator/aggressor is always the most culpable” in any violent act. Under ancient laws, including Talmudic law, there is “no crime in retribution,” while under English Common law, the retaliatory act is seen as a “lesser crime, but that is, in fact, one of the flaws from English Common law viewing all such acts as “crimes against the state,” which is an innately flawed view, in my view.

At any rate, given the fact that the Albanian Muslims initiated the conflict over Kosovo with genocide, there’s no doubt that Milovevic’s forces were the initial victims, like the Israelis are in the Mideast and that makes BOTH groups the closest thing to “the moral side” when looking at it strictly from a standpoint of individual morality.

From America’s national standpoint however, Milocevic’s Serbs were the “BAD guys, just as the Palestinians are also the “BAD guys” SOLELY because of how their positions impacted America’s national interests, NOT because of any actions they engaged in.

Both Milocevic’s Serbs and the Palestinians stand AGAINST American interests, so they are “BAD” in our eyes (even though the Serbs and the Israelis are both morally right in their responses)...the ONLY thing that matters geo-politically, from ANY nation’s standpoint is “how any given action impacts America’s national interests,” THAT IS our “international” morality.

So the FACT is, that BOTH Rep. Kirk and Rep. Wexler (and I despise the none-too-bright Wexler, that MD native who “represents” Florida) made statements that SUPPORTED America’s national interests in this matter...so they are, from an AMERICAN POV “right.”

Ironically enough the ONLY pol who tried to “lead the crowd and persuade them toward a more diplomatic stance,” was Frank Wolf (R-VA) who said, “he hoped that President-elect Barack Obama would make sustained American involvement in achieving a Middle East peace settlement a priority, which was met by silence from the crowd.”

Rep. Wolf’s comments were very close to outrightly endorsing diplomacy over war, which at this point is NOT in America’s best interests.

The crowd was right, in that regard, to shun Rep. Wolf's careless remarks.

JMK,
You may live in your cynical world and ideations. But many respect human life. What Kirk said was dehumanization of Palestinians. When you call humans "trash", it is easier to kill them. It is as despicable and nauseating as the statement of that woman in the video that Barry posted.

Children and innocent civilians from both sides are not supposed to be pawns and die. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very complicated issue, and generally I support Israel.
However, I can no longer support the Israeli offensive when >250 palestinian children have died. I no longer care who is right or wrong. I only care that this stops and no more innocent civilians from both sides die. Sarkozy is the only one who has shown some leadership on the issue trying to break a cease fire.

"generally I support Israel. " (BW)


Immaterial.

I DON'T...and THAT too, is relatively immaterial.

I support America's national INTERESTS...and I support THOSE alone.

Right now, Israel is America's sattelite in the Mideast...I support them NOW, but should that relationship change, as did our relations with Saddam's Iraq (friend under Reagan and before, foe under Bush Sr and beyond), I'd oppose them (Israel) when they no longer are part of America's vital national interests.

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the individual morality of "right & wrong." As we seem to agree, America supported the Albanian Muslims in the Balkans over the initial and rightful victims in that conflict (the Serbian Christians), BECAUSE getting the Albanian oil pipeline through Europe was a vital American national interest...and the fact that Milocevic's Serbs were the initial victims of a Muslim genocide was really of no consequence. The Albanian oil pipeline was America's ONLY rightful consideration in that dispute.

In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there's NOTHING "complex" about it.

When the Dalai Lamma (I believe the world's leading peace advocate) was asked, "If an opponent fires upon troops from an occupied school or hospital, is it ever right for the military to fire back on such vulnerable civilian targets?"

The Lamma responded, "That is the sad thing about war. The innocents are always the most vulnerable, but once engaged, soldiers will always do whatever they must to defend themselves and that is to be expected. We cannot expect morality from soldiers under such conditions and that is why war must ultimately and inevitably eliminated from the human vocabulary."

I take that statement as a sort of "The ONLY rules (in war) is that there are NO rules."

Ironically enough, the ONLY politician to voice a pro-peace sentiment at that rally was a REPUBLICAN - Rep. Frank Wolf and I explained very clearly why Wolf's comments were wrong - primarily, they didn't jibe with America's current national interests.

Moreover, Wexler's statement was faaaaar more incindiary than Kirk's.

That's why so many peace activists have called Wexler's comments "support for Israeli sponsored genocide."

While I may agree with those activists in regards to Wexler's comments, I'd add, "So what?!"

For Americans, America's national interests SHOULD BE the ONLY considerations.

The INDIVIDUAL morality of "right and wrong" is relegated to INDIVIDUAL morality, it has no place between nations - where that morality simply ceases to apply. That's NOT cynicism, it's the reality we deal with every day.

For Americans, America's national interests SHOULD BE the ONLY considerations.

So, according to you the rest of the world are not humans? In my opinion the 2 worst sources of trouble in the world are nationalism and religion.

"So, according to you the rest of the world are not humans?" (BW)


Oooops! I forgot I was exchanging views with someone who's somewhat "logically challenged."

The nazis, the imperial Japanese and the soviets were all humans, they were also, in their day, enemies of America.

Their “sins”, at least from America’s standpoint, weren’t in their being socialists or oppressive tyrannies, the reason they HAD to be destroyed was that they stood squarely against America’s interests at that time...and those interests had nothing to do with Hitler’s holocaust, or Stalin’s killing 50 million odd Russian civilians in his purges, or Japan’s vaunted and hideous medical experiments on the Chinese, etc., it was that they sought a new world order that was antithetical to the Anglo-American world order that we Americans universally support.

Even within the constraints of “INDIVIDUAL MORALITY” we all have an innate (in-born) Right and responsibility (our option) to protect our PROPERTY, with deadly force, if need be, and we have an innate DUTY (not optional) to protect our lives and the lives of our family members, as well with deadly force when needed.

Today, I hold to no religion. My views are, however, somewhat spiritual, along the lines, ironically enough of those held by Einstein who said, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...” Exactly...in my view, some “Creative Life Force,” which I cannot comprehend. I believe it is useless for us to even try to comprehend such things. It is beyond mere human comprehension, at this point.

I accept that, but what I haven’t found, to date, is any refutation of Nietzsche’s view that our charitable impulses are a corrosive weakness that work counter to the natural selection and ultimate evolution of mankind.

ONLY to someone who accepts the “sanctity of all human life” is killing another human immoral. The Catholic Church preaches that and thus they have the moral standing to oppose the death penalty and most wars (as they do).

I DO NOT accept “the sanctity of all life,” so I do not accept those particular moral strictures associated with that belief.

I tried to explain that to my Dad once, saying, “Look, if someone robs you of $5 that you don’t need, you’re well within your rights to get up, smash that guy’s head with a pipe and collect your money. It’s not so much the value of the item(s) stolen, it’s about redressing a psychological rape. If you want to say that’s about me claiming that “my property is worth more than that guy’s life,” that's inaccurate. It’s more, much more than that. That guy selfishly put himself and his needs OVER myself and THAT is akin to a psychological rape and it is THAT that I have a duty and a right to redress on my own terms.”

While I cannot find any reason to believe in some anthropomorphic “father in the sky,” I can find no reason to believe in, what I see as, an overly simplistic view that “all life is sacred.” In fact, absent that “father in the sky,” there is nothing that’s really “sacred,” is there? The fact that there appears to be an organized structure to the universe and, in the words of Einstein, "some spirit far greater than man"...or in mine, "some Creative life Force," does not seem to bolster the conventional morality fashioned by man’s religions.

Sometimes it must seem like I have some personal dislike for you BW...I don’t. I am merely greatly and almost always disappointed by you. I believe you are an intelligent person, in fact, I believe you’re too intelligent to remain as naïve as you are.

For any intelligent person who moves away from religion, there is usually a triggering event of some kind. That’s generally followed by a period of some degree of anger at “God” and then at the Church or the religion that you’ve come to believe lied to you all along and ultimately to all religions.

For each individual those periods will vary. For me, I had a relatively short period of anger at, and denial of God, followed by a somewhat longer period of anger and resentment toward my own and every other religion.

In my experience, most people never get further than that because they retain their childlike minds, despite rejecting what they claim to see as a very childlike belief in “a great and protective father in the sky.”

In my own case, I’ve gone MUCH further.

I had a triggering event at age eight and with that the gradual and shocking realization and acceptance that everything I’d based all my beliefs on until then, was not so. At age 11 (in the 6th grade) I came across two incredible books by the great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The first was Thus Spoke Zarathustra and after that, I read The Anti-Christ, which remains one of the most profound books I’ve ever read.

At 11 y/o I stopped all pretense of even going to Church - my father, thankfully, allowed that.

In Nietzsche’s “The Anti-Christ” I found the basis for my own internal searching and questioning. I understood that his “God is dead,” statement was really about “religion being dead,” specifically that the influence of religion was (at his time) dying within Western civilization, as it seems all but dead today.

Nietzsche KNEW that to challenge religion you needed to do far more than merely reject religious beliefs and traditions, you HAD to also reject the moral code and everything else that sprang from it.

He did, and that’s why he came to revile charity and man’s “guilty charitable impulse” to help the weak and unfortunate as “The curse of Christ,” and saw that as the greatest impediment to man’s natural evolution to a superior state.

I took this profound insight as proof that conventional morality was set up to keep people, such as myself, from taking what I wanted...from, in effect, “gathering unto me what is mine.”

There's really ONLY ONE way you can react once you accept that religion is bullshit and ergo the morality that sprang from it is also bullshit and that is to act on that insight. There are, however, two possible paths.

One way is the path of about 0.01% (1/100th of a percent) of all criminals. Most serial killers would fit that bill, so would most predators like Bernie Maddow and other scammers. These are the most animalistic of those who’ve rejected conventional morality...and for the most part, the dumbest, as the vast majority of these people are caught. The few successful ones are people we never hear of...because they never got caught.

Like most predators in the animal world, such people tend to target the weakest and most vulnerable people available – people who are gullible (in the case of the Maddow’s), people who are reckless (in the case of most serial killers who prey on prostitutes and runaways). They act the way most predators in nature act, lions, crocs, etc. all prey on the slowest, sickest and least fortunate among the other beasts.

That group probably comprises about a third (maybe even less) of the people who’ve rejected conventional morality.

The other two-thirds are found mostly among the political class and within the ranks of law enforcement and security agencies. A large percentage of politicians are amoral. How many of these have actually and consciously accepted that conventional morality is arbitrary and capricious and thus optional, is pretty hard to tell.

But until you’ve accepted that ALL our current morality is based on those flawed and anciently politicized religious traditions, than you haven’t really given up your basic faith. If you still believe in conventional morality, you’re still adhering to the crux of those ancient religions – Judaism and Christianity.

To me, there’s no other explanation for that other than pure spiritual and intellectual laziness.

I don't know how that got posted anonymously (guess I didn't check to make sure all the fields were filled in)....but that anonymous posting was also from me.