Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I sometimes wonder if Dawkins is mentally ill so full hate and seeing himself as a prophet.

    The Isreali-Palestine dispute is about Land not religion.
    Jews lived in Palestine pre 1946 and many palestinians are christian
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Dawkins is a prick.

    Just because a self-important scientist, however brilliant he may be, holds an opinion, that doesn't make that opinion any less ****. He's a biologist, not a philosopher, so maybe he should focus on scientific study instead of his crusade for atheism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by filthy_pup)
    Indeed. Given that under Hamas, gay people are executed, women are honour-killed (and not even allowed to run in marathons), whereas in Tel Aviv gay people and women are free but not arabs since i dont like them and they deserve to be beaten by random IDF soliders and have mps threaten to kill their entire race because its what i like in my nice tolerant mind anything brown must be shot like that pal schoolgirl age 10 to go about their business in a free and progressive cosmopolitan city (the free-est in the entire middle east).
    that is total **** sorry israel is just as extreme as its neighbours im not joking. with people openly calling for the genocide of the arabs .. also i dont approve of hamas firing rockets purposefully into civilians areas. but when you idiots realize hamas is a symptom of literally trying to starve the population of gaza of any opportunity at life or a happy life of any kind by not allowing more than 1 truck or so of product out of the city. the faster this stupid crap can stop its easy to criticize when you live in nice safe britain the view is not so rosy when youve had your entire family killed by some israeli strike and have people like you even take away their right to victimhood. the israelis are not peaceful tolerant people what so ever some are which is why i dont want people going around shooting random jews in the head. but the majority do not like arabs and like them being segregated and having israeli soliders threaten school girls like when the israelis themselves admitted they were sterilizing the etheopian women for some odd reason which i dont understand .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amphiprion)
    Not exactly. The key reason behind Hamas' continued assault is however greatly more irrational than Israel's. A fundamental and founding principle of Hamas' organisation is the obliteration and removal of Israel. The people currently leading Hamas will never permanently stop fighting untill that is achieved. It will never be achieved, not without a world war. For that reason Hamas will continue to attack even if all of their other demands are met. Unless the more rational voices from within Hamas, which do exists, calling for peace are able to overcome the stubborn desire to destroy Israel.
    I suppose you have some objections to someone calling for the removal of designation of Israel as a state resulting in it's obliteration by whichever means?

    I believe that if Hamas stop, Israel will stop. In the video the reporter interviews a Palestinian who feels the same way, it's not just me. That isn't to say Hamas are the ones who started this. If we get into who started it we literally have to go back probably thousands of years?
    I believe a synopsis would suffice for the moment so if you please.

    I struggle to agree that this is a valid argument. Open areas do not equate to empty or unpopulated areas. Enevitably some will fall in open fields yes, some will not and it only takes some. If you watch the video in my OP then you see Israelis claim up to 10 rockets a day are intercepted over populated cities. You could argue they are lying but again we know Hamas are targeting cities so it is entirely probable.
    If you take a look at the stats for Iron Dome interceptions (which attempts to eliminate missiles heading towards populated areas by calculating the trajectory), I believe it was some insane figure like 15 or so interceptions for every 90 or 100 rockets.

    The principle is that those rockets are intended to kill indiscriminately, Hamas admit that. If Israel's are indiscriminate or not is yet to be decided as they currently deny it. This is what I'm talking about with equal cuplability.
    Well, what do you expect from an unguided missile whose launcher may not even have enough fuel to even last until the intended objective?

    Do you have a source for this? I've not heard anything about this and I don't actually believe it I'm afraid so unless there is a source I'll just leave it.
    I'm not surprised. It's funding would be under intense scrutiny if it doesn't do as advertised.

    Here is a recent MIT report (11th July 2014). There was also a little summary of Israeli police warning civilians to not go near the rockets as they might still be live. (I can't find it at the moment).

    They have, you are right. There is probably a handful in Gaza but unlikely that there is many. Even without the ID the death toll would not be equal or even greater in Israel. There would still be more Palestinians dying because of the discrepancy in military power between the two. There would be alot more than 36 dead Israelis though. I feel the figure of 36 vs 800 distorts the picture to make it look like Hamas aren't actually firing hundreds of rockets to kill innocent people and it's only Israel. It is important to remember that they both are.
    It's er, 43 now, I think and the vast majority can be classified as legitimate enemy combatants (98%, I think it was). On the other hand, 1000 odd dead and who knows how many "militants" have actually been killed.

    As for the rockets, well, they don't seem to kill many people, being inaccurate and unguided as most of them are. However, Qassam does try and launch rockets at military and intelligence targets with the peashooters that they have.

    Yes. The difference in death toll is largely due to Israel having a much greater defense in place the ID, alarm systems and shelters to name a few. That is essentially the point of the OP though...the Israeli death count isn't as low as it is because Hamas isn't trying, Israel's defence is just too tight. You are pretty much agreeing with me in this bit I feel. This is why it is easy to forget about the extent of Hamas aggression and only blame Israel when like I've said from the very first paragraph of this topic they are both to blame for this mess. Many casual observes of the media only see dead Palestinians and are not aware of this.
    So if those systems or factors you mention are "defence", how do you view the Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza?

    Is it, as the Israeli's like to call it "defence" or is it an "attack"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheAnusFiles)
    If religion was not around, the 'holy land' would be no more significant to the world than Dorset. However because it is designated holy, it becomes the target of crusades and jihad.
    So the Palestinians wouldn't care about Israel existing? Israel wouldn't care about being attacked?

    Look with your eyes and head, not with your pre-conceived notions.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CryptoidAlien)
    So, both reject multiculturalism, interesting. Maybe we should force them together until they learn to be tolerant and diverse.
    You can still criticize other cultures whilst being multicultural.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kasa)
    He's so edgy!

    Honestly though, as the self proclaimed prophet of atheism, he really is an insufferable ****.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    The usual suspects queuing up to bash Dawkins because he can think for himself and reject the "let's all be nice and tolerant!" approach this country has to religion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    The usual suspects queuing up to bash Dawkins because he can think for himself and reject the "let's all be nice and tolerant!" approach this country has to religion.
    Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

    Nice try. Please take a token and try again later.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

    Nice try. Please take a token and try again later.
    That's not an argument. You know as well as I do that what Dawkins says is based on reason and science, while the pro-religion people on here reject reason and science in favour of not offending people.

    Religious ideologies have killed more people than any other. That is a fact. Dawkins rightly points this out and TSR's lefties queue up to attack him. Sad.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Ah Richard Dawkins. Never missing an opportunity to call people with different beliefs from himself "mentally ill". Such a nice chap.
    Way to bludgeon any sense of nuance from the Tweet...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    That's not an argument. You know as well as I do that what Dawkins says is based on reason and science, while the pro-religion people on here reject reason and science in favour of not offending people.

    Religious ideologies have killed more people than any other. That is a fact. Dawkins rightly points this out and TSR's lefties queue up to attack him. Sad.
    Sorry, where is the science showing that all religious people are "mentally ill"? Oh, that's right. There isn't any. It's just Dawkins being a prick.

    Please see my post earlier about the relationship between religion and humanity.

    Also, please point out the eras when religion has not been around. It is only a relatively recent phenomenon for countries not to refer to religion all the time. Give it a few hundred years (a fraction of the time religion has had) and I guarantee that wars without reference to religion will have killed many more people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-...ne-its-schools

    Interesting.

    So when this vacant school which is surrounded by other UN schools which serve as shelters is hit by the IDF, we will hear the usual propaganda 'IDF has hit a UN school, damaging two others and injuring civilians.'

    I wonder why the IDF, those evil creatures, would randomly bomb a school! It couldn't POSSIBLY be because they've placed weapons in a civilian area, could it? (An example of using human shields, for those unaware of it, by the way).
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Sorry, where is the science showing that all religious people are "mentally ill"? Oh, that's right. There isn't any. It's just Dawkins being a prick.

    Please see my post earlier about the relationship between religion and humanity.

    Also, please point out the eras when religion has not been around. It is only a relatively recent phenomenon for countries not to refer to religion all the time. Give it a few hundred years (a fraction of the time religion has had) and I guarantee that wars without reference to religion will have killed many more people.
    Religion is a delusional belief, which can be considered a form of mental illness.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Ah Richard Dawkins. Never missing an opportunity to call people with different beliefs from himself "mentally ill". Such a nice chap.

    Besides, since he doesn't believe in the truth of any supernatural revelations he must believe that religion is man-made. And man-made for a purpose. That purpose being power and control. Hence the inescapable conclusion that people desire power and control over others. People find ways to get that power and control. Religion is one such way. Remove religion and you have not touched the underlying desire for power and control. Without religion people find other ways to get power and control. So the problem in the Middle East is superficially religion (debatable since the people in charge in Israel are definitely not religious and Zionism was not a religious cause) but is actually, like every other problem, the result of humanity.
    Removing religion wouldn't solve the issue, but it would mean one less reason for people to claim superiority morally and otherwise. It would also remove a fair few preconceived ideas about other races, religions, sexes, sexual orientations, and so on that hold back progression.
    The greed would still be there, as would power struggles and the rest, however there wouldn't be hate, divide, death, and war fueled by whose imaginary friend is better or who deserves better or who is right simply because of their chosen beliefs.
    If you removed religion from this crisis it might make things at least a little less complicated.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Ah Richard Dawkins. Never missing an opportunity to call people with different beliefs from himself "mentally ill". Such a nice chap.

    Besides, since he doesn't believe in the truth of any supernatural revelations he must believe that religion is man-made. And man-made for a purpose. That purpose being power and control. Hence the inescapable conclusion that people desire power and control over others. People find ways to get that power and control. Religion is one such way. Remove religion and you have not touched the underlying desire for power and control. Without religion people find other ways to get power and control. So the problem in the Middle East is superficially religion (debatable since the people in charge in Israel are definitely not religious and Zionism was not a religious cause) but is actually, like every other problem, the result of humanity.
    Hmmmm, interesting theory.

    Are you saying that many, many, many years ago, people created the holy books and religion itself and people just believed in them just like that? Do you think the people at that time were easily convinced? If you come out with a holy book, would the world believe you?

    And if religion was created by man, when it was first created, power wasn't easily attainable. Surely if you come out with a book now and say that it's from God blah blah, you'll get incredible amount of hate from it. And at that time, violence was everywhere. So tribes would have been after you. What makes you think that the person (people) that made the religions, didn't come out and admit he's chatting rubbish about God, because he was scared for himself and his family? Surely you'd be too scared to go outside of your house?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=#Ridwan;48822911]Religion is a delusional belief, which can be considered a form of mental illness.QUOTE]

    Well, no. No it cannot. Mental illnesses are real things with real symptoms and causes. To cast religious belief as a form of mental illness is very insulting to those who are actually, unfortunately, suffering from that illness.

    Moreover, if you try and say that holding wrong beliefs makes you mentally ill then you have almost the entire world's population as being mentally ill. And that's kind of silly.

    Finally, it seems to me that if you wish to label religious folk as being mentally ill then this is exposing a huge weakness in your own position. Why are you saying they are ill? It seems to me that it is your only explanation for why they are religious and not converted to atheism. You are trying to say that atheism is so obvious and undeniable that the only way people could not agree with it is if they are mentally ill. Now, to me that sounds like a convenient way of explaining why you are unable to convert so many millions of people to your self-proclaimed obvious position. It is your failing, not theirs.

    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Removing religion wouldn't solve the issue, but it would mean one less reason for people to claim superiority morally and otherwise. It would also remove a fair few preconceived ideas about other races, religions, sexes, sexual orientations, and so on that hold back progression.
    The greed would still be there, as would power struggles and the rest, however there wouldn't be hate, divide, death, and war fueled by whose imaginary friend is better or who deserves better or who is right simply because of their chosen beliefs.
    If you removed religion from this crisis it might make things at least a little less complicated.
    I completely agree that if religion were removed it may well make things better. In some ways, though, it may make things worse. Religion also provides people with a sense of hope, of final justice, of comfort, of morality. If we remove those things we don't really know what we will get.

    But that isn't really my point. My point is that its pretty silly to try and pin everything on religion and ignore humanity. Especially when, as an atheist, he believes that all religious stuff is nothing but a reflection of humanity in the first place.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I completely agree that if religion were removed it may well make things better. In some ways, though, it may make things worse. Religion also provides people with a sense of hope, of final justice, of comfort, of morality. If we remove those things we don't really know what we will get.

    But that isn't really my point. My point is that its pretty silly to try and pin everything on religion and ignore humanity. Especially when, as an atheist, he believes that all religious stuff is nothing but a reflection of humanity in the first place.
    I think that losing that sense of morality, final justice and the rest would be difficult but it may not be a bad thing. After all they are false hopes, based on stories to make people believe they are on the right path and will be rewarded later on. To bring people out of that mindset would be a massive shock to the system for those who have been indoctrinated, but perhaps in years to come it will be the jolt needed to move us all forward in the future.

    But yes, I do get your point. It isn't just about religion, it's territory and rights, amongst other things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thank for the vid. Interesting.

    A lot of Israelis are quite frankly miffed that they have suffered years of this without the world's media even mentioning it. The only time it becomes a story, is when Israel retaliates.

    The vast majority of the time Israel does not retaliate to rockets. What the palestinians do is fire just enough rocket week in and week out to disrupt life and the economy, but not enough rockets to illicit an Israeli response.

    It's pure and utter terrorism and they view it as "grinding Israel down". That you just keep chip chipping away at the people in order to break them.

    So for months and sometimes years when the media in Europe doesn't report anything, these Israelis are spending their time constantly on edge. Woken up randomly in the middle of the night, having to run in and out of shelters. It's also very common for schools to close during days and weeks of rocket fire. Half the kids in these areas have PTSD.

    For the vast majority of the time, it's kids in Gaza that can freely go to school and kids in Israel that are the ones who're living in shelters.

    As soon as Israel decides enough is enough and responds, then and only then are the media interested.

    "Israel strikes Gaza" is the headline and then somewhere hidden in the depths of the article will be "in response to rocket fire"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amphiprion)
    I do personally consider Hamas' aims to be born of "terrorism", one of their founding principles is to destroy Israel and they aspire to do so with violence and bloodshed. Currently, their plight in the name of Palestine is both good and bad for every day Palestinians. Continued bloodshed driven by Hamas increases pressure on the UN to increase pressure on Israel to broker both peace and reasonable land allowance. Continued bloodshed is however, obviously, costing innocent people, regarless of their alleigence, their loved ones and lives.
    Yes I think it is fair to call Hamas terrorists - though it may be an unneccessarily emotive term. Their actions constitute a deliberate effort to "terrorise" Israeli civilians, and I don't doubt the impact that has. Israel is no less guilty of using rockets to terrorise and kill civilian populations, however. Excepting that they are hugely more powerful with better alternatives, that and the fact that their technological superiority and deprivation of basic supplies to the Palestinians means their attacks are much more damaging to human life.

    Hamas' desire to pursue Israel beyond peace and utterly destroy it (whilst ludicrous) also constitutes extremism, imo. However, extremism such as this is essentially "to be expected" given the context in Palestine. The years of persecution, the lack of political agency, the desperate poverty - Israel has driven Palestine to this; created the monster. A dog that you kick and starve becomes vicious.

    The greatest shame is that Hamas provokes extremism and intolerance in Israel, worsening the political spectrum there.

    (Original post by Amphiprion)
    Yes, to some degree. Again though, even if all Israeli activity against Palestine ceased immediately, the current leadership of Hamas would still feel obliged to continue the effort to destroy Israel under their founding principles.
    True. And the hatred Palestinians feel toward Israel might continue to fuel Hamas for some time. However, Israel's continuing disproportionate aggression is only providing fodder for extremism in Palestine. How many Palestinians would cease to support the party if they felt there was a reasonable alternative?

    (Original post by Amphiprion)
    Regarding the blockade, the Israelis would have you believe its soley prohibiting the import of weapons. This is something that needs investigating. I'm slightly skeptical [that it's only weapons] because I know the general mood among a large number of Israeli soldiers is incredibly anti-Arab. Therefore, regardless of whether their commands are to block supplies, weapons or both, I have a feeling the men on the ground are inclined to make arabs suffer. Articles 51 and 54 of protocol 1 under the Geneva convention specifically address this as illegal activity. Blockading weapons however, is not. This is why the blockades need investigating. God damned US veto *******s holding it back though. I reserve judgement on this though until it's been proven one way or the other.
    "Slight skepticism" and "reserving judgement" are inappropriate at this stage. Nor is the blockade of food/aid/etc the responsibility of rogue anti-Arab foot soldiers (though rogue Israeli groups certainly contribute to Palestinian mistreatment, particularly with regard to continuing occupations) - the blockade and it's devastating effects are deliberate and endorsed by the Israeli government.

    It has been clear for many years that the blockade is against more than weapons and is in fact depriving Palestinians of the basic necessities to live. This has been thoroughly investigated and established on multiple occasions by reputed international organisations and charities who have unilaterally condemned the blockade as illegal. We don't need to wait for the US to give an opinion, which not suprisingly they have with-held for purely political reasons.

    Israel has pubicly and openly blocked aid flotillas on several occasions. Israeli officials have even commented that the blockade has been deliberately used to "put pressure" on Hamas. That itself is as much a terrorist action as firing rockets into an area.

    (Original post by Amphiprion)
    Political and religious motives are often jaded or set aside in favour of vengeance I imagine. This is what Hamas want though, I can't help but feel they are completely at ease with the volume of dead civillians and would probably want many more. More dead = greater anti-Israeli movement from both within Palestine and out.
    Yes, I can agree with this.

    (Original post by Amphiprion)
    This, I feel, is a bit unfair. Some of Israels actions are absoloutely unsavoury and need investigating to establish the legality of them. They are indeed the greater force but they should not be expected to sit back and just sustain continued aggression from Hamas
    Yet to powerlessly tolerate continued aggression and restriction from Israel at enormous human cost seems to be what is expected of Palestine, unless they are to be labelled "aggressors" or "equally responsible".
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.