Eye On Israel

[mike435]

at the same time you say Hamas is a more democratic institution than Israel. so doesn't that say something about Hamas that you missed in our previous discussion, namely that Hamas isn't forcing people to adopt any view or position against Israel but it reflects the will and exclamation of rights of the Palestinian people?

Please reconcile your contradictions. I really don't know what to think about you. At least I'm clear. I'm a perfectionist, mad-crazed, annoying, rhetorical logician of social discourse.

omg man i problem with hamas is not wehter ot not they are trying to advocate palastinian right my problem is why terorisom, why achive it in this style look hams is a democracy and sadly it is a democracy that uses terorisom which i hate becuase i allways thought that if majorty can voice opinion will go a way from inhuman unjust terorisom but we saw not maybe theys cahnge will see

but lets get back to democrocy i want your definiton i am really intrested to see how you respond whrn you are forced to define a term

[mike435]

we can't just assume that. in fact, the opposite argument can easily be made. Iran comes from a revolution that is the expression of people's voice, even if it was not a quality voice. Israel is an occupier of rightful citizens.


Sure, let's go back to the original topic. essentially my argument is that Israel's behavior is destructive and childish as seen by comments consistently trying to divide the middle east and avoid peace. I simply ask that your response not be propaganda. I don't know if you ever read my post a long time ago. You never responded. I mentioned that I'm not interested in your propaganda. Sorry and thank you.

trying to avoid anahilation if for israel it takes fortheme to divde in order to keep iran from getting a nuke than thats what they are doing

i personaly dont think it is a good aprouch but that is what they are choosing

[zubin]

omg man i problem with hamas is not wehter ot not they are trying to advocate palastinian right my problem is why terorisom, why achive it in this style look hams is a democracy and sadly it is a democracy that uses terorisom which i hate becuase i allways thought that if majorty can voice opinion will go a way from inhuman unjust terorisom but we saw not maybe theys cahnge will see

but lets get back to democrocy i want your definiton i am really intrested to see how you respond whrn you are forced to define a term

we were discussing whether your usage of terrorism is justified and you never responded to my arguments:

http://www.tapesh.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7366

http://www.tapesh.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5628&page=7

So your use of terrorism may be purely abusive and pre-programmed propaganda with the intention to brainwash people. There's no proof otherwise.

[zubin]

but lets get back to democrocy i want your definiton i am really intrested to see how you respond whrn you are forced to define a term

democracy is when the true will, interests and rights of the people is the status quo and implemented. that's the criteria, not voting. a country could have a system that is socialist or any case isn't structured like western countries, but be democratic if it listens to and implements the people's true will.

its safe to say that there is no country that really satisfies these criteria, so your analysis thus far falls into the cracks of time.

[mike435]

we were discussing whether your usage of terrorism is justified and you never responded to my arguments:

http://www.tapesh.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7366

http://www.tapesh.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5628&page=7

So your use of terrorism may be purely abusive and pre-programmed propaganda with the intention to brainwash people. There's no proof otherwise.

i am not talkng about terorisom i am taqlking about democracy this post i want to know how you dont over come the use of lables and define somthing like terorisom
you asked me i shouldnt use the word democracy becuase it is a lable i want to see what the alternative is

[mike435]

for the record terosiom according to me is

killing of innocent people perpusfully just to kill and take away human life when they dont deserv it and doing it intentionaly intetionaly of it is critical

but look who cares about this we ended up were we ended up on terorisom i quit talking about it because you refused to see hamas as a terorist

the other day i was talking to lebanies class mate and i saw and understood why he doesnt see hezbolah as a terorist i understood that

[zubin]

trying to avoid anahilation if for israel it takes fortheme to divde in order to keep iran from getting a nuke than thats what they are doing

i personaly dont think it is a good aprouch but that is what they are choosing

why don't we talk about nukes in ten years when it becomes relevant. please don't put me to sleep.

what's the threat against Israel's anniliation? is there any? what is it? rocks and stones? women and palestinians wanting their rights?

these aren't threats against Israel's existence. even Hamas' non-recognition of Israel is in no way a threat and there's no sense in being paranoid unless there's an ulterior motive or weakness such as a flawed government, cultural insecurity, racism, expansion, or a combination.

...chand sokhan meeguii az dardo eybe deegaran... khod ra aval modava kon..

[mike435]

democracy is when the true will, interests and rights of the people is the status quo and implemented. that's the criteria, not voting. a country could have a system that is socialist or any case isn't structured like western countries, but be democratic if it listens to and implements the people's true will.

its safe to say that there is no country that really satisfies these criteria, so your analysis thus far falls into the cracks of time.

ok very good definition love it

voting is the most efficient and reliable way of gaging peoples will

than do you agree that a country like israel is a democracyt and hamas is a democracy

egypt is not
most egyptions are against peace with israel but the dictatorship government is forcing them that is not will of people

in iran most people want freedom but government doesnt grant it that is not will of people

in israel most people want to give back the west bank for in exchange for peace that is will of people

in pa teritory most people want hamas to fight israeli "operation"(remeber cant use lables (you see how rediclious this not using of lables is)) that is peoples will
and that is what hamas is doing

[mike435]

why don't we talk about nukes in ten years when it becomes relevant. please don't put me to sleep.

what's the threat against Israel's anniliation? is there any? what is it? rocks and stones? women and palestinians wanting their rights?

these aren't threats against Israel's existence. even Hamas' non-recognition of Israel is in no way a threat and there's no sense in being paranoid unless there's an ulterior motive or weakness such as a flawed government, cultural insecurity, racism, expansion, or a combination.

...chand sokhan meeguii az dardo eybe deegaran... khod ra aval modava kon..

we are talking about irans crazy pres not badly armed starving palastinian who blows up his body and shoots rockets and hides behind their wifes

joubin iran is not a joke it is a powerful country with strong people
you are i ranian you know what it feels like if iran gets attacked
you knwo what areneal iran has iran is not a joke and its millitary is not a joke
if iran has a bomb it is unstapabel
see it is so ****ing sad that i dont want my home country to have a nuclear bomb becuase it is a theicricy

[zubin]

for the record terosiom according to me is

killing of innocent people perpusfully just to kill and take away human life when they dont deserv it and doing it intentionaly intetionaly of it is critical

yea but we agreed that the founders of Israel used terrorism and then you said part is not good but other parts are good, then I said the same applies to hamas. and then you came back to a different post and used your same definition of terrorism again.

ok and regarding this definition of yours, can you define what intentionality is? Like if I'm scratching my toe unconsciously am I doing it intentionally?

What about "killing innocent people purposefully"? What do you mean by that? What does Mr. X have to do for this to apply to him? Like, there's a difference between when Mr. X sits at home and draws a map of someone's heart, buys a knife, then goes and stabs that person without any other intention in mind. But what if someone threatens Mr. X and Mr. X grabs his knife and suddently kills that person? are both of these Mr. X's doing the same thing, "purposefully", and "intentionally"?

the truth is that these concepts are totally flawed. they don't exist in the mind the way we think they do at all. people have good intentions and uncontrollable emotions due to their circumstances, but no bad intentions

[zubin]

we are talking about irans crazy pres not badly armed starving palastinian who blows up his body and shoots rockets and hides behind their wifes

who shoots rockets and then hides behind their wife?

what about Ahmadinejad? What makes him crazy and why is he a threat to Israel's existence in any way?

[zubin]

ok very good definition love it

voting is the most efficient and reliable way of gaging peoples will

no. it in no way reliably or effeciently gages people's will. I could be brainwashed into a vote. that's not my will mike.

than do you agree that a country like israel is a democracyt and hamas is a democracy

I don't agree that Israel is a democracy, I'm sorry. There's no argument here presented that Israel is in any way a democracy.

egypt is not
most egyptions are against peace with israel but the dictatorship government is forcing them that is not will of people

maybe that's not the people's true will so the government is moderating it not dictating

in iran most people want freedom but government doesnt grant it that is not will of people

what in the world do you mean by freedom here? the freedom and will of the people may be reflected in some respects such as independence from the west which you are not considering. if you're talking about ideal freedom, Iranians are not ready for it nor do iranians necessarily share the exact definition of freedom used in the west. the only thing Iran is now ready for that the government is tough on dictating are some human rights issues and that's a complex topic, attributable to colonialism and islam when they are mixed.

in israel most people want to give back the west bank for in exchange for peace that is will of people

Okay??

in pa teritory most people want hamas to fight israeli "operation"(remeber cant use lables (you see how rediclious this not using of lables is)) that is peoples will
and that is what hamas is doing

not using labels is one of the most liberating things possible. think about all the labels Jews have been called, or Iranians. I think carpet rider was a good one.

the pal people have the right to their rights and that's that! simple! no one will sit around or should sit around with their rights stripped away from a foriegn power!

[mike435]

i am speech less i mean i dont know man i really dont get you

ill let you define it you take the lead

[zubin]

we are talking about irans crazy pres not badly armed starving palastinian who blows up his body and shoots rockets and hides behind their wifes

joubin iran is not a joke it is a powerful country with strong people
you are i ranian you know what it feels like if iran gets attacked
you knwo what areneal iran has iran is not a joke and its millitary is not a joke
if iran has a bomb it is unstapabel
see it is so ****ing sad that i dont want my home country to have a nuclear bomb becuase it is a theicricy

sure then we'll come back in ten years when in reality it becomes even close to relevant and panic about it. but for now, how is Iran a threat? they are not close to a nuke. perhaps this is a diversion from the injustice against the pal people. how utterly evil!

[zubin]

i am speech less i mean i dont know man i really dont get you

ill let you define it you take the lead

yes i've noticed reality and objectivity are foriegn concepts for you. I'm not trying to change your opinion. you keep talking seriously then I ask you clarify and define the concept you're using, how it is even a shred sensible, then you withdraw. but its my fault. obviously I'm too bikar and motivated to have a logical discussion to see that you're ultimatley just playing games. you want to enjoy your allegiance and I'm keep bringing points that threaten it. But there are non-exclusive universal allegiances that don't have these problems.

sorry for being logical. its evil, I know, I know...