Thoughts on war

[daodejing]

Well, I for one wholeheartedly agree with you doc. I've always been of the opinion that kosher law (and other religious dietary laws) evolved out of public health issues in theocratic nations. Hell, it might have been an even nastier economic issue. People don't just outright refuse to eat something simply on a religious whim. They have a strong reason for making decisions like that. Maybe one summer the cows were dying off, but pig farmers were doing well, so everyone ate more pork and got GI problems. Suddenly the priests think that the community is being punished by god and that pigs are to blame. How do you get everyone to stop eating pork immediatly? Tell em God said so.

As for the wall, eh. I suppose it's easier to build a wall than to let go of your anger and have compassion for your brother.

[Lipster]

“And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." Leviticus

Why would there be such specific detail if that feature were irrelevant?

Docsta, did you read anything I wrote before? Perhaps I wrote it a little too haphazardly.

Ok, firstly and foremostly, the laws of health and kosher are entirely separate. What sense would it make to say that the laws of kosher originated from something that was already established as a separate unit of law? If kosher did originate due to health concerns, there would be no reason for it not to have remained under that heading, as all other health-oriented prohibitions have. There is a great number classical texts that list products that should be avoided due to their harmful nature - they are not classified as non kosher.

The obligations of kosher observance and maintaining ones health have two different sources.

“You shall not eat any carcass, to the stranger who is in your cities shall you give it that he may eat it, or sell it to a non-Jew, for you are a holy people to the Lord your G-d. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk.”

The term carcass refers to both an unkosher animal, or an incorrectly slaughtered one; comes to the same thing. Note the reason stated – for spiritual purposes. It is traditionally understood that the principles that dictate Kashrut are of a spiritual nature - and it is the concepts behind the characteristics of each animal that are relevant. Passing the carcass on is permitted - it wouldn’t be if the animal presented some physical danger to the recipient, no matter who it is.

There is an entirely separate set of laws for maintaining one’s health which falls under the title of Shemirat Haguf [protection of the body]. It is extremely in depth, displaying a fascinating comprehension of physiology – this being apparent, it’s highly unlikely that the rationale behind the two different obligations would become blurred. If one evolved from the other, they wouldn’t be distinct entities.

Yes, I've come across the idea that many non kosher products were established so as to avoid health risks. Shellfish, milk and meat, pork and so on have been found to have potentially harmful effects. The point seems to be missed however - finding these examples are inevitable considering the other hundred thousand things out there that aren’t kosher – and consequently one would have to classify the rest of the non kosher kingdom in the same fashion. Can't have double standards.

So you seem to be focusing on the pig Doc. The pig, cat, donkey, oyster, shark, squid, dog, rabbit, ostrich and camel are all as unkosher as eachother. The pig ain't the only prohibited animal, and it is far from being considered the worst. Eating insects is considered to be six times worse then pork from a kosher viewpoint. You think you’re gonna find health risks associated with every other kind of non kosher animal there is?

Basically, you seem to be picking isolated example(s) of things that are potentially harmful and ignoring the vast scope that the laws of kosher extend to. They are far more complex then you may think.

If the animal is slaughtered incorrectly then it is considered as prohibited as if it were actually an unkosher animal. This goes for the correct draining of the blood, the condition of the blade edge, the removal of the sciatic nerve, and the seemingly irrelevant condition of the animal itself – a broken leg or a minute puncture in the lung would render an animal unkosher. The technicalities of what renders something kosher are far more comprehensive then the ones that dictate what intrinsically is and isn't kosher. It is these laws that largely determine what one can[not] eat - and since it is these by-laws that the practicalities of keeping kosher are mainly comprised of, in what ways do any of these aforementioned qualifiers reflect on health?

Consider this - most of what you eat, I can't. Not because what you essentially eat is unkosher - most of the meat you consume probably comes from permitted animals - it's the manner in which they are prepared that generally causes problems. Too many laws of kosher have absolutely no connection with health for your theory to be plausible.

To conclude, there's just so much more to write on the laws of kosher – they’re not as straightforward as you imagine – and as soon as you're aware of the wealth of technicalities involved, it is immediately apparent that it is more then just about physical health.

Just remember that the laws of health and kosher are independently established.

I think I repeat myself a couple of times but no matter…

A historical perspective doesn't suffice without a contextual one.

[Lipster]

"Hey look Abraham, Izzy ate that pig last night, and now he's got the ****s. Wow, he's doubled up in pain too. Man, that dude is sick. Maybe we shouldn't eat those pigs anymore...."

Lol, nice theory bald one. Now try and apply that to another several hundred thousand animals...

[lester1/2jr]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/arts/kalat.asp

maybe not kosher but war related.

[Lipster]

Yeah Chow, I feel ya, if people commit themselves to certain values they should at least be man enough to be proud of them.

The wall - how can that not be a good idea?

And Dao, CHRIST, what you wrote really gets me riled up - nothing personal - I've become used to the way you view things. But it just blares IGNORANCE it's unreal. Honestly, how can you write something like that and expect it to be taken seriously. You seriously have no clue what goes on there.

"As for the wall, eh. I suppose it's easier to build a wall than to let go of your anger and have compassion for your brother."

I mean, what the heck does that mean?? Is that even supposed to be serious? Are you grounded at all in reality? Even just the littlest bit?

No clue.

Peace, love, pot and let's all give eachother bluebells, tweet tweet

One day that bubble's gonna burst...

[doc]

I'm glad you said "bluebells". I almost started to wonder what the hell you were thinking....

LOL

More later. Off to cook some more fo da par tee.

[dogchow108]

dao, your comments reflect an interesting trend in the discussion of this issue. it is interesting how you imply that israel is impatient and will easily resort to "inhumane" responses when aggrivated (and by the way even if this is not what you SAID, this is the category to which your comments belong) yet you fail to comment on a culture of people who raise their childern to massacre covillians, ONLY civillians. im not even talking about guerilla warfare against a military, i mean brainwashing childern to go and blow up children. you are also letting a history of massacres, the impositiona of second-class non-citizenship on a people, and an indesputible involvement with the nazi's, but hey its all good and easy. cry when we shoot and cry when we build a wall.

there is a difference between being a hippie and being a pussy. also, there is a difference between stating an opinion and talking bigotry.


it would behoove you to read a bit on how Jews have been treated in that ares when it was ACTUALLY occupied by arab nations before you utter such nonsense. its okay if you utter nonsense, but just know what you are talking about.

[dave]

wow great posts by u both (lipster and chow) (what a great icon lol)

I am just getting in the jurispudence side of islamic law and how it relates to things like halal and such - they seem to be very very similar (infact i think kosher may be even a little stricter but not sure - i know we can eat kosher meat fine though. Actually Quran tells us that we can eat meat from the "ahl-kitab" which are Jews, Christians and any who recieved literally part of the "book").

U know its funny, the comments u posted there chow would make heaps of "muslims" go up in arms and make reference to zionism and such (and start hating on ya - glad im not like that), but actually i think its really important to discuss this in an intelligent way. I read a really thought provoking article here about it by one of the most important islamic scholars (i would say anyway, in a revolutionary yet classical sense) living in the US: CBS discussion on suicide bombing.

But i wouldnt say that its the whole culture of people who do it - i know plenty of people who have family in Palestine/Jordan/Egypt that are against this so called "martyrdom" and try to raise kids who dont believe in it and can see thru all the propaganda. It is a very complicated issue and has a lot to do with mob-mentality, defeatism, nationalism, mis-education (both sides) and heaps of other stuff as well as a part of the blame on both sides of this issue. Not to mention politics But im not a politician so dont really have a clue about all that side.

Islamic history really annoys me especially when everyone talks about following the example of Muhammad but actually dont. Right now there is a real "civil war" going on between those literalist/"traditionalists" and people like me who go straight back to the sources to see things in their context and apply them today. Its really pretty nasty. I seriously reckon by the time the leadership became hereditary and all the arguments on succession and sects started things were already going downhill. Islamists talk about the islamic state and such but there is really no viable way it can happen and for that i am actually quite glad - as the state "islam" is in right now i wouldnt wanna be a muslim there - let alone a non-muslim

dave

[daodejing]

It's ok, I'm used to people misunderstanding my opinions. And you havent even heard my opinions of the other side of the conflict.

Frankly it makes no sense whatsoever to me that anyone engaged in a Jyhad would refuse to target military targets. Terrorism would be much more effective if it's targets were entirely military and political, as opposed to civilian. It's incomprehensible why anyone engaged in a military campaign would solely attack civilians when they are already willing to give their lives freely to said campaign. If you have the will and are willing to die in the process, why not go after Sharon instead of a busfull of civilians? By attacking the government itself you open your campaign up to the oppurtunity to swell your ranks with those civilians who are dissatisfied with the government. But the way folks are waging this Jyhad now is just stupid. You don't defeat a cobra by smashing it's eggs, you defeat a cobra by smashing it's head.

So yeah, I do stick to everything I've said so far, and I don't think it has much ignorance to it. And even if it is blissfully ignorant, perhaps people should do more meditating if they are angered by every stupid thing said by an ignorant man.

This whole conflict is born of rage and suffering. It is not being conducted as a holy war should because it is not a holy war. It is a desperate attempt by one group of people to make another group of people suffer as they beleive they have suffered. Therefore nothing will ease that suffering but to let go. To forgive. To love themselves and realize that they are all things, and to love oneself means to love reality. But these are not things you can teach. No, these things are lessons every man has to learn on his own. How can you cultivate peace in the region when you do not first cultivate peace in your own heart and the hearts of the regions inhabitants?

This conflict thrives on rage and suffering. It has no goals but to spread suffering. Because if I make other's suffer as I have suffered, perhaps they will understand me. This is the urge which drives the hatred. The urge to be one with each other. But when your define your life around rage and pain, there is no way to unify your community with yourself but to share with them your pain and your anger. And if you refuse to change who you are, that my friends is the only way to satisfy your urge for unity.

So let us all not be deceived by that trap. Let us all recognize that we are eternally dynamic. Let us realize that we are one and always have been.

I love you all so much.

Sincerely, Eric

[shaolinstylee]

You don't defeat a cobra by smashing it's eggs, you defeat a cobra by smashing it's head.

yeah, but you make less cobras.. and that is the point to some people. Unfortunately, to me at least, it seems that they would rather have none of the other culture rather than just seperate, live in peace, or figure something else out.

[dave]

see the interesting thing is, classical Islamic Law made a clear distinction between "Jihad" (both defensive and offensive, with the greater emphasis being the 'personal' one to overcome the self), and whats called "Hirabah" - which literally means terrorism. Needless to say this is what probably most of the military operations over the last 50 years by Muslim countries would technically be classed as. Even looking at Islamic history, there was a sect that came about around the time the Prophets cousin was leader (Ali) who because they differed on theology to the mainstream basically said anyone was fair game and killed many, many innocent people. All the classical jurists declared that they were terrorists and commited "hirabah", and expounded on exactly what this was.

One of the single most important things is that there needs to be an Islamic State first, and a leader (khalifa). There hasnt been one since the Ottoman empire ended in 1924 so technically there can be no physical jihad. It gets real tricky because then you have things like defensive jihad which dont neccessarily nead a leader to happen, but thats the general gist of it. (Some groups say they are defending their homeland from Israelis so it is defensive and so on).

Another important aspect are also the rules of fighting. Now no matter if they actually happened in practise or not (we all know what human nature is like), the islamic jurists agreed on a very strict kind of "code of war", which actually involved things like: not destroying public or private property, not poisoning food and water supplies, not killing any non-combatants (particularly, women, children, hermits, the elderly and those who were priests) and so on. Yet these days people make up all kinds of excuses and clauses to try and get out of these rules. Even things like if you take a prisoner of war you are literally meant to give them the same food that you eat, and some sources say even the same type of clothing! Of course, this is all rather Utopian, but i am just trying to explain some background on this kind of thing.

Now like i said, history shows us that many times people twisted things to their own way and so on, but i am trying to show some basic principles that are taught as part of my faith. I am sure Judaism also has these kind of things too (and would be interested to hear if any of u guys is willing to share?). Sometimes human nature really makes me feel disgusted

dave

[dave]

i totally disagree with this by the way

But regarding the civilian killing thing - some people see all israelis there as invaders, taking their land and so on, and mention that Israel has conscription and so on, and try to justify it that way by saying that everyone is a combatant even if not a "live" combatant.

Just so you can try to understand that point of view.
Scary ass ****

dave

[shaolinstylee]

Thanks for the clarifications dave.

[Lipster]

Frankly it makes no sense whatsoever to me that anyone engaged in a Jyhad would refuse to target military targets. Terrorism would be much more effective if it's targets were entirely military and political, as opposed to civilian. It's incomprehensible why anyone engaged in a military campaign would solely attack civilians when they are already willing to give their lives freely to said campaign.

Incomprehensible? Jesus, use your noodle.

Military warfare is military warfare, it's straightforward, it always has been, everyone knows the deal and the risks. People can deal with war. It's ****, it can be sneaky, it’s vicious and murderous, but it still can be coped with, and vast amounts of humanity have experienced it at some point.

Targeting civilians out of the blue is just a little bit different. Do you really need me to explain the different consequences this type of warfare accomplishes?

You need some desperate education on the effect that these constant years of war, and recently this type of warfare produces. I mean, just use your imagination. I've walked down too many streets in Jerusalem; regular streets where you'll go and do your shopping or go clubbing, where I could point and say, yeah, bomb there 10 civilians dead, bomb there 7 civilians dead, bus bomb there, seven children torn apart here, shooting there, another bomb there, bomb there and there…and the list goes on. Do you have a clue of the number of civilian families that contain or know first hand someone who has been killed or maimed in this fiasco? What sort of effect do you think this has on everyday life - snipers in battle cause no great casualties, but they sure as hell demoralise an army. Yet you think this method serves no purpose? You think it not a superior way to induce dread? What could be more of an incentive to drive people out of their own country then the lingering uncertainty of death to all, regardless? For how many months can a mother pack her children off to school and wonder whether she will bury them by sunset? It happens, **** yeah it happens – I alone know one such mother, three children were lost, and I’m not even freakin Israeli. You think they’ve been wasting their time on civilians when it’s got to the point that the first thing you do when entering any bar, restaurant or club in the hot zones is to work out the best spot not to be hit by shrapnel. Or that little feeling you get every time you step on a bus.

Everywhere you turn you see civilian death – yet it is incomprehensible that one would waste their time on civilians...right?

Makes plenty of sense.

The sad part is that the Israelis have become used to it. They’ll tell you not to make such a fuss and get on the damn bus. I’ve never stayed there quite long enough to get completely used to it and I just avoid buses. I mean, I have it bad enough just having to call after every bombing to see if my best friend who lives there is okay. The phone lines generally go down at those times since the lines get flooded while people check, yet again, to see if this time it was their son or sister who didn’t make it.

You're gonna respond by saying that the Palestinians have it **** too? Damn straight. But you need look no further then their leaders to place the blame. The Israelis take their hits, clean up after themselves, and get on with living. One thing I can say about the Israelis – people know how to live there - they live every day to the fullest. While the Palestinians obsess over death.

Read up on the history. It speaks for itself. Realise how much has been offered in the past, and turned down.

The fact that the Palestinian people are being gutted and stripped by their own leaders is completely overlooked, and it is Israel who is to blame for their impoverished, uneducated, wretched state.

If you have the will and are willing to die in the process, why not go after Sharon instead of a busfull of civilians?

Jeez, use your head. How far can something like that go already. You think the war would have ended if they managed to assassinate Hitler?



But hey, lets just swallow our anger, love our brothers and let it go, huh?

A good dose of reality wouldn’t come amiss, instead of always ending in this peace, love and release your anger business. The world is not about blissful pacifism – you’d be wiped out in no time. Anger is as legitimate and holds as much purpose as happiness, sadness or love.

Try to remember we’re not dealing with someone who stole someone else’s Snickers.

Good work Dave...

Peace

[doc]

Demoralizing an army or a people is a common method of attempting to win a war. Problem is, historically, it has not always had positive results.

In WWII, the Japanese did not hesitate to wreak havoc amongst civilians, in their attempt to achieve domination in the east. The Germans did the same against London, while they could. (They did it in response to a British air raid against one of their cities, a raid which mistakenly caused civilian casualities). No one needs to discuss what the Germans did against the Jewish civilian population, or the Russians, the Slavs, etc, etc. The effect against those populations and their armies is well described in history. (However, sometimes the intended destruction of civilians can increase an army's desire to win, as also seen in WWII).

In Korea, the threat of civilian devastation is very common. There's tons of artillery pointed at Seoul, just waiting to unleash in preparation for the North's strike, whenever, or if, it comes. They are well aware fo the fact that destroying the will of a civilian populace is one way of causing its army to surrender; remember, the army in most civilized nations, is controlled by the civilians.

Demoralizing the enemy was also shown to be quite effective in the Vietnam war, when, the enemy primarily targeted our medical personnel on the field of battle. They knew quite well that soldiers would be fearful of any sort of engagement, if there was no hope of getting medical care in the event of their likely wounding. It wasn't the proper way to fight a battle, and it was against the so called "rules", but, it was effective. The North Vietnamese, as well as the Americans and South Vietnamese, committed untold numbers of atrocities against the civilian populations of South Vietnam.

So, in a way, smashing a cobra's eggs does bring an end to a battle, more effectively, than smashing its head. Taking out an army's support mechanism, whether it be the civilian population and its productive capacity, or the army's rehabilitative and supply abilities, is a very tried and true way of destroying an army's ability to fight. The palestinians know this well. They have no chance on the field of battle against the Israeli army, one of the best in the world. They do have a great chance against unarmed civilians, and, on a numerical basis, they can be highly effective. In what other battle in history can you legitimately say that an enemy routinely lost ten to twenty combatants for each soldier lost?

Modern day combat has evolved to this. And it shall get worse.