Gyroscopic Investing

MangoMan wrote: I got this in an email, and verified its accuracy on snopes:

From: Dr. Arieh Eldad:

I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.

Bibi (Netanyahu) gets it, Obama does not.

I have never written before asking to please forward onwards, so that as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits the world if it is not stopped.

Dr Arieh Eldad

http://www.snopes.com/politics/israel/eldad.asp

So since this is not only a war, but one between Jews and Muslims, or the West and Muslims, I suppose we should bomb them until... When exactly?  "They" surrender?

I can see Moda's in the Christmas spirit, LOL. There's a goddamn skin bank on this earth, and you want to bury that and turn this into one more rubber stamp thread about Israel bombing Palestine? Oh well, your choice.

Um... the article is less about the skin bank and more about the woman who wanted to attack it, and how we are "at war" with Muslims.

War implies bombs and doling death.

I think it's great that a society has a skin bank, and disgusting that this would be a target of attack. But that isn't the point of the article. The point was to incite war against Muslims.

Merry Christmas?

moda0306 wrote: Um... the article is less about the skin bank and more about the woman who wanted to attack it, and how we are "at war" with Muslims.

War implies bombs and doling death.

I think it's great that a society has a skin bank, and disgusting that this would be a target of attack. But that isn't the point of the article. The point was to incite war against Muslims.

Merry Christmas?

Yes, you're right. The focus is on the fact that the woman bombed the people who quite literally saved her skin. Or saved skin for her.
Inciting war? I'm not so sure. The lines are already pretty clearly drawn in Israel. It's not the same as in the States. The war is there. The hospital is in Jerusalem.

Whether or not we (the West) are at war with Muslims is outside of the scope of the article, I think.

moda0306 wrote: Um... the article is less about the skin bank and more about the woman who wanted to attack it, and how we are "at war" with Muslims.

War implies bombs and doling death.

I think it's great that a society has a skin bank, and disgusting that this would be a target of attack. But that isn't the point of the article. The point was to incite war against Muslims.

Merry Christmas?

Perhaps the point is remind everyone that Islam is at war with infidels.  Attacking or not attacking Muslims changes/solves nothing.

Bombing and death are terrible. We should just surrender instead.

Reub wrote: Bombing and death are terrible. We should just surrender instead.

Reub, with your sarcasm, you're indirectly inciting war!
Call the authorities. Reub's inciting again!

dualstow wrote:

Reub wrote: Bombing and death are terrible. We should just surrender instead.

Reub, with your sarcasm, you're indirectly inciting war!
Call the authorities. Reub's inciting again!

No.  People should be able to talk about war without authorities being called.  However, not without being called out on exactly what they're doing in the guise of caring about skin banks.

moda0306 wrote: No.  People should be able to talk about war without authorities being called.  However, not without being called out on exactly what they're doing in the guise of caring about skin banks.

I might disappear soon because I'm being called away for Chinese food with the wife and sister-and-law. (Jewish Christmas tradition). But, I'd like to have a serious discussion about this. I genuinely want to know:

If you believe the author -- not OP MangoMan but the person who was actually at the skin bank -- had some agenda, how should he have told his story in a way that you would have approved? Surely, if a woman gets helped by this skin bank and then attempts to destroy it, you don't think her story should be swept under the rug. How then, should it have been worded?

dualstow wrote:

moda0306 wrote: No.  People should be able to talk about war without authorities being called.  However, not without being called out on exactly what they're doing in the guise of caring about skin banks.

I might disappear soon because I'm being called away for Chinese food with the wife and sister-and-law. (Jewish Christmas tradition). But, I'd like to have a serious discussion about this. I genuinely want to know:

If you believe the author -- not OP MangoMan but the person who was actually at the skin bank -- had some agenda, how should he have told his story in a way that you would have approved? Surely, if a woman gets helped by this skin bank and then attempts to destroy it, you don't think her story should be swept under the rug. How then, should it have been worded?

He wouldn't have referred to the non-existent war between two religions (only states, via heads there-of, can go to war against each other... and even then it's a somewhat artificial concoction) in the land of Israel (there are tons of Muslims in Israel, and Jews in Iran, that live peacefully with their neighbors), and the false dichotomy of it being a war between civilization and barbarism.  Further, he probably wouldn't have a need to mention Obama & Netanyahu.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to bring up the story overall, and even throw in a few words about radical Islam as a threat would be fine.  But including rhetoric about a war between Jews & Muslims and following it up with the aforementioned false dichotomy and references to politicians very quickly betrays his true intention for the article.  If you're in favor of killing innocent Muslims on the basis that you're fighting a "war," and trying to paper over that fact, it deserves to be called out.

If we could put all murderous Israelis and all murderous Muslims on an island and bomb it, perhaps then it would be ok (though even then, usually I prefer a state to have to use due process to kill folks).  Unfortunately, we don't have that situation.  If a doctor wants to use an attempted murder of innocent nurses to advocate for his government to kill innocent Muslim folks (implied by his false assessment of a "war" to be fought between Jews (civilization) and Muslims (barbarians)), then he deserves to be called out for it. 

This isn't to say I don't understand his anger.  But I don't have time to spend an eternity trying to offer my empathy to every war-monger.  I'll just call out their hypocritical logic and let them try to slither their way into a consistent, rational advocacy for their positions.

What were wars called before there were states?

I Shrugged wrote: What were wars called before there were states?

They weren't called anything, because they didn't exist.

War without the state is impossible.
The state without war is impossible.
They are logically and morally equivalent.

Tech is right, but of course, in no way does that imply that there was no violence between individuals and groups before the emergence of states. Archaeological evidence in fact puts the violent death rate of males at up to 25% in the neolithic era, I believe. And of course it doesn't take a state for one group of people to decide that hate their neighbors enough to try to go kill them--a relatively common occurrence, if the archaeological record is at all accurate. The state is simply the most efficient distiller of the basic concept into its logical conclusion, though it is interesting to note that as weapons get more powerful and states devote more money towards purchasing them and training their wielders, the worldwide rate of violent death continues to fall alongside the number of wars and war deaths. Almost as if the whole "peace through superior firepower" concept was accurate...

Pointedstick wrote: Tech is right, but of course, in no way does that imply that there was no violence between individuals and groups before the emergence of states. Archaeological evidence in fact puts the violent death rate of males at up to 25% in the neolithic era, I believe. And of course it doesn't take a state for one group of people to decide that hate their neighbors enough to try to go kill them--a relatively common occurrence, if the archaeological record is at all accurate. The state is simply the most efficient distiller of the basic concept into its logical conclusion, though it is interesting to note that as weapons get more powerful and states devote more money towards purchasing them and training their wielders, the worldwide rate of violent death continues to fall alongside the number of wars and war deaths. Almost as if the whole "peace through superior firepower" concept was accurate...

Someone who believes it is impossible for him to overcome a particular opponent will not likely make the attempt to do so. This applies to slaves as well as subjects of governments; the only difference is in the exact institutional arrangements. Or at least the belief as to the differences between those arrangements; the arrangements may actually be equivalent.

moda0306 wrote: If we could put all murderous Israelis and all murderous Muslims on an island and bomb it, perhaps then it would be ok

I don't know. I'd really miss all three of those Israelis.

No, seriously, I appreciate the reply. I don't think of any part of that text as "rhetoric", but I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

Quote from: I Shrugged on Today at 12:39:51 PM
What were wars called before there were states?

techovelist: They weren't called anything, because they didn't exist.

I always think of white blood cells.