My Prediction

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

What does this have to do with the topic of the Iranian agreement??

Nothing that I know of. However the Iran Deal has plenty to do with keep Nukes out of dangerous hands.

[longview]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Well, don't let me disturb your biases. 

Depending on whichever news reports and opinion pieces you prefer?  I am sure most (if not all) mainstream media supports your biases.  All my points have duly been adequately reported by them.  I guess the differences would be the emphasises.

[rodheadlee]

I suggest you all read the book of Zechariah to find out what's going to happen in Israel. I'm sorry I can't quote any verses because I'm on my phone. As soon as I am able to quote some verses I will do so.

[Sleeper Cell]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The treaty was endorsed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, accepted by the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate (https://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/iran-nuclear-agreement-review-act), and by Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf States, but also fully supported by the only experts who matter, the experienced scientists, engineers, and technicians who constitute the I.A.E.A. (International Atomic Energy Agency) and their inspectors

The only experts that matter?  IOW, when the “scientists, engineers and technicians [excuse me, the “experienced scientists ….”]  of the IAEA “ have spoken, the thinking is done?   

Offhand, I cannot think of a more “anti-Science” view of science and engineering.  It is one thing to say that other scientists and engineers should respect those with greater expertise.  Quite another to suggest that they should uncritically accept their conclusions.        

[cdowis]

Here is one news source were I I have found the discussion interesting

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/26/krauthammer-u-s-joined-the-jackals-at-the-united-nations/

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

The only experts that matter?  IOW, when the “scientists, engineers and technicians [excuse me, the “experienced scientists ….”]  of the IAEA “ have spoken, the thinking is done?   

Offhand, I cannot think of a more “anti-Science” view of science and engineering.  It is one thing to say that other scientists and engineers should respect those with greater expertise.  Quite another to suggest that they should uncritically accept their conclusions.        

I understand what you are saying, but the practical reality is that the IAEA scientists, engineers and technicians have long experience doing the job of verification, and they are very good at it.  I cite them along with geopolitical experts who agree that the agreement is a good one.  No one says that it is perfect, but it is at least effective and prevents problems in the near term.

I take it that you understand why experienced crime scene analysts are necessary in the competent examination of crime scenes, or why we want neurosurgeons doing neurosurgery.  Why bring in untrained yokels off the street to do such tasks?  Anti-science is the worship of science by yokels.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

Here is one news source were I I have found the discussion interesting

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/26/krauthammer-u-s-joined-the-jackals-at-the-united-nations/

Dr. Krauthammer usually has well-based comments to make.  However, here he missed the mark in two ways: (1) making  much of a meaningless abstention, and (2) claiming that Jews living in the Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem could find themselves in the ICC in violation.  Nonsense.  The vote will have no effect, and will certainly not put Jews in legal jeopardy.  The West Bank settlements are already illegal under international law, but they represent exactly the policy normally followed by the Arabs in excluding Jews and expropriating their property.  Neither side has clean hands.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/24/2016 at 10:22 PM, Glenn101 said:

And it is even more complicated than the video itself presented. They glossed over so much of the ancient history as well as the more recent histories. It is a tangled mess. I have not been able to find a web site that I can trust to portray the facts in an unbiased manner. I don't know what all of the facts are.

Glenn

There are no facts, only interpretations.  One man's patriot is another man's terrorist.

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

Here is one news source were I I have found the discussion interesting

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/26/krauthammer-u-s-joined-the-jackals-at-the-united-nations/

You notice how Krauthammer uses the term "jackals"?

Yeah, that's not helpful.

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There are no facts, only interpretations.  One man's patriot is another man's terrorist.

No facts. yeah, I know. One of your favourite themes.

But when my son died, I found no consulation in just looking at it as my interpretation of an event. His body no longer functioned; none of it. Sorry but that isn't just an interpretation; it's a fact. Knowing that we, of his family, children and friends, would never hear his laughter again, is not merely an interpretation. And don't tell me we could watch family movies. Film and reality are not the same thing. 

Believing an imaginary tale that life continues as a spirit or will return in a resurrection, now that is interpretation. And one not based on a single verifiable detail.

To parents living on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, whose children are killed in the meaningless aggression of their counterparts, those deaths are encruciating facts, not interpretations. Those deaths are not open to discussion, that with a mere turn of words makes the people "not dead".

"one man's patriot is another man's terrorist"? Really? Well since both are killing the children and the innocents of the other, then they both qualify as terrorists. The statistists show, very clearly, that Israel bombs and kills 10 Palestinians for every Israeli killed.

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed September 29, 2000 - Present

134 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,148 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

 

I think that qualifies both sides of the conflict as terrorists (assuming you are willing to agree that a military force that kills children of their opponents are terrorists)

[Marmonboy]

Perhaps the disparity in numbers of children killed is due to the Palestinian habit of putting missile launchers in schoolyards and residential neighborhoods? One of the greatest honors one can aspire to in Islam is martyrdom, and the Palestinians have no problem in sending their children to Paradise, unlike the Israelis, who would rather protect theirs.

[RevTestament]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 3:13 AM, cdowis said:

I have a prediction.  With the recent passage of the UN resolution, with our failure to veto that resolution condemning Israel, events have been put into play with the inevitable result of war in the Middle East.

There may be temporary delays, but nothing that can be done to stop it.  

With his treaty with Iran and his tacit approval of this resolution, Obama has guaranteed this war against Israel.  He has now revealed the man behind the mask.

I believe the gathering of Israel has begun with the creation of the Israeli state. However, I believe Israel is approaching the issue incorrectly. It will not fulfill prophecy through war and conquest of additional land. Israel has not realized that through Abraham God's promises extend to other descendants of Abraham, and that it is prophesied that the Semitic Arabs will also come to the Lord in the latter days. Israel's role in this gathering is not one of conquest and settlement, but of returning to the Lord, and showing others His truths. Until they at least realize this, war will continue. Jihad is the Muslim way, and the way of Allah. It really is not the way of Yahovah despite what the Jews and others may think. The Lord would much rather people come to Him willingly.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

Perhaps the disparity in numbers of children killed is due to the Palestinian habit of putting missile launchers in schoolyards and residential neighborhoods? One of the greatest honors one can aspire to in Islam is martyrdom, and the Palestinians have no problem in sending their children to Paradise, unlike the Israelis, who would rather protect theirs.

That is plain bigotry.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

No facts. yeah, I know. One of your favourite themes.

But when my son died, I found no consulation in just looking at it as my interpretation of an event. His body no longer functioned; none of it. Sorry but that isn't just an interpretation; it's a fact. Knowing that we, of his family, children and friends, would never hear his laughter again, is not merely an interpretation. And don't tell me we could watch family movies. Film and reality are not the same thing. 

Believing an imaginary tale that life continues as a spirit or will return in a resurrection, now that is interpretation. And one not based on a single verifiable detail.

To parents living on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, whose children are killed in the meaningless aggression of their counterparts, those deaths are encruciating facts, not interpretations. Those deaths are not open to discussion, that with a mere turn of words makes the people "not dead".

"one man's patriot is another man's terrorist"? Really? Well since both are killing the children and the innocents of the other, then they both qualify as terrorists. The statistists show, very clearly, that Israel bombs and kills 10 Palestinians for every Israeli killed.

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed September 29, 2000 - Present

134 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,148 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

 

I think that qualifies both sides of the conflict as terrorists (assuming you are willing to agree that a military force that kills children of their opponents are terrorists)

I am very sorry for your loss.These things are horribly difficult to deal with, and though I have not experienced it, the loss of a son or daughter can be among the worst spiritual pains humans can feel. I have lost my parents, and that is difficult, but it is expected that they will die before we do- it is NOT expected that our children will die before us.

Certainly the way we use the word "terrorist" tells the tale of how meaningless language and its interpretations can be in the face of the reality of a loss like yours and that of millions of others who have felt the effects of war directly.

That level of abstraction where "death" is just another thing that happens to others is indeed the problem.  Because we have a name for it, because we can make it abstract and objective, we can easily deal with death on a large scale, as happens in wars and catastrophes, without much involvement.

But objective statements do not convey the importance of anything real in our lives.  The true reality is always beyond what words can convey and what interpretations finally take hold in the mind of the person hearing the words.

So yes we agree on that point.  Try as I might, I cannot feel your pain, I can only interpret your words as my paltry brain will allow.

The entire point of "there are no facts, just interpretations" has to do with LANGUAGE and not "reality".  Between us- using language-  words NEVER do reality justice.  The horrible pain you feel and the abstract sorrow I feel on your behalf exactly illustrates the point.  I CANNOT know YOUR reality, I can only interpret your words.  Even when you put some of your pain into words they are just words, paltry symbols of the crushing reality you feel.

That your son died is not a "fact"- it was a horrible event in your life.  "Facts" are just linguistic symbols- NOT the reality of the event.  The "Fact" of that horrible event is some entry on a geneaological record THAT is the difference.  "Facts" are events translated into abstract language which distort them into symbols.  Others take those symbols and interpret them.  The horrible event in your life of the loss of your son becomes a date on a tombstone which is the "fact".

The incalculable human horror of 

134 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,148 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

are the "facts".   The human horror is the reality.  But even saying "the human horror" is an abstraction of thousands of hearts torn asunder in unknowable grief.

Edited December 27, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Marmonboy]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is plain bigotry.

Really? You're going to play that card? How many Israeli missile launchers are located in schoolyards and hospitals? How many Jewish children's TV shows glorify martyrdom? How many Jewish teenagers blow themselves up? Racism is one thing, reality another.

No reasonable person claims Israel is perfectly innocent in all this. But the Palestinians absolutely refuse to concede anything. The only thing they want from Israel is everything, while offering nothing in return.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

No facts. yeah, I know. One of your favourite themes.

But when my son died, I found no consulation in just looking at it as my interpretation of an event. His body no longer functioned; none of it. Sorry but that isn't just an interpretation; it's a fact. Knowing that we, of his family, children and friends, would never hear his laughter again, is not merely an interpretation. And don't tell me we could watch family movies. Film and reality are not the same thing. 

Believing an imaginary tale that life continues as a spirit or will return in a resurrection, now that is interpretation. And one not based on a single verifiable detail.

To parents living on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, whose children are killed in the meaningless aggression of their counterparts, those deaths are encruciating facts, not interpretations. Those deaths are not open to discussion, that with a mere turn of words makes the people "not dead".

"one man's patriot is another man's terrorist"? Really? Well since both are killing the children and the innocents of the other, then they both qualify as terrorists. The statistists show, very clearly, that Israel bombs and kills 10 Palestinians for every Israeli killed.

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed September 29, 2000 - Present

134 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,148 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

 

I think that qualifies both sides of the conflict as terrorists (assuming you are willing to agree that a military force that kills children of their opponents are terrorists)

I think that you entirely missed Bukowski's point, which is that both sides fit a patriot/terrorist description.  He isn't taking partisan sides, but emphasizing the interpretive nature of which side someone does take.  Since both sides have unclean hands, it is all the more imperative that they each be willing to make major concessions and to negotiate in good faith.  Otherwise, the spiral of violence and self-justification will continue unabated.

[thesometimesaint]

A Robber comes in a takes over your home, claiming its his right to your property from thousands of years ago. He brings in his guns, and planes to kill you and your children if you object. I'm not absolving any Palestinian for any action they committed lets not do it for Israelis.

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

Perhaps the disparity in numbers of children killed is due to the Palestinian habit of putting missile launchers in schoolyards and residential neighborhoods? One of the greatest honors one can aspire to in Islam is martyrdom, and the Palestinians have no problem in sending their children to Paradise, unlike the Israelis, who would rather protect theirs.

You mean Israelis love their children and Palestinians do not? Utter nonsense. Check the following maps. Turquoise is Palestine, black is Israel. The Gaza Strip is called a strip because it is only a thin slip of land. 

In a matter of four maps and accompanying text, based on Israeli architect Malkit Shoshan's Atlast of the Conflict, the infographic gives you a clear idea of how Palestine and Israel have changed over the past century. Although it doesn't break any new territory for anyone who hasn't kept up with the conflict over the years, and yet it does serve as a stark reminder of just how much area has been taken over by Israel over the course of its occupation.

 

 

 

 

[Marmonboy]

Never once did I say Palestinians don't love their children. But when mothers go on television saying how proud they are of their martyred sons, and how much they hope for more martyrs in the family, what are we supposed to think? Other people mourn the loss of a child, not celebrate it.

The land of Israel was given to the Jews as a homeland by the UN, the same UN that now tells them they have no right to be there. Are the Jews supposed to just give it back? Where do they go? There is a whole big Muslim world to welcome the Palestinians, but where do the Jews go? That big Muslim world that uses the Palestinian situation to club Israel, but has done nothing to welcome the Palestinian refugees, most of whom nowadays never lived in Israel but were born in those camps set up by their welcoming neighbors and never disbanded.

[Glenn101]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There are no facts, only interpretations.  One man's patriot is another man's terrorist.

Not sure that I entirely agree with you. If a person goes into a bank and withdraws some money, that can pretty well be established as a fact. Whether the person robbed the bank to get the money, withdrew it legitimately, or used some other means to obtain the money, would be irrelevant to the fact that he or she withdrew the money. Money in a wallet is accepted as a fact. It requires no interpretation, 

Now, whether a person is a terrorist or a "freedom fighter" can be a matter of interpretation.

 

Glenn

[cdowis]

del

Edited December 28, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Not sure that I entirely agree with you. If a person goes into a bank and withdraws some money, that can pretty well be established as a fact. Whether the person robbed the bank to get the money, withdrew it legitimately, or used some other means to obtain the money, would be irrelevant to the fact that he or she withdrew the money. Money in a wallet is accepted as a fact. It requires no interpretation, 

Now, whether a person is a terrorist or a "freedom fighter" can be a matter of interpretation.

 

Glenn

Take that money to another country and see if context is important or not.  I think you are not understanding the point.  

Take that money to a desert island, and IF you can build a fire, you can always burn it for warmth.  Or drop a nuke or two- that will work just as well.

The whole point is that the CONTEXT of being where banks are and the whole context of the power grid, internet, the good old US of A and world civilization- that context defines that as "MONEY" that is useful.

The meaning or significance of language - or of money requires a CONTEXT which requires interpretation

Suppose even in the good old USA you took your precious money to a store and the clerk looked it over carefully and it turned out to be "counterfeit".  That means it was not issued by the Proper Authority for the Context to make it meaningful.  The INTERPRETATION of the clerk was that it was meaningless.   Now what happens to the "Fact"?

It becomes up to the interpretation of a clerk to decide if you get your stuff or not.   

But that could be a subjective interpretation.

Take it to another 5 clerks in another 5 stores and check their interpretations.   Soon the subjective opinion of one clerk will become "objective" by the shared group giving their interpretations a context.

Maybe that first clerk was wrong and it is not "counterfeit", as judged by the others.  You get your stuff.

If they agree on the context, no stuff.

THAT is when you find out if you have a "fact" or not, AFTER the interpretations classify it as one to be accepted.  You get the context's approval

But you take those US dollars into a little shop in Poland with people who have never seen one, and you have a problem with context.

Would you take some orange money with pictures on it in an alphabet you never saw before to sell a TV at your garage sale?  

That is a problem in interpretation of an alleged "fact"

Edited December 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

In case anyone questions where the LDS church stands on who owns this land

From the Dedicatory Prayer of Orson Hyde

Quote

 

"Now, O Lord! Thy servant has been obedient to the heavenly vision which Thou gavest him in his native land; and under the shadow of Thine outstretched arm, he has safely arrived in this place to dedicate and consecrate this land unto Thee, for the gathering together of Judah's scattered remnants, according to the predictions of the holy Prophets -- for the building up of Jerusalem again after it has been trodden down by the Gentiles so long, and for rearing a Temple in honor of Thy name. Everlasting thanks be ascribed unto Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast preserved Thy servant from the dangers of the seas, and from the plague and pestilence which have caused the land to mourn. The violence of man has also been restrained, and Thy providential care by night and by day has been exercised over Thine unworthy servant. Accept, therefore, O Lord, the tribute of a grateful heart for all past favors, and be pleased to continue Thy kindness and mercy towards a needy worm of the dust.

"O Thou, Who didst covenant with Abraham, Thy friend, and who didst renew that covenant with Isaac, and confirm the same with Jacob with an oath, that Thou wouldst not only give them this land for an everlasting inheritance, but that Thou wouldst also remember their seed forever. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have long since closed their eyes in death, and made the grave their mansion. Their children are scattered and dispersed abroad among the nations of the Gentiles like sheep that have no shepherd, and are still looking forward for the fulfillment of those promises which Thou didst make concerning them; and even this land, which once poured forth nature's richest bounty, and flowed, as it were, with milk and honey, has, to a certain extent, been smitten with barrenness and sterility since it drank from murderous hands the blood of Him who never sinned.

"Grant, therefore, O Lord, in the name of Thy well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to remove the barrenness and sterility of this land, and let springs of living water break forth to water its thirsty soil. Let the vine and olive produce in their strength, and the fig-tree bloom and flourish. Let the land become abundantly fruitful when possessed by its rightful heirs; let it again flow with plenty to feed the returning prodigals who come home with a spirit of grace and supplication; upon it let the clouds distil virtue and richness, and let the fields smile with plenty. Let the flocks and the herds greatly increase and multiply upon the mountains and the hills; and let Thy great kindness conquer and subdue the unbelief of Thy people. Do Thou take from them their stony heart, and give them a heart of flesh; and may the Sun of Thy favor dispel the cold mists of darkness which have beclouded their atmosphere. Incline them to gather in upon this land according to Thy word. Let them come like clouds and like doves to their windows. Let the large ships of the nations bring them from the distant isles; and let kings become their nursing fathers, and queens with motherly fondness wipe the tear of sorrow from their eye.

"Thou, O Lord, did once move upon the heart of Cyrus to show favor unto Jerusalem and her children. Do Thou now also be pleased to inspire the hearts of kings and the powers of the earth to look with a friendly eye towards this place, and with a desire to see Thy righteous purposes executed in relation thereto. Let them know that it is Thy good pleasure to restore the kingdom unto Israel -- raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and constitute her people a distinct nation and government, with David Thy servant, even a descendant from the loins of ancient David to be their king.

"Let that nation or that people who shall take an active part in behalf of Abraham's children, and in the raising up of Jerusalem, find favor in Thy sight. Let not their enemies prevail against them, neither let pestilence or famine overcome them, but let the glory of Israel overshadow them, and the power of the Highest protect them; while that nation or kingdom that will not serve Thee in this glorious work must perish, according to Thy word --- Yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

 

See also https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/footsteps-orson-hyde-subsequent-dedications-holy-land

Edited December 28, 2016 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is a problem in interpretation of an alleged "fact"

Oh. I agree that context matters. And we sort of agree on that. Don't want to derail this thread with a dive into an deep discussion on what the facts are or may be or or not.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Oh. I agree that context matters. And we sort of agree on that. Don't want to derail this thread with a dive into an deep discussion on what the facts are or may be or or not.

Glenn

Yes I agree, there's not much more to it really.

All this is about is that language is always ambiguous. Language doesn't capture the full experience of reality, that's pretty much it.