Genocide by Israel

[RavenHawk]

No, it is just a plain fact,

Again fine, then the issue will eventually resolve itself.

and it is main reason there are millions of dispossessed Palestinian Arabs and the state of Israel only grants the 'right of return' to Jews.

No, that’s not the main reason. The main reason is that the Jews know how they are treated under Muslim rule. No longer will they allow such overseers.

Historical except snipped. See post #223.

That is pretty much what happened in a nutshell. Oh BTW, I suppose it is interesting to note that Peter O’Toole passed away a few days ago. And about those promises... How many times can a government fulfill a promise 100%? As it is, they did something close to returning about 99% of the land to its rightful owners. I’d say that is a success. Although they did screw the Kurds out of their homeland. So a) they liberated the Arabs from the Ottomans. b ) They established governments for the people with the guidance of the Muslim ruling elite. And c), they recognized independence “as soon as effectively established”. This happened in all the occupied lands but Palestine. Palestine was not ready (effectively established) to rule itself. Was it duplicity or prudency? George was correct in that Palestine could be used to protect the Suez Canal but which population do you think would be more reliable? George was not stupid. The Empire needed bases to defend herself and the Suez was too important to walk away from. The British were doing this for their own benefit. Israeli statehood was way down on the list. Balfour’s concerns were legitimate. With that in mind, it was far better to let the Jews have the land than those that squatted there. The Jews were far more organized. The so called Palestinian was an unorganized conglomeration of different semi nomadic tribes that squatted on the lands of absentee land owners. They were there merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water for those land owners.

What the hell are you talking about? You know nothing about the UN charter or the Mandate authority, and every time you spew your nonsense propaganda it reminds of 19th century Imperialism and colonialism. It quite frankly, makes me want to vomit. The British weren't the owners of the land they were the "temporary trustees" I guess is one way to put it that was still answerable to the League of Nations.

Please vomit all you want. Don’t let me stop you. When you lose in battle, you lose all rights to the territory. That is a basic natural law. Yes, the British made a lot of promises (that they did try to keep), but there is nothing that says that they must keep all of them. There were agreements and plans and a lot of administrative hogwash going on, but the British had their own designs. Yes, it’s best to return land to the indigenous to rule, but that isn’t necessarily the main concern. It was British territory, Period! As far as the joke called the League of nations, its ultimate failure was seen in Abyssinia in 1935.

In that damned age, the spoils of war have traditionally been garnered through protectorships over or direct annexation of occupied territory. Britain and France expected protectorships to ensure their permanent control over military and foreign affairs in the Middle East. But President Wilson sought independence for liberated subject nationalities and rejected the idea of protectorships. A compromise was drawn up as new legal entity authored by the League of Nations called the "mandate"

Wilson had no authority in British or French business. The Mandate was just an agreement that could be nullified or modified at any point. That wasn’t the intention of the British but they had final say in how things came about.

Description of Mandate snipped.

You don’t need to post these excerpts for my benefit. I am quite familiar with them. I just don’t naively read them like you do. If Palestine was ready for independent rule then why didn’t it have it? Simple, straight forward and to the point. Where is Transjordan on this list? Transjordan had a fully autonomous governing system, whereas Palestine did not. I think in the writing of this excerpt, Transjordan should have been Palestine on this list. Transjordan was Class A. When the Mandate ended, Israel declared statehood and the UN approved it (since you are concerned with the legitimacy of such a body). There was no Palestinian (Class A) organization that came forward. After all of that time, it was still not “as soon as effectively established”. The Palestinian missed the train. But again, this is what happens when you lose a war. There are no guarantees.

Palestine had a real rocky history, its up and downs for both Christians and Jews. There were prosperous period were Arab and Jews lived in peace together too. But by the first crusade, Jews had better opportunities and Jewish centres for education in Mesopotamia, Europe, and North Africa. In other words, most of the world Jewry would not have emigrated to Palestine and chose not to because Palestine had become a Jewish backwater compared to the Jewish Diaspora.

It was a backwater period! And remained so until Israeli statehood. It was a land of absentee land owners and a place for semi nomadic herders to squat. It was all transient. There was nothing permanent.

In 1919, there more than 700,000 Arabs in Palestine. In 1931, there were 1,033,314 Arabs compared to 174,606 Jews in Palestine. And the natural Palestinian Jews got along just fine with the Palestinian Arabs until the mass immigration of Jewish Zionists began.

It wasn’t because there was no room. It was because the Jews were getting too numerous. At some point, the Muslims would have to share authority with Allah over the land and that is a major sin in Islam.

[Yamato]

I agree! And if the Palestinians would chill on the unrelenting hatred for awhile, things might get better!

Why don't you hate oppression?

[RavenHawk]

Why don't you hate oppression?

I think that's what he just said.

[+and-then]

Why don't you hate oppression?

It is precisely what I said. The difference is that you are capable of only seeing one side in this conflict as culpable. No conflict lasts for as long as this one without at least two dance partners.

[SHaYap]

It's a valid point. An equally valid point is that the Brits and the UN decided a "fair" solution to the situation of the Jews who survived the death camps (with no help from the international community) was to allow them a piece of land to call their own. Had it not been for the efforts of Zionists in the years leading up to this agreement then who knows where that state would have been carved out but Palestine was "available" and whether just or unjust to the locals it was divided up. It is certainly not a first in world history. It is a "done deal" with 65 years of existence and multiple attempts to destroy this state, Israel is there still. If a tiny fraction of the effort that has been expended against Israel were to have been used against the intransigence of the Palestinians, this conflict could have been ended long ago. I believe we are on the threshold of an enforced solution by the EU and US. Israel WILL give up more land and surrender defensive positions in the Jordan valley or they will have to go to war to prevent doing so. I also believe that as soon as these new holdings have been fortified, the attacks against Israel will begin anew. History has been very clear about the intentions of the Palestinians. At THAT point there will no longer be any fig leafs. The world will have to admit that it is accomplice to the destruction of a UN state. That will lead to some interesting times.

Interesting times ... you like these ? :

31,15 And Moses said unto them: 'Have ye saved all the women alive? 31,16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to

revolt so as to break faith with the LORD in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD. 31,17 Now therefore kill every

male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31,18 But all the women children, that have not known man by lying

with him, keep alive for yourselves.

(Torah (Law), Bamidbar (Numbers))

... why is your faith that is asked of you so poor ?

4:37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.

4:38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 4:39 And

he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

4:40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his

heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

(King James Bible, Mark )

2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; 2:13 I know thy works, and where

thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful

martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

(King James Bible, Revelation)

13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the

faith of the saints.

(King James Bible, Revelation)

1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of

men, that turn from the truth.

(King James Bible, Titus)

you remind me so much of this :

The prophet Zechariah speaks of Satan as an angel whose office it is to accuse and to demand the punishment of the wicked. In the Book of Job, where the

most poetical and grandest picture of the Evil One is found, Satan appears as a malicious servant of God, who enjoys performing the functions of a tempter,

torturer, and avenger. He accuses unjustly, like a State's attorney who prosecutes from a mere habit of prosecution, and delights in convicting even the

innocent, while God's justice and goodness are not called in question.

It is noteworthy that Satan, in the canonical books of the Old Testament, is an adversary of man, but not of God; he is a subject of God and God's faithful servant.

The Jewish idea of Satan received some additional features from the attributes of the gods of surrounding nations. Nothing is more common in history than

the change of the deities of hostile nations into demons of evil. In this way Beelzebub, the Phoenician god, became another name for Satan; and Hinnom

(i.e. Gehenna), the place where Moloch had been worshipped, in the valley of Tophet, became the Hebrew name for hell in place of the word Sheol, the world of the dead under ground.

(Christian, History of the Devil, p. age 41)

History of the Devil, by Paul Carus, [1900], at sacred-texts.com

[Yamato]

It is precisely what I said. The difference is that you are capable of only seeing one side in this conflict as culpable. No conflict lasts for as long as this one without at least two dance partners.

This "conflict" is a deliberate circus of stepping on people to keep them down while robbing them blind with both hands.

[Yamato]

I think that's what he just said.

He referred again to the Palestinian hatred. Apparently he, surely along with you, believes that hatred is some kind of determining factor for what kind of policies we should set from here. Apparently he, surely along with you, believe that Palestinians have a monopoly on hatred.

[Space Commander Travis]

- post removed -

So, on that theme, I presume you follow the school of thought that the New testament replaces the Old, and that Jesus' message essentially replaces the laws and the fire and brimstone vengefulness and so on of the old?

Not trying to catch you out with trick questions or anything, just that I find the way that people can find an almost infinite number of ways of interpreting sacred texts very interesting. I also find it interesting that people who aren't followers of a particular faith often seem to be the most adamant in insisting what those faith's sacred texts say, and insist that people who are followers of those faiths must follow those texts quite unequivocally.

[Frank Merton]

I think as a general rule it is bad taste to quote either scripture or the dictionary. The main exception is if one is quoting for inspiration and beauty, and those are never found in the dictionary.

[Space Commander Travis]

I think, as so often the case, ol' Bill Shakespeare put it best:

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose

~ W.Shakespeare, The Merchant Of Venice.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Colonel Rhuairidh

[+and-then]

Very much like the Bible.

So, on that theme, I presume you follow the school of thought that the New testament replaces the Old, and that Jesus' message essentially replaces the laws and the fire and brimstone vengefulness and so on of the old?

Not trying to catch you out with trick questions or anything, just that I find the way that people can find an almost infinite number of ways of interpreting sacred texts very interesting. I also find it interesting that people who aren't followers of a particular faith often seem to be the most adamant in insisting what those faith's sacred texts say, and insist that people who are followers of those faiths must follow those texts quite unequivocally.

My faith - the comfort I find in scripture for what will be my destination when my journey here is finished - comes from the Pauline gospel of the new testament of Jesus Christ. With the exception of losing my temper sometimes HERE, I usually make my way through life not harming others and trying my best to be a forgiving sort of person. I stumble, often. But I keep moving forward as best I can, asking for continued grace. I think most human beings are probably like that - I think it is how we are "wired". When I DO judge others it is by the actions they take. Not so much what they say but what they do. The violence in the world today - over and over - is coming from those who specifically call on the name of Allah. This is not my imagination, it is fact. I don't think of these people as less than human but I do see them as hateful and horribly misguided. Still, if one will reach out his hand in peace I am COMMANDED to make peace with him. Your premise seems to be that I apply a different standard to Muslims and see them as a homogeneous group of no deviations in their approach to their faith. Not so. I fully realize that the great majority are just as I - looking for a way to make sense of this life and trying to harm no one while making their way through. But the inescapable truth of our day is that a worldwide movement of people, impelled by faith in the words of the Qur'an, are making war on the rest of humanity and demanding we all submit to their view of life. It is no different in practice than what every other dictatorial power has attempted down the ages.

[jeem]

It is precisely what I said. The difference is that you are capable of only seeing one side in this conflict as culpable. No conflict lasts for as long as this one without at least two dance partners.

Now controlling an area by building walls ,do not allow medicine ,daily necessity etc in the area,bombing civil infrastructure,assassinating those who opposed these inhuman act,taking inhabitants land by force,allowing Israeli civilians commit crime against Palestinian civilian without police interference if you do not call this oppression than I must say you are really not good at identifying opression

[SHaYap]

I think, as so often the case, ol' Bill Shakespeare put it best:

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose

~ W.Shakespeare, The Merchant Of Venice.

I would hug you and plant a big wet one on your chubby cheeks if we where in the same room for that one Colonel ... yessssir indeed I would ...

~ salute ~

My faith - the comfort I find in scripture for what will be my destination when my journey here is finished - comes from the Pauline gospel of the new testament of Jesus Christ. With the exception of losing my temper sometimes HERE, I usually make my way through life not harming others and trying my best to be a forgiving sort of person. I stumble, often. But I keep moving forward as best I can, asking for continued grace. I think most human beings are probably like that - I think it is how we are "wired". When I DO judge others it is by the actions they take. Not so much what they say but what they do. The violence in the world today - over and over - is coming from those who specifically call on the name of Allah. This is not my imagination, it is fact. I don't think of these people as less than human but I do see them as hateful and horribly misguided. Still, if one will reach out his hand in peace I am COMMANDED to make peace with him. Your premise seems to be that I apply a different standard to Muslims and see them as a homogeneous group of no deviations in their approach to their faith. Not so. I fully realize that the great majority are just as I - looking for a way to make sense of this life and trying to harm no one while making their way through. But the inescapable truth of our day is that a worldwide movement of people, impelled by faith in the words of the Qur'an, are making war on the rest of humanity and demanding we all submit to their view of life. It is no different in practice than what every other dictatorial power has attempted down the ages.

Not so comfortable looking in the mirror and 'recognising yourself with strangers' eyes' is it ?

~ nuff said ~

let's just lissen to a fine tune by Mr Waters, Roger

~

~

[RavenHawk]

Welcome back.Lets take another attempt.

I didn’t go anywhere. Right now I have two major work projects that take most of my time. I’m lucky if I get one reply a day. This is the thread I got stuck on and I’m trying to stay sequential.

I mention you repeatedly saying Qur'an was written by prophet Mohammed(Sm)

The meaning I am conveying is that Mohammed may not have physically written it, but he is considered the human author of it. Just as Musa is considered the writer of the Pentateuch but more than likely, he only assembled it together from other writers. After memorizing the ayahs, Mohammed had scribes write it down. If he wasn’t [the author] then he wouldn’t even be a prophet. Whatever it would actually be is non sequitur for this sequence. My claim is suppose to be only a tangent to the op, yet these tangents to the tangent is getting way off base. I believe that a thought should be complete but this tangent of authorship should end here.

And not to mention bible allows crime.For example bible allow rape.Here is the proof

“25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days”Deuteronomy Chapter 22:25-29

It doesn’t allow crime. It says what to do when a specific crime occurs. And it distinguishes what a crime is and what isn’t. It’s not like the Quran that would have the damsel stoned to death for the transgression and allow the man to walk away. The Bible acknowledges that the man is the responsible party.

I wish I could follow it to the letter.

You do when you are deceptive and dishonest.

So you are satisfied with a bad car.

Using your wording, in essence, that is what I was asking you. Turning it around on me is not a counter. You’re looking at the paint job (peaceful ayahs) and not caring about the bad engine (violent ayahs).

As I said before jizya ensures loyalty of the non-muslims in the Islamic state,it also give the Islamic state the responsibilty to protect non-muslims and it also give them some facility like not attending in war(which at that time every citizen has to do).Besides non-muslims don't need to pay jizya if the state fail to give them protection.Since today we do not bother paying taxes why should we non-muslim bother paying jizya in Islamic state.

Yes, I know what you are saying but it has nothing to do with refuting my claims (other than a context setter). There’s a lot more to discuss about your statement here but that has to be for another post.

In fact you did.

No, I did not. I fully believe that you believe what you are saying. I understand why. I’m saying that you are being disingenuous with yourself.

Those are explanation

OK, fine. You weren’t fully explaining as much as defending or concealing.

Trinity means Father,Son,Holy spirit three different entity.Father and son not the same person and Holy spirit not of fleash and blood so different from Father and son.

Polytheism

I don’t want to spend too much time on this but I feel that I should at least try. It’s an important concept to understand. We are talking about the nature of GOD/Allah. We mere mortals really can’t comprehend that but we can get close. Indeed, in one view point (child like one), there are three separate entities, hence Polytheism. But that would not be the full picture. Each entity is but one aspect of the whole or how it appears to us. To really understand this, you need to have a somewhat solid foundation in physics, mathematics, and astronomy. There is a series on the Science Channel entitled “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman” (I don’t know if you can access it, it is available online). It explores many subjects and offers examples and analogies to explain complex concepts. The one dealing with dimensions (don’t recall the episode title at the moment) shows what a shadow of a three dimensional object on a two dimensional surface looks like. If you have a cube and cast a shadow *straight on* then you see a square. If you rotate that same object just a little bit, it is no longer a square. It appears to be a completely different object. Here is a clip I found that explains it in a different way.

There are others if you wish to watch. But the opening of this clip makes reference to “Flatland”. Flatland was written by EA Abbott. He was a high school math teacher and he wrote this story for his students. Here is a link (http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/) if you want to read it. But is discusses things like how does a 3D person appear to a 2D person (you need to watch the above clip to get in the right frame of mind). It has some really interesting spiritual aspects.

So the point here is that GOD/Allah exists outside or beyond all of these dimensions (beyond our plane of existence). In order to interact with us, he must transcend these dimensions or you can think of it then as casting a/(multiple) shadow(s). But also as a Flatlander sees cross sections of GOD walking through Flatland, we would think we are seeing several distinct entities. So if I’ve done a good job in explaining and you comprehend this example, then you don’t see Polytheism but Monotheism. I also think that the Hindu Triune of Brahma/Shiva/Vishnu is equivalent to GOD/Jesus/Holy Spirit. They are all different aspects of the same entity.

So do you think that an illiterate merchant is going to understand that? I don’t think many people understand this at all anyway. But if you want to take this further, then definitely start a new thread.

We have enough differences that cause strife between us. And I don’t suspect that we will ever get beyond that. But when you study religions long enough, it doesn’t take long to realize that they are all from the same origin and they all have part of the answer. Mohammed knew this but he saw (incorrectly) that Islam was the only answer. It is counterproductive to see one religion belittle and dominate the others like Islam does. And I’m not saying that the others don’t but Islam makes an art of it. That creates hatred.

Agree but not with the last part.Jews are supposed to submit to Isa(Ah) and christian are supposed to submit to the last prophet.But both the Jews and Christian hide those scripture about the last prophet.The later Ayah describe this and explain the punishmet(from Allah)

Or in other words, the Jews and Christians have corrupted the true Religion and that makes them the target to be mocked and belittled. Islam is highly xenophobic. Only Muslims are equal. Anything not Muslim is subordinate. If it is dominated under Islam then it’s not equal and is separate. If it is opposed to Islam, then forget about it.

It does not mean forceful conversion.I have mentioned that Quran is source of Islamic law.So it actually describes those non-muslims who live in a Islamic state and refuse to pay Jizya.

I hope I was not implying *forceful conversion* as an independent process. But they do refuse to pay extortion. “Fight until they are humbled” has only one meaning. That’s forceful submission and then conversion comes later. But it’s my understanding that rules on Dhimmi are no longer that strict?? The Jizya is no longer a requirement. It’s up to the local ruler to impose or not. But with that said, there must be something else that takes its place. And I think we see that in the laws against proselytizing. And perhaps in today’s modern world we are starting to see the beginnings of actual reform in Islam. This may explain the increase in Islamic extremism, because there is push back to this reform (if that is what it is)?

[RavenHawk]

Then this Ayah was not necessary

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)"

I didn’t say it was not necessary. I said it doesn’t refute my claim. And I explained why.

They welcome Islam

Even that is kind of dishonest. Most advanced nations welcome people of all religions. But most nations also expect people of different religions to acclimate to their new culture. This doesn’t mean to convert to the new host’s religion, but just to respect it. When a Muslim community reaches a certain size, it always seems to demand changes to the culture. We’ve all heard the stories in England, France, Scotland, and the US. For that they become unwelcomed. In Buddhism, when a member of that faith decides to convert to Islam, the lamas will not offer a blessing. And Buddhism is the most peaceful religion on the planet.

This is how he took revenge.He gathered all the Meccan after conquering Mecca and asked "What behavior you expect from me?"The Meccan replied "we know you are kind and generous."He replied "I forgive you all"

If Islam is the Religion of Peace, then what is the need for revenge? The expected answer is death. And that would have worked well. But who wouldn’t say Mohammed was kind and generous at sword point? He got more mileage out of sparing them. I’m sure that many had answered death but the PR opportunities for history were just too important. And I’m sure that in time, those that were still defiant met with a quiet end. It all worked out well for Mohammed. I approve of his tactics. He did unite the Arab tribes and that is what was needed. That’s not what I’m implying is dishonest. It’s not the violence.

You are refusing fact from scholars of the scripture

Really? I couldn’t just walk up to the Kaaba and just touch it?

[Yamato]

Oh right, yeah, I forgot Israel is so innocent, with their Plan Dalat, their occupations, their settlements, their home demolitions, their olive grove destructions, their undeclared borders, their lack of a constitution, their collective punishments, their use of illegal weapons, their institutional discrimination, etc.

They invaded Lebanon on numerous occassions, inflicted an estimated 25,000-55,000 casualties and displaced between an estimated 1,850,000 - 2,100,000 people. An estimated 80-90% of the casualties during "Operation Peace For Galilee" alone were civilians, an estimated number of 17,000-36,000 civilians.

During Operation Cast Lead there were over a 1000 civilian casualties, a whopping 60% of all combined casualties. And over 50% of those civilian casualties were minors (including 318 children!), women, and Palestinians over the age of 50.

And what will he do about all that? Throw some random turd about you at you to deflect and derail, and a day later repeat himself like he never even saw what you said.

If you were in the mainstream media saying this they'd cut your mic because they're owned.

[RavenHawk]

If Israelis are surrounded by people who want them dead, stop supporting policies that move people from where they're safe into where they're in danger.

That was the whole point of the Zionist movement. To have one place where the Jew could defend themselves. The Jew is truly not safe anywhere else. They must rely on others to defend them. And we see where that got them. For 2000 years and even after Vatican II, they have been the objects of distain. Never Again! Israel provides a place where the Jew can be safe and they can defend themselves. That is so important for self determination. All peoples deserve that but not all achieve it. The Palestinian had a chance for the same thing but chose not to. The Palestinian is a short lived culture that in time will absorb back into the Arab Ummah.

If some idiot bulldozed my house down, I'd want them dead too and I don't make any apologies for that. That is BS extraordinaire to impose this ridiculous double standard on Palestinians that nobody in America would put up with for one minute.

With 7 billion people on this planet, you can’t make everyone happy. One person’s happiness is another’s misery. That is something that is unavoidable. Even if we were lucky and could claim that only 1% of the people worldwide were displaced, that would still be 70 million that are displaced for one reason or another. The most compassionate thing now in Israel is to let it come to a conclusion and move on.

[Yamato]

That was the whole point of the Zionist movement. To have one place where the Jew could defend themselves. The Jew is truly not safe anywhere else. They must rely on others to defend them. And we see where that got them. For 2000 years and even after Vatican II, they have been the objects of distain. Never Again! Israel provides a place where the Jew can be safe and they can defend themselves. That is so important for self determination. All peoples deserve that but not all achieve it. The Palestinian had a chance for the same thing but chose not to. The Palestinian is a short lived culture that in time will absorb back into the Arab Ummah.

With 7 billion people on this planet, you can't make everyone happy. One person's happiness is another's misery. That is something that is unavoidable. Even if we were lucky and could claim that only 1% of the people worldwide were displaced, that would still be 70 million that are displaced for one reason or another. The most compassionate thing now in Israel is to let it come to a conclusion and move on.

"The Jew" can defend themselves in the United States. Read the Constitution, dude. You balk the Constitution so badly, you can't even understand that Article 1 Section 8 is about the Congress and not the President. Because my own country, that I am responsible for, doesn't do anything to harm your special interest group and does plenty to solve all your manufactured problems, I am under no duty to provide for the welfare of strangers half the world away.

Don't Tread On Me.

[RavenHawk]

No.Actually the one group start the practice of hating that is the Zionist group.Take a look what Zionist social leader David Hacohen wrote

[bI would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they not buy at Arab stores; to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there To pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes, to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Keren Kayemet that sent Hankin to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi (landowners) and to throw the fellahin (peasant farmers) off the land - to buy dozens of dunams - from an Arab is permitted, but sell, God forbid, one Jewish dunam to an Arab is prohibited[/b]

You know that the UN partition plan was unfair.If it was not imposed upon Palestinian and Israel do not show any agression they would remain peaceful

I agree, that is a pretty harsh radical Zionist view. But do you just see the hatred or do you ask why? Considering that the concept of Zionism is to have a homeland (and there is nothing wrong with that). Most Jews are descendent from Semites so it only makes sense to have a homeland in the Levant.

You have to ask why a person has such a view? Hacohen lived among the Arabs in Palestine most of his life (1907 to 1984). He knew firsthand what life under the Arab overseers is like. He saw the Pogroms. This link is probably one of many experiences that formed his mindset: http://archive.adl.org/israel/record/david_hacohen.html .

Edited December 19, 2013 by RavenHawk

[+and-then]

I agree, that is a pretty harsh radical Zionist view. But do you just see the hatred or do you ask why? Considering that the concept of Zionism is to have a homeland (and there is nothing wrong with that). Most Jews are descendent from Semites so it only makes sense to have a homeland in the Levant.

You have to ask why a person has such a view? Hacohen lived among the Arabs in Palestine most of his life (1907 to 1984). He knew firsthand what life under the Arab overseers is like. He saw the Pogroms. This link is probably one of many experiences that formed his mindset: http://archive.adl.o...id_hacohen.html .

RE the link - I'm sure they had it coming!

[RavenHawk]

So, apparently someone wanted to stick their nose into a question that wasn't addressed to them, and didn't like my follow up question (quoted above in this post). I'll have to play this one out by myself.

So apparently someone doesn’t know their head from their ar$e. I’m now just getting to reply to this. I didn’t see the need to humor you in the first place. This is an open forum. If you don’t want me to respond then that is what email is for.

"Well then someone other than green_dude, you must agree then that this religious land claim from 2,000 plus years ago isn't a legitimate claim, or else we need to start stoning our rebellious teens, ea

ting shellfish, stoning adulterers, etc." - me (green_dude777)

Some people do follow scripture literally and to the letter. But don’t realize that they will fail trying to follow the law since in the Bible, there are 613 individual laws. Most of them don’t apply to gentiles and that leaves those that follow it literally in turmoil. However, there are some things that are indeed set in stone. One of those is the Covenant GOD has with Israel through the lineage of Abraham – Isaac – Jacob (Israel) and that is a promise to the land. This Covenant does not run through Ishmael but GOD did promise to make his seed great and he has.

It’s more than just a 2,000 year plus religious claim. It is legitimate because the Bible is an ancient document that records the claim. It’s a claim of prior occupancy and ancestry. And no, it is not enough by itself. But it does open the door. At the other end you have squatters occupying land of basically a dynastic failure. Legally these squatters have no rights.

At this point, the conversation either ends in agreement, or continues with something to the effect of "the Koran is wrong, the bible is right"

But I’m not saying that the Quran is wrong and the Bible is right. That wasn’t even part of the argument. I replied to a comment by GoSC of why Israel treated the Palestinians poorly (which wasn’t genocide), then Third_eye jumped in with something that Mohammed said. I replied, then Jeem jumped in. And it’s gone back and forth between attack and misdirect on my comments. It’s as if I hit upon something that certain people just didn’t want to trump the op with. You see how all of these people chimed in? I would have preferred it not happen this way, but in this case, it’s the journey that counts.

or "muslims aren't peaceful, christians are".

And the argument wasn’t even about this. If you are going to participate, please pay attention. Everybody is capable of being violent. It’s just that Christians are more honest about it.

Then, I would cite several instances throughout history where it shows the bible is not used as a means of peace. Then someone other than green_dude will say, "who is doing all the killing right now, thought so" or "that's in the past",

And I would agree with you and express that that is not important. It’s not about the violence. It is about the honesty.

all the while missing my point that both books are dumb, and shouldn't be a basis for anything other than personal beliefs (which are still no more credible than those who believe in the ancient Greek Pantheon of Gods)

Then I would reply that both books are important to at least 2 billion people if not more. I would agree that both need to be used as self guidance in personal use. But to say they are no more credible than the Greek Gods would be ignorance. The Greek Gods were an earlier form of the original religion and things have evolved from there. Man didn’t come up with religion on his own. Someone or something introduced it to him. When man heard thunder for the first time, he wasn’t thinking what god was making that noise. Man may not have understood why it thundered but he knew that it was natural.

[RavenHawk]

Actually they do refuse it.with a simple common sense anyone can see they are telling the non-Muslims that they are free to practice their religion

No one is saying that the Quran doesn’t say that the non believer can’t practice their religion. Abrogation does not mean to ignore the abrogated ayah, it just supersedes it. The question is what happens afterward? What happens when it is deemed that the non Islamic religion gets in the way of Islam? And these situations always happen. The relationships between people are dynamic. That means automatic conflict. The Quranic resolution is to beat the non Islamic religion into submission (or retreat). And then turn around and state to the non Islamic religion that they are free to practice their religion. What if the rest of the world treated Islam that way? And when asked about it, say that’s not what we believe.

[RavenHawk]

Misrepresenting some ayah from Qur'an and only intention to prove Islam a religion of violence I found this hate

One does not need to be a non Muslim or non Muslin apologist to misrepresent some ayah. And showing that Islam is just as violent as any other religion is not hate. Denying this would be to fester hate.

[green_dude777]

Posted 17 December 2013 - 01:33 PM

RavenHawk, on 17 December 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

No, I'm saying that Muslim extremists read the Quran and obey it to the letter.

So what you're saying is, that we should be reasonable people and not follow to the letter these old 'holy' books?

So, apparently someone wanted to stick their nose into a question that wasn't addressed to them, and didn't like my follow up question (quoted above in this post). I'll have to play this one out by myself.

"Of course green_dude, we should use common sense and not follow every command literally in these old 'holy' books" - someone other than green_dude

"Well then someone other than green_dude, you must agree then that this religious land claim from 2,000 plus years ago isn't a legitimate claim, or else we need to start stoning our rebellious teens, eating shellfish, stoning adulterers, etc." - me (green_dude777)

At this point, the conversation either ends in agreement, or continues with something to the effect of "the Koran is wrong, the bible is right" or "muslims aren't peaceful, christians are". Then, I would cite several instances throughout history where it shows the bible is not used as a means of peace. Then someone other than green_dude will say, "who is doing all the killing right now, thought so" or "that's in the past", all the while missing my point that both books are dumb, and shouldn't be a basis for anything other than personal beliefs (which are still no more credible than those who believe in the ancient Greek Pantheon of Gods)

So apparently someone doesn't know their head from their ar$e. I'm now just getting to reply to this. I didn't see the need to humor you in the first place. This is an open forum. If you don't want me to respond then that is what email is for.

Some people do follow scripture literally and to the letter. But don't realize that they will fail trying to follow the law since in the Bible, there are 613 individual laws. Most of them don't apply to gentiles and that leaves those that follow it literally in turmoil. However, there are some things that are indeed set in stone. One of those is the Covenant GOD has with Israel through the lineage of Abraham – Isaac – Jacob (Israel) and that is a promise to the land. This Covenant does not run through Ishmael but GOD did promise to make his seed great and he has.

It's more than just a 2,000 year plus religious claim. It is legitimate because the Bible is an ancient document that records the claim. It's a claim of prior occupancy and ancestry. And no, it is not enough by itself. But it does open the door. At the other end you have squatters occupying land of basically a dynastic failure. Legally these squatters have no rights.

But I'm not saying that the Quran is wrong and the Bible is right. That wasn't even part of the argument. I replied to a comment by GoSC of why Israel treated the Palestinians poorly (which wasn't genocide), then Third_eye jumped in with something that Mohammed said. I replied, then Jeem jumped in. And it's gone back and forth between attack and misdirect on my comments. It's as if I hit upon something that certain people just didn't want to trump the op with. You see how all of these people chimed in? I would have preferred it not happen this way, but in this case, it's the journey that counts.

And the argument wasn't even about this. If you are going to participate, please pay attention. Everybody is capable of being violent. It's just that Christians are more honest about it.

And I would agree with you and express that that is not important. It's not about the violence. It is about the honesty.

Then I would reply that both books are important to at least 2 billion people if not more. I would agree that both need to be used as self guidance in personal use. But to say they are no more credible than the Greek Gods would be ignorance. The Greek Gods were an earlier form of the original religion and things have evolved from there. Man didn't come up with religion on his own. Someone or something introduced it to him. When man heard thunder for the first time, he wasn't thinking what god was making that noise. Man may not have understood why it thundered but he knew that it was natural.

Everyone is welcome to reply to anything I post, I jabbed at you because you were quick to answer the first question on And Then's behalf, but didn't answer the follow up question. ("So what you're saying is, that we should be reasonable people and not follow to the letter these old 'holy' books?")

My whole point of the post was to ridicule the thought that following any of these old fantasy books to the letter is ridiculous. You somewhat agreed, but then added "However, there are some things that are indeed set in stone. One of those is the Covenant GOD has with Israel through the lineage of Abraham – Isaac – Jacob (Israel) and that is a promise to the land. This Covenant does not run through Ishmael but GOD did promise to make his seed great and he has." Really, any other citation for this covenant other than a book that is biased towards the Jews?

I don't know what the rest of your post is going on about; my post was satirical generalizations about how fundamental christians act. You citing specific sources about what you and another poster were talking about had nothing to do with my post. The satire was mostly directed at a couple other posters.

I don't care how 'honest' someone is with their violence. I didn't know if I was 'honest' about hurting someone, that would make it acceptable.

I would also love to hear how there is more credibility christianity or islam over ancient greek beliefs. I have a feeling I'll be waiting indefinitely on that one.

[SHaYap]

Things were not always that way and things didn't start out that way on top of the fact that things turned out that way is not due to the Religious factor stated....

~

I guess the first Radical Muslim event was during the holy month of Ramadhan ( don't remember exactly when will update when and if I get the chance)

THe 'believers' in respect of the Holy month retreated and held on to one of the Five Pillars of the faith ... fasting and refraining from all worldly corruption of daily life ... praying in the mosques ... while the Franks were escalating operations up and down the land ... one fella (don't remember his name) took to protesting this by eating in the middle of the congregation in a mosque ... naturally the others jumped on him for this trespass of the holy laws ... he made his case ... people are dying being slaughtered everywhere and the men are here praying , what good are prayers when the 'infidels' does not respect their laws ? ( the nowadays common argument of 'too much heaven on their minds' ) He swayed the crowd ... and the hostilities escalated many fold till the Franks were ran out of town ...

Precedence o'learned gentlemen ... the first wave of Franks were thugs on a mission and were not fighting for any God or religion ... they were there to loot and enrichment for themselves ... and they created a whole new set of mess that we have to deal with today .. we don't need to be adding anymore ...

~~