Now - till you actually show what from those links you 'think' supports your contention, rigon, what is there to respond to? So far, nothing from that first link supports your position. Your questions are based on your thinking those links support your case - yet they do not. This is where your confusion lies. There is no point dealing with questions that are based on falsehoods, on false assumptions on your part. So, if you want to see why this is so, well, you need to paste what sections of those links you think do support it. So far, what you have pasted from this link below does not support your position - in fact, nothing you posted from this link even mentions Norway, ironically enough. Admit that, or paste something to support your case, and we can move on to your next piece of 'evidence'. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/I have a case . I made my case. You may disagree with it. You clearly have no intention to respond to the case I made. But I made a case. Everyone can see I made a case whether they agree with it or not. In a debate with grown-ups, this is the part where it is your turn to tell me what is wrong with the case I already made. Not to simply say "try again until you provide an answer that satisfies me" |
|
|
|
|
Also, you didn't deal with the insane person Osama Hamdan and his comments. As I think you know, I find both parties to blame. But at this point, Hamas is a huge deterrent to anything being accomplished. Their comments are pretty much insane, and they don't even bother to agree that Israel has a right to exist. There really is no way for Israel to negotiate.
|
|
|
|
They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel. You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing. And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence. What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general. And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements. Can you give some examples of Israel not living up to ceasefire agreements where the parties involved weren't tried in a transparent court of law? |
|
|
|
They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel. You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing. And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence. |
|
|
|
okay so both sides agree to getting an independent monitor to administer the ceasefire on the the countdown to the ceasefire the monitor says ... "right you lot, no shooting after the count of three, - one ... two ... bang - ah someone shot me in the ass, - now stop that you bunch of feckin' hooligans" And the shelling of Rafah (which has killed up to 40), but yes it is over. It is hard to tell which militant group broke it this time, but it was likely a Palestinian one rather than the IDF. I find this a bit disingenuous. Does it matter which group broke it, other than for internal finger pointing at this point? Yes. All Palestinian armed groups are hardly unified, and treating them as such is tactically and politically a misstep. It's like failing to realize (or more likely not caring) about the divide between Hamas and its armed wing and not giving them enough time to bring the armed wing in line back for the first ceasefire which could have avoided the entire ground incursion. But the problem is that Hamas "guaranteed" the ceasefire. If they are unable to do that, they shouldn't be saying they can. It makes their words worthless. They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. Trying to point fingers does nothing for the main issue, which is trustworthiness. Israel has been striking every security provision aspect of Hamas that they can and you think that they should be able to perfectly control, not only other militant factions, but Salafi Jihadis as well when far less devastated states can't even do that? You can say all this, but in fact if Hamas is willing to offer/accept a ceasefire, then they need to be able to enforce it on their side. They have proven incapable of doing that. I'm not particularly aware of Israel starting an attack during an existing ceasefire. |
|
|
|
|
Ill make a deal with you zolace. I promise that I will continue to ignore your posts entirely as I have been doing until you respond with answers to my questions you have avoided from Page 1. I also promise I will not keep asking questions that you have answered simply because I don't agree with your answers.
|
|
|
|
okay so both sides agree to getting an independent monitor to administer the ceasefire on the the countdown to the ceasefire the monitor says ... "right you lot, no shooting after the count of three, - one ... two ... bang - ah someone shot me in the ass, - now stop that you bunch of feckin' hooligans" And the shelling of Rafah (which has killed up to 40), but yes it is over. It is hard to tell which militant group broke it this time, but it was likely a Palestinian one rather than the IDF. I find this a bit disingenuous. Does it matter which group broke it, other than for internal finger pointing at this point? Yes. All Palestinian armed groups are hardly unified, and treating them as such is tactically and politically a misstep. It's like failing to realize (or more likely not caring) about the divide between Hamas and its armed wing and not giving them enough time to bring the armed wing in line back for the first ceasefire which could have avoided the entire ground incursion. But the problem is that Hamas "guaranteed" the ceasefire. If they are unable to do that, they shouldn't be saying they can. It makes their words worthless. They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. Trying to point fingers does nothing for the main issue, which is trustworthiness. |
|
|
|
I'm seeing to what lengths zolace will go to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion that people don't need religion whatsoever to have good morals, be happy, love their families, lead productive lives, love, etc etc etc.
You've made your point many time over. Everyone knows zolace will never accept facts or "obvious conclusions" that prove him wrong. zolace has never been correct in anything he posts, and proving him wrong has never stopped him for posting garbage in a lame attempt to avoid the fact that he is wrong. he is way beyond foolish pride, or stubborn, out-right pig-headedness. He's just plain stupid. You are correct of course. He is maddeningly ignorant and willfully chooses his ignorance. It is simply amazing how long he persists in pretending my statements and questions don't exist. |
|
|
|
|
I'm seeing to what lengths zolace will go to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion that people don't need religion whatsoever to have good morals, be happy, love their families, lead productive lives, love, etc etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
That article, and everything else I have posted, absolutly support my position that religion is not a requirement for morality or happiness or social cohesion or anything. I have explained it to you in great detail how the article and all the information I have posted supports my position. The survey conducted as part of that article, as well as many many others, shows us these countries are happy safe places with a lot of social values, cohesiveness, low crime and good morals. Other surveys show us they are the places on the planet with the fewest believers, fewest churchgoers, and highest population who have no use for religion in their lives.
|
|
|
|
Have I or have I not at least acknowledged that you are asking me a question (repeatedly) and I have repeatedly attempted to answer it even if not to your satisfaction?
How about acknowledging my questions or even....crazy thought.....answering them? Pretending they aren't there will not make them go away.
Im going to press you on this as long as you have the balls to come back here and pretend I have not answered you while ignoring me altogether.
umair is correct in everything you have thus far provided thus far.....which is absolutely nothing. However, I dont view my actions as enabling you, I view them as continually exposing you.
None of the links actually support your position regarding the relationship of Norway and happiness with atheism - and we can review each and then altogether - but right now, we are dealing with the first link. So, the questions you have, etc - are based on assumptions you have made that have not been validated. Now, what I am hoping here is all this is not due to dishonesty on your part, but just plain sloppiness. But lets verify - this link by itself does not support your position, correct? That atheism is a factor in the happiness found among Norwegians? http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/208 posts and for the first time....you make a conclusive statement. This is the first time you say my link does not support my position. You actually made a conclusive statement. WOW I'm surprised. You didn't defend your statement of course, that would mean you would have to answer my questions. You just made a statement in the complete absence of any defense. So perhaps I should not get too excited. |
|
|
|
okay so both sides agree to getting an independent monitor to administer the ceasefire on the the countdown to the ceasefire the monitor says ... "right you lot, no shooting after the count of three, - one ... two ... bang - ah someone shot me in the ass, - now stop that you bunch of feckin' hooligans" And the shelling of Rafah (which has killed up to 40), but yes it is over. It is hard to tell which militant group broke it this time, but it was likely a Palestinian one rather than the IDF. I find this a bit disingenuous. Does it matter which group broke it, other than for internal finger pointing at this point? |
|
|
|
|
Have I or have I not at least acknowledged that you are asking me a question (repeatedly) and I have repeatedly attempted to answer it even if not to your satisfaction?
How about acknowledging my questions or even....crazy thought.....answering them? Pretending they aren't there will not make them go away.
Im going to press you on this as long as you have the balls to come back here and pretend I have not answered you while ignoring me altogether.
umair is correct in everything you have thus far provided thus far.....which is absolutely nothing. However, I dont view my actions as enabling you, I view them as continually exposing you.
|
|
|
|
Still waiting. Particularly that it is has been now settled that you have NOT posted anything from that link supporting your position that Norway and happiness and atheism are related somehow. Just a big leap of faith on your part.
Now, mind you, other links may - but so far, this link does not. Once you agree with that (or c&p from that link showing otherwise), we can move on.
I will leave it at that - apparently you have your hands full right now over in the political forum.
If you have a point to make about state atheism , what is it? Is your point that state atheism makes the state a bad place? Or that atheists are bad? What is your point? Secondly, if your point is that atheists are "bad" or in some ways are "lesser" or "amoral" or whatever, then why are they not so in the countries I've mentioned and how can those countries be so successful, happy, safe, productive and socially cohesive places in the absence of religion? Is it your position that people can be moral, happy, socially cohesive and decent without religion and for other reasons? Or is it your position they are not happy, cohesive, free, safe, moral etc as the data indicate? What is so difficult in these questions for you to not even acknowledge that Ive asked them? |
|
|
|
|
can someone (ie. sana) explain to me how these ceasefires work, who on both sides is involved, who sets the terms, is something signed, etc.?
|
|
|
|
Or Israel could actually be a partner for peace and live up to their peace plan promises and thus marginalize Hamas politically to the point of making them irrelevant. But that will never happen since Netanyahu isn't interested in a two state solution at all and never has been. Hard to do when you are fighting people like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClYwDzrTaEsI assume this is not the norm? For Israels sake I hope not. |
|
|
|
Armed groups can't really get away with labeling their dead fighters as civilians. That would cause said organization to collapse as every fighter wants his contribution to the struggle to be recognized.
Absolute rot. Hamas has a history of hiding their dead so that it doesn't hurt morale and so that it bumps up the 'civilian' casualty numbers. They claimed 46 dead after Cast Lead. Only admitting 600-700 some months later. Same with Hezbollah after 2006. -- 72 hour truce announced by both sides. Let's see if the palestinians can stick to at least one truce. They have broken every one thus far. |
|
|
|
According to UN figures, around 900 of the fatalities are men.
I'll leave you to decide if they were "mostly civilians" as is claimed.
Consider three things:
1) Hamas put out an instructional video telling palestinians that every death should be described as a "civilian casualty"
2) Hamas controls everything in Gaza including the Health Ministry
3) Hamas 'clears' their dead from scenes.
After Cast Lead in 2009, they claimed 46 dead.
It was only about 6 months later that they owned up to 600-700 dead. They had lied to the media and the UN.
1.) That isn't accurate 2.) Women are more likely to stay inside on a regular basis so they are caught in the open less. 3.) It isn't a crime to be a man, your attempted logic has no legal standing. Talk to the UN. Even AlJazeera reported these figures. Sure. All 900 men were innocently going about their day. Given the points I made coupled with the fact that the IDF confirmed 400 terrorist hits about a week ago (they can name a fair few of them) it would indicate to me that the greater proportion of that 900 are combatants. |
|
|
|
|
i shat in a church once but nothing came of it ?
|
|
|
|
|
I copied specific things about Norway that I needed to support my position many times and I have asked you the questions that naturally arise from the data I posted. Questions you have thus far refused to answer. If you think the article says something else you are free to say it and defend it.
Now, for the umpteenth time.
If you have a point to make about state atheism , what is it? Is your point that state atheism makes the state a bad place? Or that atheists are bad? What is your point?
Secondly, if your point is that atheists are "bad" or in some ways or are "lesser" or "amoral" or whatever, then why are they not so in the countries I've mentioned and how can those countries be so successful, happy, safe, productive and socially cohesive places in the absence of religion? Is it your position that people can be moral, happy, socially cohesive and decent without religion and for other reasons? Or is it your position they are not happy, cohesive, free, safe, moral etc as the data indicate?
What is so difficult in these questions for you to not even acknowledge that Ive asked them?
Have I or have I not at least acknowledged that you are asking me a question (repeatedly) and I have repeatedly attempted to answer it even if not to your satisfaction?
How about acknowledging my questions or even....crazy thought.....answering them? Pretending they aren't there will not make them go away.
Im going to press you on this as long as you have the balls to come back here and pretend I have not answered you while ignoring me altogether.
umair is correct in everything you have thus far provided thus far.....which is absolutely nothing. However, I dont view my actions as enabling you, I view them as continually exposing you.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
