Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Mutiny fear in Israeli army as religious Zionists gain influence


key2thecup

Recommended Posts

I'd just like to add, people always say theism has killed many in the past with wars ect...

this is true and I agree, however we must remember that atheism has also slaughtered.....

the communist regimes were atheist... Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, combined killed hundreds of millions.

Now that being said Im not equating a modern day theist or atheist with the crimes of the past, not at all thats wrong to do so.

=============================================

For the record Im neither Theist or Atheist.... I don't know what category I fall into it, all I know is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism and any other ism I missed, all have a certain amount of great knowledge embedded in them, now you don't have to become baptized to take some of these teachings and apply them to your modern life.

example, I view the 10 commandments of Christianity favourably and see them as helping keep morality, I view the principles of Sikhism in good light about how we are all equal, Hinduism and the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhism and its philosophy ect ect ect..

and the same time, Atheism provokes some of the deepest thought in me..

All Im trying to get at is... it doesn't have to be a choice of "I'm a _____ and everything else is wrong"...... you can explore and take teachings from various sources and morph them into your own philosophy on life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not debatable. Those regimes killed for the same reasons any totalitarian regime kills.....to consolidate power, to project power, to further its own political, militaristic, or cultural ideology, Communists killed in order to promote, expand and nationalize communism......they just happened to be atheists. Communists opposed religion because they didn't want any competitors for the hearts and minds of the people.

Again....saying the Communists regimes were atheists and thus killed in the name of atheism, is like saying the Communist regimes were air-breathers, and therefore killed in the name of breathing air.

They killed for Communism. Plain and simple.

As for the rest, I agree that many religions contain good teachings and stories about moral lessons and such, but they aren't exclusive to any one religion, nor are those moral universalities exclusive to religion. There is no moral act or thought that a religious person can have or do, that an atheist or secular person cannot think or do. There may be great or profound wisdom contained in many religious sects, but I challenge you to show me any 'great knowledge' of the natural world that came out of any of those religions that wasn't known beforehand or through secular enterprise and means outside of a divine source imparting that knowledge to us.

However, I agree, there is nothing bad or wrong about learning from the moral stories and tales and discussion evoked from many religious sources. I have nothing against the lessons that can be learned from the Sermon on the Mount, or in the story of Ram and Sita, or in the writings of the 10 Sikh Gurus, or sense of fairness and wisdom of King Soloman, or the pursuit of peace, empathy, and appreciation of life in all forms the came from Buddha.....and on and on. All great reads. However, none of that, makes any of their claims of a supernatural creator or arbiter or presence, true or real. No great moral sermon or teaching will ever be good enough to prove that Jesus died and came back to life, let alone that he was born from a virgin, let alone that he was a god. It was just a good sermon....a reflection, that he, if he was really real which I doubt as well, made for a good listen, and sober reflection of our moral compass.

None of it though, is worth killing over, starting wars over, keeping access to birth control from people over, committing atrocities over, or subjugating and enslaving the minds of almost an entire people over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to add, people always say theism has killed many in the past with wars ect...

this is true and I agree, however we must remember that atheism has also slaughtered.....

the communist regimes were atheist... Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, combined killed hundreds of millions.

Now that being said Im not equating a modern day theist or atheist with the crimes of the past, not at all thats wrong to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being positive means exactly that. Means we do not need put others down to exist in our daily lives. It means we are optimistic about the future, and accept people as they are.

Being positive is also not free. It requires maintenance. First and foremost it requires us to remain focused and positive. We respect other peoples boundaries.

But we cannot control others. Egro we must put up healthy boundaries. This includes defending your position when others simply attack it.

If an Atheist would come here and make a POSITIVE case for being the said Atheist, I would tip my hat and say fine. Its ok with me There is no break of a boundary.

However, they NEED to attack people of faith. Why? Again, with healthy boundaries, you have no need to attack others way of life.

It becomes persecution. its not right, its not healthy and it usually means other issues are in play.

Here is an article I dug up on healthy self esteem and setting boundaries. .

http://www.selfgrowt...importance.html

i have never met a true Atheist who was happy, healthy, but then claim there is no God and all those who believe are idiots .

Its like saying..........I am happy but whoever doesn't agree with me can go @$%#$% themselves :huh: .

The only thing we can do is call them out speciifcally on the fact they are crossing boundaries . The point that they are atheists doesnt matter as long as they respect others.

But my experience with them for 30 years says if you take away their whining about God in various arenas , there is nothing else for them to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel won't stop until eretz yisrael as they call it is reality. All the pieces are in place and their plan is working, why would they stop? Mutiny or coup would be crazy and pointless, the government is following their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol Good point. Bee Keeping is the bain of existence. Has been since Sherlock was among us.

Pointing the finger at others is a great way to avoid looking in the mirror . I believe excessive finger pointing to be a form of depression and low self esteem.

In extreme cases it may even be 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder' . My wife is an RN . She sees cases of it in her line of work and even on blogs such as these.

Here is a brief explanation .

http://www.4degreez....isorder_test.mv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel withdrew from Sinai due to immense international pressure, especially from US and the USSR. Furthermore, Israel did not originally undergo that campaign alone and were aided by both the British and the French (which both could very much do without being associated as having helped Israel secure Sinai).

When Israel invaded Sinai again in the late 60's and 70's, Egypt offered peace, recognition of Israel and the permission of Israeli ships through Suez and Israel refused to accept this. It was only after Egypt launched a major military campaign against Israel in Sinai in 1973 that Israel eventually conceded to a withdrawal and agreement.

This also ties into the Golan Heights. There is a reason why the Assad family has been left in power for decades in Syria and it is directly related to Golan Heights, for which the Assad family was very handsomely rewarded both politically and financially.

As for Gaza (which the 'disengagement plan' was a Sharon devised policy), perhaps we might take heed to the words of top Sharon aide Dov Weisglass on the matter where he stated that the policy would prevent the possibility of a Palestinian state for years to come. Israel also maintains control over Gaza's airspace, borders, power, infrastructure and import/export...but in the 'name of peace' of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel does not maintain control over Gaza's borders. Egypt is in full control of Gaza's border with Egypt. The restriction on Gaza came only after Hamas was elected into power.

As for Egypt, everything you've written is a total fabrication. The Egyptian attack in 1973 was easily repelled by the Israelis. The Israelis then began to cross the Suez as part of their counter-attack. Israel had the entire Egyptian third army trapped until the USA put massive diplomatic pressure on the Israelis to withdraw..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel does not maintain control over Gaza's borders? Israel maintains full control of 51Km of Gaza's 62Km borders. Egypt did not maintain any control over its border with Gaza's until 2005 after reaching an agreement with Israel on this premise in light of their 'disengagement plan'. It had nothing to do with Hamas, which was elected into power two years after later 2007.

And I am absolutely amazed at how people so casually and willfully deny historical facts, and brush them off as 'fabrications' to maintain a certain perspective or position. Then again, this is probably because most people get their information sourced from history textbooks that they 'teach' in school as well as their 'co-educators' (i.e. the mainstream media).

Egypt caught Israel completely off-guard with their strategy in 1973 and this Egyptian campaign was and still is regarded as the 'greatest military victory of Arabs' against Israel in perhaps decades. It created significant turmoil within the Israeli government and military. It was not until the USA began flying in weapons and supplies to Israel under Operation Nickel Grass that they began to make some successful counter-push against Egypt.

The fact is that Israel held the false presumption that any Arab advance would be easily and swiftly repelled and defeated but instead found themselves with their backs to the wall. Had it not been for the US intervention to supply Israel with weaponry and supplies, Israel could very well have suffered a devastating defeat as opposed to simply losing Sinai and may very well have used nuclear/atomic weapons as a desperation measure to go out with a bang (which is what they were threatening to do).

The concession of Sinai remains to be seen in Israel as a complete failure on their part and it was the Egyptian Operation Badr that forced Israel into realizing that negotiations were now a requirement.

Sadat's peace initiative began in 1971 so the speech you mention came 6 years after the beginning. The reason it took 6 years is simply due to the fact that Israel's condition for peace was maintaining its control over Sinai. The reason Israel conceded Sinai was because they realized this was a necessity after the 1973 military campaign. Kissinger tried his best to delay any ceasefire agreements because the belief was that Israel would be victorious with a matter of days.

Of course the logical question would be why Israel would ever consider giving up Sinai when they staunchly referred to it as 'part of Israel' and especially considering the Israeli motto that 'Israel is not in the business of conceding territory' (which is what led to Operation Badr in the first place). If Israel had any glimmer of maintaining possession of Sinai they never would have conceded it (and rest assured they never had any plans of conceding it permanently).

Egypt received billions of $ per year to remain 'friendly' with Israel.

And I love how you refer to Israel as giving-up 'huge amounts of land' as if they are the poor, oppressed victims who have been subjugated for centuries when in fact every inch of land they currently rest on has been usurped with atrocious aggression and oppression.

And last I checked, however many 'billions of $' Egypt is receiving, it pales in comparison to what the Zionists receive for the simple gesture of giving back someone else's land.

Sadat was assassinated for numerous reasons but for a second there I thought you were referring to Yitzhak Rabin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...