Divide and Conquer: Israel and the Internet War for Hearts and Minds

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prince_of_OZ
Disinformation agents are active on this site
(BEWARE THEM THEY MIGHT ALSO WORK FOR SOMEBODY)


Well, I'm self employed.





posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
How's this,

Love one-another,

Love thy enemy, If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


After considering what is right and wrong it comes to who did that right or wrong and that cannot be ignored. You (anyone) cannot disconnect yourself from the situation if you have any feelings when you see a atrocity, genocide happening...actually most normal people cannot except for those who are paid to post or instructed to post (megaphone, jdif etc) then all sense of rational dialogue loose its meaning. The only way to do at this time of paid posters is to a) ignore or b) break them. There is no point in discussing with them rationally because their intent is not to discuss but to plant seeds of propaganda.

It cannot be disputed Israel has been running worlds largest and longest propaganda campaign and it has now run it's life.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by YJLTG]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I am reading the post, but I also want to know where this conversation is heading.

I am really pleased you decided to use your strengths and influence, as a force for good, and enlightenment.





The thread is based on some simple things, first and foremost that the individual sides that have been divided don't drive events, the entities above them that cause the divisions drive events.

Two is that right and wrong for the scientific application of what is true and what is false, and what is right and what is wrong, should not have who is involved as a predicating factor, but what is involved as the determining factor.

Three is more often than not, Law is not a real indication of what is right and wrong, but instead a political tool very often, of who can do a specific action and have it viewed as right, and who can't do that same specific action and have it viewed as wrong if they do.

In other words if nation a, is not allowed to do something specific under the law, but nation b can, and nation c can, and nation d can't, then the law is not an indication of right or wrong, so just because it is illegal in such a stacked set of rules does not mean it is wrong, and just because it is legal in such a stacked set of rules does not make it right.

Which then leads to nation a, b, c, and d, trying to win the hearts of others to accept them based on a concept of who is right and who is wrong, versus what is right and what is wrong.

Once our hearts and minds are won to support that nation or entity then we are pitted one against the other to promote concepts of who is right and wrong, instead of concepts of what is right and wrong, evenly applied to all.

The thread is about questioning how well served any of us are in taking sides in who is right and wrong, versus looking at what is right and wrong.

That is going where ever it is going, but clearly some members think its a good thing to talk about and consider.

The thread is not about the sides in the Israel controversy.

The thread is a procedural side bar, discussing what is the most productive and objective and fair way to discuss issues of right and wrong as human beings.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





Issues of wrong and right are basically simple. If you don't want anyone to kill you, don't condone anyone killing someone else.

Actually, my friend, sometimes, issues of right or wrong are not so simple. You and I may agree that killing someone because of their religion is WRONG, but some may use THEIR IDEA of what is RIGHT to kill. For instance, some Muslims will use the Koran to justify killing "infidels", namely those who do not worship "Allah".

I could cite any number of verses from the Koran that are used to justify killing infidels. However, that would be going off topic.

We live in a Western culture where there is a general agreement on what is right or wrong, but even there, strong disagreements exist, such as on issues of abortion, mercy killing, etc.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by YJLTG
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


After considering what is right and wrong it comes to who did that right or wrong and that cannot be ignored. You (anyone) cannot disconnect yourself from the situation if you have any feelings when you see a atrocity, genocide happening...actually most normal people cannot except for those who are paid to post or instructed to post (megaphone, jdif etc) then all sense of rational dialogue loose its meaning. The only way to do at this time of paid posters is to a) ignore or b) break them. There is no point in discussing with them rationally because their intent is not to discuss but to plant seeds of propaganda.

It cannot be disputed Israel has been running worlds largest and longest propaganda campaign and it has now run it's life.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by YJLTG]


Two things one is what is right or wrong, should lead to real remedies to address what is wrong, to make it right.

Retribution does not make things right. Revenge does not make things right.

Breaking the cycle of action and reaction is what makes things right, by letting go of what is wrong, and then establishing mechanisms so what would be right can occur.

A lot of people focus on punishment, but punishment does not make something right, it just punishes some one who may or may not have done something wrong, based as often on who they are as what they did.

In a lot of ways we are tricked into the notions that things will now be right because we punished who was wrong!

What makes things right is developing new policies and procedures and perspectives and mechanisms to ensure what is right occurs.

At that point, regardless of past participation, in the present you become part of the solution or part of the problem by either wishing to and allowing for what is right to occure, or preventing it from occuring most often in that case on who the right things is going to be done for, which people then sometimes believe is wrong for them based on what's happened in the past and 'who' was right and who was wrong.

Prejudices and fears cause a 'who' to feel something that would be right for them, is not right for someone else, because if someone else had the same thing, they might use it in wrong ways against them.

So it is very much about convincing people the future need not be equal to the past, which is a challenge since so many people are inclined to say some things are a problem but will never change, which is really just there way of saying, that they like being part of the problem, because changing things for the better is predicated on them not standing in the way or what is right, by being apathetic to what is wrong.

No one can be right all the time, no one can be wrong all the time, so we all have to accept our true responsibility in that regard and redouble our efforts to do right.

The thread is not really about assigning blame to a party or absolving a party in regards to this issue, its about how do we as human beings arrive fairly at what is right for everyone, as opposed to just right for someone.

I believe we do that by learning to look at the right and wrong of each instance of right and wrong, and discussing and finding real ways to make that not happen again, instead of pretending a dysfunctional status quo is really solving things when it is not, based on who the status quo works for.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


I agree but even here we get back to who. God or Allah said it was right.

I am promoting the idea that only human beings presently alive determine what is right, or wrong, based on simple factors of right and wrong.

Killing in the name of Allah, Jehova, Yahweh, Jesus, State, or Burger King is wrong!

Because killing is wrong.

Talking through our disagreements to find common ground, based on what is right and acceptable to everyone is good!

Killing those who don't initially share our opinion or intitial bargaining postion is wrong.

Pursuing productive dialouge until we all find a way to get along that's right.

Yes my wise friend, divisions exist, God, country, etc, but how long do we really want to be held hostage to them?

As one stateman once said to another statesman, "Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall".

And he did, and everyone could buy a Mercedes Benz!



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by YJLTG
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


After considering what is right and wrong it comes to who did that right or wrong and that cannot be ignored. You (anyone) cannot disconnect yourself from the situation if you have any feelings when you see a atrocity, genocide happening...actually most normal people cannot except for those who are paid to post or instructed to post (megaphone, jdif etc) then all sense of rational dialogue loose its meaning. The only way to do at this time of paid posters is to a) ignore or b) break them. There is no point in discussing with them rationally because their intent is not to discuss but to plant seeds of propaganda.

It cannot be disputed Israel has been running worlds largest and longest propaganda campaign and it has now run it's life.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by YJLTG]


It is about survival and the tribal mentality, yes, and it is in our very DNA, itself.

To rise above the instinct for survival we must evolve, but I am not sure that would help because our very instincts keep us alive.

However I also believe Israel has also had the longest propaganda campaign in the history of mankind,used against it as well.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

Flagged, my friend. You are spot on.
One of the most frustrating tendencies that I see with posts on threads such as the one you mentioned, is the inability of some posters to look at each situation as a separate point of debate. All too often, posters look at WHO was involved in each incident, and make their decisions based on that, and not on the facts.
In addition, if one disagrees with such a poster, many times they will come back with comments like "you are a Zionist", if the post, for instance, supports Israel, or "you are a bigot" if one does not support the Israeli stance.

As I pointed out in the thread you mentioned, posters should look at each incident on its own, as no party, (country, organization, etc) is always right or always wrong.

Otherwise, we fail to "Deny Ignorance".


This is so well said as always my friend, and the jist of what I am saying.

Line item by line item. Entry by entry.

Standard transparent procedures and applications uniformly applied to all parties in all situations.

This will promote greater liberty and freedom, because when it applies to everyone, everyone then has a real compelling reason to keep laws based on right and wrong simple and not complex.

Rather than juggle 600,000 codes, and 600,000 different applications for each one, based on 600,000 different circumstances of who what when and where, as an instrument of enslavement and control.

Just the few basic simple laws most of us live our life by anyway.

Even applied to everyone, because no one really has an excuse left for doing wrong or breaking a law, because the laws are no longer oppressive, restrictive or lopsided or applied unfairly.

The rules get more complex as time goes on, and not simpler, and that's not a good thing.

How many hands do we want to have tied behind our backs, how many eyes and ears do we want to have blind and deaf?

Thanks for posting my friend.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Once again you are back to who, and circular thinking. Please name every existing society and culture for me currently dwelling on the face of the earth. List their ages, and their upheavals, wars, and various shifts and changes in government and their migratory patterns.

Chances are you can't so your who statement is based on a squeeky wheel gets the grease who argument.

The thread once again is not about who.

It's about what.

The past is past.

The future is the future, even fair standards applicable to everyone is the only thing that stops that cycle and wheel the WHO wants you to be on because it serves WHO.

I really would appreciate you staying on topic please.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Everything, I mean every emotion, is necessary for survival, even love.

It is how we evolved, even religion evolved from the tribes instinct to survive.

That is why I see the words, love thy enemy as a highly evolved concept, it reaches beyond the tribal mentality.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


yes we live in a western culture
that knows something of right and wrong all right
that thought NOTHING of killin some 2o MILLION injuns instead of honoring the treaties it signed...
yes look st those Danged Muslims

just had to point that out
carry on






[edit on 7-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 






I really would appreciate you staying on topic please.



I don't think my points are off topic.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I don't see us changing anytime soon.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





Killing those who don't initially share our opinion or intitial bargaining postion is wrong. Pursuing productive dialouge until we all find a way to get along that's right.


Actually, what you propose is very similar to the main theme of Fisher and Ury's book, Getting to Yes

It was one of the books I always had on my syllabi of the business courses I taught.
The main premise of the book is that negotiation is successful when parties negotiate based upon INTERESTS, and not POSITIONS.

One of the examples in the book that I always used was the case of two people who are sitting in a library. One gets up and closes an open window near him, then sits down. A moment later, the second party gets up, and re-opens the _ This opening and shutting of the window continues, until the librarian comes over, and asks them what is going on. The first person says he wants to avoid a draft, and the second person responds that he wants fresh air. The librarian then goes into an adjoining room and opens the window in there, thus avoiding a direct draft, but allowing fresh air in. The point is that the POSITIONS were irreconcilable, namely "OPEN WINDOW" and "SHUT WINDOW". However, the solution DID satisfy both INTERESTS, namely "AVOIDING A DRAFT" and "ALLOWING FRESH AIR IN".

The problem today is that too many people take POSITIONS and argue from those, rather than considering INTERESTS.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





Once again you are back to who, and circular thinking. Please name every existing society and culture for me currently dwelling on the face of the earth. List their ages, and their upheavals, wars, and various shifts and changes in government and their migratory patterns.

Chances are you can't so your who statement is based on a squeeky wheel gets the grease who argument.


I have no idea what you are talking about.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 





yes we live in a wetern culture that knows something of right and wrong all right that thought NOTHING of killin some 2o MILLION injuns instead of honoring the treaties it signed... yes look st those Danged Muslims just had to point that out carry on


Knowing what is right and wrong, and then ignoring it, are not proof of what is right and wrong. It is merely an example of ignoring what is right.

Our concepts of right and wrong are collective, and are based upon our culture. The fact that people have chosen to ignore them does not take away from what my good friend ProtoplasmicTraveler is talking about.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





The point is that the POSITIONS were irreconcilable, namely "OPEN WINDOW" and "SHUT WINDOW". However, the solution DID satisfy both INTERESTS, namely "AVOIDING A DRAFT" and "ALLOWING FRESH AIR IN".

The problem today is that too many people take POSITIONS and argue from those, rather than considering INTERESTS.



So what's the answer?

What do you propose ?

What is the solution?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Wow, what a relief to find a site where members agree to debate the issue not make personal attacks.

I'm a newbie to this site, I've heard about it before and checked it out a couple of times before but never 'joined' in, my husband say's it's because I'm paranoid, I think with good reason.

I've been reading posts from other sites til my head hurt because it was so devisive, mean or they were just making silly comments about people not issues. Then by chance I stumbled on a video link that lead me to this place filled with inteligent, thoughtful people having discussions about the real issues.

So is the Gulf disaster just a distraction so we don't pay attention to what they are really doing to us AGAIN? or am I just reading too much between the lines?

Just curious



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
OK all I am saying is we can sit here and pontificate until the cows come home, and nothing is going to change.

As a matter of a fact, I think things are getting worse.





new topics
top topics
 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join