More trouble in Iraq

[shyhedgehog]

I think Tampa is a bit short sighted when it comes to IS. This IS has done horrible things and if people don't convert to their religion then they get murdered. I don't think we've seen half of the atrocities that they have done, so the world had better beware of more shocks to come. The only way to get rid is A - If a country like the UK has citizens fighting for IS then they are not allowed back. B - Ship out all their relations out of their home country. C - Send in crack troops to destroy every tentacle of their organisation.

Both the UK and the US have lost a lot of lives in Afghanistan for a fight that is really not ours and furthermore no one ever learnt from history in that country. No one has ever defeated the Taliban and never will. However, IS has come out of nowhere and is expanding fast and is trying to form a new state encompassing Syria and Iraq, so what is next if they manage to do this.

Bomb the bastards.

Lol! I'm voting for Jon for Prime Minister next year!

 

[joninliverton]

Lol! I'm voting for Jon for Prime Minister next year!

I'm voting UKIP - the guy talks a lot of sense and he is more in touch with the public feeling that Cameron or Milliband.

 

[shyhedgehog]

I'm voting UKIP - the guy talks a lot of sense and he is more in touch with the public feeling that Cameron or Milliband.

Lol UKIP? Seriously? Wow you must feel bad! Lol. I agree that there needs to be a cap on immigration but that seems to be their only policy. I would generally vote Conservative but they are decimating the nhs so can't do that again. And labour got us in this mess in the first place. That leaves the lib dems, greens and the Monster Raving Loony party. My vote's going to the loons!x

 

[joninliverton]

Lol UKIP? Seriously? Wow you must feel bad! Lol. I agree that there needs to be a cap on immigration but that seems to be their only policy. I would generally vote Conservative but they are decimating the nhs so can't do that again. And labour got us in this mess in the first place. That leaves the lib dems, greens and the Monster Raving Loony party. My vote's going to the loons!x

Dude, based on the popularity of UKIP in the European elections, they would probably make a suitable bed partner (coalition) with the Tories than LD. At least Farage would rein Cameron in (if Cameron is still there and Boris doesn't out him).

 

[shyhedgehog]

Dude, based on the popularity of UKIP in the European elections, they would probably make a suitable bed partner (coalition) with the Tories than LD. At least Farage would rein Cameron in (if Cameron is still there and Boris doesn't out him).

I agree. OMG Boris is a legend. Can you imagine him as PM negotiating with Putin and the Islamic State? It would be like a scene from League of Gentlemen!

 

[Ambivalent]

Ummm -

I shouldn't even get into this - because it is going to be more trouble than it's worth. But when has it ever stopped me, before? Here are my thoughts:

* To Shy - yes, a State which respects (in a liberal fashion) the beliefs of its various citizens, is essential. This can be achieved in one of two ways: either by a complete separation of church and state (as is theoretically the case in the U.S.): or, by a generous and liberal interpretation of received religious values (as is the case in the U.K., and in Scandinavia). Just be aware, that all the liberties and human rights you now enjoy, in the U.K., are not predicated (in my opinion) upon some abstract, perfect, and independently-subsisting constellation of human rights - but upon an historically-derived, and continually evolving Judeo-Christian set of ethics.

*I (very respectfully) totally disagree with Shy about the State of Israel. I believe its foundations are historic and legal. However, I also strongly support justice for the Palestinian people, under a two-state solution. This is something which both the Israeli right-wing, and the Palestinian left-wing, have been resisting vociferously, for decades - and that is a tragedy.

*Contra my friend Jon, I believe that the war in Afghanistan (in which Canadian troops also participated - my sister and I hugged some of them, at Christmas-concerts for them, and their families) was absolutely necessary. Of course, the Taliban will never be defeated, until the majority of Afghanis WANT it to be defeated. But the fact is - in that time, and in that place - Afghanistan was a sheltering-place for terrorists who were training, planning, and launching direct attacks on all our countries. It is a truism of military history that no one EVER conquers Afghanistan: BUT - those terrorists had to be set back, a bit. (And that was ALL that was accomplished.)

*What is an even greater tragedy, is that I believe that (as did my former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chretien) the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But this was a mistake which was a tragedy on MANY levels. Because: Saddam Hussein, who kept that region under strict authoritarian control, for decades, WAS a butcher. Purely evil, on every level. And what many commentators now fail to acknowledge - in mocking the Bush Administration, and all it did - Hussein was actively promoting the notion he had weapons of mass destruction: so as to strengthen his hand in the region. (And, he fooled the secret service organizations of France, the U.K., and the U.S. - which was precisely his intention.)

*Saddam went wrong, because he took the threats, and bellicosity, just a step too far (and it wasn't his FIRST time at the dance - witness the invasion of Kuwait): and made his threats just a little too believable. (Even if they were not entirely REAL.) But he made people THINK he was a bigger threat than he was. . .and that was HIS superb miscalculation.

*The tragic part of all of this is, precisely this. If Saddam had behaved just a little bit better, and had not occasioned his own downfall. . . and he were still being contained, by sanctions, and a cordon sanitaire, from the air - most of the Western countries, would be much better off than they are now. But. . . Saddam Hussein, and his maniacal sons, would STILL be slaughtering thousands of their own people, every year. To think of this, must give anyone with a heart, a little pause. (It does, even ME, and - much to Tampa's distaste, I am a disciple of Henry Kissinger, in foreign affairs.)

*The removal of Saddam Hussein, and the installation of the incredibly politically stupid, and partisan, and divisive, Nouri-al-Maliki, in Iraq: paved the way for "ISIS", and their depradations. The power-vacuum, coupled with the spurning of the powerful Sunni minority, proved a marvel of black magic - a virtual Petri-dish, in which extremism could grow.

*People now, are quite upset with President Obama, for having done less than he could have, to depose President Bashar al-Assad, of Syria. Some of them (including even notional Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton) are even saying: "Oh, President Obama, if only you had provided enough ARMS to MODERATE rebels in Syria - Assad would have been deposed, we would have a nice, friendly regime, in Syria, and ISIS would not exist."

*Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that this is NONSENSE. Bashar al-Assad is an evil, murdering, bastard, but so are virtually all his opponents. The "moderate rebels", the "real democrats" in that nation, were only ever the TINIEST sliver of his opposition. His REAL opposition - the ones with GUTS and the WIND behind their sails, were always Islamists - who hated him as a Ba'ath socialist and statist autocrat. They want him out, and want him to stop imprisoning people - so they can start EXECUTING people - especially Syrian Christians, and Muslim Alawites. Assad has hung on so long because, his followers know that, without him, they will be SLAIN.

*Vladimir Putin, incidentally, knows this. And this is why he has stuck with Assad, for so long. First, he wants to keep his country's strategic bases in Syria, and his small foothold in the Middle East. Second, because he is beset by Islamist fundamentalists in Chechnya, and elsewhere in his country, he doesn't want to do a damned thing to empower or encourage them. I DISLIKE PUTIN, for a hundred thousand reasons (not LEAST because he is imperiling gay friends of mine, in Russia) - but I think on this foreign-policy matter, he may have gotten it RIGHT.

*And I think Obama may have gotten it right also, in Syria (contra Hillary Clinton) - but - IF SO. . . it can only give one pause to weep, and despair, and pray to one's God, or hope for humanity, or whatever it is, one does, in such circumstances. Because, Mike from New York, the possibility - even the IDEA, of Tikkun Olam. . . mending the world. . . is very far from us, now. When the best option available to us, as nations that are attempting to be civilized - is. . . supporting, or at least tacitly accepting - one murderer over another, in the hope that FEWER PEOPLE will be MURDERED, in the end. But, I think, that is precisely where we are. (God help us.)

* Regarding "ISIS" - Jon, I don't think Tampa has been short-sighted, at all. I think you mis-read him. I DO agree with you, Jon, that as it becomes apparent that various citizens of the U.K., the U.S., and Canada have become radicalized and gone over to these causes, the harshest penalties should be applied. I also think that all our law-enforcement organizations ought to be working with local communities to ferret out and deter and apprehend miscreants of this kind. I don't know about in the U.K., but I know that in Canada, there are many Muslims (including senior clergy) who are horrified by this kind of traitorous behavior, and who are actively cooperating with the RCMP to apprehend these people whenever possible. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/23/376285/cleric-warns-of-isil-canada-recruitment/

*Obviously, the positions of the great Western powers with respect to "ISIS" aren't going to be easy. Strong measures will be needed, and this will be both costly, and sad. Because war is always costly, and sad. But ISIS has terrible designs on all of us, and, there is no shrinking (unfortunately) from the need to SET THEM BACK. However, I believe that Western countries will ALSO have to (with aid and humanitarian support) ALSO convince people in these beleaguered regions that there is a better way, to have a happier life - than siding with terrorist killers. I AM NO OPTIMIST. I read Machiavelli when I was six, and St. Augustine when I was seven. I KNOW that the worst instincts in the human heart - fear, hatred, and revenge - are the most powerful. But somehow, they MUST be overcome, if peace is to prevail.

*I really appreciate Louis' contribution to all this, for, as he is one of the few of us who has actually BEEN in a war (a real war) I think he knows whereof he speaks. And I think Louis is absolutely correct, in his analysis. This present turmoil is NOT a war such as we have ever known. It is a conflict with multiple, complex, ongoing, levels. And it is very difficult to adapt, to that.

*I think Tampa (despite our difference in political perspectives) has offered a spot-on analysis of the tragedy of this whole situation. I wish I could offer some words of comfort, in response, but, I cannot.

*Last, Shy, I could imagine Jon as a good M.P., someday. (And I wouldn't mind helping him out with some of his speeches, if he ran as a candidate - when he is 40, and I am 70 ;-) However, while I understand where the UKIP is coming from, and agree that perhaps the Tories might need to get a little tougher on immigration, and be careful about the relationship with Europe - I don't think the UKIP has any platform to be an eventual government. And - if you think Boris Johnson would be a good Prime Minister (I think he's a f***ing IDIOT). . . well, if you think so. . . then, Jesus Christ help us ALL, and GOD SAVE ENGLAND.

And, God save the Queen.

Your favourite disciple of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand (le Prince de Talleyrand),
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

*God save the Queen* ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7YnOpOhu3c

 

[shyhedgehog]

Ummm -

I shouldn't even get into this - because it is going to be more trouble than it's worth. But when has it ever stopped me, before? Here are my thoughts:

* To Shy - yes, a State which respects (in a liberal fashion) the beliefs of its various citizens, is essential. This can be achieved in one of two ways: either by a complete separation of church and state (as is theoretically the case in the U.S.): or, by a generous and liberal interpretation of received religious values (as is the case in the U.K., and in Scandinavia). Just be aware, that all the liberties and human rights you now enjoy, in the U.K., are not predicated (in my opinion) upon some abstract, perfect, and independently-subsisting constellation of human rights - but upon an historically-derived, and continually evolving Judeo-Christian set of ethics.

*I (very respectfully) totally disagree with Shy about the State of Israel. I believe its foundations are historic and legal. However, I also strongly support justice for the Palestinian people, under a two-state solution. This is something which both the Israeli right-wing, and the Palestinian left-wing, have been resisting vociferously, for decades - and that is a tragedy.

*Contra my friend Jon, I believe that the war in Afghanistan (in which Canadian troops also participated - my sister and I hugged some of them, at Christmas-concerts for them, and their families) was absolutely necessary. Of course, the Taliban will never be defeated, until the majority of Afghanis WANT it to be defeated. But the fact is - in that time, and in that place - Afghanistan was a sheltering-place for terrorists who were training, planning, and launching direct attacks on all our countries. It is a truism of military history that no one EVER conquers Afghanistan: BUT - those terrorists had to be set back, a bit. (And that was ALL that was accomplished.)

*What is an even greater tragedy, is that I believe that (as did my former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chretien) the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But this was a mistake which was a tragedy on MANY levels. Because: Saddam Hussein, who kept that region under strict authoritarian control, for decades, WAS a butcher. Purely evil, on every level. And what many commentators now fail to acknowledge - in mocking the Bush Administration, and all it did - Hussein was actively promoting the notion he had weapons of mass destruction: so as to strengthen his hand in the region. (And, he fooled the secret service organizations of France, the U.K., and the U.S. - which was precisely his intention.)

*Saddam went wrong, because he took the threats, and bellicosity, just a step too far (and it wasn't his FIRST time at the dance - witness the invasion of Kuwait): and made his threats just a little too believable. (Even if they were not entirely REAL.) But he made people THINK he was a bigger threat than he was. . .and that was HIS superb miscalculation.

*The tragic part of all of this is, precisely this. If Saddam had behaved just a little bit better, and had not occasioned his own downfall. . . and he were still being contained, by sanctions, and a cordon sanitaire, from the air - most of the Western countries, would be much better off than they are now. But. . . Saddam Hussein, and his maniacal sons, would STILL be slaughtering thousands of their own people, every year. To think of this, must give anyone with a heart, a little pause. (It does, even ME, and - much to Tampa's distaste, I am a disciple of Henry Kissinger, in foreign affairs.)

*The removal of Saddam Hussein, and the installation of the incredibly politically stupid, and partisan, and divisive, Nouri-al-Maliki, in Iraq: paved the way for "ISIS", and their depradations. The power-vacuum, coupled with the spurning of the powerful Sunni minority, proved a marvel of black magic - a virtual Petri-dish, in which extremism could grow.

*People now, are quite upset with President Obama, for having done less than he could have, to depose President Bashar al-Assad, of Syria. Some of them (including even notional Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton) are even saying: "Oh, President Obama, if only you had provided enough ARMS to MODERATE rebels in Syria - Assad would have been deposed, we would have a nice, friendly regime, in Syria, and ISIS would not exist."

*Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that this is NONSENSE. Bashar al-Assad is an evil, murdering, bastard, but so are virtually all his opponents. The "moderate rebels", the "real democrats" in that nation, were only ever the TINIEST sliver of his opposition. His REAL opposition - the ones with GUTS and the WIND behind their sails, were always Islamists - who hated him as a Ba'ath socialist and statist autocrat. They want him out, and want him to stop imprisoning people - so they can start EXECUTING people - especially Syrian Christians, and Muslim Alawites. Assad has hung on so long because, his followers know that, without him, they will be SLAIN.

*Vladimir Putin, incidentally, knows this. And this is why he has stuck with Assad, for so long. First, he wants to keep his country's strategic bases in Syria, and his small foothold in the Middle East. Second, because he is beset by Islamist fundamentalists in Chechnya, and elsewhere in his country, he doesn't want to do a damned thing to empower or encourage them. I DISLIKE PUTIN, for a hundred thousand reasons (not LEAST because he is imperiling gay friends of mine, in Russia) - but I think on this foreign-policy matter, he may have gotten it RIGHT.

*And I think Obama may have gotten it right also, in Syria (contra Hillary Clinton) - but - IF SO. . . it can only give one pause to weep, and despair, and pray to one's God, or hope for humanity, or whatever it is, one does, in such circumstances. Because, Mike from New York, the possibility - even the IDEA, of Tikkun Olam. . . mending the world. . . is very far from us, now. When the best option available to us, as nations that are attempting to be civilized - is. . . supporting, or at least tacitly accepting - one murderer over another, in the hope that FEWER PEOPLE will be MURDERED, in the end. But, I think, that is precisely where we are. (God help us.)

* Regarding "ISIS" - Jon, I don't think Tampa has been short-sighted, at all. I think you mis-read him. I DO agree with you, Jon, that as it becomes apparent that various citizens of the U.K., the U.S., and Canada have become radicalized and gone over to these causes, the harshest penalties should be applied. I also think that all our law-enforcement organizations ought to be working with local communities to ferret out and deter and apprehend miscreants of this kind. I don't know about in the U.K., but I know that in Canada, there are many Muslims (including senior clergy) who are horrified by this kind of traitorous behavior, and who are actively cooperating with the RCMP to apprehend these people whenever possible. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/23/376285/cleric-warns-of-isil-canada-recruitment/

*Obviously, the positions of the great Western powers with respect to "ISIS" aren't going to be easy. Strong measures will be needed, and this will be both costly, and sad. Because war is always costly, and sad. But ISIS has terrible designs on all of us, and, there is no shrinking (unfortunately) from the need to SET THEM BACK. However, I believe that Western countries will ALSO have to (with aid and humanitarian support) ALSO convince people in these beleaguered regions that there is a better way, to have a happier life - than siding with terrorist killers. I AM NO OPTIMIST. I read Machiavelli when I was six, and St. Augustine when I was seven. I KNOW that the worst instincts in the human heart - fear, hatred, and revenge - are the most powerful. But somehow, they MUST be overcome, if peace is to prevail.

*I really appreciate Louis' contribution to all this, for, as he is one of the few of us who has actually BEEN in a war (a real war) I think he knows whereof he speaks. And I think Louis is absolutely correct, in his analysis. This present turmoil is NOT a war such as we have ever known. It is a conflict with multiple, complex, ongoing, levels. And it is very difficult to adapt, to that.

*I think Tampa (despite our difference in political perspectives) has offered a spot-on analysis of the tragedy of this whole situation. I wish I could offer some words of comfort, in response, but, I cannot.

*Last, Shy, I could imagine Jon as a good M.P., someday. (And I wouldn't mind helping him out with some of his speeches, if he ran as a candidate - when he is 40, and I am 70 ;-) However, while I understand where the UKIP is coming from, and agree that perhaps the Tories might need to get a little tougher on immigration, and be careful about the relationship with Europe - I don't think the UKIP has any platform to be an eventual government. And - if you think Boris Johnson would be a good Prime Minister (I think he's a f***ing IDIOT). . . well, if you think so. . . then, Jesus Christ help us ALL, and GOD SAVE ENGLAND.

And, God save the Queen.

Your favourite disciple of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand (le Prince de Talleyrand),
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

*God save the Queen* ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7YnOpOhu3c

Haha very insightful post. Thanks for that I haven't quite absorbed it yet but just a couple of points.

1) I would disagree that modern society is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. Our rights and liberties are derived from bthe complex processes of biological and cultural evolution. It's about rational thought and debate. I dont think that's necessarily religiously based however I would concur that religion has had a large impact on this.

2) I agree that separation of Church and state is the only absolute way of guaranteeing religious freedom and human rights for all. America is clearly NOT an example of this, certainly in it's modern form. I find it obscene that it is near impossible to get elected in the USA if you declare that you are an atheist. Also you can see a religious agenda in many political organisations like the tea party.

3) I think boris is a legend from an entertainment point of view. He would be AWFUL as prime minister.

4) The formation of the state of Israel happened and no one can change that. I welcome the formation of a place where Jews can live without persecution and with full freedom. However the british government laid the plans for Israels formation in the 1910s and essentially changed the demographic of a region without the consent of the people living there. That is not democracy

 

[joninliverton]

For once this has gone over my head. But with all due respect to Ambi's excellent post, I - perhaps rather foolishly, stick to my guns. I also blame Tony Blair for the current immigration crisis and the IS crisis. His wife, didn't help matters either.

 

[shyhedgehog]

For once this has gone over my head. But with all due respect to Ambi's excellent post, I - perhaps rather foolishly, stick to my guns. I also blame Tony Blair for the current immigration crisis and the IS crisis. His wife, didn't help matters either.

Lmfao! You hate EVERYONE! Lol his poor goofy wife x

 

[Ambivalent]

Haha very insightful post. Thanks for that I haven't quite absorbed it yet but just a couple of points.

1) I would disagree that modern society is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. Our rights and liberties are derived from bthe complex processes of biological and cultural evolution. It's about rational thought and debate. I dont think that's necessarily religiously based however I would concur that religion has had a large impact on this.

2) I agree that separation of Church and state is the only absolute way of guaranteeing religious freedom and human rights for all. America is clearly NOT an example of this, certainly in it's modern form. I find it obscene that it is near impossible to get elected in the USA if you declare that you are an atheist. Also you can see a religious agenda in many political organisations like the tea party.

3) I think boris is a legend from an entertainment point of view. He would be AWFUL as prime minister.

4) The formation of the state of Israel happened and no one can change that. I welcome the formation of a place where Jews can live without persecution and with full freedom. However the british government laid the plans for Israels formation in the 1910s and essentially changed the demographic of a region without the consent of the people living there. That is not democracy

*************************************

Hey, Shy,

Thank you for your lovely and gracious response. I always appreciate when people are able to shoulder quite controversial subjects with both courage AND courtesy, as you have done. I'll take your points, in turn.

1.) Your first point, about the origins of our ethics, in Western civilization, seems to me to be mixed, in its import. On the one hand, you stoutly deny that our ethics are based upon the Judeo-Christian heritage; on the other, you concede that religion has had a large impact upon them.

I'll be clear as I can, about this. (Or at least, my sentiments thereupon), in propositional form.

*Contra Richard Dawkins, and his ilk, I believe that biological evolution has nothing to do with the advancement of compassion. Nature (as Tennyson famously declared) is "red in tooth and claw", and exists in a state of perpetual violence. Shy, I don't know if you have had the opportunity to read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan ~ one of the great classics of our political literature ~ but, therein, Hobbes declared that, without the help of a strong government, to defend all against all, conflict is very likely to be universal, and extremely unpleasant, such that each of us shall be haunted by "continual fear, and danger of violent death", and that the life of man could only be, under natural circumstances, "nasty, brutish, and short."

*It is, I think, historically demonstrable that, in the great broad panorama of Indo-European history, from Hammurabi on - extreme cruelty in sovereignty and punishment, and subjugation of the individual to quite Procrustean group norms, was absolutely the rule. From the Iron Age, to the golden years of Athens, to the marble magnificence of Rome, itself: slavery, subjugation of the conquered, revenge, and exploitation of the weak, were invariably the rule. (Some North American Aboriginal elders will tell you that their societies developed a sense of corporate compassion long before European ones did, and there may be some merit to this idea - though I think it is, perhaps, an idealization.)

*I think it is also historically demonstrable that, within the canon of Western learning and law, Judaism was the first religion to systematically enshrine notions of fairness and justice and equity for all people, as matters of moral responsibility. (The blessed - and in many ways wonderful - ancient Athenians, by contrast, believed in the concept of arete ~ privilege based upon EXCELLENCE and honour.

*Christianity added to these precepts of Judaism, based on the precepts of its founder, an additional stress upon (though the concept is certainly not lacking in Judaism itself) the idea of compassion, and forgiveness. Needless to say, a great HOST of Christians have FAILED SPECTACULARLY in IMPLEMENTING these insights, over time. (Though some, like William Wilberforce, who helped lead the movement to abolish slavery, grasped them very well, indeed.

*In the final analysis - and I will put it to you, honestly, Shy, that I am a Cartesian dualist, in this matter - it seems to me that there is NO EVOLUTION of compassion, which stems from BIOLOGY, alone. If there is an evolution of CULTURE, as you suggest, in matters of morals, it doesn't emerge from a vacuum: rather, it is an historical artifact, and emerges completely (in our Western societies) from the Jewish emphasis upon fairness and justice; and the Christian emphasis upon mercy and compassion - and the struggle to realize these goals, as an holy obligation.

*Obviously, the failure of Western civilization to attain these goals has been a story of monumental failures. As you surely know, when Mahatma Gandhi was asked, "What do you think of Western civilization?", he replied, "I think it would be a GOOD IDEA." The wars, slaughters, abuses, and atrocities committed in the name of religion, in all our societies, are numerous, well-documented, and AWFUL.

*HOWEVER, the animating ideas have always been there, and have always inspired idealists. The idea that a single person has dignity in and of him- or -herself; the idea that slavery is abhorrent; the idea that women and children are just as important as men (and that women deserve the vote); and the idea that all races are equal. . . all of these ideas have been championed by people inspired by faith in the Judeo-Christian canon. . . in the Western world.

*So, IF there is a cultural evolution - and I agree that there is - it is coming from certain ROOTS, which can't be denied. And, of course, the Enlightenment and skepticism were an essential corrective to the hegemony of religion, in the 17th and 18th century, and even BEFORE. But even THESE correctives had roots in, and connections to, religious ideas. (So I would submit to you, Shy.)

***********************************

2.) I think we are in relative agreement, about the roles of Church, and State. In fairness to America, a LOT of America actually practices the separation of Church and State, quite scrupulously. (If you happen to live in a BLUE state, as opposed to a RED one.) Texas is, however, a different matter. But I am fully on board with the idea that, whether one is compelled by any religion, or NONE, one ought to be free to hold and cherish one's beliefs, and live one's life as one sees fit. However, I do think that in countries with historic religious establishments, like the U.K. and the Scandinavian countries, it is possible that a majority view (or acceptance of an historic heritage), can co-exist reasonably and comfortably with a great variety of religious opinions and practices, as long as there is liberality, and generosity.

********************************************************

3.) Thanks for your candid views about Boris. He's quite awful, really. You can just be thankful he's not Mayor Rob Ford, of Toronto ;-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89NpuEYHRhA

********************************************************

4.) Regarding the establishment of the State of Israel, I would say, Shy, that I think it was just and right, and in this respect - and I have taken a lot of flack for it on Facebook and elsewhere - I am a Zionist, and am unafraid to say so.

I think your narrative about the establishment of the State of Israel - though compassionate and concerned - is a little simplistic. This was not just "another bad thing the British did." The demographic changes were well under way by the time of Israel's foundation, due to mass immigration: and legitimate property purchases (made in good faith) as Ottoman landlords sought to exit the area. My sense is that the Jewish people who came to live in what is now Israel, came in good faith, and with no intention to hurt anyone - and were seeking only a safe place, in an historic homeland, where they would not be butchered, as they had been in Europe.

However, from my point of view, the Palestinian small farmers were sold out, TWICE: First, by Ottoman landlords, who sold their tenancies and evicted them without proper notice, in many cases; and second, by the surrounding Arab nations who made immediate war upon the new State of Israel (as a matter of ideology) and forced scores of people living in formerly safe circumstances, to flee as refugees - to Jordan, and elsewhere.

Shy, like most other reasonable people (I hope) - what I am hoping and praying for, is a two-state solution, which will accommodate both Israelis, and Palestinians. This is, I think, what has to happen, for all this ever to be resolved. The basics have been on the table, for two decades - ever since the Oslo Accord, of 1993. The Palestinian Authority, under Chairman Arafat, after first signing an accord: ultimately rejected this prospect, and (overtly or otherwise, and doubtless under the pressure of the terrorist organization, Hamas) reneged on the agreement, with the launch of new terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens. (And the recent rule of Hamas in Gaza has proven, I think incontestably, DISASTROUS - a regime of people who use public money and resources to build stealth-tunnels to capture Israeli citizens, and launch military attacks; who launch missiles as the response to every grievance; and who HIDE their missiles inside or beneath hospitals and mosques, so as to furnish their arsenals with vulnerable "human shields.")

At the same time, Shy, I am no fan of the policies of the Netanyahu government, which has continued to promote and build Israeli settlements in areas which WOULD BE (if there ever could be a peace agreement) Palestinian. Unlike Prime Ministers like Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and even the old war-horse Ariel Sharon. . . who all gave the peace process the college try, Netanyahu has consistently been cold to the peace process.

I'll tell you something, Shy. The day Ariel Sharon had his crippling stroke - I wept. Because that man (who for sure wasn't perfect, and as you know, during the latter part of his career, major questions arose about his leadership - and some very awful questions, too). . . could have done it. He was one of the toughest generals Israel ever had, and an icon on the Israeli right. But he seemed determined to get the peace process into high gear, and get the problem SOLVED. And I think he could have done it, precisely because he had been (in his previous incarnations) so tough and mean.

Shall we say - it COULD have been a "Nixon in China" moment. For those who are too young to remember, the U.S. had been wanting, and needing, to re-open diplomatic and trade relations with Communist China, for a generation. No Democrat could ever do it, though - because he would have been seen as soft, and weak on Communism. Nixon, whose credentials as a FERVENT anti-Communist were impeccable, was able to achieve this rapprochement, precisely BECAUSE he'd been such a "Red-baiter" all his life, no one could ever IMAGINE his ever giving up ANYTHING to Chairman Mao.

So, I think, it could have been, and would have been, with Sharon - if he had been able to get on with the programme he envisioned. He was getting close. He had broached the subject in all the major media. All the opinion polls were on his side. And then he had a crippling stroke, and things were back to square one, again. :-(((

***********************************************************

It's all very discouraging, Shy. I hope there will be movement toward some sort of modest solution, before I croak. Though it's hard to be optimistic.

In the meantime, I think it's important to remember that:
*While the Palestinian Authority, under Mahmoud Abbas, is taking gentle steps toward promoting the peace process - Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to wiping Israel off the map.
*Israel is the Middle East's only democracy.
*Israel is the only country in the Middle East with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
*Israel is the only country in the Middle East where it is SAFE to be openly Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Baha'i, atheist, or GAY.
*Israel is the only country in the Middle East where WOMEN are equal.
*Arab citizens of Israel, have full legal and political rights. They have elected members in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. And there is a mosque adjoining the Knesset, for them to worship in.
*There is an Arab-Israeli member of Israel's Supreme Court - Mr. Justice Salim Joubran. In a 2013 ruling, he successfully disallowed a Likud party election advertisement as being inappropriate, because it was "racist. . . and disruptive to public order." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Joubran
*Though there is clear room for improvement, Arab-Israeli citizens enjoy a higher standard of living, better education, and better health-care, than most of their compatriots, in other Middle Eastern nations.

I think all this is worth noting, Shy, even as people line up to pile on, to Israel.

"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

P.S. About the impact of religion on ethics, Shy - here is my specimen, #1, from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (And I believe biology doesn't change history - but rather, that human will and character, change history) And this is surely one of the greatest speeches ever given, in human history. And it is inspired, one hundred percent, by the Gospels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

 

[shyhedgehog]

I'm not sure I can ever compete with your fantastic prose Ambi. As a scientist I am used to writing in short succinct notes so I shall be brief in putting forward my points but not necessarily expressing all of my thoughts. BTW guys if this gets boring just let me know and I'll stop posting. this is a cock and ball site after all lol

1) modern ethics is NOT based on judeo Christian frameworks. Human being have been on this planet for at least 100,000 years. It is nonsensical to believe that the last 6000 years of western religious faith have been the bedrock of our civilisation. Again, I totally agree that they had a massive part to play but there are many other factors involved also. And biological evolution and natural selection is definitely one of them. Compassion as you say is not a biological thing. It is culturally defined. Altruism, from which compassion stems, is undoubtedly selected for in nature. This is due to selection of traits which survive throughout generations due to the increased survival rates of altruistic individuals. Humans are altruistic because our genes predict that we should be. Then civilisation happened along with the rapid enlargement of the human brain, giving us the ability to think about abstract concepts such as compassion. This is not de-valuing either term but one cannot say that compassion developed out of religion as that would be denying 96 thousand years of human history and is an insult to our ancestors. Also I think that one can cherry pick certain good and bad bits from religion. Most of jewish and Christian faith has nothing to do with ethics. It is about mythology and genuflection before a deity. The vast majority of their concepts are not morally based. One just has to look at the 10 commandments to see that.

2) my comments on the state of Israel are not simplistic. The way that I chose to express them are in simple terms. That does not mean that I have failed to consider all of the points that you have in coming to my conclusions and thus do not need a lecture on facts which with I am familiar. Haha that's my Margaret Thatcher tone of voice

3) I totally agree that Israel is the only state I'm the Middle East where one can practice your creed and culture fairly freely. That does not mean however that the acts of the government of the state I Israel should be free from the scrutiny that we would apply to any other country in evaluating their actions, both good and bad.

4) Martin Luther King may have been inspired by the gospels but that does not mean that the content of the gospels caused him to behave as he did in their entirety. He was obviously an amazing human being and each of us is sculpted by our biology, upbringing, relationships with others, self identity and other factors. If he had not been a Christian would he have done the same thing? No one will ever know but I suspect he would have still stood up for rights and freedoms for everyone.

5) I would just like to make a brief point about the impact that people not inspired by faith have in this world. From Marie Curie to Einstein to Darwin and beyond. Of course religion has moulded us over the centuries but that does not mean that because it has done this that extraordinary individuals wouldn't have been born and fantastic contributions given by all of us.

Lots of love as always

Shy x

 

[another1]

the mission was to drain the swamp.
we are in a swamp and unless the alligators swimming toward us is a welcoming party, this is not the time to debate the source of the first mistakes. perhaps, the biggest mistake was leaving the tree.
modern history has no example of a nation-state creating itself by conquest of existing nation-states.
we cannot allow the strong air defense of a border to prevent cross-border violations of human rights.
I keep coming back to the question, then what?

 

[another1]

the same congress that is suing the president for using executive power and not coming to congress is now permitting the president to bomb an enemy who is in more than one nation-state. the president is seen as a dictator who thinks he can act without congress and commander-in-chief who can act without congress. no debating war this close to an election. while lives are on the line, their jobs are on the line.

 

[joninliverton]

the same congress that is suing the president for using executive power and not coming to congress is now permitting the president to bomb an enemy who is in more than one nation-state. the president is seen as a dictator who thinks he can act without congress and commander-in-chief who can act without congress. no debating war this close to an election. while lives are on the line, their jobs are on the line.

Interesting because there had to be a debate and a vote in the uk parliament, before we got involved in the air strikes.

 

[another1]

you put your coins in the coin slot. you make your selection. now what's suppose to happen, is you get your bottled soda water, down there. if things went the way to are suppose to, there would be no call centers.
you are on a bender. there is no hurry to your house. stay out! max out the cards! then go home. can't give back used drinks and food.
the bills will be paid.
congress is playing the parent who left you the keys and the cards.
their job is to debate matters of war and peace. their job is not to get reelected.
men gathering in the town square, debating over whether to go to war and how to pay for the war is the idea that gave us our representative democracy. something is wrong when it is more important to get elected to debate matters of war and peace than it is to actually debate matters of war and peace.

 

[Ambivalent]

I'm not sure I can ever compete with your fantastic prose Ambi. As a scientist I am used to writing in short succinct notes so I shall be brief in putting forward my points but not necessarily expressing all of my thoughts. BTW guys if this gets boring just let me know and I'll stop posting. this is a cock and ball site after all lol

1) modern ethics is NOT based on judeo Christian frameworks. Human being have been on this planet for at least 100,000 years. It is nonsensical to believe that the last 6000 years of western religious faith have been the bedrock of our civilisation. Again, I totally agree that they had a massive part to play but there are many other factors involved also. And biological evolution and natural selection is definitely one of them. Compassion as you say is not a biological thing. It is culturally defined. Altruism, from which compassion stems, is undoubtedly selected for in nature. This is due to selection of traits which survive throughout generations due to the increased survival rates of altruistic individuals. Humans are altruistic because our genes predict that we should be. Then civilisation happened along with the rapid enlargement of the human brain, giving us the ability to think about abstract concepts such as compassion. This is not de-valuing either term but one cannot say that compassion developed out of religion as that would be denying 96 thousand years of human history and is an insult to our ancestors. Also I think that one can cherry pick certain good and bad bits from religion. Most of jewish and Christian faith has nothing to do with ethics. It is about mythology and genuflection before a deity. The vast majority of their concepts are not morally based. One just has to look at the 10 commandments to see that.

2) my comments on the state of Israel are not simplistic. The way that I chose to express them are in simple terms. That does not mean that I have failed to consider all of the points that you have in coming to my conclusions and thus do not need a lecture on facts which with I am familiar. Haha that's my Margaret Thatcher tone of voice

3) I totally agree that Israel is the only state I'm the Middle East where one can practice your creed and culture fairly freely. That does not mean however that the acts of the government of the state I Israel should be free from the scrutiny that we would apply to any other country in evaluating their actions, both good and bad.

4) Martin Luther King may have been inspired by the gospels but that does not mean that the content of the gospels caused him to behave as he did in their entirety. He was obviously an amazing human being and each of us is sculpted by our biology, upbringing, relationships with others, self identity and other factors. If he had not been a Christian would he have done the same thing? No one will ever know but I suspect he would have still stood up for rights and freedoms for everyone.

5) I would just like to make a brief point about the impact that people not inspired by faith have in this world. From Marie Curie to Einstein to Darwin and beyond. Of course religion has moulded us over the centuries but that does not mean that because it has done this that extraordinary individuals wouldn't have been born and fantastic contributions given by all of us.

Lots of love as always

Shy x

********************************************************

Hey, Shy (XOXOXOXOXO) ~

Thanks for your thoughtful response (and also, for your kind words about my prose). It might amuse you to know that my beloved b/f, Mr. K.K., is a principled, lovely, and very moral atheist - and so talking to YOU, reminds me of talking to HIM

So -

1.) Disagree on your point #1 - not in its entirety, but certainly in its significance. While altruism has had considerable value in human development, so has success in war. I would not say that all human ethics have "developed" out of the Judeo-Christian context - only that the ethics we know, have. Interculturally, there are great (and sometimes shocking) differences in the way ethics are presented, valued, and received. As the French say, "The truth is in the nuances." I also entirely disagree with your comparative valuation of mythology as mere "genuflection" (cf. the works of Joseph Campbell) - and with your assessment that most of Christianity and Judaism have nothing to do with ethics. The Sermon on the Mount is ethics, ethics, and nothing but ethics ~ in my opinion.

2.) Respectfully, I will agree to disagree in your reading of the history of, and justification for, the State of Israel. I DO LOVE your Margaret Thatcher voice, however!

3.) I agree with your third point! Very important point to make - and many Jews, both in Israel and in the diaspora, agree with it, too.

4.) Dr. King's own words (unless you are SUCH a biological determinist that you believe people's own beliefs, self-understanding, and hermeneutics make little difference to their destiny, or actions): belie your assessment of his life's work, and teaching. King said: "Jesus still cries out in words that echo across the centuries: 'Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you. Pray for them that despitefully use you.' This is what we must live by."

5.) I am not well-versed enough in the writings of Mme Curie, to comment upon her weltanschauung. Einstein was a Spinozist, and a pantheist - believing that if there IS such a concept as "god" (preferably in lower-case, I imagine), such a concept is best expressed in the rationality of the universe, as a whole. (I am not sure I have Einstein's, or your, confidence in this regard, but anyway. . . ) Darwin was, as you know, an agnostic, whose views on these subjects fluctuated greatly over his lifetime - though he always disclaimed the title, "atheist".

From a purely positivist point of view, in the limited 19th-century sense which yet prevails in the "hard sciences", I imagine that agnosticism is by far the preferable intellectual course. All faith requires a Kierkegaardian "leap", an act of judgement and assent, much as John Henry Cardinal Newman described in his quite brilliant treatise on this subject, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. (Reprising Aristotle, in several significant respects.)

Shy, I do believe that the intellectual contributions of atheists AND agnostics have been crucial to the development of Western culture, for reasons well-outlined in Leszek Kolakowski's brief, but spectacular, survey of Western philosophy, beautifully entitled, Metaphysical Horror. I would caption the import of this work, thus: Without scepticism, philosophy is blind; without reverence, it is deaf.

My favourite sceptics on matters of religion (apart from my beloved Mr. K., and now you!!!) are, of course, David Hume; and Voltaire. The latter of whom - while he was on his deathbed, and was asked by the attending priest to renounce the Devil, politely demurred, saying: "I think, at this difficult point in my life, I hardly need to be making any more ENEMIES."

Much love in return, and thank you for the superb discussion, Shy,

Your friend,
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO