My Prediction

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

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

From the Dedicatory Prayer of Orson Hyde

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

That is an important, prophetic document of the Restoration of all things.  It dedicates a lightly inhabited land (Palestine) to the Gathering of the Jews, and to the future building of their temple.  It doesn't command anyone to kill enemies, to seize land, and it does not establish the official LDS Church position on who owns what land.  The general policy of the Zionists has always been to purchase land from legal owners, to assume authority over Ottoman Turkish and British Mandate public lands (assigned them by the UN), to drain swamps, and to farm the Holy Land, etc.  The Jews did just that, paid better wages than the Arabs, and treated their Arab employees well, thus causing many Arabs from neighboring countries to come to Palestine.  That and the Jewish Return has swelled the population.  The current standard of living in Israel is now virtually the same as in the USA.

War and terror have caused the Jews to engage in hard right strategic and tactical thinking, and the religious Jewish right has likewise successfully pushed settlements on the West Bank.  That should be no surprise.  Jews are people just like any other in their reactions to political and military pressure.  The American gov't has famously done likewise to Amerindian tribes and to Mexican owners of land under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, allowing illegal seizure of vast land holdings.  In my own lifetime, under false pretenses, the U.S. Gov't imprisoned loyal residents and U.S. citizens of Japanese descent and seized their lands, homes, and businesses.  It was wrong, but we did it anyway.  It was wrong to own slaves, and to engage in lynch law, but we did it anyway.  That is how history normally flows.

[bcuzbcuz]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I appreciate your words of condolence (And equally appreciate that you did not accompany them with trite words of mystical comfort). The mere fact that you can give words that interpret my sorrow mean that we have words from a common dictionary, common, at least, between the two of us. Every society of humans establishes a common dictionary, sometimes in more than one language, but common to that society. It is only through having a common dictionary that communication can occur.

If I used the word "chair" and no one in the group could conceive of anything that had similarities to the object I was talking about, then there could be no meaningful communication. Every word would be open to discussion and interpretation. I cannot use the word "chair" to a computer without it having to sort through an almost endless list of objects, thoughts and verbs. 

I could talk about the death of my son to certain groups of people, without them having any real concept of what I was talking about, either through lack of empathy, or an inability to comprehend the word, death, or that they have a dictionary that differs in essential ways from a dictionary that makes sense to me.

I have lived, for extended times, as a foreigner in four different cultures. In one country I had to learn a totally new language, that also encompassed understanding new meanings to old words (Yule no longer meant turkey).

In one country, we had the language in common but had sometimes completely different takes on the meanings of a word; "football" would be a good example.

In one culture I lived in, we all had the same passports, but we had completely different meanings attached to many common words (I lived eight years on a First Nations reserve in Canada). "Are you going down?" Meant are you going into town and if you are I want to go with you (and if you say yes to the question of going into town, then you are obligated to take me with you).

I grew up and lived as a foreigner in my own country because I was Mormon. My words meant entirely different things to the overwhelming majority of people I came into contact with. Need I give examples?

Philosophically, we could discuss all the words that we have divided meanings about and either come to a common understanding or to an agreement to disagree. Death is one of those words. The mother to my children died 23 years ago. It is a pain that never goes over. The old adage that "time heals all wounds" is a lie. It is nothing more than a "hurry up and get over it" adage, devoid of sympathy or empathy. My second son (my third child) died 10 years ago. I still have nightmares. I can drift into thoughts about that sickening phone call in the middle of the night with the slightest of motivations, a certain song, a scene in a movie or even a commercial designed to pull on heartstrings. I can be moved to tears many times a day. I dread phone calls in the middle of the night; not an uncommon thing since my children live and have lived in many distant nations. 

When someone states something as ridiculous as "the Palestinians have no problem sending their children to paradise" they are implying that the death of a loved one doesn't hurt for "those people". That's one advantage of having a different dictionary. Outsiders can be written off as being less than "us". Less "us", therefore less "correct", less "human". 

Many things you write on this site, although infuriating when they descend into discussions of whether "is" really means "is", are insightful, no more than that, interesting.

You wrote, "Try as I might, I cannot feel your pain, I can only interpret your words as my paltry brain will allow." While that is true, you have nevertheless, "tried" to associate my pain to something that is similar in your life. 

Is empathy the only reality in life? Those without it are less than shadows of their real selves. 

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is an important, prophetic document of the Restoration of all things.  It dedicates a lightly inhabited land (Palestine) to the Gathering of the Jews, and to the future building of their temple.  It doesn't command anyone to kill enemies, to seize land, and it does not establish the official LDS Church position on who owns what land.

Was just wondering if anyone were paying any attention.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I appreciate your words of condolence (And equally appreciate that you did not accompany them with trite words of mystical comfort). The mere fact that you can give words that interpret my sorrow mean that we have words from a common dictionary, common, at least, between the two of us. Every society of humans establishes a common dictionary, sometimes in more than one language, but common to that society. It is only through having a common dictionary that communication can occur.

If I used the word "chair" and no one in the group could conceive of anything that had similarities to the object I was talking about, then there could be no meaningful communication. Every word would be open to discussion and interpretation. I cannot use the word "chair" to a computer without it having to sort through an almost endless list of objects, thoughts and verbs. 

I could talk about the death of my son to certain groups of people, without them having any real concept of what I was talking about, either through lack of empathy, or an inability to comprehend the word, death, or that they have a dictionary that differs in essential ways from a dictionary that makes sense to me.

I have lived, for extended times, as a foreigner in four different cultures. In one country I had to learn a totally new language, that also encompassed understanding new meanings to old words (Yule no longer meant turkey).

In one country, we had the language in common but had sometimes completely different takes on the meanings of a word; "football" would be a good example.

In one culture I lived in, we all had the same passports, but we had completely different meanings attached to many common words (I lived eight years on a First Nations reserve in Canada). "Are you going down?" Meant are you going into town and if you are I want to go with you (and if you say yes to the question of going into town, then you are obligated to take me with you).

I grew up and lived as a foreigner in my own country because I was Mormon. My words meant entirely different things to the overwhelming majority of people I came into contact with. Need I give examples?

Philosophically, we could discuss all the words that we have divided meanings about and either come to a common understanding or to an agreement to disagree. Death is one of those words. The mother to my children died 23 years ago. It is a pain that never goes over. The old adage that "time heals all wounds" is a lie. It is nothing more than a "hurry up and get over it" adage, devoid of sympathy or empathy. My second son (my third child) died 10 years ago. I still have nightmares. I can drift into thoughts about that sickening phone call in the middle of the night with the slightest of motivations, a certain song, a scene in a movie or even a commercial designed to pull on heartstrings. I can be moved to tears many times a day. I dread phone calls in the middle of the night; not an uncommon thing since my children live and have lived in many distant nations. 

When someone states something as ridiculous as "the Palestinians have no problem sending their children to paradise" they are implying that the death of a loved one doesn't hurt for "those people". That's one advantage of having a different dictionary. Outsiders can be written off as being less than "us". Less "us", therefore less "correct", less "human". 

Many things you write on this site, although infuriating when they descend into discussions of whether "is" really means "is", are insightful, no more than that, interesting.

You wrote, "Try as I might, I cannot feel your pain, I can only interpret your words as my paltry brain will allow." While that is true, you have nevertheless, "tried" to associate my pain to something that is similar in your life. 

Is empathy the only reality in life? Those without it are less than shadows of their real selves. 

Thanks.

IF the truth be told, and don't tell any of these Mormons around here, I think the "atonement" IS the empathy we need when we can take no more pain and all there is is black despair drowning us. Call it a psychological defense, call it a fantasy or spiritual force, call it the love of God, those are all words, but when we need it, it can be there. It is a place to dump it all when there is nothing more left.

Some philosophers say "the self"  IS the collection of the vocabularies we accumulate, which makes us unique in the universe. Yes we share some, but only in "spheres" of communication, in a specific context where we agree that a chair is a chair, or "going down" means you get a companion on a trip.

Now YOU are a man of many vocabularies!  We do not know people until we know something about their vocabularies. Nice meeting you!

Blessings on you!

Edited December 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

21 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

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.

The UN gave the land of Israel to the Jews?? Really? Google when the UN was created.

As others have pointed out, some eloquently, Israel (Palestine) was not ceded to the Jews, not by any stretch of the imagination.

You have stated twice how Palestinian (muslim?) mothers talk about their sons, killed in battle or in suicidal explosions. You criticize their exercising of their faith in the afterlife. You obviously think your interpretation of the afterlife is better. If you had a child lost in battle you would seek and be given consulation through your belief that there is an afterlife, an afterlife as defined by your Mormon beliefs. You would probably not take kindly to people of other beliefs that criticized your concepts of what happens after death. From what you say you don't seem very empathetic to the tears of these Palestinian mothers or to their sense of loss nor to their efforts to find support in their beliefs.  

I know from the death of my wife  and the loss of one of my sons, their sudden deaths and the emotions that overwhelm, that through the cloud of tears and emotions that choke rational thought, that deep beliefs are sometimes the only comfort. Dwell on that if you can.  

[cdowis]

34 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The UN gave the land of Israel to the Jews?? 

UN RESOLUTION 181

The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, and the partition plan does not provide outside military force to keep order. Instead, it provides for the establishment of armed militia by the two nascent states to keep internal order.”

Six months later, on May 14, 1948, Jewish leaders in the region formed the state of Israel. British troops left, thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled and Arab armies invaded Israel. 

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/nov-29-1947-united-nations-partitions-palestine-allowing-for-creation-of-israel/

UN RESOLUTION 242

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967 in the wake of the Arab-Israeli War of June of that year, has become the internationally accepted basis for peacemaking in the Middle East. Drafted by Lord Caradon, the British ambassador to the UN, in consultation with the parties concerned, the resolution was an attempt to bring Israeli demands for a final, formal peace agreement together with those of Egypt, Syria and Jordan for Israel's withdrawal from the territories—the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem—which it had occupied during the June war.

The resolution did this by a balanced emphasis on 'the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace.' It therefore called for 'withdrawal of Israel from territories occupied in the recent conflict,' as well as for 'termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace.' The resolution also called for 'a just settlement of the refugee problem.'
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000473

The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."

This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html

Resolution 242 is the "land for peace" model where the Israeli to possess the land from the 1967 war, but will trade them for secure borders with the Arabs.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by cdowis

[Marmonboy]

Bcuzbcuz, I do not doubt that Palestinians love their children. I do not doubt that their belief in an afterlife gives them comfort. I firmly believe, based on the words spoken on camera, not only during a time of grief when facing the los of a beloved child but before and well after the fact, that Muslims believe that one of the surest ways to gain Paradise and to obtain forgiveness of sins is to kill enemies of Allah, defined as those who do not belong to the particular brand of Islam practiced by the speaker. This includes Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, and everybody killing non-Muslims. Open your ears and listen to the hate preached by Muslims against everyone else.

Of course not all Muslims are like this. But enough are to make life increasingly dangerous in today's world.

I am truly sorry for the losses in your life. I can't possibly imagine how hard that must feel.

[why me]

On 24.12.2016 at 1:00 PM, sunstoned said:

 

Russia now has air basis and a military presents in Syria.   This is not a time when we should be distancing ourselves from Israel.

Russia has had a military base in Syria for years and years. It goes back to Soviet Times.  Something that americans know very little about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus

The Soviets supplied Syria with weapons to counter the weaponry sent to Isreal from the US. The Soviets and the Assad family have been friendly during the Soviet Union even though they did have differences. Since syria has been friendly to the the soviet uniion and allowed the russians some influence in the middle east,  there was no way that Russia would have allowed a friend to be overthrown. If assad was overthrown, radical islamists would have taken power or a government friendly to washingon. Thus, Putin became actively involved.

In fact, one reason why Hillary when Secretary of State became involved with the rebels was to pry Syria away from Russia. And Putin knew this very well.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/09/opinion/russia-syria-relations/

Nothing happens in a bubble. Geopolitics rules the world.

Edited December 29, 2016 by why me

[why me]

Isreali settlements are actually mini cities on the west bank. They are huge and very weathly. While the Palestians live in poverty, new settlements are formed from land that was forcibly taken from Palestian farmers. It is actually the Isreali way of creating living space for Jews. No one else is welcomed on these settlements. They are not for palestian isrealis or christians who live in Isreal. And they are surronded by walls. And they are built on the best land. Here is a map of the settlements from the wall street journal:

http://www.wsj.com/news/interactive/SETTLERS0110

As we can see from the map, they are between palestian cities which makes it very difficult for palestians to travel from city to city on the west bank. And almost every area of the west bank has a settlement now or mini city complete with the army protecting them. How would people in Utah feel if Canadians would be building settlements in Utah where Utahns could not go or live? And it would be an occupation? And such settlements would be expanding? Try traveling from Bethlehem to Jerico as a palestian. I think that it takes four days now.

Edited December 29, 2016 by why me

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

Bcuzbcuz, I do not doubt that Palestinians love their children. I do not doubt that their belief in an afterlife gives them comfort. I firmly believe, based on the words spoken on camera, not only during a time of grief when facing the los of a beloved child but before and well after the fact, that Muslims believe that one of the surest ways to gain Paradise and to obtain forgiveness of sins is to kill enemies of Allah, defined as those who do not belong to the particular brand of Islam practiced by the speaker. This includes Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, and everybody killing non-Muslims. Open your ears and listen to the hate preached by Muslims against everyone else.

Of course not all Muslims are like this. But enough are to make life increasingly dangerous in today's world.

I am truly sorry for the losses in your life. I can't possibly imagine how hard that must feel.

Idiots do not define the religion, any more than the Klu Klux Klan defines Christian policy, any more than IS defines the Muslim world. 

The conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics of Northern Ireland has only recently concluded, but a reading of any European history text will tell of the Thirty Year War, of Protestestants (Lutherans and Reformed, fighting against the Holy Roman Catholic church. Thirty years 1618-1648, between 3 and 10 million killed. The French  Wars of Revolution 1563 to 1598, between Reformed Protestants and Catholica, 2 to 4 million killed. The War of Three Kingdoms, the Eight Years War, etc, etc. The crusades between Christians and Islamic forces should quench the blood thirst of the most rabid.

Hundreds of thousand of native peoples in the Central Caribbean, Mexico and the plains of North America were either slaughtered in war or starved to death through treaties, all with the intent of "converting the savages".

I know many muslim families. I have a brother-in-law from Egypt. I've spent time, dinners, evenings, and entertainment with muslim families in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey and BAli. The food was superb. You should try a tagine, sometime. The hospitality and warmth of the families made for thoroughly enjoyable evenings. Then when we walked home, late at night, through dark and twisted streets we were never once uncomfortable not threatened, never robbed, but we did get lost and others, also out late at night always helped guide us home. 

I haven't been to war zones. I don't have a death wish. I don't understand hate that drives people or a group to desire the death of others. But I do understand sorrow. I grieve with every parent who has lost a child in the senseless killing of the Middle East. I'm sure every side is convinced of their own righteousness and that God is on their side. I find no joy in justifying the killing from one side, While damning the wrongs committed by the others 

A pox on both their houses.