NOT about Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[inked]

Radagast the Brown,

I understood the reference to "establish" the Temple in the Davidic sense to mean he had the materials gathered and the plans "established". As I recall the story from memory, King David greatly desired to build the Temple but was not allowed to do so "because thou art a bloody man" and G-d would not allow it.

Am I misunderstanding? or do you mean that since Solomon built and consecrated it he established it?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by inked

Radagast the Brown,

I understood the reference to "establish" the Temple in the Davidic sense to mean he had the materials gathered and the plans "established". As I recall the story from memory, King David greatly desired to build the Temple but was not allowed to do so "because thou art a bloody man" and G-d would not allow it.

Am I misunderstanding? or do you mean that since Solomon built and consecrated it he established it?

I do know David wanted to build the Temple, yes. He also gathered materials... but Solomon (errr, I feel so uncomfortable writing Solomon) (It should be Shlomo! It's annoying how the translators twist the names) did add much more... although I do understand now what he meant by established (as in idea and plans?).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Millane

Now what we did do to the aboriginals and ill ask if it was the same in America, was inroduce alcohol which ****ed them over in a huge way, and so much worse than introducing disease.

It was illegal in NJ to sell alcohol to Indians because they could not handle alcohol. They do not have the tolerance for it even today - this is due to evolution and the fact that alcohol had been a part of western society for thousands of years. it was the same with the diseases.


NOTE - I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand.

Brownjenkins - I don't only look at things that support my POV of - contrary to your opinion. I look at that facts of the world as they exist and as they existed. You however seem to view the world as this utopian society where if everyone just got along - things would be perfect. Do you think it would have made sense for us to let Iran - with the help of the Soviet Union - defeat Iraq and take over the Middle East? That was a fact of the times - whether you like it or not.

And I know about the livbing conditions of the Palestinians - isn't it amazing though the BILLIONS that Arafat had tucked away in bank accounts and investments? Hell there was a big thing because it waas discovered two weeks ago - that he owned severl bowling alleys in NYC. What was ironic about that one was that the one advertised to Jews and encouraged them to have Bar and Bat Mitzvahs there. The manager said he had no idea because the ownership was done through a fund. If he had all these Billions, like Bin Ladin has - then why the hell don't they spent it on their "people"? WHy? Becuase they don't want peace - they don't care about peace, they just want to continue the killing and continue the palstinian suffering so they have an excuse to continue it.

[Hemel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It was illegal in NJ to sell alcohol to Indians because they could not handle alcohol. They do not have the tolerance for it even today - this is due to evolution and the fact that alcohol had been a part of western society for thousands of years. it was the same with the diseases.

NOTE - I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand.

The reason why this has to do with the topic at hand is because you suggested that USA land was purchased from the indigenous population - which concept I questioned - and also a lot of them died because there were diseases they were not immune to. Thank you, inked, btw - yes, I'd heard of the smallpox blankets ... I was uncertain though because there is some controversy over whether that really was intended to have happened, but from the small bit I gather it seems that ultimately it was deliberate (I had NO idea about the syphlis though ) Such things suggest that IR has a perspective that shouldn't be simply dismissed

[inked]

Hemel, IT was deliberate. I'll see if I can track a quotation for your interest.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Brownjenkins - I don't only look at things that support my POV of - contrary to your opinion. I look at that facts of the world as they exist and as they existed. You however seem to view the world as this utopian society where if everyone just got along - things would be perfect. Do you think it would have made sense for us to let Iran - with the help of the Soviet Union - defeat Iraq and take over the Middle East? That was a fact of the times - whether you like it or not.

maybe it would have been best to have let things go that way... is the soviet union that big of a threat today? and was it worth the problems we brought about in iraq?

we made many mistakes during the cold war compromising our better judgement due to fear of communism... a fear which proved to be overblown in retrospect... i'm not saying the bad choices we made were not for what we believed to be good reasons... but that does not make them good reasons

is it utopian to actually insist that if the united states is going to claim that they are for spreading democracy around the world that they actually institute policies that support this, as opposed to ones that are radically opposed to it?

my POV is not utopian at all... i realize that the US acts the way every other country in the world does... we do what we perceive to be in our own self interest... i'd like to see us 1) admit this, and then 2) try to act more in our long-term self interest, and less in the reactionary short-term

and most of all to realize that the true long-term is about the world, not just the US

And I know about the livbing conditions of the Palestinians - isn't it amazing though the BILLIONS that Arafat had tucked away in bank accounts and investments? Hell there was a big thing because it waas discovered two weeks ago - that he owned severl bowling alleys in NYC. What was ironic about that one was that the one advertised to Jews and encouraged them to have Bar and Bat Mitzvahs there. The manager said he had no idea because the ownership was done through a fund. If he had all these Billions, like Bin Ladin has - then why the hell don't they spent it on their "people"? WHy? Becuase they don't want peace - they don't care about peace, they just want to continue the killing and continue the palstinian suffering so they have an excuse to continue it.

you are doing the same thing many people do and projecting the problems of the leadership onto the people... do we define palestinian's by their leaders? i certainly hope not... i don't want to be defined by mine

there are many ways to help the people directly if we wanted to... and you know that as well as i do

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

maybe it would have been best to have let things go that way... is the soviet union that big of a threat today? and was it worth the problems we brought about in iraq?

we made many mistakes during the cold war compromising our better judgement due to fear of communism... a fear which proved to be overblown in retrospect... i'm not saying the bad choices we made were not for what we believed to be good reasons... but that does not make them good reasons

Do you look at things in linerior fashion or what? Do you really honestly think that the soviet union would have died out if they controlled Middle Eastern oil? That is the most ridiculous thihg I have hearf from you. I can't believe you actually think you could change history and still have everything work out the same exact way it has. I guess we should have just let the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba too right? You don't think they were much fo a threat - just misundersood, so I suppose that we coudl have let them do that with no fear and that Kennedy just got the country all shook up for nothing. Tell that to the eastern block countries who were kept behind locked gates with no way to get to the ouside world. Do you honestly think that given the chance, that after taking control of eastern europe, that the Soviet Union would not have taken over other parts of the world if the US did not intervene?

is it utopian to actually insist that if the united states is going to claim that they are for spreading democracy around the world that they actually institute policies that support this, as opposed to ones that are radically opposed to it?

The main goal of the United States during the cold war was the containment of Communism - not just the spread of democracy.

my POV is not utopian at all... i realize that the US acts the way every other country in the world does... we do what we perceive to be in our own self interest... i'd like to see us 1) admit this, and then 2) try to act more in our long-term self interest, and less in the reactionary short-term

read my posts from 3 years ago - you will see that I say that WE like every other country on this planet - acts in it's own self interest. As for long term and short term interests - those are debateable on what they are. As I said - you can't expect to be able to change history and expect the same outcome.

and most of all to realize that the true long-term is about the world, not just the US

Hmmm - sorry - I care about my house first. So tell me in a burning building your in a hallway - in one room is your child, in the other a stranger. Who would you save first, your child or the stranger you don't know?

you are doing the same thing many people do and projecting the problems of the leadership onto the people... do we define palestinian's by their leaders? i certainly hope not... i don't want to be defined by mine

When they follow the leader then it is the same problem.

there are many ways to help the people directly if we wanted to... and you know that as well as i do

There aren't ways if the government won't let you help them. The oil for food program is a great example of that. Meant to help the people, great concept - too bad it didn't work. But hey - a lot of europeans made a ton of money and Saddam Hussein was happy.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

....Perhaps Irish eyes are indeed smiling. ....

(1/2) Irish eyes are indeed smiling

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Do you look at things in linerior fashion or what? Do you really honestly think that the soviet union would have died out if they controlled Middle Eastern oil? That is the most ridiculous thihg I have hearf from you. I can't believe you actually think you could change history and still have everything work out the same exact way it has. I guess we should have just let the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba too right? You don't think they were much fo a threat - just misundersood, so I suppose that we coudl have let them do that with no fear and that Kennedy just got the country all shook up for nothing. Tell that to the eastern block countries who were kept behind locked gates with no way to get to the ouside world. Do you honestly think that given the chance, that after taking control of eastern europe, that the Soviet Union would not have taken over other parts of the world if the US did not intervene?

i think the fall of the ussr was inevitable... and even an iranian victory over iraq with soviet help would not have given them absolute control over iranian and/or iraqi oil... it isn't that simple... on the rest, per usual you putting words in my mouth i never said

The main goal of the United States during the cold war was the containment of Communism - not just the spread of democracy.

but the question is, was it worth it to go so far as to encourage non-democratic governments, some extremely so, due to the "communist fear"... which turned out to be largely unfounded?

read my posts from 3 years ago - you will see that I say that WE like every other country on this planet - acts in it's own self interest. As for long term and short term interests - those are debateable on what they are. As I said - you can't expect to be able to change history and expect the same outcome.

i only expect us to learn from history... i've seen very little attention paid at all to long-term interests, period

Hmmm - sorry - I care about my house first. So tell me in a burning building your in a hallway - in one room is your child, in the other a stranger. Who would you save first, your child or the stranger you don't know?

everyone cares about their house first... the question is, do you care about the other person's house at all? maybe the stranger started the fire because he could not stand the arrogant attitude anymore... or maybe it will be the stranger who has to make a choice about saving you further down the road

When they follow the leader then it is the same problem.

people follow the best choice they have... we encourage a situation where there is little in the way of choices for them

There aren't ways if the government won't let you help them. The oil for food program is a great example of that. Meant to help the people, great concept - too bad it didn't work. But hey - a lot of europeans made a ton of money and Saddam Hussein was happy.

and americans made money too... newsflash: every government/business has corruption... some more than others... if you decided to cease every aid program that ever had someone shave some profit off of it, there would not be any... irregardless of this, oil for food did help many people... as do other programs... and if there are profiteering issues, you institute policies to remove them... you don't just throw the whole idea out the window

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Hemel

I know very little about native cultures, but I'd suggest that if it was the case that the concepts of ownership of land, monetary exchange, contracts, the relevant legal system, etc were alien to these people then it's quite likely that this purchasing may have been inequitable and possibly not even particularly meaningful to one participating side.

One fact I can contribute here is that, under colonial law, indigenous folk were considered "minors" and therefore incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. This meant that settlers could (and did) make agreements with them, then break them and have the full force of colonial law behind them.

I know this from study of settlement in Australia, but I believe it also applied in North America (we Brits only settled Australia because we couldn't transport our criminals to America any more)

Discussion of colonialism is very relevant, IMO, to this thread, since the vast majority of Muslim migration into Europe has been as a result of our colonisation of their countries.

I saw a TV programme recently which commented on how, before the British colonised India, it was one of the richest societies in the world. When they left in 1948 it was effectively wrecked, with vast poverty, hunger and civil war.

my POV is not utopian at all... i realize that the US acts the way every other country in the world does... we do what we perceive to be in our own self interest... i'd like to see us 1) admit this, and then 2) try to act more in our long-term self interest, and less in the reactionary short-term

Very well put.

Good luck with your business venture, JD.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

just to chime in,


THAT SARCASM IS MAKIN' ME THIRSTY

I admire the intelect of our american bretheren, after all.

anyone??

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Good luck with your business venture, JD.

Thanks I mailed the papers for incorporation today.

[Nurvingiel]

I like lurking in this thread... but I think I might stop now... *is disturbed*

Pssstttt.... Fenir... this thread isn't for your personal convenience to flame-bait whosoever you choose...

Erm... yes. I like reading JD's, Brownie's, and Gaffer's posts, and hope they aren't put off posting in here. Something makes me doubt that though.