It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is Pollution the Answer in the Middle East?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by djohnsto77

I guess the best thing would be some type of salted nulear weapon.

A further disgraceful post in a disgraceful thread - do you reserve the right to use such weapons for ethnic cleansing to just the USA or would you, for example, allow Iran the same prerogative and their choice of target?

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:04 PM
Many thanks for all of the interesting posts. For those of you who find the thread "disturbing" or "disgraceful", please allow me to explain.

The original topic was intended to draw attention to the fact that many of the problems in the Middle East stem from disputes over land. Religion is also heavily involved, but I chose to focus on the land.

As any good parent knows, if 2 kids are fighting over a toy then you take away the toy.

Therefore, if the various warring Middle Eastern factions can't settle their differences peacefully, then perhaps you take away the very thing they're fighting over -- the land.

Of course, it's a lot more complicated than that, but at least it's a way to get the discussion started as to what the "real" solution might be. I'd pay good money to see that show.

Concerning Land and Religion, and thinking ahead several centuries:

Which direction will Muslims pray toward while travelling in outer space?
Do other planets have their own "land of milk and honey"?
What value does God place on our physical planet (Earth) vs. our spiritual existence?

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 06:05 AM
A muslim would pray towards Earth, and then a more specific direction of where Mecca is on the globe. If it's located on the opposite side of the Earth, to which the spaceship crew can't see, then it will still be towards that direction. It will always be towards the Kabaa.

You should understand your analogy wont fit correctly when directing it towards solving the Middle East conflict. Taking a toy away from a child is one thing, but taking away someone's home and land is another. Would your example also work over food sources? Consider two impoverished nations are fighting over a limited supply of food source. Do you solve their fighting by taking away their food? No.

The difference between taking a kid's toy and taking a population's land away from them is that the kid can survive without a toy, but the people wont. The kid mearly wants a toy, but the people need a land. If you take away their land, then it's not solving the problem, it's only adding to it. When their land is taken away, they will have to live elsewhere, meaning they live on someone else's land, creating the same problem once again.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by DJMessiah]

<< 1   >>

log in