I seriously doubt that a cease-fire could possibly include Israel ceasing the destruction of tunnels that are within their territory.
That depends whether they're destroying them from the Palestinian side or the Israeli side. That's something I really don't understand actually - a tunnel spans from Israeli land to Palestinian land, and yet in the interest of peace Israel destroys them from the Palestinian side, forcing armed Israelis to go into what they claim are incredibly hostile territories? Seems a bit strange.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I seriously doubt that a cease-fire could possibly include Israel ceasing the destruction of tunnels that are within their territory.
That depends whether they're destroying them from the Palestinian side or the Israeli side. That's something I really don't understand actually - a tunnel spans from Israeli land to Palestinian land, and yet in the interest of peace Israel destroys them from the Palestinian side, forcing armed Israelis to go into what they claim are incredibly hostile territories? Seems a bit strange.
The terms were that Israel would still be destroying the tunnels during the cease-fire.
With all due respect to Brian et al. who are trying to steer this thread into a thread for peace, I might be splitting hairs, but the title of this thread and Eddie Vedder's letter is "Imagine That -- I'm Still Anti-War." It is not "Imagine That -- I'm Preaching Peace."
Taken alone "anti" connotes a certain fierceness (an affectation that has often been attributed to the lyrical and vocal stylings of Eddie Vedder). According to merriam-webster.com, anti = one that is opposed.
And what I've read here is, for the most part, just that -- the fierce opinions of those who are opposed to war/institutional violence. Of course, as with any discussion in which there are multiple points of view, the debate can sometimes get personal due to the passionate positions of the participants. But I like to think that all of us are plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that noise and get back to the topic at hand -- namely, opposing war. I haven't seen anything that has seemed willfully malicious, just fiery and at times dumb and reactionary -- and we've all been there (no offense meant).
Pro-peace is the complementary, or perhaps supplementary, side of being anti-war, but they are not one and the same.
"I myself once dabbled in pacifism," so if you want to start a thread somewhere with the objective of promoting peace, by all means, please do so (and pm me the link so that I might participate), but this ain't that thread. This is a thread for those who are ANTI-war.
That being said: As-salaam alaikum.
You may indeed be splitting hairs here, dankind- Peace and anti-war are basically the same thing in my mind- but not matter. What I got out of Ed's message is that he is saying that despite all the horrors he is still anti-war and hopes somehow people will learn to work together. Those sentiments seemed to be mostly ignored on this thread so either I am totally missing the point or the thread has gone awry. Either way, my voice seems to be one taken here as contentious so I will gracefully bow out now and wish you all a good weekend.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
With all due respect to Brian et al. who are trying to steer this thread into a thread for peace, I might be splitting hairs, but the title of this thread and Eddie Vedder's letter is "Imagine That -- I'm Still Anti-War." It is not "Imagine That -- I'm Preaching Peace."
Taken alone "anti" connotes a certain fierceness (an affectation that has often been attributed to the lyrical and vocal stylings of Eddie Vedder). According to merriam-webster.com, anti = one that is opposed.
And what I've read here is, for the most part, just that -- the fierce opinions of those who are opposed to war/institutional violence. Of course, as with any discussion in which there are multiple points of view, the debate can sometimes get personal due to the passionate positions of the participants. But I like to think that all of us are plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that noise and get back to the topic at hand -- namely, opposing war. I haven't seen anything that has seemed willfully malicious, just fiery and at times dumb and reactionary -- and we've all been there (no offense meant).
Pro-peace is the complementary, or perhaps supplementary, side of being anti-war, but they are not one and the same.
"I myself once dabbled in pacifism," so if you want to start a thread somewhere with the objective of promoting peace, by all means, please do so (and pm me the link so that I might participate), but this ain't that thread. This is a thread for those who are ANTI-war.
That being said: As-salaam alaikum.
You may indeed be splitting hairs here, dankind- Peace and anti-war are basically the same thing in my mind- but not matter. What I got out of Ed's message is that he is saying that despite all the horrors he is still anti-war and hopes somehow people will learn to work together. Those sentiments seemed to be mostly ignored on this thread so either I am totally missing the point or the thread has gone awry. Either way, my voice seems to be one taken here as contentious so I will gracefully bow out now and wish you all a good weekend.
You may be right. I'm an editor by trade, so splitting hairs is in my nature. And if your voice has been taken here as contentious or even if that is just your perception -- I only add that latter clause because as an outsider who has mostly just read through this thread (every single post), I haven't observed as much -- then that is truly sad.
With all due respect to Brian et al. who are trying to steer this thread into a thread for peace, I might be splitting hairs, but the title of this thread and Eddie Vedder's letter is "Imagine That -- I'm Still Anti-War." It is not "Imagine That -- I'm Preaching Peace."
Taken alone "anti" connotes a certain fierceness (an affectation that has often been attributed to the lyrical and vocal stylings of Eddie Vedder). According to merriam-webster.com, anti = one that is opposed.
And what I've read here is, for the most part, just that -- the fierce opinions of those who are opposed to war/institutional violence. Of course, as with any discussion in which there are multiple points of view, the debate can sometimes get personal due to the passionate positions of the participants. But I like to think that all of us are plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that noise and get back to the topic at hand -- namely, opposing war. I haven't seen anything that has seemed willfully malicious, just fiery and at times dumb and reactionary -- and we've all been there (no offense meant).
Pro-peace is the complementary, or perhaps supplementary, side of being anti-war, but they are not one and the same.
"I myself once dabbled in pacifism," so if you want to start a thread somewhere with the objective of promoting peace, by all means, please do so (and pm me the link so that I might participate), but this ain't that thread. This is a thread for those who are ANTI-war.
That being said: As-salaam alaikum.
You may indeed be splitting hairs here, dankind- Peace and anti-war are basically the same thing in my mind- but not matter. What I got out of Ed's message is that he is saying that despite all the horrors he is still anti-war and hopes somehow people will learn to work together. Those sentiments seemed to be mostly ignored on this thread so either I am totally missing the point or the thread has gone awry. Either way, my voice seems to be one taken here as contentious so I will gracefully bow out now and wish you all a good weekend.
Brian, I just think that Eddie was talking about actual war, and finding peace in bad situations where people are getting killed. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that he also meant that people shouldn't argue with one another when they disagree on a message board. I don't think anyone is ignoring what Eddie said in this thread. Everyone is debating the issues when it comes to a situation where peace is not being found. The one common sentiment here is that we all want peace in the world, and in Gaza in particular. That seems to be right in line with Eddie's message, no?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^^ What exactly is the point of that? Do we have some reason to believe that the Israeli government is using this quote in their mission statement? I'm not sure it's useful or productive to be posting ancient scripture here, as though it proves something. We could just just as easily do the same thing in terms of Muslims, taking quotes from their religious text (which is, in fact, more likely).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^^ Again, the point? This is from an Oped blog. How exactly is it relevant to the Israeli government's plans? If a member of the government said that, then this would mean something.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^^ What exactly is the point of that? Do we have some reason to believe that the Israeli government is using this quote in their mission statement? I'm not sure it's useful or productive to be posting ancient scripture here, as though it proves something. We could just just as easily do the same thing in terms of Muslims, taking quotes from their religious text (which is, in fact, more likely).
Um, that tweet is from a Jewish blogger. And not for nothing but it has.
^^^^ What exactly is the point of that? Do we have some reason to believe that the Israeli government is using this quote in their mission statement? I'm not sure it's useful or productive to be posting ancient scripture here, as though it proves something. We could just just as easily do the same thing in terms of Muslims, taking quotes from their religious text (which is, in fact, more likely).
Um, that tweet is from a Jewish blogger. And not for nothing but it has.
I had already assumed that tweet was from a Jewish blogger.... :-/
And what has? The Israeli government has stated that their mission is to wipe out every Palestinian and their livestock? Can you post an official source for that? If that were their actual goal wouldn't they have done it already?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^^ What exactly is the point of that? Do we have some reason to believe that the Israeli government is using this quote in their mission statement? I'm not sure it's useful or productive to be posting ancient scripture here, as though it proves something. We could just just as easily do the same thing in terms of Muslims, taking quotes from their religious text (which is, in fact, more likely).
Um, that tweet is from a Jewish blogger. And not for nothing but it has.
I had already assumed that tweet was from a Jewish blogger.... :-/
And what has? The Israeli government has stated that their mission is to wipe out every Palestinian and their livestock? Can you post an official source for that? If that were their actual goal wouldn't they have done it already?
Nobody was trying to silence the 'flower-power' crowd. In fact, the complete opposite was the case. They all jumped on my 'anger' at the atrocities taking place, and my anger at those trying to excuse and justify it, and tried pretending that those who are actively trying to do someone about the massacre over there - by whatever means they have at their disposal - have emotional issues, and should basically shut up and puff on a bong.
For that last time, since the beginning, this thread is not about fighting. It's about peace. How many times does this have to be written
Israeli tanks opened fire in the southern Gaza Strip after a 72-hour truce began on Friday, a Reuters photographer and the Palestinian Interior Ministry said, and Hamas media reported that four people were killed.
With all due respect to Brian et al. who are trying to steer this thread into a thread for peace, I might be splitting hairs, but the title of this thread and Eddie Vedder's letter is "Imagine That -- I'm Still Anti-War." It is not "Imagine That -- I'm Preaching Peace."
Taken alone "anti" connotes a certain fierceness (an affectation that has often been attributed to the lyrical and vocal stylings of Eddie Vedder). According to merriam-webster.com, anti = one that is opposed.
And what I've read here is, for the most part, just that -- the fierce opinions of those who are opposed to war/institutional violence. Of course, as with any discussion in which there are multiple points of view, the debate can sometimes get personal due to the passionate positions of the participants. But I like to think that all of us are plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that noise and get back to the topic at hand -- namely, opposing war. I haven't seen anything that has seemed willfully malicious, just fiery and at times dumb and reactionary -- and we've all been there (no offense meant).
Pro-peace is the complementary, or perhaps supplementary, side of being anti-war, but they are not one and the same.
"I myself once dabbled in pacifism," so if you want to start a thread somewhere with the objective of promoting peace, by all means, please do so (and pm me the link so that I might participate), but this ain't that thread. This is a thread for those who are ANTI-war.
That being said: As-salaam alaikum.
You may indeed be splitting hairs here, dankind- Peace and anti-war are basically the same thing in my mind- but not matter. What I got out of Ed's message is that he is saying that despite all the horrors he is still anti-war and hopes somehow people will learn to work together. Those sentiments seemed to be mostly ignored on this thread so either I am totally missing the point or the thread has gone awry. Either way, my voice seems to be one taken here as contentious so I will gracefully bow out now and wish you all a good weekend.
It's interesting. People are fully geared to react to a reading piece already ammo'd with their response. Nothing is taken in, it's all just getting ready to be spewed out, because nothing is learned. We see what we want to see. Dankind sees "anti-war" not as peace, but against war. You and I, Brian, know that anti-war is peace. People like Byrnzie don't even read anything pertaining to peace. We're just all ready to react.
With all due respect to Brian et al. who are trying to steer this thread into a thread for peace, I might be splitting hairs, but the title of this thread and Eddie Vedder's letter is "Imagine That -- I'm Still Anti-War." It is not "Imagine That -- I'm Preaching Peace."
Taken alone "anti" connotes a certain fierceness (an affectation that has often been attributed to the lyrical and vocal stylings of Eddie Vedder). According to merriam-webster.com, anti = one that is opposed.
And what I've read here is, for the most part, just that -- the fierce opinions of those who are opposed to war/institutional violence. Of course, as with any discussion in which there are multiple points of view, the debate can sometimes get personal due to the passionate positions of the participants. But I like to think that all of us are plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that noise and get back to the topic at hand -- namely, opposing war. I haven't seen anything that has seemed willfully malicious, just fiery and at times dumb and reactionary -- and we've all been there (no offense meant).
Pro-peace is the complementary, or perhaps supplementary, side of being anti-war, but they are not one and the same.
"I myself once dabbled in pacifism," so if you want to start a thread somewhere with the objective of promoting peace, by all means, please do so (and pm me the link so that I might participate), but this ain't that thread. This is a thread for those who are ANTI-war.
With all due respect to Brian et al. who are trying to steer this thread into a thread for peace, I might be splitting hairs, but the title of this thread and Eddie Vedder's letter is "Imagine That -- I'm Still Anti-War." It is not "Imagine That -- I'm Preaching Peace."
Taken alone "anti" connotes a certain fierceness (an affectation that has often been attributed to the lyrical and vocal stylings of Eddie Vedder). According to merriam-webster.com, anti = one that is opposed.
And what I've read here is, for the most part, just that -- the fierce opinions of those who are opposed to war/institutional violence. Of course, as with any discussion in which there are multiple points of view, the debate can sometimes get personal due to the passionate positions of the participants. But I like to think that all of us are plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that noise and get back to the topic at hand -- namely, opposing war. I haven't seen anything that has seemed willfully malicious, just fiery and at times dumb and reactionary -- and we've all been there (no offense meant).
Pro-peace is the complementary, or perhaps supplementary, side of being anti-war, but they are not one and the same.
"I myself once dabbled in pacifism," so if you want to start a thread somewhere with the objective of promoting peace, by all means, please do so (and pm me the link so that I might participate), but this ain't that thread. This is a thread for those who are ANTI-war.
That being said: As-salaam alaikum.
You may indeed be splitting hairs here, dankind- Peace and anti-war are basically the same thing in my mind- but not matter. What I got out of Ed's message is that he is saying that despite all the horrors he is still anti-war and hopes somehow people will learn to work together. Those sentiments seemed to be mostly ignored on this thread so either I am totally missing the point or the thread has gone awry. Either way, my voice seems to be one taken here as contentious so I will gracefully bow out now and wish you all a good weekend.
Brian, I just think that Eddie was talking about actual war, and finding peace in bad situations where people are getting killed. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that he also meant that people shouldn't argue with one another when they disagree on a message board. I don't think anyone is ignoring what Eddie said in this thread. Everyone is debating the issues when it comes to a situation where peace is not being found. The one common sentiment here is that we all want peace in the world, and in Gaza in particular. That seems to be right in line with Eddie's message, no?
With all due respect to Brian et al. who are trying to steer this thread into a thread for peace, I might be splitting hairs, but the title of this thread and Eddie Vedder's letter is "Imagine That -- I'm Still Anti-War." It is not "Imagine That -- I'm Preaching Peace."
Taken alone "anti" connotes a certain fierceness (an affectation that has often been attributed to the lyrical and vocal stylings of Eddie Vedder). According to merriam-webster.com, anti = one that is opposed.
And what I've read here is, for the most part, just that -- the fierce opinions of those who are opposed to war/institutional violence. Of course, as with any discussion in which there are multiple points of view, the debate can sometimes get personal due to the passionate positions of the participants. But I like to think that all of us are plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that noise and get back to the topic at hand -- namely, opposing war. I haven't seen anything that has seemed willfully malicious, just fiery and at times dumb and reactionary -- and we've all been there (no offense meant).
Pro-peace is the complementary, or perhaps supplementary, side of being anti-war, but they are not one and the same.
"I myself once dabbled in pacifism," so if you want to start a thread somewhere with the objective of promoting peace, by all means, please do so (and pm me the link so that I might participate), but this ain't that thread. This is a thread for those who are ANTI-war.
That being said: As-salaam alaikum.
Anti-war is against war. The opposite of war is peace. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
It's interesting. People are fully geared to react to a reading piece already ammo'd with their response. Nothing is taken in, it's all just getting ready to be spewed out, because nothing is learned. We see what we want to see. Dankind sees "anti-war" not as peace, but against war. You and I, Brian, know that anti-war is peace. People like Byrnzie don't even read anything pertaining to peace. We're just all ready to react.
I'm done.
Since we're talking about good posts, I'd put this in there with the rest of them.
The reactionary comment is, for the most part, spot on. I've done it myself, both here and "out there"...and non-exclusively to this subject, I really try to keep my mind and eyes open - not easy though, especially when heated.
I think my favorite part of this and similar threads is that if you don't agree with me you're caving to propaganda, but what I post is definitely not propaganda especially if I post it over and over again.
Note: I am personally not calling anyone's posting propaganda. Just citing the
Israeli tanks opened fire in the southern Gaza Strip after a 72-hour truce began on Friday, a Reuters photographer and the Palestinian Interior Ministry said, and Hamas media reported that four people were killed.
The Israeli military had no immediate comment.
Sounds to me like it was Hamas who broke the cease fire.
It was. While the Israeli soldiers were seeking out to destroy the terror tunnels, a suicide bomber killed 2 soldiers and possibly the same or separate incident another soldier was taken hostage minutes after the cease fire.
John Kerry (and others) are calling for the unconditional return of the soldier captured to effectively break the terms of the cease fire.
But, don't worry - that will be dismissed a propaganda because it doesn't fit with a certain world view.
This is a lie. You're lying. A "suicide bomber"?? There hasn't been a Hamas suicide bomber since they renounced suicide bombing, like a decade ago! Have you forgotten what the Israeli lie is for this long?
Some peaceful protesters in the late '60s became so hard headed and angry about the war, they started making their own war: making bombs in their basements to combat pro-war folks. Really? Using violence to combat violence? That is exactly what that post about being "anti-war" by being against war yet pro anger, and inevitably pro-war. You CAN'T SOLVE VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE.
Wake up folks, the only way to combat war is through empathy, understanding, dropping the pride, ego and issues we have in order to save mankind. Learn from each other, solve our issues and what Eddie said: "LOVE, LOVE, LOVE."
^^^^ What exactly is the point of that? Do we have some reason to believe that the Israeli government is using this quote in their mission statement? I'm not sure it's useful or productive to be posting ancient scripture here, as though it proves something. We could just just as easily do the same thing in terms of Muslims, taking quotes from their religious text (which is, in fact, more likely).
But it's obvious to me from your posts that you simply don't understand what Zionism is, or its goal, and you've clearly never read what all the Zionist leaders from the early 20th century until now have said or done.
I think my favorite part of this and similar threads is that if you don't agree with me you're caving to propaganda, but what I post is definitely not propaganda especially if I post it over and over again.
Note: I am personally not calling anyone's posting propaganda. Just citing the
Israeli tanks opened fire in the southern Gaza Strip after a 72-hour truce began on Friday, a Reuters photographer and the Palestinian Interior Ministry said, and Hamas media reported that four people were killed.
The Israeli military had no immediate comment.
Sounds to me like it was Hamas who broke the cease fire.
It was. While the Israeli soldiers were seeking out to destroy the terror tunnels, a suicide bomber killed 2 soldiers and possibly the same or separate incident another soldier was taken hostage minutes after the cease fire.
John Kerry (and others) are calling for the unconditional return of the soldier captured to effectively break the terms of the cease fire.
But, don't worry - that will be dismissed a propaganda because it doesn't fit with a certain world view.
This is a lie. You're lying. A "suicide bomber"?? There hasn't been a Hamas suicide bomber since they renounced suicide bombing, like a decade ago! Have you forgotten what the Israeli lie is for this long?
I think my favorite part of this and similar threads is that if you don't agree with me you're caving to propaganda, but what I post is definitely not propaganda especially if I post it over and over again.
Note: I am personally not calling anyone's posting propaganda. Just citing the
Israeli tanks opened fire in the southern Gaza Strip after a 72-hour truce began on Friday, a Reuters photographer and the Palestinian Interior Ministry said, and Hamas media reported that four people were killed.
The Israeli military had no immediate comment.
Sounds to me like it was Hamas who broke the cease fire.
It was. While the Israeli soldiers were seeking out to destroy the terror tunnels, a suicide bomber killed 2 soldiers and possibly the same or separate incident another soldier was taken hostage minutes after the cease fire.
John Kerry (and others) are calling for the unconditional return of the soldier captured to effectively break the terms of the cease fire.
But, don't worry - that will be dismissed a propaganda because it doesn't fit with a certain world view.
This is a lie. You're lying. A "suicide bomber"?? There hasn't been a Hamas suicide bomber since they renounced suicide bombing, like a decade ago! Have you forgotten what the Israeli lie is for this long?
I think my favorite part of this and similar threads is that if you don't agree with me you're caving to propaganda, but what I post is definitely not propaganda especially if I post it over and over again.
Note: I am personally not calling anyone's posting propaganda. Just citing the
Israeli tanks opened fire in the southern Gaza Strip after a 72-hour truce began on Friday, a Reuters photographer and the Palestinian Interior Ministry said, and Hamas media reported that four people were killed.
The Israeli military had no immediate comment.
Sounds to me like it was Hamas who broke the cease fire.
It was. While the Israeli soldiers were seeking out to destroy the terror tunnels, a suicide bomber killed 2 soldiers and possibly the same or separate incident another soldier was taken hostage minutes after the cease fire.
John Kerry (and others) are calling for the unconditional return of the soldier captured to effectively break the terms of the cease fire.
But, don't worry - that will be dismissed a propaganda because it doesn't fit with a certain world view.
This is a lie. You're lying. A "suicide bomber"?? There hasn't been a Hamas suicide bomber since they renounced suicide bombing, like a decade ago! Have you forgotten what the Israeli lie is for this long?
I think my favorite part of this and similar threads is that if you don't agree with me you're caving to propaganda, but what I post is definitely not propaganda especially if I post it over and over again.
Note: I am personally not calling anyone's posting propaganda. Just citing the
Israeli tanks opened fire in the southern Gaza Strip after a 72-hour truce began on Friday, a Reuters photographer and the Palestinian Interior Ministry said, and Hamas media reported that four people were killed.
The Israeli military had no immediate comment.
Sounds to me like it was Hamas who broke the cease fire.
It was. While the Israeli soldiers were seeking out to destroy the terror tunnels, a suicide bomber killed 2 soldiers and possibly the same or separate incident another soldier was taken hostage minutes after the cease fire.
John Kerry (and others) are calling for the unconditional return of the soldier captured to effectively break the terms of the cease fire.
But, don't worry - that will be dismissed a propaganda because it doesn't fit with a certain world view.
This is a lie. You're lying. A "suicide bomber"?? There hasn't been a Hamas suicide bomber since they renounced suicide bombing, like a decade ago! Have you forgotten what the Israeli lie is for this long?
It is clear from all the reports I've gotten on the ground that Israel murdered Palestinians in Rafah first.
Yeah, I never heard anything about a suicide bomber. What I've gathered is that Hamas attacked a group of soldiers who were trying to destroy a tunnel and kidnapped one of them.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Some peaceful protesters in the late '60s became so hard headed and angry about the war, they started making their own war: making bombs in their basements to combat pro-war folks. Really? Using violence to combat violence? That is exactly what that post about being "anti-war" by being against war yet pro anger, and inevitably pro-war. You CAN'T SOLVE VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE.
Wake up folks, the only way to combat war is through empathy, understanding, dropping the pride, ego and issues we have in order to save mankind. Learn from each other, solve our issues and what Eddie said: "LOVE, LOVE, LOVE."
Exactly. Too much of this thread feels like HATE HATE HATE. I'm really not sure some here want to talk about, let alone think about, the concept of peace. For example, if someone says something you truly believe is wrong do you call them a liar or do you say, "I'm sorry but I believe you are greatly mistaken"? A person can be greatly mistaken yet not be lying. So instead of taking the more aggressive approach and discussing we get here, time and again, personal attacks.
Well fucks sake, no wonder we can't seem to talk about peace... or being anti-war. How can we discuss being anti war in the midst of a war of words? Very, very ironic isn't it?
I'm far from perfect so I don't mean to belittle anyone by saying this but I do want to say, thanks again to those here who see the sensibility of discussion- even heated discussion- that does not involve personal attacks.
And I'm STILL anti-war (i.e. for peace). Would love to hear more on that subject.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Some peaceful protesters in the late '60s became so hard headed and angry about the war, they started making their own war: making bombs in their basements to combat pro-war folks. Really? Using violence to combat violence? That is exactly what that post about being "anti-war" by being against war yet pro anger, and inevitably pro-war. You CAN'T SOLVE VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE.
Wake up folks, the only way to combat war is through empathy, understanding, dropping the pride, ego and issues we have in order to save mankind. Learn from each other, solve our issues and what Eddie said: "LOVE, LOVE, LOVE."
Exactly. Too much of this thread feels like HATE HATE HATE. I'm really not sure some here want to talk about, let alone think about, the concept of peace. For example, if someone says something you truly believe is wrong do you call them a liar or do you say, "I'm sorry but I believe you are greatly mistaken"? A person can be greatly mistaken yet not be lying. So instead of taking the more aggressive approach and discussing we get here, time and again, personal attacks.
Well fucks sake, no wonder we can't seem to talk about peace... or being anti-war. How can we discuss being anti war in the midst of a war of words? Very, very ironic isn't it?
I'm far from perfect so I don't mean to belittle anyone by saying this but I do want to say, thanks again to those here who see the sensibility of discussion- even heated discussion- that does not involve personal attacks.
And I'm STILL anti-war (i.e. for peace). Would love to hear more on that subject.
I would say that being against war might also go hand in hand with being against many of the reasons for war: greed, religious fundamentalism, so on and so forth. War doesn't happen in a vacuum, there are always reasons for it. The chase for control of natural resources is probably the biggest reason for war in the world today, and that comes down to greed. The need to have the most land or oil or water or gas. The Middle East is such a powder keg not solely because of religion or oil but because of the convergence of the two. The religion provides good cover for the greed.
So I'm not just against war, I'm against many of the reasons for war.
I think my favorite part of this and similar threads is that if you don't agree with me you're caving to propaganda, but what I post is definitely not propaganda especially if I post it over and over again.
Note: I am personally not calling anyone's posting propaganda. Just citing the
Israeli tanks opened fire in the southern Gaza Strip after a 72-hour truce began on Friday, a Reuters photographer and the Palestinian Interior Ministry said, and Hamas media reported that four people were killed.
The Israeli military had no immediate comment.
Sounds to me like it was Hamas who broke the cease fire.
It was. While the Israeli soldiers were seeking out to destroy the terror tunnels, a suicide bomber killed 2 soldiers and possibly the same or separate incident another soldier was taken hostage minutes after the cease fire.
John Kerry (and others) are calling for the unconditional return of the soldier captured to effectively break the terms of the cease fire.
But, don't worry - that will be dismissed a propaganda because it doesn't fit with a certain world view.
This is a lie. You're lying. A "suicide bomber"?? There hasn't been a Hamas suicide bomber since they renounced suicide bombing, like a decade ago! Have you forgotten what the Israeli lie is for this long?
It is clear from all the reports I've gotten on the ground that Israel murdered Palestinians in Rafah first.
Yeah, I never heard anything about a suicide bomber. What I've gathered is that Hamas attacked a group of soldiers who were trying to destroy a tunnel and kidnapped one of them.
These links are stupid, but here ya go. One of the many places the suicide bomber sited:
Stop the rhetoric. Hamas is a terrorist organization, the Palestinian cause would be better served with them out of the picture. Israel is in fact retaliating. Here's the simple math:
If Israel wanted to wipe every Palestinian off the face of the Middle East, they could do it in a lunch hour. They have not. So, the pyscophants can keep posting pictures and serving the Hamas cause. But, if Eddie or anyone else wants to serve the human cause which includes Israel and Palestinians they will be brave and put down the people trying to propagandize human death.
Post edited by EdsonNascimento on
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
^^^^ What exactly is the point of that? Do we have some reason to believe that the Israeli government is using this quote in their mission statement? I'm not sure it's useful or productive to be posting ancient scripture here, as though it proves something. We could just just as easily do the same thing in terms of Muslims, taking quotes from their religious text (which is, in fact, more likely).
So you don't think it's a big deal when a major media outlet in Israel publishes a piece calling for genocide, in the midst of a massacre being carried out by their government? You don't think this is indicative of society at all? You think this isn't representative at all when a major media outlet brings someone on to do this in a country? what a joke. The problem here is that no one understands that Zionism, which has been driving the Israeli war machine for decades, has a goal to wipe out all Palestinian resistance, and force them to acquiesce to being kicked out of their land, die, or live as second class citizens.
History will judge all those who equivocated between both sides here, occupied and occupier, killer and killed.
Comments
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
All you are saying is give peace a chance.
And what has? The Israeli government has stated that their mission is to wipe out every Palestinian and their livestock? Can you post an official source for that? If that were their actual goal wouldn't they have done it already?
For that last time, since the beginning, this thread is not about fighting. It's about peace. How many times does this have to be written It's interesting. People are fully geared to react to a reading piece already ammo'd with their response. Nothing is taken in, it's all just getting ready to be spewed out, because nothing is learned. We see what we want to see. Dankind sees "anti-war" not as peace, but against war. You and I, Brian, know that anti-war is peace. People like Byrnzie don't even read anything pertaining to peace. We're just all ready to react.
I'm done.
Great post.
Anti-war is against war. The opposite of war is peace. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
The reactionary comment is, for the most part, spot on. I've done it myself, both here and "out there"...and non-exclusively to this subject, I really try to keep my mind and eyes open - not easy though, especially when heated.
Everyone else, Watch and learn: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/gaza-cease-fire-implodes-after-attack-314229315859
It is clear from all the reports I've gotten on the ground that Israel murdered Palestinians in Rafah first.
Some peaceful protesters in the late '60s became so hard headed and angry about the war, they started making their own war: making bombs in their basements to combat pro-war folks. Really? Using violence to combat violence? That is exactly what that post about being "anti-war" by being against war yet pro anger, and inevitably pro-war. You CAN'T SOLVE VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE.
Wake up folks, the only way to combat war is through empathy, understanding, dropping the pride, ego and issues we have in order to save mankind. Learn from each other, solve our issues and what Eddie said: "LOVE, LOVE, LOVE."
But it's obvious to me from your posts that you simply don't understand what Zionism is, or its goal, and you've clearly never read what all the Zionist leaders from the early 20th century until now have said or done.
And around and around we go.
Well fucks sake, no wonder we can't seem to talk about peace... or being anti-war. How can we discuss being anti war in the midst of a war of words? Very, very ironic isn't it?
I'm far from perfect so I don't mean to belittle anyone by saying this but I do want to say, thanks again to those here who see the sensibility of discussion- even heated discussion- that does not involve personal attacks.
And I'm STILL anti-war (i.e. for peace). Would love to hear more on that subject.
So I'm not just against war, I'm against many of the reasons for war.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
These links are stupid, but here ya go. One of the many places the suicide bomber sited:
http://news.msn.com/world/gaza-truce-over-israel-soldier-captured-50-dead-in-rafah-shelling
Msn Vs msnbc Classic
My link is better than his link.
Stop the rhetoric. Hamas is a terrorist organization, the Palestinian cause would be better served with them out of the picture. Israel is in fact retaliating. Here's the simple math:
If Israel wanted to wipe every Palestinian off the face of the Middle East, they could do it in a lunch hour. They have not. So, the pyscophants can keep posting pictures and serving the Hamas cause. But, if Eddie or anyone else wants to serve the human cause which includes Israel and Palestinians they will be brave and put down the people trying to propagandize human death.
History will judge all those who equivocated between both sides here, occupied and occupier, killer and killed.