Forum Post: Not really an OWS issue. I'd be curious on your opinion.
Posted 11 years ago on March 18, 2013, 10:58 a.m. EST by mideast
(506)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
With decades of creating Arab counties by gluing together very disparate people - making time bombs - it seems to me that a THREE state solution is a more reasonable approach.
Not only are Gaza Arabs different from West Bank Arabs, they are not even geographically connected; and they are politically different too.
Israel + Gaza + WestBank = peace
What do you think of this idea?
One state solution. You guys knew that was coming though.
one state worked well = Iraq or Yugoslavia NOT
Assimilation of peace is the worldwide goal--outside of the political paradigm of course.
How did, and who decided, on all those borders to begin with would be a good starting point as what is going on.
I say the U.S.A. get out of the Middle-East, and let everybody over there figure it out for themselves...
You advocate the religious zealots slaughter the minorities ?
I truly do not believe that is what is going on over there.
I believe a large part of the Middle-East's problems arise from the U.S.A.'s oligarchy attempts to remake it.
do you think assad is being led to slaughter Syrians by the USA?
No, if you read the news carefully, you'll find the people doing the slaughtering are the Syrian rebels who are being supported by the U.S.A. and proxies of the U.S.A. Assad is only trying to defend himself and his country (albeit some of his means are somewhat sloppy.)
If the U.S.A were to withdraw their support from the rebels the bloodshed over there would stop within days.
Assad is SLOPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
USA support ?????????????
How many weapons has USA sent to the rebels ?????????
From Wiki: The Syrian civil war,[54] also commonly known as the Syrian uprising,[55] is an ongoing armed conflict in Syria between forces loyal to the Syrian Ba'ath Party government and those seeking to oust it. The conflict began on 15 March 2011, with popular demonstrations that grew nationwide by April 2011. These demonstrations were part of the wider Middle Eastern protest movement known as the Arab Spring. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has held the presidency in Syria since 1971, as well as the end to over four decades of Ba'ath Party rule
In April 2011, the Syrian Army was deployed to quell the uprising, and soldiers were ordered to open fire on demonstrators. After months of military sieges,[56] the protests evolved into an armed rebellion. Opposition forces, mainly composed of defected soldiers and civilian volunteers, became increasingly armed and organized as they unified into larger groups. However, the rebels remained fractured, without organized leadership. The Syrian government characterizes the insurgency as an uprising of "armed terrorist groups and foreign mercenaries".[57] The conflict has no clear fronts, with clashes taking place in many towns and cities across the country.[58]
The Arab League, United States, European Union, Arab States of the Persian Gulf, and other countries condemned the use of violence against the protesters. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership because of the government's response to the crisis, but granted the Syrian National Coalition Syria's seat on 6 March 2013.[59] The Arab League also sent an observer mission in December 2011, as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution of the crisis. A further attempt to resolve the crisis was made through the appointment of Kofi Annan as a special envoy. On 15 July 2012, the International Committee of the Red Cross assessed the Syrian conflict as a "non-international armed conflict" (the ICRC's legal term for civil war), thus applying international humanitarian law under the Geneva Conventions to Syria.
On 2 January 2013, the United Nations stated that the war's death toll had exceeded 60,000;[60] on 12 February, this figure was updated to 70,000.[45] According to various opposition activist groups, between 59,900 and 72,660 people have been killed,[43][44][27][61] of which about half were civilians, but also including 29,435 armed combatants consisting of both the Syrian Army and rebel forces,[27][62] up to 2,690 opposition protesters[41][42] and 1,000 government officials.[28] By October 2012, up to 28,000 people had been reported missing, including civilians forcibly abducted by government troops or security forces.[63] According to the UN, about 1.2 million Syrians have been displaced within the country.[50] To escape the violence, as many as 1 million Syrian refugees have fled to neighboring countries.[51] In addition, tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned and there were reports of widespread torture and psychological terror in state prisons.[64][65] International organizations have accused both government and opposition forces of severe human rights violations.[66][67] However, human rights groups report that the majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government's forces, and UN investigations have concluded that the government's abuses are the greatest in both gravity and scale.[68][69][70]
Peace - sort of like Egypt & Lebanon & Lybia
And who do you think put up that piece of propaganda?
in stead of using mccarthyite labels,
do you have any proof that it is wrong? ANYTHING
??????????????????????????
The main problem is that Israel is not an Arab nation. This, in itself, is a manifestation of the victors over the Ottoman Empire carving up the region and continuing to pursue their own economic-political interests in the region at everyone's expense. Only the victimized nations of war want peace. The benefactors of war aren't really interested in it and don't feel the need to be until it becomes costly to them.
If all Arabs were the same, maybe they would not have killed
11,000,000 of each other in the last 65 years
while Israel killed 35,000 Arabs over the last 65 years
Since they're not all the same, 'they' didn't kill 11,000,000 of each other. Different nationalities killed in different conflicts.
The Islamic Genocide Records of
ARAB/MUSLIM on ARAB/MUSLIM killings 1948- today:
Nor is Iraq (Sunni versus Shiite) the only place where Muslim violence against Muslims rages unabated.
There is Darfur in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Algeria until recently, and hotspots in Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Palestine, Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.
Muslims killed 80,000,000 Hindus to conquer India Will Durant, Pullitzer winner, the famous historian summed it up like this: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India" The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new Muslim invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Muslim Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on. As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..
But the "Indian Pagans" were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not.
Sadly - Mulims killing Muslims goes way back - In the late 11th century AD, the Hashshashin (a.k.a. the "Assassins") arose, an offshoot of the Isma'ili sect of Shia Muslims. Led by Hassan-i Sabbah and opposed to Muslim Fatimid rule, the Hashshashin militia seized Alamut and other fortress strongholds across Persia. Hashshashin forces assassinated city governors and military commanders in order to create alliances with militarily powerful neighbors. For example, they killed Janah al-Dawla, ruler of Homs, to please Ridwan of Aleppo, and assassinated Mawdud, Seljuk emir of Mosul, as a favor to the regent of Damascus. The Hashshashin also carried out assassinations as retribution. Under some definitions of terrorism, such assassinations do not qualify as terrorism, since killing a political leader does not intimidate political enemies or inspire revolt.
For more info: http://www.danielpipes.org/4990/arab-israeli-fatalities-rank-49th
So, instead of just Arabs killing Arabs with the admission that they're not all the same and thererfore not a coherent 'they' to begin with, now it's an even more diverse Muslims killing Muslims?
the numbers speak for themselves
No, people speak for the numbers by the way they choose to present them. The choice in the presentation of the numbers above mean no more than the choice in the presentation of the numbers below.
WESTERNER/CHRISTIAN on WESTERNER/CHRISTIAN killings 1948- today:
100,000 Greek Civil War, 1948-1949 (began in 1946)
2,000 Costa Rican Civil War, 1948
200,000 La Violencia (Columbia), 1948-1958
1,000 Basque Conflict, 1959-2011
100,000 Congo Crisis, 1960-1966
200,000 Guatemalan Civil War, 1960-1996
5,000 Eritrean War of Independence, 1961-1991
50,000 Angolan War of Independence, 1961-1974
50,000 Mozambican War of Independence, 1964-1974
250,000 Columbian Conflict, 1964-present
3,000 Dominican Civil War, 1965
2,000 US Occupation of Dominican Republic, 1965-1966
13,000 Namibian War of Independence, 1966-1990
1,100,000 Nigeria, 1967-70
1,400,000 Ethiopian Civil War 1974-1991
15,000 Angola Civil War, 1975-2002
30,000 Argentina Dirty War 1975-1983
125,000 Mozambican Civil War, 1977-1992
10,000 Nicaraguan Revolution, 1978-1979
75,000 Salvadorian Civil War, 1979-1992
70,000 Peruvian Armed Conflict 1980-present
30,000 Nicaraguan Contra War, 1981-1989
17,000 1982 Lebanon War, 1982-1983
1,000 Romanian Revolution, 1989
3,000 US Invasion of Panama, 1989
150,000 Liberia, 1989-1997
95,000 Bosnian War, 1992-1995
5,000 FRAPH Attacks in Haiti, 1993-1994
The Guatemalan military also maintained strong ties with Israel, which began selling and delivering weapons to the Guatemalan military during the Kjell Laugerud presidency. Military items delivered to Guatemala by Israel between 1974 and 1982 included automatic weapons, light transport aircraft, and armored cars. From the mid-1970s through the 1980s, Guatemalan troops were primarily equipped with several different configurations of the 5.56×45mm NATO Galil assault rifle and limited numbers of the 9mm Uzi submachine gun, both manufactured by Israel Military Industries (IMI). Israel was also the principle supplier of military hardware to Argentina from late-1978 onward after the United States suspended aid to the Argentine military junta. The government in Argentina also supplied quantities of Israeli-manufactured weapons and hardware to the Guatemalan military on several occasions. In addition to supplying arms to Guatemala (directly and indirectly through Argentina), Israel also provided intelligence and operational training to Guatemalan officers. Technical support was also given to the Guatemalan counterinsurgency by the Israelis, including a computer system located in an annex of the Presidential General Staff (EMP), behind the presidential palace in 1980. This computer system incorporated a data analysis system developed during the "Dirty War" in Argentina, and passed on by Argentine advisors, which was used to monitor electrical and water usage to pinpoint the coordinates of guerrilla safe-houses. A total of thirty guerrilla safe-houses were infiltrated in 1981. In 1981 the chief of staff of the Guatemalan army said that the "Israeli soldier is the model for our soldiers". After the March 23, 1982 junior officers coup, Efraín Ríos Montt told ABC News that his success was due to the fact that "our soldiers were trained by Israelis." There was not much outcry in Israel at the time about its involvement in Guatemala, though the support was not a secret.[169] Despite public praise for Israel by Guatemalan authorities, many Guatemalan officials were also critical of Israel. General Hector Gramajo stated in an interview, "Maybe some Israeli's taught us intelligence but for reasons of business...The hawks (Israeli arms merchants) took advantage of us, selling us equipment at triple the price."
By presenting an overly inclusive designation for a variety of people and restricting the condition and time being presented with the addition of side notes, the numbers are already spoken for.
Furthermore, the inclusion of erroneous information to support invalid implications actually makes the numbers lie. For instance,
50,000 Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)
150,000 Liberia, 1989-97
1,100,000 Nigeria, 1966-79 (Biafra); 1993-present
1,900,000 Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)
None of those events had applied to ARAB/MUSLIM on ARAB/MUSLIM killings but like many other conflicts around the globe, all of them had been the consequences of previous Western colonialism/imperialism. The situation is made even more outrageous when one realizes what the past population of India had been in comparison with the source of a bogus claim cited for it.
Estimated Population of India
1000 CE- 79,500,000
1100 CE- 83,200,000
1200 CE- 86,400,000
1300 CE- 90,000,000
1400 CE- 98,000,000
1500 CE- 106,250,000
1550 CE- 120,000,000
Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India (1000-1800) is a book by K. S. Lal published in 1973.
The book assesses the demographics of India between 1000 CE and 1500 CE. On the basis of the available historical evidence, K.S. Lal concluded that the population of India in 1000 was about 200 million and in 1500 was about 170 million. He says, however, that "any study of the population of the pre-census times can be based only on estimates, and estimates by their very nature tend to be tentative."
Lal estimates that about 60 to 80 million people died in India between 1000 and 1525 as a result of the Islamic invasion of India. He concluded that about 2 million people died during Mahmud of Ghazni's invasions of India alone(pp. 211–217).
Lal's study of the demographic situation in medieval India was also criticized. Simon Digby criticized the book in a review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies:
The author is known for his detailed studies of the Khalji dynasty and of the fifteenth-century Delhi Sultanate. He is well versed in the sources of medieval North Indian history. In the present study he has assembled almost all the conceivably relevant data and for this reason it will remain of value as a compendium of references. Yet the unknown variables are so great and the quality of the data yielded by our sources so poor that almost any detailed general estimates of population based upon them must appear wilful, if not fantastic.
Tyrants + Blind Followers = No Peace + Worldwide
[Removed]
Injustices, and our country's complicity with them is an "OWS issue"
~Odin~
I've heard that Gaza is the largest prison camp in the world.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/paul-mccann-the-worlds-largest-prison-camp-503036.html
So make Gaza an independent nation and West bank independent
The whole area is like a ticking time bomb.
There seems to be no chance to reconcile.
With the controls on our media, it's not even clear who is the antagonist.
I like using numbers to shed light on complex issues
This does not connect exactly, but it could show antagonism:
since 1948, Israel has killed 35,000 Arabs/Muslims
since 1948, Arabs/Muslims have killed 11,000,000 Arabs/Muslims
You refer to the Sunni/Shia divide?
Some source material for this claim would be useful.
http://www.danielpipes.org/4990/arab-israeli-fatalities-rank-49th
Gaza, sorry, is a terrorist state.
yes - but America can do little about that
the THREE state solution will serve to politically isolate gaza from the West Bank people and government - who are more inclined to peace
let the West Bank have their own independent country
FYI - it has been over a year since a West Bank attack has killed an Israeli FYI - gaza is still launching rockets at Israel
What do you think would stop gaza from attacking Israel?
IF gaza was an independent state, would they stop the attacks?
They are already isolated. Perhaps a three state solution (which I put little stock in) could be a consideration if Hamas were no longer in power in Gaza
How about removing the borders that we place there after WWII and let them sort it out themselves instead of patronizing them and treating them like invalids?
Let's remove ALL borders everywhere.
Who really needs them?
Let the people decide their own borders if that's what they want instead of tyrants deciding for them.
I'd like to see Southern California secede.
Why do they need them?
Why do you HATE California?
Many would want to limit the entrance of people who aren't like minded.
Don't hate SoCal, I live here. The extra layer of federal government isn't necessary.
all the more reason to rid ourselves of the burden of borders.
Maybe the borders really enclose the laws a people wish to live by?
Wish???
More like an accident of birth and an acceptance of the devil you know.
I mean if the people had gone to a specific area by their free will and setup a particular type of government that everyone chose to live by.
No ifs in my statement. Just reality.
Most folks that move, do so for gainful existence, not the local laws and if they have to cross international borders?
Let's just say.......That's a guaranteed hassle.
South Korea
That makes no sense. It was the North that demanded and still NEEDS that border.
Nope. The North did not demand the border. The border was established by the US and the Soviet Union.
Just sayin'.
Borders?
What are they good for?
The point I'm trying to make is that we should do away with them.
I have no opinion on that but will say that I'm definitely not in favor of a one-world government. Call me old-fashioned.
How about a one vote government?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/whats-behind-the-emergency-management-of-detroit-michigan-governor-imposes-corporate-rule/5327340
You're probably not too old fashioned for that, eh?
Give me a little while to read it (I have other things going on) and I may or may not respond. Nothing personal, I just know how you are. You like confrontation, I don't. But I will read it.
Me? Confrontational??
I learned to be that way by having to confront myself and my beliefs several times in my life.
I learned it's good for you, even if you don't like to face it.
I linked to a more extreme view than I normally do.
This is austerity being forced on an entire city, a city that's already rather austere.
I just read it. You guys are getting royally fucked.
"In the statement issued by the Moratorium NOW! Coalition the organization calls for “an immediate halt to all debt-service payments to the banks which would immediately provide enough revenue to operate the city. The banks must then be held accountable for their robbery and consequent destruction of Detroit.”
I would agree with this quote 100%. Good luck on that. Might be time to start getting radical up there. An example needs to be set, I think. What have you got to lose?
I don't think that's going to get by the emergency financial dictator.
This has been decades in the making. I've been trying to post a lot of background information on what's happened there, and what some of the plans are. There's not much left in the city to slash and burn anymore.
Nope, if recent history is any indication, the banks will get their way.
Anyone that is worth their salt has confronted their beliefs
It's humbling yet refreshing
It sounds like Detroit may be the new hot spot in Occupy....cool
Good Luck
~Odin~
I've been trying to say.
If you would like some fun background, check out the links in Motor City's Burning.
If you like music, you'll love it. It's a BBC special.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/motor-citys-burning/
I went to see my first rock concert in the Grande Ballroom that's featured in the documentary. It was the MC5 with the Cream headlining.
I viewed all three, and it reminded me what tumultuous times they were
On the East Coast, Philadelphia was the music city
I remember going down Rt 70, which was a series of concrete slabs, and you could feel everyone of them in that bug
I saw Dr. John The Mid-Night Tripper there once
~Odin~
The Good doctor just won a grammy........................:)
http://www.nitetripper.com/
Back in the 60s I would stay up late to hear his show on WABX.
He turned me on to some great music, in between classical music shows.
Thanks. It's amazing he is still around making music
~Odin~
My wife and I saw the good Dr. last fall and he had the most amazing young lady playing trombone. She played it like no one else I've ever seen.
Yes, the Philly sound.
Can you spur my memory with a few band or song names?
I knew The Dr was still around playing, do you have a link?
The groups who came over from Britain usually played in Philly first at the old Spectrum
There was a great radio station out of Philly, WMMR that we always listened to especially when we had these huge overnight partes in the Pine Barrens, that usually culminated in swimming in the cedar creek that ran through the cranberry bog
Today if kids had that much fun, they would probably be thrown in jail
Lets see...concerts there...Todd Rungren...Chicken Shack, savoy Brown...there's more, but i can remember
Los Lobos also had a connection to Philly too
Although, I live a few miles closer to Philly than NYC, other than going to concerts there years ago, all my ties are in NY
I do regret not going to Woodstock with my brother-in-law, but did get to some other big music festivals
~Odin_
According to history, the 38th parallel had become the "border" between the North and the South by 1948. The North invaded across that line in 1950, starting the Korean War and three years later, mutual intervention by other countries pushed both sides back away from that line and an armistice agreement was signed by both sides.
Both sides patrol the DMZ and both sides have attempted to cross it at various points in time.
OK, what's it good for?
what are any of them good for?
Protecting the people on both sides from having to live under the rules/government/theology of the other. Or would you rather just pull up the DMZ and let them have at each other until all the people remaining alive believe in the same things?
YOU are the king of "borders". You constantly and consistently define your own beliefs or politics as being on one side, and everyone who disagrees with you being on the other side. I can point out post after post where you demean, degrade, and opine about everyone on the "other side" being shut out, fixed, shut down, or silenced.
I find the idea that YOU are somehow all about inclusion and not drawing distinctions between people, countries, parties, or anything else hilarious. And hypocritical as well.
So answer your own question shooz...what are your emotional/political/ideological borders good for?
But the borders created that situation, not the other way around.
Well, then you answered you own question, didn't you?
Nope, just responding to an inane, uninformative post, is all.
Oooops. I did it again.
----Britney Spears----
Like North Korea, I NEEDS a border...
For what?
Sure it makes sense, dunce. It was North Korea who invaded South Korea in 1950. It was North Korea who sank the South Korean naval vessel, shelled an island in South Korean territory, and has been generally a royal boil on the butt.
Whatever, that's all because there is a border.
Imagine a World without them.
It scares the shit out of me. No utopia exists intact with the people. You have between 7 and 8 billion people, diverse languages, customs, cultures, religions, etc, etc, etc. Do you seriously expect a one world order without borders to work? A ruling elite would rise to the top, or roll down the hill, to guide the masses.
Thanks, but no thanks.
All because of borders. You should get rid of them, you will be less afraid.
A country without borders is not a country.
Why do they need them?
A doctor without borders, is still a doctor.
Why can't a people or a country still be a people or a country without them?
Do the doctors know something about that, that we don't?
A doctor is a doctor no matter where he/she is. A person is a person no matter where he/she is. But both "peoples" and "countries" are defined by the named location in which they exist.
"A people" by definition comes from a specific geographic location, and those locations have names, usually given to them by the people who live there. Where one people's residence ended, and another began anciently were usually delineated by natural land formations, oceans, rivers, mountain ranges etc. More people moved in, and different lines had to be drawn where no geographical "lines" existed-borders.
Borders don't make people hate each other. The people of Montana do not sneak across their borders and open fire upon the people of Idaho and Wyoming. Ideologies, pride, and agendas which make distinctions like "us and them" "right vs left" etc. make people hate each other.
So why do you need them shooz?
I don't.
Bush FORCED me get a passport, so I never got one.
The rest is BULLSHIT.
I'm from Detroit. So I know it's bullshit.
How did Bush ( which one?) force you to get a passport? For what reason?
911
Were you asleep, or just glued to FLAKESnews?
Why did the events of Sept. 11, 2001 force you get a passport? I didnt have to get one.
why were you forced to get a passport due to 911? I didnt have to get one.
You should have asked Bush when he did it.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention when he did?
I have no idea, except that maybe he's a hateful, vindictive jerk. He did kick the family dog on the way out the door, so it just goes to reason.
[Removed]
Didnt answer the question,.........why were you forced to get a passport?
Talk about changing the subject! Whew! Did I hit a nerve?
Bush didn't originate the idea of passports you dolt. They originated in medieval Europe. And if you never got one, he didn't FORCE you to did he? What on earth does Bush or your non-passport status have to do with borders of any kind?
Your statement "I'm from Detroit" is hilariously ironic coming from someone who is arguing that where someone is from, or lives, shouldn't matter to anyone at all. Your argument here is bullshit, and you don't have to be from Detroit to know that.
You didn't hit my nerve.
I hit yours. That's why you're wiggling about and constantly changing the subject.
Let's do away with ALL national borders.
Why do we need them?
How about let's do away with all your emotional/political/agenda driven borders first? Would be much easier. Then you can approach the rest of the world and see what they think instead of just assuming that your position on borders is the best one for everyone.
Doctors are not countries. How about accountants without borders? same siliness.
Doctors are not countries,even you can see the sillines of your "comparison".
If doctors can survive without them, why can't countries?
What good are all those borders?
there's even reporters without them now.
http://en.rsf.org/
Doctors are not countries. Neither are reporters.
OK Bad analogy. I'll give you that.
So what the hell good are borders?
So we know which side the Canadians are supposed to stay on?
Borders define countries.Different countries have different laws and customs.
Is that why you establish your "borders" shooz? Are you afraid?
You let us know when you've gotten rid of them would ya?
You're changing the subject.
Why do countries need them?
I'm not changing the subject. I'm assuming that countries need them for the same reason you need them. So, you tell us why you need them and I'll apply that same answer to countries.
You don't want to answer the question.
Nothing new there, but why wiggle around, to not answer it?.
The only borders I have, are the ones that hopefully keep the fluids inside my body.
I answered it above. I'll post it here again-
A doctor is a doctor no matter where he/she is. A person is a person no matter where he/she is. But both "peoples" and "countries" are defined by the named location in which they exist.
"A people" by definition comes from a specific geographic location, and those locations have names, usually given to them by the people who live there. Where one people's residence ended, and another began anciently were usually delineated by natural land formations, oceans, rivers, mountain ranges etc. More people moved in, and different lines had to be drawn where no geographical "lines" existed-borders.
Borders don't make people hate each other. The people of Montana do not sneak across their borders and open fire upon the people of Idaho and Wyoming. Ideologies, pride, and agendas which make distinctions like "us and them" "right vs left" etc. make people hate each other because it always implies "I'm right and you're wrong". "I'm good and you're bad".
So stop wiggling around and answer the question shooz....why do you constantly draw distinctions between one group of Americans and another? Or attempt to conquer someone else's ideology with your own? If you truly believe that "borders created the situation" then why do you keep erecting them?
Vapid/TokyoRose/BerlinBetty/MengelesDaughter what is it you do not understand about the feature of an open forum - being that your comments are open to all?
[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-4) 0 minutes ago
Trying to interrupt? Again? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Trying to play mind games Vapid?
Are you and shooz lovers or superhero "protectors" of this forum. You always create mob attacks in pair against users you disagree with. Aren't you able to debate like adults? You sit side by side at your retirement home's computer lab right? You guys are hilarious.
Trying to interrupt? Again?
I don't need them.
I didn't ask you if you needed them or not. I asked you why you use them.
Why does North Korea need one?
Keep the civilians from escaping?
Or Lisa Ling from invading
I asked you first.
I don't think they do.
No, you told me that first. It's ok. They say the mind is the first thing to go.
"It was the North that demanded and still NEEDS that border." shooz
You didn't understand the questions in the original post.
I said get rid of borders.
So yes.
Try and keep up.
As long as they pay their rent there is no reason to get rid of a boarder.
Confused again?
They think they need a border, is what I should have said, but it was YOU who insisted that South Korea needs the border.
Try and keep up.
Why do we need any borders?
Keep up? how am i supposed to know what you mean vs what you say? Like it's my fault you screwed up.
At this point, anything that keeps you at a distance is aces in my book.
"the nation-state equivalent of the short bus" (god I love Archer)
After reading the below back and forth, I have a question for you: would you live in a area, town, village, etc. where there are more liberal people or more conservative people?
I didn't ask them all.
Why do you ask?
" not sure what you mean by "I didn't ask them all".
But I ask in reference to the exchanges regarding borders, and yours specifically " lets remove all borders everywhere. who really needs them?"
There's 134,000 people around here and that's just the city I live in.
Around 3,000,000 in the area.
So asking them all is an issue.
The mayors a (R)epelican't though, does that help you?
The mayors of the cities to the north and south are semi-democrats.
I did not ask you to ask them all (??). Not sure where you got that. My question was directed to you only. All the other stuff you said is not relevant to the question.
So I try again: would you live in an area, town, village, etc. that is more liberal or conservative? Its a simple question. What is your preference?
How do I know????
I know our governor is a RED and he HATES Democracy.
Does this help you?
You could read this for a little up to date stuff.
http://www.politicususa.com/detroits-emergency-manager-guilty-crook-hired.html
In fact, this more stuff created by borders.
@Why can't we do away with them?
I do not care about where you live now. You are not answering the question and I am not sure why. For some reason, your thinking that you have to know the position of everyone around first before answering. I did not ask that, I asked for YOUR preference!
So i will rephrase: if you had the opportunity to relocate and live in a area, town, village, etc. would you prefer to live in a location with more liberal or conservative people?
I'd have to know what the fuck you are talking about to answer your question.
Provide definitions.
Plus, I really don't see what this has to do with getting rid of borders.
Why do YOU think they are necessary
What is your mental problem here? You resort to abusive language. You made statements about the need for borders and I am asking an extremely simple question that you are dancing Around and refuse to answer. The question has everything to do about borders and why they naturally occur with people, societies, cultures, etc. But you just refuse to answer a elementary question about human preferences (specifically yours) and then act so obtuse about. My assumption from your writings would be that you would prefer to live where there are more liberal people rather than opposite.
So here it is plain and simple. People choose who they prefer to associate with, either by point of view, similar language, culture, faith, etc. This is the first step toward creating borders, whether physical or just societal boundaries. People that agree and tolerant of each other tend to congregate rather than spread apart. Eventually some type of governing agency is put in place because people prefer order. Land ownership is another critical point. People then desire to protect it, and the local societies collective possessions. They contribute to the collective good of the local society. Borders are needed to keep others from either taking advantage of their labors or taking actual possessions. It creates and maintains order.
Now is that too difficult to comprehend? You say to get rid of borders, yet you are not an inclusive person, and are not tolerant of opposite points of view. You reside in a very personal border that no one other than those with similar opinions are allowed.
So to say you do not want any borders begins with removal of your own before anyone else.
You live in a very odd world.
I still don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Borders are created to define areas of taxation.
Why do we need borders?
Can you ever answer a simple question? I provided an answer to yours. Forget preconceived notions, re-read the question and provide an answer.
I'm sorry that you don't understand the clearest of answers.
BORDERS are created mainly for the purpose of defining areas of taxation.
I would think teabagge(R)s would hate them, but WTF they raised my taxes to a RECORD rate.
The only one here with preconceived notions is YOU!
Your anger and bitterness are eating you from the inside out, and thats a shame. But Again you avoided the original question. If you choose not to answer, that is your perogative, but be honest and just say so. You answered the question about borders, which I disagree with, but you never answered the original question which was posed way back at the beginning of this merry go round.
Last chance: if you were able to choose a new place to live, would you choose a village, town etc. with mostly liberal inhabitants, or mostly conservative inhabitants? I can not make the question more clear than that.
Excuse me?????
I'm bitter??
You LIKE record tax increases that return NO services to the people?
You're to one that's bitter because I finally told you WTF borders are good for and you know you can't deny the truth, so you accuse me of some vague made up bullshit?
Pull your head out of the FLAKESnews sand you've stuck it in...
Again avoided the question, and now brought up taxes, flakes news, etc. What is so difficult about the question asked you? Am curious. you had a chance to be honest and at least say I prefer not to answer the question and I would be fine with that.
You made the original statement about borders. I responded by asking where you would prefer to live, but you avoided answering and am puzzled why not. I have attempted to have a conversation about borders, their existence and why they get created naturally and by force. Then I gave you an explanation. It was you that chose some inconceivable position that I was asking about where you live now, and then went off into other areas about Detroit mayors, republican governors, red state, teabaggers, north south cities and semi democrats. And then you state that I have pre-conceived notions?
Just to answer your reason for borders and taxes. No, there were borders long before there was taxation. Even native Americans had borders (hunting grounds). Borders do not have to be defined exactly on a map to be actual borders.
BTW, I have no bitterness, am not looking for services, am not soley a "flakesnews" or msnbc person (i do read or listen to multiple views from multiple sources here and abroad), do not like paying taxes to a government that spends irresponsibly.
Running away? How about an answer to the question posed to you?
I'm more interested in how Bush forced him to do something he didn't do (???), but frankly, that sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic and scares me too much to ask about it.
Shooz has a bitterness about many things and it will keep eating him unless he gets some help. He targets a republicans for his every problem, yet his problems are likely self induced, yet typically only wants to blame others. I did laugh at the passport issue. It would have been fun to listen in on that conversation when he wanted to travel or whatever he was trying to do.
Shooz is a grumpy old man. He attacks others when he disagrees. He is unable to form arguments and use logic to debate properly. It's like he has eternal PMS.
[-] 1 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-91) 41 minutes ago
Are you and shooz lovers or superhero "protectors" of this forum. You always create mob attacks in pair against users you disagree with. Aren't you able to debate like adults? You sit side by side at your retirement home's computer lab right? You guys are hilarious. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Pull your head out of your ass. At some point and time, you and your little group of dirtbags thought it was a phenomenal idea to have multiple IDs and spew a bunch of right wing rhetoric. You get your asses handed to you and then have the audacity to feign innocence and pretend you are somehow victims. You are not.
Grow up.
Hey GF - good call - very truth FULL. But a waste of time pointing it out to the troll/shill. It needs to build a bridge from it's mind to reality.
Sorry, but shooz and DKA rarely hand anyone a reasoned response, much less their asses. They are more like playground bullies than anything else, and their total denial of any facts they don't like makes a great many honest, responsible, fair people walk away from this forum, and this movement.
So, you're back to playing victim again. Only this time it's different.
Very different.
This time you mean it.
Your eyes welling with tears has been noted.
Mental problem? Or just stubborn refusal to admit when he's doing the exact same thing he attacks others for?
Thank you for providing another sane, coherent, reasonable attempt to shine some light on a very dark mind who thinks people like you and I are the ones who live in an "odd world".
If you don't think borders are necessary why do you live in a house with defined walls that act as your borders?
You are a fucking hypocrite.
Keeps the wind and rain out. I have cats to keep the mice out.
You're a name calling Bozo. With a capital B.
You still haven't answered the question.
You don't believe in borders why do you have a house with a yard and most probably a fence? You must not believe in private property either. I'd like to see you justify owning that house,computer or car. You're a hypocrite
I don't like fences.
They were here when I got here and my neighbor tore one down without asking and I didn't care. I wouldn't care if he tore the rest of them down either.
So what the hell are you talking about?
What's my computer got to do with borders?
Why do we need them?
If you don't know why borders are necessary for a country to be secure and sovereign then you are as fucking stupid as I thought you were. Go back to crayons and silly putty.
If you get along with your neighbor splendidly that's one thing. Question is, would you feel the same way about that fence if your neighbor was a right wing Republican whose dog chased your cats and who held patriotic barbeques and Tea Party meetings that flowed onto your property regularly? Or was a member of the KKK? Or a nudist? Or anything else you didn't personally agree with or support?
That could lead to some very good things. Or some very bad things.
Communities vs One World Gov.
I suppose, but either of those could be looked at the same way, individually, and as usual, it doesn't answer the question.
I wasn't aware you were actually asking a question, thought it was more rhetorical.
If the people are up for self governance, we don't need any. No one world gov, just communities. That would be incredible.
That being said, with the passive nature in regards to the current global takeover of the elites, I think at this point it could lead to more repression. There's quite a few nations who aren't looking forward to our "expanding freedom" initiative.
I guess it depends on who decides that borders need to go- The West or The People. Kind of like everything else.
It's my belief that nationalism will be the last thing to go.
the 1948 UN agreement was the last in a series of steps that went back to the mid 19th century and the diaspora. As for the borders for the palestinian territories, they were established after a series of confiicts that Israel won. So far, Oslo 1993 has been a great big flop; not really an incentive for Israel to moderate its policies again.