Imagine That -- I’m Still Anti-War

I know you don't like me fuck, but I'm really not trying to mislead or deceive anybody. I think supporting Hamas is not good for peace or Palestinians. I also think supporting Israeli settlers or the extreme Israeli right is not good for peace.

I think Hamas's narrative of holy war and revenge is destructive. I think Jews referencing six million every time someone criticizes Israel is destructive. There are two beautiful cultures at war and it sucks. The way out doesn't come through the kind of positions you're espousing, fuck. But I hear your anger man, even if you don't think I take it seriously.

JimmyV said:

When you say "can the complaints about this thread being off topic please stop?", you are indeed trying to regulate what others post. If you are going to ignore posts, fine. Asking other members to stop posting certain things is quite different than ignoring those posts.

Some times more aggressive people try to kick the kids they don't like off the court. We all have a right to make our statement as long as it isn't a personal attack.

dancinacrossthewater said:

badbrains said:

fuck said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

fuck said:

fuck said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.

Would you like to provide some evidence? Did you not watch what Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' leader, said in his interview with Charlie Rose? Also, who is that actually "wields power" in Hamas' "power structure" -- would you care to enlighten us?

@dancinacrossthewater‌, I see you have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that you've been asked to provide evidence to support your claims.

I could give you a clip of Mosan Hasson Yousef if you want...he's all over the news these days.

Oh you mean Mosab Hassan Yousef? The guy who worked as a spy for Israel for years before being kicked out, fled to the West, converted to Christianity and now makes money bashing Hamas and blaming everything on them? That Mosab Hassan Yousef? Tell me, how is it that someone who is not in Hamas constitutes "the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure"? After all, you said these so-called people are the ones calling "very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews"? So I ask again, who are those in Hamas's apparent "power structure" who do not accept the 67 borders as a guideline for peace with Israel, even though Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, already has done so? Care to enlighten us with some actual evidence on what those inside Hamas are saying, rather than just one kid who has become a talking head on Fox News?

Ya fuck, I was under the impression everyone knew about the story of yousef and his shady doings.

No I didn't mean that he's part of Hamas's power structure. I meant that that you providing one Charlie Rose interview as conclusive proof that Hamas wants a viable peace is a little suspect given how much how much media is out there.

I mean, I know this has come up a million times, but they have to change the charter man. I know it's only symbolic but it's incredibly important.

So you just ignored the fact that you made a claim that the "majority" of those high up in "Hamas's power structure" allegedly continue to call for the "destruction of Israel" and the "annihilation of Jews"? I also find it weird that you consider an interview with the leader of Hamas where he very clearly calls for everything I said in a coherent manner as "one Charlie Rose interview" despite the fact that he has done this in many other venues and formats, the Charlie Rose interview being but one recent example. Although it was obvious to me from the start, it should be obvious to everyone by now that you said something that was just plain untrue, and clearly a result of your adherence to mainstream media in the West which takes the Zionist news line as fact from the start without any real critical research.

As for your call for Hamas to "change the charter man", welcome to 8 years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel

Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto

Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian position of building a state within the boundaries of the occupied territories.
The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place.

The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of the Jewish state and instead takes a more ambiguous position by saying that Hamas had decided to compete in the elections because it would contribute to "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem"....

However, on top of this, there is something to be said for what "destruction of Israel" even implies. It does not mean "annihilation of all Jews", a phrase which is not even present in the Hamas charter to begin with. It means the dismantlement of a Zionist state, i.e., a state in which non-Jews are discriminated against in apartheid-like conditions, and a Jewish-majority population must be preserved to the point where non-Jews are murdered or forced out of their homes. There is a problem with equating "Jews" (which is a religious people) and "Zionists" (which are people who follow a specific political ideology). This is more obvious to those of us in the West who see non-Zionist Jews and non-Jewish Zionists. But there is an issue where Israel claims to act on behalf of Judaism and Jews as a "Jewish state", and simply refer to themselves as "Jews of Israel" -- this is what I and others meant in this thread, where we said that committing crimes in this name will naturally lead to a growth of anti-Jewish hatred. I don't think it is or will be anything like the anti-Semitism of 19th and 20th century Europe, but when Hamas or other groups/individuals you see in the Middle East refer to "Jews", it should not be taken too seriously as an attempt to commit genocide. Especially when the ones who are often saying these things are ideologues with no real influence, while the political actors are those who publicly say "We don't have a problem with Jews, we have a problem with occupation".

See my responses in italics.

october22 said:

benjs said:

october22 said:

See above - redacted for length

See above - redacted for length.

Thanks. I'll address your paragraphs by numbers.

1. I do think liberalism has turned people's brains to mush. Should I not say that? If that's so cripplingly belittling to others that they can't scrape themselves off the floor, then I guess my analysis is more accurate than I thought. I'm not here to be polite. If I have little or no respect for an idea or ideology, I'll say so.

Semantics are a powerful tool that you can use to your advantage, or you can choose the other route: to pound someone into submission (via an ad hominem attack) to ensure that their voice's quality is degraded. You have chosen the latter, and by doing so, you degrade your own voice. It is incredulous to me that so many are willing to neglect basic civility to get a point across, when it is detrimental to do so in this way.

Also, I never claimed atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less. It's not the end-all-be-all solution to the world's problems but I do think it's a step in the right direction.

Religion is just another demographic for one position of power to say unto another that someone else is worth less than us. It is no different than any nationalism, which, again, I believe in - but not if it conflicts with basic humanitarian instincts which I put the onus on each individual to check for conflicts and choose accordingly which to follow. Something I vehemently oppose is justification and rationalization of inhumane acts via religion, or any 'grouping' of society for that matter.

"Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?" Um...because it doesn't. By definition. I've read the bible so I know that if you're referring to any of the Abrahamic religions, I can toss those out in a second. A god who floods the earth killing millions of innocent men, women, and children? I'd say that god doesn't exactly "align with the humanitarian that resides in everyone." Thanks, you've now, in one easy swipe, just allowed me to add billions of people to my list of those I don't have to ask stupid questions to.

I'll take the blame for this one - I should have been clearer. I'm not proposing an all-or-none acceptance or denial of religious law: I'm saying before a human does something in the name of religion, that's the question they should act. I agree that the god of the Bible is brutal and heavy-handed, but that's a personal opinion.

2. "In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Wow. I'd no idea how impactful my words could be. To repeat, being an atheist simply means that you don't believe in god. I find it astounding that in a couple paragraphs I've somehow accidentally shown you that there is cause to believe in a god.

Again, my fault, and I'm happy to clarify. What I should have said is that, based on the words you wrote, I would never be content to call myself an atheist. It is a group (and yes, 'everyone else' aka non-believers, indeed form a cluster) which I would want no participation within, based on the concepts which tend to hold true independently of which atheist you speak to. I did actually mention that I do believe in a god (just an atypical concept of one), so I suppose I would be ineligible to join the party anyways.

"As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most." Again, it just means one who doesn't believe in a god but please continue..."an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct." Nope, not irrefutable. Show me one shred of evidence for the existence of god and atheism is refuted. It's easy!

Not to be technical here, then, but wouldn't this make you an agnostic?

"The incessant desire to spread that among the masses." So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the marketplace of ideas is one in which atheists should not compete. Why is that exactly? Shouldn't we encourage anyone with an idea or world-view to express it? To put it up for criticism and give it's fair shot? Why do you find this so upsetting? So, because atheists believe they are correct in their assessment that there is no god and want to tell others about it, it somehow has made YOU "hesitant" to call yourself an atheist???

I am personally disgusted by 'mission'-related concepts typically designed to exploit a lack of knowledge or inherent ignorance in people. I have told Christian missionaries that to their faces when one began to preach about Jesus Christ while teaching Buddhist children with me, and I have done the same to Jewish preachers (including two rabbis in different occasions) who try and belittle my 'Jewishness' and try and recruit me for their ultra-Orthodox sects too.

"The notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Your evidence for a deity which supports your belief in your "nontraditional god and spirituality" is that some or all atheists are dicks... Good one, man.

I don't think I used the word dick, did I? Pretty sure I suggested intolerance was a notion highly visible within atheism (just as it is within religion, which I gather you have no regard for), and one I was unwilling to support.

3. I'll sum this one up. Big mosque = people feel good. Cremation + mumbo jumbo about the soul = people feel good. Man tragically loses sister + becomes a Jew = man feels good. Man loses son + teddy bear + two men crying = men feeling good. All cute stories but heartstring-tugging anecdotes do not evidence make. Why can't you see that at the core of all the stories you told was the reality that it's US who can be so beautiful at times? Religion was our invention and if some people use it for heartwarming moments some of the time, that doesn't make it anymore valid or anymore truthful.

The end result may be the same whether I arrive at happiness from a sandwich or a religious experience, but the religious experience to arrive there is a bridge I would not propose burning.

october22 said:

benjs said:

See my responses in italics.

october22 said:

benjs said:

october22 said:

See above - redacted for length

See above - redacted for length.

1. I do think liberalism has turned people's brains to mush. Should I not say that? If that's so cripplingly belittling to others that they can't scrape themselves off the floor, then I guess my analysis is more accurate than I thought. I'm not here to be polite. If I have little or no respect for an idea or ideology, I'll say so.

Semantics are a powerful tool that you can use to your advantage, or you can choose the other route: to pound someone into submission (via an ad hominem attack) to ensure that their voice's quality is degraded. You have chosen the latter, and by doing so, you degrade your own voice. It is incredulous to me that so many are willing to neglect basic civility to get a point across, when it is detrimental to do so in this way.

Also, I never claimed atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less. It's not the end-all-be-all solution to the world's problems but I do think it's a step in the right direction.

Religion is just another demographic for one position of power to say unto another that someone else is worth less than us. It is no different than any nationalism, which, again, I believe in - but not if it conflicts with basic humanitarian instincts which I put the onus on each individual to check for conflicts and choose accordingly which to follow. Something I vehemently oppose is justification and rationalization of inhumane acts via religion, or any 'grouping' of society for that matter.

"Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?" Um...because it doesn't. By definition. I've read the bible so I know that if you're referring to any of the Abrahamic religions, I can toss those out in a second. A god who floods the earth killing millions of innocent men, women, and children? I'd say that god doesn't exactly "align with the humanitarian that resides in everyone." Thanks, you've now, in one easy swipe, just allowed me to add billions of people to my list of those I don't have to ask stupid questions to.

I'll take the blame for this one - I should have been clearer. I'm not proposing an all-or-none acceptance or denial of religious law: I'm saying before a human does something in the name of religion, that's the question they should act. I agree that the god of the Bible is brutal and heavy-handed, but that's a personal opinion.

2. "In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Wow. I'd no idea how impactful my words could be. To repeat, being an atheist simply means that you don't believe in god. I find it astounding that in a couple paragraphs I've somehow accidentally shown you that there is cause to believe in a god.

Again, my fault, and I'm happy to clarify. What I should have said is that, based on the words you wrote, I would never be content to call myself an atheist. It is a group (and yes, 'everyone else' aka non-believers, indeed form a cluster) which I would want no participation within, based on the concepts which tend to hold true independently of which atheist you speak to. I did actually mention that I do believe in a god (just an atypical concept of one), so I suppose I would be ineligible to join the party anyways.

"As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most." Again, it just means one who doesn't believe in a god but please continue..."an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct." Nope, not irrefutable. Show me one shred of evidence for the existence of god and atheism is refuted. It's easy!

Not to be technical here, then, but wouldn't this make you an agnostic?

"The incessant desire to spread that among the masses." So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the marketplace of ideas is one in which atheists should not compete. Why is that exactly? Shouldn't we encourage anyone with an idea or world-view to express it? To put it up for criticism and give it's fair shot? Why do you find this so upsetting? So, because atheists believe they are correct in their assessment that there is no god and want to tell others about it, it somehow has made YOU "hesitant" to call yourself an atheist???

I am personally disgusted by 'mission'-related concepts typically designed to exploit a lack of knowledge or inherent ignorance in people. I have told Christian missionaries that to their faces when one began to preach about Jesus Christ while teaching Buddhist children with me, and I have done the same to Jewish preachers (including two rabbis in different occasions) who try and belittle my 'Jewishness' and try and recruit me for their ultra-Orthodox sects too.

"The notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Your evidence for a deity which supports your belief in your "nontraditional god and spirituality" is that some or all atheists are dicks... Good one, man.

I don't think I used the word dick, did I? Pretty sure I suggested intolerance was a notion highly visible within atheism (just as it is within religion, which I gather you have no regard for), and one I was unwilling to support.

3. I'll sum this one up. Big mosque = people feel good. Cremation + mumbo jumbo about the soul = people feel good. Man tragically loses sister + becomes a Jew = man feels good. Man loses son + teddy bear + two men crying = men feeling good. All cute stories but heartstring-tugging anecdotes do not evidence make. Why can't you see that at the core of all the stories you told was the reality that it's US who can be so beautiful at times? Religion was our invention and if some people use it for heartwarming moments some of the time, that doesn't make it anymore valid or anymore truthful.

The end result may be the same whether I arrive at happiness from a sandwich or a religious experience, but the religious experience to arrive there is a bridge I would not propose burning.

Thanks for your response. I still disagree with you but I really appreciate what you wrote. You're an intelligent guy (or gal?) but I just don't see what your clinging to. It seems you're an atheist by another name. There is no atheist club that you or anyone else wouldn't be allowed into. You're smart enough to know that but your just being stubborn about labeling yourself. The funny thing is that we probably agree on the real world application of our philosophies but not so much on their descriptors. Anyway, thanks for writing me back.

Much appreciated - and I'm a guy by the way.

As for what I'm clinging to - it's nothing more a critical notion that we should accept each other for who ever we are, independent of the feasibility of a premise. In my mind, I think you're probably right about the application of our philosophies, and for that I'm grateful. Thanks for keeping this as a respectful disagreement

As for labelling myself, my belief is that if you took the summation of the energies in the universe, you'd have arrived at God, or the Universe. I feel that, independent of what you call it, it is our inherent duty to do what we can to protect the 'something bigger' that we all belong to. I'm actually a bit curious now to hear whether you believe this would be considered atheism or not.

As far as I know the following statements are still in the charter.

"The day of Judgement will not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

That's gotta go man. That's just gotta go.

october22 said:

benjs said:

I should also add, october22, I'd be lying if I said I've never been guilty of stubbornness, so my apologies for that!

I'm stubborn as fuck, man, all good. Thanks but definitely no need to apologize to me, that's for sure! Also, haha yes you're clearly a dude in your avatar. I'm just on my phone and couldn't really see.

As for your question... Since there is no authority on what is atheistic or not other than a strict definition of the word, I'd say that your belief is deistic. Where you'd find God at the summation of all the energies in the universe, I'd simply find a number. I just think you're taking it one leap too far. That's probably where our biggest difference is.

I'm trying to follow you guys here,so Ben is Of the thinking They Allmighty and the universe and everything are one.And 10/22 you are saying the same but its a numerical formula when you follow it down the worm hole,correct?

dancinacrossthewater said:

As far as I know the following statements are still in the charter.

"The day of Judgement will not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

That's gotta go man. That's just gotta go.

What's interesting about the talking point of the Hamas charter is that I don't think any Palestinians have ever actually read this supposed document. It's an anachronistic work that only gets publicity in Western media, which follows Zionist talking points in general, to distract from real grievances and substantive issues on the ground. It's a piece of paper that was written by ideologues about 25 years ago, and not the actual political operators who run the organization. As I already mentioned with regards to the way they use the "Jews" (which you unsurprisingly ignored) it is due to a particular context of dealing with a "Jewish state".

The way these few ideologues depict religious imagery in the document is de-contextualized and is based on a particular reading of scripture - which would be akin to saying that Pat Robertson's interpretation of the Bible is the basic tenet of the Republican Party. Would we assume that every person in Florida who votes for Republicans wants homosexuals to be stoned? Probably not. You know what's interesting? The entire evangelical Christian right in the US actually believes in supporting Israel, not as an end in itself, but it hastens the return of Jesus, who upon returning to Earth forces all the Jews to convert or be killed and go to hell. This is an actual belief held by tens of millions of Americans, but Israelis are more than happy to take their money and open their doors to their lame tour groups. In other words, ideology ultimately doesn't matter as much as we think it does, unless we want to use it to vilify our enemies.

If you look at the way Hamas and other Palestinian groups have actually conducted themselves, which is what I've been repeatedly trying to get you to do in this thread, it is based on political expediency and the concept of compromise. The fact that they have ceded 78% of their historic homeland and agreed to establishing a state on the remaining 22% (West Bank and Gaza) rarely gets mentioned. They have agreed to long term truces that Israel has routinely broken. Their resistance mission has become limited to ending the occupation of those territories, not to ending Israel as a state. That much has become accepted even among Israelis who know better and certainly the Israeli political establishment when they're in terse negotiations with them and not crying in front of the cameras.

I ASK AGAIN: Who are these members who make up the "majority" of "Hamas's power structure" that you claim call for the "annihilation of Jews" even today? Stop ignoring this question and either own up to the fact that you made it up or that you are wrong. You continue to ignore what the leadership has actually said on the public record without supplying any real evidence, or actually responding to the arguments I'm putting forward.

You seem to have a problem that I'm not critical of Hamas to your standards. I am actually very critical of them, including the way they've governed the Gaza strip over the past few years -- the issue here is that I think that 1) their poor governance is largely due to an illegal blockade and the maintenance of an occupation by Israel; 2) their method of governing the Palestinians is irrelevant to the conflict itself, in which one party is occupying and oppressing another. You continuously ignore the power balance and the fact that the onus is ENTIRELY on Israel to end the conflict. As I said before in this thread, if Hamas continues to target Israelis even after the occupation is ended, equal rights are awarded to Palestinians, and that refugees are allowed to return to their homes, then I will be the first to condemn such violence. Until then however, international law even allows an occupied people the right to resist the occupation; 3) I think that my criticisms of the movement come as a Palestinian for Palestinians. But I think that people such as yourself who are not Palestinian have no right to comment on what an occupied or oppressed people do to resist. Your efforts should be focused on telling the occupying power, whom your government supports to allow the occupation (of which the resistance in simply a response to it) to continue, to stop. I don't think people wasted much breath critiquing the ANC in the height of the anti-apartheid struggle. But then again, history has shown that there are always people doing what they can to falsely attribute moral equivalency between oppressed and oppressor.