quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior So the fact that the Israeli government supports taking people's land, installing curfews with a hard military watch, limiting access to hospitals, destroying homes and killing people for their desire for basic human rights has nothing to do with the violence that is happening in Isreal. It's kind of sad and ironic how some of the Jewish people have not learned a thing from the Holocaust. Remember, individuals usually don't respond violently unless they are provoked.

This is false logic. Taking your very example of the Holocaust, please show me what the Jews did infact that was so horrible to the German people that they ahd to exterminate them?

You say taking aways peoples human's rights leads to violence. Well the germans striped away at the Jew's human rights piece by piece, yet they never became violent.

So yes, I quesiton, and believe you should question as well the premise that violence is a RESULT of suffering. It is not. Afterall what SUFFERING did the germans endure that resulted in the violence they attributed to the Jews?

quote of me: You say taking aways peoples human's rights leads to violence.

Damn their are just way to many Ss in that sentance. Sorry my bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus This is false logic. Taking your very example of the Holocaust, please show me what the Jews did infact that was so horrible to the German people that they ahd to exterminate them? You say taking aways peoples human's rights leads to violence. Well the germans striped away at the Jew's human rights piece by piece, yet they never became violent. So yes, I quesiton, and believe you should question as well the premise that violence is a RESULT of suffering. It is not. Afterall what SUFFERING did the germans endure that resulted in the violence they attributed to the Jews?

Sorry about the late reply, classes picked up this week.

In my last post, I was trying to imply that the mistreatment (and not suffering) of a certain individual or individuals may result in violence and conflict. A couple examples immediately come to mind. One is that children of child abusers sometimes grow up to lead abusive lives and mistreat their own children. A neglected animal will also react the same way and become fierce if it is beaten or abused. A group of people who are constantly mistreated may resort to violence if they believe that is their only option.

You make a good point about how Jewish people have not reacted violently to the effects of the Holocaust. However, you have to remember that after WWII was over there was much reconciliation that occured: Hitler's tactics were denounced by the entire world; many of his generals charged with war crimes; and an independent state was established for the Jewish people in 1948 by the UN. So ultimately, many of the wrongs that occured were made right.

As for your other question, concerning how the germans suffered I don't have a clear answer. Hitler made his followers believe that Jews were responsible for Germany's economic problems. Once the German people bought into this idea, Hitler's attrocities began. So maybe alot of it had to do with Germany's failing economy at the time.

___________________
sig edited: no political imagery allowed. please reref to the sig guidelines

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus This is false logic. Taking your very example of the Holocaust, please show me what the Jews did infact that was so horrible to the German people that they ahd to exterminate them? You say taking aways peoples human's rights leads to violence. Well the germans striped away at the Jew's human rights piece by piece, yet they never became violent. So yes, I quesiton, and believe you should question as well the premise that violence is a RESULT of suffering. It is not. Afterall what SUFFERING did the germans endure that resulted in the violence they attributed to the Jews?

Okay kids, it's time for a history lesson. Let's go waaaaaaaay the fuck back in time. Yoepus has asked the question, "Is violence a direct result of suffering?" Well, I would like to point a couple of things out. We don't even have to look to wars between two peoples, let's look at a specific country's revolution. REMEMBER, NOT CIVIL WAR, REVOLUTION!! For example, the Russian Revolution of the early 1900's. People were fucking pissed off. The "government" was worthless, and the Duma was in shambles. A couple of bells went of in some people's heads, and BOOM, REVOLUTION!!! Take the Pugachev rebellion in Russia under the Tsarina Catherine the Great. A guy named Pugachev saw the SUFFERING of all of his fellow peasants under the rule of this enlightened despot. So, there was a rebellion started by this man Pugachev. Although it was unsuccessful, it still illustrated the fact that SUFFERING can, and in most cases does incite SUFFERING!! So Yeopus, i hope i've answered your question.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Okay kids, it's time for a history lesson. Let's go waaaaaaaay the fuck back in time. Yoepus has asked the question, "Is violence a direct result of suffering?" Well, I would like to point a couple of things out. We don't even have to look to wars between two peoples, let's look at a specific country's revolution. REMEMBER, NOT CIVIL WAR, REVOLUTION!! For example, the Russian Revolution of the early 1900's. People were fucking pissed off. The "government" was worthless, and the Duma was in shambles. A couple of bells went of in some people's heads, and BOOM, REVOLUTION!!! Take the Pugachev rebellion in Russia under the Tsarina Catherine the Great. A guy named Pugachev saw the SUFFERING of all of his fellow peasants under the rule of this enlightened despot. So, there was a rebellion started by this man Pugachev. Although it was unsuccessful, it still illustrated the fact that SUFFERING can, and in most cases does incite SUFFERING!! So Yeopus, i hope i've answered your question.

ok let me give you an example were suffering has not led to violence; Tibet. the people of Tibet have long suffered under the rule and oppression of the chinese, yet we have not heard of a violent resistance movement by the people of tibet. so therefore yoepus was correct in his assessment that suffering does not nessecarily cause a reaction of violence

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy ok let me give you an example were suffering has not led to violence; Tibet. the people of Tibet have long suffered under the rule and oppression of the chinese, yet we have not heard of a violent resistance movement by the people of tibet. so therefore yoepus was correct in his assessment that suffering does not nessecarily cause a reaction of violence

Also the civil rights movement of the 60's. Although a significant segment of the population was genuinely oppressed, change was achieved through political action rather than violence. Apartheid in South Africa, Ghandi in India, there are just as many incidences in history where oppression does not incite violence.

Haha Izzy, honestly you are a really smart guy. But, the culture of the Tibetan people is different. They specifically condemn violence. Generally speaking, cultures do not condon violence, but the Tibetan people have chosen to fight a war based on intellignece rather than violence.

the IDF [Israel Defense Forces], according to Army records, fired one million bullets." ("Diary," London Review of Books, 3 October 2002). No people in history, not Indians led by Gandhi, nor South Africans led by Nelson Mandela, ever faced the kind of state violence that Palestinians face without some of them resorting to armed resistance or desperate acts of revenge. And yet today, even though killing is spiraling, and every Palestinian is subject to the intrusive, daily terror of the occupation, only a tiny number of Palestinians take part in counter-violence of any kind, let alone attacks on civilians. Meanwhile, since long before the suicide bomb phenomenon appeared, there has been a long history of non-violent activism by Palestinians defending their land and rights in the face of Israeli violence, but sadly this has been ignored by many of the same critics who now chide the Palestinians for not being more like Gandhi.

According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem [ http://www.btselem.org ], from the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987, until the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, Palestinians killed a total of one hundred Israeli civilians, half of them inside the Occupied Territories. During the same period, Israeli occupation forces and settlers killed more than 1,160 Palestinian civilians -- more than eleven Palestinians for every Israeli.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Tibetan people have chosen to fight a war based on intellignece rather than violence.

i wish that were the case more often

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

i dont think this is the right place for a israel/palestine conflict but you guys know me to well to allow this to go on by

quote:

Originally posted by ProDiGaL Meanwhile, since long before the suicide bomb phenomenon appeared, there has been a long history of non-violent activism by Palestinians defending their land and rights in the face of Israeli violence

i can refer you to specific terror activities initiated by the arabs living in palestine as early as 1921. furthermore i have noted in the past the first suicide bombing of a bus took place in 1978. but i wouldnt doubt there are non-violent activistsm by palestinians, just as there are israelis non violent movements.

quote:

but sadly this has been ignored by many of the same critics who now chide the Palestinians for not being more like Gandhi.

my problem lies with the fact that i dont hear enough palestinians fighting and acting agianst palesntinian terrorism. you hear of israeli's protesting the occupation, some even refusing to serve. i just wish there was a louder voice from the palestinians saying our violence is not helping the situation.

quote:

According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem [ http://www.btselem.org ], from the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987, until the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, Palestinians killed a total of one hundred Israeli civilians, half of them inside the Occupied Territories. During the same period, Israeli occupation forces and settlers killed more than 1,160 Palestinian civilians -- more than eleven Palestinians for every Israeli.

agian, i've said this at least three times, since when does causilty rate have anything to do with who is more moraly right? since more civilian germans died in WW2 then americans does that make the nazi government better then the american government?

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy ok let me give you an example were suffering has not led to violence; Tibet. the people of Tibet have long suffered under the rule and oppression of the chinese, yet we have not heard of a violent resistance movement by the people of tibet. so therefore yoepus was correct in his assessment that suffering does not nessecarily cause a reaction of violence

In fact, there was a resistance movement against the Chinese government in Tibet. Therefore, Yoepus was incorrect in his assessment that suffereing does not necessarily cause a reaction of violence.

http://www.tibetnews.com/bulletin/99Issue1/page23.html

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by ProDiGaL the IDF [Israel Defense Forces], according to Army records, fired one million bullets." ("Diary," London Review of Books, 3 October 2002). No people in history, not Indians led by Gandhi, nor South Africans led by Nelson Mandela, ever faced the kind of state violence that Palestinians face without some of them resorting to armed resistance or desperate acts of revenge. And yet today, even though killing is spiraling, and every Palestinian is subject to the intrusive, daily terror of the occupation, only a tiny number of Palestinians take part in counter-violence of any kind, let alone attacks on civilians. Meanwhile, since long before the suicide bomb phenomenon appeared, there has been a long history of non-violent activism by Palestinians defending their land and rights in the face of Israeli violence, but sadly this has been ignored by many of the same critics who now chide the Palestinians for not being more like Gandhi. According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem [ http://www.btselem.org ], from the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987, until the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, Palestinians killed a total of one hundred Israeli civilians, half of them inside the Occupied Territories. During the same period, Israeli occupation forces and settlers killed more than 1,160 Palestinian civilians -- more than eleven Palestinians for every Israeli.

Let me ask all of you something however, how would any other state respond to a similar set of circumstances? Can we describe any other state that has peacefully responded to similar terrorist activities against innocent civilians from within their own territories? Israel has really done nothing that any other state has not done in the past! We can look at India for example. Does anybody remember the civilian deaths caused by indian response against the tamul tigers? Perhaps we can look at the desired seperatist movments in Yugoslavia following their breakup. How about the situation in Northern Ireland with regards to the british?

And let's not forget the BIGGEST, the MOST INSULTING example of hypocrisy of our time!!! The Russians who so dearly value the lives of Iraqi civilians and express outrage at the loss of 500 or so innocent civilians when THEY THEMSELVES caused the deaths of 50,000 INNOCENT CIVILIANS with their seperatist war against Chechnya!!! Forget my earlier argument, WHERE was the international outrage when that was happening??? Why do I sense a double standard occurring when it comes to Israel and the US?? As someone else stated, I think that doublethink extends FAR beyond Israel and the United States.