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/

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.

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.

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 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 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 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/

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

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/