Longest Thread Ever

[babe]

"Studies in rats also show that adolescent exposure to THC is associated with an altered reward system, increasing the likelihood that an animal will self-administer other drugs (e.g., heroin) when given an opportunity (see "Is marijuana a gateway drug?")."

Thus Marijuana use may indeed be linked to the current heroin epidemic abuse as well.

 

[The Midnight]

OK, so I don't really have inside knowledge. I'm the guy who sat on the sandstone bluffs overlooking town, and thought things through while watching the other high school kids crusing the Boulevard. I don't believe in "stupid", and I look for actual reasons why things are what they are.

If the Palestinians and Israelis were just two cultural groups in the same small niche, I'd expect after a while there'd be markets where they traded stuff. There'd be interest in getting along and getting ahead. When that doesn't happen, even across the religious divide, we need reasons.

There a reason the Israelis have kibbutz "collectives". Lots of believers in Marxism. Lots of socialists. The tribesmen of Israel were strictly non-collective people oriented towards private property under the tribal territorial and priestly ministrations. No mention of a communal farm, but ideas about landowners at least leaving the gleanings for the poor.

There is a reason why the Palestinians are socialist, as well. It's western infiltration, communist cell organizations that act to coordinate schools and communities. Lots of Obamas moving in their streets.

If left to themselves, these two peoples would make peace and merge. Really.

The reason there is war is because outsiders manipulate things within the two cultures. Might be because the Israelis are advanced New Worlders and the Palestinians are propagandized shopkeepers.... but really it's the ideas being foisted on the people....by outsiders.

One thing that baffled me was when I learnt that the UN was responsible for drawing out the new map that gives Israel a whole lot of land from Palestine.


I thought UN was supposed to be a force for peace? And for them to go in and decided to do this and displaced all the Palestinian just because they can to me is mind blowing. If anything I think UN had a large role in setting in motion the events that lead to what's happening today.


I have since had a chance of view on what the UN is and how it operates.


Look at the map below and tell me if what was done is 'fair' to the Palestinian. I mean I have no horse in this race but even I have a hard time accepting what was done to the Palestinian. It even make me feel angry about the situation.

 

[babe]

OL, I didn't even know this. I mean the maps. Especially the latest 2011. I was there in 1989. We could go anywhere, the whole country. I stayed one night in a place in the Palestinian side. They had their own police, and there were checkpoints where you crossed(sometimes, not always) The Israelis had military people with their military rifles sitting in booths in strategic places, the Palestinians had the equivalent in their strategic places.

Even then, I was aware that millions of Russians had immigrated, practically doubling the population in twenty years. Yah, they were Jewish, some say.... those some dispute it. Ashkenazis supposedly from a tribe of Siberian wanderers who wanted an identity that would allow them to settle and start farms....which was possible under the Czars, for Jews.

The 2011 map reflects the fact of settlements, maybe communes, where these immigrants have taken root. I don't know anything about property issues there, as to individual ownership of land. Seems to me, that, by now.... after 5000 years of people doing settlements, the land might all be owned by somebody. Wonder if there has been a sell-off by Palestinian owners...

I don't think the UN did anything but recognize the facts already existing on the ground. Maybe the Palestinians will be absorbed. It would be interesting if, in that event, individual Palestinians decided to live peaceably and go about their lives..... It's not like they wouldn't have any human rights at all.....maybe they should build their own communes.

The Israelis, btw, have built the largest desal plant in the world, which produces the cheapest desal water in the world. And they are about 100% on the latest conservation methods. On those terms, the population can double yet again.....

 

[The Midnight]

OL, I didn't even know this. I mean the maps. Especially the latest 2011. I was there in 1989. We could go anywhere, the whole country. I stayed one night in a place in the Palestinian side. They had their own police, and there were checkpoints where you crossed(sometimes, not always) The Israelis had military people with their military rifles sitting in booths in strategic places, the Palestinians had the equivalent in their strategic places.

Even then, I was aware that millions of Russians had immigrated, practically doubling the population in twenty years. Yah, they were Jewish, some say.... those some dispute it. Ashkenazis supposedly from a tribe of Siberian wanderers who wanted an identity that would allow them to settle and start farms....which was possible under the Czars, for Jews.

The 2011 map reflects the fact of settlements, maybe communes, where these immigrants have taken root. I don't know anything about property issues there, as to individual ownership of land. Seems to me, that, by now.... after 5000 years of people doing settlements, the land might all be owned by somebody. Wonder if there has been a sell-off by Palestinian owners...

I don't think the UN did anything but recognize the facts already existing on the ground. Maybe the Palestinians will be absorbed. It would be interesting if, in that event, individual Palestinians decided to live peaceably and go about their lives..... It's not like they wouldn't have any human rights at all.....maybe they should build their own communes.

The Israelis, btw, have built the largest desal plant in the world, which produces the cheapest desal water in the world. And they are about 100% on the latest conservation methods. On those terms, the population can double yet again.....

Wow, I'm surprised you haven't seen those maps. I don't think you're right in that the UN did anything but recognize the facts existing on the ground. If you look at the first map where jews have slowly bought Palestinian lands that was bit by bit, piece by piece, very small amount. Then after the UN Partition plan, literally overnight, half of the land was literally allocated to jews. Imagine that. You own a piece of land, then one day somebody comes along and said we'll half it and someone else will live in the other half. All this was done, as I understand, partly to alleviate jews' suffering after the World War II, and if you are opposed to it you're labelled anti-semite.


Again I don't have a horse in this race, but how is that fair?


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


This was jews settlement in 1944:

And this is the UN Partition Plan 1947:

 

[babe]

As a wannabe

When I went to Israel, the 747 I was on leaving NY was mostly Jewish people heading for Israel. We had a problem. The pilot came on the intercom and announced a malfunction in the hydraulics and instrumentation of the wheels, meaning the plane was unsafe to fly. He had to return to the airport. He dumped virtually all the fuel over the Atlantic. The airport got out all their emergency equipment and crews, lining the runway in readiness in case of fire or crash.

During that almost one hour of lead up to the attempted landing without certainty of the position or stability of the wheels, those people prayed. It was a sort of life-changing realization for me. My grandfather was the most important person when I was growing up, and I had the immediate sense of his presence.

The male line in my genealogical research goes back to a Jewish settlement in England aboutg 1400 AD. Sure I'm mostly Scot, but I identify as a sort of lost Israeli. I consider the Israeli possession of the land a sort of God-given right, but in like manner, with the same sort of intuition, I think the Palestinians have a huge blood or genetic commonality with the Jews. I think they are real Jews as much as the immigrants.

The immigrants are somewhat unreligious, with huge political ties to Russia and beliefs in liberal ideals and to the extent of favoring communes even, significantly Marxist. They have very powerful links to the monied elites of the world as well. The Palestinians are largely uneducated shepherds and agrarian wanderers. Some owned land, others had tribal claims as outlined above.

I don't think wars are good ideas, or terrorism. Generally I don't like ideological extremists with visions of destroying anyone, or who encourage acts of violence.

When I was there, the intifada was a thing. Palestinians in my experience were pretty abusive within their families and generally did not have huge notions of respecting people who were different. But aside from their traditional muslim orientation, I expect that if you could construct a genetic model of Israelite characteristics, they could be more Israelite than the Jews who spread out to various locales away from their "homeland". It is true, in those local isolates, they did not intermarry generally, but it did happen enough to affect the gene pool.....

 

[babe]

It looks like the cowboys and Indians all over again.....

I don't agree with the whole idea of indian reservations, or a gov BIA running the "reservations". We have socialized the natives, made them dependent of the State. For many years, the existence of the Reservation system meant we could deny natives their rights to come to town and get jobs or do business. And we didn't need to let them vote because they were not "citizens".

This mistreatment is the sort of thing that just keeps people down. The only solution to the Native American question always was citizenship and full rights. Andrew Jackson used military force to clear the land for settlement, and gold claims, in the Smokey Mountain area. Forced the Cherokees out to Oklahoma along the Trail of Tears. A horrible humanitarian mistake, practically genocide.

Marginalizing Palestinians is not the answer in Israel, either.

 

[♪alt13]

Wow, I'm surprised you haven't seen those maps. I don't think you're right in that the UN did anything but recognize the facts existing on the ground. If you look at the first map where jews have slowly bought Palestinian lands that was bit by bit, piece by piece, very small amount. Then after the UN Partition plan, literally overnight, half of the land was literally allocated to jews. Imagine that. You own a piece of land, then one day somebody comes along and said we'll half it and someone else will live in the other half. All this was done, as I understand, partly to alleviate jews' suffering after the World War II, and if you are opposed to it you're labelled anti-semite.


Again I don't have a horse in this race, but how is that fair?


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


This was jews settlement in 1944:

And this is the UN Partition Plan 1947:

In the forties both of these groups were viewed as lesser people. Many still feel that way today. I think that many in the UN hoped that Israel would be the final solution to the Jewish question. The allies may not have believed in gas chambers but they weren't exactly the champion of the Jews either. Giving them somewhere to go willingly other than "here" was a tidy solution. None of them gave a **** that Arab Muslims happened to be there. Not in the slightest. The way they saw it this was British territory. The English were making a sacrifice not the Arabs.

 

[babe]

In the forties both of these groups were viewed as lesser people. Many still feel that way today. I think that many in the UN hoped that Israel would be the final solution to the Jewish question. The allies may not have believed in gas chambers but they weren't exactly the champion of the Jews either. Giving them somewhere to go willingly other than "here" was a tidy solution. None of them gave a **** that Arab Muslims happened to be there. Not in the slightest. The way they saw it this was British territory. The English were making a sacrifice not the Arabs.

This was the politics of "The Greatest Generation", people like Churchill, Stalin, and FDR.

These were the same folks who disarmed Chiang Kai-Shek and effectively made China's revolution a protected political operation.

These were the same folks who agreed to let Russia "have" Eastern Europe....

On the other hand, this was the time when a skin-and-bones penniless Ghandhi led a non-violent revolution in India, making it an act of nationalism to get a little salt from the sea, and forcing the British to turn over a vast "colony" to the "natives".

Lyndon LaRouche was there at the end of WWII, and had a personal confrontation with Winston Churchill, who vowed to destroy him (LaRouche).

According to LaRouche, there was an exchange between FDR and Churchill wherein FDR asked what the British intentions were for India after the war. The United States was intending to return the Philippines to local rule.

Winston Churchill reportedly said that if the British left India, there could be no possible peace amongst the locals. FDR replied that in America, thirteen contentious colonies did OK when the British left.

 

[saksonam]

I agree, about turd)

 

[babe]

lookie, folks, a newb.

not very articulate, yet. Nobody knows if he can type.

 

[babe]

OK, gotta relax a bit. Sak is probably not Utahn or American, English is second language at best, if not third. Japanese?

Welcome.

 

[babe]

So, anyway, I get around to all kinds of irregular points of view you won't find treated thoroughly in any public school or college. Definitely not on the media.

The LaRouche folks elevate FDR to the level of the paragon of all intelligent, rational socialists, a true defender of the common man. The true essence of the Democratic Party. The Bush League or recent RINO positions are actually more "Left" than FDR ever was. Coming from an elite family, FDR was a fav of the bankers/progressives. The CPUSA ordered it's people to vote for FDR. Eleanor Roosevelt put on airs for being the highest sort of elite leader of the ordinary housewives, ignoring some facts of FDR's conduct gratuitously. Solzhenitsyn wrote about Eleanor's visit to the Russian prisons and how she was completely taken in by the commies. Folks like Milton Friedman, as well as many actual conservatives, view FDR as man who broke the dam and let the gov grow without check. But isn't it the fact that FDR built the Hoover Dam? The singular event that really launched Las Vegas as the sin capital of the world? And, which brought in advanced industries of the MIC along with a very impressive cohort of former Nazi scientists?

FDR is about as popular in the urban legend sort of way as JFK. Listening to some very conservative radio talk host the other day, it was asserted that FDR had a close friend lodged virtually in his White House who had connections with the Russian commies. Not only did FDR meet with Stalin and work things out so Stalin got what he wanted from WWII.... Eastern Europe...., but he altered the game plan for ending WWII in a way that cost thousands of US soldiers their lives.

Here's how.

The Nazis had already been defeated in Africa, and we had already moved on into Italy. Stalin wanted us to open another front to the West rather than move through Greece and Romania, or go from the south into France. Stalin insisted we should let him have the Eastern front, and that we should start our campaign directly at the most heavily defended part of the entire Nazi perimeter. So FDR committed us to attack Normandy, which sure cost tens of thousands of lives just getting to the beaches. It was the wrong place to launch a military front. In all, it cost many thousands of US lives, unnecessarily.

Because a "Democratic" President, who had the support of the CPUSA, and many crucial links to the communists personally, wanted to give Stalin Eastern Europe.