It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 6
44
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Hey Protoplasmic Traveler, I agree with you on this particular issue. I agree that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. In fact, I wrote an essay on Female gender issues for my final paper for polical science class.... and said what is right is right, what is wrong is wrong, despite historical, cultural, traditional, or religious beliefs...etc etc which legitimizes inhuman practices towards women by men.... You get the drift of the essay???

So yes, What is right is always right... What is wrong is always wrong...

I really do agree with you there....

My question is... What are you really trying to say???????




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by saabacura
 


That would be a totally false perception, since I am not religious and never have been, nor am I ethnically 'Jewish'.

So what we see here is the absolute refusal to consider that maybe, just maybe it's alright to just be a human being.

Now in Proto's world what you have just attempted to do is brand me, and label me into a category.

Branding by the way is how you mark slaves as property.

I am not property, I do not wish a brand or label that describes me as such.

I would really appreciate if you could consider respecting that.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by saabacura
 


What I am really trying to say, is that people have been divided into might makes right mindsets, that ignore real issues of right and wrong, to instead dictate what is wrong through might, achieved through divisions, that are pitted against one another, to establish might, which makes right, by granting the distinction to who is the mightiest in imposing their will as being right.

That is a poor way to establish what is right or wrong.

People do brand or label themselves often because they were branded or labeled at birth, you were born a Muslim in Saudia Arabia, a Sunni Muslim in Saudia Arabia, but you are not a Bedouine mind you, no we have to classify you further, you are a city dweller, but, no we can't stop there, you are a poor city dweller.

You now have been given an identity and a role to categorize you, stereo type you and manipulate you against other classes, other sects, other religions, other nations, by establishing you as property of that class, sect, religion, nation through at first assigned identidy and then adopted identidy once you accept all the labels.

Once in that role you have limited choices because of peer pressure, and are not free to act ouside of that role, without risking ire from your peers.

Have you heard this one? "This is not how peace workers are supposed to act!"

It's a label, and a role, the comes with imposed rules, and restrictions, in this particular case, rules and restrictions that you are not supposed to be allowed to defend yourself it's wrong for you and your label to defend yourself, but it's perfectly alright if you carry the label of "IDF Soldier" to do so.

So it's all about a might makes right mentallity, where people are divided and enslaved into roles and labels and brands designed for them to adopt or be assigned to, whether they want such a label or distinctions or not.

That is how people are controlled through divide and conquer.

Now while many people would like to define how "Peace activists" are supposed to behave, or how Jews are supposed to behave, or how Americans are supposed to behave, think a moment what restrictions and behaviors you would assign to someone identified as a human being born on the planet earth.

Now we are just down to species and planet of origin to define and restrict someone through definition.

There is no division to exploit, none has been assigned, none has been sought.

Understand that divide and conquer requires us to accept divisions and labels and brands for the benefit of those who would then use them to manipulate us.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Hi Protoplasmic Travler,

Once and again, you have refused to answer the simple question "are u a Jew or not" by describing the moral implications which prevents you from doing so....conqurer and divide....ETc

Why does this simple YES/NO question becomes so complicated to you???????



[edit on 8-6-2010 by saabacura]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I am not trying to brand you like a cattle. I do not care what background that u come from. Im sorry that you feel that religous beliefs means a "physical branding"...


No, ur religion does not brand you.


All im interested in, is your background...... I could careless what yourre religion is.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by saabacura
 


What part of I am not religious and never have been, and was not born ethnically Jewish are you having a hard time understanding?

Help me out here.

What part of I am a human being born on the planet earth are you having a hard time understanding.

Help me out here.

Why is it so important you create a division for me, other than my actual real status, as a human being, born on planet earth?

Help me out here.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


LOL Protoplasmic Traveler

You are the first posters that responded to My questions immeditatly. I appreciate that.

I feel like your problem of religion has to do with ethnicity. Relgion can be divided into to 3 categories: Atheism, Agnoistism and belief in God...

I feel that your trouble and downright refusal to be identified with a particular religion has nothing to do with the three categories above...

In your mind... and your perception... religion has to do with the ethnicity!!!!

You believe that your religion is related to your ethnicity rather than atheism, agnosticism or complete belief in God.

If this wasn't the case, you would not have responded with 4 posts saying I am "branding" you like a cow.... If I asked your religious beliefs, you would simply have said either YES or No....


Then, If I asked What religion...???
You would have given me one....


Know that the issue in these threads stems from your personal issues.. and not mine..



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by saabacura
 


My personal issue is trying to display a higher point you are choosing not to consider my friend.

I define myself in the simplest, most flexible, least restrictive terms to avoid being confined by stereo typical expecations assigned to people labelled, branded, etc., through affiliation.

You have asked me what point I am trying to make, while really being more interested in trying to prove a point of your own.

I have responded to each one of your questions trying to illustrate me point, and you have chosen to rather consider what I am saying, continually tried to read between the lines, to insist I am must be saying something I am not, in order to try to illustrate a point of your own, while making no attempt to fully consider the one that I am making, by saying very precise and fully descriptive things, that are simply not saying what you would prefer to hear, so you just inject more or less that what you want to inject in between the lines, through insistence that there must be something between the lines and that is what it is.

Each one of my responses to you, demonstrates a clear and precise point.

What ever else you are attempting to read into that is for reasons only you fully know.

I on the other hand have been extremely forthcoming and sharing in what I think and feel and the point I am trying to make.

There is a lesson here.

One you could only possibly learn something of or through, if and when you stop trying to read between the lines, to arrive at a wholly different conclusion for purposes entirely of your own.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The thread has a new forum! We will now proceed to deconstuct the disinformation of divide and conquer politics!

Yeah! That's why I am talking about.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by saabacura
 



Relgion can be divided into to 3 categories: Atheism, Agnoistism and belief in God...


Completely off topic but I hate it when people talk about concepts and don't do it properly.


Firstly, Atheism is not a religion.

Secondly, neither is Agnosticism. In fact, Agnosticism isn't even a spiritual position. It's an epistemological position concerning spiritual matters. There is a difference.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Agnosticism isn't even a spiritual position. It's an epistemological position concerning spiritual matters. There is a difference.


Actually, some would say that "I don't know" is just about as spiritual as it gets ... if there were an it that is.


[edit on 8 Jun 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Great, this is where it belongs.


Divide and Conquer Strategy, also known as “Divide and Rule Strategy” is often applied in the arenas of politics and sociology. In Divide and Conquer Strategy one power breaks another power into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then takes control of those pieces one by one. It generally takes a very strong power to implement Divide and Conquer Strategy. In order to successfully break up another power or government, the conqueror must have access to strong political, military, and economic machines.

www.wisegeek.com...

For those who are not quite clear on Divide and Conquer there are some very good examples at the above link that explains it very clearly. It can also pertain to a personal level, example All Roads Lead to Rome.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Aquarius1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Agnosticism isn't even a spiritual position. It's an epistemological position concerning spiritual matters. There is a difference.


Actually, some would say that "I don't know" is just about as spiritual as it gets ... if there were an it that is.


[edit on 8 Jun 2010 by schrodingers dog]


"I don't know" isn't a belief on spiritual matters but rather the inability to make one up due to ones own epistemological philosophy. Basically, "I don't know" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

You can be agnostic and be Christian. You can be gnostic and be an Atheist. All A/gnostic has to do is whether you believe these matters can be fully understood by humans. It isn't a spiritual position.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
It isn't a spiritual position.


Mmm again, some would content that the lack of a "position" toward any thing is the precise definition of spirituality ... but, let us leave it for another thread as you seem rather dug in to perceptual relativistic "positions."



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Actually I wanted it in board business, to prevent star wars, and keep everyone on their best behavior.

I feel this is a very important topic at this juncture.

I am crossing my fingers that people will try to stay focused on the topic of the thread.

Thanks for those great additions my friend.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
never mind

[edit on 033030p://bTuesday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by SpectreDC
It isn't a spiritual position.


Mmm again, some would content that the lack of a "position" toward any thing is the precise definition of spirituality ... but, let us leave it for another thread as you seem rather dug in to perceptual relativistic "positions."


I do have to agree with that as stated, but it is easy to be that way in isolation, rather than being caught up in an event.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 





So what's the answer?

What do you propose ?

What is the solution?


What is the answer to WHAT?
I am truly confused by your questions. PT is talking about a methodology or approach, not a specific incident or disagreement.

Let me give you an example of the issue that seemed to cause the recent behavior that PT is talking about, namely the Israel/blockade issue.

The Flotilla Position: break the blockade
Israeli position: enforce the blockade

The two positions are irreconcilable

However, let's look at the interests:

Flotilla Interest: bring relief supplies to Gaza
Israeli Interest: to make sure weapons and arms are not delivered to Gaza

Those interests, if they are indeed the true interests, are reconcilable.
There are many ways that a solution can be developed that satisfy both interests. I leave it to you, as a homework assignment, to suggest one.



Good posts in this thread thus far. I would like to add that one of the things that makes the issue you used as an example so complex is that the Free Gaza movement is absolutely trying to deliver supplies denied by the blockade. This complicates things because Israel won't accept a compromise involving no weapons; they also want to see no concrete, no spices of certain kinds, no notepads, et alia. If I were to re-word this, I would say this:

Flotilla interest: Deliver supplies disallowed by the blockade but which they think are necessary for the health and prosperity of Palestinians.

Isreali interest: Enforce the blockade.

Your point on interests versus positions is wonderful, by the way. A good application in a somewhat different context.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by JohnnyElohim]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Once again, an exceptional thread Proto. I have only been on this site for a few months but I always enjoy your reads. A few days ago I posted a thread mainly about propaganda and objectivity but those issues are just a part of what you have posted today. This D&C strategy has been very effective at capturing the "hearts and minds" of millions, if not billions.

This strategy is hard to defeat or counter due to it's emotional and psychological nature. I have experienced the Hegelian Dialectic in a small setting and it is no fun for the person being targeted. I wonder if there is any way to massively educate unaware people of these tactics used to influence them.

Regarding ATS. I have to agree with you when you ask members to remember the principles of this site. Doing so would be beneficial to all of ATS.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Thanks again brother for another great thread!!

Emotion is an act of losing control. You fall in love and do anything. You get angry and you can't think straight.

In all situations take the emotion out. Anger and emotion are natural so it requires practice. However once you remove the anger it's quite easy to see the correct path.

Losing ones attachment to all grouping is another necessity. When you identify with a group you become easy to predict and control. Are you can find a space in all groups and be human. That's what I've done.

Most living souls probably agree on 85 percent on the most important things in life.

1. We all want to live
2. We want what's best for our families
3. We want to be at peace



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join