Look, we can debate every point ALL night long, and I don't have the patience for it.

 

Can we simply agree that governments are not just terrorist organizations whose goal is to kill, steal, and destroy?

 

For every example of abuse of government power, I can give you an example of corporate corruption. We are starting to get into topics of organizational theory and the human condition, and I don't want to debate forever. All I am asking for is fairness.

 

No.

 

Because governments are made up of people who presume to have a different moral status from the rest of society simply because they're wearing certain costumes - a judge's robe, military camouflage, policeman's outfit, or a senator's suit with a flag lapel. Even more atrocious is the idea they are conferred special rights because of their ability to win a certain number of "votes" from the eligible electorate. A majority of participants standing in line to mark a box don't have the ability to fundamentally change anything except the paper they're marking.

 

Government is just organized crime. Highly successful organized crime, because they've convinced most people they are have the "right" to steal from them and command them.

 

But funnily enough, while most people (such as yourself) agree to the necessity of government, those same people just can't handle it when one government comes in and butts out an old one! That's just mean! They had no right to do that! ;)

OY! I am out.

 

Can't argue against it because it is by definition true. It's one of those things that isn't left up in the air, but clearly defined.

Can't argue against it because it is by definition true. It's one of those things that isn't left up in the air, but clearly defined.

 

Nope. Just don't care to engage in a dead-end debate. I have voiced my opinion, and I am done.

ehh everyone has their own definitions.

By definition governments are terrorist. Now you can argue if terrorism is right or wrong, but by definition they are terrorist, and robbers. Just because they are common and accepted does not make them any less bad.

ok i'll accept every government is terrorism... but then... anyways we do need any rule to allow things work, as least basic things, so there must be any order, and so someone who must be in charge of it.

 

so who do you think must do that? (i mean you Nick and Jay too).

because honestly i think society by itself can't do that.

(not saying that some people is better than other -in fact i reckon we all can be very angelical and very evil at the same time-)

 

there must be an order so thing can work.

 

(sorry i'd like to go on on this debate (cause i think is interesting although i don't agree so much with some opinions), but my english is not good enough for that :embarassed: :cry: )

 

btw i think we are going off-topic. :\

ok i'll accept every government is terrorism... but then... anyways we do need any rule to allow things work, as least basic things, so there must be any order, and so someone who must be in charge of it.

 

so who do you think must do that? (i mean you Nick and Jay too).

because honestly i think society by itself can't do that.

(not saying that some people is better than other -in fact i reckon we all can be very angelical and very evil at the same time-)

 

there must be an order so thing can work.

 

(sorry i'd like to go on on this debate (cause i think is interesting although i don't agree so much with some opinions), but my english is not good enough for that :embarassed: :cry: )

 

btw i think we are going off-topic. :\

 

Good question! Who should make the rules?

 

The answer is that whoever owns the property, makes the rules. For instance, let's say we have a library (which is run by the government) and a book store (which is privately owned). If there are objectionable materials in the library, people will complain to the government and everyone will get mad. But when there are objectionable materials in a bookstore, nobody even bothers complaining, because they know it is private property and they have no say!

 

The same is true with private schools vs. public schools, and the materials taught there. You never hear anyone complaining about a private school's teachings, because it is generally understood that you can choose to move your children to another school.

 

This is the way all of society naturally works. People complain, but they get on with their lives. When you introduce government and "official" things, people complain and then their complaining BECOMES their lives. They work as lobbyists to get their way (or bribe, or cheat, or steal), instead of creating their own alternatives using their own money.

 

Anarchy is not chaos. The governments of the world want you to believe it is, so you are afraid of it.

I do not agree. It violates one of the major principles of a free market economy: that there are many buyers and many sellers. You will have a messed up world if you allow for monopolies or oligopolies.

 

But yet there is only one monopolies commission...

 

New Labour are terrorists

Good question! Who should make the rules?

 

The answer is that whoever owns the property, makes the rules. For instance, let's say we have a library (which is run by the government) and a book store (which is privately owned). If there are objectionable materials in the library, people will complain to the government and everyone will get mad. But when there are objectionable materials in a bookstore, nobody even bothers complaining, because they know it is private property and they have no say!

 

The same is true with private schools vs. public schools, and the materials taught there. You never hear anyone complaining about a private school's teachings, because it is generally understood that you can choose to move your children to another school.

 

This is the way all of society naturally works. People complain, but they get on with their lives. When you introduce government and "official" things, people complain and then their complaining BECOMES their lives. They work as lobbyists to get their way (or bribe, or cheat, or steal), instead of creating their own alternatives using their own money.

 

Anarchy is not chaos. The governments of the world want you to believe it is, so you are afraid of it.

the thing about school can't be applied here then.. since our government (terrorist as you say), have done a reform about the contents of the subjects and parents can't try to do anything against it, not even to move their kids to a private school or the other way... :\

 

i will have to agree that government are terrorists.

 

on your third pharagraph, who you mean that works as lobby, the people or the government?.

 

anarchy can only work if every citizen is ethic, if not it all will be only a maniqueism (yes/no; good/bad)... :uhoh: i don't see an order or something that will sure services and stuff.

 

so my question to you is, then who you think should run it all?

 

government, you disagree with it, so who should invest on facilities for people and stuff like health care service, schools, motorways.. :thinking:

 

i think that big enterprises are really our governors, and nobody vote for them, if you see, they get money from people for their own use. :\ not to mention they conditionate people's life for good and bad.

palestin terrorists and rockets strike Israeli cities, Israel answers back and sends bombs to palestin cities; palestin civilians gets killed, so palestin answer back and kill isareli civilians, so Israel answers back.....

^Endless cycle.

yes, the problem is very complex, you can't just blame Israel for those bloody raids on gaza if you don't look on the palestine attacks over Issrael

All I can say is - how sad. Can anyone who is healthy fathom what a person feels when they get hit with shrapnel? And the sense of fear, of panic, or shock? That goes for either side of the conflict - it's all so hard-hearted.

We speak in broad generalities - this group that group, this country, that country. But it's too far removed from the reality; knowing veterans who have come back shook to the core, physically damaged, with PTSD and lucky to be alive tells the tale of the untold damages - and they're lucky to even be alive through it all. Ten time worse are the civilians who have no safety net at all.

To me it's letting things develop as they have, and responding with excessive force (and one cannot discount petty revenge by some commanders or politicos for attacks and slights, the inevitable result of those with egos unchecked by reality). Anyone remember Fallujah? For the deaths of 5 Blackwater 'contractors', someone in the command structure ordered the leveling of a whole city- thousands fled, over a hundred killed.

I see both sides as responsible, but unfortunately radicals often want to further destabilize the people they identify with by picking targets and then waiting for the inevitable retaliation, which only serves to further enrage the survivors and convert more to support the radical elements.. and this works both ways. I don't want a cycle of recycled revenge - it's bad karma, and plain-old pain and suffering.

A better way forward would be to aid the civilians in crisis, respond in an international level with peace-keeping troops, and bring both the rocket launchers and the heavy-handed generals to justice in the international courts. The matter should be treated as a criminal act, as both action and reaction are excessive, and extremely painful to those not wanting involvement in the conflict - and starving anyone, cutting water and electricity, or removing their jobs only sows the seeds for more violence. (A fire can only be put out with quenching water in the long run, or else the dry brush will easily burst into flame again and again.)

the thing about school can't be applied here then.. since our government (terrorist as you say), have done a reform about the contents of the subjects and parents can't try to do anything against it, not even to move their kids to a private school or the other way... :\

 

i will have to agree that government are terrorists.

 

on your third pharagraph, who you mean that works as lobby, the people or the government?.

 

anarchy can only work if every citizen is ethic, if not it all will be only a maniqueism (yes/no; good/bad)... :uhoh: i don't see an order or something that will sure services and stuff.

 

so my question to you is, then who you think should run it all?

 

government, you disagree with it, so who should invest on facilities for people and stuff like health care service, schools, motorways.. :thinking:

 

i think that big enterprises are really our governors, and nobody vote for them, if you see, they get money from people for their own use. :\ not to mention they conditionate people's life for good and bad.

 

Okay, so I'm happy I changed your mind about government! :)

 

Maybe I can change your mind about anarchy, also.

 

A good analogy would be a traffic light. It coordinates people to either stop, or continue going through the intersection. The traffic light makes no distinction between cars (who is rich or who is poor, who is in a hurry or not... etc). So it's very much like the government.

 

If the light breaks, will people just crash into each other? Maybe. Or... people will see the light is broken and stop - regardless of how hurried they are. This is more likely. The intersection will become a four-way stop, and everyone will slow down and take turns. This is anarchy.

 

When there is no government, people work together to make each others' lives better. They don't need to be forced to do this. Sometimes (rarely) there will be a criminal who tries to steal or kill. But remember that the criminal is being like a reckless driver - he is running through the intersection without checking for other cars. Being a criminal in anarchy is very dangerous, because you will lose support of your fellow citizens.

 

You are told that life without government would be bad, because everyone has to be angels for it to work (a similar argument is used against Communism). But the argument works against Communism - not against anarchy. Here's why: communism requires force (guns) to take some people's money and give it to other people. Few people would do this voluntarily.

 

Anarchy, on the other hand, is the opposite because there is no force involved. Everybody owns what is his, and it it's never stolen - only traded. All human interactions are voluntary (which is the way 99.9% of interactions are anyway... when's the last time you used violence to get what you wanted??)

i figured theyd be a thread like this....

 

the whole situation really saddens me really... but mostly i find that calling the israeli goverment "criminals" is really out of line... because for 8 years we've been taking misle shooting from gaza and endangering 250,000 ppl... i dont think any other country in the world would have waited that long to do something

we've been trying to nagotiate any in every possible way...

hammas is a terrorist group who believe in the destruction of israel and are not willing to nagotiate or stop the shootings

and if it's destruction they want, it's detruction they'll get

they left the israeli government no other choice, since it is obliged to protect its citizens

 

i agree that the attack was abit too strong...

 

and about the killing of children...

for your knowledge, hammas activists grab little children and women in the streets to use them as a human shield, and then make us look bad

so who's inhumane in this whole story??

and as im 21 i have friends who are serving the israeli army this days and ppl i know who were recruited for the attack....

 

believe me that the way ppl are acting in the streets here is that they all want this war to be over... nobody likes the situation...

but we also want the shootings to stop...!

 

there are a bunch of videos circilating facebook which explain the situation abit better

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/video/video.php?v=1074325613244&ref=nf

What I'm alluding to is that (and perhaps I'm mistaken about the facts) often those in command order return fire in a manner that kills so many more than just the militants firing the rockets / grenades / mortars. The US command did this many times (Iraq, Vietnam, Philippines), and I think it's partly human nature when a conflict erupts. When the bombs are falling, nobody questions the decisions, and often a great many innocents get hurt. Yes, I would imagine Hamas fighters do that- take children from the streets as human shields - and therefore some civilians , children, will get killed by accident, and it is wrongful what these Hamas fighters have done. But, the responses by our modern forces often does a great deal more damage than intended and hurt or kill many innocents.

What leaves a question in my mind is motivation. Has the Gaza strip been under an embargo of goods and a restriction placed on getting to work outside the strip? Somehow, Hamas smuggled the weapons in through the Egyptian border, and the Palestinian citizens tolerated their actions - how did this happen?? Isn't the border made secure by arrangements with Egypt? Why would a population so tolerate a criminal organization? Perhaps sanctions or economic conditions made many ignore these militants as they felt the economic pain. Similarly, the US sanctions against Iraq and the bombing of water plants for 10 long years didn't endear the Iraqi citizens to the US any, and so angry people tolerate terrorists in their midst, with predictable results.

I'm not saying that the Israeli government is "criminal" but I do believe that arrogance of power & decisions can exist within any military or command power structure, and those making decisions which have little to no regard for human life of the population across the border, if this is the case, should be held accountable. The same holds for the US, where we did things that were clearly excessive and sometimes downright heartless during the occupation in Iraq. My conversations with veterans from Fallujah and Abu Ghraib tells me this.

Howard Zinn has a lot to say about warfare, and I can see what he says now has some salience. Underlying causes often get lost once a conflict starts, and those are the things we all need to get better at understanding. But there's so much hurt on both sides, and it's so senseless is all I'm saying. We in the living have so little to compare the suffering to..

^i totally agree with you

i definetly think that israeli attacks were too strong and maybe there was a better way to handle things, but im not leading the army and i suppose that they had a reason and basis for attacking so harshly straight away... i mean, u can never truly know why some strategies are taken rather than others because u arent truly a part of it

so i really want to believe that there was good reason

 

and the civilians in the gaza strip really didnt know what was good for them when they chose hammas as their political party in 2006. The were blindsighted by the social and economic benefits that hamas bring and forgot that a significant about of hamas' budget goes to terror...

 

and one of the biggest mistakes i think that were made by israel is that when we left the strip in 2005, which i was for by the way, we didnt make a satisfying agreement with egypt about border control, and maybe we should have even left a few of our forces over there so we can keep track, because unsuprisingly and obviously, egypt really doesnt care if weapons are being smuggled into gaza strip....

and either way thet have i think hundreds of tunnels from the gaza strip to egypt through which they smuggle weapons into the strip, and suicide bombers from the strip into egypt and from there to israel

 

not to mention, we also have a captive soldier, Gilad Shalit, who's been captive for almost 1000 days... 2 and a half years... and we believe he's still alive

along with wanting to stop the missle shootings we also want Gilad back... it's one issue that's very sensitive among the israeli popultion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit

^i totally agree with you That's a relief, although I've been know to be way off the mark many many times! I do appreciate the thoughtful criticism. Thanks - and I can see that you have a very reflective way of seeing things as well, green eyes:).

i definetly think that israeli attacks were too strong and maybe there was a better way to handle things, but im not leading the army and i suppose that they had a reason and basis for attacking so harshly straight away... i mean, u can never truly know why some strategies are taken rather than others because u arent truly a part of it

so i really want to believe that there was good reason

Well, it may depend on the government as well. But maybe this was the best of the options left at that point - I don't know either, but we all want to believe our governments use sound reasoning for the actions they take.. Perhaps it was the best they could do under the circumstances - I only can guess myself. :\ Too bad it couldn't have been prevented before it got so far gone!

I understand that feeling - we all want to believe our militaries acts for all the right reasons; but sometimes they do let us down..

and the civilians in the gaza strip really didnt know what was good for them when they chose hammas as their political party in 2006. The were blindsighted by the social and economic benefits that hamas bring and forgot that a significant about of hamas' budget goes to terror...

Yes, sometimes people vote for change just because they're fed up with the old government, thinking the new government will be better. And false marketing was used? - hmm.. yes, I agree - they made a poor choice, based not on the whole facts. But once in power, I think sanctions only create more converts to the extremist camps - the US made that mistake as well. Yes, I understand Hammas does sponsor terror.. Ugh, what a mess!

 

and one of the biggest mistakes i think that were made by israel is that when we left the strip in 2005, which i was for by the way, we didnt make a satisfying agreement with egypt about border control, and maybe we should have even left a few of our forces over there so we can keep track, because unsuprisingly and obviously, egypt really doesnt care if weapons are being smuggled into gaza strip....

Aha, so that's why! Thanks! Now Egypt has a fairly hard-line government at present, if I'm not mistaken? So maybe that's part of it - moderates in Egypt cannot criticize their government, and so the bosses do what they want, with bad agendas.. maybe.. I advocate for the support of moderates and against the hard-line dictatorial types, but the US foreign policy is unfortunately "stability at any cost", which almost always backfires. Moderates get crushed, and extremism rises, and then when people demand change, they're being misled by these extremists... Is that how you see it?? Or is more of a matter of intolerance in general? Wow, if ever there was an argument for secular government, one could hardly make a stronger case!

and either way thet have i think hundreds of tunnels from the gaza strip to egypt through which they smuggle weapons into the strip, and suicide bombers from the strip into egypt and from there to israel

Yes, but oddly someone in the Israel military said they have had a good relationship with Egypt.. so I am a bit confused!:confused: Was this just happy talk, to cover up the problems? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has a checkered history with some not-so-good things done (didn't they assassinate Anwar Sadat?). Well, yes, it seems Egypt has something odd going on internally, to allow this to happen. So the U.S. government may bear responsibility indirectly, in the sense that our foreign policy has allowed dictators and hard-liners to flourish, the moderates thus to get crushed, and extremism to take hold as a result. Hence, Egypt's government allows this to happen; Palestinians then tolerate the presence of extreme elements out of their own poor decisions and sanctions follow from Israel's government, which leads to more extremists, which leads to rockets fired by militants into Israel, which leads to the Israeli army fighting back, which hits innocents, buildings, and at least one mosque, which doesn't usually win heats and minds.. :( I'd like to see things get better, but the root causes need to be addressed, and more dialog once a cease-fire has occurred.

not to mention, we also have a captive soldier, Gilad Shalit, who's been captive for almost 1000 days... 2 and a half years... and we believe he's still alive

along with wanting to stop the missle shootings we also want Gilad back... it's one issue that's very sensitive among the israeli popultion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit

I can understand that. In a smaller country such as Israel, everyone knows everyone else, or knows the family. I hope he is returned safe and sound; every person is precious, and a solider doesn't make the policy, they just do their duty. I wish for his safe return, and for the fighting to come to an end...

 

 

One thing I'm wondering: how to defuse all the young boys (and girls?) who are brainwashed by the militant extremist type madrassas? To make improvements in economy, education, and rights helps, but if a few still remain so mixed up in their minds, then that could lead to more cycles of violence.. What can be done about that?

Chuck, I think the propaganda directed at children is primarily religious, so it would be incredibly difficult to systematically "un-brainwash" them. Remember the resistance to acknowledging the equality of blacks in the southern US took (and still takes) over a hundred years, and that propaganda wasn't religious - it was just cultural.

 

I think the key to reprogramming a society (easily) is two parts:

 

1. Have a charismatic leader who can speak well.

 

2. Create a common enemy.

 

The common enemy should be someone who can be blamed for society's ills, and it doesn't really matter if they're actually the cause or not.

 

The more difficult (and morally superior) way is to avoid systemic indoctrination altogether and just volunteer to educate young Palestinian children. Use the same methods they use to teach hate - cartoons, stories, songs, etc. I nominate Disney to make a Israeli/Palestinian cartoon that shows children that both sides can get along.

Jay, somehow the Hitler Youth were brought down from the cliff after the war, so I have to think it could be done. After all, I recall the story of one young suicide bomber, who spent his youth being "programmed" to blow up a crowd, but after seeing all the friendly people and realizing how awful a thing that would be to do, he on his own decided against it. So, I have to have hope... Take away the older influences and given time, I think it can be overcome. Yes, sad to say it, but unfortunately there is still racism, even here. But it is handed down from generation to generation; it's senseless, and usually ends when there's reconciliation and integration (dare it be said?).

True, both an economy and a new enlightened leader would make a world of difference; someone with better ideals and goals, and the steady improvement that builds hope and creates jobs.

Maybe that would help as well - to change young minds, it simply takes a cartoon; and if the logic is true to form, it's hard then for the haters to teach hate..

What seems to be the matter as well though is the need for more secular government; Madison's "marketplace of religion" makes sense, and due respect for all faiths there. Clinton had one key ingredient in tying in the idea of sharing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in his effort to bring both sides together. Arafat, unfortunately, lived for the revolutionary excitement, and couldn't end his own love affair with "feeling under siege and surviving".

 

 

 

They don't teach them to hate Jews...but when they see "Israel" killing people of their country and destroying their homes every day for years...do you expect them to like Israel??

and jews do hates us...not all of them but a lot of them and they do teach their children to hate all Arabs. maybe you dont know it but they do...they think they are better than us and that we're not worthy of the land of palestine.

all the other things you said...I totally agree.

 

Ugh, I really don't want to get into this, but I just had to comment on this post.

 

Jews do not "teach their children to hate all Arabs", nor do they think that they are any better than the Palestinians. It's antisemitism like this that just exacerbates the whole situation. Look, I don't think either side is completely innocent, the history is long and complicated. I do think that it's incredibly sad that two cultures that share so much history cannot just acknowledge each other and live together. I have several relatives in Israel right now and I'd love nothing more than for all of this to end, but I think that this is going to be a long one...

 

I'm not even going to respond to the posts saying that Hamas isn't a terrorist organization because they were elected by the Palestinians... :blank:

I wonder who kills more Palestinians Israel or Hamas? Hamas likes to set up camp in civilian populated area's because the more die the better they look and worse Israel looks. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these people were actually killed by hamas too. Hamas has been shown to kill their own people, one of it's founding members sons defected because of this.

Well, it's a mess. But to de-fuse the dynamite, that's the question now. Hamas definitely has a terrorist wing, which is most unfortunate. But when anyone feels slighted, disenfranchised either economically, physically, or by the loss of respect, that's a matter which can drive citizens to revenge and resentment, as well as disregard for another group. That's true of both sides in the conflict, and for that matter, any conflict; and carrying the weight of history as justification for this or that in the present is unfortunate as well. Obviously, Hamas can only remain in power if they remain popular, and they derive a certain amount of power from the disenchantment of the people of Gaza. When the PLO was seen as corrupt in the eyes of the public, and economics were not improving, like anywhere, people want change. Same here! Unfortunately, the change you get might not be the change you want or the change you need.

It would seem wise to reimburse the Palestinian families for the land which was taken from them during the creation of the state of Israel, and return what can be returned. (Is this a good idea, or not?) These average citizens had little or nothing to do with the initial conflict, and their families lost their livelihoods in the process, from which they have yet to fully recover. (Or am I mistaken in this?)

Making a clear, fair, impartial agreement on the Temple Mount, if this has not already been done.

 

Respect between groups is always an issue, and when one group gains economically and another does not, there's bound to be on the one hand an attitude that one group holds superiority to another from those gains and therefore looks down at the other, and on the other hand the group which does not have the economic gains feels an indignity from the other, and a sense of unfairness in the economic exchange with the other group. Is this the case, or am I off the mark??

Raising the standard of living among Palestinians would go miles further than most other measures, and if one could tie this with honest brokers in Palestine, I think things would change. But it's also a matter of healing old and new wounds, and supporting moderate movements and those wanting secular democracies in the neighboring states, so less and less terrorists are created in the region.

I'm just taking a guess at it all! So far, nobody seems to have an answer, or we'd not have a problem..

 

Love thy neighbor like thyself..

I wonder who kills more Palestinians Israel or Hamas? Hamas likes to set up camp in civilian populated area's because the more die the better they look and worse Israel looks. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these people were actually killed by hamas too. Hamas has been shown to kill their own people, one of it's founding members sons defected because of this.

Nick, you're right. It's a tactic, and it's a bad one, but no doubt one they're trying. Getting the light of their nature into the publics eye might help; unfortunately conflict causes people to be swayed easily by emotionally charged rhetoric, which goes equally well for the US during the Iraq war. The bad elements always manage to point their finger "over there"..

They don't teach them to hate Jews...but when they see "Israel" killing people of their country and destroying their homes every day for years...do you expect them to like Israel??

and jews do hates us...not all of them but a lot of them and they do teach their children to hate all Arabs. maybe you dont know it but they do...they think they are better than us and that we're not worthy of the land of palestine.

all the other things you said...I totally agree.

 

omg i i just saw this now!

you have no idea how wrong you are

jews are not taught to hate arabs...!!!

there's hate coming from both sides simply because of the situation

in 2002 when i couldnt go on buses out of fear of getting blown up it definetly raised some hate from my side towards them, as im sure our constant attacks on their side has caused them to hate us

but there is a difference, because you should try watching some paletinian TV shows for kids and their school books... there are many racial and anti-israeli remarks......

it really trully isnt like that from our side! Trust me, we all recognise that the palestinians have a problem and that they deserve their own country and independance and we wanna deal with it but it's kind of hard when they keep applying terror on us

 

and to be honest, i think the world should think twice about this. Try to imagine what would happen if Palestine was a legetimate country who could gather military power... do you really want another terrorist country run by hamas???

at least this way we have it somewhat under countrol, but a country run by hamas can be just as bad as Iran