Israeli bombing of Hamas leader. Rub it in their face why don't you... VIDEO

RyanTheRhino said:

When an infidel dies a rainbow is born

Click to expand...

When an American cares about the suffering of others, a rainbow is born.

"There is a fundamental difference in quality between Jew and Native."

~Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel

abandonconflict said:

When an American cares about the suffering of others, a rainbow is born.

Click to expand...

Why just an American?

And yet it must be acknowledged that the essential tension of the last 500 years of human politics has been between conservatives and progressives ... between the champions of compassion v. practicality.
The conservatives have an irreducible point when they say a society cannot afford comprehensive compassion.
The progressives have a point when they say that a good society cannot afford a lack of compassion.

On the one hand, I feel that the conservative model is much better suited to making it through hard times, even though (because?) it leaves the citizen largely to his own devices to succeed or fail, and to suffer on the road to either.
The progressive model makes for a much nicer place to live, but it also softens the citizen. It's an awful paradox to me, and imo at the heart of Goya's epigram el sueño de la razón produce monstruos. I cannot myself come up with a solution to the dilemma that doesn't get forced into monstrous ideas, and I refuse to take the utopian way out and overestimate our human capacity to build and maintain a society that combines prosperity with equitability. The harder times become, the more the system is pushed toward conservatism. The New Deal was an aberration from that, and I see it as having done long-term harm in exchange for immediate good. cn

cannabineer said:

I refuse to take the utopian way out and overestimate our human capacity

Click to expand...

I find this to be a fitting reduction of your argument. This is the crux of what is wrong in the world. You are only correct insofar as most people share this view but it is not natural that human beings are so selfish/fearful/pessimistic. Altruism and cooperation can be observed in many species. It is biological and evolutionary that we cooperate. Survival of the fittest is not an apt description of natural selection, it is aberrant behavior. It can be grown out of. It is the greed of few that causes the competition of many.

abandonconflict said:

I find this to be a fitting reduction of your argument. This is the crux of what is wrong in the world. You are only correct insofar as most people share this view but it is not natural that human beings are so selfish/fearful/pessimistic. Altruism and cooperation can be observed in many species. It is biological and evolutionary that we cooperate. Survival of the fittest is not an apt description of natural selection, it is aberrant behavior. It can be grown out of. It is the greed of few that causes the competition of many.

Click to expand...

I can only hope that I am being unnecessarily pessimistic. That doesn't mean I think I am being so. Thus far, the great weight of history hasn't corroborated your or my hopes for a better society.
And part of the problem is (imo) in your last line. I see an evolutionary process selecting the ambitious to lead and the greedy to amass the capital, setting/freezing the familiar pattern. I posit that this is in our nature just as inextricably as every human's tendency toward and capacity for altruism. cn

cannabineer said:

I can only hope that I am being unnecessarily pessimistic. That doesn't mean I think I am being so. Thus far, the great weight of history hasn't corroborated your or my hopes for a better society.
And part of the problem is (imo) in your last line. I see an evolutionary process selecting the ambitious to lead and the greedy to amass the capital, setting/freezing the familiar pattern. I posit that this is in our nature just as inextricably as every human's tendency toward and capacity for altruism. cn

Click to expand...

It can be grown out of.

This was a short line and easy to over look and should come attached with greater detail. We have the power to reverse the trend. We have the choice before us, grow the fuck up or surely perish. When I say trend I am consciously contradicting what you posit as being in our nature as much as a tendency for altruism. What you posit an evolutionary process to select those greedy to amass, I contend is an evolutionary trend.

The premises for this conclusion are to be found in the science of selective breeding. I am in no way arguing for eugenics, I am saying however that sociology is to ideas as biology is to genes. I find this very much compatible with the views of Richard Dawkins, who I consider to be possibly the greatest authority on biology. In fact I am paraphrasing many of his own ideas to use as premises for this conclusion I am drawing, which is that sociologically, we can "grow" out of it.

I will admit I am emphatically hopeful to the point of slightly pushing logic. This is in no way deduction, but I think it is both strong and cogent.

In the simple words of Mahatma Gandhi, which I believe convey this idea very similarly,

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

abandonconflict said:

It can be grown out of.

This was a short line and easy to over look and should come attached with greater detail. We have the power to reverse the trend. We have the choice before us, grow the fuck up or surely perish. When I say trend I am consciously contradicting what you posit as being in our nature as much as a tendency for altruism. What you posit an evolutionary process to select those greedy to amass, I contend is an evolutionary trend.

The premises for this conclusion are to be found in the science of selective breeding. I am in no way arguing for eugenics, I am saying however that sociology is to ideas as biology is to genes. I find this very much compatible with the views of Richard Dawkins, who I consider to be possibly the greatest authority on biology. In fact I am paraphrasing many of his own ideas to use as premises for this conclusion I am drawing, which is that sociologically, we can "grow" out of it.

I will admit I am emphatically hopeful to the point of slightly pushing logic. This is in no way deduction, but I think it is both strong and cogent.

Click to expand...

I like Dawkins on biology as well. The Ancestor's Tale was a great read.

And from a purely evolutionary viewpoint, i would agree that "growing out of it" is a possibility. But for it to become at all probable requires selection pressure in that direction. History doesn't shown me such a selector in operation during the recorded era. It would need to be imposed, a conscious override on a nonconscious (in aggregate), unguided process. And that's where I see a catch-22: cui bono? The ones who lead like the status quo, and the ones who don't are not in a likely position to administer and impose this artificial selector long and widely enough. We still to this day breed and evolve as animals, and being Head Asshole works. Jmo. cn

cannabineer said:

I like Dawkins on biology as well. The Ancestor's Tale was a great read.

And from a purely evolutionary viewpoint, i would agree that "growing out of it" is a possibility. But for it to become at all probable requires selection pressure in that direction. History doesn't shown me such a selector in operation during the recorded era. It would need to be imposed, a conscious override on a nonconscious (in aggregate), unguided process. And that's where I see a catch-22: cui bono? The ones who lead like the status quo, and the ones who don't are not in a likely position to administer and impose this artificial selector long and widely enough. We still to this day breed and evolve as animals, and being Head Asshole works. Jmo. cn

Click to expand...

Selection pressure /ON!

abandonconflict said:

Selection pressure /ON!

Click to expand...

With all due respect to your Gandhi quote, you cannot say it into being so. cn

cannabineer said:

With all due respect to your Gandhi quote, you cannot say it into being so. cn

Click to expand...

Join me in saying it, maybe more will also join.

*add* I never said the task was not monumental.

abandonconflict said:

It can be grown out of.

This was a short line and easy to over look and should come attached with greater detail. We have the power to reverse the trend. We have the choice before us, grow the fuck up or surely perish. When I say trend I am consciously contradicting what you posit as being in our nature as much as a tendency for altruism. What you posit an evolutionary process to select those greedy to amass, I contend is an evolutionary trend.

The premises for this conclusion are to be found in the science of selective breeding. I am in no way arguing for eugenics, I am saying however that sociology is to ideas as biology is to genes. I find this very much compatible with the views of Richard Dawkins, who I consider to be possibly the greatest authority on biology. In fact I am paraphrasing many of his own ideas to use as premises for this conclusion I am drawing, which is that sociologically, we can "grow" out of it.

I will admit I am emphatically hopeful to the point of slightly pushing logic. This is in no way deduction, but I think it is both strong and cogent.

Click to expand...

Desmond Morris would take issue with that statement,
if he were not such a stone cold pimp.

Dr Kynes said:

Desmond Morris would take issue with that statement,
if he were not such a stone cold pimp.

Click to expand...

That's like, your opinion man.

Complicit

U.S. support for Israel emerges in several ways: financial, military and diplomatic. While most Americans believe that U.S. foreign aid goes to the poorest people in the poorest countries, Israel (wealthier than a number of European Union member countries) receives 25 percent of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget. Since 1976 Israel has been the highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the world. The congressional aid comes to about $1.8 billion a year in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, plus another $1 billion or so in miscellaneous grants, mostly in military supplies, from various U.S. agencies. Tax-exempt contributions destined to Israel bring up the total to over $5 billion annually.


Israel is the only country allowed to spend part of its military aid funds (25 percent) on its own domestic arms industry; all other recipients of U.S. military aid are required to use it to purchase U.S.-manufactured weapons. This has helped Israel consolidate its own arms exporting sector, some parts of which actually compete for export customers with U.S. arms manufacturers. More directly, Israel has access to the most advanced weapons systems in the U.S. arsenal, for purchase with U.S. taxpayer assistance. The U.S. defends Israel's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has endorsed the principle of "strategic ambiguity" in which Israel refuses to officially acknowledge its widely known and documented nuclear capacity, and its arsenal of over 200 high-density nuclear bombs in the Dimona nuclear facility remains un-inspected. Diplomatically, the U.S. alone protects Israel in the United Nations and other international arenas from being held accountable for its violations of international law. After 1967, U.S. patterns of opposing UN resolutions critical of Israel become more pronounced. Most of the U.S. vetoes cast in the Security Council in the 1980s and 90s, and almost all of those cast since the end of the Cold War, have been to protect Israel.

Padawanbater2 said:

Pure idiocy.

I'm sold, people who support this terrorist state are either ignorant of the facts, completely biased, or outright racist.

I had this conversation with my dad earlier, my own dad, and it dissolved into a racist rant about "sand niggers" and "they knew the risks, DON'T FUCK WITH ISRAEL!"...

There is no rational justification for the actions of the government of Israel against the Palestinian people. Ironic considering their own persecution.

Our problems with "terrorism" stem, almost exclusively, from our unyielding support for the terrorist government of Israel. The terrorists themselves admit as much.

Yet here we are, spending $5 billion + annually to buy foreign problems and ensure American deaths.

Anything anti-Israeli is "antisemitism", an interesting defense to opposition. Label something as racism and watch people avoid it like the plague, even if it's true.

Call me a racist, call me "anti-semetic". At this point, I couldn't care less. Unyielding American support for Israel needs to stop, today.

Click to expand...

i would encourage you to look at the image provided in that fervid exhortation to embrace the cause of the PLO and hamas. the territory shown on the blood soaked map beneath the bloody handshake shows israel in tan, the west bank in white, but "SHOCKINGLY" israel is labeled "Palestin"

this is not a mistiak, this is a deliberate "dogwhistle" which ties directly to the hamas charter and their insistence that isarael be destroyed, and the sniveling sophistry of "Regime Change" is just a fig leaf to conceal the real goal, driving the jews into the sea.
that was hamas' hezzbollah, islamic jihad and the plo's stated aim 20 years ago, and it still is today.
all their talk of peace is still, as it was 20 years ago, taqqiya. strategic lies for the advancement of their goals. nothing more. thats all the article copy/pasted is, and all the manufactured outrage has ever been.

thats why i find it impossible to be "compassionate" or "empathetic" to the palestinian cause. nothing is ever what it seems, and the palestinian leaders in all their militant organizations have only a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
for them, "truth" is just deceptive factoids which can be taken out of context, or placed in a new one to suit their narrative.
if you were an israeli facing the prospect of living under a moslem theocratic regime installed by these clowns, you would not be nearly so eager to embrace their bullshit, or weep for their losses.
you'd be worrying about your own family and how you could get them out, to the west before the "gentle sensitive victims" got their REAL AND NOT IMAGINARY genocide rolling.

Maybe I'm gonna show my age here, but I remember the Six-Day War, 1967 I believe, where everyone around Israel attacked her all at once, and she kicked all their butts. You wanna talk God's Intervention? There was no rational way for that little sand spit to survive, and all the people there should have been killed or subjugated to one Muslim power or another. Yeah, America was flying in tons of supplies, but in 1967, there was only so much we could have done, it happened so fast.

I also remember who were the great champions of Israel, the people who helped birth her over Britain's objection, who called my dad an anti-Semite Nazi because he made the mistake of asking 'what about the people who are already there?' In this country, it was hard core, left-wing Liberals, who made no apologies for the bombing of the King David Hotel that killed hundreds of British officers, and cheered Israel declaring itself independent when the UN got cold feet and started waffling. Israel was championed by the Liberal press of the day, a passionate guilt trip about the Holocaust and how we didn't do anything to stop it. I'm still at a loss what we could have done, when we barely were able to land on the beaches of Normandy and the Soviets had ten times more troops and resources than the Allies, and yet we barely were able to defeat the Nazis. Something about history that you must remember, you're living history now, and when you look at history, you have to remember those are people, too. It plays out with all the bumps and moments shaping things that certainly appear inevitable at the moment, and yet we can look back and very philosophically ask "What the Fuck". The creation of Israel was a massive crusade that was shoved forward and spoken about as 'inevitable'. By Liberals, by the Left of the Western World. Israel exists because of the Western Liberals of the day.

While I'm rambling, There are three books that I have read that debate and codify the premise of 'Racism', each of them preaching it with religious passion. 'Birth of a Nation', the story of the Ku Klux Klan, in a very positive light, would be made into the first movie ever to be considered a feature-length work of art, and that is still studied today for its ground-breaking techniques. It was both a symptom, but also a powerful influencing force for White Supremacy of America well into the fifties. The second, 'The Turner Diaries', I consider the most practical codification of White Racism you could possibly get. All the while claiming to be Christian, its fundamental premise is either Hindu or Animist, where you don't have an individual soul. Instead there is a Race Soul. You never die, but are always contained within all pure white people everywhere. The Nation of Islam believes this as well, although it switches around to whomever they're talking to.

The third book is Genesis, a novel about the birth of Israel. I just tried to Google it, but there's so many novels with that title that I lost patience, but it had to have been published in the early 1960's. It goes into the rationale for the birth of the Jewish State, with the Holocaust being the last straw. The description of Muslims and Arabs is as racist as anything that appears in either one of those other books. It would ultimately be turned into a movie, with the Muslims and Jews dancing and fighting together against the Godless Arabs amongst them, but even that came off ultimately bigoted.

abandonconflict said:

Complicit

U.S. support for Israel emerges in several ways: financial, military and diplomatic. While most Americans believe that U.S. foreign aid goes to the poorest people in the poorest countries, Israel (wealthier than a number of European Union member countries) receives 25 percent of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget. Since 1976 Israel has been the highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the world. The congressional aid comes to about $1.8 billion a year in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, plus another $1 billion or so in miscellaneous grants, mostly in military supplies, from various U.S. agencies. Tax-exempt contributions destined to Israel bring up the total to over $5 billion annually.


Israel is the only country allowed to spend part of its military aid funds (25 percent) on its own domestic arms industry; all other recipients of U.S. military aid are required to use it to purchase U.S.-manufactured weapons. This has helped Israel consolidate its own arms exporting sector, some parts of which actually compete for export customers with U.S. arms manufacturers. More directly, Israel has access to the most advanced weapons systems in the U.S. arsenal, for purchase with U.S. taxpayer assistance. The U.S. defends Israel's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has endorsed the principle of "strategic ambiguity" in which Israel refuses to officially acknowledge its widely known and documented nuclear capacity, and its arsenal of over 200 high-density nuclear bombs in the Dimona nuclear facility remains un-inspected. Diplomatically, the U.S. alone protects Israel in the United Nations and other international arenas from being held accountable for its violations of international law. After 1967, U.S. patterns of opposing UN resolutions critical of Israel become more pronounced. Most of the U.S. vetoes cast in the Security Council in the 1980s and 90s, and almost all of those cast since the end of the Cold War, have been to protect Israel.

Click to expand...

your entire article is jihadist crap.

try this on for size.
http://journalistsresource.org/stud...reign-aid-to-israel-2012-congressional-report

bizarrely, the REAL numbers are even larger, but when not couched in sinister terms, above a propaganda picture they dont seen nearly as Protocols of the Elders of Zionesque.

the US also drops billions on the pallies, but the pallies have NEVER upheld their agreements for more than the time it takes for the checks to clear.

https://opencrs.com/document/RS22967/2012-06-15/

refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a cunard. israel did not sign, and thus did not receive the goodies.pakistan india and north korea are also non-signatories. see thats cuz its a TREATY not a mandate, legislation from the governing body above them, or a requirement to gain your personal approval. if israel chooses not to sign, and doesnt take the goodies, it didnt cost you anything. unlike iran and iraq libya, and a few others, all of whom signed, took their cash and prizes, and then immediately started cooking up weapons programs.
what? no outrage? how surprising.
i suppose they were BULLIED into signing.
i guess israel pakistan india and north korea just have bigger balls and a set of prinicples.


you keep bringing up the UN as if 60% of the UN's membership are not autocratic dictatorships with no credibility except on issues of oppression, murder and suppression of dissent. i guess in your view, their skill at these endeavours makes them experts huh?

you and your PC Posse of ultra-compassionate liberal weepers would love to see israel handed over to the pallestinian authority, and if the jews get pushed into the sea, or stuffed in mass graves, well thats just what they deserve for not being a sufficiently sympathetic minority group. shit, jews are practically "rich old white men", and thus not deserving of any consideration.

the added bonus of ALSO delivering a stinging slap to american influence and our image in the world, well thats just gravy.
most people enjoy their schadenfreude on a private level, but only the "look at me and my Ultra-compassionate views" left display their delight at every perceived shortcoming and failing of the US so publicly. america may not be perfect, but its the best game in town, for the left though, perfection is required, and whats more perfect than say... north korea where the Dear Leader can sink 5 holes in one in his first ever round of golf. the perfection you crave is only found in propaganda, and thats what you crave. an authoritarian state which will hide it's ever flaw from you, allowing you to bask in the blissful ignorance of a fool.

your obvious love of propaganda probably explains your own numerous attempts at DIY HomeBrewed Agit-Prop.
leave it to the experts in the "Totally Legitimate Press".
you never seem to get it quite right, and wind up playing semantic games over what the "Means of Production" actually is.

Hers,You want to know what I remember about 1967?That year G*d blinded Iraeli eyes and attacked a US destroyer,letting 35 die and didn't mount a rescue when they realized that "mistake" for an Egyptian transport ship half the size and different profile!