Mexican Terrorists: a Bad Analogy.

[sealadaigh]

a simplistic analogy is a poor analogy when dealing with complex issues.

besides, the cisco kid, he was a friend of mine. hasta la victoria siempre.

imagine if the lenape tribe, which inhabited the delaware and lehigh valley to include the area where new york city and long island is, were pushed westward beginning in the mid 1600s until they finally ended up in the dakotas. living there or three hundred years, they intermarried extensively, and yet still managed to maintain a very small remnant of their tribal identity.

then, about two hundred and fifty years later, in the early 1900s, they decide they want to return home, and a combined body of european and asian powers decide that a new country, lenapia, would be formed in their former hunting grounds of NYC and the surrounding area.

by the mid 1900s, the lenape shove the new yorkers out to long island and just take over completely the whole NYC region, leaving the new yorkers with no rights, living in abject poverty and under the thumb of and rule of the lenapes. to maintain that hegemony, the lenapes receive modern weaponry from china, who also subsidize them with an incredible financial aid package. meanwhile, many of the native new yorkers have been relegated to refugee camps.

the new yorkers want to avoid being pushed out of long island so resistance movements form and fight back with whatever is at their disposal.

now whose side do you think you are on, because the lenape people still exist actually, and they have more of a claim to their ancient lands than do european jews have to israel.

 

[georgephillip]

Imagine if the Lenape had as many mushroom cloud makers as the Hebrews?

I suspect Jillian's "terrorist group of Mexicans" will find themselves on the receiving end of hundreds of US Hellfire missiles once this country can no longer borrow enough money to kill thousands of innocent Muslims in Pakistan and Yemen.

Should that come to pass, things will really heat up in my neighborhood.

 

[sealadaigh]

thanks george. i guess this threaad runs parallel to jillians but showedd up late for that one. of course my hindsight is 20/20...i probably should have chosen a diferent title. the reason i missed the "if a terrorist group of mexicans" is because i thought it was about a drug cartel.

i am tired of the rants and raves of the israel/palestine board. i think most of the pro-peace/pro-palestinian posters are also, and we know that the rants and raves pretty much come from the israeli side of things because they really don't have a leg to stand on.

anyway, this is a refuge for them to discuss the current crisis and avoid some of the more outrageous hate and propaganda sites over there.

anyway, let's see what happens, but i have zero intention of going back. it is ridiculous. i mean, they scream we are running away but...hardly. iy was a sick and toxic environment over there.

the thing is,,,israel will never beat HAMAS and HAMAS will never go away. that is one reality, and israel makes the same mistake over and over and over again and has, actually, no intent on seeking a just peace.

 

[sealadaigh]

hey george, thanks for posting.

my analogy was unweildy to say the leaast, but i didn't want to begin arguing with one foot in the grave following an analogy of mexican rocket fire so i started here.

anyway, indofred has started a thread that introduces the issue better than i have, so i think i will ust redirect you, and anyone else who shows up, here...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...hould-change-sides-and-support-palestine.html

 

[editec]

a simplistic analogy is a poor analogy when dealing with complex issues.

besides, the cisco kid, he was a friend of mine. hasta la victoria siempre.

imagine if the lenape tribe, which inhabited the delaware and lehigh valley to include the area where new york city and long island is, were pushed westward beginning in the mid 1600s until they finally ended up in the dakotas. living there or three hundred years, they intermarried extensively, and yet still managed to maintain a very small remnant of their tribal identity.

then, about two hundred and fifty years later, in the early 1900s, they decide they want to return home, and a combined body of european and asian powers decide that a new country, lenapia, would be formed in their former hunting grounds of NYC and the surrounding area.

by the mid 1900s, the lenape shove the new yorkers out to long island and just take over completely the whole NYC region, leaving the new yorkers with no rights, living in abject poverty and under the thumb of and rule of the lenapes. to maintain that hegemony, the lenapes receive modern weaponry from china, who also subsidize them with an incredible financial aid package. meanwhile, many of the native new yorkers have been relegated to refugee camps.

the new yorkers want to avoid being pushed out of long island so resistance movements form and fight back with whatever is at their disposal.

now whose side do you think you are on, because the lenape people still exist actually, and they have more of a claim to their ancient lands than do european jews have to israel.

More claim?

CLAIM?!

What does "claim" have to do with it?

The question is answered by the following:

Who has the superior force to impose their will on the other?​

Geopolitics does not have a moral component.

Nation states are amoral.

The concept of right and wrong has nothing to do with settling disputes between nations or peoples.

You haven't yet noticed that?

 

[idb]

a simplistic analogy is a poor analogy when dealing with complex issues.

besides, the cisco kid, he was a friend of mine. hasta la victoria siempre.

imagine if the lenape tribe, which inhabited the delaware and lehigh valley to include the area where new york city and long island is, were pushed westward beginning in the mid 1600s until they finally ended up in the dakotas. living there or three hundred years, they intermarried extensively, and yet still managed to maintain a very small remnant of their tribal identity.

then, about two hundred and fifty years later, in the early 1900s, they decide they want to return home, and a combined body of european and asian powers decide that a new country, lenapia, would be formed in their former hunting grounds of NYC and the surrounding area.

by the mid 1900s, the lenape shove the new yorkers out to long island and just take over completely the whole NYC region, leaving the new yorkers with no rights, living in abject poverty and under the thumb of and rule of the lenapes. to maintain that hegemony, the lenapes receive modern weaponry from china, who also subsidize them with an incredible financial aid package. meanwhile, many of the native new yorkers have been relegated to refugee camps.

the new yorkers want to avoid being pushed out of long island so resistance movements form and fight back with whatever is at their disposal.

now whose side do you think you are on, because the lenape people still exist actually, and they have more of a claim to their ancient lands than do european jews have to israel.

More claim?

CLAIM?!

What does "claim" have to do with it?

The question is answered by the following:

Who has the superior force to impose their will on the other?​

Geopolitics does not have a moral component.

Nation states are amoral.

The concept of right and wrong has nothing to do with settling disputes between nations or peoples.

You haven't yet noticed that?

That's what it comes down to in the end.

 

[patrickcaturday]

Thank you Seal for attempting to restore some sanity to the board, it it greatly appreciated

 

[sealadaigh]

a simplistic analogy is a poor analogy when dealing with complex issues.

besides, the cisco kid, he was a friend of mine. hasta la victoria siempre.

imagine if the lenape tribe, which inhabited the delaware and lehigh valley to include the area where new york city and long island is, were pushed westward beginning in the mid 1600s until they finally ended up in the dakotas. living there or three hundred years, they intermarried extensively, and yet still managed to maintain a very small remnant of their tribal identity.

then, about two hundred and fifty years later, in the early 1900s, they decide they want to return home, and a combined body of european and asian powers decide that a new country, lenapia, would be formed in their former hunting grounds of NYC and the surrounding area.

by the mid 1900s, the lenape shove the new yorkers out to long island and just take over completely the whole NYC region, leaving the new yorkers with no rights, living in abject poverty and under the thumb of and rule of the lenapes. to maintain that hegemony, the lenapes receive modern weaponry from china, who also subsidize them with an incredible financial aid package. meanwhile, many of the native new yorkers have been relegated to refugee camps.

the new yorkers want to avoid being pushed out of long island so resistance movements form and fight back with whatever is at their disposal.

now whose side do you think you are on, because the lenape people still exist actually, and they have more of a claim to their ancient lands than do european jews have to israel.

More claim?

CLAIM?!

What does "claim" have to do with it?

The question is answered by the following:

Who has the superior force to impose their will on the other?​

Geopolitics does not have a moral component.

Nation states are amoral.

The concept of right and wrong has nothing to do with settling disputes between nations or peoples.

You haven't yet noticed that?

That's what it comes down to in the end.

lol...well, if i understand that concept correctly, hitler was right regarding the european jews, the roma, the mentally ill, homosexuals, and some other groups but not right on the beaches of normandy.

 

[idb]

More claim?

CLAIM?!

What does "claim" have to do with it?

The question is answered by the following:

Who has the superior force to impose their will on the other?​

Geopolitics does not have a moral component.

Nation states are amoral.

The concept of right and wrong has nothing to do with settling disputes between nations or peoples.

You haven't yet noticed that?

That's what it comes down to in the end.

lol...well, if i understand that concept correctly, hitler was right regarding the european jews, the roma, the mentally ill, homosexuals, and some other groups but not right on the beaches of normandy.

The unfortunate truth is that if he had stayed on his side of the border he might well have been proven right, no one was riding to the rescue of those poor folk otherwise.

 

[sealadaigh]

That's what it comes down to in the end.

lol...well, if i understand that concept correctly, hitler was right regarding the european jews, the roma, the mentally ill, homosexuals, and some other groups but not right on the beaches of normandy.

The unfortunate truth is that if he had stayed on his side of the border he might well have been proven right, no one was riding to the rescue of those poor folk otherwise.

so, if hitler had only killed german jews, roma, the handicapped, gays, he would have been right?

and while we are in the subject of borders...iran hasn't crossed any.

if you want to do "might makes right", i'm game, but let's at least do it consistantly and leave the jingoism in our rucks.

 

[idb]

lol...well, if i understand that concept correctly, hitler was right regarding the european jews, the roma, the mentally ill, homosexuals, and some other groups but not right on the beaches of normandy.

The unfortunate truth is that if he had stayed on his side of the border he might well have been proven right, no one was riding to the rescue of those poor folk otherwise.

so, if hitler had only killed german jews, roma, the handicapped, gays, he would have been right?

and while we are in the subject of borders...iran hasn't crossed any.

if you want to do "might makes right", i'm game, but let's at least do it consistantly and leave the jingoism in our rucks.

I have no axe to grind here.
Simply though, 'might is right' has been the universal truth forever.

Hitler would have been 'right' only in the context that he probably wouldn't have been stopped from carrying out his pogroms and so achieving his genocidal aims.

 

[sealadaigh]

The unfortunate truth is that if he had stayed on his side of the border he might well have been proven right, no one was riding to the rescue of those poor folk otherwise.

so, if hitler had only killed german jews, roma, the handicapped, gays, he would have been right?

and while we are in the subject of borders...iran hasn't crossed any.

if you want to do "might makes right", i'm game, but let's at least do it consistantly and leave the jingoism in our rucks.

I have no axe to grind here.
Simply though, 'might is right' has been the universal truth forever.

Hitler would have been 'right' only in the context that he probably wouldn't have been stopped from carrying out his pogroms and so achieving his genocidal aims.

i don't think "might makes right: the universal truth forever" has any guidlines really. earlier, you advocated an amoral right. now you seem to want to inteject a morality into the equation by enclosing "right" in quotes, something you had rejected earlier.

i think the death camps were wrong, period.

i have no axe to grind either. i can drop this. is that agreeable?

 

[there4eyeM]

Hitler was never 'right' and science alone has proved this. Nazi 'theories' were just a crock of quasi-religious faith.

The relativity of all these concepts (morality, justice, ethics, law) should be obvious. We (humans) created the thoughts and words. They belong to us.

 

[sealadaigh]

Hitler was never 'right' and science alone has proved this. Nazi 'theories' were just a crock of quasi-religious faith.

The relativity of all these concepts (morality, justice, ethics, law) should be obvious. We (humans) created the thoughts and words. They belong to us.

i agree. i do not think might makes right.

 

[georgephillip]

thanks george. i guess this threaad runs parallel to jillians but showedd up late for that one. of course my hindsight is 20/20...i probably should have chosen a diferent title. the reason i missed the "if a terrorist group of mexicans" is because i thought it was about a drug cartel.

i am tired of the rants and raves of the israel/palestine board. i think most of the pro-peace/pro-palestinian posters are also, and we know that the rants and raves pretty much come from the israeli side of things because they really don't have a leg to stand on.

anyway, this is a refuge for them to discuss the current crisis and avoid some of the more outrageous hate and propaganda sites over there.

anyway, let's see what happens, but i have zero intention of going back. it is ridiculous. i mean, they scream we are running away but...hardly. iy was a sick and toxic environment over there.

the thing is,,,israel will never beat HAMAS and HAMAS will never go away. that is one reality, and israel makes the same mistake over and over and over again and has, actually, no intent on seeking a just peace.

One of the most consistently sane voices that I've found on the issue of Israel-Palestine belongs to Uri Avnery. He's on the same page as you when it comes to Hamas:

"Will it stop the steady advance of Hamas? I doubt it. Perhaps the opposite will happen. Hamas has already achieved a significant breakthrough, when the Emir of Qatar (owner of Aljazeera) paid Gaza a state visit. He was the first head of state to do so. Others are bound to follow. Just now, in the middle of the operation, the Egyptian prime minister arrived in Gaza.

"Operation 'Pillar of Cloud' compels all Arab countries to rally around Hamas, or at least pretend to. It discredits the claim of the more extreme organizations in Gaza that Hamas has gone soft and lazy, enjoying the fruits of government. In the battle for Palestinian opinion, Hamas has gained another victory over Mahmoud Abbas, whose security cooperation with Israel will look even more despicable.

"All in all, nothing basic will change. Just another superfluous war.

"It is, of course, a highly political event.

"Like Cast Lead, it takes place on the eve of Israeli elections..."

Another Superfluous War » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[idb]

so, if hitler had only killed german jews, roma, the handicapped, gays, he would have been right?

and while we are in the subject of borders...iran hasn't crossed any.

if you want to do "might makes right", i'm game, but let's at least do it consistantly and leave the jingoism in our rucks.

I have no axe to grind here.
Simply though, 'might is right' has been the universal truth forever.

Hitler would have been 'right' only in the context that he probably wouldn't have been stopped from carrying out his pogroms and so achieving his genocidal aims.

i don't think "might makes right: the universal truth forever" has any guidlines really. earlier, you advocated an amoral right. now you seem to want to inteject a morality into the equation by enclosing "right" in quotes, something you had rejected earlier.

i think the death camps were wrong, period.

i have no axe to grind either. i can drop this. is that agreeable?

Fair enough, I think the point has been over-stretched enough and we'll just talk past each other anyway I suspect.