Does it matter now? Your new administration will sell any information for the right price, which sometimes is just being nice to trumpy boy.

Er sieht explizit das Volk als Souverän und sich als Dienstleister. Losgelöst von seiner Arbeit als Verkehrsminister kann ich das absolut akzeptieren.

That’s called Plutocracy.

Das ist mit das anständigste was ich bisher von einem Politiker gehört habe. Sehr korrekte Aussage. Politik als Dienstleister sollte eigentlich die generelle Haltung sein.

Wir sind uns sicher dass wir nicht das Computerspiel eines 13-Jährigen sind der schauen will wie viel Chaos man an einem Tag anrichten kann?

If Bush vs. gore was any indication for you, you’d know that’s most likely not true.

Auch wenn du grundsätzlich recht mit der Aussage hast, vernachlässigst du die massive Einbringung von Stickstoff ins Ökosystem. Durch künstliche Düngung haben wir den natürlichen Limes für Schalenwildpopulationen so weit angehaucht bin, das selbst ein Prädator wie der Wolf oder Luchs nicht mehr zu einer Absenkung auf ein natürliches Niveau führen können, da sie in ihrer Populationsentwicklungen denen ihrer Beutetiere folgen. Überhöhte Schalenwildbestände haben daher weiterhin einen überproportionalen Einfluss auf die natürliche Flora/(Fauna). Es kommt zum vermehrten Verbiss, im speziellen von klimaresistenten Baumarten, wodurch wir ohne Jagd in entsprechendem Umfang nur den Sprung zu einer klimatisch angepassten Vegetation schaffen, was in der logischen Konsequenz dann auch allen anderen Arten die Lebensgrundlage entzieht.

Kurz: wir beeinflussen durch unsere Ansprüche an die Lebensmittelproduktion und den Klimawandel die Natur viel zu sehr, als dass Prädatoren einen ernstzunehmenden Einfluss hätten.

Dein Pech.

You should seriously get some education. For starters on the region I’d recommend Montefiore, but judging from your highly prejudiced notions, your to politically set in your ways to even consider outside information.

You’d do well to accept that although European history isn’t benevolent, it’s not the single source of evil in the world. Most behaviours are just part of human nature.

Saying colonialism is a European phenomenon and can’t have come from any other place is the same as saying black people cant be racist. Both statements are just plain wrong.

BTW: Just because two regions developed something at the same time doesn’t prohibit a commonly used expression for one, doesn’t it?

Und nachdem du anscheinend auch deutsch sprichst: Deinem Kommentr erlauf scheinst du diese Argumentationslinie aus Solidarität mit Palästina und einer generellen Kritik am westlichen Gesellschaftsmodell heraus zu verfolgen. Dass es Nuancen in allem gibt sollte dir trotzdem klar sein. Natürlich ist es scheiße was Israel abzieht. Es ist aber genauso wenig besonders, wie der Nationalsozialismus eine einmalige Kulmination des Bösen war.

Oh please, the Middle East is the cradle of civilisation and settlements of the land of other tribes, nations, whatever you call it, have always been with us.Just because Europeans first had the tools to do it en Masse doesn’t mean it’s new or a European idea. Just look at China in Tibet, Arab in Egypt, Turks in Byzantine and so on.

So you agree with me? Unchanging underlying issues and the usage of varying ideological tools, Zionism as it was coined in the 19th century being the newest form, constitute the core of the Middle-East conflict and have so for millennia?

The current conflict isn’t based in Zionism. It’s a convenient tool, sure but it’s not the root. The crusades also weren’t based in Christian fundamentalism.

Religion is a tool to oppress and manipulate masses, but it’s not the driving factor in political rational. Just look at evangelical megachirch preachers in the U.S., religion is just a tool to them to gain more wealth.

The underlying issue is a struggle for power and control over a regions geostrategical resources. Has always been and will always be.

It’s the outcome that ended up differently, not the intention, a circumstance your source describes as well. I don’t think we are in opposition about the actual proceedings, but the way we look at it. Am I correct in the assumption that you place more emphasis on the actual proceedings to define a political movement, rather than their school of thought?

You have to explain to me how you took Zionism from the meme. From what I can gather it’s about the general conflict in the holy land.

Seriously: why are you under the impression my initial comment or the message were only about Zionism?

BTW, Zionism as we know it today was coined in the 19th century by Theodor Herzl. Maybe you should open up a book for once instead of repeating easy summaries.

We can agree about the historical continuity in the region. I don’t think however, that Zionism in itself is a new attempt at colonialism. The romans, crusader states and babylonians did likewise. They lacked the weapons and men however to implement it at such a scale. Montefiore has an interesting source from a scholar during the crusades whom I musst paraphrase from memory im afraid since I don’t have his book at hand: „the streets of the Armenian quarter ran knee high with blood when the crusaders came, indiscriminately killing their christian brothers.

Historical continuances aren’t your thing aren’t they? History is nothing but connection and ideas. To give you some perspective:

Current German ownership disputes between the church and the government can be traced back to inheritance disputes that arose because of the fall of the Roman Empire.

As per my other comment:

That is not what I’m saying. The greater Jerusalem area has been in conflict for millennia. It’s shrouded in a different veil over time, but the core conflict remains over control of the Middle East, specifically access to the Mediterranean and control of the trading routes between Africa, Asia and Europe. Over the years this has become entangled with religious fanatische, but at its core, it’s the same conflict that’s been going on since people first settled the region.

Theodor Herzls ideas concerning the region are in no way new or original. He’s making basically the same argument as the church prior to the first crusade.

That is not what I’m saying. The greater Jerusalem area has been in conflict for millennia. It’s shrouded in a different veil over time, but the core conflict remains over control of the Middle East, specifically access to the Mediterranean and control of the trading routes between Africa, Asia and Europe. Over the years this has become entangled with religious fanatische, but at its core, it’s the same conflict that’s been going on since people first settled the region.

It’s closer to 5000 years, the only time when the area was really peaceful for a long period of time was when romans destroyed the temple in 71 AD.