User Tag List

First 789

Results 81 to 84 of 84

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkpo14 View Post
    Once again- you run away. chose whatever rationalization you want to why you do not answer me(the one that gives you most comfort as in- he may be right, but im 100% right or something like this).
    *Runs away; far far away*

    Salam.

  2. #82
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilen View Post
    Saying Israel is the nation of the Israelis would be fair. Saying it's the nations of the Jews makes it racist and unfair for the rest of the Population.
    I think you're missing the point; the nation-states in Europe were in fact named after the titular ethnicities, but they would still be nation-states even if they were technically named after something else. In non-immigrant countries (basically the Eastern Hemisphere), nation-states are highly correlated with liberal democracy, as it is easiest (again, in the Eastern Hemisphere) to achieve the enabling conditions that make liberal democracy possible in the context of a national state. This dynamic IS unfair to minority citizens, as it creates mild alienation even when citizens of all ethnicities posses equal rights, but it is NOT inherently racist or bigoted.

    Also, most majority Arab muslim countries are in fact national states for Arab muslims, as evidenced by their constitutions and official documents, not to mention common practices. The major difference (aside from democracy versus autocracy) is that unequal rights for minority citizens, not mere alienation (as per the European example) is the common manifestation of the national state in the Middle East and North Africa.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Heh...

    However, there is something that bugs me even more:

    I know a lot of people in Europe are pro-Palestine. However, think about this:

    What is the only reason all Europeans aren't speaking German and saying HEIL HITLER every day?

    Recall: In 1941, Great Britain was the last bastion of hope against the Nazi blitzkrieg. Spain had buckled itself over via a civil war, and France, as well as Poland, got quickly overrun, and Russia was burning. London was getting firebombed.

    Before then, in order to avert the war, Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler via the Rhineland concession, I believe. Of course, appeasement, as has historically been shown, did not work!

    Instead, London got bombed, and in return, Churchill said "FUCK IT" and burned Dresden to the ground, deliberately targeting the most civilians he could in order to break the will of the Germans. And then the Americans came and started hitting factories and rail lines.

    Furthermore, recall how WW2 ended: with atomic bombs onto Japanese industrial cities. Were those workers all imperialistic SLAY THE LESSER CHINESE/MALAYSIANS/ETC. evil? No. In fact, most of them were probably doing a day's work trying to honorably provide for their families. Oops, they went up in mushrooms.

    Were Churchill's actions--which ultimately were a key factor in saving the world from a Nazi war machine, so despicably wrong? Who would condemn now, many years later, that which saved them?

    This is exactly what one condemns when one condemns Israel--in fact, they condemn far less. Recall that Churchill firebombed entire cities. He deliberately sought to maximize civilian casualties.

    And today, he is hailed as a hero.

    And for good reason. In my eyes, Churchill was the man. He did what he needed to do, whether it was dirty work, or not. He kicked below the belt, he poked in the eyes, and didn't really give a damn what anyone else said.

    Olmert's situation is no different than Churchill's. His people--innocent civilians--are being attacked by a hostile nation.

    Tell me, what would Churchill have done? What would any great government official who sought the best for his people (and there are many, like Churchill, Genghis Khan, and I could provide more if world history hadn't been five years ago for me) have done?

    Israel is doing far less.

    Why is what a hero did less than 70 years ago now an act of utter villainy?
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  4. #84
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    Were Churchill's actions--which ultimately were a key factor in saving the world from a Nazi war machine, so despicably wrong? Who would condemn now, many years later, that which saved them?
    Happy New Year to you.

    Firebombing of Hamburg & Dresden were the work of Bomber Command, ultimately devised by Arthur Harris (although approved by Churchill). They were in response to German bombing - reaping the whirlwind, if you like.

    Albert Speer, in his book Inside The Third Reich, alluded to the fact that this tactic was not particularly effective. The bombing of the ball-bearing plant in Schwerin was markedly more effective.

    Arthur Harris is probably a name that does not slip off your tongue easily. With good reason. That he saved the world by bombing civilians and thus gives Israel a permit to do similar is a dubious contention.

    All the best.

    Arthur Harris (RAF officer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similar Threads

  1. Where Should I Move To?
    By Nørrsken in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-30-2017, 07:01 PM
  2. Should file cabinet move to Hawaii?
    By Lateralus in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2008, 06:32 AM
  3. Reasons to move to Rome...
    By sdalek in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 04:41 AM
  4. I'm moving to Dallas, TX in June
    By Jasz in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 01:31 PM
  5. Dawkins and Evolution, a discussion (moved to new thread)
    By hereandnow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 11:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO