Oh my, I really want to avoid an unpleasant experience, and I am glad the moderating policy here seems very liberal.  But the above is most certainly a personal attack, and before this, a woman was called a "bitch".   Perhaps we should discuss boundaries and the harm of crossing them, especially within a feminist forum.  

 I have been around people who see nothing wrong with using the word "bitch" and I am glad I no longer have reason to associate with them.  I can not think of an equal word for males, so I perceive the word as a verbal weapon, with no male counterpart.  This is not okay with me.   The people I have known who used this word, were abusive in many ways.  Liberal is a good thing.  So is water a good thing, but we can have too much of both.   Then what is good becomes harmful.  

I want to add, I think freedom of speech is one of the most important things to have and I am really frightened by the turn the US has taken, causing people to loss their jobs because someone doesn't like what they are say.  Saying the Jews should get out of Israel is a political comment that should be protected.  Saying something offensive about Jews, calling the swine of something like that, is an attack that is not acceptable.  The difference is very important. 

 

Very good points. An elderly reporter makes a mild comment that is critical of Israel and is forced to resign the next day.  Interesting the coversation prior to the comment had been edited by the activist group.  It is entirely possible that Helen Thomas had been provoked and then her response illustrated.

 

Helen Thomas aside, giving Israel or anybody else a blank check of support over a forty year period has been our dumbest foreign policy mistake.  (except for invading Iraq)

 

Originally posted by opuslola Oh! Did I mention that her words were certainly "Anti-Semitic!", does that make her, from a Muslim background, a racist? ,

Not all arabs are Muslim. Judging from her name, she is a Lebanese Christian.  Helen Thomas and the Israelis (especially the indigenous sephardic Jews) are of the same racial back ground.

 

Who gets to define "reason", "liberty" and "justice"? What actions are to be taken against those who oppose these concepts as defined by the uhmm... "community"?  Can it be severe action, as they are purportedly putting the planet at risk?

 

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot also foretold the need to enter a new age "justice" or become unworthy of the support of "the volk" or "the people".

 

Originally posted by Carol   I would begin with the total outrage of the British using Jews to secure this region for the UK and in general its imperialistic attitude towards indigenous people.

Good point on the British use of Jewish people.  They were trying to copy the method the French used in Algeria.

 

As far as imperealism goes, more than a few Africans would argue that the British and French colonial systems were better than the indigenous governments which replaced them.

I would love to argue the good and harm of imperialism.  

My specialty is education for liberty and justice.  

But all of this would be off topic for this thread.  Not that the thread is going so well, but if anyone wanted to join a discussion of these subjects, they would not look for them in this thread.   How about starting threads and send me a PM?  

 At first the Arabs had no problem with this, but more and more Jews came and the Arabs realized they were loosing control of the region.  Tensions grew and the British tried to stop the flood of Jewish immigrants, but the Jews would not stop coming.  The British had tried to keep both the Jews and the Arabs disarmed, but the Jews got weapons and there was armed conflict between the British and Jews.  The Arabs asked for a democracy, realizing they were going have to share this land this land with Jews, and democracy was their only chance of not loosing all control.  But they were denied democracy.  

Eventually the Brits pulled out because of armed conflict with the Jews.   It was the end of WWII and they were tired to trying to find a peaceful solution to Jews living in Palestine.  Also the world wanted a place for Jews, and clearly did not care about Palestinians, except for Egypt and Arab countries that have been on the side of Palestinians.  The Jews did not want a democracy shared with Palestinians when Palestinians out numbered them.  They could not have gotten the control of the area that they wanted, until they could out number the Palestinians.  Israel decisions are very much about maintaining a Jewish majority.  Jews get settlements while Palestinians are pushed off the land.  It continues to this day, and I think it is wrong.  

This site give a simple time line history http://www.palestinehistory.com/history/timeline/time1900.htm#tl_1929_1 - http://www.palestinehistory.com/history/timeline/time1900.htm#tl_1929_1

Yes, the intense US interest in Israel was very much about the cold war.  When the Brits pulled out of Israel, it gave the USSR an opening, and they did their best to ally with Israel, believing Israel would be socialist and sided the USSR.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict

These struggles are strategic struggles.  They are essential to military and economic power.  The big imperialistic  players don't care about the little players,( the Egyptians and Arabs by whatever name they want to be called).    This is the problem.  The big players care no more about the Palestinians than they cared about native Americans, and they are basically the same group that devastated the native American cultures.   The big players view indigenous people as ants, or at best as cheap labor. Their only concern is to prevent the indigenous people from becoming a problem to them, and getting the labor necessary to exploit the region.   The point important here is that these are strategically important struggles.   This has been true since these powers struggle for control of the Baghdad Railroad, only back then, Germany was a much bigger player in the game.  

The Soviets were not arming the Jews.  The only Soviet connection to the colonization was that many of the early Jewish settlers were either bonafide socialists or socialist sympathizers.  

Originally posted by Carol  The Brits lead the Arabs to believe they would have control of the region, but they also promised the land for Israel to the Rothchilds and the Zionist dream of a new Israel.

I agree with your summary, but not this point.  I do not think that the British were interested in helping jews per se to immigrate to Palesetine. Instead, they saw the apparently successful French policy in Algeria (millions of poorer French, Italians, Spanish etc are encouraged to settle in Algeria. Algeria gets europeanized and becomes a part of France). 

 

Most Europeans were not willing to settle in Palestine, but some Jews were.  The British were looking for European settlers to Eurpeanize the area so it was a happy arrangement for both. 

At first the British were not interested in getting involved with the Arab conflict with the Turks, but as the second world war developed, they became interested in using the Arabs to tie up Turkish troops.

The Arabs agreed to co operate with the British,  on the condition the Arab countries were allowed to be independent.  Britain agreed to this, except for Palestine.  It could not agree on Palestine's independence, because of another commitment.  

At this time, it just so happens a that Rothchild controls the British bank.  Britain had to barrow the money to supply the Arabs.  

Tracing all this stuff down, is very productive because it gives us a much better understanding of what is happening today.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War - The Soviets have been arming Arabs.  Which in turn increases US interest in protecting Israel.      http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=12828 - http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=12828

I am quite sure, this interest in the region is strategic.  As has been interest in Baghdad since before the first world war.  All the major powers want to be the one's in control of the region, and they don't really care how they get control.   

 

Stalin supported the early zionists because many were socialists and he saw the movement as a means to export socialism.  Stalin, however, did not arm Jewish zionists.  The Soviet Union did not gain the ability to support armed socialist movements until after WWII.  By then, the Israelis had all the weapons they needed from Jewish or other western donors.

 

Once Israeli orientated itself to the west, the Soviets began to support and arm the quasi socialist states of Egypt and Syria. 

Good thanks you straightened the out.  The Soviet position regarding Jews was mixed.  At times they were persecuted.  The Soviet interest in Israel was political, a desire to spread communism.  Making it more important to the US, so the US has given Israel huge amounts of foreign aid, more than any other country in the neighborhood.   We have escalated the likelihood of war, and the destruction of war, by sharing military technology with Israel.  

I used to have book written by a Jew, about smuggling arms out of the US after the second world war and before 1948.  

Here is information about the cold war period.  The Soviets took different sides depending on how they saw their best chances of having influence in the area.   To me they do not look like the bad guys, US media has made them out to be.  

I think we need to get pass our nationalistic media hype and question why our nations are involved with other nations.   Who are the winners and who are the losers.  I don't think it right that Palestinians loose control of the land.  For sure Israel needs to update the Zionist dream to comply with the reality of environmental limits, and that the people in this region are not Europeans.   The Arabs fought to throw off the control of the Turks, believing the region would be under their control.

What does this look like to tolerant and respectful people?  

 

Justice and liberty are really important for everyone.  Liberty and justice are defined by our family values, and there is not a big difference in family values.  Educating children how to behave in the right way is very important to maintaining liberty and justice in the world!

 

As our savior said: “And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.’” (Mark 9:34-37)

 

I love you Carol!  What a fantastic idea!  Education for liberty and justice are the most important things in the world. 

 

Education used to be taught by the family, which is why people in the past had a much better grasp of family values.  Many of the problems in todays society are from society turning away from family values.

 

So many young people today lack basic respect.  I think this is aweful.  I wish I could sit each one down and teach them properly, but I can't be everywhere at once.  Why do they take down historic documents like the ten commandments  from historic buildings?  Society does not want us to honor our mothers and fathers anymore.  What is so evil about honoring our mothers and fathers?

 

Society wants to remove religion from society all the way, but it is religion that is the answer, it is not the problem.

 

Originally posted by Airhead   As our savior said: “And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.’” (Mark 9:34-37)

If he ever existed. Most "Christians", especially in the United States, either have no idea what Jesus preached, or, if they do, they dont practice it.

Originally posted by Airhead I love you Carol!  What a fantastic idea!  Education for liberty and justice are the most important things in the world.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Airhead Education used to be taught by the family, which is why people in the past had a much better grasp of family values.

This is not true, and a generalization.

Originally posted by Airhead  Many of the problems in todays society are from society turning away from family values.

Again, not true. Family values are relative, they are not universal. Different families have different values, therefore, you cannot make such a claim. The problem is with the society as a whole.

 

Secular society is teaching our children that everything is alright, even being evil.  Secular society is making our children less intelligent through the public school system that instructs teachers to be impersonal robots and just treat children like numbers. 

I am starting a thread  to discuss education for liberty and justice, because I think it is a good idea to keep threads on topic and also to label the topics so they are easy to find.  I am very pleased, people here want to discuss the subject.

If you want to discuss Education for Liberty and Justice please go to that thread.  This is the route to the thread  http://www.allempires.com/forum/default.asp - Forum Home  >  http://www.allempires.com/forum/default.asp?C=1 - Scholarly Pursuits  >  http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=18 - Intellectual discussions  >  http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=44 - Philosophy and Theology  .

Is this the last post to this thread?  

I think it is very important that we practice 3 rules.

1.  We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

2.  We act with dignity and protect the dignity of others.

3.  We act with integrity.

When we violate these rules, we risk offending someone and ruining a thread.  People of quality who have something worth saying, tend to pull away from from what is rude and crude and socially unacceptable, and the thread is then hurt by loosing them.  Others, will return the insult and then the thread is taken totally off topic and that ruins the thread too.  

When we follow the rules we are being honorable, and think how the world would be if we all honored one another.   Might this lead to everyone feeling good about themselves and others?

We might regain feelings of trust and honor.  

Might we know that Lebanon has been Christian, and Muslims do know of Jesus.  The more educated we become, the more likely it is we will maintain a high standard of good manners and diplomacy.   Hopefully, people from around the world will feel welcomed here, and we will have an opportunity to learn from all of them.   Let us avoid throwing stones, and offending others.