who lost more people? so you think you can be more angry/sad/whatever because people you techincally dont know died and they are techincally on your side?
you cant just count lives like that and the fact that they are on your side doesnt make their life any more important.
more lives lost=/= more chances of hatred and if you can let that opinion take over your mind you start being subjective. any person who lost someone close to them experienced more then you and the fact that you heard something in the news doesnt justify your hatred.
no, hearing about those things doesnt do that to you and when i say that other people who hear about those things dont act this way you cant just say that you heard about it more. dont look for ways to blame the world for your subjective mind. there are many people in both sides who experienced more things then you do and they can actually use logic
If the point of this lecture is that I should stop hating Israeli then it horribly failed in it. As for your thing that I never knew them, well yes I never personally knew them but they are my brothers in religion, I don't care if it is subjective or not. Even if it is subjective, it makes nationalism and patriotism subjective too.
If the point of this lecture is that I should stop hating Israeli then it horribly failed in it. As for your thing that I never knew them, well yes I never personally knew them but they are my brothers in religion, I don't care if it is subjective or not. Even if it is subjective, it makes nationalism and patriotism subjective too.
as long as you can see that your being subjective ill stop saying it. but you cant justify your hatred using the number of lives lost. people here (and im sure on your side too) experience the same and even worse and can keep an objective mind without the illusion of "he believes the same thing i do so he is more important".
so ok, i can see your opinions and thoughts now but dont try to use facts as numbers to justify them because im sure that even if the numbers were different you wouldnt change your mind.
so now that i think about it:
If the point of this lecture is that I should stop hating Israeli then it horribly failed in it.
does that sentence mean that you actually DO judge people by their race/religion/country?
does that sentence mean that you actually DO judge people by their race/religion/country?
He hates the state, and not the people per se. He hates the people who founded it, but not the second generation Israelis. Don't twist his words, he didn't say he hated them because of the nature of where they come from, but if you've been reading, their actions.
does that sentence mean that you actually DO judge people by their race/religion/country?
He hates the state, and not the people per se. He hates the people who founded it, but not the second generation Israelis. Don't twist his words, he didn't say he hated them because of the nature of where they come from, but if you've been reading, their actions.
as long as you can see that your being subjective ill stop saying it. but you cant justify your hatred using the number of lives lost. people here (and im sure on your side too) experience the same and even worse and can keep an objective mind without the illusion of "he believes the same thing i do so he is more important".
so ok, i can see your opinions and thoughts now but dont try to use facts as numbers to justify them because im sure that even if the numbers were different you wouldnt change your mind.
so now that i think about it:
Lives lost are just a measurement of Israel's brutality. When you kill someone's son, father, brother you don't expect that they will send flowers to you. In fact most of them will go for venegance. I'm not saying that killing civilians is good(for either side) but I won't blame a pal on firing a rocket, who had dug out his child from rubble caused by some Israeli attack.
Lives lost are just a measurement of Israel's brutality. When you kill someone's son, father, brother you don't expect that they will send flowers to you. In fact most of them will go for venegance. I'm not saying that killing civilians is good(for either side) but I won't blame a pal on firing a rocket, who had dug out his child from rubble caused by some Israeli attack.
that is not a fact (accept for the flowers part). not sure if this is just a stereotype but i heard that revenge has a big part in islam? anyway i dont know if most but revenge is something that is personal and lately the form of revenge takes place in puting a killer in jail. not many people today kill for revenge and those who do usually (in most places) get punished.
He hates the state, and not the people per se. He hates the people who founded it, but not the second generation Israelis. Don't twist his words, he didn't say he hated them because of the nature of where they come from, but if you've been reading, their actions.
i do think he is the one who should explain what he feels and not you.
he said:[/quote]If the point of this lecture is that I should stop hating Israeli then it horribly failed in it.[quote]
he said "israeli" not "certain israelis" or "second generation israeli". if what he meant is what you said he could simply correct himself. i never twisted his words and if you show that sentence to anyone they will probably think the same thing i thought. he didnt say he means the government or some of the population, he simply said israelis which means any person who lives in israel.
Lives lost are just a measurement of Israel's brutality. When you kill someone's son, father, brother you don't expect that they will send flowers to you.
The only difference between Hamas and Israel is that Israel is effective in hitting its military targets. If Hamas was as successful hitting its targets, then I don't think the Gaza Strip would be habitable any more. My point is that you cannot justify one side being "more brutal" then the other when some (Palestinians) are victims of collateral damage, and others (Israelis) are victims because they are Israelis, and Hamas wants to kill them. If the Palestinians stopped shelling Israel, Israel would have no problem with them.
I would like to take the time now to delegitimize the UN even further...
We all know that many times, the UN has singled out Israel over its policies, wars, and other happenings. However, none of those times has involved the grave loss of life as there is in Syria today. Where are all of the Palestinians, who conveniently scream that the government is repressing them when it is they who are being bombed in retaliation for attacks, however remain silent when Assad can just shell Homs into oblivion without provocation? It is hypocritical how the UN, always willing to take on anything pro-Israel at a moments notice, is conveniently silent when it comes to the massacre of Syrians by their own country. This further proves that the UN has become notoriously anti-Israeli, and that it should not have any leeway on any matter if it cannot pass resolutions against this atrocity.
Be careful not to use Hamas and the Palestinians so interchangeably.
s they who are being bombed in retaliation for attacks, however remain silent when Assad can just shell Homs into oblivion without provocation?
Oh how convenient, everything is the Palestinians fault! Well I'm sorry to let you know, but your American media censors and keeps silent on much of Israeli brutality, which is why you're not exposed to it.
Western media often ''forgets'' to remember the cases of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists brutalizing the Palestinians, such as the Cave of Patriarchs Massacre, the rise of Jewish settler vigilante violence, the desecration of mosques in Israel itself, or constantly forgetting the fact that 1.5 million people live in limbo, destitute, living in subhuman conditions, whose hatred for Israel is only increasing.
It is hypocritical how the UN, always willing to take on anything pro-Israel at a moments notice, is conveniently silent when it comes to the massacre of Syrians by their own country.
I can't believe how amazingly wrong you are. 18 out of the 20 UN security council members voted in favour of the resolution, only to see China and Russia veto it. On that basis, can we really say that the UN as a whole or that just two countries are manipulating the situation? I would incline towards the former, and most people will, unless you're a fanatic hater of the UN just because it condemns rightfully, Israeli settlements.
This further proves that the UN has become notoriously anti-Israeli, and that it should not have any leeway on any matter if it cannot pass resolutions against this atrocity.
So how does not doing anything in Syria prove that it's anti-Israeli? I'm sorry, but I fail to see how you mad such a marvellous jump to conclusions, on two issues that affect two different nations.
I can't believe how amazingly wrong you are. 18 out of the 20 UN security council members voted in favour of the resolution, only to see China and Russia veto it. On that basis, can we really say that the UN as a whole or that just two countries are manipulating the situation? I would incline towards the former, and most people will, unless you're a fanatic hater of the UN just because it condemns rightfully, Israeli settlements.
I'm not an idiot Nicho. I know that it was only China and Russia who vetoed it. However these countries are perfectly happy to scream at the United States when they use their veto to protect Israel from one-sided attacks.
So how does not doing anything in Syria prove that it's anti-Israeli?
Because when was the last time you heard of a statement issued by the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council)? In the meantime, they have been biased against Israel and they do not even mention any rockets or terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas or the PLO.
i do think he is the one who should explain what he feels and not you.
he said:
If the point of this lecture is that I should stop hating Israeli then it horribly failed in it.
I do think that I'm also qualified enough to explain since I have had private convos with him, and have been posting here ever since he came.
This bold I was a typing mistake.
I'm not an idiot Nicho. I know that it was only China and Russia who vetoed it. However these countries are perfectly happy to scream at the United States when they use their veto to protect Israel from one-sided attacks.
This is called politics.
Because when was the last time you heard of a statement issued by the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council)? In the meantime, they have been biased against Israel and they do not even mention any rockets or terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas or the PLO.
Because they know who's fault it is in first place.
I'm not an idiot Nicho. I know that it was only China and Russia who vetoed it. However these countries are perfectly happy to scream at the United States when they use their veto to protect Israel from one-sided attacks.
In that case, why make a hyperbolic statement that the entire UN is hypocritical and evil? Talk about back tracking.
However these countries are perfectly happy to scream at the United States when they use their veto to protect Israel from one-sided attacks.
Aren't the Americans screaming at the Russians and Chinese now? UN biasness goes both ways on different issues, and to purely paint it as more pro-US or pro-Russian/Chinese is tantamount to twisting words into misleading information.
Nor have I called you an idiot, so I would appreciate if you didn't shove words in my mouth.
Because when was the last time you heard of a statement issued by the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council)? In the meantime, they have been biased against Israel and they do not even mention any rockets or terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas or the PLO.
Mainly because the Israel itself is justifiably accused of those crimes. To not condemn them is tantamount to ignoring injustices inflicted on millions of people.
The reason why the UN tends to past more anti-Israeli resolutions is because the nations within the UN are pro-Palestinian, and you cannot fault a country for taking such a stance, without making it a farce.
Put it this way. Most of the world condemns Israel, hence the vast disparity in UN resolutions. They certainly condemn Hamas and Palestinian violence, but in the case of David vs Goliath, they would support David, i.e the PLO.
And I don't see why in the world you need to make a fuss, since the USA will always cast a veto in favour of Israel.
And you still say that the UN is going to come up with concrete resolutions against Israel?
