The Old Demagoguery Is Not Working in Iran

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Grey Champion, Carol Falk, WashIndependent, TMC Member Feedand others. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: The Old Demagoguery Is Not Working in Iran: The two-minutes-hate dreamed up.. http://bit.ly/36aYL1 [...]

Chamberlain's ideas are very much still in the forefront of the Western nations actions. Talk, talk, talk, give Hitler what he wants and there'll be peace; right?
If I were the President of Israel I'd dump the UN and all of us in the west and take care of the Palestinian and Iranian issues in a Flash of light.
Anti-semitism is in the fabric of the Human race, it will never be erased from Christianity, Islamism or whatever so give it up and do what you need to do to survive and F–k the world.

Exactly what evidence is there for the belief that 6 million Jews were killed? Where is the proof?
Are these figures from Eichmann and the Reich or is there substantive evidence? If so, make it clear. Palestine was under British occupation and no-one had any right to give it to another people.
Israel was created illegally by any standards and continues to demonstrate intolerance and racial hatred towards the people who have a right to live there. British and US colonialism still has much to answer for.

the unearthing of mass graves. the thousands (that are alive at this point, used to be millions) of jews that have tattooed serial numbers on their arms, the very rigorous record keeping the nazi's kept of their extermination procedures and progress, the videos the nazi's made of the process, the videos of the mass graves and pyres, the testimonies of millions of jews, the evidence of the used gas canisters en-mass and also the clearly identifable rooms that were used for the purpose of killing thousands at a time, the soot analysis of black smoke generated while they burned the bodies, the thousands of books and stories based on the hardships the jews went through, the clear and factually calculated massive drop in the population of the jews based on pre-war censuses versus post-wast censuses.

Where do you come off as saying there is no proof? You think all of that was fabricated whilest a war that only PARALLELED the holocaust was being fought? You think the nazi's had the time and money to invest in all the fake dummies of dead people to serve what purpose? How was that going to make the war for them easier?

Guess what, the earth isn't 6000 years old either.

Why even bother to answer to people like this johnmc… Ignoring them is the best tactic, the poo guy is just an ignorant.

Thanks to Brian for his response although the jibe about the age of the Earth is childish and not very original. Shame.
I'm very much playing the Devil's Advocate in this issue and have nothing against Jews per se.

If the evidence is so conclusive, where is it?
The crucial point is the numbers. How many mass graves were found and how many bodies were in them? What proportion of these were Jews? I've met survivors of the concentration camps (two were neighbours of mine – Polish, not Jews) and their stories are horrifying, but they were personal accounts; understandably they were not able to verify the numbers of people involved. I didn't ask about the tattoos – what was the point of that – do you know? I assume that it was because they were to be used permanently as slave labour, not to be executed – similar to Stalin's use of the gulags.
The records that the Nazi's kept are disputable because there was pressure on the camp commanders etc to prove success in order to keep their masters in Berlin happy. Similarly, the films – made at the time – were a form of 'proof' that all was going 'well'. It's not hard evidence of numbers. The testimony of Jews is also unreliable as the individuals concerned could not have known what numbers of people were being killed and could not know what was happening in other camps.
The 'soot analysis' also is not indicative of numbers. Films made by the Allies – liberation of Belsen etc – don't show the camps in areas denuded of trees and it takes a lot of wood to cremate one body, let alone thousands.
I've not seen any 'census' figures and am not aware that such numbers were collated throughout Europe. They would have to include religion in the questions. Do these exist and where are they? They, if they exist, would be good evidence of the actual scale in the drop of the Jewish population. 'Books and stories' are not proof of numbers either. Is the DaVinci Code evidence of anything?
The point you make about the Nazi's not wasting time and money is also important, but relate that to the cost in manpower and fuel for the gas-ovens. The logistics don't add up. Where did all the fuel come from, when it was needed in the war-effort.
Certainly there is compelling evidence of mass slaughter, but the figure of 6 million is what I want to see verified.

It eased the collective conscience of the Allies to move surviving Jews to Palestine and that, I suspect, was why they accepted the 6 million figure without question.
Now the question has arisen – look at the condemnation of Iran for raising the issue – and if you have evidence, show it.
If we want to understand the Islamic perspective (and Persian), we have some serious explaining to do.
They see Israel as illegitimate (which it certainly was when it declared itself a State) and the land as, rightfully, belonging to Arabs. Try to convince them otherwise – I can't.
Whatever the Jews learnt from their experience seems to have been lost as they perpetrate atrocities on Arabs. That's why it's very important for us (Gentiles – as they call us) to be very clear of our ground. If our governments are knowingly supporting an illegitimate regime for the sole reason of keeping a toe-hold in the oil-rich Middle-East, then we can expect more trouble.

As I said, it's a fall-out from British and US colonialism.

Look forward to responses and information.

John

_________________________________________________________________
Get the best of MSN on your mobile
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/

sorry about being childish, i just don't see where this argument comes from, at all.

being that there was a severe smearing campaign waged by Hitler against the Jews as being the cause of all their problems, it just begs to assume that the extermination was directed towards the jews, let alone anyone that wasn't of the arian race.

the cost of the fuel may or may not have been greater than the cost to keep those people alive and “busy” doing slave labor of whatever sort. perhaps that drove decisions to kill millions of people instead of keeping them alive.

also, I'm sure you're aware that the history between the jewish religion and islam predates WW2. therefore, to return them to said “homeland” inserts itself into a history of conflict that goes back thousands of years. no wonder the arabs are upset. its not like all the conflicts and wars of the past never happened. i'm not saying that justifies inserting a jewish population into jerusalem, but it CERTAINLY isn't fair to just continue the persecution of the jewish religion because everyone has crapped on them forever.

lastly for now, I'd like to point out that the evidence for a Jesus Christ existing and performing miracles is VASTLY LESS CONVINCING than the holocaust. and yet christianity has most of the world by a chokehold and more harm is done in the name of Jesus than anything political over the past 1000 years. so please, if one is going to call into question the killing of hundreds of thousands at the least, and several million at the most (not to mention all the soldiers that died in the war itself), be aware enough that there are far more important issues that extend across the globe that ride on very little proof besides stories and books, which you just said, and i agree, don't mean much.

your turn.

Hi, Brian.

Apologies accepted.

I'll try to outline where this 'argument' comes from.

It's fact that Jewish bankers have financed wars – the British war against Napoleon was financed by the Rothschilds who had offices in all the more important European capitals. They also financed the building of the Suez Canal (Disraeli – Queen Victoria's Prime Minister, at the time, arranged the loan) so their influence on world events can't be denied. I'm not criticising this – it's the way the world works (capitalist world – that is).

The next point is what happened after WW1 – why were the French allowed to claim reparation money to such an extent from a shattered German economy? It made the Germans hate them and vow to avenge the wrong that was being done. contrast this to how wars were concluded in the previous century. They were looking for someone to blame.

In the 'smear campaign' that you mentioned, it was Jewish people that were being blamed, by the Germans. Why? all of the participants in the aftermath of the war were responsible. A lesson thst was learnt by the US after WW2 – look at how Germany was treated then – and how Japan was rehabilitated. Very successful.

The commonly held view of the Jews was used by Hitler. That's how it is. He didn't invent hatred against the Jews – he exploited it. It was already there.

This leads to the Arab view. Jews finance wars and are responsible for them. (arguable – I don't agree with that)
They want their money back after the war – no matter the human cost (Germany after WW1)
They used the figues that only the Reich claimed as accurate for their claim to a sovereign land, which I'd like to see substantiated. Not from stories and hearsay. Census figures, if proven accurate, would help.
There can, however, be no justification for moving people into a land that is already occupied, unless the original inhabitants welcome them. How can we expect the Palestinians to welcome an influx of Jews? How have they been treated?

I'm trying to understand all this from an Arab point of view. When the Iranians (Persians) say that Israel is an illegal state, how can we contradict them? From what I can see of history, we made a terrible mistake. We accepted the Jewish claims of mass extermination (which I think were exaggerated) and allowed them to move to Palestine; which we had no right to do, but we were the occupying power. I think that the whole problem in the Middle East got seriously worse then. They are making the point that there was no justification for what we did. That's why they 'deny' the Holocaust.

If so many Jews were killed, where is the real proof?
If there is proof, what gave us the right to install Jews in Palestine? It's not exactly as if they're friendly, touchy, feely people. They believe that they are 'God's chosen' (I think he should have chosen more wisely and excluded the human race entirely – I'd choose rabbits, if I were God – blue mini-lops are my favourite)

In an age of nuclear proliferation, we need to understand how our potential adversaries see us, and how we can work together. That's why it's so important to understand people who see us as enemies. We need to see what we've accepted as 'history' is exactly accurate, or not, if others dispute it.

Take good care.

J

_________________________________________________________________
Get the best of MSN on your mobile
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/

Introducing a God into the world that judges all humans behavior equally and impartially is the source of anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jews. They’re being God’s chosen means they bear the brunt of the world’s wrath for Such an Introduction.

at some point the concept of proof needs to be defined. we can't just go re-inventing the wheel everytime a person doubts things being presented as facts. skepticism is important, but only to a reasonable extent. you are asking for proof that i feel has been presented at some point. do i have it? no. was i there? no. were any of us around when jesus or mohammad was alive? no. do i know how to work a particle accelerator? no.

so i know that i know nothing at all. and yet we live in a world where events occur and become history. who and what do you believe? well, i for one do not believe Hitler and nazi germany had ANY right to do what they did. I also do not believe that the current iranian regime has any business owning nuclear weapons. they are crazy religious nuts that are FAR worse than the neo cons and right wing nuts in this country. i mean, just look at what they are doing to their “opposition” in current affairs. that regime is a very, very bad regime. do you HONESTLY believe that the world would be a great place is Iran called all the shots and ruled every nation? how about China?

I'm not saying the US government is the answer, or the UN, but I can say what IS NOT the answer for social progression.

the jews are religious nuts just like the rest of them. so are the palestinians. according to my persian friends, the palestinians were the dirt of the arab world pre-WW2, and they still are. however now they're a scapegoat for islam to blame all their problems on the west (as if the islam world adored the palestinians at any point). this whole thing is madness.

lastly, who cares if Israel barges in and takes over? what do you thing spain did to latin america? england to the east coast of the US? USA during manifest destiny? napoleon? the roman empire? come on, you're not kidding anyone if you think history isn't RIFE with wars and cultures taking over other cultures by force. what, just because its 2009 its not allowed to happen anymore? China is effectively buying out the USA, yet you don't see anyone complaining about that like the jews taking whatever land they feel they have a right to. okay… so the palestinians are too primitive, barbaric, backwards and disorganized to wage a serious resistance to the jewish state. big deal! they lose! they either get it together and learn how to build a war machine themselves or they will be conquered! that is how it works! is it pretty? no. but neither is the idea of an islam that has the right to murder any nonbeliever!

regardless if the holocaust happened or not, there are many nations in the middle east that are just totally backwards and hopelessly lost to their innane, insane, and unsustainable religions. at least here in the US there is a chance for social progression.

i'm not saying that any of the above is right. its just how it is. predators that develop the best weapons will survive, and those that do not will perish. some nations won that race, and now we're seeing the after-effects. there may come a time if natural disasters allow it that people will need to transition to a less predatory structure or else humans will impede and/or retard their own progressive evolution.

sometimes i just wish some massive event would just wipe out jerusalem, gaza, and the west bank and end all this craziness. i mean, to think that a land mass smaller the the California central valley is the cause of international conflicts is plain insane! both sides are fighting for some silly religious holy sites and honestly, if i were them, i would be embarassed that so much of a ruckus is being had over the tooth fairy. seriously. i'd say childish, but children don't deserve to be compared to the vile behavior on all sides of the conflict.

I agree. He wants numerical proof, but from where? A page from the internet appearing on his monitor? How priggish! He should get up from his computer and go to a library to research how the numbers were arrived at for him self, if sheer numbers are to him what would prove or disprove what was happening. Someone could post reasonably accurate numbers including all the details of how they were arrived at, and, like Amadinejad, he still wouldn’t believe it. Hundreds of photos alone, of the stacked up bodies, should give him a clue.

Similarly, there are people believe there was no landing on the Moon, and all of that was faked. It is as though because whatever happened did not happen to the individual personally, then only what they have experienced or has happened to them, is all in the world what has ever really happened throughout recorded history or as evidenced by archeological research.

Your remarks about the need to transition to a less predatory structure, or else humans will impede and/or retard their own progressive evolution, are actually quite perceptive. Your war is with your self however if you are not a pacifist. That is because you the human, cannot stop the human body that you have from killing other organisms in order to stay alive.

If on the other hand you claim to be a pacifist, you are ultimately a hypocrite because you cannot stop the necessity for killing. You are a “pacifist” that kills. In other words, whether you like it or not you will still be a killer even if you only eat plants. You likely have no idea of your own involvement with how things came to be this way in this world where we have all ended up — each one pretty much in the same boat.

So far as morality goes, where we are is where Nature has put us as the result of our own choices which we have long ago forgotten all about. This is explained briefly in biblical terms of what happened to Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis. You can try to turn the tables on God to have your self be the Judge if you want, but that is ultimately of no avail. You either can Judge what you cannot intellectually understand, or comprehend?

No matter what we think of God we are ultimately wrong. He is not impressed, and leaves those where they are, who think they are in the position to Judge. Existentially it is all simply laughable! Job understood that, and it is why he came out better than before in the end. Scripture teaches that human ego is most of the reason the Satan in all religions has so much power.

Perhaps for the intelligentsia this fact may be true; I believe, that however most people hate because they are ignorant. In fact I'd venture to say that the majority of anti-semitic people probably have never met or gotten to know a Jew. Besides, even if one has had a bad experience with a Jew, is that a reason to hate all Jews? or any other race or creed?

Hi, Brian.
I didn't know you were in the US. Which part, exactly? I'm in Manchester, UK. It might mean that we have a different perspective on the world, especially the Middle East, as we Brits have a legacy of colonialism and the boundaries that define countries in that region are part of that history.

About positive proof: my question is whether we can justify the existence of Israel and defend our history of interference in the region on the grounds that 6 million Jews were massacred in the Holocaust, when we have no accurate data. I suspect that we've been spun a yarn – indoctrinated – and we believe it because we've accepted what was written in school, history books.
It aint necessarily so.

Israel only remains in existence because of US support, so it is relevant to the Western powers. By your argument about allowing Israel a free hand, then doesn't that apply equally to the other (Arab and Persian) states. Why don't we all pull out our support and let them get on with it? Iran would not waste money on developing nuclear technology if it were not for the threat of Israel and Iran has no territorial claims to any Arab land. US support of Israel is for what, and how is it justified?
An arrangement could. I believe, be reached, if Israel gave up the occupied territories and returned to its original borders. The religious fanatics would have no support if there was no threat from other nations. We've come a long way from the days when Moshe Dayan had to repel Arab attacks. If we could persuade the Arabs and Persians that Israel has a right to exist, but that it would be non-aggressive, non-expansive and peaceful, treating its Arab occupants fairly, then we'd be on the way to peaceful co-existence and stability in the Middle East.

Attacks like 9:11 on the World Trade Centre are indicative that we in the West must do something positive to resolve the issue. We are all vulnerable to such terrorism, but the solution can only lie in diplomacy and it is the US that needs to take a more positive role.

Our city centre was bombed by the IRA, as have many others in my area. We still don't have litter-bins in railway stations, as that was a favourite place for the IRA to leave nail-bombs. The peace-process was successful and the IRA – Sinn Fein came to the negotiation table eventually. A crucial factor in that was George Bush's 'War on Terror' which cut off US funding of the IRA. Answers can be found when people see the reality and reject the myths that cloud judgement and which have been sustained and propagated by people with their own agendas.

Here we are, as I'd guess you are, worried about extreme Islamism – germ warfare, bombs etc and we're aware of the need to understand why Muslims get into the Jihad mindset. However, one way to look at it is the old maxim of 'don't make yourself a target.' If a solution could be found to the problem of Israel, then there would be no need for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There would be no training camps for terrorists, because there would be no justification for Holy War against the West.

The first step is to provide the evidence of the Holocaust and justify what we did. If there is no evidence, then we have to move on and say that we can't re-write history and we'll ensure that Israel behaves in a way that respects its neighbours and returns to its original borders. It would be a start. It would take time and political will-power, which is sadly lacking here. We do have responsibilities as we created the problem in the first place – sins of the fathers – as Ibsen would say. We also have the fact that we are living under constant threat. It's a global economy that we live in and we have to find a way to co-habit in peace.

If we fail, then we'd better learn how to speak Chinese and use chopsticks. To the winner, the spoils of victory. I do think Chinese girls are sweet – very pretty, but I'll keep a spoon in my back pocket as using chopsticks will always be a skill too far for me.

C'est la vie.

All the best.

John

_________________________________________________________________

MSN straight to your mobile – news, entertainment, videos and more.

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/

With respect to your ideas and John's ideas which follows you; are we talking about political entities as having rights and priorities? Are we speaking about theories, ideas, concepts, historical, religious beliefs? There is no solution to the thoughts expressed in all of this discussion. Iran would eliminate the Jews, the Arabs would eliminate the Jews, England would eliminate the Jews…you're all full of shit! The Jewish people Know you're all full of shit! Palestine will never exist as a second state, The Arabs, the Muslims are idiots. They have in the midst of them a bright, ingenious, industrious, creative, hardworking, tolerant culture which they cannot abide, because they are ignorant.

Even if, on the other hand, enough proof was generated to satisfy the cynics that the holocaust did result in the deaths of 6 million, that doesn't justify some of the behaviors of Israel. Even still, if there is no evidence, it doesn't give the arab world a free hand to do whatever they want to an establishment that is over 50 years old now. That being said, the holocaust is a mute point. Their divide is religious, and thus, there will never be a lasting compromise.

The US has to support Israel or it loses all influence in the area. It is as much a strategic military alliance to ensure a presence in a resource-rich area as it is some sort of idealogical support for a discriminated religion. i have my doubts that such support would exist if there was no oil in the middle east. China chooses the other side, big surprise there.

For better or for worse, I can't fault a people for prosperity. The palestinians, as i said, are not a very creative people comparatively. they have been crapped on by the arab world for a long time. just because the people of palestine kicked out the jews some time ago doesn't mean the jews weren't going to return in force at some point, as they have. call it revenge, avengement, war, whatever, but its clear to me that the arabs will never accept jews, and the jews will thus never feel safe. all of this over whose god has a bigger dick.

que sera sera

Hi, Brian.

I do think that you're a bit cynical in thinking that there can be no solutions – no compromises. It worked here. The Protestants in Northern Ireland were vitriolic in their hatred of the Catholics – again a religious issue. But some sort of stabiity has been achieved. The crucial thing in resolving that was the withdrawal of financial and military support.

In the same way we, or rather the US, has to stop arming Israel and the Chinese / Russians etc have to stop arming the Arabs and Persians.

The Palestinians did not expel the Jews – they left as economic migrants of their own free will. They perpetuate the same myth about Egypt and Moses leading them from the Land of Bondage. No shred of truth in that. All the nonsense about the plague of frogs and the water turning into blood is a collection of fairy stories, but a lot of people believe that to be the literal truth.

I've nothing against the Palestinians. I'm not surprised that your Persian friends denigrate them, but they are old enemies of all the Arab races, so their opinions are suspect.

US imperialism has much to answer for and the old model doesn't work. Just as the British had to give up their Empire and come to a working solution with the Dominions, Commonwealth and other countries, so must the US. All changes and so must we. Adapt and survive – refuse to and fall.

John

_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/

Guilty as charged for being a cynic. I do forget the situation with the IRA. That conflict never had much press in the US.

You mention an interesting point. The US arms israel, and the communists arm iran/hamas/hezbol. Might as well throw in there that the US sells arms to the Saudi's as well. As much as imperialism/colonialism is dead as you mentioned, it still seems that the coldwar chess game is alive and well, albeit with China thrown into the mix. I'm not sure what to make of it, but if you agree with what you say, then you are saying that the palestinian/jew conflict is really a conflict financed by the US/west vs. russia/china/communists. I wouldn't disagree, on the same token, its really hard to say anything for sure when it comes to proxy wars.

to come full circle, I can now see the need to show more proof of a more precise figure of how many jews were murdered in the holocaust. However, I am in no way whatsoever condoning iran, russia, china, or the behavior of any state that severely abuses its own citizens, whether they be uighars, chechnyans, etc etc. I find it inconvenient for your argument of proof that your biggest national ally in debating the holocaust is iran. not so good John. I'm not saying it isn't worthy of debate, I'm just pointing out that the only nation wanting of a debate has a government full of crazy radical hardliners. furthermore, I am very much against the behaviors of china/russia/iran. i am angry with waterboarding and torture and the mistreatment of prisoners of war by the US government, however it is plainly obvious that our system has more checks and balances than the aforementioned, and they are working.

the points you make about the jews migrating are interesting, i didn't know that. I don't study the bible much.

so… how is it even remotely possible for the US AND russia/china to pull funding of their proxy war?

I'm not sure what I am. I'm not really a pacifist, because I identify with the kill or be killed survival instinct that preoccupies more lifeforms on earth. But I am a progressive in the sense that I believe that humans can evolve past the cliche “kill or be killed” nature of predatory life.

I try to keep concepts like the God you speak of out of my opinion though. Not to say that I don't give credence to some sort of Godhead or Unity, however I must tread carefully when it comes to religous beliefs. I condone spirituality. I disapprove of any logic that results in exterminating those that have a spirtuality that isn't tolerant of good ideas. If a culture believes in killing people to sacrafice to a god, then I disapprove, as an example, regardless of willingness. I'm also very much aware of brainwashing, so convincing someone they are to be abused or killed for the good of a cultural belief doesn't mean anything to me.

I agree that humans need to control the ego on a mass scale in order to conquer the temptations that lead to conflict, war, and a general retardation of the human race.

You wrote two sentences that appear to contradict. I would like to find out if you are saying something that is transcendentally coherent, but that I am not getting, or if you are yourself simply unaware of the contradiction, in which case you may want to think some things through further.

On one hand you say:

1) “I disapprove of any logic that results in exterminating those that have a spirituality that isn't tolerant of good ideas.”

(That sounds like you are a pacifist.)

Then you go on to say:

2) “If a culture believes in killing people to sacrifice to a god, then I disapprove, as an example, regardless of willingness.”

I wonder, how far would you go in actually expressing, your disapproval?

It seems that per (2) you believe killing people to sacrifice to a god, regardless of the willingness of the sacrifices to be sacrificed, is the kind of “good idea” per (1) that you disapprove of, such that in (1) you would disapprove of any logic that results in exterminating such a culture. Am I misunderstanding you there?

In other words, it sounds like you would disapprove of exterminating a culture that believes in killing people to sacrifice to a god, even though you disapprove of sacrificing people to gods?

The Aztecs for an example, or the ancient Mayans – either or both of which would probably tell you that killing people for Sacrifice to a god is a good thing even if you disapprove. That, whether you believe it or not, killing people for such a purpose is a very good idea. It sounds like you would still disapprove of what they do, but would not approve of any logic that resulted in exterminating them?

But what if there were no “logic” per se that had resulted in their extermination? What if they simply were exterminated in the course of the spiritually linear but naturally cyclical progression of time because their way of life was contributing more to the retardation of the human race, than to its progression as a whole?

That is, in the sense that a progression might indicate being able to evolve past the kill or be killed nature of predatory life.

But, what if the sacrificers do not die off progressively in natural coordination with the progression of others? What if there is conflict between them?

What if such cultures retarded ways included, aggressively killing-off for their ‘Sacrifice to the gods’ those who are progressing, even though the progressives’ logic would disapprove of exterminating them, as does yours?

Do you see the contradiction? (Allah, would be the god-example in Islamist culture.) I mean, like, what do you think happens to cultures that don’t evolve while others are progressing and, they do not simply ‘disappear?’ Do they just magically disappear, something like a screen shot fade-out on TV?

It seems to me that per the “kill or be killed” nature of predatory biological existence non progressing cultures are exterminated, either quickly or gradually over the course of time, by those who are progressing.

That would be, progressing in Darwinian advantageous ways such that they eventually grow tired of being preyed upon aggressively, and they decide to do something about it.

Couldn’t that also be a part of the natural progression? Or, in terms of your view is that always regressive?

I would say that the contradiction is remedied by saying that if someone told that culture “hey its a good idea to not kill people, its a waste of both physical and spiritual resources”. If that culture rejected the notion that murdering is amoral, then that culture is not tolerant of good ideas and is thus okay to be exterminated. So if there is no mechanism within the culture to change for the better, then its worthless.

however i like your points about darwinian evolution of cultures. the kill or be killed is still relevant, and probably will always be relevant to an form of life. whether it is the natural rise and fall of a race, or calculated extermination (which is arguable also natural).

so perhaps you are right, i may contradict myself. but i think my operating phrase is: cultures that are not tolerant of good ideas. Unfortunately defining “good” can be very subjective, and then ruins the whole utility of the “judgement”. It just feels prudent that some kind of system of reason that has the capacity for compassion should exist within the framework of an higher intelligence, should be used, and shouldn't impede evolutionary progression.

I was wondering if you would distinguish between murder and killing which is sometimes necessary, as does the Bible in both the old and new Testaments. Most people nowadays, believe killing and murder is the same thing, as apparently do you. I noticed that you used the word “amoral” apparently or perhaps because, for you that avoids religion and/or religious issues. But amoral merely means morally neutral; so if murdering is merely amoral, why should (or would) you or anyone else disapprove of it?

God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. Rights perceived intuitively by the human are rooted in nature and are not taken away, else humans would cease to exist. That is the premise of the Declaration of Independence. If we, individually and collectively by our misuse of free will, disobey God's laws, we then have our rights taken away by nature’s reaction(s) to what we do. Religious scriptures that have been kept pure embody thousands of years of reasoned debate based on such experience.

I agree that, unfortunately, defining “good” can be very subjective, and then ruins the whole utility of the judgement of disapproval. That is why Societies disintegrate to the degree there is no common agreement on the things of culture that pertain to natural rights. I also agree that some system of reason that has the capacity for compassion should exist within the framework of a higher intelligence. It should be used, and shouldn't impede evolutionary progression as you say. I believe it does exist. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is sometimes known as divine reason.

Hi, Brian.

I'm not really surprised that the Irish problem that we've had (and still have, but to a lesser extent) didn't get much publicity in the US. It is, however, a sad fact that US foreign policy is based to a large extent on what goes down well with the electorate and if that body of voters is uninformed, then it's hard to convince them what is the right course of action. Here, we've seen footage of collections being made in Irish bars in the US – 'pass the hat round – it's for the lads,' meaning it's for the IRA – their struggle for a united Ireland. The money went into financing shipments of arms and explosives which have caused the loss of countless lives.

That's why I'm adamant that information is the key to solving political problems. If the US was not, indirectly, funding the IRA then many lives might have been spared. People that I know were in Manchester City center when the Arndale was bombed – it's personal, for me.

A few facts for you to mull over, before I get to the next bit.
The Israelis 'founded' their state without approval – much like Rhodesia declaring UDI. The Western powers who shipped the Jews to Palestine did not give them a mandate to set up a state. Soon after that, the Jews started working on a nuclear programme with the aid of the French, who wanted an ally in the area because they'd caught wind of Nasser's (Egypt) plan to nationalise the Suez Canal. The plan was that Israel would attack Egypt, then Britain and France would join them and the Suez Canal would be ours again. When it looked like Russia would come in on the side of Egypt, the US pulled the plug and told the UK and French to withdraw – which they did. That's another reason why the Arabs etc don't like the Brits and French very much.
Israel attacked first, not the Arabs.

The Israeli's kept the nuclear programme secret and it wasn't until Mordechai Vanunu defected from Israel and told the British press in 1986 that they had nuclear weapons that our public got an idea as to what was going on. For his troubles he was kidnapped by Mossad, tried in Israel and sentenced to 18 years in prison – as an enemy of the state. He spent 11 years in solitary confinement and has been persecuted ever since. In 2007, Amnesty International called for his release (he'd been arrested again) ane referred to him as a 'prisoner of conscience.'

Israel has not signed up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Britain supplied Uranium-235, Plutonium and Lithium 6 as well as heavy water (H2O2) to Israel. We were equally complicit in creating a rogue, nuclear-armed state – not that the public were consulted. We charged them for it of course and 50% of the cost was raised in the US by Jewish Americans.
Are you still wondering why we have to justify our actions to the Muslim world, why they don't like us and why they don't trust us?

India's nuclear programme was initiated and financed by Canada (hard to believe) Now India's arms are supplied by China, while Pakistan's are supplied by the US. Weirdsville City, but sadly true.

The moral is that where we sow the wind, we reap the whirlwind.

We have to look at ourselves first and come clean about our political and social errors. We need to recognise that there are reasons why we are attacked by people whom we brand as 'terrorists.' It's time to come clean – re-evaluate our history and start again. If the Western powers are to take the high moral ground, then we need to start at home because other peoples are watching what we do. Is there equality in the US? Is it really the 'Land of the Free?' or is it 'dog-eat-dog.

It's no use criticising others for abusing their own people, when we have supported such regimes, when it's to our advantage. We armed Sadddam Hussein, knowing what he was going to do to the Kurds, in the war against Iran. It's the same in South America.
If we are perceived as being exploitative, mercenary and without scruples, then we make enemies.

Finally. It's not just Iran questioning the extent of the Holocaust. I didn't think about it much until a senior cleric, maybe a bishop, was slated for denying the Holocaust and there were calls for his removal. He was, evidently, a bright guy, so that made me wonder. I did a bit of research and it made me appreciate an alternative point of view. If others think that we fabricated the evidence, then it's time to present it in public.

John

_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/