QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Jul 5 2004, 01:53 PMI think council tends to understate what is essentially the biggest stumbling block (bar the wider issue of fundamentalism) to a speedy resolution ;)
A side issue is the fact that Israel started a program of building Jewish settlments on the captured Arab territory
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Jul 6 2004, 12:16 PM
As I see it the middle east is one great big fck up wainting to happen, so my question would be.....what would you do or advise that was done..
QuoteOriginally posted by albert@Jul 6 2004, 05:34 PMBet the Bloomin Greeks would win that one an all!! :D
I vote for a football match to decide it all.
Quote the tendrils of post-colonialism that persist to exert an influence
QuoteOriginally posted by A Twig@Jul 6 2004, 11:05 PMNobody controls the UN? And in the same vein, the UN can control something?
would an option be to create a Vatican like city state in place of Jerusalem, ruled over by someone by the UN. Then perhaps the communities could live in peace with each other, knowing that although they don't have control/ower, neither does the other side?
QuoteOriginally posted by TeaLeaf+Jul 7 2004, 06:24 AM-->
| QUOTE (TeaLeaf @ Jul 7 2004, 06:24 AM) | ||
| The UN serves a purpose, is better than anything else we have, but is far from ideal. It is full of political self-interest (as the Iraq events amply demonstrated) and is so tied up in its own administrative intestines that it chokes on anything larger than the decision as to what to have for the next silver service lunch.[/b]well put, ...unfortunately. Big bodies of "world leaders" hardly ever manage to reach an agreement over serious issues affecting large diverse groupds of people, especially when there's any religious, or financial or 1st-3rd world type differences involved. You will get the same religious/1st-3rd/financial split within the UN, only instead of shooting eachother they argue about it in 5* hotels in the bahamas etc etc. I think smilo struck the nail on the head
Title: Israel
Post by: TeaLeaf on July 07, 2004, 12:33:32 PM QuoteOriginally posted by suicidal_monkey@Jul 7 2004, 11:57 AM...and this summarises excellently the problem inherent with proportional representation as a voting system. If what you want is no single plan and compromise on everything, then PR is for you. Is it better or worse than 'first past the post'? Cue another thread........ TL.
Title: Israel
Post by: ChimpBoy on July 07, 2004, 05:29:18 PM QuoteOriginally posted by Dingo@Jul 6 2004, 09:10 PMWhat an absolute load of balls Dingo (excuse my language) :) I think your hackneyed attempts to wedge another "Gawd bless the empire guv'nor" comments has clouded your whiskey-addled brain ;) I hope your tongue was in cheek :) Religion is used as an excuse in most cases. What it really boils down to right to expert power over your fellow man. For the people at the top running the show, religious motivations are not their raison d'etre (at least not in the last couple of centuries). I would hypothesise that even fundamentalists are controlled by folks who don't have religious motivations. You imply the two go hand-in-hand. I would say one masks, and is an excuse for, the other. Think of all the wars waged in the name of religion. Underlying the vast majority is a desire for land, power, and conquest. And as for that last part about unifying peoples, well at least I hope you aren't alluding to the EU ;)
Title: Israel
Post by: smilodon on July 07, 2004, 07:10:51 PM
Rubbish,
It's as wrong to say all wars are fought for the personal gain of a few as it is to say religion is the route of all wars. So you're both wrong and both right in a way....maybe. :rolleyes:
Title: Israel
Post by: Dingo on July 07, 2004, 09:46:47 PM
Is not money a Religion?
Is not power a religion? Is not religion a religion? Is not control a religion? once again my bird brained Guildford chum you do not read further than the end of your nose, you do not see beyond the obvious, you would not discern a fine wine from a wine vinegar unless it told you so on the label!! :blink: :angry: Try re-reading the post again but this time take the time to try and reason beyond what you are reading Your own words Quotethe tendrils of post-colonialism that persist to exert an influence refer to the "old" powers of the world that wish to share in the pie but they are mere sideshows to the real players who are indeed Quotefolks who don't have religious motivations ....but religions come in many forms and men do not only idolise supposed Gods....they frequently make false gods of their own as itemised above and........ QuoteI can't wait until I am your Boss showing that your God is promotion and the power and influence over others.........now magnify that by the opportunity to have control and power over vast numbers of people, to lead and direct their lives at a whim, to hold sway over all you peruse...........but not by conquest of arms, no far too messy and the chance you will perish....... but wrap it up in a neat little package, a vision if you will, that you can sell to the mindless dolts who wish to be led, encompass your own agendas(religions) into a pre-packaged concept and extol it's virtues while laying the blame at Allah's\God's\Mesiah's door and you have the perfect product....a top seller everytime!! a final quote from our learned colleaugue QuoteIt's as wrong to say all wars are fought for the personal gain of a few as it is to say religion is the route of all wars. Now name me one war that was not started for either of these reasons.............. (but please analyse carefully before posting....gain is not only monetary after all)
Title: Israel
Post by: ChimpBoy on July 07, 2004, 10:32:05 PM
I'm talking modern day Smilo - I would say Dingo was right if we were talking about the crusades. But we're not.
My point of view is that modern war is more often than not about ideology or simple power, not religion. Too often people slur Muslim communities in error - religion isn't causing the problems in the middle east. It's ideology. It's too easy to say religion. I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong if you could provide an example. The only obvious one that springs to mind is Ireland, but even on that I'm not 100% convinced.
Title: Israel
Post by: ChimpBoy on July 07, 2004, 10:37:10 PM QuoteOriginally posted by Dingo@Jul 7 2004, 08:46 PMNo they're not: Religion: 1)Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2)A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 3)The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 4)A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 5)A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. None of those things you state fit under the conventional description. If you want to twist the meaning of the word in some limp Wall-Street metaphore, then fine. But you're incorrect.
Title: Israel
Post by: ChimpBoy on July 07, 2004, 10:43:39 PM QuoteOriginally posted by Dingo@Jul 7 2004, 08:46 PMOk - Vietnam. Fought on the basis of political ideology. Not religious in any way shape or form, but fuelled by the cold war. Not fought for the personal gain of a few leaders (although someone always profits from war), and in fact fought against the wishes of the public. The US leaders fought an unpopular war to combat the wider issue of communist rule spreading in the east. The N. Vietnamese were fighting for their independence after French oppression. Ideology, my friend Plus, as an afterthought, using my old tongue in cheek comments to prove a serious point really is lame Terry :) You're better than that :)
Title: Israel
Post by: smilodon on July 07, 2004, 11:25:52 PM QuoteIt's as wrong to say all wars are fought for the personal gain of a few as it is to say religion is the route of all wars. Note the word 'all' in the above quote. SOME wars are conducted in the name of religion and SOME for the gaining of personal power over the multitude. But to argue religion is the route of ALL wars is as wrong as as saying the aquisition of power is the sole reason for conflict. Either today or in the past.
Title: Israel
Post by: Dingo on July 08, 2004, 03:23:51 AM
So we have another word for Religion.....Ideology.....and is not Religion just that?......an Ideology?....a set of values....a hatrack upon which to hang our hat.....Thou shalt not etc!!................
QuoteA set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. Now who is living in the Middle ages?.........spiritual leaders are oft known as gurus, and gurus as we all know serve primarily themselves....what starts as a set of teachings allegedly for the greater good always ends up as an individual amassing extraordinary wealth, or power over the followers of his sect. We have gurus of fashion who lead the blind and stupid by the "label" nose, those that wish to affiliate themselves with what they perceive as the clothes to have....or the Coat of many colours if you will?!! QuoteSOME wars are conducted in the name of religion and SOME for the gaining of personal power over the multitude. But to argue religion is the route of ALL wars is as wrong as as saying the aquisition of power is the sole reason for conflict. Either today or in the past. But I haven't said that at all Smilo..........what is Religion?....throw away your preconceptions, your teachings and your mental shackles........ask yourself what TRULY constitutes Religion....does it have to be constrained solely to the (pre) conceptions that we allocate to it due to our teachings?....who taught the Palestinian children to hate so?, do(did) they have an agenda?, is it purely"religious", ....having power is one thing, the uses of it is quite another!!, Who convinces the suicide bomber that his place in heaven is assured when both the Bible and Koran teachings are directly contrary to that belief?, and once the bomber's affiliations are known who directly benefits from his actions?, are his family lauded as creators of heroes for the cause?....I think not....his affiliation benefits and behind that affiliation are the same men that will in the end benefit from some form of power or wealth transfer and so propogate conflict solely for their own ends. ......and my thanks to Chimpy for a brillaint summation QuoteA cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion .........but not necessarily a religion eh??!! :rolleyes: ;)
Title: Israel
Post by: TeaLeaf on July 08, 2004, 07:28:23 AM
Calm down fellas or I will have to dunk you in the urinals to cool you all down.
TL.
Title: Israel
Post by: smilodon on July 08, 2004, 08:13:57 AM QuoteOriginally posted by Dingo@Jul 8 2004, 03:23 AMI never said you did I was clarifying my point and loosing interest in the thread ;)
Title: Israel
Post by: ChimpBoy on July 08, 2004, 08:39:36 AM
We're calm TL, we're calm :) Trust me, we've had worse - don't get me and Smilo started on Maggie Thatcher ;)
For me, ideology and religion are fundamentally different things. I use the term in the context of social or political outlooks, whereas I think you are coming from the point of view that it's also religious teachings. Okey dokey my little gas buddies, guess we'll have to agree to disagree :) You still haven't rebutted my Vietnam statement though lads, or given me a war in the past 100 years motivated by purely religious reasons :);) As Smilo himself said at the beginning of the topic, the Israel situation wasn't motivated by religious reasons at the outset, it was as a direct result of forced appropriation of land from an existing people, and the resulting conflict caused as a nation tried to establish itself and gain recognition from it's peers. Was it because Israel was Jewish? I don't believe so. However I would concede that maybe it's become that.
Title: Israel
Post by: Benny on July 08, 2004, 09:00:00 AM
I don't see any thing worth worrying about in this thread...yet ;)
Start another thread to discuss the pedanticitires™ of religion... What we were talking about was Israel/Palestine etc. Where does Uncle Interfering Sam come into it? Do they just back the Israelis from the good of concience?
Title: Israel
Post by: Gh0st Face Killah on July 08, 2004, 09:38:37 AM
At the end of the day religion is just used as an excuse to try and justify a war/conflict/terrorism. Basically it boils down to someone has upset someone else so they retaliate and then it escalates from there.
Title: Israel
Post by: smilodon on July 08, 2004, 06:43:06 PM QuoteOriginally posted by ChimpBoy@Jul 8 2004, 08:39 AMI tend to make it up as I go along when we have our conversations. Can you remind me - do I think Maggie was the Saviour of Britain or Satan in a dress?
Title: Israel
Post by: ChimpBoy on July 09, 2004, 07:40:04 AM QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon+Jul 8 2004, 05:43 PM-->
|