Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Coffee wrote: Huh?

He's not saying they are morally justifiable, he's saying these are the justifications given and not affirming that they are valid.

Yes.

I'm not agreeing with the terrorists' rationale, I'm just noting what their stated rationale is in some cases.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

MediumTex wrote: Coffee,

What role do you think that Israel has in either stoking tensions that manifest in acts of terrorism

How does Israel fit in with just this week's two acts of barbaric terrorism? At the Nairobi shopping mall they released any hostage who could recite a Moslem prayer.  In Nigeria they slaughtered sleeping Nigerian non-Moslem students.

But I'm Sure Buchanan would find a way to link it to Israel

Mdraf wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Coffee,

What role do you think that Israel has in either stoking tensions that manifest in acts of terrorism

How does Israel fit in with just this week's two acts of barbaric terrorism? At the Nairobi shopping mall they released any hostage who could recite a Moslem prayer.  In Nigeria they slaughtered sleeping Nigerian non-Moslem students.

But I'm Sure Buchanan would find a way to link it to Israel

Do you think the Isreali government is better off or worse off when an act of terror is commited by a Muslim? - just a question guys, please don't read into it.

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Coffee,

What role do you think that Israel has in either stoking tensions that manifest in acts of terrorism

How does Israel fit in with just this week's two acts of barbaric terrorism? At the Nairobi shopping mall they released any hostage who could recite a Moslem prayer.  In Nigeria they slaughtered sleeping Nigerian non-Moslem students.

But I'm Sure Buchanan would find a way to link it to Israel

Do you think the Isreali government is better off or worse off when an act of terror is commited by a Muslim? - just a question guys, please don't read into it.

Neither. Israel has no beef against Islam.  Islam is Israel's second official religion. Arabic is an official state language and appears on all government forms and money.  Israel is at war with its neighbors who have never recognized its existence until Egypt under Sadat and then Jordan. The Islamists which Coffee refers to are attempting to turn the nationalist conflict into a religious one.

Mdraf wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote: How does Israel fit in with just this week's two acts of barbaric terrorism? At the Nairobi shopping mall they released any hostage who could recite a Moslem prayer.  In Nigeria they slaughtered sleeping Nigerian non-Moslem students.

But I'm Sure Buchanan would find a way to link it to Israel

Do you think the Isreali government is better off or worse off when an act of terror is commited by a Muslim? - just a question guys, please don't read into it.

Neither. Israel has no beef against Islam.  Islam is Israel's second official religion. Arabic is an official state language and appears on all government forms and money.  Israel is at war with its neighbors who have never recognized its existence until Egypt under Sadat and then Jordan. The Islamists which Coffee refers to are attempting to turn the nationalist conflict into a religious one.

You don't think a terrorist act attributed to a Muslim affects the perception of Islam to Americans? If it does change the opinion, does that increase the friendliness towards Isreal and provide cover for any action they want to take against their enemies (justified or not, that's another topic). Does it not strenthen the perception that sending financial and military aid to Isreal by taxing Americans or borrowing against their future taxes is acceptable/desireable?

I think what you're saying is Ron Paul's and Buchanan's opinion, namely that if it weren't for our support of Israel then Islamists would not have any hostility towards us. Actually this was refuted by OBL himself.  His main beef was US troops in "holy" Saudi Arabia.  Besides which, Israel's greatest military achievements (War of Independence and Six Day War) were during the American arms embargo on Israel.  Only after 1967 did the US see an opportunity to dislodge the French and  supply Israel with military aid - which all has to be spent here by the way. The money never actually leaves the U.S.  Goes straight to Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes, etc.  Finally the current level of military aid, both to Israel and Egypt, is enshrined in an international treaty to which the US is signatory, ratified by the Senate - The Camp David accords.  That's why, despite the recent outcry, Obama is unable to unilaterally cut off Egypt's military aid without violating the treaty.

So as I tried to explain, there is a lot more to the Middle East morass than simply US+Israel vs. Islam. Too simplistic.

Mdraf wrote: I think what you're saying is Ron Paul's and Buchanan's opinion, namely that if it weren't for our support of Israel then Islamists would not have any hostility towards us. Actually this was refuted by OBL himself.  His main beef was US troops in "holy" Saudi Arabia.  Besides which, Israel's greatest military achievements (War of Independence and Six Day War) were during the American arms embargo on Israel.  Only after 1967 did the US see an opportunity to dislodge the French and  supply Israel with military aid - which all has to be spent here by the way. The money never actually leaves the U.S.  Goes straight to Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes, etc.  Finally the current level of military aid, both to Israel and Egypt, is enshrined in an international treaty to which the US is signatory, ratified by the Senate - The Camp David accords.  That's why, despite the recent outcry, Obama is unable to unilaterally cut off Egypt's military aid without violating the treaty.

So as I tried to explain, there is a lot more to the Middle East morass than simply US+Israel vs. Islam. Too simplistic.

When did Ron Paul say that? All I've ever heard him say was that they don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we have our troops in their countries (and drones and other methods of killing them). So we need to bring our troops home and stop invading countries and killing people.

Fascinating, Mdraf. That all jibes what what I know too.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mdraf wrote: I think what you're saying is Ron Paul's and Buchanan's opinion, namely that if it weren't for our support of Israel then Islamists would not have any hostility towards us. Actually this was refuted by OBL himself.  His main beef was US troops in "holy" Saudi Arabia.  Besides which, Israel's greatest military achievements (War of Independence and Six Day War) were during the American arms embargo on Israel.  Only after 1967 did the US see an opportunity to dislodge the French and  supply Israel with military aid - which all has to be spent here by the way. The money never actually leaves the U.S.  Goes straight to Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes, etc.  Finally the current level of military aid, both to Israel and Egypt, is enshrined in an international treaty to which the US is signatory, ratified by the Senate - The Camp David accords.  That's why, despite the recent outcry, Obama is unable to unilaterally cut off Egypt's military aid without violating the treaty.

So as I tried to explain, there is a lot more to the Middle East morass than simply US+Israel vs. Islam. Too simplistic.

When did Ron Paul say that? All I've ever heard him say was that they don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we have our troops in their countries (and drones and other methods of killing them). So we need to bring our troops home and stop invading countries and killing people.

I may be wrong on that one.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mdraf wrote: I think what you're saying is Ron Paul's and Buchanan's opinion, namely that if it weren't for our support of Israel then Islamists would not have any hostility towards us. Actually this was refuted by OBL himself.  His main beef was US troops in "holy" Saudi Arabia.  Besides which, Israel's greatest military achievements (War of Independence and Six Day War) were during the American arms embargo on Israel.  Only after 1967 did the US see an opportunity to dislodge the French and  supply Israel with military aid - which all has to be spent here by the way. The money never actually leaves the U.S.  Goes straight to Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes, etc.  Finally the current level of military aid, both to Israel and Egypt, is enshrined in an international treaty to which the US is signatory, ratified by the Senate - The Camp David accords.  That's why, despite the recent outcry, Obama is unable to unilaterally cut off Egypt's military aid without violating the treaty.

So as I tried to explain, there is a lot more to the Middle East morass than simply US+Israel vs. Islam. Too simplistic.

When did Ron Paul say that? All I've ever heard him say was that they don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we have our troops in their countries (and drones and other methods of killing them). So we need to bring our troops home and stop invading countries and killing people.

This is what I've heard also from RP, although I would not doubt some mention of aid to Isreal has also been mentioned.

It doesn't. It's in MT's "I am not speaking ill of Israel" paragraph.

dualstow wrote: It doesn't. It's in MT's "I am not speaking ill of Israel" paragraph.

Right.

I'm just observing that Israel has done what any of the other nations in that neighborhood could have done if they had wanted to.  In fact, a lot of other nations in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia could probably have turned their countries into wealthy first world nations with a vibrant middle class if they had invested their oil wealth in something other than fleets of luxury cars for members of the royal family.

Kshartle wrote: Anyway not trying to derail, just pointing out how crazy it is to attribute decisions to nations or countries. We all do it and it makes things seem crazy.

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

PS,

That's interesting.

I wonder how much the "will of the government" really translated to "the will of agents of the government."  If a governmental entity is hiring you to do a specific job, and you're held accountable in certain arbitrary or bureaucratic position, you're not really necessarily reflecting your own will... just a job you were given to do.  And for the most part, there is no supreme ruler that necessarily gets to define his own position and drive the bus as he sees fit.  Even the President has to enforce laws he may not agree with, and a voting population that in one form or another he has to answer to.

But a government can't have a "will," and even most government agents don't really exercise their own will, but the will of whatever the combination of people overseeing them have, and even those people don't have their own will, necessarily, that is driving the work they do in their position.

I don't believe in a "collective will," though, unless it's meant to be quasi-contradictory.  However, whatever a collection of "wills" of influence and respected bureaucracies brings about seems to have a mind of its own.  Kind of like traffic, or birds flying in groups in various directions, there is an illusion of a collective will made up by lots of individuals making decisions based on "decision trees" that are very dependent on how others are making decisions.  But it seems that when EVERYONE uses that same algorithm, it can look like a "hive mind," because even though people are making their own decisions, it's just a big circular equation where everyone's decision is based on what a lot of other people are doing.

But then I keep thinking, and if our actions are in fact SO dependent on the actions of others, maybe we are just lemmings of a hive mind.  Maybe we put ourselves into a collective by behaving like hormone-induced sheep in so many odd ways, and our supposed "individualism" is just a hormone induced defense-mechanism that serves to preserve our species, since we're fortunate enough to have plenty of fertile women and men, not just a few fertile men and a fertile queen, all being in need of protection.  I almost wonder if every ant sees itself as an individual, but something odd just drives it to pick food up, take it back home, and go pick up more food.  Maybe it's the same thing that has us always trying to "keep up with the Joneses" for a benefit we can't even truly understand or put our fingers on.

OK I've really hijacked this thread.  You're all free to go now.