NationStates Jolt Archive

But Israel is the aggressor, not the victim. Israel is made up of those who came from outside. They claimed the land the Palestinians were tilling and tried to live from. They attacked the very existence of the small people there.

No, Israel is made up of those who came from the original but were forced later from where they came and now wanted to be safe from persecution. They are not the agressor, they wanted nothing but peace. Why do you think they were happy with the original partition. If they had truely been the agressor, they would have acted in the war from the start and fought for more land. But they didnt. They were the ones whose civilian centres (no where near the millitary ones) were attacked. They are not the ones whose civilans live in fear. They are the victims. The civilians amoung the Palestians live in fear of the Israleies but think about why. The Isralies are in fear because the Palestians hate Jews and want Israel destroyed. The Palestians are in fear in case a terrorist is using an area near them to launch attacks and thus the Isralies will counter strike aginst them. The Isralies are the victim because their civilians are being directly targeted.

?? Is that supposed to be a parallel to Jewish living conditions as "guests" in Europe?

Not quite that bad, but approaching that threshold. The Palestinians are not treated as guests, but as criminals.

But Israel is the aggressor, not the victim.

In your eyes. To me, both sides are the agressors.

Israel is made up of those who came from outside.

Old argument and one that has been shown to be only half true.

They claimed the land the Palestinians were tilling and tried to live from. They attacked the very existence of the small people there.

and you are attacking the small people of Israel for trying to make a living in the face of hostile enemies who have vowed for their destruction and is doing nothing, absolutely nothing for the Palestinians.

Israel is not the agressor. Israel never ever started a single war or entered Gaza without provocation.They came to Palestine to create a state. That's a war against the land's inhabitants. A war that started with Herzl's book, the Zionist movement, and the strange Balfour declaration.

I'm not a massive history buff, but from what I can recall...

The Jews first started immigrating back to Israel in the late 1900s, where the Arabs in the area fought with them, even though they were indeed legal immigrants of the respective country.

Later on the attacks actually got pretty bad, and the British weren't going to do anything (they owned the area), so the Jews went to defending themselves (in groups many Arabs will refer to as terrorists).

In the end, Britian, which OWNED all the land in the area, divided it up between the Jews and the Arabs. So the Jews got their land, the Arabs got theirs, and it was all mandated by the people who owned the land anyway.There was no "Jewish Invasion," or whatever you guys wish to call it. The Brits gave them the land after WW2.

Since then, the Jews got into the 6 days war, when Egypt and Syria decided they were going to efface the Jews from the planet, and got thuroughly destroyed. In that /WAR/ the Jews claimed more land which had been fought on.

The Palestinians are currently fighting with the Jews over that land. The Jews had also been more than ready for peace talks and even gave up land to the Palestinians in hopes of deterring war.

So the Palestinians go and start launching rockets into Israel (not to mention into civilian targets just to create casualties), Iran backs them, and when Israel attacks to defend itself you compare them to the Nazis?

Nice job.

They came to Palestine to create a state. That's a war against the land's inhabitants. A war that started with Herzl's book, the Zionist movement, and the strange Balfour declaration.

You got it all wrong. The Arabs started the war. All 7 countries of them.

They came to Palestine to create a state. That's a war against the land's inhabitants. A war that started with Herzl's book, the Zionist movement, and the strange Balfour declaration.

And yet, most of the Israelis do not believe in what Herzl stated. Did they want a state? Yes, do they want to live peacefully with their neighbors? The Majority do. Do they believe in a Palestinian State? Yes.

Take a look at some of the Refugee camps in Gaza, then call the Palestinians "Guests".

I was being hypothetical.

My point was that UB said that the Jews of Europe and Russia had their own homes, in Europe and Russia. I responded by saying, no they didnt, because the people in Europe and Russia were often highly anti-semitc and the Jews didnt have a state of their own. All the Jews in that area were, were guests at the whim of the European and Russian establishments. If UB is happy with that, then he should also be happy with Palestians who would have been allowed to live in Israel were it not for the wars etc. They wouldn't have had a state, but they may have had a home even in someone elses country

I'm basicly pointing out UB's hypocracy

Its enough for the Jews to have homes in someone elses country, but the Arabs are above that and need a country of their own, according to UB

Dobble standards

http://memepedia.info/images/7/7a/Fuck_this.jpg

http://memepedia.info/images/f/f8/Igiveup.jpg

No, Israel is made up of those who came from the original but were forced later from where they came and now wanted to be safe from persecution. They are not the agressor, they wanted nothing but peace. Why do you think they were happy with the original partition. If they had truely been the agressor, they would have acted in the war from the start and fought for more land. But they didnt. They were the ones whose civilian centres (no where near the millitary ones) were attacked. They are not the ones whose civilans live in fear. They are the victims. The civilians amoung the Palestians live in fear of the Israleies but think about why. The Isralies are in fear because the Palestians hate Jews and want Israel destroyed. The Palestians are in fear in case a terrorist is using an area near them to launch attacks and thus the Isralies will counter strike aginst them. The Isralies are the victim because their civilians are being directly targeted.Going to a foreign land with the set aim to create a state clearly is an aggression. They were starting to cleanse villages in Galilee and northern Samaria even before they declared statehood. Jewish militias rampaged there as early as 1946.

Can we PLEASE all just agree that this is not a simplistic issue, that both sides have valid points and both sides are easily equal in fault to the situation today? Trying to put it all on either the Palestinians or Israelis just doesn't work. Right...?

If capitalism is evil then so are natural selection and nature.
Explain.

Not quite that bad, but approaching that threshold. The Palestinians are not treated as guests, but as criminals.By who?

You got it all wrong. The Arabs started the war. All 7 countries of them.No, they reacted.

Can we PLEASE all just agree that this is not a simplistic issue, that both sides have valid points and both sides are easily equal in fault to the situation today? Trying to put it all on either the Palestinians or Israelis just doesn't work. Right...?Palestinians have no means to do anything, and Israelis don't want to do anything except building a Wall and destroying crops in the Gaza Strip.

Can we PLEASE all just agree that this is not a simplistic issue, that both sides have valid points and both sides are easily equal in fault to the situation today? Trying to put it all on either the Palestinians or Israelis just doesn't work. Right...?

Most of us can agree to it. UB and people of his thoughts won't agree with it.

Can we PLEASE all just agree that this is not a simplistic issue, that both sides have valid points and both sides are easily equal in fault to the situation today? Trying to put it all on either the Palestinians or Israelis just doesn't work. Right...?

Agreed.

Hamas would still exist and do what they can to destroy Israel. Come on Sovietstan. Don't tell me you believe all that you are typing!

The true hardliners may still exist but many in Hamas and the resistance movement will have less of a reason to fight. There have been some in Hamas that have said they will happy with a pull back to the 67 borders.

Palestinians have no means to do anything, and Israelis don't want to do anything except building a Wall.

Proves my point.

Going to a foreign land with the set aim to create a state clearly is an aggression. They were starting to cleanse villages in Galilee and northern Samaria even before they declared statehood. Jewish militias rampaged there as early as 1946.

Guess what. Said Jewish malitia were later rounded up and imprisoned by the Jewish government later, after the 1948 war.

It is not a foregin land, any more than the Native Americans wishing to create their own state in the region now would be a foreign land. The Native Americans may live in other parts of the world, but they still have the connection to that land, just as the Jews do

If you want to talk about agression creating states being illeitamate, then you may want to look at the people you claim to be defending. The only reason Arabs are in Israel now is because of the Arab conquests of the seventh century. Do you think then, since invasion is agressive and wrong, that actually Israel should have been Israel for far longer, seing as how the Arabs shouldnt be their either, by your logic.

The true hardliners may still exist but many in Hamas and the resistance movement will have less of a reason to fight. There have been some in Hamas that have said they will happy with a pull back to the 67 borders.

Does some equal the majority?

So all the wrong things, all the killing on both sides are the Israelis' fault. Thank you for your unbiased point of view.

I have never said I am unbaised when it comes to this issue.

I have never said I am unbaised when it comes to this issue.

So you wouldnt be qualified to throw around the word bias, as you had done

Does some equal the majority?

no but you make it seem as if every Palestinian is member of Hamas or Islamic Jihad. These are rather fringe groups.

So you wouldnt be qualified to throw around the word bias, as you had done

O Rly? when?

no but you make it seem as if every Palestinian is member of Hamas or Islamic Jihad. These are rather fringe groups.

Yes they are fringe groups however, Hamas is the party in power and their party has yet to renounce violence and recognize Israel. That makes Hamas a viable target to state that they are contributing to the continuing violence.

Hamas isn't exactly a 'fringe group'.

Guess what. Said Jewish malitia were later rounded up and imprisoned by the Jewish government later, after the 1948 war.

It is not a foregin land, any more than the Native Americans wishing to create their own state in the region now would be a foreign land. The Native Americans may live in other parts of the world, but they still have the connection to that land, just as the Jews do

If you want to talk about agression creating states being illeitamate, then you may want to look at the people you claim to be defending. The only reason Arabs are in Israel now is because of the Arab conquests of the seventh century. Do you think then, since invasion is agressive and wrong, that actually Israel should have been Israel for far longer, seing as how the Arabs shouldnt be their either, by your logic.The spread of Islam was no Arabian conquest. Arabs are ethnically the same as any other folks from Aleppo to Sanaa. Arabs are the descendants of all the various people who ever lived in the region. And they never went elsewhere.
The Jews who lived in Europe for 1900 years were of course foreigners to the land.

The spread of Islam was no Arabian conquest.

And you claim to know history! I guess that proves that you do not.

Yes they are fringe groups however, Hamas is the party in power and their party has yet to renounce violence and recognize Israel. That makes Hamas a viable target to state that they are contributing to the continuing violence.Recognize Israel? In what borders?

And you claim to know history! I guess that proves that you do not.Change of religion doesn't change ethnicity. And where would such huge numbers of invading Arabs have come from? The desert? The sky? The spread of Islam was started by a handful of people. They surely didn't replace any land's population. In fact most lands embraced the new religion, as they were fed up with Byzantine and Sassanid rule.

The spread of Islam was no Arabian conquest.

I didnt mention Islam

Funny, so what exactly were the seventh century Arab conquests?


The Jews who lived in Europe for 1900 years were of course foreigners to the land.

No, they were people who had been forced out, by (amoungst others) the Arab invaders (along with Roman, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek etc, so they shouldnt feel like I'm sinlging them out). Were it not for invasion, Israel would still be there today, having existed for 3000+

Recognize Israel? In what borders?

Let them recognize Israel's right to exist first before we discuss borders.

Change of religion doesn't change ethnicity.

For once we agree but you stated that the Spread of Islam did not happen through conquest. In most cases, it did. Besides that, Islam was not even brought up until you brought it up.

Now care to answer the question poised to you by Neo Sanderstead?

By who?

Who herded the Palestinians into the WB and Gaza?

I'll give you a hint, it starts with "I" and ends with "srael"

Who herded the Palestinians into the WB and Gaza?
I'll give you a hint, it starts with "I" and ends with "srael"Well, I thought you would also blame Palestinians for that...

Yes they are fringe groups however, Hamas is the party in power and their party has yet to renounce violence and recognize Israel. That makes Hamas a viable target to state that they are contributing to the continuing violence.

Hamas has the right to defend its people given the current situation in Palestine. No act of Israeli aggression or crimes will go unpunished InshAllah. israel is the main contributer to the violence there. They stop, Hamas and others will stop.

I didnt mention Islam
Funny, so what exactly were the seventh century Arab conquests?But that's the only "conquest" going on in the 7th century CE. Gaining political and in this case also religious control over a land did not mean the population was replaced. The inhabitants of the Hedjaz were no different from those living in the Levant.
No, they were people who had been forced out, by (amoungst others) the Arab invaders (along with Roman, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek etc, so they shouldnt feel like I'm sinlging them out). Were it not for invasion, Israel would still be there today, having existed for 3000+That's a nice biblical tale, yes. But just that.

Hamas has the right to defend its people given the current situation in Palestine.

However, by attacking innocent men, women, and children, it has moved beyond "defending its people" into the realms of terrorism. That is why funding by the western nations was cut off to the Hamas led government. If they were just going after Military targets, it would be a whole different matter but they aren't.

No act of Israeli aggression or crimes will go unpunished InshAllah. israel is the main contributer to the violence there. They stop, Hamas and others will stop.

I'm glad I live in the real world. Once BOTH SIDES stop, then there will be peace. Israel has tried to stop then an Extremist blows himself up and the violence resumes. Both sides have violated their fair share of cease-fires. Both sides contribute to the violence. No one side is the main contributor for they both are equal in terms of violence.

But that's the only "conquest" going on in the 7th century CE. Gaining political and in this case also religious control over a land did not mean the population was replaced. The inhabitants of the Hedjaz were no different from those living in the Levant.
That's a nice biblical tale, yes. But just that.

Acctually archeological diggings of antient cities do prove that there were protojewish culture settlements there.

That's a nice biblical tale, yes. But just that.

I see you do not know history for what he said that you claim to be a biblical tale has been proven to be accurate.

Acctually archeological diggings of antient cities do prove that there were protojewish culture settlements there.Yeah. All over the place. In fact pre-jewish settlements. Most folks don't bother to distinguish between Jews, Israelites, and Hebrews, but they were of course very distinct. Today's Jews are only a partial subset of ancient Jews, ancient Jews were only a small subset of Israelites, and Israelites were only a small subset of Hebrews. Archaeological records as well as the Bible indeed make that distinction.

Hamas has the right to defend its people given the current situation in Palestine. No act of Israeli aggression or crimes will go unpunished InshAllah. israel is the main contributer to the violence there. They stop, Hamas and others will stop.

Hamas has right to fight military. NO ONE under NO CIRCUMSTANCE has right to blow up buses full of children and markets full of people of all ages.
There is a word for unbiased killing of people, women, children and infirm. Word is Evil.
And Hamas has broken so many cease fires that saying that if the Israeli stop Hamas would stop is silly at best. Hamas has stated they have no intention to stop till Israel exists. Since Israeli will not move, only way that can happen is by killing every man woman and child. As I said, evil.
Fatah is working on a policy of cohabitance. Living together, wokring together and trying to make it better for ordinary people. If you want to champion somoene, champion them. But Hamas... they are terrorists.
Now mind you, Israeli goverment broke just as many cease fires, and has commited atrocitites. And they use same line Hamas does. "Look what they are doing to us"
Violence is not solved with more violence, unless you go to a complete and utter genocide. Only hope for a peace is that moderate heads get together and try to find a way to work together for betterment of all their people.

Yeah. All over the place. In fact pre-jewish settlements. Most folks don't bother to distinguish between Jews, Israelites, and Hebrews, but they were of course very distinct. Today's Jews are only a partial subset of ancient Jews, ancient Jews were only a small subset of Israelites, and Israelites were only a small subset of Hebrews. Archaeological records as well as the Bible indeed make that distinction.

And you of course have evidence to prove such things?

Yeah. All over the place. In fact pre-jewish settlements. Most folks don't bother to distinguish between Jews, Israelites, and Hebrews, but they were of course very distinct. Today's Jews are only a partial subset of ancient Jews, ancient Jews were only a small subset of Israelites, and Israelites were only a small subset of Hebrews. Archaeological records as well as the Bible indeed make that distinction.

Yeah, you ask Israel Finkelstein.

In that case no one anywhere has right to any land, because they are all distinctly diferent then people that came there originaly.

I see you do not know history for what he said that you claim to be a biblical tale has been proven to be accurate.Yeah, you ask Israel Finkelstein or David Rohl.

No, they reacted.

To migration into a country that wasn't theirs?

What's your obsession with this "Arab land"? Israel only takes up about 1% of the Arab Middle East. Jordan is more or less a Palestinian country.

Yeah, you ask Israel Finkelstein or David Rohl.

Ok since I do not know where they are at, why don't you supply evidence instead of names.

To migration into a country that wasn't theirs?Palestine was and is the Palestinian Arabs' land.

Palestine was and is the Palestinian Arabs' land.

Notice the word country?

Ok since I do not know where they are at, why don't you supply evidence instead of names.Read their works, kid. Or pick up a shovel and start digging anywhere in the Levant. You won't find anything to support the biblical rendition.

Palestine was and is the Palestinian Arabs' land.

That is a very biased outlook.
If we go by "who was there first" it would depend on how far we go back. Because Israelites were there before arabic conquests. but not directly after WW2
if we go by "people who conquer land do not own it" then it again depends on how far we go back, because arabs conquered it too
if we go by "population" numbers are very balanced there

I personaly think that land belongs to people that lives there and loves it. And in this case I'd say thats BOTH palestinian arabs and israelis.

Read their works, kid. Or pick up a shovel and start digging anywhere in the Levant. You won't find anything to support the biblical rendition.

Provide. Your. Evidence. Please. You know the method in which it is supposed to be provided.

EDIT: Look who I am talking to. You have failed to provide evidence for most of your claims so why should I expect evidence proving what you are saying when you provided no proof to your other claims?

That is a very biased outlook.
If we go by "who was there first" it would depend on how far we go back. Because Israelites were there before arabic conquests. but not directly after WW2
if we go by "people who conquer land do not own it" then it again depends on how far we go back, because arabs conquered it too
if we go by "population" numbers are very balanced there

I personaly think that land belongs to people that lives there and loves it. And in this case I'd say thats BOTH palestinian arabs and israelis.

Agreed.

That is a very biased outlook.
If we go by "who was there first" it would depend on how far we go back. Because Israelites were there before arabic conquests. but not directly after WW2
if we go by "people who conquer land do not own it" then it again depends on how far we go back, because arabs conquered it too
if we go by "population" numbers are very balanced there

I personaly think that land belongs to people that lives there and loves it. And in this case I'd say thats BOTH palestinian arabs and israelis.But Israelis came from outside. Except for a small minority of Jews only Palestinian Arabs lived there and loved it.
The question about how far back is easy to answer: back to the time when a Jewish state was first seriously debated around 1917/18. Arabs surely would not have bothered back then if the Jews had been given a small state. That changed however when Jews started flocking to Palestine en masse and they demanded all of Palestine (i.e. including Transjordan back then).

Provide. Your. Evidence. Please. You know the method in which it is supposed to be provided.

EDIT: Look who I am talking to. You have failed to provide evidence for most of your claims so why should I expect evidence proving what you are saying when you provided no proof to your other claims?

Well untill he does: The first historical record of the word "Israel" comes from an Egyptian stele documenting military campaigns in Canaan. Although this stele which referred to a people (the determinative for 'country' was absent) is dated to approximately 1211 BCE,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Not 3000 years but definatly close to 2000 when Arabs conquests started. And mind you thats after the name Israel, not people was established. Evidence of Semitic people that share similarities with later Israelis exit much further back.
But what do I know.

But Israelis came from outside. Except for a small minority of Jews only Palestinian Arabs lived there and loved it.
The question about how far back is easy to answer: back to the time when a Jewish state was first seriously debated around 1917/18. Arabs surely would not have bothered back then if the Jews had been given a small state. That changed however when Jews started flocking to Palestine en masse and they demanded all of Palestine (i.e. including Transjordan back then).

Forget it guys. This guy is impervious to actual logic and history.

Well untill he does: The first historical record of the word "Israel" comes from an Egyptian stele documenting military campaigns in Canaan. Although this stele which referred to a people (the determinative for 'country' was absent) is dated to approximately 1211 BCE,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Not 3000 years but definatly close to 2000 when Arabs conquests started. And mind you thats after the name Israel, not people was established. Evidence of Semitic people that share similarities with later Israelis exit much further back.
But what do I know.

More than UB does that's for sure :D

Provide. Your. Evidence. Please. You know the method in which it is supposed to be provided.

EDIT: Look who I am talking to. You have failed to provide evidence for most of your claims so why should I expect evidence proving what you are saying when you provided no proof to your other claims?I can't do the reading and studying for you. I gave you two names, now search for their works yourself and buy them in a bookstore. You can also add Kenneth Kitchen.

But Israelis came from outside. Except for a small minority of Jews only Palestinian Arabs lived there and loved it.
The question about how far back is easy to answer: back to the time when a Jewish state was first seriously debated around 1917/18. Arabs surely would not have bothered back then if the Jews had been given a small state. That changed however when Jews started flocking to Palestine en masse and they demanded all of Palestine (i.e. including Transjordan back then).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but arabs only came there after conquests in 6th century. They came from outside (arrabian peninsula) and took the land by force from people who already lived and loved it.

But Israelis came from outside. Except for a small minority of Jews only Palestinian Arabs lived there and loved it.
The question about how far back is easy to answer: back to the time when a Jewish state was first seriously debated around 1917/18. Arabs surely would not have bothered back then if the Jews had been given a small state. That changed however when Jews started flocking to Palestine en masse and they demanded all of Palestine (i.e. including Transjordan back then).

Tell you what, lets say for a moment we forget the question of whether or not the Jews should have gotten their own state. It is never going to be reversed whatever you argue. Deal with it. Perhaps you can give a possible solution to the violence going on that both sides could actually agree to? Instead of shouting about the evil Jews lets try to come up with a peace idea.

I can't do the reading and studying for you. I gave you two names, now search for their works yourself and buy them in a bookstore. You can also add Kenneth Kitchen.

So I should trust the names of people that I have never heard of because of what some person whom I do not know says I should read because it "proves beyond doubt" that I am wrong and he is right?

Sorry if I remain skeptical. If this information proves what you are saying, then post links stating as such.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but arabs only came there after conquests in 6th century. They came from outside (arrabian peninsula) and took the land by force from people who already lived and loved it.

We have a winner folks. Once again UB gets owned by history.

UB has never actually been owned as much as he sort of owned himself. I mean, it's hard not for anyone with reason not to look at his inane comments and giggle. *giggles*

So I should trust the names of people that I have never heard of because of what some person whom I do not know says I should read because it "proves beyond doubt" that I am wrong and he is right?
Sorry if I remain skeptical. If this information proves what you are saying, then post links stating as such.If you were really knowledgeable in the matter, you would know those names. They are all leading archaeologists. Now go find a library.

If you were really knowledgeable in the matter, you would know those names. They are all leading archaeologists. Now go find a library.

If these disprove the bible then there should be links to them. Provide them now.

So I should trust the names of people that I have never heard of because of what some person whom I do not know says I should read because it "proves beyond doubt" that I am wrong and he is right?

Sorry if I remain skeptical. If this information proves what you are saying, then post links stating as such.

Oh they do. Only not in the way he is presenting it.
They do work on natural developement of a people.
Like French today are not exactly same people that Charlemagne's franks were, they ARE same in a way they grew out of that nation.
Natural growth and adaptation of people.
Today's Israeli are NOT same people as Semite people who lived there 3000 years BC. Ofcorse not, intermarriage and cultural contamination did its toll. But they DID grew from those people.
Completly natural and everyday occurance exept with comepletly closed communities.
Though some people want to present it as "They are not acctually same people so they don't have right to the land" which is what the research does not say in any way.

Oh they do. Only not in the way he is presenting it.
They do work on natural developement of a people.
Like French today are not exactly same people that Charlemagne's franks were, they ARE same in a way they grew out of that nation.
Natural growth and adaptation of people.
Today's Israeli are NOT same people as Semite people who lived there 3000 years BC. Ofcorse not, intermarriage and cultural contamination did its toll. But they DID grew from those people.
Completly natural and everyday occurance exept with comepletly closed communities.
Though some people want to present it as "They are not acctually same people so they don't have right to the land" which is what the research does not say in any way.

Thank you! You at least you are very knowledgable.

Why are we arguing about who inhabited the land first? Israel was inhabited by Canaanites before the Jews, and before them it was inhabited by Neanderthals, and before that it was inhabited by Homo Erectus. What difference does it make, Israel was created and now a solution needs to be found for the present conflict.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but arabs only came there after conquests in 6th century. They came from outside (arrabian peninsula) and took the land by force from people who already lived and loved it.So now it's the 6th century CE? A few posts ago it was the 7th.... Tell me, how would a handful of Arabs from the Hedjaz supplant the population of Palestine in the 6th century? Those Arabs brought a new religion and rule to the Levant, but they did not change the people. The people they converted were not different from themselves anyways.

If these disprove the bible then there should be links to them. Provide them now.The bible actually confirms them. And those books are not available for reading anywhere on the internet. However you can order them at amazon. Those books are not from the Victorian age, from which evangelical Christians normally draw their 'knowledge', but from the last 20 years.

Why are we arguing about who inhabited the land first? Israel was inhabited by Canaanites before the Jews, and before them it was inhabited by Neanderthals, and before that it was inhabited by Homo Erectus. What difference does it make, Israel was created and now a solution needs to be found for the present conflict.

Thank you! Exactly what I asked! Perhaps we will get an answer.

Israel Finklestein is a loon. He's been brought up in a couple of my classes and his ideas pretty quickly explained away as pispoor science and generally extremely biased. I haven't read him because of his general reputation in archeology but if needed I can read his work this week if ya'll really want me to... In short however, any Archeologist with any sense views his claims as absurd.

What was the other guys name again? I'll go look and see what we have there.

Oh. Rohl. Yeah, you are really not going to get very far with a freaking guy working an an Archeology Masters by using two loons to back up your assertations.

Rohl btw, is the guy that claims we can attach dates to all the biblical events IF ONLY ALL OF ARCHEOLOGY WILL CHANGE IT'S DATING of egypt and the middle east. He thinks we should scrap a hundred years of research for about ten years of smoking crack and shooting heroin. Give me a break.

UB, you suck. Find me someone real to look into, not these stupid crackpots.

Why are we arguing about who inhabited the land first? Israel was inhabited by Canaanites before the Jews, and before them it was inhabited by Neanderthals, and before that it was inhabited by Homo Erectus. What difference does it make, Israel was created and now a solution needs to be found for the present conflict.What solution do you suggest that will not take even more away from the Palestinians? The Green Line already leaves them only 22% of what was Palestine once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_%28Israel%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

So now it's the 6th century CE? A few posts ago it was the 7th.... Tell me, how would a handful of Arabs from the Hedjaz supplant the population of Palestine in the 6th century? Those Arabs brought a new religion and rule to the Levant, but they did not change the people. The people they converted were not different from themselves anyways.

Under the Rashidun Caliphate between 632 and 640 Arabs conquered all of the area that is today palestine. (plus quite a bit more) While not instant, change of population was constant with constant influx of settlers from arabic peninsula to what was for muslims too a holy sites around jerusalem.
Arabs thus came with military force, took land, and then over long period of time settled and asimilated it. I seriously doubt they asked people who already lived there what they thought about it. And yes they brought new religion, but they TOOK land by force. And while people were not forced by the sword to convert, lets not foget that non muslims paid 3 times the tax muslims have.
But you knew all that I'm sure.

WARNING TO MODS (NOT A COPY AND PASTE JOB!)


Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Hitting a Jew is the Same as Hitting God

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews

Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Insults Against Blessed Mary

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

Jesus Attacked In The Talmud

"The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene':

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement."

Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone."

Maimonides' Mishneh Torah -- replete not only with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds piously, 'May the name of the wicked perish')... --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21.

Talmud Attacks Christians and Christian Books

Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come.

Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).

Sick and Insane Teachings of the Talmud

Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix with honey and eat it.

Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with. On one of his whorehouse romps, Rabbi Eleazar leanred that there was one particular prostitute residing in a whorehouse near the sea, who would receive a bag of money for her services. He took a bag of money and went to her, crossing seven rivers to do so. During their intercourse the prostitute farted. After this the whore told Rabbi Eleazar: "Just as this gas will never return to my anus, Rabbi Eleazar will never get to heaven."

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Gittin 70a. The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic."

Gittin 69b. To heal the disease of pleurisy ("catarrh") a Jew should "take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog's excrement as it loosens the limbs."

Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.

Tall Tales of a Roman Holocaust

Here are two early "Holocaust" tales from the Talmud: Gittin 57b. Claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. (Ancient demography indicates that there were not 16 million Jews in the entire world at that time, much less 16 million Jewish children or four billion Jews).

Genocide Advocated by the Talmud

Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed").

The bible actually confirms them. And those books are not available for reading anywhere on the internet. However you can order them at amazon. Those books are not from the Victorian age, from which evangelical Christians normally draw their 'knowledge', but from the last 20 years.

I'm still waiting for the proof that the Bible (yes with a capitol B) proves what you are saying. You have a link to said proof or are you pulling shit out of your ass again?

What solution do you suggest that will not take even more away from the Palestinians? The Green Line already leaves them only 22% of what was Palestine once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_%28Israel%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

Cohabitation.
Creation of two countries, who then relax customs and create just about every kind of pact two countries can while still staying separate countries, enabling citizens of both countries to work and live in each, work on raising standard for citizens regardless of their background and enable full rights for both people.
How does that sound?

Under the Rashidun Caliphate between 632 and 640 Arabs conquered all of the area that is today palestine. (plus quite a bit more) While not instant, change of population was constant with constant influx of settlers from arabic peninsula to what was for muslims too a holy sites around jerusalem.
Arabs thus came with military force, took land, and then over long period of time settled and asimilated it. I seriously doubt they asked people who already lived there what they thought about it. And yes they brought new religion, but they TOOK land by force. And while people were not forced by the sword to convert, lets not foget that non muslims paid 3 times the tax muslims have.
But you knew all that I'm sure.

And we have a winner ladies and gentlemen. Thank you Poglavnik for stating yet another historical fact that debunks what UB is saying.

Please provide evidence that the accounts that take place in the holy bable are real.

Prove there is a god.

Israel Finklestein is a loon. He's been brought up in a couple of my classes and his ideas pretty quickly explained away as pispoor science and generally extremely biased. I haven't read him because of his general reputation in archeology but if needed I can read his work this week if ya'll really want me to... In short however, any Archeologist with any sense views his claims as absurd.

What was the other guys name again? I'll go look and see what we have there.

Oh. Rohl. Yeah, you are really not going to get very far with a freaking guy working an an Archeology Masters by using two loons to back up your assertations.

Rohl btw, is the guy that claims we can attach dates to all the biblical events IF ONLY ALL OF ARCHEOLOGY WILL CHANGE IT'S DATING of egypt and the middle east. He thinks we should scrap a hundred years of research for about ten years of smoking crack and shooting heroin. Give me a break.

UB, you suck. Find me someone real to look into, not these stupid crackpots.You are a loon. Finkelstein and Rohl both do brilliant work. They challenge the system, that's why you don't like them. A hundred years of research? What research? You know pretty well that the current chronology of Egypt doesn't hold water. If you start all over again and reconstruct everything from scratch with all information available today you will never come to anything like the bs set up by folks in Victorian times. And the same for Finkelstein: if you really match the archaeological material at hand with the currently applied chronology there never was an ancient Israel, no glorious kings, no conquest. The evidence is irrefutable according to archeology's own current standards.
The whole of ancient history is currently built on assumptions made by good Christians on some superficial similarities of names. Egyptian chronology is based entirely on the plain wrong Shoshenk-Shishak synchronism.

Please provide evidence that the accounts that take place in the holy bable are real.

Prove there is a god.

Historical fact and archeology confirms that there was a Kingdom of Israel, Assyria, Medes/Persan empire, A babylonian Empire, Greek Empire, and Roman Empires all occupied the region that is today Israel. Also, there is some, some mind you, that do collaborate what was in the Bible.

Archeology is your friend when it comes to proving ancient history.

You are a loon. Finkelstein and Rohl both do brilliant work. They challenge the system, that's why you don't like them. A hundred years of research? What research? You know pretty well that the current chronology of Egypt doesn't hold water. If you start all over again and reconstruct everything from scrath with all information available today you will never come to anything like the bs set up by folks in Victorian times. And the same for Finkelstein: if you really match the archaeological material at hand with the currently applied chronology there never was an ancient Israel, no glorious kings, no conquest. The evidence is irrefutable.
The whole of ancient history is currently built on assumptions made by good Christians on some superficial similarities of names. Egyptian chronology is based entirely on the plain wrong Shoshenk-Shishak synchronism.

Oh this guy is rich. What makes Rohl and Finkelstein so great?

Under the Rashidun Caliphate between 632 and 640 Arabs conquered all of the area that is today palestine. (plus quite a bit more) While not instant, change of population was constant with constant influx of settlers from arabic peninsula to what was for muslims too a holy sites around jerusalem.
Arabs thus came with military force, took land, and then over long period of time settled and asimilated it. I seriously doubt they asked people who already lived there what they thought about it. And yes they brought new religion, but they TOOK land by force. And while people were not forced by the sword to convert, lets not foget that non muslims paid 3 times the tax muslims have.
But you knew all that I'm sure.

Bzzzz, wrong.

Arabs AND Jews lived of that land. It was the Jews that now have the backing and power only because they have the west on their side. Sure they may have won at the time of 1948....but if it werent for the backing of western powers to the next few conflicts and wars between the Jews and Arabs....i have the feeling that they would of lost the land......especially during the time of the Cold War....since Russia would of backed the arabs in Palestine.

Under the Rashidun Caliphate between 632 and 640 Arabs conquered all of the area that is today palestine. (plus quite a bit more) While not instant, change of population was constant with constant influx of settlers from arabic peninsula to what was for muslims too a holy sites around jerusalem.
Arabs thus came with military force, took land, and then over long period of time settled and asimilated it. I seriously doubt they asked people who already lived there what they thought about it. And yes they brought new religion, but they TOOK land by force. And while people were not forced by the sword to convert, lets not foget that non muslims paid 3 times the tax muslims have.
But you knew all that I'm sure.So what people were they allegedly supplanting? Arameans? Hebrews? Samaritans? Ammonites? Nabateans? Tell me: who are the Arabs descended from?

WARNING TO MODS (NOT A COPY AND PASTE JOB!)


Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to blah blah blah loads of crap taken out of context, distorted by anti semeites and in gernal intended to show how evil jews are

and a quick google shows several different internet sites which explain these out of context quotes, and what they really meant in the context of their society.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/short.html

I particularly like the one about raping a 3 year old, which basically reprieves the child rapist but condemsn the 3 year old....riiiight.

Oh this guy is rich. What makes Rohl and Finkelstein so great?Their evidence.

Their evidence.

Which you have failed to provide.

You are a loon. Finkelstein and Rohl both do brilliant work. They challenge the system, that's why you don't like them. A hundred years of research? What research? You know pretty well that the current chronology of Egypt doesn't hold water. If you start all over again and reconstruct everything from scrath with all information available today you will never come to anything like the bs set up by folks in Victorian times. And the same for Finkelstein: if you really match the archaeological material at hand with the currently applied chronology there never was an ancient Israel, no glorious kings, no conquest. The evidence is irrefutable.
The whole of ancient history is currently built on assumptions made by good Christians on some superficial similarities of names. Egyptian chronology is based entirely on the plain wrong Shoshenk-Shishak synchronism.

Finkelstein is considered very contraversial. Mostly it goes on about "there is no evidence for..."
Which is quite true. We also have over 500 year gaps in history of egypt, nearly 800 years gap in history of Babylon. And that proves what? That for 500 years egypt stopped to exist?
Evidence is NOT irrefutable, what evidence he mentions say is simply "there is no evidence"

-SNIP-

Why do you feel the need to attack Judaism? What does it have to do with this debate?

So what people were they allegedly supplanting? Arameans? Hebrews? Samaritans? Ammonites? Nabateans? Tell me: who are the Arabs descended from?

OH! Its who they are DESCENDED from?
Well congratulations you just solved the middle east crisis.
There is no need for any sort of fighting, since Arabs and Jews are both semitic people, descended from same basic geneaology there never was any invasion or taking of land, it was just well same people.

Cohabitation.
Creation of two countries, who then relax customs and create just about every kind of pact two countries can while still staying separate countries, enabling citizens of both countries to work and live in each, work on raising standard for citizens regardless of their background and enable full rights for both people.
How does that sound?In what borders? With what resources? With what access to infrastructure?

You are a loon. Finkelstein and Rohl both do brilliant work. They challenge the system, that's why you don't like them. A hundred years of research? What research? You know pretty well that the current chronology of Egypt doesn't hold water. If you start all over again and reconstruct everything from scrath with all information available today you will never come to anything like the bs set up by folks in Victorian times. And the same for Finkelstein: if you really match the archaeological material at hand with the currently applied chronology there never was an ancient Israel, no glorious kings, no conquest. The evidence is irrefutable.
The whole of ancient history is currently built on assumptions made by good Christians on some superficial similarities of names. Egyptian chronology is based entirely on the plain wrong Shoshenk-Shishak synchronism.

Yeah okay. right. You're a loon. You're welcome to grab any old UFOlogist you want to back your claims up. But that doesn't mean you're not a loon, or that his claims are not loony.

The egyptians had a habit of attempting to totally eradicate the history of regimes they didn't like. This doesn't mean we should simply tear that chunk of tim eout in an attempt to wedge history in where it doesn't go. Find me a real archeologist and we'll see how he responds to your crazy claims.

In what borders? With what resources? With what access to infrastructure?

if you give free access to citizens of both sides the question of borders get much less important, since settlers of both sides could move to both sides of border. but there would have to be something closer to original UN plan, and yes palestinians would have to get more land then they have now, but not ALL land they claim (which according to Hamas is ALL land, tough Fatah has MUCH more realistic claims, and they should be taken seriously)
And if Israel and UN gave help to develop Palestine, and raise standard of the people (like it was done for eastern germany) you would see how people get much less extremist.
First victim of economic depression is lady of peace.

Finkelstein is considered very contraversial. Mostly it goes on about "there is no evidence for..."
Which is quite true. We also have over 500 year gaps in history of egypt, nearly 800 years gap in history of Babylon. And that proves what? That for 500 years egypt stopped to exist?
Evidence is NOT irrefutable, what evidence he mentions say is simply "there is no evidence"Yes, there are mighty mighty gaps all over ancient history. Almost all of those gaps were produced when the Egyptian dynasties mentioned by ancient authors were just added up sequentially, without regarding any overlaps. All other chronologies, from Mesopotamia, Greece, the Levant, etc were then adjusted to somehow fit this overstretched scheme. No wonder this resulted in gaps.

Yes, there are mighty mighty gaps all over ancient history. Almost all of those gaps were produced when the Egyptian dynasties mentioned by ancient authors were just added up sequentially, without regarding any overlaps. All other chronologies, from Mesopotamia, Greece, the Levant, etc were then adjusted to somehow fit this overstretched scheme. No wonder this resulted in gaps.

So you are saying that there should not be gaps?

if you give free access to citizens of both sides the question of borders get much less important, since settlers of both sides could move to both sides of border. but there would have to be something closer to original UN plan, and yes palestinians would have to get more land then they have now, but not ALL land they claim (which according to Hamas is ALL land, tough Fatah has MUCH more realistic claims, and they should be taken seriously)
And if Israel and UN gave help to develop Palestine, and raise standard of the people (like it was done for eastern germany) you would see how people get much less extremist.
First victim of economic depression is lady of peace.But there will be no free access for citizens of both sides. Israel is building a Wall far inside the West Bank. It is and will be pursuing its "defensible border" policy regardless of any criticism. It will take everything it is not stopped to take.

So you are saying that there should not be gaps?no 300+ years gaps

Yes, there are mighty mighty gaps all over ancient history. Almost all of those gaps were produced when the Egyptian dynasties mentioned by ancient authors were just added up sequentially, without regarding any overlaps. All other chronologies, from Mesopotamia, Greece, the Levant, etc were then adjusted to somehow fit this overstretched scheme. No wonder this resulted in gaps.

Guy is trying to prove that Abraham didn't exist because there is no evidence of him.
Abraham is described as nomadic, illiterate shepard. I dunno about you, but I doubt he COULD have left any proof of him. He coulnt' well carve his name into a big rock.
BUT convential archeology say that there WERE nomadic semites in the area.
Gaps will always exist, because we CANNOT know for sure what people did then. I mean there are "written evidence" that one Pharaoh had 500.000 men in a battle. That would need population of more then 2.000.000. Impossible at the time.
Antient history is patchwork and guesswork on little evidence we have. And nothing can be proven by saying "we don't have evidence"

But there will be no free access for citizens of both sides. Israel is building a Wall far inside the West Bank. It is and will be pursuing its "defensible border" policy regardless of any criticism. It will take everything it is not stopped to take.

Actually, the wall route has been changed due to an Israeli Supreme Court Verdict regarding that very wall you are condemning.

no 300+ years gaps

Son, we have gaps in recent history. We will never fully understand ancient history just like we'll never know the true history of what is going on now.

Read their works, kid. Or pick up a shovel and start digging anywhere in the Levant. You won't find anything to support the biblical rendition.

Funny thing is it says here this person's views are not credable though...

Finkelstein's revised chronology is "not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars," Coogan asserts, citing four scholarly anthologies from the past three years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein


Hmmmmm......

Finkelstein's revised chronology is "not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars," Coogan asserts, citing four scholarly anthologies from the past three years.


hmmm.....Argumentum ad populum and an appeal to authority, tsk tsk.

Funny thing is it says here this person's views are not credable though...

Finkelstein's revised chronology is "not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars," Coogan asserts, citing four scholarly anthologies from the past three years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein


Hmmmmm......

He'll denounce the bible scholars but I cannot argue with what is being said here.

But there will be no free access for citizens of both sides. Israel is building a Wall far inside the West Bank. It is and will be pursuing its "defensible border" policy regardless of any criticism. It will take everything it is not stopped to take.


That is being challenged in Israel supreme court.
And by the way if you don't have anyone to fight against you don't need defencible border. If Hamas gives Israel right to exist and Israeli give right to Palestinians to have own country and then start making little steps toward what I said everything would be solved in about 25 years of slow steps. You'll note thats much less then half the time its been spent on killing.
if both people decided to stop "its all arab land" or "its all jewish land" and just went "we are both here, lets make best of it" things would be much better

Guy is trying to prove that Abraham didn't exist because there is no evidence of him.
Abraham is described as nomadic, illiterate shepard. I dunno about you, but I doubt he COULD have left any proof of him. He coulnt' well carve his name into a big rock.
BUT convential archeology say that there WERE nomadic semites in the area.
Gaps will always exist, because we CANNOT know for sure what people did then. I mean there are "written evidence" that one Pharaoh had 500.000 men in a battle. That would need population of more then 2.000.000. Impossible at the time.
Antient history is patchwork and guesswork on little evidence we have. And nothing can be proven by saying "we don't have evidence"

Actually it is quite possible, many researchers and historians believe the population of the time was at 85 million, whih is well over enough to cover the basis of that number you stated....but like you said, there isnt any certainties, at least yet....

Guy is trying to prove that Abraham didn't exist because there is no evidence of him.
Abraham is described as nomadic, illiterate shepard. I dunno about you, but I doubt he COULD have left any proof of him. He coulnt' well carve his name into a big rock.
BUT convential archeology say that there WERE nomadic semites in the area.
Gaps will always exist, because we CANNOT know for sure what people did then. I mean there are "written evidence" that one Pharaoh had 500.000 men in a battle. That would need population of more then 2.000.000. Impossible at the time.
Antient history is patchwork and guesswork on little evidence we have. And nothing can be proven by saying "we don't have evidence"Abraham is not described as a nomadic, illiterate shepherd. He is described as a tribal leader whose descent was worthy of remembering. And the art of writing had been around for 1200 years in his day. I see no reason why he could not have left any trace of himself.
Ancient history is indeed patchwork and guesswork on evidence we have, so we should not let it be confused by much younger biblical tradition. But that's exactly what was done when the chronologies of Egypt and the Levant were first assembled. 150 years ago the expressed aim of archeology was to confirm the biblical narrative, and that's what archaeologists then indeed tried to do.

Funny thing is it says here this person's views are not credable though...
Finkelstein's revised chronology is "not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars," Coogan asserts, citing four scholarly anthologies from the past three years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein
Hmmmmm......In fact I do not agree with most of Finkelstein's conclusions, as I consider them too radical and actually still to much based on the orthodox chronology. However I do appreciate the material he provides and the abundant information out of his work in the field.

hmmm.....Argumentum ad populum and an appeal to authority, tsk tsk.

*pulls hair out at ridiculous attempt to explain away simple refutation by practically everybody who ever studied Egypt.

hmmm.....Argumentum ad populum and an appeal to authority, tsk tsk.

Actually you are wrong, i was just stating the facts, unlike what he is doing. What i stated was NOT fallacies, i was just pointing that out so he can correct himself. If that is wrong to do, then you people better learn how to debate.....

*pulls hair out at ridiculous attempt to explain away simple refutation by practically everybody who ever studied Egypt.

Ah, everyone believes it, so it must be true!

Groupthink is the order of the day, I see.

Actually you are wrong, i was just stating the facts, unlike what he is doing. What i stated was NOT fallacies, i was just pointing that out so he can correct himself. If that is wrong to do, then you people better learn how to debate.....

This debate has lost all respects to proper debating forms when names such as Arab hater and anti-semitism started to be tossed around and personal insults hurled.

Actually you are wrong, i was just stating the facts, unlike what he is doing. What i stated was NOT fallacies, i was just pointing that out so he can correct himself. If that is wrong to do, then you people better learn how to debate.....

You were saying his claim was not credible because most authorities on the subject think its not credible.

Textbook Argumentum ad Populum and an Appeal to authority.

Ah, everyone believes it, so it must be true!

Groupthink is the order of the day, I see.

No, its jsut that some of us provide links and evidence of EXPERTS, hmmm you do know wha that is right? Besides he is the one that stated that most or many scholars say this and that he thought, but he was wrong....and i wanted to point that out.

Ah, everyone believes it, so it must be true!

Groupthink is the order of the day, I see.

you know, I am sure that when the UFO's come, you'll be right there waiting for them. Along with the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. Meantime, I am going with the general thought that there is no evidence to support any of these ideas that can't be easily refuted and made laughable.

No, its jsut that some of us provide links and evidence of EXPERTS, hmmm you do know wha that is right?

Yes I know what an expert is, and just because an expert claims something, that does not mean that it is irrefutably true.

Learn Logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Besides he is the one that stated that most or many scholars say this and that he thought, but he was wrong....and i wanted to point that out.

You have a point there.

you know, I am sure that when the UFO's come, you'll be right there waiting for them. Along with the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. Meantime, I am going with the general thought that there is no evidence to support any of these ideas that can't be easily refuted and made laughable.


Well then why don't you refute this evidence? Or better yet point out the lack of said evidence? Thats a much better argument then "Well everyone else thinks so!"


Your assuming I agree or believe in the theories of Israel Finkelstein, I don't, I just really hate Appeals to popularity and other forms of herding instinct.

Sure. In the meantime, like most other human beings, one day you will find that there is only so much information your brain can absorb about a topic which is not relevant to your work. You will therefore come to depend and have a certain amount of trust in people that we normal people call "experts".

Experts are people who have a great deal of knowledge about a particular subject and can be generally trusted to know what they are talking about. You may have heard about them. We have experts in the various subjects tha human beings need to categroize or study. They in fact often advertise their xervices, such as when hookers in Las Vegas hand you their business card claiming expertise in certain...skills. HOwever, if a four hundred pound hooker walked up to me and claimed that she could levitate over me while spinning in a counterclockwise direction and that it would "blow my mind" I would have certain reservations about
a) her expertise
b) my ability to trust her sanity
c) exactly what her definition of "blow my mind" is
d) whether I would survive the experience.

Therefore, I chose experts who have credentails and espouse therories that have not been discredited by every other expert in the field. Like the two loons used as examples that somehow the nation of Israel should be driven into the sea nad its peoples murdered as bloodily and painfully as possible.


As for ad hominim attacks, when Israel is not described by UB as comparable to Nazi Germany, it's actions not compared to the holocaust, and he quits generally acting like an asshat, why, my ad hominim attacks will probably subside. In the meantime, this is teh interweb. If he can dish it he can eat it.

Well then why don't you refute this evidence? Or better yet point out the lack of said evidence? Thats a much better argument then "Well everyone else thinks so!"


Your assuming I agree or believe in the theories of Israel Finkelstein, I don't, I just really hate Appeals to popularity and other forms of herding instinct.

because in order to refute it I would have to learn several languages, and spend many many years digging and looking at places other experts have already been through. I am willing to accept the information and general hypothesis provided me by them because they, in their large numbers, have provoded me with a reasonable description of the subject. As opposed to one guy who dug a hole in his backyard and decided to claim that he could see all the way to china. While F and R are not QUITE that bad, they are close.
Your dislike of the herding instinct is interesting. Hope that works out for you. Wrote often willya? Meantime I am going to stick with what works, thanks. If you somehow find a way to cold fusion, let the rest of us know and we'll stand waaaaaaay over there, in a safe spot while you charge out into edges of reality. If you blow up then at least you won't kill the rest of us :)

Hasn't this thread already been beaten to death?

Yes I know what an expert is, and just because an expert claims something, that does not mean that it is irrefutably true.

Learn Logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Oh dont get me wrong i know what fallacies are, but i wasnt the one supposely appealing to any authority, then again, authority is sometimes needed, if you get the information correctly.



You have a point there.

Thank you.

Mattorn;12101406']Hasn't this thread already been beaten to death?

Nothing is ever beaten to anything, science is never a percise thing.

Nothing is ever beaten to anything, science is never a percise thing.
When did science come into the scene? Or has this thread been horribly derailed?

oh it got derailed about 174 pages ago I think.

Both regimes carried out an occupation they deemed as just, but the international community did not. Both setup ghettos, roadblocks and curfews for the occupied, those who break curfew get shot in the street with tanks. Both were racist regimes who operate(d) with a sense of superiority. Both committed mass killings and slaughters including of women and children. Both used the holocaust as justification or propaganda for their actions. Both are hated by the international community and invaded their neighbours. And both are feircely militaristic.

Its a very close race but the Nazis haven't been around for 60 years and only lasted around 20. The regime of Israel is still around and has been for 60 years. Its close, but I say Israel takes this one. your thoughts?

How can you say Israel is worse than the Nazis? The Nazis rounded up, cremated, cooked in ovens, gassed, and did no telling what else to more than 6,000,000 Jews, yet you say that that is not as bad as Israel defending itself from Palestinian and UN aggression?

Your statement is nothing more than political correctness, an inhuman degree of anti-Semitism, and a desperate attempt to make a liar out of God, because God said Israel would inherit the land FOREVER.

It is obvious to any human being with half a brain that the NAZIS are 10 million times worse than the Jews ever THOUGHT about being.

oh it got derailed about 174 pages ago I think.
Hehe, okey dokey.

Mattorn;12101406']Hasn't this thread already been beaten to death?

Its a zombie thread that will not die.

Edit: Although it was originally about Nazis vs Israel, apparently it is now about biblical archaeology, so "mighty morphing zombie thread that will not die."

Isn't it scary how one typical anti-semitic rant by Soviestan can generate 175 pages of responses?

Isn't it scary how one typical anti-semitic rant by Soviestan can generate 175 pages of responses?

Soviestans probably sittling back laughing and saying to himself "Yeah. When I stir the shit, the shit stays stirred."

Easy to claim somoene is an idiot when you're too stupid to actually read hs next post where he points out that he was being silly. But that's okay. I forgive you.

oh i read it, just never got round to deleting the previous post.

thank you for you forgiveness.

and i forgive you for flaming

Soviestans probably sittling back laughing and saying to himself "Yeah. When I stir the shit, the shit stays stirred."

"In Soviet Britain,shit stirs you!"

If capitalism is evil then so are natural selection and nature.

notice how the most successful animals are communal?

thus socialism is better than capitalism.

As if. If Arabs would have been allowed their state after the end of Turkish rule, as was promised to them, I believe it would have been a pretty progressive and open society. But that was prevented by the colonial powers who again brought the region under foreign rule. Tell me: what reason was there really to slice up the region into spheres of British/French interest that were later made into petty states?

what are you basing this on out of curiosity?

notice how the most successful animals are communal?

thus socialism is better than capitalism.

That's a bit of a generalisation,isn't it?
I agree,I think socialism is better,but I think you're presenting it kinda badly.Most animals hang around in herds for protection from predators-buffalo,zebra,elephants and the like.They don't do it because a communal system works to diminish the barriers of social classes.I don't think you can liken human politics to animals in the Serengeti.

what are you basing this on out of curiosity?

He never bases it on much.'Tis his trollish nature.

But Israel is the aggressor, not the victim. Israel is made up of those who came from outside. They claimed the land the Palestinians were tilling and tried to live from. They attacked the very existence of the small people there.

but you realise those palestinians did'nt own most of the land right? title deeds, etc....
So from a legal standpoint, that's not true. BUT yes they had been working the land and they should have been given the option of return after the first arab israeli conflict.

Change of religion doesn't change ethnicity. And where would such huge numbers of invading Arabs have come from? The desert? The sky? The spread of Islam was started by a handful of people. They surely didn't replace any land's population. In fact most lands embraced the new religion, as they were fed up with Byzantine and Sassanid rule.

these people only 'accepted' islam after being conquered by the caliphate. There were few if any forced conversions, but there were legal and economic insentives to convert.

Well, I thought you would also blame Palestinians for that...

why would he/she?

most of the people arguing on this thread are doing their best to be as unbiased as possible. Just because we/they don't agree with you does'nt mean we/they see israel as a perfectly innocent nation where fairies and elves live.

Hamas has the right to defend its people given the current situation in Palestine. No act of Israeli aggression or crimes will go unpunished InshAllah. israel is the main contributer to the violence there. They stop, Hamas and others will stop.

intersting how hamas is funded by non-palestinians, yet the party is illegal in those same country. example syria

But that's the only "conquest" going on in the 7th century CE. Gaining political and in this case also religious control over a land did not mean the population was replaced. The inhabitants of the Hedjaz were no different from those living in the Levant.
That's a nice biblical tale, yes. But just that.

true enough. they did not replace the population, just interbreed with them.

genetically there are key difference between those people. they might be classified as semites aswell, but remember semite is a linguistic definition not a 'racial' one

You are a loon. Finkelstein and Rohl both do brilliant work. They challenge the system, that's why you don't like them. A hundred years of research? What research? You know pretty well that the current chronology of Egypt doesn't hold water. If you start all over again and reconstruct everything from scratch with all information available today you will never come to anything like the bs set up by folks in Victorian times. And the same for Finkelstein: if you really match the archaeological material at hand with the currently applied chronology there never was an ancient Israel, no glorious kings, no conquest. The evidence is irrefutable according to archeology's own current standards.
The whole of ancient history is currently built on assumptions made by good Christians on some superficial similarities of names. Egyptian chronology is based entirely on the plain wrong Shoshenk-Shishak synchronism.

actually he never claims such a thing. He talks about lack of evidence of certain aspects and such. Not that he's right and the bible is wrong. just different interpretation based on his views and evidence.

and the whole egyption thing. Rohl beleives the chronology is of by 2/400 years. So not that far off anyway

So what people were they allegedly supplanting? Arameans? Hebrews? Samaritans? Ammonites? Nabateans? Tell me: who are the Arabs descended from?

maybe we should define what an 'arab' is first. Since there seem to be several opinions on the matter.

and a quick google shows several different internet sites which explain these out of context quotes, and what they really meant in the context of their society.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/short.html

I particularly like the one about raping a 3 year old, which basically reprieves the child rapist but condemsn the 3 year old....riiiight.

so he was copy and pasting then...

GO GET HIM MODS!!!

Cullons.The last seven posts were yours.
Don't.


Feed.


The.


Troll.

That's a bit of a generalisation,isn't it?
I agree,I think socialism is better,but I think you're presenting it kinda badly.Most animals hang around in herds for protection from predators-buffalo,zebra,elephants and the like.They don't do it because a communal system works to diminish the barriers of social classes.I don't think you can liken human politics to animals in the Serengeti.

i know it was VERY generalised. But so was the post i was replying to.

But instead of looking at the herds like at the prides. they work together and share the kill. they take care of each others cubs, etc...
survival of fittest and such ideas would mean there was no need to do this.

also humans refute the whole idea, as we help others even when they are not related and so on. I think he was using Social Darwinism more than darwinism.

(sorry my mind is all over the place today hope this was clear-ish)

Cullons.The last seven posts were yours.
Don't.


Feed.


The.


Troll.

but.


he's.


hungry.


anyway its only a morsel or 2

but.


he's.


hungry.


anyway its only a morsel or 2

Let him starve.

Let him starve.

ARAB SUPPORTER HATER!!!!:sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

That's a nice biblical tale, yes. But just that.

Funny, the archeology supports what I'm saying

http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_22_-_The_End_of_Israel.asp

Near Hezekiah's Broad Wall, you can visit the Israelite Tower Museum. It's about 60 feet under ground and you can see there the remains of a three-door gate in the northern defensive wall of the city. (Archeologists call it the "E Gate.") At this site, archeologists digging in the early 1970s found clear evidence of the Babylonian siege.

Among the things they found there were Israelite and Babylonian arrowheads. How did they know? The arrowheads have names on them, because in ancient times, arrowheads were very valuable. They also found a layer of charred earth attesting to the burning of the city as is related in the Book of Kings (see 2 Kings 25:9).

http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html

ARAB SUPPORTER HATER!!!!:sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

Oh noes!
...what?

The land meaning something to them is only a part of the reason.

It clearly didnt mean enough to the Absentee landlords who allowed the Jews to build communities and cities on their land

All 400,000 acres out of a total of 26 milllion acres that they bought, yes.



It clearly had never meant enough for there to have ever been an independent political entity called Palestine

Nor was there ever an India, Pakistan, USA etc and so on.



It clearly didnt mean enough to them to win the war over it. The British won the war against the Ottoman Empire.

....with the aid of the Arabs.


That gives the British the right to decide what to do with it.

Not according to the terms of the mandate, no. Try reading them.


The Jews were happy as they got something. The Arabs were angry that they didnt get everything

More accurately, they didn't understand why they should give an additonal 43% of the area to a people that only owned 7%. And if it were to happen in any country in the world, the reaction would be much the same.



Israel is not the agressor. Israel never ever started a single war or entered Gaza without provocation.

Apart from the odd assasination or kidnap, no. O..and Suez....


Guess what. Said Jewish malitia were later rounded up and imprisoned by the Jewish government later, after the 1948 war..

The Irgun were rounded up as criminals? They werent given a decoration a few years ago?

All 400,000 acres out of a total of 26 milllion acres that they bought, yes.

More accurately, they didn't understand why they should give an additonal 43% of the area to a people that only owned 7%. And if it were to happen in any country in the world, the reaction would be much the same.

Guess what. Jews were a majority in the region, and they lived on and had communities in, areas outside the land they owned. The seven percent figure includes Jordan, it was more than that. They had a right to self determination which was qualified by the right to Arab self determination, which is what the 1948 partition was. Two states, the jewish one smaller but there because of what had just happened and how it refelcted the norm


Nor was there ever an India, Pakistan, USA etc and so on.

And those were all created, just as Palestine was created by the British. They did not accept it, which is odd when you consider that before they had never had a state. So its not as if they could claim that Israel was invading their state since before Israel there never was any such state.


Not according to the terms of the mandate, no. Try reading them.

The mandate gave it up to the UN


Apart from the odd assasination or kidnap, no. O..and Suez....

Assination of only those trying to kill them. As opposed to the Palestian terrorists who just kill civilians left right and centre because they are Jews.


The Irgun were rounded up as criminals? They werent given a decoration a few years ago?

Evidence?

Oh noes!
...what?

exactly
just proves my point

exactly
just proves my point

No I really don't understand what you said.You shouted "ARAB SUPPORTER HATER!!!" and shoved a load of smileys on the end.Seriously.What the hell?

ARAB SUPPORTER HATER!!!!:

Would that make you an Arab supporter hater hater? Maybe hate is the problem here - hating a people or a group and not treating them as individuals seems to me to be the root cause of an awful lot of human nonsense.

No I really don't understand what you said.You shouted "ARAB SUPPORTER HATER!!!" and shoved a load of smileys on the end.Seriously.What the hell?

you said don't feed the troll and to let 'em starve.

Since i last posted yesterday, the argument seems to have degenerated to "you disagree with me so you must hate such and such group".

As you want to let the troll starve (i assumed you meant UB) and he supports the arabs you must be one.

and the whole "exactly" post was based on the fact that a few people seem to make broad generalisations without backing it up with source & such and treat them as valid points that can't be refuted.

sorry for the confusion

Oh and the smileys, well trolls seem to believe that they add strengh to the argument for some reason...

No I really don't understand what you said.You shouted "ARAB SUPPORTER HATER!!!" and shoved a load of smileys on the end.Seriously.What the hell?

you said don't feed the troll and to let 'em starve.

Since i last posted yesterday, the argument seems to have degenerated to "you disagree with me so you must hate such and such group".

As you want to let the troll starve (i assumed you meant UB) and he supports the arabs you must be one.

and the whole "exactly" post was based on the fact that a few people seem to make broad generalisations without backing it up with source & such and treat them as valid points that can't be refuted.

sorry for the confusion was just a bit of silliness

Oh and the smileys, well trolls seem to believe that they add strengh to the argument for some reason...

Would that make you an Arab supporter hater hater? Maybe hate is the problem here - hating a people or a group and not treating them as individuals seems to me to be the root cause of an awful lot of human nonsense.

read my reply above this one

Guess what. Jews were a majority in the region, and they lived on and had communities in, areas outside the land they owned. ?

Yet they were no where near the numbers you imply.




The seven percent figure includes Jordan, it was more than that.
?

7.2? 7.5? 8? Maybe.



And those were all created, just as Palestine was created by the British. They did not accept it, which is odd when you consider that before they had never had a state.?

Neither did everybody accept the form of the US or India. They had Canada and Pakistan, also Bangladesh, later on. They didnt end up stateless and colonised again though.


So its not as if they could claim that Israel was invading their state since before Israel there never was any such state..?

If I am not living in a state called Nod and am invaded by Aliens who declare it the state of Ours, that doesnt really make them less a conquering force.



The mandate gave it up to the UN..?

So you therefore admit that the British could not do with it as they willed and won't be repeating it again and again on these boards?



Assination of only those trying to kill them. As opposed to the Palestian terrorists who just kill civilians left right and centre because they are Jews.
..

Yes, the Israeli assasinations are obviously "different"...because they are carried out by the state of Israel. And i'd imagine the Palestinians believe they are bringing home some of the suffering of the occupied to the occupier, rathet than kill people "because they are Jews".


Evidence?

Of what? You stated the "militias" were rounded up by the Government after the war. I say they're included in honours for the war of independence from whatever .....As were the Lehi. But obviously putting a bomb in an Arab market is totally different from putting a bomb in Israeli one.

Would that make you an Arab supporter hater hater? Maybe hate is the problem here - hating a people or a group and not treating them as individuals seems to me to be the root cause of an awful lot of human nonsense.

Take that sensible attitude and fuck off with it. If he wanted reason, he wouldn't even be reading the thread at this stage.........Hes high on teh haytin.....

Take that sensible attitude and fuck off with it. If he wanted reason, he wouldn't even be reading the thread at this stage.........Hes high on teh haytin.....

am i?
if your being serious would you like to point out where?

am i?
if your being serious would you like to point out where?

Do I have to dig out the humour tags at this stage?

Do I have to dig out the humour tags at this stage?

on this thread???
hell yeah. Most of the posts are funny

the scary part is i don't know when someone is making a joke or when they think they're making a serious post on this thread

on this thread???
hell yeah. Most of the posts are funny

the scary part is i don't know when someone is making a joke or when they think they're making a serious post on this thread


I suppose thats fair enough, though I did think "Fuck off with that sensible attitude" and the spelling was a giveaway.

I suppose thats fair enough, though I did think "Fuck off with that sensible attitude" and the spelling was a giveaway.

its why i asked.
But you know as well as i how some like to say "there no point he/she is a troll/fundy/anti-semite/etc".

but you realise those palestinians did'nt own most of the land right? title deeds, etc....
So from a legal standpoint, that's not true. BUT yes they had been working the land and they should have been given the option of return after the first arab israeli conflict.

They were given the option to return. Some took them up on it.

Cullons.The last seven posts were yours.
Don't.


Feed.


The.


Troll.

Kill joy. Its fun watchcing UB get tied up in knots when you present him with evidence that he is wrong.

Both regimes carried out an occupation they deemed as just, but the international community did not. Both setup ghettos, roadblocks and curfews for the occupied, those who break curfew get shot in the street with tanks. Both were racist regimes who operate(d) with a sense of superiority. Both committed mass killings and slaughters including of women and children. Both used the holocaust as justification or propaganda for their actions. Both are hated by the international community and invaded their neighbours. And both are feircely militaristic.


Does Israel really have a choice of not being fiercely militaristic?? Trapped amoungst all those physco countries; Iran for example constantly making threats to wipe it of the map. I think i remember sometime hearing the destruction of Israel was in their constitution.
Are you expecting them to be a peaceful country with these type of neighbours?

Nazi's are worse than anything anybody can imagine.

They were given the option to return. ...

....if they brought Gaza and the West Bank with them.

Nazi's are worse than anything anybody can imagine.
Apart from people who drive too slow in the fast lane. :)

I told you I had seen some of the camp records, where the Germans documented everyone they killed.

Apparently, they are all being released - all of the records.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/60minutes/main2267927.shtml

The Nazis were famous for record keeping but what 60 Minutes found ran from the bizarre to the horrifying. This Holocaust history was discovered by the Allies in dozens of concentration camps, as Germany fell in the spring of 1945.

As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, the documents were taken to a town in the middle of Germany, called Bad Arolsen, where they were sorted, filed and locked way, never to be seen by the public until now.


The storerooms are immense: 16 miles of shelves holding the stories of 17 million victims – not only Jews, but slave laborers, political prisoners and homosexuals. To open the files is to see the Holocaust staring back like it was yesterday: strange pink Gestapo arrest warrants as lethal as a death sentence, jewelry lost as freedom ended at the gates of an extermination camp. Time stopped here in 1945.

For anyone to say that this is all fake, they have to deny reality. And their only motivation for denying the reality is pure hatred.

I told you I had seen some of the camp records, where the Germans documented everyone they killed.

Apparently, they are all being released - all of the records.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/60minutes/main2267927.shtml

The Nazis were famous for record keeping but what 60 Minutes found ran from the bizarre to the horrifying. This Holocaust history was discovered by the Allies in dozens of concentration camps, as Germany fell in the spring of 1945.

As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, the documents were taken to a town in the middle of Germany, called Bad Arolsen, where they were sorted, filed and locked way, never to be seen by the public until now.


The storerooms are immense: 16 miles of shelves holding the stories of 17 million victims – not only Jews, but slave laborers, political prisoners and homosexuals. To open the files is to see the Holocaust staring back like it was yesterday: strange pink Gestapo arrest warrants as lethal as a death sentence, jewelry lost as freedom ended at the gates of an extermination camp. Time stopped here in 1945.

For anyone to say that this is all fake, they have to deny reality. And their only motivation for denying the reality is pure hatred.

But that's not oppression, that's good Islamic morality. Just ask Soviestan. I'm sure he'll agree.
Which shows us what is fundamentally wrong with islam.

Apart from people who drive too slow in the fast lane. :)

That's what Burnout Revenge is for. Woo! 4,000,000$ in traffic Attack!

you said don't feed the troll and to let 'em starve.

Since i last posted yesterday, the argument seems to have degenerated to "you disagree with me so you must hate such and such group".

As you want to let the troll starve (i assumed you meant UB) and he supports the arabs you must be one.

and the whole "exactly" post was based on the fact that a few people seem to make broad generalisations without backing it up with source & such and treat them as valid points that can't be refuted.

sorry for the confusion

Oh and the smileys, well trolls seem to believe that they add strengh to the argument for some reason...

Ahahahahahaha!You make me laugh.:D
I disagreed with UB,therefore I must be an Arab?
No,I'm not an arab.I'm an Anglo-Saxon Christian.I disagreed with UB because he's xenophobic,and,an idiot.I'm starting to think you're an idiot as well.

Ahahahahahaha!You make me laugh.:D
I disagreed with UB,therefore I must be an Arab?
No,I'm not an arab.I'm an Anglo-Saxon Christian.I disagreed with UB because he's xenophobic,and,an idiot.I'm starting to think you're an idiot as well.

:p sorry. like a mentioned earlier my minds all over the place today.

i meant you must be one (arab supporter hater)

god i'm not making much sense today...:(

Ahahahahahaha!You make me laugh.:D
I disagreed with UB,therefore I must be an Arab?
No,I'm not an arab.I'm an Anglo-Saxon Christian.I disagreed with UB because he's xenophobic,and,an idiot.I'm starting to think you're an idiot as well.

Well, that's rather accusatory.

Why don't you just politely ask if they are idiots?:D

As you want to let the troll starve (i assumed you meant UB) and he supports the arabs you must be one of the arrab supporter haters

Well, that's rather accusatory.

Why don't you just politely ask if they are idiots?:D

You're face is rather accusatory.That's right.:P
Nah,that's boring :D

Well, that's rather accusatory.

Why don't you just politely ask if they are idiots?:D

UB gives the impression.

i'm just very tired today and the words are coming out wrong

:p sorry. like a mentioned earlier my minds all over the place today.

i meant you must be one (arab supporter hater)

god i'm not making much sense today...:(

You're minds not working at all.
No,I don't hate supporters of the Arabs.I don't really hate anyone.Except trolls.

You're minds not working at all.
No,I don't hate supporters of the Arabs.I don't really hate anyone.Except trolls.

i know.

it was a attempt at silliness. did'nt work though. oh well won't try again. smiff

i think this thread my be slowly on its last breath (thank god).

Which shows us what is fundamentally wrong with islam.

No, you should of said either ALL religions, or radicalism. :)

The fact remains, i highly doubt anyone except for maybe Hussein and a few other tribel leaders in Africa can ever match the ruthlessness of Hitler and the Nazis.
Now that is not to say that Israel is a good nation at all. They do support the removal of non-Jews, unless they conform to their thinking, which really doesnt make them any better then the radical Hamas or radical Arabs...

Fact remains, that group of radical Jews that first came to Palestine came with the intent of making a land for themselves and boost about it. When they could of actually tried to work with the local arabs. Instead they(the founders and pushers of the Jewish state of Israel)slapped the locals onthe face and basically said, here we are to stay and here you will get the leftovers....

No, you should of said either ALL religions, or radicalism. :)

The fact remains, i highly doubt anyone except for maybe Hussein and a few other tribel leaders in Africa can ever match the ruthlessness of Hitler and the Nazis.
Now that is not to say that Israel is a good nation at all. They do support the removal of non-Jews, unless they conform to their thinking, which really doesnt make them any better then the radical Hamas or radical Arabs...

Fact remains, that group of radical Jews that first came to Palestine came with the intent of making a land for themselves and boost about it. When they could of actually tried to work with the local arabs. Instead they(the founders and pushers of the Jewish state of Israel)slapped the locals onthe face and basically said, here we are to stay and here you will get the leftovers....

The Jews were living there befor WW2. The Arabs were constantly giving them trouble. Britain finally couldn't maintain control so they gave their mandate to the U.N. which saw the division of the land as the only option since the Arabs couldn't stand to live near Jews.

No, you should of said either ALL religions, or radicalism. :)

The fact remains, i highly doubt anyone except for maybe Hussein and a few other tribel leaders in Africa can ever match the ruthlessness of Hitler and the Nazis.
Now that is not to say that Israel is a good nation at all. They do support the removal of non-Jews, unless they conform to their thinking, which really doesnt make them any better then the radical Hamas or radical Arabs...

Fact remains, that group of radical Jews that first came to Palestine came with the intent of making a land for themselves and boost about it. When they could of actually tried to work with the local arabs. Instead they(the founders and pushers of the Jewish state of Israel)slapped the locals onthe face and basically said, here we are to stay and here you will get the leftovers....

...I'm sure you personally know what were the intentions of the Jews that first came to British occupied Palestine.:rolleyes:
Here's a link for you explaining the situation before the creation of Israel.
http://www.adl.org/ISRAEL/Record/conflicts.asp

The Jews were living there befor WW2. The Arabs were constantly giving them trouble. Britain finally couldn't maintain control so they gave their mandate to the U.N. which saw the division of the land as the only option since the Arabs couldn't stand to live near Jews.

Both Jews and Arabs were giving the British headaches according to wiki they finally gave up after the Jews bombed their headquarters at the time because they were trying to limit Jewish immigration to the mandate Palestine. So don't blame the British for Israel anymore m'kay? And this thread just doesn't seem to want to die.

Both Jews and Arabs were giving the British headaches according to wiki they finally gave up after the Jews bombed their headquarters at the time because they were trying to limit Jewish immigration to the mandate Palestine. So don't blame the British for Israel anymore m'kay? And this thread just doesn't seem to want to die.

chosen one.
you must find the heart of the thread and destroy it. only then will the thread die.

....if they brought Gaza and the West Bank with them.

Not really. 150,000 did return on the offer the Israelies made

Also, that is what you call negotation, as opposed to viloence. You get something you want, we get something we want. Negotation

Palestine was and is the Palestinian Arabs' land.

1. The name Palestinian was given by the Romans, named after the Philistines who wern't even from that region. The name only later applied to Arabs who came to live there as a result of the Arab conquests in the seventh century

2. There has never been such a thing as "Palestine" for the 'Palestians' to own. What there has been is part of what we would call Southern Syria, there has never been an independent political entity for them to feel patriotic towards

3. The Arabs only owned that region through conquest. Therfore if you accept that conquest is legitmate then you must also accept that the British conquest is legitmate and can thus do with it as they wish.

chosen one.
you must find the heart of the thread and destroy it. only then will the thread die.

Would if I was the chosen one but it turns out I'm probably a sociopath after reading the atheist and morality thread. The chosen one can't be a sociopath unfortunately, so good luck with killing this one. :rolleyes:

3. The Arabs only owned that region through conquest. Therfore if you accept that conquest is legitmate then you must also accept that the British conquest is legitmate and can thus do with it as they wish.


Didn't you agree that this was not the case a few posts back?

NOOOOOOO! You bastards! I woke up at nine this morning, and I was so happy. Why? Because there was no sign of this thread. Life was good. Then, you went and brought it back to the top. Why, Judas Panda? Why? :(

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1161382099-1161356741260.jpg

Because it was already on the front page when I signed in today.

Both Jews and Arabs were giving the British headaches according to wiki they finally gave up after the Jews bombed their headquarters at the time because they were trying to limit Jewish immigration to the mandate Palestine. So don't blame the British for Israel anymore m'kay? And this thread just doesn't seem to want to die.

Legally, you can still blame them for it was their mandate that would have set up 2 states.

Not really. 150,000 did return on the offer the Israelies made

Also, that is what you call negotation, as opposed to viloence. You get something you want, we get something we want. Negotation

Arabs need to learn the fine art of Negotiations. There is hope as Egypt and Jordan have learned this as their treaties with Israel indicate.

It was the league of Nations that gave them it though.

It was the league of Nations that gave them it though.

And the brits were to administer it. So yes, you can blame Britain for it since it was there's to look after. You can also blame the LoN for the problems as well.

Aww dang well it was worth a shot to try to get Britain off the hook.

Aww dang well it was worth a shot to try to get Britain off the hook.

Its ok. :)

NOOOOOOO! You bastards! I woke up at nine this morning, and I was so happy. Why? Because there was no sign of this thread. Life was good. Then, you went and brought it back to the top. Why, Judas Panda? Why? :(

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1161382099-1161356741260.jpg

I thought that my Johnny Cash v Allah parallel would work, but nobody bit...

Which shows us what is fundamentally wrong with islam.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam. It is by its nature perfect.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam. It is by its nature perfect.

Just like there is nothing wrong with Judism. It is by nature perfect. Just like there is nothing wrong with Christianity. It is by nature perfect. Not to mention Buddism, Hinduism, and other religions I could name.

heh.. sorry to post, but i've been reading this thread for the last 2 hours and i had a request..

i'm still waiting to hear on UB's response to his idea that the israeli's took the centuries-long held land from the palestineans is wrong and that all other country expansion (including the US and Australia) is ok. Or at least, doesn't deserve an honorable mention.

that, and the fact that if you're born in a country, even if your parents immigrated or their parents immigrated to it, you are a citizen of that country, not an immigrant (otherwise all american's (besides native) would be immigrants)

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam. It is by its nature perfect.

So are a lot of things.Doesn't mean they are.It's human nature that corrupts all things.It wasn't Islam that destroyed the Twin Towers,it was people.It wasn't Christianity that perpetrated the Crusades a few hundred years back,it was people.It isn't "teh evil j00daism" that is trying to expand the nation of Israel at the cost of many Palestinians.It isn't the religions,it isn't the beliefs themselves,it's the minds of warped,sick,twisted people who are abusing these beliefs for their own gain.So,you know what?Let's all stop this "religion bashing."Let's all stop this typical response to most problems of blaming religions,let's leave it the fuck alone,because it isn't the problem-WE are the problem.

So are a lot of things.Doesn't mean they are.It's human nature that corrupts all things.It wasn't Islam that destroyed the Twin Towers,it was people.It wasn't Christianity that perpetrated the Crusades a few hundred years back,it was people.It isn't "teh evil j00daism" that is trying to expand the nation of Israel at the cost of many Palestinians.It isn't the religions,it isn't the beliefs themselves,it's the minds of warped,sick,twisted people who are abusing these beliefs for their own gain.So,you know what?Let's all stop this "religion bashing."Let's all stop this typical response to most problems of blaming religions,let's leave it the fuck alone,because it isn't the problem-WE are the problem.

Here Here.

o, and whomever said that violence would end if Israel didn't exist or went back to the pre-border era of today is delusional:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6193193.stm

hamas and fatah are fighting each other.

o, and whomever said that violence would end if Israel didn't exist or went back to the pre-border era of today is delusional:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6193193.stm

hamas and fatah are fighting each other.

You do realize that they have called a cease-fire with eachother?

You do realize that they have called a cease-fire with eachother?

You do realize the last ceasefire didn't last a day? :rolleyes:

You do realize the last ceasefire didn't last a day? :rolleyes:

Yea I know but who knows. :D

You do realize that they have called a cease-fire with eachother?

that's what the article alluded to :P but eh. they're still fighting.

that's what the article alluded to :P but eh. they're still fighting.

What do you expect? Hamas and Fatah hate eachother about as much as Hamas hits Israel.

What do you expect? Hamas and Fatah hate eachother about as much as Hamas hits Israel.

meh. tell that to the ppl who a preaching that violence would end :p

So are a lot of things.Doesn't mean they are.It's human nature that corrupts all things.It wasn't Islam that destroyed the Twin Towers,it was people.It wasn't Christianity that perpetrated the Crusades a few hundred years back,it was people.It isn't "teh evil j00daism" that is trying to expand the nation of Israel at the cost of many Palestinians.It isn't the religions,it isn't the beliefs themselves,it's the minds of warped,sick,twisted people who are abusing these beliefs for their own gain.So,you know what?Let's all stop this "religion bashing."Let's all stop this typical response to most problems of blaming religions,let's leave it the fuck alone,because it isn't the problem-WE are the problem.

Yep I posted it elsewhere but one of my favourite authors summed it up with a christianity example "Christ told people to love thy neighbour and a few centuries later people were killing each other over whos version of love thy neighbour was right."

Yep I posted it elsewhere but one of my favourite authors summed it up with a christianity example "Christ told people to love thy neighbour and a few centuries later people were killing each other over whos version of love thy neighbour was right."

Sad but oh so true.

You do realize that they have called a cease-fire with eachother?

You mean like the cease-fire the Palestinians signed with Israel 2-3 weeks ago and broke in the very first 24 hours and are still braking even though Israel has yet to respond?

With this kind of cease-fire no wonder there is a civil war going on there as we speak.

Would if I was the chosen one but it turns out I'm probably a sociopath after reading the atheist and morality thread. The chosen one can't be a sociopath unfortunately, so good luck with killing this one. :rolleyes:

damn.
want to try anyway?

heh.. sorry to post, but i've been reading this thread for the last 2 hours and i had a request..

i'm still waiting to hear on UB's response to his idea that the israeli's took the centuries-long held land from the palestineans is wrong and that all other country expansion (including the US and Australia) is ok. Or at least, doesn't deserve an honorable mention.

that, and the fact that if you're born in a country, even if your parents immigrated or their parents immigrated to it, you are a citizen of that country, not an immigrant (otherwise all american's (besides native) would be immigrants)

oye there's a line!:mad:

a few directed questions are waiting for answers!!

*throws Mirchaz to the back of the line*;)

damn.
want to try anyway?

Ok here goes....I want to fuck Pikachu (http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/clips/clips-and-heres-the-real-pikachu-222996.php)

oye there's a line!:mad:

a few directed questions are waiting for answers!!

*throws Mirchaz to the back of the line*;)

*growls at Michaz for cutting into line and applaudes Cullons for tossing him into the back* :D

Hey, while we are comparing people to Nazis. What does Islamic law says to do to homosexuals?

*growls at Michaz for cutting into line and applaudes Cullons for tossing him into the back* :D

rofl, i asked these questions last week :p i'm just reiterating them cos someone else brought them up too.

Hey, while we are comparing people to Nazis. What does Islamic law says to do to homosexuals?

As opposed to say, Christian Nigeria, where you can't kill homosexuals but you can jail them or jail anyone who hangs out with them.

:rolleyes:

As opposed to say, Christian Nigeria, where you can't kill homosexuals but you can jail them or jail anyone who hangs out with them.

:rolleyes:

Not all of Nigeria is Christian. There is a Muslim portion there that wants to seperate and have launched attacks against the government in the past.

Not all of Nigeria is Christian. There is a Muslim portion there that wants to seperate and have launched attacks against the government in the past.

The part of Nigeria in power and passing the gay-busting laws are Christian. So is the Nigerian archbishop that a whole lot of American Baptists are joining behind in the current schism, who happened to state his belief that homosexuals need to be locked up.

The part of Nigeria in power and passing the gay-busting laws are Christian. So is the Nigerian archbishop that a whole lot of American Baptists are joining behind in the current schism, who happened to state his belief that homosexuals need to be locked up.

Yea I know.

Hey, while we are comparing people to Nazis. What does Islamic law says to do to homosexuals?

Are you saying Muslims are Nazis now?

Are you saying Muslims are Nazis now?Reading your posts one could get the idea. Luckily I know some others that aren't like that.

Someone please, please give the death blow to this hideous, bloated and disgusting thread. Yes, we are all aware that it is still okay, more than okay *coughMelGibsoncough* to be an anti-Semite. If that doesn't disgust you to the core of your being...there's something wrong with you.

Someone please, please give the death blow to this hideous, bloated and disgusting thread. Yes, we are all aware that it is still okay, more than okay *coughMelGibsoncough* to be an anti-Semite. If that doesn't disgust you to the core of your being...there's something wrong with you.Indeed. Hating Arabs is disgusting.

Why must every evil country be compared to Nazi German? And what does this acomplish anyway? Is it a contest? Its like asking whats worse: getting an arm or leg chopped off.

why doesn't everybody just quit being mean to each other.
just all shut up and share the land, the time will come when they need to eat
somebody's gotta grow it, and somebody has to prepare it, and these
dumbshitz can't even decide where to sit at the table, then they'll all argue whose prayer is the best, then a food fight ensues....
shame many will never be enlightened.:headbang: :sniper:

Are you saying Muslims are Nazis now?

Not now. Hitlerism was quite popular with the muslims in the not too distant past though.

Not now. Hitlerism was quite popular with the muslims in the not too distant past though.

"Hitlerism" as such, no, as was gone over in detail before.

Indeed. Hating Arabs is disgusting.

As is hating jews or any other semitic group.

Indeed. Hating Arabs is disgusting.

why are you ignoring our questions?

why are you ignoring our questions?

Because UB has no intelligence and is blinded by sheer hatred that he cannot see that his precious arabs did and are doing the samething to the Jews.

why doesn't everybody just quit being mean to each other.
just all shut up and share the land, the time will come when they need to eat
somebody's gotta grow it, and somebody has to prepare it, and these
dumbshitz can't even decide where to sit at the table, then they'll all argue whose prayer is the best, then a food fight ensues....
shame many will never be enlightened.:headbang: :sniper:

And you're enlightened?
Heh.

"Hitlerism" as such, no, as was gone over in detail before.

You fail at history.

Reading your posts one could get the idea. Luckily I know some others that aren't like that.

I'm not a Nazi. I don't believe in racial superiority.

Because UB has no intelligence and is blinded by sheer hatred that he cannot see that his precious arabs did and are doing the samething to the Jews.That's a lie. Arabs have never gone into a foreign Jewish land to claim it for themselves and they have never built an Apartheid Wall to express racism in cement.

I'm not a Nazi. I don't believe in racial superiority.Jews do. They are the real Nazis today.

That's a lie. Arabs have never gone into a foreign Jewish land to claim it for themselves and they have never built an Apartheid Wall to express racism in cement.

Now that is pure BS and destroyed by history. The Babylonians went into that land and claimed it for themselves. Others have done exactly the same thing. Come on, you said you studied history. If that were the case then back up your claim that the Arabs never entered that land and claimed it for themselves.

Jews do. They are the real Nazis today.

Your anti-semetism is getting old.

Your anti-semetism is getting old.

Actually I find it quite refreshing, and I'm somewhat amused by him... (Don't ask why)

Actually I find it quite refreshing, and I'm somewhat amused by him... (Don't ask why)

Nothing wrong with that. I'm just getting annoyed because he fails to understand the history of the entire region and that he labels all who dares to disagree with him an anti-semite.

Both regimes carried out an occupation they deemed as just, but the international community did not. Both setup ghettos, roadblocks and curfews for the occupied, those who break curfew get shot in the street with tanks. Both were racist regimes who operate(d) with a sense of superiority. Both committed mass killings and slaughters including of women and children. Both used the holocaust as justification or propaganda for their actions. Both are hated by the international community and invaded their neighbours. And both are feircely militaristic.

Its a very close race but the Nazis haven't been around for 60 years and only lasted around 20. The regime of Israel is still around and has been for 60 years. Its close, but I say Israel takes this one. your thoughts?

Wait a sec...time out...this may sound completly WTF am I thinking...but is that really going on?

Wait a sec...time out...this may sound completly WTF am I thinking...but is that really going on?

Welcome to one of the, if not the most successful examples of subtle trolling to be found in NS General.

You fail at history.


I suggest you go back to the section of this thread where it was discussed, in detail.

Are you saying Muslims are Nazis now?

Nope, I AM saying that I completly deplore some of their practices. For example Sauidi Arabia.
Do you know they burn bibles there? And you can get arrested for carrying one on you? What would muslims do if any christian country did that to Quran?
Do you know women are forbiden to drive? We wouldn't want those pesky girls to find out they can get to places without husbands or bothers or fathers would we?
Do you know being gay is capital crime? You get STONED to death for who you are attracted to.
Oh and lets not forget that if you convert from islam to any other religion you get killed. There is no freedom of religion, you can be muslim or dead.

So Soviestan, will you tell me what you think about that or will you ignore it like you ignore every other post where its clear islamic people are doing something thats moraly just wrong.
Or do you think this things are good? Should we implement them in christian countries? Burning Quran and arresting people that own it? Killing people that convert to Islam?
Tell me what you think and for once don't avoid it.
I'd also like to hear what other muslims on board think of it. Especially United Beleriand
Just to note, I know quite alot muslims who think this is deplorable and should be changed. But then again, they are moderates.

Jews do. They are the real Nazis today.

Huh. I guess they are hiding the Palestinian death camps quite well. And their invasion of their neighbors must have been done without anyone knowing a thing! There must be divisions of the IDF entering Tehran right now and the Jewish control of the media means we don't know anything about it! I mean, what else could you mean by actually saying Jews are Nazis?

Nope, I AM saying that I completly deplore some of their practices. For example Sauidi Arabia.
Do you know they burn bibles there? And you can get arrested for carrying one on you? What would muslims do if any christian country did that to Quran?
Do you know women are forbiden to drive? We wouldn't want those pesky girls to find out they can get to places without husbands or bothers or fathers would we?
Do you know being gay is capital crime? You get STONED to death for who you are attracted to.
Oh and lets not forget that if you convert from islam to any other religion you get killed. There is no freedom of religion, you can be muslim or dead.

So Soviestan, will you tell me what you think about that or will you ignore it like you ignore every other post where its clear islamic people are doing something thats moraly just wrong.
Or do you think this things are good? Should we implement them in christian countries? Burning Quran and arresting people that own it? Killing people that convert to Islam?
Tell me what you think and for once don't avoid it.
I'd also like to hear what other muslims on board think of it. Especially United Beleriand
Just to note, I know quite alot muslims who think this is deplorable and should be changed. But then again, they are moderates.

While I may not totally agree with stoning gays, I would perfer a society where Islam is the way of life for everyone. The more devout one becomes to Islam, the better.