The future is with the Palestinians. Your women don't produce enough babies to compete with them.
There is some truth to this. To their detriment, Christain Syrians and Lebanese had the same problems.
That’s what happens when the capital stock in Israel is falling, and that of Palestine is increasing. It has nothing at all to do with ‘culture’ and such BS.
"The future is with the Palestinians. Your women don't produce enough babies to compete with them. The days of zionists are numbered. That's why you've become increasingly violent over the years. It's a losing battle, you'd be better served trying to go elsewhere. Like Europe or the US. Youve created too much bad blood in Palestine and the end result won't be pretty."
We shall see. I think we'll be fine. I do think there will be war though. That's why it's imperative to get a Republican in the White House and a majority of Republicans in the Congress although the Dems aren't as Dovish when push comes to shove as they like to say they are.
The other thing you're implicitly assuming is that this will be a ground war, but I think it will be mostly an air war with drones bombing civilian populations.
>>but I think it will be mostly an air war with drones bombing civilian populations.<<
don't respond! its a TRAP !!!!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
It's only a trap if you get angry instead of thinking about the direction war has been going. Ground wars don't make sense anymore. Now we have unmanned aircraft that can drop bombs on people. It just makes sense that they would be used. Now, if it's just the Palestinians and no one else wants to fight, that strategy probably wouldn't be necessary. If Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran want to fight, I don't think it will be done purely with ground forces.
I thought wars were fought between armies, or at least combatants of one stripe on another.
a military bombarding civilians is something else surely?
"I thought wars were fought between armies, or at least combatants of one stripe on another.
a military bombarding civilians is something else surely?"
It's just total war.
"Total war is a war limitless in its scope in which a belligerent engages in the mobilization of all their available resources, in order to render beyond use their rival's capacity for resistance.
The practice of total war has been in use for centuries, but it was only in the middle to late 19th century that total war was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less and sometimes no differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
"Grim Reaper is what it is sometimes called. The medium- to high-altitude aircraft can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles — seven times more than its predecessor, the Predator. The Reaper's main mission is to "hunt and kill," but the pilots operate the craft from the safety of this air base in Indian Springs, Nev....
Currently, there are 31 MQ-1 Predators and three MQ-9 Reapers flying combat air patrols, said Col. Christopher R. Chambliss, commander of the 432nd Wing and 432nd Air Expeditionary Wing, at Creech.
He said that more combat air patrols are needed and that there are not enough to meet the demands of commanders in the field.
Col. Chambliss said the Air Force is planning on adding 19 remotely piloted combat air patrols, for a total of 50 by 2011."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/07/unmanned-bombers-fly-afghanistan-iraq-kill-mission/
fun with words!
Now, so there is no misunderstanding, I don't support the ideology of Zionism or the "Jewish State" as a solution to any alleged historical (or current) problem. It's a misguided and disastrous ideology. But that's not a problem of Jews per se, but a problem of the entire world. Zionism is nothing but Statism with it's unique brand of nationalism.
Israel isn't just any state. It is a colonial state, a mini-empire. That is worse than a regular national state.
Bloom, I fail to see how anything you believe is anywhere close to the Austrian school of economics.
Israel is socialist and anti-private property; probably more so than any industrial nation. On the other hand, it holds no economic principle consistent for all its citizens. As some Jews are second class and economically exploited citizens (Sephardim), even, and the society is far from even equal. Meaning there are no redeeming features. There is no free press or anything close to the bill of rights. There is certainly no concept of the free market. Israel is a lost cause from any ideology other than religious fanaticism. Or for those who wish to exploit this country's hold in order to advance the US's control of oil in the middle-east.
You claim to be a fan of the Federal Reserve
You reject rational epistemology. (I don't even know why you bother writing anything...)
You're gladly for taxation and centralization of power, even more extreme than any liberal or conservative. Meaning above the nation-state level.
You do not believe in peaceful exchange, but the myth of war of all against all and polylogism. Meaning there is no way you could believe a free rather than command economy is ever possible.
You have a collectivist rather than individualist position on virtually every subject.
Your support for war, far from being compatible with Israel or the Republicans, seems 100 times even more extreme and shameless than either. I have heard neither call deliberately for the mass murder of women and children (except a minority extremist element). And here you are calling for it like a regular Moses Maimonides-wannabe.
I hold your observation as well and I have only been browsing the forums section of this website for perhaps 3 weeks. Optimistically, he could be a CIA agent provocateur. Pessimistically, he may actually enjoy the taste of State Kool-aid; though, I suppose I repeat myself.
First of all, I think you're getting Austrian econ confused with libertarianism.
I am certainly no libertarian and I don't really care about philosophy.
I don't really care about labels, you can call me whatever you want. I do vote Republican exclusively though. Does that make me a Republican? Who cares? They don't. They're happy to get my vote. I don't care about being compatible with a party or any ideology. I don't care about being labeled extreme. If I actually run for office someday, I'll tell people what they want to hear. But I'm not running for office.
I actually think of myself as a Jiu Jitsu fighter who applies Jiu Jitsu principles to all parts of my life. One of the rules of Jiu Jitsu is: don't impose rules on yourself, play the game any way you are allowed to.
To clear something up, I'm not calling for mass murder of anyone, I'm just saying it's an option, it's on the table. Like any intelligent fighter, I don't dismiss any options. I always place everything on the table. Will that be the final course that's taken? That's not even my call but it very well may be.
The Fed, taxation, centralization of power, they're just tools. I don't place moral judgment on any tool I just see them as means to ends.
I think Bloom comes up short intellectually basing every singe value judgement in a "now" context. In a world of anarchy it is impossible to overcome a majority of force. So if the argument of the moment is do whatever it takes to win "now" because you have the majority of force "now", you will win today.
However Bloom comes up short because winning today does not mean you will have a majority of force tomorrow. This is what is going on in the world right now, typical majorities of force are being threatented and at risk of becomming a minority of force.
If Bloom was in charge the only way he could win today would be killing all who oppose the present majority of force but there is no way to do that and retain a majority of force.
"This is what is going on in the world right now, typical majorities of force are being threatented and at risk of becomming a minority of force."
Where is this happening?
>>As some Jews are second class and economically exploited citizens (Sephardim), even, and the society is far from even equal. Meaning there are no >>redeeming features. There is no free press or anything close to the bill of rights.
ok, brief fact check here, withholding interpretation and judgement.
on your mention of bill of rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Human_Dignity_and_Liberty_(Israel)
I don't know what you are referring to regarding 'absence of free press'... and I'm not sure how to address your plea for egalitarianism, (its a revolt against nature isn't it?)
Government collapsed in Iceland
People in Greece have been rioting
Militias and Tea Parties are growing in the United States.
Public discontent in Russia.
Mass protest in Latavia.
Strikes in France.
Drug violence in Mexico.
The list goes on, there is a lot of economic unrest in the world.
I don't know enough to say anything about the other countries, but I'm pretty sure the tea party isn't for anarchy. In fact, they're really not even for limited government tbh.
I agree with your observation. I am not making a claim anything I posted represents a belief for anarchy. I am claiming there is a lot of economic unrest in the world right now that is manifesting in a lot of ways. I am claiming this tide of economic unrest does pose a potential threat to a traditional majority of force. I think the jury is still out on where all of the chips are going to fall.
At present I do not envision economic unrest disspating anytime soon. Do you?
"I am claiming this tide of economic unrest does pose a potential threat to a traditional majority of force."
Lol, not too many people are talking revolution as far as I know.
"At present I do not envision economic unrest dissipating anytime soon. Do you?"
No.
Not yet, but historically unrest usually occurs first.
"Not yet, but historically unrest usually occurs first."
Of course.
DD5: Do you know what happen to Jews in Europe?
existence is elsewhere
bloomj31: The other thing you're implicitly assuming is that this will be a ground war, but I think it will be mostly an air war with drones bombing civilian populations.
>>In fifty years there will be no more Israel.
will there be jews in tel aviv and jerusalem?
Well, Netanyahu has agreed to ease the blockade on Gaza. The council just has to approve it now.
"Tony Blair, the Quartet’s envoy to the Middle East, hailed Tuesday the Israeli cabinet’s expected approval of a plan to ease the blockade of the Gaza Strip and allow more aid into the territory as “a very important step.”
The plan, which was formulated jointly by Blair and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will likely come before the cabinet for approval on Wednesday.
It contains three main elements: formulation of a blacklist of goods and supplies that will not be allowed into Gaza, particularly items that could be put to use in manufacturing weapons; Israel’s acquiescence to the entry of building materials for UN-sponsored construction projects; and Israel’s agreement to consider stationing European Union as well as Palestinian Authority monitors at border crossings to inspect incoming goods."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/blair-hails-deal-with-netanyahu-to-ease-gaza-blockade-1.296412
I see this as a political win-win for Israel. If nothing bad happens, Israel can still maintain the blockade of Hamas while being able to say to the international community that it's taken steps to reduce the damage to the civilian population and if Hamas shoots another rocket or sends another suicide bomber into Israel or commits some other act of violence (good odds that they will) then Israel will get to tighten the blockade again and the international community will be in support of it.
I disagree. It is the world community's opinion never to allow a media win for Israel.
The world media reasons like this:
lol true.
I doubt the accuracy of that cartoon. Cite?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
I know you are a habitual non-reader, but please google first.
The ships were prevented from entering because construction material is not allowed into Gaza, as it was used primarily in the past for building tunnels.
The aid Israel provides to Gaza is officially between 14,000 and 15,000 tons weekly (since most of Gaza relies on aid, seeing as most resources are spent on consumption goods and violence as opposed to production goods).
Some analysis for you, concerning the phrase (well known in Russia) concerning "useful idiots": http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/06/08/from-useful-idiot-to-useful-infidel-meditations-on-the-folly-of-21st-century-%E2%80%9Cintellectuals%E2%80%9D/
Some more, especially the summary video (if you didn't see it when I posted it earlier): http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/05/28/flotilla-of-fools-tilts-at-zionist-windmills-open-letter-to-europeans-from-a-medievalist/
So, your source is a blog comment?
How am I a "habitual non-reader"?
How much of that aid is provided by Israel, and how much of it is provided by others, and Israel's only role in the process is allowing it in?
Also, how much aid is kept out by Israel? What does it consist of? How is it disposed? What happens to the parties who provided the aid that was held back?
Hi thelion and bloomj31,
Good to see there are a few fighting Israel's corner, you must feel like a beleaguered minority!
Well we can be a minority of 3 now. Israel has a right to exist and defend itself by any means necessary. Most people here do not acknowledge that it's surrounded by ideological enemies who don't give a toss about the ""palestinians' " plight".
I'd love to know what a zionist libertarian response to this area of the world's problem would be. I'm a recent convert from right wing statist to Libertarian. I've been astounded by the pandering to state and para state bodies of opinion in this forum post.
sorry for spelling
zionist libertarian
There's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.
Lets say I break your leg then give you a crutch. Can I now complain about the media concentrating on the broken leg rather than the gifted crutch?
"Good to see there are a few fighting Israel's corner, you must feel like a beleaguered minority"
I'm not in the minority, they are.
"Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict haven't changed: nearly 6 in 10 (59%) say their sympathies in the conflict lie more with the Israelis; just 18% side with the Palestinians....
Additionally, the new poll finds 63% of Americans holding a favorable view of Israel, including 21% holding a very favorable view of that country. Only 29% have an unfavorable view of Israel, including just 8% "very unfavorable."....
By contrast, the Palestinian Authority is seen in a mostly negative light, with only 15% viewing it positively and 73% negatively. And, among those holding strong views, the balance of opinion is even more negative: just 1% have a very favorable view vs. 30% very unfavorable.
Favorability toward the Palestinian Authority has varied some since 2000, ranging from 11% to 27%, but has registered close to 15% for each of the past three years....
Attending a Gaza aid conference in Egypt on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States will provide $900 million in aid to the Palestinians, but specified that only $300 million would be directed toward Gaza and that all of it would be channeled through the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority led by President Abbas in the West Bank, not the Hamas-led government in Gaza.
This isolation of Hamas in U.S. aid to the Palestinians would seem to be consistent with the American public's general opposition to providing the Hamas government with any financial assistance, even if it were to formally recognize Israel. According to a Gallup Poll conducted shortly after the Hamas party won the January 2006 Palestinian elections, only 35% favored providing aid to the Palestinian Authority under Hamas leadership under any conditions (5% unconditionally and 30% if Hamas were to recognize Israel), while 57% said the United States should not provide that government with any aid...
Clinton's recent assurance that U.S. support for Israel is "unshakable, durable, [and] fundamental" is consistent with Israel's broadly positive image in the United States, as well as with Israel's solid advantage over the Palestinians in American "sympathies.""
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116308/Americans-Support-Israel-Unchanged-Gaza-Conflict.aspx
The only thing I might be in the minority about is the creation of a Palestinian State. Although I'm not really necessarily opposed to it, I just don't think it will happen.
E. R. Olovetto: zionist libertarian There's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.
To be fair, both terms can have a fairly broad meaning.
@bloom:
What is your function and motivation on this thread?
As far as I know, nobody who considers themself a zionist is opposed to an Israeli state. If that term means only the return to Israelis land which is genuinely owned by individuals, and thus respect for Palestinian claims as well, I'm a zionist too. Also, I've been trying to point out the difference between "libertarianism" qua political philosophy and libertarianism qua legal philosophy. The former is broad, but the latter is very specific, based on logical deduction of the non-agression principle. A corollary of the legal doctrine would be anarchy as law, so it would be impossible to advocate any form of statism.
Hi Olovetto,
Thanks for broadening your response. I'm libertarian in that having accepted Austrian Economics as the clearest picture of economic human interaction; my political outlook has been increasingly challenged by the logical direction from that ie increasingly questioning the utilitarian justification of even minarchical state institutions. Also the principle of non-aggression is increasingly sounding like a utilitarian sound idea.
I'm Zionist because I believe Jews are allowed a country of their own too.
One point I want to repeat; whilst I've only skimmed the posts on this topic nearly all the posts have been statist and para-statist arguments -which I find disappointing.
A slight correction; there are more libertarian arguments than I thought. I'll try to read next time not skim read!