Yeah, and the church fought them tooth and nail every step of the way.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yeah, and the church fought them tooth and nail every step of the way. [/quote]
I’m sure Calvin fought tooth and nail to stop himself from killing the person he murdered.
I’m not sure what your point is here, Tirib.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah, real cool article. The author invents a two day lull where there was none during almost daily rocket attacks over a period of more than decade.
From the article:
“The simplest answer is: you don’t want a truce. And it may be that simple: Israel wants Gaza as a punching bag”
Yeah that makes sense! Hamas wants a truce but Israel doesn’t. To be sure. Hamas only fired 109+ rockets on November 11 and 12 so Israel should’ve cancelled Operation Pillar of Defense and worked on another Hamas “truce.” After all, they’ve always worked so well in the past haven’t they? Good grief what utter crap.[/quote]
Jesus, you just don’t get it - this was not an article in support of Hamas. Hamas is doing what they’re supposed to do as a terrorist organization - pissing off Israel, launching the rockets and hoping for an Israeli response that would get them more “martyrs” from the crowded slums of Gaza and subsequently more recruits.
And by the way, if you have to count in people with “acute stress reaction” to the casualty list from a rocket attack, obviously this is not having a significant effect on your civilian population.
Before you start screaming that I’m ignoring Israeli casualties - I’m not. I’ve also been under artillery and mortar fire as a kid, and I know that it’s no picnic.
We’re discussing Israeli general strategy here.
And the fact, that unlike the previous wars (1948, Sinai campaign, Six day war etc. ) IDF and Israeli society in genertal is very averse to casualties.
More than a thousand Hamas prisoners were exchanged for Gilad Shalit. And that is the fundamental weakness of Israel now - because Hamas doesn’t give a shit about casualties - they even embrace them, willing to sacrifice even hundreds of their own (or civilians for that matter) for a single IDF casualty.
Yes, the rockets are a nuisance (from a strategic perspective) - but the real dangers comes from Hezbollah. Unfortunately, currently Israel is more that willing to deal with the proverbial punching bag of Gaza (Hamas will constantly launch rockets on Israel, so you can hit them back when ever you like from a PR standpoint) without dealing with the more serious and more costly enemy in the north.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yeah, and the church fought them tooth and nail every step of the way. [/quote]
I’m sure Calvin fought tooth and nail to stop himself from killing the person he murdered.
I’m not sure what your point is here, Tirib.[/quote]
Calvin killed quite a few more than one person.[/quote]
It was over 50. 53 if I am not mistaken. I admire the martyrs who fought his lies to the death. He was an epicly bad human being. I guess since he thought that nothing he could do could keep him from heaven, he could do what he wanted. Ever notice when somebody creates a cult where some are chosen above others, they always include themselves?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The Spanish Inquisition was run by Isabel and Ferdinand, Pope Sixtus while initially giving his blessing, balked at the methods used. When discovered he tried to move the tribunals under Papal authority giving all due rights and process to the acused, but the Spanish balked, and told him to stick it.
The one thing is certain about the Spanish Inquisition, it’s the stuff of legend more than fact. And while it tended to be quite nasty, it was under the authority of the Crown and not the church.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html[/quote]
“Balking at methods used” doesn’t qualify as grounds for exculpation in my view.
John Paul II felt that his Church had been complicit enough to warrant an apology–universally understood to refer to the Crusades and Inquisition–at the turn of the millennium. And then four years later to write this: http://www.zenit.org/article-10371?l=english
As an aside, I do know that much talk of the Inquisition is overblown. I will note however that the estimate I provided above–2,000–is on the extremely low end of figures proposed by credible historians. The original point was that thousands had been killed by the Catholic Church, and the point stands. I’ll throw the Crusades into the mix as well.[/quote]
I am saying merely that there is more myth that reality when it comes to the facts. It’s the danger of mixing politics with religion, the politics don’t get cleaner, the religion just gets dirtier.
Further, if it weren’t for the Crusades which was as much state sponsored as church, since it was using the militaries of countries to accomplish it, Europe would have been Arab and Islamic. It was a war after all. They didn’t launch them for the pure hell of it and it saved Europe’s ass several times. The Moores were nothing if not determined.
You have to understand that politics and religion were viewed as one in the same at that time. You also only look at the bad. What people don’t understand is that the main tenets of the church have never changed since apostolic times. In a 2000 year history, you are going to have your share of bad people taking advantage and seeking power. There is NO institution in history without it’s share of bad people doing bad things. The people being bad doesn’t make the institution bad, it means they are not following the tenets, while claiming to represent.
Despite it all, the church survived and thrived and grew. You show me a person following the tenets of the faith, I’ll show you a good person.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The Spanish Inquisition was run by Isabel and Ferdinand, Pope Sixtus while initially giving his blessing, balked at the methods used. When discovered he tried to move the tribunals under Papal authority giving all due rights and process to the acused, but the Spanish balked, and told him to stick it.
The one thing is certain about the Spanish Inquisition, it’s the stuff of legend more than fact. And while it tended to be quite nasty, it was under the authority of the Crown and not the church.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html[/quote]
“Balking at methods used” doesn’t qualify as grounds for exculpation in my view.
John Paul II felt that his Church had been complicit enough to warrant an apology–universally understood to refer to the Crusades and Inquisition–at the turn of the millennium. And then four years later to write this: http://www.zenit.org/article-10371?l=english
As an aside, I do know that much talk of the Inquisition is overblown. I will note however that the estimate I provided above–2,000–is on the extremely low end of figures proposed by credible historians. The original point was that thousands had been killed by the Catholic Church, and the point stands. I’ll throw the Crusades into the mix as well.[/quote]
My point of objection was the burned part. My second point of objection was in the name of Jesus. My third point of objection (which I see now) is that the Pope apologized for the Inquisitions (which covers more than Spain). Also, I’ve assumed that you’ve never apologized for your friend’s mistakes. However, both as a Catholic and as a Spaniard, I feel empathy towards those who were murdered. However, I also have no tolerance for just making up exaggerations and being both Catholic and Spanish I’m quick to be skeptic of claims about the Black Legend as I’ve heard my own teachers claim that the Pope killed millions at the stake in the Spanish Inquisition, as if he himself traveled to Castile to be an Inquistor for a million trials.[/quote]
I assume it can be quite annoying because, yes, I agree with you, the Inquisition has been drastically overblown.
But I myself wasn’t doing that. I gave a sober estimate which is if anything a bit of a lowball. I said burned because it was probably the most common method of execution during the whole fiasco and because it, along with garroting, became the standard method of representation in contemporary art on the subject.
I don’t contend that the Pope went about setting fires to heretics in a literal sense. I don’t dispute that the Inquisition had a political AS WELL AS a religious flavor (in those days, what didn’t?). But as I have argued above, Rome’s hands did not escape the Inquisition blood-free. John Paul II agreed with me on that point.’
Anyway, I think the discussion has run its course. You and I both believe that the Inquisition has been substantially exaggerated in the contemporary psyche. It would be a mistake, though, to allow that unfortunate fact to cloud our judgment of the historical reality–a reality which includes innocent people dying miserably and in public, their noses full of the scent of their own roasting flesh.
On a happier note, where in Spain are you from/have you lived? I spent about half of my childhood/adolescence living in Burgos. Beautiful Cathedral. I also traveled to every major city in the country save for Valencia, and last year I did the Camino de Santiago beginning in Burgos.
edited because in the first version I asked “where is Spain” rather than “where in Spain”
[quote]pat wrote:
Despite it all, the church survived and thrived and grew. You show me a person following the tenets of the faith, I’ll show you a good person.[/quote]
Agreed. I never intended to argue against this. Every religious person I know is a decent person.
This seems appropriate to post.
james
[quote]loppar wrote:
Jesus, you just don’t get it - this was not an article in support of Hamas. Hamas is doing what they’re supposed to do as a terrorist organization - pissing off Israel, launching the rockets and hoping for an Israeli response that would get them more “martyrs” from the crowded slums of Gaza and subsequently more recruits.
[/quote]
The article suggests that a serious “truce” was being negotiated between Hamas and Israel brokered by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. It asserts that Israel is at fault for killing Ahmed Jabari because of an alleged two day lull in Hamas rocket attacks. It further states that Israel is bullying Hamas out of frustration over its inability to deal with Hezbollah. It’s utter nonsense. As the article James just posted says, this is the “narrative of the left.” I’ve read all of your posts on Israel over the last year or so. You’ve got to wonder about a European nationalist who takes on the “narrative of the left.”
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah, real cool article. The author invents a two day lull where there was none during almost daily rocket attacks over a period of more than decade.
From the article:
“The simplest answer is: you don’t want a truce. And it may be that simple: Israel wants Gaza as a punching bag”
Yeah that makes sense! Hamas wants a truce but Israel doesn’t. To be sure. Hamas only fired 109+ rockets on November 11 and 12 so Israel should’ve cancelled Operation Pillar of Defense and worked on another Hamas “truce.” After all, they’ve always worked so well in the past haven’t they? Good grief what utter crap.[/quote]
Jesus, you just don’t get it - this was not an article in support of Hamas. Hamas is doing what they’re supposed to do as a terrorist organization - pissing off Israel, launching the rockets and hoping for an Israeli response that would get them more “martyrs” from the crowded slums of Gaza and subsequently more recruits.
And by the way, if you have to count in people with “acute stress reaction” to the casualty list from a rocket attack, obviously this is not having a significant effect on your civilian population.
Before you start screaming that I’m ignoring Israeli casualties - I’m not. I’ve also been under artillery and mortar fire as a kid, and I know that it’s no picnic.
We’re discussing Israeli general strategy here.
And the fact, that unlike the previous wars (1948, Sinai campaign, Six day war etc. ) IDF and Israeli society in genertal is very averse to casualties.
More than a thousand Hamas prisoners were exchanged for Gilad Shalit. And that is the fundamental weakness of Israel now - because Hamas doesn’t give a shit about casualties - they even embrace them, willing to sacrifice even hundreds of their own (or civilians for that matter) for a single IDF casualty.
Yes, the rockets are a nuisance (from a strategic perspective) - but the real dangers comes from Hezbollah. Unfortunately, currently Israel is more that willing to deal with the proverbial punching bag of Gaza (Hamas will constantly launch rockets on Israel, so you can hit them back when ever you like from a PR standpoint) without dealing with the more serious and more costly enemy in the north.
[/quote]
The author has a serious bias against the IDF. If the IDF were really so inept they wouldn’t have the ability to defend themselves. Hezbollah has never had a victory over the IDF significant enough to say Israel is apprehensive about engaging them either. During the Lebanon war the IDF forces had some significant victories and did well considering the nature of the war. Not to mention that when Hezbollah warned against attacking Beirut the IDF retaliated by attacking Beirut, seems as though they weren’t too worried about defeat.
Israel doesn’t need to beat up on Hamas for PR, plain and simple. Fighting with Hamas is more of a PR disaster for them than anything. You can always count on Hamas using it as a opportunity to recruit and gain sympathy, then Israel is forced into a meaningless ceasefire.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
This seems appropriate to post.
james[/quote]
Good post, just got this one delivered to my Kindle. I usually trust the Economist to take a sober and not terribly partisan look at things.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
This seems appropriate to post.
james[/quote]
Good post, just got this one delivered to my Kindle. I usually trust the Economist to take a sober and not terribly partisan look at things.[/quote]
It tries to sound non-partisan but really it is.
From the article:
“Mr Jones is quite right…Israel has driven the Palestinians out of most of the territory in which they historically resided…”
Nope.
“confining them to ever-shrinking patches of parched land…”
Nope.
“sealing their borders”
In an attempt to prevent weapons smuggling.
“crippling their economy…”
Nope.
“stunting their political aspirations…”
They don’t have any “political aspirations” beyond destroying Israel.
“jailing or killing their heroes…”
Their “heroes” are terrorists.
“and blasting apart whatever chance they might have had at a prosperous, well-governed state if left to their own devices…”
LOL! Seriously?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
This seems appropriate to post.
james[/quote]
Good post, just got this one delivered to my Kindle. I usually trust the Economist to take a sober and not terribly partisan look at things.[/quote]
It tries to sound non-partisan but really it is.
From the article:
“Mr Jones is quite right…Israel has driven the Palestinians out of most of the territory in which they historically resided…”
Nope.
“confining them to ever-shrinking patches of parched land…”
Nope.
“sealing their borders”
In an attempt to prevent weapons smuggling.
“crippling their economy…”
Nope.
“stunting their political aspirations…”
They don’t have any “political aspirations” beyond destroying Israel.
“jailing or killing their heroes…”
Their “heroes” are terrorists.
“and blasting apart whatever chance they might have had at a prosperous, well-governed state if left to their own devices…”
LOL! Seriously?[/quote]
Eh, I don’t think it’s that far off the mark (I do take issue with the wording of some of what you’ve highlighted here. But leaving certain elements of that one graf aside I thought the piece was actually pretty damn close to middle ground). I certainly don’t think it does anyone any good to pretend that Palestinians don’t have grievances–and that’s exactly what the right does wrong (they they are more correct than the anti-Israel left).
And again, Israel did the right thing this November.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I didn’t read the article yet but OMG the force (of ignorance) is strong with this one.
The Economist put out this drivel? Really?[/quote]
How can you even make a comment without reading the article? Seriously. And have ever even been out of the state of Montana?
james
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I didn’t read the article yet but OMG the force (of ignorance) is strong with this one.
The Economist put out this drivel? Really?[/quote]
How can you even make a comment without reading the article? Seriously. And have ever even been out of the state of Montana?
james[/quote]
James, James, James, fair enough. I read the quotes and assumed they were accurate. Were they not? Did SM take them out of context or sumthin?
As to your second question my travels in North America, I’m betting, would make yours look…ummm…rather Rhode Islandish in comparison. Wanna make a wager?
In fact, there’s a fairly decent chance I’ve been more places in the People’s Republic of California than you have.
Tread lightly here, amigo.[/quote]
As I recall, James has traveled quite extensively (as in, Internationally) as a tourist in green. So tread lightly here, Freund.