SlipUp posted:

plucky little israel is a narrative crafted to lend divine inspiration to the state of israel and therefore justify its continued existence (as an apartheid state rather than a democratic one) in the face of increasingly imperialistic aims

gatesealer posted:

e: something off topic a bit, do people just not know what freedom of speech actually is, or are they just willfully ignorant?

iamnotcreative posted:

I think most people really don't know. Their basic understanding seems to be "I can say whatever I want" without realizing the other half is "without the government censoring me". Thus all the screaming you got when a bunch of companies stopped advertising on Rush's show

ArchangeI posted:

No, they believe the other half is "And no one can tell me I'm wrong".

gradenko_2000 posted:

Mellow Seas posted:

Don't a lot of devout Muslims invoke God in a shitton of sentences that a westerner never would? So a sentence like that could sound absurd translated, but if you appreciate the more idiomatic meaning, which is just kind of a general regular affirmation of God's existence and power, it could be pretty normal battlefield chatter.

Everblight posted:

One of my favorite idiomatic differences is "Death to [X]," which sounds bad but in reality is used a billion times a day in Muslim cultures, to the point where cabbies will yell "Death to Traffic Lights!" when they catch a red.

It doesn't mean anything stronger than "I don't like thing," so "Death to America" is not really a threat.

Everblight posted:

One of my favorite idiomatic differences is "Death to [X]," which sounds bad but in reality is used a billion times a day in Muslim cultures, to the point where cabbies will yell "Death to Traffic Lights!" when they catch a red.

It doesn't mean anything stronger than "I don't like thing," so "Death to America" is not really a threat.

Mellow Seas posted:

Don't a lot of devout Muslims invoke God in a shitton of sentences that a westerner never would? So a sentence like that could sound absurd translated, but if you appreciate the more idiomatic meaning, which is just kind of a general regular affirmation of God's existence and power, it could be pretty normal battlefield chatter.

In fact, I would guess the intended meaning was little different from "God drat it, they shot down our rocket."

It could also very easily be stdh.txt

Everblight posted:

One of my favorite idiomatic differences is "Death to [X]," which sounds bad but in reality is used a billion times a day in Muslim cultures, to the point where cabbies will yell "Death to Traffic Lights!" when they catch a red.

It doesn't mean anything stronger than "I don't like thing," so "Death to America" is not really a threat.

Everblight posted:

One of my favorite idiomatic differences is "Death to [X]," which sounds bad but in reality is used a billion times a day in Muslim cultures, to the point where cabbies will yell "Death to Traffic Lights!" when they catch a red.

It doesn't mean anything stronger than "I don't like thing," so "Death to America" is not really a threat.

Mellow Seas posted:

Don't a lot of devout Muslims invoke God in a shitton of sentences that a westerner never would? So a sentence like that could sound absurd translated, but if you appreciate the more idiomatic meaning, which is just kind of a general regular affirmation of God's existence and power, it could be pretty normal battlefield chatter.

In fact, I would guess the intended meaning was little different from "God drat it, they shot down our rocket."

It could also very easily be stdh.txt

Mister Bates posted:

Muslim soccer fans will say 'God is great!' after their team scores a goal; it's kind of just a general exclamation.

Magres posted:

Sounds like a western equivalent (although a little outdated now) would be 'God be praised!' when something good happens.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

Combine all these idioms:
Jesus Christ!
God Dammit!
Holy poo poo!
Oh my God!
Thank God!
Oh God!

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

Combine all these idioms:
Jesus Christ!
God Dammit!
Holy poo poo!
Oh my God!
Thank God!
Oh God!

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Yeah, I've always operated on the idea that Arabic is a highly flowery and poetic language, and cultures which speak Arabic tend to place higher emphasis on rhetoric, so you often get literal translations of passionate denunciations in the vein of "We beseech God to rain down upon you with the furious justice of a thousand avenging angels" when the functional meaning is "We disapprove of X and call upon Y to knock it off."

Alien Arcana posted:

What is the Arabic itself? I'm curious.

Mister Bates posted:

Yeah, 'allahu akbar' is a pretty handy catch-all exclamation/mild profanity depending on context.

This discussion reminds me of Nikita Khrushchev supposedly saying 'we will bury them' in reference to the US and people taking it as a threat. He actually said something translated more accurately as 'we will be present when they are buried', a Russian idiom basically meaning 'we will outlast them', which is much less directly threatening.

RagnarokAngel posted:

I think you want to take more attention to Their God. It's trying to put up this whole thing about the Muslim God and Judaic (And Christian of course!) God as two separate entities.


Do you have a source on this?

Regalingualius posted:

That, in turn, reminds me of an anecdote of him meeting up with Mao at some point to try solidifying the USSR's ties with China, and he called Mao something to the effect of "he's like a worn-out shoe". As it turned out, the word/phrase he used could also mean "used-up whore" when translated into Chinese, which was a factor for the rift that developed between them.

Sir Rolo posted:

Some local stuff from the Toronto LJ community. It generally only sees 1-2 posts a week, usually about finding a decent bicycle shop or ferry schedules.

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

And of course that guy is lying out of his rear end.


I dunno who it was, whether Israeli or just a US Rightie, but someone was on NPR last night blabbing about how Israel ended the settlements years ago and Hamas keeps fighting blah blah blah.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

It is true that there are no more settlements in the Gaza strip. But that's not the point of contention now; instead, it's the Israeli/US refusal to accept the 2006 elections favoring Hamas, the US-backed coup attempt in Gaza, and the subsequent intensification of the siege of the Strip.

quote:

JERUSALEM — Israel says it is moving ahead with the planning and construction of hundreds of Jewish settlement homes as retaliation against the new Palestinian government, which has been accepted by the United States and much of the world even though it is supported by Hamas. The announcement enraged the Palestinians and flouted international opinion.

quote:

Hours before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to meet President Barack Obama on Monday, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics revealed that Israel began construction on twice as many homes in the West Bank in 2013 than in the previous year.

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/world/middleeast/new-israeli-settlement-plans-draw-swift-condemnation.html


http://time.com/11458/israel-doubled-west-bank-settlement-construction-in-2013/

Pope Guilty posted:

I had no idea the JDL still existed. Doesn't the FBI consider them a terrorist organization?

quote:

The FBI deemed the league a right-wing terrorist group in their report "Terrorism 2000/2001."

Everblight posted:

One of my favorite idiomatic differences is "Death to [X]," which sounds bad but in reality is used a billion times a day in Muslim cultures, to the point where cabbies will yell "Death to Traffic Lights!" when they catch a red.

It doesn't mean anything stronger than "I don't like thing," so "Death to America" is not really a threat.

quote:

I’ve been asked several times what is the Christian thing to do about the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who have fled to the United States illegally. Let’s be clear—there is a Christian thing and there’s a government thing. I find it interesting that the same people who scream for separation of church and state now want the government to act like a church and provide assistance and benevolence. Helping the poor and aiding the homeless and the helpless is indeed the duty of the church. But the duty of the government is to protect us—not provide for us. If the border agents are playing wet nurse and changing diapers and beds, then we aren’t protected very well. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. If Christians would give a dime of each dollar in tithes to fund assistance to the needy, the government wouldn’t need to be a big charity.

Government isn’t supposed to rearrange people’s social standing and redistribute income. Instead of straining social service budgets and education budgets and court budgets in the US, it would be better if our government acted competently and did its Constitutional job to secure our borders. The churches, charities and relief organizations could deliver supplies to those in need around the world. We should be interested in helping the people of other nations experience the fruits of freedom and free enterprise. If they wish to come to America, we should welcome them when they come through the same legal process that we would have to go through to go to their countries. But to not have a border is to not have a brain. We can love people and love security at the same time. But if you give up security, you really don’t love the people very much either.

Ansiktsburk posted:

Please enjoy some poo poo from Mike Huckabee's Facebook page:


I bolded my favorite part, but I'm also a big fan of the bit where he thinks that we should just be able to rely on charity from people, many of whom have spent weeks now being whipped up into a frenzy regarding refugees/migrants.

Bizarro Kanyon posted:

My sister liked that comment (she has went tea party political since the election campaign of 2012). The thing that stood out to me is his thought that government (in our case the people the government represents) cannot be moral without some Christianity.

razorrozar posted:

It comes up all the time. "Where do you get your morality?" and variants is one of the most common questions religious people ask atheists.

Plom Bar posted:

"Somewhere uninfluenced by the vague promise of extrinsic reward or retribution. Why? Where does yours come from?"

19 o'clock posted:

Precisely my frustration with it. How horrible are you, otherwise, that without the fear of God and eternal damnation that you would become a roaring psychopath? That were it not for a fear based system of rules you would sooner kill everyone than act with some decency?

gatesealer posted:

the scary thing? Some of them admit that the fear of god is the only thing keeping them from doing that.