Yet another fine question for which I do not have an answer and will again say comes down in part to which side I fall on (again, begin slow, I am referring to an Alex post a few back).

I suppose it comes down to some sort of attempt, as the Geneva convention is, to bring some sort of limitation to barbarism associated with war.

Terrorism does not equal war, though it can be and is a part of it. I suppose I would define terrorism (in the current world environment) as groups without an official tie to a government with an agenda attempting to use fear or death to move closer to the agenda. Not a perfect definition, so examples -

I do not regard the Hamas capture of the Israeli soldier as terrorism. I consider it an act of war, as the soldier was uniformed, certainly a legitimate military target, and Hamas is the government of Palestine (though there are certainly factions within it). I would not regard car bombings staged by Islamic Jihad as an act of war, but as an act of terrorism. They have an agenda to create war in the region for the elimination of Israel.

So....I'm writing as I'm thinking, so I do not consider my position to be well defined as of yet....I suppose I would then say I do not think states are capable in and of themselves of terrorism. They commit acts of war. They can support terrorism by getting groups such as Hezbollah to do their dirty work, as is the case presumably with Iran.

One part of terrorism is that we don't necessarily know who is responsible or where they may be. This is not the case with acts of war. We knew the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and where they were and where to strike them.

Kind of rambling in an unorganized way there and I hope it is somewhat sensible.

I tell you, God is not the problem. It's the actions people take in the name of God that results in the problem.

I dont think God is that hand's on, If God was a bit more involved, people wouldn't be killing each other in God's name. But, it seems, left on their own, people are blind idiots who use God as an excuse to fake superiority and kill each other.

Let's explore this scenario. Let's say the entire Israeli government/population decides it's time to move on.

First and foremost, they're going to need a place to move to. What country is willing to give up a chunk of their land and freely hand it over to another nation? Other than Antarctica (as I understand, there is an international treaty stipulating nobody can settle there—correct me if I'm wrong), is there any land on Earth that is not claimed by (at least) one nation? Sure, Israel is a strong ally of the US, but do you think we're going to let them move into the spare bedroom for eternity? I don't see that happening.

But for the sake of this topic, let's say they find a country willing to donate to the cause, as it were. (Or maybe they create new land in the middle of the Atlantic using alien crystalline technology.) There's no way in hell that the exodus of an entire country could be kept secret, let alone invisible. During this emigration they'd be shooting gallery ducks, just waiting to be knocked down by their enemies.

But let's assume some or most of the population was able to make it out and settle in their new land. Do you think their old neighbors are going to calm down and live in peace? I sure don't. The Muslims (no, I'm not saying every Muslim in the world feels this way, but enough do to warrant generalization) don't just want Israel out of the Middle East—they want them annihilated off of the face of the Earth! All this move will do is make them have to shoot longer distances to hit Israel. The Muslim countries in that area need Israel the same way 1950s America needed Communism the same way Fundies need "The Gays" today. They need a common enemy to distract their populace away from the real problems they are experiencing. In spite of the wealth enjoyed by the oil-producing nations, very few of their population gets to enjoy it. Their "leaders" are a just a bunch of glorified thugs. (pretty much always have been) They will do everything in their power to shift attention away from themselves.

You should hear the things I say about others in the pantheon of non-existent beings. I have a 20-minute bit where I tear into the Easter Bunny that just kills in the Catskills.

But I'm sure he is pleased to see you get upset when he is condemned for the evils he commits. I bet you'll get extra pudding pops in heaven.

Snark away- your comments don't phase what I believe in.

Admit it- you're not just an athiest, but a God hater. Who pissed in your spiritual cheerios?

No wait- I don't care. Spare me any answer.

Spiritual? There's nothing spiritual about the venom people spew in the name of religion.

Seems akin to the venom people spew about religion.

That's kind of how the people who lived there when the British gave it to the Jews felt about it. "If you want them to have a homeland, give them Wales."

I'm guessing that iSm doesn't feel it is a requirement that they move to another place that is their own country. In 1919 when the whole process began there were maybe 50,000 Jews on the Arabian peninsula. Everybody else came from different countries and presumbably they could once again disperse to different countries. Heck, I believe it is still the case that a majoirty of Israelis hold dual citizenship (but I could easily be wrong).


I see no reason to believe this. Muslims and Jews on the Arabian peninsula cohabitated pretty much peacefully prior to the re-existence of Israel. Also, while we have seen international terrorism resulting from this conflict over the last many decades it has either targeted Israel or Israelis allies and rarely non-Israeli Jews.

Of course, I don't think there'll be another diaspora unless they are driven from the area by force, but if there was a global Economic Redevelopment Council capable of tearing down and realigning neighborhoods along more rational lines, rectifying the error of recreating Israel would probably be near the top of the list.

I find it very interesting to look at LoT as a microcosm of what it happening in the world. Fundimentalists come in swinging, not able to actually discuss anything but just looking for a fight. No wonder people end up killing each other. God forbid someone thinks or believes differently!

Oh now, petulance is not your best god-like feature.

I don't hate God. I don't think God exists. To hate god would be like hating a Care Bear.

You, however, do think god exists. And attribute to him certain acts and characteristics. I find those acts and characteristics abhorrent. So, while I don't hate God, if it exists as you suppose then I would hate him. Being omniscient and omnipotent does not make you authomatically worthy of worship.

What I'm doing is not hating god, I am mocking your conception of God.

Now, as long as it is fresh and my own I don't really have a problem with peed-upon Cheerios. A very spiritual person has decreed that consuming fresh urine is itself a path to God and righteousness. And as long as it is spiritual it must be true and good, right?