More On Conspiracy

tokeless wrote:Ok gentlemen. Enjoy your freedoms, especially you Richard. You live to travel and imagine if for no reason you were told you now can't. Anyway, enjoy.

That is not an answer to the question tokeless. How would you solve the issue?

Certainly, I would hate to find myself in a situation where I was trapped, unable to escape the room. It would be a hard situation and difficult to adapt.

But this wouldn't change the reality, right?

It wouldn't change the fact that at one point the room was open, and that I was free to move around, and then a blockade began. Why the blockade? How did I become trapped in the room? It was not an arbitrary decision.

It is easy to blame those responsible for putting in place the blockade. It is easy to ignore the reasons why the blockade was put in place. It is hard to acknowledge that the people with power have shown restraint. It is hard to give credit for not committing genocide, for not destroying a people that they most certainly could.

War isn't easy. And when it becomes an intergenerational conflict that transcends borders, there is not always a win/win solution. It sucks.

The bottom line, I think it is a complex situation that cannot be boiled down to Goliath bad, David good.

Richard, you see no issue here and accept it sucks. I doubt it would suck the other way round. As Rumsfeld said "sh** hapoens". To stick with your scenario.... was I invited to the mansion or did I just decide I'm staying there and WILL take over regardless of the situation? Anyway, it doesn't matter. We all see the world through different windows but it's the same world eh?

Slightly off topic but just read Russia is set to make vaccines obligatory.
And to add that if it happens here I think my resistance would take a far less pacifist approach.

tokeless wrote:Richard, you see no issue here and accept it sucks.

Of course I see an issue here. I see multiple issues. The situation sucks big time. But the degree of "sucktivity" doesn't create the solution.

To stick with your scenario.... was I invited to the mansion or did I just decide I'm staying there and WILL take over regardless of the situation?

Invited? Well, your family was sharing space with another family that lived in a big mansion down the street. The head of the other family convinced his sons and daughters that your family didn't need to exist. About 2/3rds of your family was slaughtered. You were helpless.

Luckily, some neighbors heard about the slaughter, among other things, and banded together to help save what was left of your family.

After the neighbors stop your family from being slaughtered, what happens? The neighbors decide you should go live in another mansion. The neighbors know you have a relative that lives in a mansion a few blocks down the street. So, they help you move.

Your family, what is left of it, arrives at this new mansion. While your one relative is happy to see you, the rest of the people living in the mansion are not happy. It is another family, and your family is not welcome. Not only does this family not welcome you into the mansion, but some of the neighbors are not very warm to this idea either. It doesn't matter to them that your family was slaughtered. They don't want you here.

So tokeless, what do you do?

If I'm head of the family that has just been slaughtered, do I once again put my family in the position of being the submissive sheep? Do I allow my family to fall under the governance of the family that already resides in the mansion? They are already not happy with us. They didn't agree with the neighbors that helped your family relocate. They are not happy that they had to give up some rooms in their mansion.

I know what I do. I thank the neighbors that saved my family and that helped what was left of my family to relocate. And I vow to never again be in a position where another family might slaughter 2/3rds of my family. So, I take the assistance of my neighbors that provide me with the ability to protect my family.

I'm not naive. I am well aware of the hatred towards my family that persists. I know the other family in this new mansion is not happy about giving up rooms and losing the power they had. I'm also well aware that the neighbors that helped save my family are not giving me all of this help out of pure kindness. But, having just watched 2/3rds of my family slaughtered, what better option is there?

And this takes us to our back room, that up until a few years ago was free for people to move back and forth. Now it is blockaded. How did it happen? It isn't because I'm some cruel dictator, actively trying to slaughter another family. In fact, that family has been growing. They have had several children. Many of them live in various rooms throughout the mansion. So why the blockade? Why did I feel it was necessary to seal up the doors to that one room?

As stated previously, I think this is a lose/lose situation.

There are a lot of good people in the neighborhood. Everyone deserves to live in a safe neighborhood with the ability to travel and live wherever they like. But, when people are actively trying to wipe out entire families, this isn't possible.

But, when people are actively trying to wipe out entire families, this isn't possible.

I think you'll find the higher number killed, are the ones who lived in the mansions before their visitors arrived. So, who's at risk from whom?

tokeless wrote: I think you'll find the higher number killed, are the ones who lived in the mansions before their visitors arrived. So, who's at risk from whom?

Already 2/3rd's of your family was slaughtered. Neighbors helped you move to a mansion where one of your relatives lived. And they gave you a few guns. The other family only has knives.

Who is at risk and which family now has higher numbers killed? Is that the metrics of justice?

Your family has guns. You could wipe out the other family, but you don't' The other family can't wipe out your family. But, they certainly can kill, and do regularly use their knives to kill members of your family. There is no threat your family will be wiped out, but how do you respond tokeless? You have the guns. They don't.

Do you make sure it is a one for one kill ratio tokeless? Is that what you do?

I know what I do. I try the best I can to offer peace. I offer again and again different proposals to stop my family members from getting knifed. But the other family rejects my offers. There are neighbors that support this other family. They give them more knives.

And there is a group that takes power in the back room, bringing swords with them, and threatening more of my family. So I blockade the door on one side and a neighbor blockades the door on the other side.

I use my gun (1) to defend against knife attacks and (2) preempt knife attacks. In other words, I'm not just going to sit there and wait for them to stab my family members again and again and again. Would you?

This is not an easy situation. It sucks all around. There are people that want to kill your family tokeless. Not just the other family in the mansion, but neighbors want your family eradicated from the earth.

Do you make sure it is a one for one kill ratio tokeless? Is that what you do?

No. If I had someone trying to kill me, I would ask why. What have I done, either implicitly or explicitly. If I found out it was because of vengeance, I would again ask what did I do? I didn't kill anyone but I may be aware of who did and that I am paying their price. This would make me confront those people and tell them I am at risk because of your actions. When they tell me it's to protect me, I demand they stop because it isn't working. Israel has to either accept a two state, ideally one state solution or continue to slowly strangle their enemy so they can have their alleged land to themselves, pure and ideal.... very similar to nazi ideology.
If it is clear that the disputed territory has always belonged to Jews, then show evidence, not bibles. I can't understand why the international community wouldn't support it, because it would be based on facts, not opinions. Why hasn't that happened Richard? Why does the international community criticize the actions of the innocent?



There are people that want to kill your family tokeless. Not just the other family in the mansion, but neighbors want your family eradicated from the earth.

That remark has been reworked and rehashed to mean what they want it to. It refers to Israel not being on the map/earth, because it is not theirs, according to their beliefs. The solution is to create a single state that is shared and allows for equality of existence.... what is wrong in that? Only one side can make that happen because they have the power and ability to.... the other then has to play their part and let's face it, what have they to lose? Rocks and destroyed homes, hunger and no hope?

tokeless wrote: The solution is to create a single state that is shared and allows for equality of existence.... what is wrong in that?

Nothing is wrong with that. How are you going to make that happen when the other family, as well as several nearby neighbors, are dead set on making sure that never takes place? They have vowed to kill off your family tokeless. And the vow to kill off your family is not because of inequality of existence.

In other words, if you move to create a single state that offers equality of existence for both families this will not revoke the vow. According to prominent members of the other family as well as several nearby neighbors, your family does not deserve to live, period, end of story.

Only one side can make that happen because they have the power and ability to....

Not true. It takes two sides to come to agreement. You have sat down with the other family and nearby neighbors repeatedly and drafted agreements to live peacefully together. And again, and again, and again, these agreements are violated. Why? Because there is no interest in a single, unified mansion with your family sharing power. There is no interest in your family being part of this equality of existence...of any existence as a matter of fact.

Rocks and destroyed homes, hunger and no hope?

Why? This takes us back to the blockaded room. It was blockaded, not just by your family, but a nearby neighbor as well. Why do you think this happened. You have never addressed this.

Why? This takes us back to the blockaded room. It was blockaded, not just by your family, but a nearby neighbor as well. Why do you think this happened. You have never addressed this.

What blockade Richard? Are you referring to the resistance to the oppression, youths throwing stones or Hamas? Is this a metaphoric blockade? When you feel you have nothing to lose and the 'impartial referee' links arms with your enemy, ignores the violations, vetoes voting against you.... where do you go for justice? The west created jihad Richard because we invaded them under the guise of setting them free and securing their assets. You tell me what the solution is..

tokeless wrote: What blockade Richard? Is this a metaphoric blockade?

It is not a metaphor. A blockade started in 2007.

I have been trying to respect the forum rule against discussing politics. This is one reason I appreciated your prison analogy. But, in my opinion a better analogy is the neighborhood, with mansions and multiple families living in each mansion.

There is a reason a joint blockade was established. Up until 2007, there was freedom to move back and forth. But imagine, you are trying to protect your family when a group that has vowed to eliminate your family takes control of the back room. And this group is supported by multiple neighbors that are nearby.

You tell me what the solution is..

I protect my family. Wouldn't you?

The real question is how do you best protect them? How do you protect what remains of your family, when the backroom is occupied by those vowed to kill you and when your neighbors have vowed to kill you? This is what makes any solution complex and multi-faceted.

Putting fires out with petrol never works. The more Israel squeezes the more angry neighbours they will create. Also, the analogy doesn't work when you've moved your angry neighbours out of the mansions and in to a small corner at the end of the garden.... then you built a wall to keep them in, and you get to decide when they leave and who can come and go. That's why the prison one fits better imo.

tokeless wrote: That's why the prison one fits better imo.

My main disagreement with that analogy is that in a prison the criminals have no options. The criminals have no power to leave.

While true the blockade restricts movement, it is obvious that the leadership inside the walls have the option to leave anytime they wish. And if they left, the blockade would no longer be necessary.

The blockade was put in place due to a group of people (that hate your family), after they violently seized power from another group (that hate your family). So you have a civil war. You have in-group fighting in a room, that is inside the mansion.

In a prison, you don't have an outside group come inside and take over. And the guards don't have the option to allow the winning group to leave. They are prisoners. That is not the case here. The blockade was put in place, because the group that won installed themselves as leaders of the room and have vowed to kill your entire family. You can tell them, "Leave" and they will laugh and tell you, "No way, we are here to stay, and eventually we will gain power and wipe you off the face of the earth."

It isn't a prison situation.

Ok Richard. Just going to have to disagree I'm afraid.

Abraham was Sumerian. This was the most ancient culture.

"Abram (Abraham later on) came from the land of Sumer (Shinar in the Bible), from the capital city known as Ur (Ur Kasdim in the Bible, Gen 11:31). His father and grandfather were long lived Sumerians that lived in the capital city of Ur (around 2,025 to 2,075 BCE). Abraham’s parents worshipped the gods of Sumer and he grew up with that culture. It says in Joshua 24:2, "Your forefathers, Terah the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, always dwelt beyond the (Euphrates) river and they served gods (Elohim) of others."

This also means that Abram would have heard the Sumerian mythology repeated every year during festivals, if he attended with his father & grandfather, until he left the land and went to Haran.

The Israelites left Egypt around (1,250 - 1,350 BCE) depends on who you think was the pharaoh at the time and the dating of them.

Invasion of the Sea Peoples the Phoenicians (about 1,200 - 1,250 BCE). Old Hebrew or Temple Script borrowed Phoenician letters as shown in "The Atlas of Languages, The Origin and Development of Languages Throughout the World." The names of the letters are Phoenician names. A quote from the books says, "Following the sixth-century Babylonian exile of the Jews, the Old Hebrew script gradually gave way to Aramaic. The old characters, are, however, still used as a liturgical script by the Samaritans. Modern Hebrew square characters have their origin in the Aramaic script."

The time of Kind David and Solomon (about 931 - 1,000 BCE)

During the reign of King Josiah of Judah, (around 609 - 641 BCE) all the torah (Bible) scrolls were lost in Israel until the high priest discovered one. After King Josiah, a religious man heard the words, apparently for the first time; he ordered all the temples of false gods destroyed and the Passover to be observed. "



It says, "this is the first time the Passover was observed since the days of the Judges and all the days of the kings of Israel and Judah" (that is between 200 - 300 years). Now this is a time when there is a holy temple in Jerusalem and there is worship and sacrifices going on there.

The problem with using the bible or any other religious scriptures is the accuracy of events as each will have their own versions. The fact Israel sees itself as God's chosen sort of fits with their beliefs and justifications that they must be right, because it says it in the bible or their scriptures.