Fucking Zionist Media

[Madrigal]

[Fictitious] example of objective news coverage:

"Israel intensified its attacks in Southern Lebanon, killing 16 people. Hezbollah fired 180 missiles into Northern Israel, injuring a woman and killing her two twin sons in Haifa. The boys were playing in the yard when the attack occured. 'They were going to turn 7 next week', said their mother, devastated."

Fucking Assholes.

[Zephyrus055]

[Fictitious] example of objective news coverage:

"Israel intensified its attacks in Southern Lebanon, killing 16 people. Hezbollah fired 180 missiles into Northern Israel, injuring a woman and killing her two twin sons in Haifa. The boys were playing in the yard when the attack occured. 'They were going to turn 7 next week', said their mother, devastated."

Fucking Assholes.
I agree, but you are starting to sound like a Nazi with your "zionist media" comment.

[Rhu]

It's an objective fact: children are worth twice as much as adults, and twins are worth four times as much as non-twins.

You should be happy that you are a twin, Madrigal.

[Madrigal]

I agree, but you are starting to sound like a Nazi with your "zionist media" comment.
I think Israel sounds and acts like Nazis.

But I guess if you disagree with Israel you may as well be a Nazi, huh. Give me a fucking break.

[charred_heart]

[Fictitious] example of objective news coverage:

"Israel intensified its attacks in Southern Lebanon, killing 16 people. Hezbollah fired 180 missiles into Northern Israel, injuring a woman and killing her two twin sons in Haifa. The boys were playing in the yard when the attack occured. 'They were going to turn 7 next week', said their mother, devastated."

Fucking Assholes.I see your point. Which part of the world are you referring to?

[Madrigal]

It's an objective fact: children are worth twice as much as adults, and twins are worth four times as much as non-twins.

You should be happy that you are a twin, Madrigal.
Yeah, for all I know they killed 4 quadruplets in Lebanon, but they aren't going to make a big deal about that.

[Madrigal]

I see your point. Which part of the world are you referring to?
Stuff I read every day over here.

[kuranes]

They were talking about that war on the radio yesterday, on NPR, and they had people speaking from several points of view. The Israeli soldiers that had been grabbed were mentioned, of course; along with other things. The guy who spoke on behalf of the arab/PLO POV said that we should look at this from the wider context of why the conflict got started long ago in the first place, and how many prisoners the Israelis had etc. I thought it was interesting that the response to that was that "one can enlarge the context so greatly that it becomes meaningless." "We could be here all week discussing it from that perspective." and yet that very perspective seems to be the one that is missing in these reports.

Not that I claim to know all the history and details of this long conflict. Nor do most people. So both sides can say "facts are being taken out of context" and not get called on it.

[Dom]

But then Israel argues that the prisioners that they have, are convincted or suspected Terrorists, etc etc and round we go in circles........

I just wish they would all STOP.

[kuranes]

Calling someone a "terrorist" vs. a "resistance fighter" is another issue that the man speaking for the Arabs raised.

I hadn't known that it was Hezbolleh that blew up the Marine barracks, either.

[charred_heart]

But then Israel argues that the prisioners that they have, are convincted or suspected Terrorists, etc etc and round we go in circles........

I just wish they would all STOP.

Who are the mideast prisoners? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5211930.stm)


According to official figures supplied to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, 9,153 Palestinians are currently held by civilian and military authorities.

Of those, B'Tselem says 8,085 are held in civilian jails, 2,384 of them without charge. Some 645 are held under "administrative detention", without charge and often without knowledge of the suspicions against them. Among those in civil jails are 74 women and 265 under-18s.

[Madrigal]

I just wish they would all STOP.
What you wish is for Hezbollah to leave Israel alone and for all of those political prisoners Israel has to just sit there and rot.

[Madrigal]

They were talking about that war on the radio yesterday, on NPR, and they had people speaking from several points of view. The Israeli soldiers that had been grabbed were mentioned, of course; along with other things. The guy who spoke on behalf of the arab/PLO POV said that we should look at this from the wider context of why the conflict got started long ago in the first place, and how many prisoners the Israelis had etc. I thought it was interesting that the response to that was that "one can enlarge the context so greatly that it becomes meaningless." "We could be here all week discussing it from that perspective." and yet that very perspective seems to be the one that is missing in these reports.

Not that I claim to know all the history and details of this long conflict. Nor do most people. So both sides can say "facts are being taken out of context" and not get called on it.
No kidding; when someone starts to scrape the heart of the issue, the only thing that matters is the here and now - Israel's here and now. Screw history. And if you have anything else to say, you're a nazi.

It's okay to keep talking about the Holocaust, but not Israel's occupation, hell, that was too far back anyway and it doesn't matter whose land it is anymore .

[file cabinet]

but but but.. I can't think about the zionist media when a typhoon is hitting china and things are CRITICAL in the UK.. and I hear the Iraq war is still going on (!).. so, after the commercial, can we get back to the things that really matter?

[Maniac]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-06-chinese-peacekeepers_x.htm


BEIJING (AP) A rocket blast in southern Lebanon injured three Chinese peacekeepers on Sunday, just hours after China called on the United Nations to ensure the security of U.N. peacekeepers in the Middle East, state media reported.

A Chinese officer confirmed that the peacekeepers were injured by a Hezbollah rocket, according to the official Xinhua News Agency.

From the UNIFIL report (pdf):http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr021.pdf


Three members of the Chinese contingent with UNIFIL were lightly wounded this morning, when one mortar round from the Hezbollah side, according to UNIFIL's preliminary reports, impacted inside the Headquarters of the Chinese contingent in the area of Hinniyah in the western sector.

And now the BBC version (scroll down to Sunday 6 August): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5239142.stm

"Three Chinese UN peacekeepers are injured in cross-fire between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters."

Fucking arab media?

[Madrigal]

Fucking arab media?
You're hilarious.

[Rhu]

I do agree with the general sentiment in the original post. For the past couple weeks I've been listening to CSPAN radio on the way to work--they typically are interviewing someone and taking calls during the car leg of my morning commute.

Though as far as CSPAN is concerned, it is the callers who are using this sort of un-logic to make their arguments or to hurl insults at politicians, authors, and researchers. I could go into detail, but all I'll the detail I'm willing to go into is to say is that I'm shouting the names of fallacies at the radio usually followed with, "Motherfucker!" by the time I arrive at the train station.

The question that this raises for me: is the media manipulating the consumer, or being manipulated by the consumer? Are the networks, papers, radio, etc, selling the tragic images that portray one side as a clear hero and the other side a clear villain because they have an agenda, or because they are rejecting responsibility in order to sell their media to an audience who would prefer to understand something less complex than reality? If this irresponsibility, is it conscious or unconscious?

[nomir_dva]

[Fictitious] example of objective news coverage:

"Israel intensified its attacks in Southern Lebanon, killing 16 people. Hezbollah fired 180 missiles into Northern Israel, injuring a woman and killing her two twin sons in Haifa. The boys were playing in the yard when the attack occured. 'They were going to turn 7 next week', said their mother, devastated."

Fucking Assholes.

Isn't this similar to the way that the American media reports about Iraq? Or are they fucking zionists too?

I'm confident that the Arab media exhibits the exact opposite bias.

[charred_heart]

Isn't this similar to the way that the American media reports about Iraq? Or are they fucking zionists too?

I'm confident that the Arab media exhibits the exact opposite bias.bias? that's funny. The horror and destruction that Israel has caused in Lebanon has lead every arab to re-evaluate it's existence in the middle east. I'm not talking about arabs screaming "death to the jews!", I'm talking about every arab thinking to him or herself "Israel can hit my country too. WTF!".

[Madrigal]

I'm shouting the names of fallacies at the radio usually followed with, "Motherfucker!" by the time I arrive at the train station.
:wub:


The question that this raises for me: is the media manipulating the consumer, or being manipulated by the consumer? Are the networks, papers, radio, etc, selling the tragic images that portray one side as a clear hero and the other side a clear villain because they have an agenda, or because they are rejecting responsibility in order to sell their media to an audience who would prefer to understand something less complex than reality? If this irresponsibility, is it conscious or unconscious?

I think that the subtle/not-so-subtle bias and manipulation has permeated the public's consciousness to such a degree, and they've been so emotionally manipulated (as the OP exemplifies), they're filled with anger over the war. The difference is that when the general public expresses its opinion, they have no responsibility to act like they're objective, to be subtle. They just go right ahead and voice their opinion exactly the way they see it. So at some point, the bias bred by the media and the govt. expresses itself in this crude way; the caller seems more pro-israeli than the media itself. But I don't think the media is "giving them what they want", I think they're giving them what the govt. needs.

[htb]

pablumHezbollah is a terrorist cadre guided by one objective, that being the extermination of Jews. Israel is a liberal democracy founded on one principle, that being a home for the diaspora. Any objective examination of respective methods will show that the former party indulges in death while the latter avoids it -- at great impairment of its military potential.

I suppose one could disagree with Jerusalem's policies. But this: the only thing missing from this thread's title is an eswastikacon. Shema Yisrael, Sunshine.

[Madrigal]

I'm confident that the Arab media exhibits the exact opposite bias.
Ridiculous. I don't think they have time to waste on investigating the entire life of one or two israeli victims while their own citizens are dying by the hundreds.

[LongSilence]

bias? that's funny. The horror and destruction that Israel has caused in Lebanon has lead every arab to re-evaluate it's existence in the middle east. I'm not talking about arabs screaming "death to the jews!", I'm talking about every arab thinking to him or herself "Israel can hit my country too. WTF!".

Yeah, but its not like Israel is going to go on a rampage... Their target may have sympathisers in the other countries but they're very unlikely to step up the campaign into a full-scale war, which it would if they alone took things to Syria or Iran.

And Madrigal wouldn't their supposed bias mean they'd call upon the lives of their own citizens?

[charred_heart]

Yeah, but its not like Israel is going to go on a rampage...how can I be sure of that?

[Madrigal]

Hezbollah is a terrorist cadre guided by one objective, that being the extermination of Jews. Israel is a liberal democracy founded on one principle, that being a home for the diaspora. Any objective examination of respective methods will show that the former party indulges in death while the latter avoids it -- at great impairment of its military potential.

I suppose one could disagree with Jerusalem's policies. But this: the only thing missing from this thread's title is an eswastikacon. Shema Yisrael, Sunshine.
What a load of nonesense. Israel was founded as an imperialist puppet state in the heart of the Middle East to ensure a much needed supply of oil. And it was founded on the death, destruction and expropriation of Arabs living there. I don't expect you to agree. Just keep in mind that while you may think my point of view is Nazi for attacking the Jewish State, I think your opinion is Nazi for defending a genocidal State born of occupation and terror. It's shameful to see jews defending Israel's acts, especially when they have suffered one of the most abominable historical events in the 20th Century at the hands of fascism.

[Maniac]

Ridiculous. I don't think they have time to waste on investigating the entire life of one or two israeli victims while their own citizens are dying by the hundreds.

Prove it. Apparently not every newspaper subscribes to your fucking zionist media view. I guess you could call it hillarious that I'm calling you out on your one-sided view of media reporting. Could I call it biased?

[Madrigal]

Prove it.
As I said, you're hilarious. Yeah, maybe the Lebanese haven't been dying by the hundreds. Maybe they're been dying by the thousands.

[immortalmack]

[Fictitious] example of objective news coverage:

"Israel intensified its attacks in Southern Lebanon, killing 16 people. Hezbollah fired 180 missiles into Northern Israel, injuring a woman and killing her two twin sons in Haifa. The boys were playing in the yard when the attack occured. 'They were going to turn 7 next week', said their mother, devastated."

Fucking Assholes.

Yea I have been noticing this for years.I really wonder whether it was a hundred and eigthy rockets. I mean 180 rockets and all you hit was 3 people?
And then go on this sob story about a woman and her kids who were swimming in the pool getting ready for bed time stories an milk and cookies. What about the calapse of buildings on peoples heads in Lebanon, the disruption of economies and lives.

And why everytime a person refuses to be duped by Jewish propaganda they are labeled as anti semite, or a Nazi. Just because I don't believe every word they tell me I'm a Nazi.

[rawr]

Its not about right and wrong, its about kicking ass to keep the land. And protecting yourself while your on the land. Just like how the muslims aquired the land in the first place from the romans. When their empire was spread from spain to india. Prisoners? So what, Israels got to watch their own ass. They're dealing with a group of millitants who want nothing more than to displace them. They're just playing the game too. You cant blame them for being more powerfull than the millitants who try to displace and overthrow them. Zionist media? Can't argue with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dU3dggfW4o&mode=related&search=


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyHQFyO_fu4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PegaPN4BClM&mode=related&search=

it seems like Israel is doing the proper ground work.

[Maniac]

As I said, you're hilarious. Yeah, maybe the Lebanese haven't been dying by the hundreds. Maybe they're been dying by the thousands.


I don't think they have time to waste on investigating the entire life of one or two israeli victims while their own citizens are dying by the hundreds.

Who the fuck cares what you think, honestly? Have you ever even visited the middle east? I meant prove they don't have the time to investigate. And just because people have died doesn't show any causation of anything. You accept arguments of bias on one side, but not on another. You spew so much vitriol, but I have yet to see you back some of your claims up with some verifiable claims, or egad, maybe even proof! Heaven forbid someone disagrees with Madrigal!

P.S. - You've just been demoted to a 7.

[Dr. Haight]

And why everytime a person refuses to be duped by Jewish propaganda they are labeled as anti semite, or a Nazi. Just because I don't believe every word they tell me I'm a Nazi.



...quiet Nazi :D

[LongSilence]

how can I be sure of that?

You can't. But you can be more sure as they haven't been having continuous scrapes with people living in the other countries so much... yet.

[Hustler]

Stuff I read every day over here.

Ah, the joys of reading. Can't you just enjoy a some short stories from a Borges collection or something?

So, anyway, who would win if the gloves came off on both sides and it was Israel vs. every Arab and/or Persian nation which wanted Israel wiped off the face of the earth in a no-holds-barred deathmatch? How heavy would the casualties be? What would happen after that?

[Dr. Haight]

Oh, oh, oh... I know this one.

[charred_heart]

You can't. But you can be more sure as they haven't been having continuous scrapes with people living in the other countries so much... yet.right.

[charred_heart]

Ah, the joys of reading. Can't you just enjoy a some short stories from a Borges collection or something?

So, anyway, who would win if the gloves came off on both sides and it was Israel vs. every Arab and/or Persian nation which wanted Israel wiped off the face of the earth in a no-holds-barred deathmatch? How heavy would the casualties be? What would happen after that?we're going to find out in a few years. bye bye peace.

[Dom]

What you wish is for Hezbollah to leave Israel alone and for all of those political prisoners Israel has to just sit there and rot.

No actually I don't, I fear you have misjudged me, by STOP I mean STOP,

That wont happen while the prisoners are held, while palestine doesn't have a state, while hezbollah keep firing missiles, israel rolls tanks over everything, the arabs state refuse to accept isreal etc etc etc.....

My wish for them to just STOP included answering all the porblems that cause it to continue, both sides have rights, pity neither side accepts the others.....

[Zephyrus055]

I think Israel exists to cause conflict in the middle east, enabling the west to exploit their resources with less resistance. You know, the divide and conquer tactic actively pursued by the British Empire?

But the plan went wrong :).

[Hustler]

Oh, oh, oh... I know this one.

Do tell.

[Madrigal]

Ah, the joys of reading. Can't you just enjoy a some short stories from a Borges collection or something?

So, anyway, who would win if the gloves came off on both sides and it was Israel vs. every Arab and/or Persian nation which wanted Israel wiped off the face of the earth in a no-holds-barred deathmatch? How heavy would the casualties be? What would happen after that?
I don't think military might is any match for a heroic and advanced popular resistance movement. It all depends on too many factors, we can't really answer an abstract question like that. I'm just saying it isn't impossible to defeat Israel, despite it's powerful allies. Hey, the US is still crying over Vietnam.

EDIT: Okay, my next thread will be about Borges.

[Zephyrus055]

I think Israel sounds and acts like Nazis.

But I guess if you disagree with Israel you may as well be a Nazi, huh. Give me a fucking break.
True, but you are implying that jews control the media. That would be unsubstantiated. Though the media obviously supports zionism, and the media is controlled by connections to the wealthy.

[LongSilence]

Good luck Moridin. Thing is, if you're going to be the guy who say "Schtop, Schtop, this Middle East... is not ready yet" you have to then come up with a plan that both sides are going to be happy with and able to stick to.

[charred_heart]

I don't think military might is any match for a heroic and advanced popular resistance movement. It all depends on too many factors, we can't really answer an abstract question like that. I'm just saying it isn't impossible to defeat Israel, despite it's powerful allies. Hey, the US is still crying over Vietnam.

EDIT: Okay, my next thread will be about Borges.
You are right comrade

The Battle of Gallipoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallipoli)

[Madrigal]

True, but you are implying that jews control the media. That would be unsubstantiated. Though the media obviously supports zionism, and the media is controlled by connections to the wealthy.
Hey, Israel is at the service of the Empire, not the other way around. You don't have to be a jew to be pro-Israeli, at all.

[Madrigal]

You are right comrade

OT: Hey, guess what, I'm starting Arab classes next week. :)

[Dom]

Good luck Moridin. Thing is, if you're going to be the guy who say "Schtop, Schtop, this Middle East... is not ready yet" you have to then come up with a plan that both sides are going to be happy with and able to stick to.

Sadly the reason I called it a WISH......

[charred_heart]

OT: Hey, guess what, I'm starting Arab classes next week. :)yeah?

[bergenski]

P.S. - You've just been demoted to a 7.
Seriously, she's a 6, political views aside.

[RottenApple]

True, but you are implying that jews control the media. That would be unsubstantiated. Though the media obviously supports zionism, and the media is controlled by connections to the wealthy.
also...
The Jews definitely control Hollywood and I would argue that cultural influence is more powerful, in the long run, than any political agenda.

[nomir_dva]

bias? that's funny. The horror and destruction that Israel has caused in Lebanon has lead every arab to re-evaluate it's existence in the middle east. I'm not talking about arabs screaming "death to the jews!", I'm talking about every arab thinking to him or herself "Israel can hit my country too. WTF!".

Would Israel have attacked Lebanon without the kidnapping incident? The Israeli government does not stang to gain anything from engaging in pointless acts of agression. Hezbollah has caused horror and destruction in Israel, and if they had Apache helicopters and Merkava tanks, I assure you that the situation would be far, far worse.


Ridiculous. I don't think they have time to waste on investigating the entire life of one or two israeli victims while their own citizens are dying by the hundreds.

I meant that the Arabs emphasize their own dead and not those of the Israelis. In your example, that information could have been gathered in five minutes. The latest reports from Lebanon are focusing on an attack on a lighthouse.

[Nighthawk]

Calling someone a "terrorist" vs. a "resistance fighter" is another issue that the man speaking for the Arabs raised.


It is interesting, that in the years following WW2, notable Israeli leaders like Menachem Begin and Moshe Dyan were "resistance fighters" against the British occupation force. The British considered them terrorists and had rather high prices on their heads. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter ... and vice versa.

[charred_heart]

Would Israel have attacked Lebanon without the kidnapping incident? The Israeli government does not stang to gain anything from engaging in pointless acts of agression. Hezbollah has caused horror and destruction in Israel, and if they had Apache helicopters and Merkava tanks, I assure you that the situation would be far, far worse. Hold on, Hezbollah's attacks on Israel are nowhere near the ones carried out by the other groups, Hamas and Fatah. Also, would Hezbollah have been founded in the first place if Israel didn't occupy southern Lebanon all those years ago?

They had hundreds of Katyusha rockets. Why didn't they bombard Israel the minute they built up that arsenal if it wasn't for the fact that Israel answered a kidnapping wit hthe bombing of villages?

I personally don't like the logic that if some guy from my country sneaks into Israel and does whatever I should die. Niether do another 300 million.

[SheetOfGlass]

charred_heart, what's your story? You're not claiming to have an objective viewpoint regarding Israel, are you? You look like a fucking terrorist yourself. Can't wait for the 72 virgins, huh?

[charred_heart]

charred_heart, what's your story? You're not claiming to have an objective viewpoint regarding Israel, are you? You look like a fucking terrorist yourself. Can't wait for the 72 virgins, huh?that's pathetic. I don't want to die so I can fuck you.

[Madrigal]

charred_heart, what's your story? You're not claiming to have an objective viewpoint regarding Israel, are you? You look like a fucking terrorist yourself. Can't wait for the 72 virgins, huh?
I just reported you, you fucking twit. Enjoy being banned.

TROLL.

[Maniac]

Why do you even make comments that are irrelevant? Why don't you respond to the fact that the arab media is also biased? Why with all of the anti-zionist crap?

Because you can't help but blurt out anti-semitic nonesense? No, not only because of that.

I made it clear that you ignored my arguments and delibertely avoided them. Now, like the desperte little woman that you are, you clutch at these straws by trying to focus people onto the topics of your agenda in an attempt to deviate attention from the main issue, on which you were making a sorry spectacle of yourself.

Keep trying. Avoid another topic that's right on point.That won't make you any less wrong.

[Madrigal]

Why do you even make comments that are irrelevant? Why don't you respond to the fact that the arab media is also biased? Why with all of the anti-zionist crap?

Because you can't help but blurt out anti-semitic nonesense? No, not only because of that.

I made it clear that you ignored my arguments and delibertely avoided them. Now, like the desperte little woman that you are, you clutch at these straws by trying to focus people onto the topics of your agenda in an attempt to deviate attention from the main issue, on which you were making a sorry spectacle of yourself.

Keep trying. Avoid another topic that's right on point.That won't make you any less wrong.

Paraphrasing an entire post by me. That only serves to underline your lack of creativity. :)

Paraphrased post:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=377408&postcount=185

[Maniac]

Paraphrasing an entire post by me. That only serves to underline your lack of creativity. :)

Only serves to show you how innately stupid you are, for lack of a better term. Where you can use a set of logic so vehemently when talking about one issue, and then completely disregard it when talking about another. You've just been served.

[Madrigal]

You've just been served.

Served another shining turd of wisdom by you. Thanks.

[nomir_dva]

Hold on, Hezbollah's attacks on Israel are nowhere near the ones carried out by the other groups, Hamas and Fatah. Also, would Hezbollah have been founded in the first place if Israel didn't occupy southern Lebanon all those years ago?

Didn't Israel invade Lebanon because of PLO attacks?


They had hundreds of Katyusha rockets. Why didn't they bombard Israel the minute they built up that arsenal if it wasn't for the fact that Israel answered a kidnapping wit hthe bombing of villages?

I don't know why Hezbollah kidnapped those two soldiers, except that maybe it was in imitation of the Hamas kidnapping a few weeks or days before. I'm sure that the Hezbollah leadership was well aware that their rockets were not nearly as powerful as the Israeli retaliation would be. I suppose that the whole point was to antagonize the Israelis and begin a confict for the purpose of increasing support for Hezbollah. They may be indirectly responsible for the hundreds of dead, but they're less foreign than the IDF, so they must be friends to the Lebanese.


I personally don't like the logic that if some guy from my country sneaks into Israel and does whatever I should die. Niether do another 300 million.

I don't like it either. It's an insane self-propogating cycle of violence, but what can be expected? Can a government not respond when its people are attacked? If so, it is voted out of office and a more militant one is brought in. On the Arab side, the militant parties seem freer of corruption and more trustworthy than their alternatives, so the violence continues.

But Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon, and the rest of the Lebanese government is either unwilling or unable to retake that land, so Israel attacks Hezbollah as the governing power of that area.


charred_heart, what's your story? You're not claiming to have an objective viewpoint regarding Israel, are you? You look like a fucking terrorist yourself. Can't wait for the 72 virgins, huh?

All Arabs are terrorists and all Jews are parasites, so why don't we solve all the world's problems with a few thousand nuclear weapons?

[Maniac]

Served another shining turd of wisdom by you. Thanks.

If calling me a shining turd gives you some short-lived comfort and satisfaction to dull your pain, I guess I should not hold it against you. I'll see it as an act of charity.

[Madrigal]

If calling me a shining turd gives you some short-lived comfort and satisfaction to dull your pain, I guess I should not hold it against you. I'll see it as an act of charity.
If you keep paraphrasing me, I'm going to report you too. That's two times. A couple more and you'd be officially trolling this thread. If you don't care about my opinion, don't discuss it with me. :wave:

[Maniac]

Well you refuse to acknowledge questions. If you have an opinion, it's definitely uninformed. In all honesty, it seems that you don't have an opinion, but an agenda. Or is that sig quote down there just imaginary?

Since it's pretty obvious you don't wish to have an intelligent discussion where people actually defend and show reasons for why they think (I use that term loosely) a certain way, keep your propoganda to yourself. In addition, I hardly think that using obscenities is going to make your point any stronger. Just a thought...

*snort*

[Dom]

All Arabs are terrorists and all Jews are parasites, so why don't we solve all the world's problems with a few thousand nuclear weapons?

It wouldn't even take a few thousand....

[Vagabond]

I just reported you, you fucking twit. Enjoy being banned.

TROLL.
I bet he did.

[Dom]

I bet he did.

Wonder who he was....

Anyone get his IP? Just seems odd to post your first post like that, figured he could be someone else, under a new user name??

[Maniac]

Wonder who he was....

Anyone get his IP? Just seems odd to post your first post like that, figured he could be someone else, under a new user name??

Prob some lurker or an alter-ego.

On another note, this seriously borders on clinical paranoia. This person looks at one newspaper article, and makes a generalization on the whole freakin media. Ummm, where's the logic?

[charred_heart]

Didn't Israel invade Lebanon because of PLO attacks? Good point. Still they didn't seem to have any plans of leaving till Hezbollah came along.


I don't know why Hezbollah kidnapped those two soldiers, except that maybe it was in imitation of the Hamas kidnapping a few weeks or days before. Since you brought that up, why exactly was Israel raiding gaza at the time? I wasn't following the soap opera for a while back then and didn't find the link that started that military operation.


I suppose that the whole point was to antagonize the Israelis and begin a confict for the purpose of increasing support for Hezbollah. They may be indirectly responsible for the hundreds of dead, but they're less foreign than the IDF, so they must be friends to the Lebanese.The IDF has next generation, intelligent weaponry and surveillance. The number of deaths cannot be justified considering their level of sophistication. You want to take out an armed group, you use intel and tactical strikes. This indiscriminate firing on Beirut and other areas, I can't be convinced this is the most accurate they can get. Especially when the IDF has routinely carried out assassinations using helicopters (you know, huge metal flying ships with big rockets?) that ended up in little to no casualties besides the target.


I don't like it either. It's an insane self-propogating cycle of violence, but what can be expected? Can a government not respond when its people are attacked? If so, it is voted out of office and a more militant one is brought in. On the Arab side, the militant parties seem freer of corruption and more trustworthy than their alternatives, so the violence continues.

But Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon, and the rest of the Lebanese government is either unwilling or unable to retake that land, so Israel attacks Hezbollah as the governing power of that area.They're not only attacking hezbollah. It's very clear that the targetting of moving vehicles and residential areas was a deliberate move to incite anger against Hezbollah. Sure if they were fighting Hezbollah it would be fair since that's an armed group, but when the IDF started hitting at defenseless civilians it changed the picture entirely. Terrorist groups are the least of Israel's worries now, seriously.

[omnirook]

I was waiting for the flame war to get started! It was inevitable, given the topic.

Personally, I'm sick of the whole damned thing. I don't feel sorry for anybody - not the Jews, not the Muslims, not the Christians. I don't even feel sorry for the slobs who get blown up when the assholes in charge are fighting. Both sides sit there and take it instead of hanging their "leaders" from meat hooks.

Enough already. No matter what fanciful dressing you might want to put on it, in the end, all anybody who could stop it cares about is the money that the oil represents. As long as there is one drop of oil in the Middle East, this shit will go on. Before the oil, it was the trade routes that brought silk and spices from China and India. It's all bullshit.

[Fingers]

omnirook: wisest on this thread

[zhang_bob]

I don't know why Hezbollah kidnapped those two soldiers, except that maybe it was in imitation of the Hamas kidnapping a few weeks or days before......
So are you saying Britain had the right to bomb Israel as they kidnapped Mordechai Vanunu?

[charred_heart]

I was waiting for the flame war to get started! It was inevitable, given the topic.

Personally, I'm sick of the whole damned thing. I don't feel sorry for anybody - not the Jews, not the Muslims, not the Christians. I don't even feel sorry for the slobs who get blown up when the assholes in charge are fighting. Both sides sit there and take it instead of hanging their "leaders" from meat hooks.

Enough already. No matter what fanciful dressing you might want to put on it, in the end, all anybody who could stop it cares about is the money that the oil represents. As long as there is one drop of oil in the Middle East, this shit will go on. Before the oil, it was the trade routes that brought silk and spices from India. It's all bullshit.wish I could be as laid back as you on this. Unfortunately, I'm one of those slobs you mentioned (jews, muslims and christians). While it makes you a bit apathetic and intelligent sounding, that kind of thinking makes me a sitting duck.

[floid]

Both sides sit there and take it instead of hanging their "leaders" from meat hooks.

Now there's an idea that might have some potential.
That and turning off the television.

[Maniac]

They're not only attacking hezbollah. It's very clear that the targetting of moving vehicles and residential areas was a deliberate move to incite anger against Hezbollah. Sure if they were fighting Hezbollah it would be fair since that's an armed group, but when the IDF started hitting at defenseless civilians it changed the picture entirely. Terrorist groups are the least of Israel's worries now, seriously.

This argument of yours was already invalidated a week ago, and you have yet to show any further proof than an isolated incident.

[charred_heart]

This argument of yours was already invalidated a week ago, and you have yet to show any further proof than an isolated incident.not really, I just didn't want to kill the mood in INTPc forever by trying to counter your arguments against the articles I would have linked as the result of naive idealistic and imaginitive journalists.

[Madrigal]

In all honesty, it seems that you don't have an opinion, but an agenda. Or is that sig quote down there just imaginary?


If your own quote bothers you that much, I can remove it. You need only ask. But only if you promise not to remove mine from yours.

[sbw]

P.S. - You've just been demoted to a 7.

:lol:

on my own personal scale, commies can't rate any higher than 6. I'm probably a zionist, though.

Scott

[Dr. Haight]

:lol:

on my own personal scale, commies can't rate any higher than 6. I'm probably a zionist, though.

Scott
How do anarchist's score on that scale?

[Madrigal]

it seems that you don't have an opinion, but an agenda.
Oh I know what an agenda is.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=5689

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=5788

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6145

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6498

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7543

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7420

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=8501

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=9395

[omnirook]

wish I could be as laid back as you on this. Unfortunately, I'm one of those slobs you mentioned (jews, muslims and christians). While it makes you a bit apathetic and intelligent sounding, that kind of thinking makes me a sitting duck.
You have my sympathy, despite what I said ... Few are ever as harsh as their rhetoric. My aim was to make it clear that I do not care about any of the religio-political issues that are used to stir the shit pot ... If it's any consolation, I do not feel sorry for Americans who voted for Dubya - they are getting exactly what they deserve. I do not feel sorry for Americans period (myself included) because we allowed Dubya's team to steal the White House twice. Any peasant (myself included) who trusts his rulers and who is not aware that his rulers are rulers because they are the most ruthless and cynical among us is a fool. It's all horseshit. The trace on Arafat's Israeli provided billions in French banks should have opened a few eyes, but it did not. The leaders are all in bed w/each other - always have been. They are playing a deadly game - and winning! The last leaders that I had any real respect for were Medieval kings who actually took to the battle fields and did their own dirty work.

[sbw]

How do anarchist's score on that scale?

well, lets see here...

if there is no such thing as a 10 (dan jenkins, semi-tough)...then that means a perfect score is a 9, and if a commie can do no better than 6, that means commie = -3, (it also means that madrigal is somewhere between 3 and 5, lets move on)...

commie = -3
anarchist = +1
tree hugger = -1
libertarian = +2
republican = -2
democrat = -2
(nothing turns me off more than party affiliation...except for commies)

Scott

[Maniac]

not really, I just didn't want to kill the mood in INTPc forever by trying to counter your arguments against the articles I would have linked as the result of naive idealistic and imaginitive journalists.

Calling my arguments naive, idealistic and imaginative won't make your assertions any truer. If you want to generalize and make up shit that isn't true, that's your prerogative, but I think it's only fair that everyone else knows about it.

[Maniac]

Oh I know what an agenda is.

:offtopic: Oh you do? Well then look in the mirror. Bringing up stuff from a year ago is not only pitiful, but laughable. Not to mention that you misinerpret those posts.

Fucking hilarious. In those arguments I wasn't referring to all women. No-one would suspect I was referring to every single woman - only someone that's out to pick a fight. And I'm not gonna walk on eggshells to protect your sensitivity. Be a woman and deal with it.

In any case, saying that I have an agenda doesn't make my assertion that you have one any less. It's just a shitty attempt to divert attention away from yourself.

[Madrigal]

:offtopic: Oh you do? Well then look in the mirror. Bringing up stuff from a year ago is not only pitiful, but laughable. Not to mention that you misinerpret those posts.

That's one third of the threads you ever started here, so yeah, you have a male-chauvinist agenda, and you only stopped making those threads when we started discussing the possibility that you might be... a troll! Now you're limiting yourself to latching on like a tick to any discussion involving women. You're not fooling me, your agenda remains intact.


Fucking hilarious. In those arguments I wasn't referring to all women. No-one would suspect I was referring to every single woman - only someone that's out to pick a fight. And I'm not gonna walk on eggshells to protect your sensitivity. Be a woman and deal with it.

Third time you paraphrase me. If you aren't going to contribute to this thread with your OWN words, then get ready to be reported for trolling.

[Maniac]

:offtopic:


That's one third of the threads you ever started here, so yeah, you have a male-chauvinist agenda, and you only stopped making those threads when we started discussing the possibility that you might be... a troll! Now you're limiting yourself to latching on like a tick to any discussion involving women. You're not fooling me, your agenda remains intact.

Of course not, because fooling a clinically paranoid person would be impossible. I'm sure they have mental health professionals in BA. Do yourself a favor and find some help.

If you have to stoop so low to bring up shit from last year, wow. I'm really flattered. What are you gonna do next, get my high school report card? Maybe you should bring up that time I got in trouble in 2nd grade. Pitiful, just pitiful.



Third time you paraphrase me. If you aren't going to contribute to this thread with your OWN words, then get ready to be reported for trolling.

Why make up my own words, when yours are clearly more adept at proving yourself wrong? Don't feel stupid sweetie, calling it trolling means that you can't deal with it because you're too sensitive. What sensitivity? You know, your frailty. Your faint-heartedness. Your wounded pride.

[omnirook]

Oh I know what an agenda is.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=5689

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=5788

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6145

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6498

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7543

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7420

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=8501

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=9395

I take it that you keep notes on what others say. Are you a professional researcher? No insult intended. It's just that I'm always amazed when I come across people who have their material at their finger tips. Me, I'm always paraphrasing because it's easier than rummaging through the mountains of books, magazenes, files, etc that fill my den. (My den is dangerous to anyone who enters - except me, of course. I know where the booby traps are.)

[Madrigal]

You know, your frailty. Your faint-heartedness. Your wounded pride.
Fourth time you paraphrase me. Don't mind me, I'm just keeping a record. :)

[venerationOFrabbits]

They were talking about that war on the radio yesterday, on NPR, and they had people speaking from several points of view. The Israeli soldiers that had been grabbed were mentioned, of course; along with other things. The guy who spoke on behalf of the arab/PLO POV said that we should look at this from the wider context of why the conflict got started long ago in the first place, and how many prisoners the Israelis had etc. I thought it was interesting that the response to that was that "one can enlarge the context so greatly that it becomes meaningless." "We could be here all week discussing it from that perspective." and yet that very perspective seems to be the one that is missing in these reports.

Not that I claim to know all the history and details of this long conflict. Nor do most people. So both sides can say "facts are being taken out of context" and not get called on it.

This illustrates nicely why I suspect NPR as pro-Israel.



It's an objective fact: children are worth twice as much as adults, and twins are worth four times as much as non-twins.

You should be happy that you are a twin, Madrigal.


It's an objective fact: Israelies are worth hundreds times as much as Arabs.



:wub:But I don't think the media is "giving them what they want", I think they're giving them what the govt. needs.

I disagree. It's sounds a little "conspiracy theory" to me. I think, as always, it's economically driven, the reality of it is a journalist is employed and answers to somebody holding the purse strings. And who holds the purse strings? Ultimately the misinformed public. I think those standing behind the curtain of the "govt. needs" are simply taking advantage of this fact. In the end it works, for them it does.


Its not about right and wrong, its about kicking ass to keep the land. And protecting yourself while your on the land.

Same thing can be said about the Arabs. Sorry doesn't solve the problem. And yes, contrary to your beliefs, there happens to be a big problem here. Does WWIII set off any alarm bells for you? Any red flags? Hello? Hello? Anyone in there?


You cant blame them for being more powerfull than the millitants who try to displace and overthrow them. Zionist media? Can't argue with that.


No, but you can blame the USA for enabling Israel to behave like spoiled brats. Disrupting the natural balance of rational based justice.

Here's my opinion, America has always had a problem keeping it's filthy hands out of other's bloody business, and this heated issue goes right to the heart of it.

The problem is the forces behind this emotional charged conflict are too heavily weighted by economic drives. And because we, as American taxpayers, are supporting this mess, it is imperative that as individuals we seek to become better informed. One thing that must go is the illusion that journalists are supposedly reporting objectively. Human nature will always bungle this concept, it's a lie and lies are immoral. A reader should always keep in mind what they are reading is going to be bias, and should make sure he/she is getting all sides of the story.

[Madrigal]

I was waiting for the flame war to get started! It was inevitable, given the topic.

Personally, I'm sick of the whole damned thing. I don't feel sorry for anybody - not the Jews, not the Muslims, not the Christians. I don't even feel sorry for the slobs who get blown up when the assholes in charge are fighting. Both sides sit there and take it instead of hanging their "leaders" from meat hooks.

Whoa, just because you have every right to judge the leaders of both Israel and the Arab community doesn't make it intellectually impressive to declare the irrelevance of ordinary people suffering occupation and war. Personally I think cynicism is easy - a refusal to think for yourself.

[attila_the_hunny]

I hope they bomb the shit out of each other until barely anyone is left. That way I won't have to hear about their litttle war over shitty land every day for the rest of my life.

[venerationOFrabbits]

I hope they bomb the shit out of each other until barely anyone is left. That way I won't have to hear about their litttle war over shitty land every day for the rest of my life.

Please, try to pull your pants up when in the company of adults.

[ApeTheDog]

Stop being annoying pricks, everybody.

There. That should be enough moderating for this thread.

[attila_the_hunny]

Please, try to pull your pants up when in the company of adults.

But I wanted to lower myself to their infantile ways. :(

[immortalmack]

I think also that the average person has become hip to using the medias lust for sensationalism. So it could be a very small thing but if people play it right they can get what they want. In my neck of the woods every christmas the news has someone who claimed they bought about a tousand dollars worth of presents only to be wiped out by supposed burglars. The news then ask for donations ( and you guessed it) they receive about a thousand dollars worth of christmas presents.

[ApeTheDog]

You like that whole Ayn Rand stuff, don't you, atilla?

[attila_the_hunny]

You like that whole Ayn Rand stuff, don't you, atilla?

Yeah, just one book.

[tinribz]

Who are the mideast prisoners? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5211930.stm)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5256534.stm

I also read that some Israeli pilots are deliberately missing targets to avoid civilian casualties and some are starting to wobbling on refusing orders to go on sorties.

Then there is the million Israelis living in bunkers. They are getting fed up with promises as the rockets just keep on coming and their businesses are going under.

[wildcat]

[Fictitious] example of objective news coverage:

"Israel intensified its attacks in Southern Lebanon, killing 16 people. Hezbollah fired 180 missiles into Northern Israel, injuring a woman and killing her two twin sons in Haifa. The boys were playing in the yard when the attack occured. 'They were going to turn 7 next week', said their mother, devastated."

Fucking Assholes.
You were the prime hideout for the Nazi after the collapse of Hitler.
This took place under the time of the leftist dictatorship.

The US: indeed they made serious mistakes in Argentina during the Cold War.

Take care of your own business.

The Jews have learned the lesson. They do not pay the price for anyone.

Least of all for covering for the Nazi.

The policy of the left.

[Madrigal]

You were the prime hideout for the Nazi after the collapse of Hitler.
This took place under the time of the leftist dictatorship.

The US: indeed they made serious mistakes in Argentina during the Cold War.

Take care of your own business.

The Jews have learned the lesson. They do not pay the price for anyone.

Least of all for covering for the Nazi.

The policy of the left.
For the hundredth time, I'm not a Stalinist. Do you even know who killed Trotsky? Stop bringing up Stalinism every time there's a discussion about the fascist state of Israel. It's annoying. Also, if I'm such a huge jew-hater I wouldn't be a Trotskyist or love Woody Allen or a lot of other things. Please limit your input to justifying Zionist barbarity, if you must. But don't misrepresent my political opinions.

EDIT: On second thought I don't even know now if the "leftist dictatorship" you speak of was the Soviet Union or Peronism. Peron was not a leftist, he was a bourgeois general with a populist rhetoric and semi-fascist policies.

Just because the nazis came to Argentina during his govt. doesn't deny me the right to declare that Israel is a fascist state. Hypocrite.

[Lee]

I still say that they should all just kiss and make up.

*sings Imagine by John Lennon....*

Come on, let's all hold hands in a big circle and sing...

[Madrigal]

Come on, let's all hold hands in a big circle and sing...
No.

[tragula]

Obviously some people have very strong feelings, but that does not excuse illogical arguments, or being politically naive.

Those who excuse muslim hostility on the grounds that Israel has no right to exist are just fanning the flames of a dangerous conflict. It does exist, and there is no turning back the clock, especially considering that they have nuclear weapons (without starting WWIII, which would not be won by muslim nations.) The current escalation can in fact be traced directly back to the recent threatening comments by the Iranian leader.

Killing innocents, even "unintentionally" is morally reprehensible, and an inherent consequence of any culture that resorts to bombing.

But actually targeting innocents without any shame is even worse.

It's pretty clear to impartial observers that the big roadblock to peace is the unquenchable Muslim hatred of Jews. A hatred that is not rooted in political or economic or historical factors, but in the deeply intolerant and militant ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.

[Lee]

No.Spoilsport.

[attila_the_hunny]

Spoil sport.

I wanna hold your hand. :mellow:

[Heleuiski]

Obviously some people have very strong feelings, but that does not excuse illogical arguments, or being politically naive.

Those who excuse muslim hostility on the grounds that Israel has no right to exist are just fanning the flames of a dangerous conflict. It does exist, and there is no turning back the clock, especially considering that they have nuclear weapons (without starting WWIII, which would not be won by muslim nations.) The current escalation can in fact be traced directly back to the recent threatening comments by the Iranian leader.

Killing innocents, even "unintentionally" is morally reprehensible, and an inherent consequence of any culture that resorts to bombing.

But actually targeting innocents without any shame is even worse.

It's pretty clear to impartial observers that the big roadblock to peace is the unquenchable Muslim hatred of Jews. A hatred that is not rooted in political or economic or historical factors, but in the deeply intolerant and militant ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.

Good point.

But I'm with Madrigal. Stop it.. It's just a small poxy piece of land.

[zhang_bob]

I still say that they should all just kiss and make up.

*sings Imagine by John Lennon....*I am sorry you can not do that as it is anti-religious. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/5193816.stm)

[Heleuiski]

Zhang.. don't even go there!

I guess they won't be showing "The Life of Brian" anytime soon.

Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, fuck off!

Gotta love The Pythons.
:offtopic:

[wildcat]

For the hundredth time, I'm not a Stalinist. Do you even know who killed Trotsky? Stop bringing up Stalinism every time there's a discussion about the fascist state of Israel. It's annoying. Also, if I'm such a huge jew-hater I wouldn't be a Trotskyist or love Woody Allen or a lot of other things. Please limit your input to justifying Zionist barbarity, if you must. But don't misrepresent my political opinions.

EDIT: On second thought I don't even know now if the "leftist dictatorship" you speak of was the Soviet Union or Peronism. Peron was not a leftist, he was a bourgeois general with a populist rhetoric and semi-fascist policies.

Just because the nazis came to Argentina during his govt. doesn't deny me the right to declare that Israel is a fascist state. Hypocrite.
The only thing the Jews ever wanted was to live in peace and harmony in the land of their ancestors. They did not begin the war after the declaration of independence. The neighbouring countries did.
Israel was never the first perpetrator in a war.
Damn your prejudice. Learn history.

Edit: The popular legend is that a close relative of D. Ibarruri killed Trotsky. I do not believe a word of it. Koba enjoyed his jokes.

[Dr. Haight]

The only thing the Jews ever wanted was to live in peace and harmony in the land of their ancestors. They did not begin the war after the declaration of independence. The neighbouring countries did.
Israel was never the first perpetrator in a war.
Damn your prejudice. Learn history.
Word.

[charred_heart]

The only thing the Jews ever wanted was to live in peace and harmony in the land of their ancestors. They did not begin the war after the declaration of independence. The neighbouring countries did.
Israel was never the first perpetrator in a war.
Damn your prejudice. Learn history.whoah! They weren't indigenous to the region, so how exactly did they carry out this peaceful independence?

I've been reading up on Zionism, and found out that the motivation behind non-Jewish Zionists in Europe was an end to the "Jewish Problem". Talk about prejudice.

[immortalmack]

You know whats amazing. Israels ability or peoples tendency or the medias ability to divide people.

If we all stopped watching TV Israel prolly wouldnt have any friends.

[Claverhouse]

You are right comrade

The Battle of Gallipoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallipoli)

Are you implying the Turkish Empire was a people's resistance movement, composed of popular insurgents against stronger imperialists ?

Apart from the fact that the British made themselves weaker by landing in a stupid place and with British officers, against a well-equipped and disciplined great nation which had German Advisors...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[immortalmack]

whoah! They weren't indigenous to the region, so how exactly did they carry out this peaceful independence?

I've been reading up on Zionism, and found out that the motivation behind non-Jewish Zionists in Europe was an end to the "Jewish Problem". Talk about prejudice.

I agree 1000% they are Khazars. Thats the whole problem right there.

[LongSilence]

Since when has Israel had friends? Why do they have friends?

[venerationOFrabbits]

Since when has Israel had friends? Why do they have friends?

Correct, and with enabling friends like the USA, who needs enemies?

[Red_Goat]

Backing up the OP:

www.ifamericansknew.com/media/ap-report.html

[Heleuiski]

whoah! They weren't indigenous to the region, so how exactly did they carry out this peaceful independence?

I've been reading up on Zionism, and found out that the motivation behind non-Jewish Zionists in Europe was an end to the "Jewish Problem". Talk about prejudice.

:reading:
Correct.

[Dr. Haight]

whoah! They weren't indigenous to the region, so how exactly did they carry out this peaceful independence?

So, the twelve tribes of Israel never existed? I am not being confrontational, just curious as to your opinion on this matter.

[floid]

From a Native American perspective what you are calling "Jews" are Europeans of Jewish persuasion who drove the native Arabs off their land in the same way the Europeans of Christian persuasion drove the Native Americans out of their homelands.

By virtue of having been so long in the Diaspora and "westernized" the "Jews" who settled Israel were nothing more than invading Europeans who had suffered persecution at the hands of other Europeans, and were sent to colonize Palestine by other Europeans who were doing what Europeans have always done --- try to grab everything graspable and call it their own.

Most of North America, South America, and all of Israel are lands that have been occupied by the Europeans.

They should withdraw from all of them.

They are not, however, going to do that.

So the Arabs can fight the Europeans like my ancestors did for a while.
Or give up like my ancestors finally decided to do and give them all the rope they need to hang themselves one day.
Which, I believe, is not really all that far from happening.

[wildcat]

whoah! They weren't indigenous to the region, so how exactly did they carry out this peaceful independence?

I've been reading up on Zionism, and found out that the motivation behind non-Jewish Zionists in Europe was an end to the "Jewish Problem". Talk about prejudice.
Never rise up on the occasion. It is a but narrow path. Only for the brave ones.

[Heleuiski]

From a Native American perspective what you are calling "Jews" are Europeans of Jewish persuasion who drove the native Arabs off their land in the same way the Europeans of Christian persuasion drove the Native Americans out of their homelands.

By virtue of having been so long in the Diaspora and "westernized" the "Jews" who settled Israel were nothing more than invading Europeans who had suffered persecution at the hands of other Europeans, and were sent to colonize Palestine by other Europeans who were doing what Europeans have always done --- try to grab everything graspable and call it their own.

Most of North America, South America, and all of Israel are lands that have been occupied by the Europeans.

They should withdraw from all of them.

They are not, however, going to do that.

So the Arabs can fight the Europeans like my ancestors did for a while.
Or give up like my ancestors finally decided to do and give them all the rope they need to hang themselves one day.
Which, I believe, is not really all that far from happening.

That is a very good post. Can't really add anything to it.
And as for having enough rope to hang themselves, yes they have enough of that.

[charred_heart]

Are you implying the Turkish Empire was a people's resistance movement, composed of popular insurgents against stronger imperialists ?

Apart from the fact that the British made themselves weaker by landing in a stupid place and with British officers, against a well-equipped and disciplined great nation which had German Advisors...


Claverhouse :ph34r: Britian sent three of it's biggest battleships and lead a multi national force on the Ottomans.
The Ottomans by then had inferior weaponry and lacked a strong administration. The Allies would have won if it wasn't for one of the Ottoman general's anticipation of the anzac assault.


The Ottomans didn't win because of their superior weaponry or even by sheer force as both armies were more or less equal in numbers.

Their resistance inspite of their heavy losses indicates that their victory had more to do with the resolve of their soldiers than the (faded) might of the Ottoman empire.

The Ottomans lost everything four years later (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_of_Mudros), which tells you something about the state of their military strength.

[jon]

but but but.. I can't think about the zionist media when a typhoon is hitting china and things are CRITICAL in the UK.. and I hear the Iraq war is still going on (!).. so, after the commercial, can we get back to the things that really matter?

Hahaha, that was utterly perfect.

[charred_heart]

So, the twelve tribes of Israel never existed? I am not being confrontational, just curious as to your opinion on this matter.


Jews had maintained a connection with Palestine, both actual and spiritual, even after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135, when large numbers of Jews were exiled from Roman Palestine, the remains of their ancient national home. The Jewish community in Palestine revived and, under Muslim rule, is estimated to have numbered as many as 300,000 about 1000 AD, prior to the Crusades. The Crusaders killed most of the Jewish population of Palestine or forced them into exile, so that only about 1,000 families remained after the reconquest of Palestine by Saladin. The Jewish community in Palestine waxed and waned with the vicissitudes of conquest and economic hardship, and invitations by different Turkish rulers to displaced European Jews to settle in Tiberias and Hebron. At different times there were sizeable Jewish communities in Tiberias, Safed, Hebron and Jerusalem, and numbers of Jews living in Nablus and Gaza. A few original Jews remained in the town of Peki'in, families that had lived there continuously since ancient times.

http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm

So Jews did have a right to live in what was once Palestine, and the locals didn't mind. It was the forced destruction of Palestine that is the problem.

[Maniac]

So Jews did have a right to live in what was once Palestine, and the locals didn't mind. It was the forced destruction of Palestine that is the problem.

I suggest you read up on the 1920 Palestine riots, the 1929 Palestine riots, and the great uprising of 1936, all apparently started by the arab parties. In addition, if you look at the numbers back then, more jews were dying than arabs. So what do you suggest they were supposed to do? Sit back while the arabs killed them? You don't ask for a fight, and then complain when you get your nose busted. It makes you look inconsistent.

[songbird36]

From a Native American perspective what you are calling "Jews" are Europeans of Jewish persuasion who drove the native Arabs off their land in the same way the Europeans of Christian persuasion drove the Native Americans out of their homelands.

By virtue of having been so long in the Diaspora and "westernized" the "Jews" who settled Israel were nothing more than invading Europeans who had suffered persecution at the hands of other Europeans, and were sent to colonize Palestine by other Europeans who were doing what Europeans have always done --- try to grab everything graspable and call it their own.

Most of North America, South America, and all of Israel are lands that have been occupied by the Europeans.

They should withdraw from all of them.

They are not, however, going to do that.

So the Arabs can fight the Europeans like my ancestors did for a while.
Or give up like my ancestors finally decided to do and give them all the rope they need to hang themselves one day.
Which, I believe, is not really all that far from happening.

It's not as simple as this. In the minds of the protagonists to this conflict, the issue of whether Jews and Palestinians have the right to call themselves a "state" (or in the case of Palestinians, whether they have any kind of cohesive ethnic identity at all) is still very much a live issue.

I'm not denying the existence of a Palestinian ethnicity with historical claims to the territory now forming Israel, but I think it needs to be remembered that prior to the Balfour declaration in 1948 there was no firm concept of "Palestine" (just as there was no concept of Israel) and the area was inhabited by a number of disparate Arab populations; many of which held different beliefs and practices. Although the Romans originally coined the term "Palestine", there was no agreement about which territories it encompassed, or which populations.

In the same vein, Palestinians somewhat disingenuously deny the fact that Jerusalem was inhabited by Jews, or that Jews have any connection with Israel. Palestinian media and propaganda is full of such assertions (for example that the Temple of Soloman was built by Canaanite tribes).

It's all smoke and mirrors in my mind, with neither "side" having any particularly stronger claim than the other. What is sad is that there is much evidence that Jews, Arabs and Christians co-existed fairly peacefully in the area now known as Israel during the time of Roman occupation, until the Jews were driven from the holy lands by the Romans in AD135. Perhaps they need a common foe in order to return to harmony?

[SeierTapt]

:reading: :huh: :angry: :unsure: :(

[immortalmack]

So, the twelve tribes of Israel never existed? I am not being confrontational, just curious as to your opinion on this matter.
I think its really a question of relevancy.

That was over 3000 years ago.

[charred_heart]

I suggest you read up on the 1920 Palestine riots, the 1929 Palestine riots, and the great uprising of 1936, all apparently started by the arab parties. In addition, if you look at the numbers back then, more jews were dying than arabs. So what do you suggest they were supposed to do? Sit back while the arabs killed them? You don't ask for a fight, and then complain when you get your nose busted. It makes you look inconsistent.by then the plans were already set to dismantle Palestine.

[Maniac]

by then the plans were already set to dismantle Palestine.

Do you have some amazing ESP that not only allows you to prophesize about the future, but also to know the motivations of every action that has happened in the past? Or do you just limit your superpowers to the middle east? How can I acquire some of those powers?

Let me try... *sits in grasshopper positions * ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I sense.... I sense.... charred_heart is full of shit!

[charred_heart]

Do you have some amazing ESP that not only allows you to prophesize about the future, but also to know the motivations of every action that has happened in the past? Or do you just limit your superpowers to the middle east? How can I acquire some of those powers?

Let me try... *sits in grasshopper positions * ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I sense.... I sense.... charred_heart is full of shit!:rolleyes2:

I suggest further reading.

[Maniac]

:rolleyes2:

I suggest further reading.

What sources do you recommend for obviously unbiased information? MemriTV?

[charred_heart]

What sources do you recommend for obviously unbiased information? MemriTV?I am confident you can find the right sources on your own, as you have shown before.

[charred_heart]

It's all smoke and mirrors in my mind, with neither "side" having any particularly stronger claim than the other. What is sad is that there is much evidence that Jews, Arabs and Christians co-existed fairly peacefully in the area now known as Israel during the time of Roman occupation, until the Jews were driven from the holy lands by the Romans in AD135. Perhaps they need a common foe in order to return to harmony?uhhh... Islam didn't exist in AD135

[songbird36]

uhhh... Islam didn't exist in AD135

I'm not suggesting it did - but Arab populations inhabited the area around that time, as did Jewish and converted Christian populations.

Jews "in exile" continued to resettle in the holy lands throughout the second century, in a way which didn't appear to engender serious conflict with Arab populations.

It seems to me that the central issue here is forced resettlement of Jews - beginning with the Zionist movement in Europe in the late 19th century, and continuing after the creation of the state of Israel under zealots such as Golda Meir. Resettlement at gun point (thereby displacing other resident populations) is never going to be a recipe for peace and harmony.

[Dr. Haight]

So Jews did have a right to live in what was once Palestine, and the locals didn't mind. It was the forced destruction of Palestine that is the problem.
Cool. I agree, and that's what I hoped you would write.

[charred_heart]

I'm not suggesting it did - but Arab populations inhabited the area around that time, as did Jewish and converted Christian populations.

Jews "in exile" continued to resettle in the holy lands throughout the second century, in a way which didn't appear to engender serious conflict with Arab populations.I don't think... no, there were no arab tribes during that time

[attila_the_hunny]

What is sad is that there is much evidence that Jews, Arabs and Christians co-existed fairly peacefully in the area now known as Israel during the time of Roman occupation, until the Jews were driven from the holy lands by the Romans in AD135.


They were just ethnically Arab. Since Islam didn't sprout yet, they could have been followers of Judaism or even Christianity, which is why it was considered peaceful.
"Arab" doesn't equal Islamic believer in every case.

[Nighthawk]

I just wanted to thank you, charred_heart, for hanging in there with your perspective. As an American, I do not often get to hear the Muslim perspective of what is going on in the Middle East. I like hearing it, especially from mainstream Muslims in the world such as yourself. I fear the USA is making too many enemies and would like to do something ... at least one on one ... to rectify that.

During the course of my time in the military, I was fortunate enough to befriend officers from many different countries. Some of my fondest friends from other militaries were Egyptian, Lebanese, and Israeli. I often wonder about them ... hoping they and their families are doing well in the face of all this turmoil.

Different sides ... different viewpoints. Much can be learned by listening to both sides. Perhaps even a solution ... as difficult and distant as that may seem.

[Dr. Haight]

What... am I the only one that watches al jazeera around here?

[songbird36]

They were just ethnically Arab. Since Islam didn't sprout yet, they could have been followers of Judaism or even Christianity, which is why it was considered peaceful.
"Arab" doesn't equal Islamic believer in every case.

I never suggested it did - CH put that complexion on the word "Arab". There were Arab populations in the holy lands in Roman times which were ethnically different from the Jewish tribes. It is on this basis that the nation now calling itself "Palestine" claims an uninterrupted historical occupation of the holy lands, and thereby asserts its superiority over the Jewish claim.

[charred_heart]

They were just ethnically Arab. Since Islam didn't sprout yet, they could have been followers of Judaism or even Christianity, which is why it was considered peaceful.
"Arab" doesn't equal Islamic believer in every case. arabs as in communities or individuals? I don't think there was an arab presence outside of arabia at that time.

[charred_heart]

I never suggested it did - CH put that complexion on the word "Arab". There were Arab populations in the holy lands in Roman times which were ethnically different from the Jewish tribes. It is on this basis that the nation now calling itself "Palestine" claims an uninterrupted historical occupation of the holy lands, and thereby asserts its superiority over the Jewish claim.no. The arab claim to Palestine comes from the conquest of the roman territory of Palestinea.

[charred_heart]

I just wanted to thank you, charred_heart, for hanging in there with your perspective. As an American, I do not often get to hear the Muslim perspective of what is going on in the Middle East. I like hearing it, especially from mainstream Muslims in the world such as yourself. I fear the USA is making too many enemies and would like to do something ... at least one on one ... to rectify that.

During the course of my time in the military, I was fortunate enough to befriend officers from many different countries. Some of my fondest friends from other militaries were Egyptian, Lebanese, and Israeli. I often wonder about them ... hoping they and their families are doing well in the face of all this turmoil.

Different sides ... different viewpoints. Much can be learned by listening to both sides. Perhaps even a solution ... as difficult and distant as that may seem.wise words. I hope someone figures this out before it's too late.

Right now, every arab is in a spot where they have to make a choice. Israel's actions are making it harder to think of peace. I bet the Israelis feel the same way about the arabs.

[Nighthawk]

What... am I the only one that watches al jazeera around here?

I try to catch it ... but my viewings are few and far between.

[songbird36]

arabs as in communities or individuals? I don't think there was an arab presence outside of arabia at that time.

You're correct that most of the Arab occupation coincided with the rise of Islam, but long before that there were distinct pockets of Arab populations in the area - such as the Bedouins and the Nabateans. Any web site on Palestinian heritage will confirm this.

[wildcat]

I'm not suggesting it did - but Arab populations inhabited the area around that time, as did Jewish and converted Christian populations.

Jews "in exile" continued to resettle in the holy lands throughout the second century, in a way which didn't appear to engender serious conflict with Arab populations.

It seems to me that the central issue here is forced resettlement of Jews - beginning with the Zionist movement in Europe in the late 19th century, and continuing after the creation of the state of Israel under zealots such as Golda Meir. Resettlement at gun point (thereby displacing other resident populations) is never going to be a recipe for peace and harmony.
The zionists may be guilty of exaggeration in their national narrative.
Though less than other nations in history.

Hence their account is not altogether make believe.

The Jews are a product of an advanced culture.

They are a people deeply rooted in the European Jewish-Christian tradition of honesty.

[Heleuiski]

I just wanted to thank you, charred_heart, for hanging in there with your perspective. As an American, I do not often get to hear the Muslim perspective of what is going on in the Middle East. I like hearing it, especially from mainstream Muslims in the world such as yourself. I fear the USA is making too many enemies and would like to do something ... at least one on one ... to rectify that.

During the course of my time in the military, I was fortunate enough to befriend officers from many different countries. Some of my fondest friends from other militaries were Egyptian, Lebanese, and Israeli. I often wonder about them ... hoping they and their families are doing well in the face of all this turmoil.

Different sides ... different viewpoints. Much can be learned by listening to both sides. Perhaps even a solution ... as difficult and distant as that may seem.

Yes respect to you CH. You get called a terrorist, get told you are full of crap, and still you hang out here with us infidels. Frankly some of the stuff that gets said... I'm embarassed and hang my head in shame.

Much kudos to you my friend.

[attila_the_hunny]

arabs as in communities or individuals? I don't think there was an arab presence outside of arabia at that time.

I was pretty much focusing on the differences of the word "Arab."
I also don't think I can answer this question properly without bringing in religious figures like Ishmael.

[songbird36]

The zionists may be guilty of exaggeration in their national narrative.
Though less than other nations in history.

Hence their account is not altogether make believe.

The Jews are a product of an advanced culture.

They are a people deeply rooted in the European Jewish-Christian tradition of honesty.

They are also people who can claim a historical lineage back to the seven tribes of Judea and Samaria (regardless of the fact that later generations may have been born and bred in Europe). Their links to the holy lands are clear (as are the links of the Palestinian peoples). This is what makes the situation so difficult.

[charred_heart]

You're correct that most of the Arab occupation coincided with the rise of Islam, but long before that there were distinct pockets of Arab populations in the area - such as the Bedouins and the Nabateans. Any web site on Palestinian heritage will confirm this.the Nabateans? I think they lived in Jordan. Actually, few Palestinians are aware of the roman campaigns against Judea in AD135 and the fact that their land was named by the Romans.

[charred_heart]

I was pretty much focusing on the differences of the word "Arab."
I also don't think I can answer this question properly without bringing in religious figures like Ishmael.Ishmael and his mother Hagar? They were sent to the arabian desert, it is claimed that mecca is the site where the prophet Abraham left them.

[kuranes]

How significant is the year 1948 in all of these facts regarding historical claims ? I read something the other day that I thought might be relevant, regarding this, but if the main focus is on much earlier times, than perhaps it is not.

[Maniac]

I'm embarassed and hang my head in shame.

So do I, when people who lie and provide unsubstantiated claims are sympathized.

[attila_the_hunny]

Ishmael and his mother Hagar? They were sent to the arabian desert, it is claimed that mecca is the site where the prophet Abraham left them.

Ishmael had twelve sons that became leaders of twelve Arab tribes. Did they all just stay in Arabia?
I'm not arguing where they were, just saying that just because you're Arab doesn't necessarily mean that you're Islamic. So if at one point Jews and Arabs got along, it was probably because Islam hadn't been introduced into the picture.

[charred_heart]

Ishmael had twelve sons that became leaders of twelve Arab tribes. Did they all just stay in Arabia?
I'm not arguing where they were, just saying that just because you're Arab doesn't necessarily mean that you're Islamic. So if at one point Jews and Arabs got along, it was probably because Islam hadn't been introduced into the picture.muslims and jews didn't fight before the 20th century ...?

[Madrigal]

Right now, every arab is in a spot where they have to make a choice.
This is a pretty interesting statement; what choices do they see for themselves? By the way, I forgot where you're living right now, exactly. What kinds of conversations do you have with people over there? Do you know anyone who has decided to change their life radically, or who has been forced to change their life as a result of the current crisis?

[INThoughtPolice]

I don't think military might is any match for a heroic and advanced popular resistance movement. It all depends on too many factors, we can't really answer an abstract question like that. I'm just saying it isn't impossible to defeat Israel, despite it's powerful allies. Hey, the US is still crying over Vietnam.

EDIT: Okay, my next thread will be about Borges.
Heroic and advanced popular resistance movement? Euphamism for terrorist groups.

Israel is defending itself in a conflict that Hezbollah initiated. Provide evidence of genocide. Provide evidence that Israel wishes to conquer the Middle East. You can't. Israel wants peace within its borders. Leave them alone.

I hope the entire Middle East arab community sets those assholes ablaze.(from thread The Lebanon)

P.S. You sound like a Nazi to me.

[bclark619g]

Hezbollah has been in Lebanon for a long time. What have they done to benefit Lebanon?

The average person in the Middle East, casting religion aside for the moment, probably wants what the average person in the United States wants. Which is to live in peace, have a good job, so they can provide a better education for their children and a better standard of living.

How is the standard of living improved for the people of Lebanon when a minority political group starts firing rockets at Israel? Or any other country? The answer is it isn't. Would the United States tolerate it if Mexico started shelling California because they want it back? No. That is not the best way for nations to cooperate with each other.

Sometimes it is necessary for the peaceful man to go to war to prove that he is a peaceful man. (I can't remember who said that.)

To claim that Hezbollah is "heroic" is a curious statement. I suppose, using the same standard, the terrorists involved in 911 are also "heroic".

Should every government stand by and let rockets be fired at their citizens? Who is supposed to protect the citizens?

Every nationality on this planet can claim to have been displaced from their native soil. Does this mean it is okay for anyone to make war in the name of reclaiming their native land?

For a group of people, who are supposed to be able to see the big picture, to figure out how things fit together, and to be open to various alternatives and perspectives, this thread is a shining example of how difficult it is to find intelligent discourse in the world today. I am ashamed to be associated with many of the people in this group. I thought INTP Central would be a different experience because of the common bond of our INTP temperament. Boy, was I wrong again!

Perhaps some good will come from this thread. Learning that INTP's can be just as stupid as anyone else is a good lesson for me. Reinforces the 99% rule: 99% of people are sheep.

So carry on with your blathering. Perhaps this thread will be moved to The Classics to be immortalized with the other drivel that preceeded it.

Oh, I do apologize to those of you who are offended by the fact that I am relatively new to INTP Central. I realize that the most important thing on this forum is the total number of posts a person has made. My forty-four years of surviving on this planet count for nothing here.

[Dom]

Oh, I do apologize to those of you who are offended by the fact that I am relatively new to INTP Central. I realize that the most important thing on this forum is the total number of posts a person has made. My forty-four years of surviving on this planet count for nothing here.

Who told you that?

[Dom]

Ishmael had twelve sons that became leaders of twelve Arab tribes. Did they all just stay in Arabia?
I'm not arguing where they were, just saying that just because you're Arab doesn't necessarily mean that you're Islamic. So if at one point Jews and Arabs got along, it was probably because Islam hadn't been introduced into the picture.


Did they ever get along?

If you chart the history Pre Islam,

You have the Hewbrews, coming out of Eygpt and kicking the Caanites ass....

Jews vs Arabs....

You then have the Babilonian and Persian Empire kick Isreal's ass.... Arab vs Jew???

When ever Isreal existed it had/caused trouble with its neighbours.... even before Islam turned up....

[charred_heart]

This is a pretty interesting statement; what choices do they see for themselves? By the way, I forgot where you're living right now, exactly. What kinds of conversations do you have with people over there? Do you know anyone who has decided to change their life radically, or who has been forced to change their life as a result of the current crisis?The choices arabs see for themeselves: build a defence against Israel, or do nothing and hope for peace.

I don't live close to the conflict zone, I'm currently in the UAE. People are mostly talking about how Israel can basically do whatever it wants right now, and that things could get very dangerous for the arabs if they don't act.

[charred_heart]

Did they ever get along?

If you chart the history Pre Islam,

You have the Hewbrews, coming out of Eygpt and kicking the Caanites ass....

Jews vs Arabs....

You then have the Babilonian and Persian Empire kick Isreal's ass.... Arab vs Jew???

When ever Isreal existed it had/caused trouble with its neighbours.... even before Islam turned up....that sounds a little racist, unless you didn't know that the Babylonians, Persians and Canaanites were different races?

Jus to clarify, there were no arabs in the area that was inhabited by the Jews till the muslim conquests. Interestingly, there were very few Jews in the same area when the muslims came, since the Romans expelled most of them to different parts of the Roman empire. It could explain why the name of the land remained Palestine, since only Roman subjects lived there. Muslims reverted the countries conquered by the Romans to their original names after wresting them from Roman control.

[Dom]

The choices arabs see for themeselves: build a defence against Israel, or do nothing and hope for peace.

I don't live close to the conflict zone, I'm currently in the UAE. People are mostly talking about how Israel can basically do whatever it wants right now, and that things could get very dangerous for the arabs if they don't act.

Do these Arabs, see groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as part of that defence or sepperate from their own attempts to find a peace?

[Dom]

that sounds a little racist, unless you didn't know that the Babylonians, Persians and Canaanites were different races?

Jus to clarify, there were no arabs in the area that was inhabited by the Jews till the muslim conquests. Interestingly, there were very few Jews in the same area when the muslims came, since the Romans expelled most of them to different parts of the Roman empire. It could explain why the name of the land remained Palestine, since only Roman subjects lived there. Muslims reverted the countries conquered by the Romans to their original names after wresting them from Roman control.

I presumed them to be empires and nations of roughly similar racial stock as the modern nations occuping the same area tend to all be called Arabs. I do not pretend to know the differences, are Iranians (Perisa) a different race from the Iraqi's (Babylon)? After all please remember that the British and the French are the same Race, different Nations of the same race....

If there were no Arabs in the area, where did they come from? Where did the sons of Ishmael go? (By area I'm refering to the whoel middle east, as you've informed me that the Persians and Babylonians are not the modern Arabs ancestors?)

Only Roman subjects is a usless term as this included a thousands races.... Including Ancient Briton's and Ancient Arabs.

[charred_heart]

Do these Arabs, see groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as part of that defence or sepperate from their own attempts to find a peace?no, they're thinking about something bigger than Hezbollah and Hamas. People want to see the arab countries regroup, prepare some proper armies and wage war on Israel. They see the terrorist groups as a road block to that.

[charred_heart]

I presumed them to be empires and nations of roughly similar racial stock as the modern nations occuping the same area tend to all be called Arabs. I do not pretend to know the differences, are Iranians (Perisa) a different race from the Iraqi's (Babylon)? After all please remember that the British and the French are the same Race, different Nations of the same race....

If there were no Arabs in the area, where did they come from? Where did the sons of Ishmael go? (By area I'm refering to the whoel middle east, as you've informed me that the Persians and Babylonians are not the modern Arabs ancestors?)

The arabs lived in arabia - what is now Saudi Arabia. They were a collection of nomad tribes and villagers. Mekka was the city where these tribes held annual gatherings together, doing business and passing laws.
The rest of the middle east was not part of arab territory. The Persian and Babylonian Empires were entirely different people with their own history. The Persians have a mixed Arian / central Asian ancestry, the Babylonians shared the same lineage.


Only Roman subjects is a usless term as this included a thousands races.... Including Ancient Briton's and Ancient Arabs.exactly. If the jews had returned to lay claim to their land then, they would have got it since the muslims did not settle right away - they were interested in securing Jerusalem for muslim pilgrims and giving independence to land occupied by Rome.

[attila_the_hunny]

Did they ever get along?

If you chart the history Pre Islam,

You have the Hewbrews, coming out of Eygpt and kicking the Caanites ass....

Jews vs Arabs....

You then have the Babilonian and Persian Empire kick Isreal's ass.... Arab vs Jew???

When ever Isreal existed it had/caused trouble with its neighbours.... even before Islam turned up....

Religiously, they're never gotten along. The Bible pretty much casted Ishmael aside and favored Issac. Muslims and Jews don't doubt this, but Islam believes Ishmael is the heir, and Jews believe Isaac is...which kind of sets a stage.
They each believe that the land belongs to them either through one or the other. While I don't think that they were meant to be buddy-buddy, I don't think they were meant to blow each other up, either.
The Jews pretty much lost their land to Roman Empire. They haven't owned the land since then. Jews attempted a revolt in 132-136, but they were unsuccessful. This is when was Palestine formed. They also attempt to end foreign rule in 351, but were also unsuccessful. There was an attempt by Jews to restore their nation in 633-637, but Arabs conquered at that time, followed by the Crusaders and Mongol invasions. Jewish agricultural settlements started around 1871-1882. Pretty much from 1260-1917 is when the Egyptians and Turks pwn teh land.

[Toonia]

no, they're thinking about something bigger than Hezbollah and Hamas. People want to see the arab countries regroup, prepare some proper armies and wage war on Israel. They see the terrorist groups as a road block to that.I've been cautious to form opinions about this conflict because my life is so far removed and most of the info I get is from the media. In reading through this thread I especially appreciate your comments charred_heart because you understand it better and present your ideas in a completely level-headed manner. When people use sensational language to express their ideas about a conflict I tend to dismiss their thoughts because they are not operating with rationality (whether they happen to be right or not).

What are your thoughts on how this conflict should be resolved? Do you think a war is necessary?

[charred_heart]

Religiously, they're never gotten along. The Bible pretty much casted Ishmael aside and favored Issac. Muslims and Jews don't doubt this, but Islam believes Ishmael is the heir, and Jews believe Isaac is...which kind of sets a stage.
They each believe that the land belongs to them either through one or the other. While I don't think that they were meant to be buddy-buddy, I don't think they were meant to blow each other up, either.

The Palestinians believe the land belongs to them because they've lived there since before they can remember. The religious thing is an emotional effort imo to lay claim to the land. It's much simpler to look at it from a historical perspective.

[charred_heart]

I've been cautious to form opinions about this conflict because my life is so far removed and most of the info I get is from the media. In reading through this thread I especially appreciate your comments charred_heart because you understand it better and present your ideas in a completely level-headed manner. When people use sensational language to express their ideas about a conflict I tend to dismiss their thoughts because they are not operating with rationality (whether they happen to be right or not).

What are your thoughts on how this conflict should be resolved? Do you think a war is necessary?I think defense forces against Israel are necessary. An end to terrorist groups is also necessary, although not all arabs agree and I believe what happens to the Palestinians and the Lebanese influences their judgement in this matter. A war would ultimately end the stalemate that's going on right now.

[Serotonin]

The Palestinians believe the land belongs to them because they've lived there since before they can remember. The religious thing is an emotional effort imo to lay claim to the land. It's much simpler to look at it from a historical perspective.

Is it true that most Arabs (esp Palestinians) believe that they cannot have respite until Israel doesn't exist? Is there any way the Arab world can accede to Israel's existence?

[charred_heart]

Is it true that most Arabs (esp Palestinians) believe that they cannot have respite until Israel doesn't exist? Is there any way the Arab world can accede to Israel's existence?It's mostly the fear that they will continue to oppress the Palestinians and maybe expand that fuels this idea. There is a religious side to it.
The prophet Mohamed said to his followers that a time will come when the muslims will be many but they will be without strength. When that time came the Jews will rise in the world and will conquer land from the nile to the Euphrates. The muslims will lose many battles, till one final battle when they are at their weakest they will be victorious. When this battle is won, Judgement day will be nearing it's time.

The ultra religious want to keep fighting and losing till that one last battle. The rest will not have peace until they are assured that the Palestinians have enough land for them and that Israel will recognise this and cease settlements / raids / etc.

[Dom]

no, they're thinking about something bigger than Hezbollah and Hamas. People want to see the arab countries regroup, prepare some proper armies and wage war on Israel. They see the terrorist groups as a road block to that.

regroup?? As a united front? Aka Saladin?

[Dom]

Religiously, they're never gotten along. The Bible pretty much casted Ishmael aside and favored Issac. Muslims and Jews don't doubt this, but Islam believes Ishmael is the heir, and Jews believe Isaac is...which kind of sets a stage.
They each believe that the land belongs to them either through one or the other. While I don't think that they were meant to be buddy-buddy, I don't think they were meant to blow each other up, either.
The Jews pretty much lost their land to Roman Empire. They haven't owned the land since then. Jews attempted a revolt in 132-136, but they were unsuccessful. This is when was Palestine formed. They also attempt to end foreign rule in 351, but were also unsuccessful. There was an attempt by Jews to restore their nation in 633-637, but Arabs conquered at that time, followed by the Crusaders and Mongol invasions. Jewish agricultural settlements started around 1871-1882. Pretty much from 1260-1917 is when the Egyptians and Turks pwn teh land.

To be honest my history of the area itself is hazy between Alexander, and the Romans, Did the Jew rule then or was it held by one of the three Post Alexander Greek Empires (Ptolemy, Seculid, Macedonian I think they were...)? I didn't think the Jew had ruled their own nation and land since the Persians took them?

Oh and thanks for the little typo's! Makes me finally feel accepted and at home..... ;)

[Toonia]

I realize this is a bit pie in the sky, polyanna style thinking, but from the bit I understand, I wish that area could be ruled by group of elected Israeli and Palestinian representatives in equal numbers and be a joint state. Since money talks, limiting government funding and grants to collaborative efforts that involve both Israeli and Palestinians could help? Also, having every terrorist act prosecuted as crime before a court comprised of equal numbers of Palestinians and Israelis. These ideals break down when hatred and violence are too prevalent.

Whenever dealing with masses of people it is not possible to undo what has been done. As a general philosophy I don't believe in trying to force a mass of people within boundaries or impose any absolutes on them. Most of the human travesties in history attempted to do this very thing. It always seems better to observe the natural tendencies of the masses and accomodate accordingly to gain the best interest of everyone. Anything else is like fighting the tide when it comes in - it creates frustration and wasted energy. (I don't know how this applies to the I-P conflict in its details.)

[charred_heart]

regroup?? As a united front? Aka Saladin?anything's possible. People cannot see how the arabs can negotiate peace when they're down on their knees. If they can show that they pose at least a moderate threat, then the Israelis will have an incentive to have peace talks. Otherwise it's called terms of surrender.

[Serotonin]

The ultra religious want to keep fighting and losing till that one last battle. The rest will not have peace until they are assured that the Palestinians have enough land for them and that Israel will recognise this and cease settlements / raids / etc.

I don't think Israel has had a policy of aggressive settlement since the Begin years. If anything they've been evacuating. Gaza last year, Lebanon in 2000 etc. As for raids, I can't see any that are imperialist. Israel will never own, for example, any land that is part of Saudi Arabia or the UAE or any other valued muslim/arab land. I doubt they are interested in keeping the land that they have incurred in Lebanon in the past month, but time will tell.

in short, Israel isn't as much of a threat as I think most arabs perceive it to be. As for land for the Palestinians, much stickier issue. It depends how well (and independently) the Hamas government can deliver to it's people.

[attila_the_hunny]

To be honest my history of the area itself is hazy between Alexander, and the Romans, Did the Jew rule then or was it held by one of the three Post Alexander Greek Empires (Ptolemy, Seculid, Macedonian I think they were...)? I didn't think the Jew had ruled their own nation and land since the Persians took them?

They has control after the Greeks, but it was during a civil war between Hyrkanus and Aristobulus when Pompei came in and put an end to any Jewish reign.

[charred_heart]

I don't think Israel has had a policy of aggressive settlement since the Begin years. If anything they've been evacuating. Gaza last year,they transferred them to the West Bank.

The question is not whether they have it in mind to go after more land, it's who can stop them?

[Serotonin]

The question is not whether they have it in mind to go after more land, it's who can stop them?

That's dreadfully alarmist thinking. :mellow:

[charred_heart]

That's dreadfully alarmist thinking. :mellow:yeah, hearing about a thousand dead in less than a month does that to a person.

[Dom]

they transferred them to the West Bank.

The question is not whether they have it in mind to go after more land, it's who can stop them?

Is that the question? You don't need to know who will stop them if they aren't coming...

But I agree thats alot of faith....

It's about time us in the west addressed the balance a little... While an Isreal that didn't feel secure would be bad, so to is an arab world that feels insecure...

[immortalmack]

Is that the question? You don't need to know who will stop them if they aren't coming...

But I agree thats alot of faith....

It's about time us in the west addressed the balance a little... While an Isreal that didn't feel secure would be bad, so to is an arab world that feels insecure...

If Arab societies cut down on the extremism and hostilies and went ahead and developed their nations they wouldnt have to worry about feeling secure.

[charred_heart]

If Arab societies cut down on the extremism and hostilies and went ahead and developed their nations they wouldnt have to worry about feeling secure.you're right.

[immortalmack]

I read the history of lebanon a few weeks ago and I believe it said that Hezballah were actually displaced palistineans. If that is the case then I would try to get it back too.Especially if you never can legally melt into lebanese society,always an outsider, language different schooling and housing options are bleek. Yea that would make me want to resist too. (http://www.lgic.org/en/history.php)

[charred_heart]

I read the history of lebanon a few weeks ago and I believe it said that Hezballah were actually displaced palistineans. If that is the case then I would try to get it back too.Especially if you never can legally melt into lebanese society,always an outsider, language different schooling and housing options are bleek. Yea that would make me want to resist too. (http://www.lgic.org/en/history.php)The PLO were in lebanon in 1982, but Hezbollah are Lebanese

[immortalmack]

The PLO were in lebanon in 1982, but Hezbollah are Lebanese

So hezbollah are not Palisteneans?

(sorry for my spelling I'm at work typing 500 miles per minute)

[Hustler]

If Arab societies cut down on the extremism and hostilies and went ahead and developed their nations they wouldnt have to worry about feeling secure.

Yes, that appears to be working in the UAE. Slowly but surely.

[immortalmack]

Yes, that appears to be working in the UAE. Slowly but surely.


Yes! "Make money not politics"

[charred_heart]

Yes, that appears to be working in the UAE. Slowly but surely.everyone, he's not being sarcastic.

[omnirook]

The Middle East has been a troubled area for thousands of years, long before there were any Jews and Muslims.

It was a troubled area when Egyptian pharoahs had either to fight wars or engage in complex diplomacy to secure Egypt, for 2 thousand years the richest and most powerful nation in the region, a super power. (China was the only thing comparable, and neither even knew of the other's existence.)

It was not until the reign of Siptah of the 19th Dynasty that a single reference to a people called the "Hebrai" was made in Egyptian records. They were included among the quarrelsome nomadic, sheep-herding peoples that roamed the Levant, who gathered periodically to worship at the Ka'ba - the giant black rock that is still sacred to Muslims, but which, back then, was home to the cult of a moon goddess. To the Egyptians - and to modern scholars - the "Hebrai" - the Hebrews - were ARABS. Their language, Hebrew, is a Semitic language - as is Arabic. Any foreigner seeing either an Hebrai or a Caanite or a Jessobite (Jesbosolem - Jerusalem - was their home) or members of any of the hundreds of other tribes would have been hard put to see any difference between them - as is anyone who takes a casual look at an Englishman and an Irishman standing side by side today.

(My English mother could spot an Irishman at an amazing distance - and, sure enough, as soon as the fellow approached and opened his hole, out came an Irish accent. My German brother-in-law cannot tell the difference between English and Irish and Australian accents, but he can differentiate an American accent. He puts that down to years of my sister's yelling at him: "I know what New York sounds like - especially once per month." No matter the weather, at that time of the month, my brother-in-law can be found at the beach, fishing, my neice w/him, baiting the lines. "If I don't do what she wants, I am wrong. If I do what she wants, I am wrong. No matter what I do, I am wrong." "So ist sie eban - jetz, immer nicht" is my reply - "That's the way that she is - for now, not always.")

Over the next millenium, w/God-only-knows how many wars and truces and re-newed wars and further truces, slowly a people who were the Jews of the Bible emerged, gradually forging their monotheistic religion from their original polytheistic religion.

By then, an Indo-European people, the Philistines, had arrived on the scene. The Egyptians had managed to repulse these "Sea Peoples," as the Egyptians called them - strange foreigners who had come from across the sea. So, the Sea Peoples headed east and landed among the Jews. These Philistines were the ancestors of today's Palestinians. The Palestinians were not originally a Semitic people; they did not originally speak Arabic but spoke an Indo-European language, related to Hittite and Mittani. The Philistines quickly established their presence and power and went on to mate w/the Semitic locals - all but the monotheistic Hebrews. Warfare between the Philistines and the Jews was quick to come and endured for centuries, no matter what foreign empire tried to impose peace between them.

Fed up w/the trouble in Palestine - what it was called by then - the Persians rounded up and deported nearly all of the Jews. The Jews had so differentiated themselves from the rest of the more numerous people living in the area by this point that moving them seemed easier. This was the first Diaspora. (The Persians were Indo-European and probably had a greater sympathy for the Philistines, even if they had become more Semitic than Indo-European.)

Over time, the few remaining Jews in Palestine increased in number, and many who had been exiled were eventually and gradually allowed to "go home." By time the Romans were on the scene, the Jews in Palestine had grown in number to match the non-Jews in Palestine. Then history was affected by individuals, as it has so often been. An Edumean prince, Herod, whose family had adopted Judaism (sort of), won first the favor and then the friendship of Julius Caesar. Caesar made this Edumaen prince the "King of the Jews" and gave him suzzerainity over the whole area. Herod the Great was a great prince indeed. Under him, the area was so tightly controlled and the fighting so quickly stopped that Palestine became prosperous for the first time in a millennium. Herod built up Jerusalem to such a point that even the Romans were impressed w/its grandeur and beauty. A wily fellow, Herod was able to secure and enjoy in succession the favor of Julius Caesar, Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and, most importantly, Octavian Caesar (Augustus).

Herod's greatness was too singular, too personal. His sons were not able to maintain his program of keeping peace, increasing prosperity, and keeping the Romans happy. Eventually, one by one, Herod's sons lost favor and were deposed. Rome sent in a Roman govenor and attempted to do in Palestine what had so successfully been done elsewhere - Romanize. It did not work.

W/in a few imperial reigns, it had become clear to Rome that Palestine could not be made a true Roman province. The warring that had gone on for millennia had been only briefly interrupted while Herod the Great was king. As soon as Herod was in his casket, the trouble started all over again. Nero sent his best general, Vespasian, to crush Palestine and return it to the desert from which it had been carved.

Vespasian was a typical Roman general - pragmatic to the final degree. He marched in and systematically laid waste to the whole of Palestine. He saved up Jerusalem for last - block by block it was torn down. Its inhabitants were rounded up, counted, and transported to Rome's slave markets. Herod's great temple was knocked in on itself and set on fire - after all its treasures had been carted off. (These would be used to build the Colliseum - as would the Jewish slaves who had lived in Jerusalem. This was the Second Diaspora.)

Then another stroke of luck - Nero was deposed - Rome was torn by civil war - Vespasian left and headed to Italy, where he became Emporer. He left Palestine to lick its terrible wounds. A traveler passing through after Vespasian had sailed home would have understood just what Vespasian had intended but not quite finished - desolation. One could go for days and not see a person on the furthest horizon. Town after town had been burned and leveled. The wells had been poisoned, the cattle had been consumed by Rome's legions. Every sign of civilization was gone. All that was left were - the Palestinian nomads, who, over the next many centuries, would re-claim Palestine and bring back some semblance of culture and human life. They even eventually began to rebuild Jerusalem.

What happened to the Jews? A few had hung on in the hills, hiding from the advancing Roman army. Over time, they settled again and lived side by side w/the Palestinians, on vastly more friendly terms, intermarrying w/them, getting along w/them.

Then came the Prophet; then came Islam. The Muslims conquered the whole of the Middle East, most of North Africa, and made alarming - for the Europeans - advances into Europe. The wasteland of Palestine was simply added to the Muslim Empire and remained a part of it and its successor states down to the modern era.

What of the Jews? They were first slaves all over the Roman Empire. Gradually, many earned their freedom. Always tolerant, the Romans allowed them to keep their religion. Jewish places of worship were opened even in Rome itself. The Semitic Jews intermarried w/the Indo-European Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, and Slavs that inhabited Europe. Eventually, they became - Indo-Europeans.

Here we have a fascinating reversal: the Indo-European Philistines gradually became Semitic; the Semitic Hebrews gradually became Indo-European. The Jews who "returned" to Palestine after the Holocaust were no more Semitic than the Palestinians who lived in Palestine were Indo-European. For nearly 2 millennia, the Jews of the Second Diaspora lived in Europe, mostly getting along w/the Europeans, occasionally suffering at their hands. Then there was the Holocaust. After the NAZI's were defeated, the remaining Jews were eager to get out of Europe, to "return" to the land of their ancestors. And that was where this latest round of trouble got its start.

The whole thing was mis-begotten. The very idea that you could dump down millions of EUROPEANS in Palestine and not have trouble was absurd. From the get, Britain and the US - the main powers behind the move - should have understood that doing this was asking for trouble. It was arrogant and cruel beyond belief to expect the Palestinians simply to hand over what they had come to see as their land. It had been their land since Vespasian had sailed home in 69 AD - nearly 2 thousand years before. No, the idea was ludicrous. Only a superpower w/an over-inflated estimation of its abilities could have done it. America's great weakness - one that the Romans had never suffered from - is this ridiculous notion that the whole world wants to be just like us - that our way of being is God's own way of being and that others are going to "benefit" from it, even if we have to ram it down their throats. Thousands of years of history tell us that Arabs like to have strong leaders, do not like the idea of "democracy" (= oligarchy of the monied class, joshing the plebs that their opinion matters). That's what the Arabs want - why shouldn't they have it?

What should have been done in Palestine? Nothing. The Jews of Europe should have been told "No - you're European. Sorry for the horror; we'll try to do better, but, no, you must stay here and integrate. Period."

What might have been tried in Palestine? OK - from the get - 2 countries w/Jerusalem as a third, independent city state, its independence guaranteed by American and European troops, access to it by Jews, Muslims, and Christians assured. Money to resettle for both the incoming Europeans and the already there Semites. Troops to keep the peace. Neither side allowed to have an army. Massive investment in infrastructure for both the Jews and the Muslims. Every Muslim who was being ASKED to move would have been paid a large sum to do so, w/American or British troops to cart and guard his belongings as he went. This would not have been perfect, but perhaps there would be fewer suicide bombers today!

[charred_heart]

By then, an Indo-European people, the Philistines, had arrived on the scene. The Egyptians had managed to repulse these "Sea Peoples," as the Egyptians called them - strange foreigners who had come from across the sea. So, the Sea Peoples headed east and landed among the Jews. These Philistines were the ancestors of today's Palestinians. The Palestinians were not originally a Semitic people; they did not originally speak Arabic but spoke an Indo-European language, related to Hittite and Mittani. The Philistines quickly established their presence and power and went on to mate w/the Semitic locals - all but the monotheistic Hebrews. Warfare between the Philistines and the Jews was quick to come and endured for centuries, no matter what foreign empire tried to impose peace between them.How did you make that connection when most Palestinians can trace their ancestry to old Yemeni and Jordanian tribes?

You are just guessing. The Romans called the country Palestinea as an insult to the Jews after conquering them and exiling them from their land.
The muslims having no knowledge of this previous history, gathered that the inhabitants didn't mind the name and left it as it is.

[sbw]

2 countries w/Jerusalem as a third, independent city state, its independence guaranteed by American and European troops, access to it by Jews, Muslims, and Christians assured.

jon stewart had a very similar idea the other night on his show.

and, thank you for the cliff notes, even if you are "just guessing" :joft:

Scott

[omnirook]

How did you make that connection when most Palestinians can trace their ancestry to old Yemeni and Jordanian tribes?

You are just guessing. The Romans called the country Palestinea as an insult to the Jews after conquering them and exiling them from their land.
The muslims having no knowledge of this previous history, gathered that the inhabitants didn't mind the name and left it as it is.
I am giving a broad overview. That the Philistines were Indo-European has been established by linguists. That they gradually intermingled w/the Semitic inhabitants that were there when they arrived is not a hard "guess" to make. The land has had many names. If you do not care for the idea that "Palestine" comes from "Philistine," there are scholars who agree w/you; many do not. And it matters little to the overall argument.

What matters most here is my assertion that the modern Israelis are far more the descendants of Vespasian's diaspora than the descendants of the Bible's Hebrews. They are mostly European. Yes, there are the descedants of those Jews who had remained after Vespasian left - but there has been a great deal of trouble between these Jews and their European "cousins" - their complaints are similar to the complaints of the Palestinians.

[immortalmack]

How did you make that connection when most Palestinians can trace their ancestry to old Yemeni and Jordanian tribes?

You are just guessing. The Romans called the country Palestinea as an insult to the Jews after conquering them and exiling them from their land.
The muslims having no knowledge of this previous history, gathered that the inhabitants didn't mind the name and left it as it is.

Yea I'm more familiar with CH version. But Omnirook a good deal of what you said is correct.
Sometimes you scare me Omnirook but I respect your brain man!

[charred_heart]

jon stewart had a very similar idea the other night on his show.

and, thank you for the cliff notes, even if you are "just guessing" :joft:

ScottPersonally I think making a relationship beetween the Philistines and present day Palestinians is a stretch. For one thing, they are specifically mentioned in religious texts where they were wiped out. All other records are vague. Another thing is that the name Palestine was coined by the Romans - not some sort of indication to the arabs' ancestry- and the place being Roman territory was inhabited by many groups by the time the muslims came into the scene. Also the gradual settling of arabs in the area is well documented - which occurred after muslim conquest of the country.

[charred_heart]

Vespasian was a typical Roman general - pragmatic to the final degree. He marched in and systematically laid waste to the whole of Palestine. He saved up Jerusalem for last - block by block it was torn down. Its inhabitants were rounded up, counted, and transported to Rome's slave markets. Herod's great temple was knocked in on itself and set on fire - after all its treasures had been carted off. (These would be used to build the Colliseum - as would the Jewish slaves who had lived in Jerusalem. This was the Second Diaspora.)Seems Vespasian didn't carry out the destruction of Judea personally, he left it to his son Titus.

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

So, the part about the Philistine nomads may be true but they kept it well hidden from everybody else and chose to integrate with the other races in Roman Palestine.

[omnirook]

Personally I think making a relationship beetween the Philistines and present day Palestinians is a stretch. For one thing, they are specifically mentioned in religious texts where they were wiped out. All other records are vague. Another thing is that the name Palestine was coined by the Romans - not some sort of indication to the arabs' ancestry- and the place being Roman territory was inhabited by many groups by the time the muslims came into the scene. Also the gradual settling of arabs in the area is well documented - which occurred after muslim conquest of the country.
I am not saying that the Arabs were originally an Indo-European people. Their language clearly shows that they were and are Semites. I am saying that a people called "Philistines" were originally an Indo-European people: their language shows this. They were numerous in the area. They could not have been "wiped out" - they intermarried w/the indigenous Semites and got lost among them. (Such happened to the Dravidians of India when the Indo-European Aryans arrived. Such has happened throughout history.) If a modern geneticist were to examine the genes of modern Palestinians - if he/she had sophisticated enough equipment - I am certain that the Indo-European Philistines would be found - just as the Semitic ancestry of the modern "Indo-European" Jews would be found ... I am white. I KNOW that some of my ancestors were unquestionably BLACK. That's just the way it is.

[omnirook]

Seems Vespasian didn't carry out the destruction of Judea personally, he left it to his son Titus.

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

So, the part about the Philistine nomads may be true but they kept it well hidden from everybody else and chose to integrate with the other races in Roman Palestine.
Yes, but in this overview, I did not want to get too fine as to detail. The job was left to Titus when Vespasian had to leave for Italy. It does not really matter. Vespasian was emporer - all would have been done in his name; besides, he halted the devastation once Nero was no longer in charge. Titus was emporer for less than 3 years. His brother, Domitian, did not persecute the Jews in general; no, he persecuted a sect of Jews, called "Christians."

So much was left out of my overview! I did not even mention the Crusades. I was making a point - I acknowledge that many other points could have been made. So? How can one discuss the history of an area that has been inhabited for 8 thousand years w/o cherry-picking? I was not producing a scholarly tomb - I was giving a synopsis of what I myself have grasped and consider to be "main lines" in the delineation of my understanding.

[charred_heart]

I am not saying that the Arabs were originally an Indo-European people. Their language clearly shows that they were and are Semites. I am saying that a people called "Philistines" were originally an Indo-European people: their language shows this. They were numerous in the area. They could not have been "wiped out" - they intermarried w/the indigenous Semites and got lost among them. (Such happened to the Dravidians of India when the Indo-European Aryans arrived. Such has happened throughout history.) If a modern geneticist were to examine the genes of modern Palestinians - if he/she had sophisticated enough equipment - I am certain that the Indo-European Philistines would be found - just as the Semitic ancestry of the modern "Indo-European" Jews would be found ... I am white. I KNOW that some of my ancestors were unquestionably BLACK. That's just the way it is.yeah, but that doesn't explain the reason the area was called Palestine does it? There's a difference between genetic ancestry and ancestral identity. The Palestinians today are majority muslim arab and a mixture of other semitic religions (Christian and Samaritan are the ones I know).
Saying that the Palestinians identify with the Phlistines in terms of their identity and culture might be a bit of an exaggeration. Even if the muslims hadn't come along Palestine would have eventually gained independence from the Roman empire, and they would be a mixture of middle eastern races none of which could be clearly marked as a Philistine race.
The Lebanese for example had Phoenician ancestry, the Syrians and the Iraqis Mesopotomian ancestry, and the Sudanese Nubian ancestry. We know this because there is a clear historic line linking these countries with those ancient civilisations. I haven't seen a clear link between the Palestinians and the Philistines, except for the fact that Titus named the lands of Judea Palestinea.

[omnirook]

I doubt that they do identify w/them - the average Palestinian on the street might not even have heard of them, given that school and other facets of civilized life have been interrupted for so long. I would not be surprised to find a high degree of illiteracy among the young Palestinians. I could be wrong, but finding it would not surprise me. They have had no life - they have had a misery-laden existence.

Ah, well, such goes to the victors - Wales is called Wales because that was what the English named it. "Wales" is not a "Welsh" word at all but an Old English word for "Westerners." Wales is west of England, after all.

[omnirook]

jon stewart had a very similar idea the other night on his show.

and, thank you for the cliff notes, even if you are "just guessing" :joft:

Scott
I did not see that episode, but I have enjoyed his show. I'm especially fond of the Lewis Black segments.

[charred_heart]

I doubt that they do identify w/them - the average Palestinian on the street might not even have heard of them, given that school and other facets of civilized life have been interrupted for so long. I would not be surprised to find a high degree of illiteracy among the young Palestinians. I could be wrong, but finding it would not surprise me. They have had no life - they have had a misery-laden existence.It's not really about education. The old civilisations still live through legends and stories told to children, even a few descendants who hold on to their heritage. You will still find Nubians and Pheonicians - although they call themeselves the Berbers now (another doing of the Romans)

[attila_the_hunny]

jon stewart had a very similar idea the other night on his show.

and, thank you for the cliff notes, even if you are "just guessing" :joft:

Scott


So did my group in Contemporary History when I was sixteen. It's not a new idea.

[omnirook]

It's not really about education. The old civilisations still live through legends and stories told to children, even a few descendants who hold on to their heritage. You will still find Nubians and Pheonicians - although they call themeselves the Berbers now (another doing of the Romans)
As a descendant of the Romans on both sides (Italian and English (who had Roman ancestors)), what can I do for you? Appologize? If an appology from me would make you feel better, then I appologize.

Such was hardly a Roman only trait. The Greeks called all non-Greeks "barbarians." The Egyptians did not even dignify non-Egyptians w/being human; only the Egyptians were "people;" all the others were "mesh-wesh" - which can be idiomatically translated to mean "animals" - "sub-humans" or even just "garbage." The Chinese also called all non-Chinese "barbarians" - till they met the Europeans. Them they called "fish-eyed monsters."

Short, thick-set, brown-eyed w/a massive edifice for a nose, brown-haired, and draped in a toga - what was that? The Roman definition of a gorgeous male human being. Blue eyes were unspeakably ugly to the Romans. Blue eyes were German - as was being tall w/a small nose w/blond hair: disgusting! Even worse was the red hair of the Celts. Hideous!

Huge, stinking, ugly, mannerless, filthy, crawling w/bugs, w/the eyes of a dead fish - a monster! What was that? How a Japanese official described the first Europeans who landed in Japan in his dispatch to the Shogun.

[charred_heart]

As a descendant of the Romans on both sides (Italian and English (who had Roman ancestors)), what can I do for you? Appologize? If an appology from me would make you feel better, then I appologize.

Such was hardly a Roman only trait. The Greeks called all non-Greeks "barbarians." The Egyptians did not even dignify non-Egyptians w/being human; only the Egyptians were "people;" all the others were "mesh-wesh" - which can be idiomatically translated to mean "animals" - "sub-humans" or even just "garbage." The Chinese also called all non-Chinese "barbarians" - till they met the Europeans. Them they called "fish-eyed monsters."

Short, thick-set, brown-eyed w/a massive edifice for a nose, brown-haired, and draped in a toga - what was that? The Roman definition of a gorgeous male human being. Blue eyes were unspeakably ugly to the Romans. Blue eyes were German - as was being tall w/a small nose w/blond hair: disgusting! Even worse was the red hair of the Celts. Hideous!

Huge, stinking, ugly, mannerless, filthy, crawling w/bugs, w/the eyes of a dead fish - a monster! What was that? How a Japanese official described the first Europeans who landed in Japan in his dispatch to the Shogun.that stuff is a bit funny too. mesh-wesh!

[omnirook]

The idea that all humans are human and part of one big happy family is very, very new - a lot newer than the Romans just picking what word for this or that sounded best to their ears, not giving a damn whether it was insulting to others or even accurate.

[songbird36]

Over time, the few remaining Jews in Palestine increased in number, and many who had been exiled were eventually and gradually allowed to "go home." By time the Romans were on the scene, the Jews in Palestine had grown in number to match the non-Jews in Palestine. Then history was affected by individuals, as it has so often been. An Edumean prince, Herod, whose family had adopted Judaism (sort of), won first the favor and then the friendship of Julius Caesar. Caesar made this Edumaen prince the "King of the Jews" and gave him suzzerainity over the whole area. Herod the Great was a great prince indeed. Under him, the area was so tightly controlled and the fighting so quickly stopped that Palestine became prosperous for the first time in a millennium. Herod built up Jerusalem to such a point that even the Romans were impressed w/its grandeur and beauty. A wily fellow, Herod was able to secure and enjoy in succession the favor of Julius Caesar, Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and, most importantly, Octavian Caesar (Augustus).

Herod's greatness was too singular, too personal. His sons were not able to maintain his program of keeping peace, increasing prosperity, and keeping the Romans happy. Eventually, one by one, Herod's sons lost favor and were deposed. Rome sent in a Roman govenor and attempted to do in Palestine what had so successfully been done elsewhere - Romanize. It did not work.

W/in a few imperial reigns, it had become clear to Rome that Palestine could not be made a true Roman province. The warring that had gone on for millennia had been only briefly interrupted while Herod the Great was king. As soon as Herod was in his casket, the trouble started all over again. Nero sent his best general, Vespasian, to crush Palestine and return it to the desert from which it had been carved.

Vespasian was a typical Roman general - pragmatic to the final degree. He marched in and systematically laid waste to the whole of Palestine. He saved up Jerusalem for last - block by block it was torn down. Its inhabitants were rounded up, counted, and transported to Rome's slave markets. Herod's great temple was knocked in on itself and set on fire - after all its treasures had been carted off. (These would be used to build the Colliseum - as would the Jewish slaves who had lived in Jerusalem. This was the Second Diaspora.)

Then another stroke of luck - Nero was deposed - Rome was torn by civil war - Vespasian left and headed to Italy, where he became Emporer. He left Palestine to lick its terrible wounds. A traveler passing through after Vespasian had sailed home would have understood just what Vespasian had intended but not quite finished - desolation. One could go for days and not see a person on the furthest horizon. Town after town had been burned and leveled. The wells had been poisoned, the cattle had been consumed by Rome's legions. Every sign of civilization was gone. All that was left were - the Palestinian nomads, who, over the next many centuries, would re-claim Palestine and bring back some semblance of culture and human life. They even eventually began to rebuild Jerusalem.

What happened to the Jews? A few had hung on in the hills, hiding from the advancing Roman army. Over time, they settled again and lived side by side w/the Palestinians, on vastly more friendly terms, intermarrying w/them, getting along w/them.

Then came the Prophet; then came Islam. The Muslims conquered the whole of the Middle East, most of North Africa, and made alarming - for the Europeans - advances into Europe. The wasteland of Palestine was simply added to the Muslim Empire and remained a part of it and its successor states down to the modern era.

What of the Jews? They were first slaves all over the Roman Empire. Gradually, many earned their freedom. Always tolerant, the Romans allowed them to keep their religion. Jewish places of worship were opened even in Rome itself. The Semitic Jews intermarried w/the Indo-European Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, and Slavs that inhabited Europe. Eventually, they became - Indo-Europeans.

Here we have a fascinating reversal: the Indo-European Philistines gradually became Semitic; the Semitic Hebrews gradually became Indo-European. The Jews who "returned" to Palestine after the Holocaust were no more Semitic than the Palestinians who lived in Palestine were Indo-European. For nearly 2 millennia, the Jews of the Second Diaspora lived in Europe, mostly getting along w/the Europeans, occasionally suffering at their hands. Then there was the Holocaust. After the NAZI's were defeated, the remaining Jews were eager to get out of Europe, to "return" to the land of their ancestors. And that was where this latest round of trouble got its start.



If you're going to participate in this debate you need to get your historical facts straight. The "first diaspora" you refer to was to Babylonia and had nothing to do with the Persians until they invaded and conquered Babylon some 50 years later. Some of these events are described in the Book of Esther in the Bible; Cyrus the Persian emperor actually allowed some Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem as a monument to their faith.

After the destruction of Judea and the Temple by the Romans, around 65AD, Jews spread within the middle east, Europe and Asia. Often their geographical adventurism was the result of persecution and expulsion by emergent Christian populations closer to home.

[omnirook]

If you're going to participate in this debate you need to get your historical facts straight. The "first diaspora" you refer to was to Babylonia and had nothing to do with the Persians until they invaded and conquered Babylon some 50 years later. Some of these events are described in the Book of Esther in the Bible; Cyrus the Persian emperor actually allowed some Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem as a monument to their faith.
That is true ... As said elsewhere, I did a great deal of compression of the whole saga to maintain what I deemed the essential lines to my one important point. If you wish to nit-pick, you may do so. You will find that I am, in fact, exceptionally well versed in history and even know the names of minor kings and queens and am familiar w/their extant diplomatic correspondence. It matters little whether it was Nebuchadnezzar who carried off the Israelites or some other king. And I did note that many Jews were allowed to return to Palestine - that was important. I could have wasted time going into the minute details of how Marduk of Babylon became the great god of the whole area and how the Zoroastrian Persians left well enough alone. I could have but did not ... W/me, indicating that the Bible is anything but toilet paper is a waste of time. I accept nothing that it says; it's lies from one cover to the other, whether one reads it right to left in the Hebrew fashion, back and forth in the Greek fashion, or from left to right in the Roman fashion.

[charred_heart]

Ishmael had twelve sons that became leaders of twelve Arab tribes. Did they all just stay in Arabia?
I'm not arguing where they were, just saying that just because you're Arab doesn't necessarily mean that you're Islamic. So if at one point Jews and Arabs got along, it was probably because Islam hadn't been introduced into the picture.

I remembered this post when I read this:


On one occasion, his wife Hafsah chided her co-wife Safiyyah by calling her ?the daughter of a Jew?. This was true, because Safiyyah?s father, Hubayy b. Akhtab, was in fact a Jew who had died without ever accepting Islam. Still, such a comment was meant as a take on Safiyyah?s person, which was only more hurtful as it was coming from her co-wife. So when she heard what Hafsah had said, she started to cry.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) then came in and asked her why she was crying. She said: ?Hafsah called me the daughter of a Jew.?

To this the Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: ?Verily, you are the daughter of a Prophet, your uncle was also a Prophet, and you are the wife of a Prophet, so what does she have over you to boast about??

He then turned to Hafsah and said: ?Fear Allah, O Hafsah.?

In an alternate narration, the Prophet is reported to have turned to Safiyyah and said: ?Why didn?t you say: ?So how can you be better than me? Muhammad is my husband. Aaron is my father, and Moses is my uncle.?

the prophet had multiple wives, boo!

[BerberElla]

On one occasion, his wife Hafsah chided her co-wife Safiyyah by calling her ?the daughter of a Jew?. This was true, because Safiyyah?s father, Hubayy b. Akhtab, was in fact a Jew who had died without ever accepting Islam. Still, such a comment was meant as a take on Safiyyah?s person, which was only more hurtful as it was coming from her co-wife. So when she heard what Hafsah had said, she started to cry.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) then came in and asked her why she was crying. She said: ?Hafsah called me the daughter of a Jew.?

To this the Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: ?Verily, you are the daughter of a Prophet, your uncle was also a Prophet, and you are the wife of a Prophet, so what does she have over you to boast about??

He then turned to Hafsah and said: ?Fear Allah, O Hafsah.?

In an alternate narration, the Prophet is reported to have turned to Safiyyah and said: ?Why didn?t you say: ?So how can you be better than me? Muhammad is my husband. Aaron is my father, and Moses is my uncle.?

Sorry, but Saffiyah's story should be kep out of any debate that is trying to defend islam, the story of how she became his wife, is enough to make anyone turn away.

[charred_heart]

Sorry, but Saffiyah's story should be kep out of any debate that is trying to defend islam, the story of how she became his wife, is enough to make anyone turn away.how so?
I remember that she came from a tribe that gave it's allegiance to the prophet mohammed. During a significant war against the arab factions, they turned on the muslims and their betrayal resulted in a massacre. At some point during that time she went to the prophet Mohamed and declared her conversion publicly. After the war and because of the number of deaths incurred by her tribe, she was spurned by the muslim community. The prophet proposed to her, one of the reasons being she would be part of his family and thus under his protection and of his level of respect. The men of her tribe were all executed but they were soldiers who betrayed above all their own city Medina, which was the base of Islam a the time, and its inhabitants. The only aspect to the story that I found shocking was the executions, but the enormity of the crime required it. The same thing happened to the Nazis, who betrayed their own citizens by mass murdering them.

[Heleuiski]

how so?
I remember that she came from a tribe that gave it's allegiance to the prophet mohammed. During a significant war against the arab factions, they turned on the muslims and their betrayal resulted in a massacre. At some point during that time she went to the prophet Mohamed and declared her conversion publicly. After the war and because of the number of deaths incurred by her tribe, she was spurned by the muslim community. The prophet proposed to her, one of the reasons being she would be part of his family and thus under his protection and of his level of respect. The men of her tribe were all executed but they were soldiers who betrayed above all their own city Medina, which was the base of Islam a the time, and its inhabitants. The only aspect to the story that I found shocking was the executions, but the enormity of the crime required it. The same thing happened to the Nazis, who betrayed their own citizens by mass murdering them.

Wasn't one of the reasons for men to have many wives was so they could marry and protect relatives and friends wives whose husbands had died in fighting, wars etc?

Also the reason why pork was considered unclean in those times was because pork carried a multitude of diseases in hot climes?

[charred_heart]

Wasn't one of the reasons for men to have many wives was so they could marry and protect relatives and friends wives whose husbands had died in fighting, wars etc?

Also the reason why pork was considered unclean in those times was because pork carrieda multitude of diseases in hot climes?In a way, yes. It was not uncommon for arab tribes to have multiple concubines so the concept of multiple wives to that society was not unusual. The marriages happened according to my knowledge on their own and not by an authoritive decree. The men proposed to these women as a way of saying that they should not face the grief alone.

Pork? Pork was forbidden in the Quran, people there probbably new how to cure meat.

[BerberElla]

how so?
I remember that she came from a tribe that gave it's allegiance to the prophet mohammed. During a significant war against the arab factions, they turned on the muslims and their betrayal resulted in a massacre. At some point during that time she went to the prophet Mohamed and declared her conversion publicly. After the war and because of the number of deaths incurred by her tribe, she was spurned by the muslim community. The prophet proposed to her, one of the reasons being she would be part of his family and thus under his protection and of his level of respect. The men of her tribe were all executed but they were soldiers who betrayed above all their own city Medina, which was the base of Islam a the time, and its inhabitants. The only aspect to the story that I found shocking was the executions, but the enormity of the crime required it. The same thing happened to the Nazis, who betrayed their own citizens by mass murdering them.

No, she never declared her conversion publicly, she watched her husband, father and brothers beheaded in front of her, she was then taken as one of the captives (read BOOTY) by another sahaba, but when Mohammed was told of this, he told the sahaba to pick another of the captives and he took Safiya for himself.
The betrayl that you speak of, can you show me it, and the records of the thousands slaughtered due to this betrayl, seems a bit weird that mohammed would sneak up on a tribe of people in the night, and attack them, and have all men who had begun showing pubic hair and upwards, to be beheaded in one night. That was 600 beheadings.

Saffiya was a captive, her bride price was her freedom, when actually he never had a right to take her freedom in the first place. Rather than wait until the wedding feast he took her on the same night of her captivity, after she had watched her entire tribe and family decimated before her eyes.
He then married her the next day, as she was the most beautiful 17yr old of that now dead tribe.

This is all checkable in Sahih hadiths, so it is not me saying it, merely Bukhari recording Mohammeds life.

I would be very interested to read the betrayl you say this tribe commited and exactly how it led to thousands of muslims being slaughtered akin to the mass murder of the jews.

[BerberElla]

In a way, yes. It was not uncommon for arab tribes to have multiple concubines so the concept of multiple wives to that society was not unusual. The marriages happened according to my knowledge on their own and not by an authoritive decree. The men proposed to these women as a way of saying that they should not face the grief alone.

Pork? Pork was forbidden in the Quran, people there probbably new how to cure meat.

I can understand marrying your firends widow, but perhaps you would like to tell me about the other widows who became sex slaves, or right hand possesions after muslims had taken them in war?

[charred_heart]

No, she never declared her conversion publicly, she watched her husband, father and brothers beheaded in front of her, she was then taken as one of the captives (read BOOTY) by another sahaba, but when Mohammed was told of this, he told the sahaba to pick another of the captives and he took Safiya for himself.
The betrayl that you speak of, can you show me it, and the records of the thousands slaughtered due to this betrayl, seems a bit weird that mohammed would sneak up on a tribe of people in the night, and attack them, and have all men who had begun showing pubic hair and upwards, to be beheaded in one night. That was 600 beheadings.

Saffiya was a captive, her bride price was her freedom, when actually he never had a right to take her freedom in the first place. Rather than wait until the wedding feast he took her on the same night of her captivity, after she had watched her entire tribe and family decimated before her eyes.
He then married her the next day, as she was the most beautiful 17yr old of that now dead tribe.

This is all checkable in Sahih hadiths, so it is not me saying it, merely Bukhari recording Mohammeds life.

I would be very interested to read the betrayl you say this tribe commited and exactly how it led to thousands of muslims being slaughtered akin to the mass murder of the jews.That's a radically different version to the one I heard! I'll read up on it.

The most significant battles during the time of the prophet were the battles of Badr and Khyber, although I forgot which one relates to the story of Saffiyah. story.

[BerberElla]

That's a radically different version to the one I heard! I'll read up on it.

The most significant battles during the time of the prophet were the battles of Badr and Khyber, although I forgot which one relates to the story of Saffiyah. story.

I have read way too many hadiths recently, I am currently waiting for the Tabari collection to arrive.

But yes, read up on it, and if you can, can you show me where you got your version from, I am very interested in learning it all.

Thanks.

[charred_heart]

I can understand marrying your firends widow, but perhaps you would like to tell me about the other widows who became sex slaves, or right hand possesions after muslims had taken them in war?I don't have an answer to that, as the practice of using captured women as sex slaves is a pre-Islamic one which would go against the tenets of the religion. I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that I don't know enough about this to say. The word Ghanima (booty) pops up in Islamic history, but I don't know if humans were part of it! Sorry, I have to check this out!!!

[BerberElla]

I don't have an answer to that, as the practice of using captured women as sex slaves is a pre-Islamic one which would go against the tenets of the religion. I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that I don't know enough about this to say. The word Ghanima (booty) pops up in Islamic history, but I don't know if humans were part of it! Sorry, I have to check this out!!!

Read all of Bukhari, look up on wether a man is allowed to use Coitus interuptus as a method of birth control, you will then find hadiths that talk about the sahabas desperation to sleep with the beautiful captured women, and the prophet saying that yes you could as long as you never did the withdrawl method.

[omnirook]

:offtopic: - somewhat ... Pork became taboo among Jews and Muslims because pork in hot climes is dangerously loaded w/trichinosis and other diseases = a "wives' tale." Not true. If the heat were the reason, then the natives of the tropics would also have developed a taboo against pork - quite the contrary, among them pork is often a sacremental food and is consumed w/great relish. So, why? Anthropologists' answer: pigs and humans eat the same diet = competition for the same food. The sparse resources of the deserts and barren crags of the Middle East would not support large numbers of both creatures. Behind every seemingly nonsensical custom, there is a rational explanation to be found. For instance, the cow became taboo as food in India - why? Simple: draught animals are necessary to an agricultural economy that has not progressed beyond surface growing and which is not mechanized. Not enough food could be produced to feed both humans and large numbers of cattle - but the few cattle that were kept were needed for plowing: therefore, don't eat them!

[BILLER]

I would be very interested to read the betrayl you say this tribe commited and exactly how it led to thousands of muslims being slaughtered akin to the mass murder of the jews.

I am suprised that you did not come across the betrayals in your readings. It took place at the battle of the ditch (Khandaq) where the confederates laid a siege to the city of Madina. Safiyya's tribe were living in Madina at the time and had an agreement that they would stand in battle together with the muslims to defend Madina. They reneged on that agreement when they felt that the muslims were outnumbered and would be defeated. They reached an agreement with representatives of the confederates to attack the Muslims from within the city. I think that would qualify as Treason even today.

Secondly, with regard to Safiyya's marriage, taking captured women as slaves was a common practice at the time. This was part of the practices he worked against but rather gradually. A case in point was when he married a certain lady whose name i cant recall. All the captured slaves were released because of the marriage. You should also have come across a hadith about a dream Safiyya had before she even met the Prophet.

[BerberElla]

I am suprised that you did not come across the betrayals in your readings. It took place at the battle of the ditch (Khandaq) where the confederates laid a siege to the city of Madina. Safiyya's tribe were living in Madina at the time and had an agreement that they would stand in battle together with the muslims to defend Madina. They reneged on that agreement when they felt that the muslims were outnumbered and would be defeated. They reached an agreement with representatives of the confederates to attack the Muslims from within the city. I think that would qualify as Treason even today.

Secondly, with regard to Safiyya's marriage, taking captured women as slaves was a common practice at the time. This was part of the practices he worked against but rather gradually. A case in point was when he married a certain lady whose name i cant recall. All the captured slaves were released because of the marriage. You should also have come across a hadith about a dream Safiyya had before she even met the Prophet.


I know about the betrayl, what I wanted was the details on how it can be compared the jew massacre by hitler. It seemed a very far stretch so I wanted to see how he got the figures to comapre the two in severity.

Secondly in which hadith book can I find the dream Safiya had, and how often does it appear, who narrated it?

Thirdly....just how gradual was this process of taking slaves, and making slaves planned to go on for, and when did it stop?

[charred_heart]

:offtopic: - somewhat ... Pork became taboo among Jews and Muslims because pork in hot climes is dangerously loaded w/trichinosis and other diseases = a "wives' tale." Not true. If the heat were the reason, then the natives of the tropics would also have developed a taboo against pork - quite the contrary, among them pork is often a sacremental food and is consumed w/great relish. So, why? Anthropologists' answer: pigs and humans eat the same diet = competition for the same food. The sparse resources of the deserts and barren crags of the Middle East would not support large numbers of both creatures. Behind every seemingly nonsensical custom, there is a rational explanation to be found. For instance, the cow became taboo as food in India - why? Simple: draught animals are necessary to an agricultural economy that has not progressed beyond surface growing and which is not mechanized. Not enough food could be produced to feed both humans and large numbers of cattle - but the few cattle that were kept were needed for plowing: therefore, don't eat them!cool, that could be the reason. Although there are a number of things in the Quran that people could not understand until recently, after the introduction of Geology and Meteorolgy. There are still a few things that people don't understand even today, prohibiting the eating of pigs being one of them. It doesn't explain it completely, because the prophet foretold that Islam would spread to the green crescent where the problems you outlined would not be as severe as in the desert.

[BerberElla]

Biller, do you have the hadith number yet for the Saffiya dream you mentioned, i have been searching but have yet to find it.

Maybe it is in one of the lesser accepted books?

If you had it I would like to see it.

[BILLER]

Biller, do you have the hadith number yet for the Saffiya dream you mentioned, i have been searching but have yet to find it.

Maybe it is in one of the lesser accepted books?

If you had it I would like to see it.

Sorry, I dont have it but I'll keep searching. I'll let you know when I find it.

[BerberElla]

Sorry, I dont have it but I'll keep searching. I'll let you know when I find it.

Thanks alot, it helps to see some nice hadiths, I have read too many upsetting ones recently.

[Stoned_Rider]

Here you go, charred_heart

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3371):

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Muhammad deemed it perfectly acceptable that his companions were going to have sex with the "excellent Arab women". He shows no consideration whatsoever towards the captives, the trauma they were going through after witnessing their family and loved ones killed, and more importantly whether they were willing to have sex or not. His companions had their minds already made up that they were going to have sex, as they were "suffering" from not having had sex with their wives for some time. Their only concern was not to get the women pregnant, because they also desired ransom for them.

Muhammad saw absolutely nothing wrong in ALL of this! Can these really be characteristics of someone who is described in the Quran as "the best of all creation" and a "mercy to all mankind"? Can these really be "sublime morals"? What sort of example is he setting for his followers?

[BerberElla]

Here you go, charred_heart

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3371):

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Muhammad deemed it perfectly acceptable that his companions were going to have sex with the "excellent Arab women". He shows no consideration whatsoever towards the captives, the trauma they were going through after witnessing their family and loved ones killed, and more importantly whether they were willing to have sex or not. His companions had their minds already made up that they were going to have sex, as they were "suffering" from not having had sex with their wives for some time. Their only concern was not to get the women pregnant, because they also desired ransom for them.

Muhammad saw absolutely nothing wrong in ALL of this! Can these really be characteristics of someone who is described in the Quran as "the best of all creation" and a "mercy to all mankind"? Can these really be "sublime morals"? What sort of example is he setting for his followers?

Thank you Stoned Rider, that was the one of the hadiths I was speaking of.:mad: There are more of them, it runs through the books, and coincides with some verse in the quran...especially the one about all women being allowed for him, except those who were married, unless they were right hand possesions, in which case all their earlier marriages were dissolved, and she would be lawful for him to use.

[charred_heart]

Here you go, charred_heart

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3371):

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Muhammad deemed it perfectly acceptable that his companions were going to have sex with the "excellent Arab women". He shows no consideration whatsoever towards the captives, the trauma they were going through after witnessing their family and loved ones killed, and more importantly whether they were willing to have sex or not. His companions had their minds already made up that they were going to have sex, as they were "suffering" from not having had sex with their wives for some time. Their only concern was not to get the women pregnant, because they also desired ransom for them.

Muhammad saw absolutely nothing wrong in ALL of this! Can these really be characteristics of someone who is described in the Quran as "the best of all creation" and a "mercy to all mankind"? Can these really be "sublime morals"? What sort of example is he setting for his followers?:mellow:
can you post it in arabic?

[Stoned_Rider]

:mellow:
can you post it in arabic?

دخلت أنا وأبو صرمة على أبي سعيد الخدري‏.‏ فسأله أبو صرمة فقال‏:‏ يا أبا سعيد ‏!‏ هل سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يذكر العزل ‏؟‏ فقال‏:‏ نعم‏.‏ غزونا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم غزوة بلمصطلق‏.‏ فسبينا كرائم العرب‏.‏ فطالت علينا العزبة ورغبنا في الفداء‏.‏ فأردنا أن نستمتع ونعزل‏.‏ فقلنا‏:‏ نفعل ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بين أظهرنا لا نسأله ‏!‏ فسألنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال‏:‏ ‏"‏لا عليكم أن لاتفعلوا‏.‏ ما كتب الله خلق نسمة هي كائنة إلى يوم القيامة، إلا ستكون‏"

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=138&CID=77#s11

[charred_heart]

دخلت أنا وأبو صرمة على أبي سعيد الخدري‏.‏ فسأله أبو صرمة فقال‏:‏ يا أبا سعيد ‏!‏ هل سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يذكر العزل ‏؟‏ فقال‏:‏ نعم‏.‏ غزونا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم غزوة بلمصطلق‏.‏ فسبينا كرائم العرب‏.‏ فطالت علينا العزبة ورغبنا في الفداء‏.‏ فأردنا أن نستمتع ونعزل‏.‏ فقلنا‏:‏ نفعل ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بين أظهرنا لا نسأله ‏!‏ فسألنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال‏:‏ ‏"‏لا عليكم أن لاتفعلوا‏.‏ ما كتب الله خلق نسمة هي كائنة إلى يوم القيامة، إلا ستكون‏"

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=138&CID=77#s11:huh:

[charred_heart]

hmmm, I'm reading that hadith again, and I notice you translated this wrong:

‏لا عليكم أن لاتفعلوا‏.‏ ما كتب الله خلق نسمة هي كائنة إلى يوم القيامة، إلا ستكون

you translated it to:
It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
OK, I see where you and I got confused. It's in this sentence:
لا عليكم أن لاتفعلوا
In arabic saying: لا عليكم
(it's not on you) is like saying "don't fret". The word عليكم means should in the plural, it also indicates an obligation in arabic prose. So combining the word should with no in arabic is like saying you are not obligated to do something. In
The structure of the full sentence however indicates that the word no in the beginning is independent of the rest of the sentence, it is a seperate 'no'. the rest of the sentence begins with عليكم or should. So it starts "No, you should...". The next two words are asy to read: "not do" أن لاتفعلوا
The full sentence then can be translated to:
"No, you should not, for it does not matter, every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born."

The hadith does not go on to say whether they went ahead or not, but the prophet explicitly told them their efforts to avoid impregnation were useless if God wills otherwise. It might have been a diplomatic way to dissaude them from raping the women, as it's clear that they were in a state where the only thing that would make them hesitate is the fear of getting them pregnant.

There is another hadith that is clearer on this, Sahih Bukhari 2116:


2116 - حدثنا أبو اليمان: أخبرنا شعيب، عن الزهري قال: أخبرني ابن محيريز: أن أبا سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه أخبره:
أنه بينما هو جالس عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: يا رسول الله، إنا نصيب سبيا، فنحب الأثمان، فكيف ترى في العزل؟ فقال: ( أو إنكم تفعلون ذلك؟ لا عليكم أن لا تفعلوا ذلكم، فإنها ليست نسمة كتب الله أن تخرج إلا هي خارجة) [2404، 3907، 4912، 6229، 6974]

The answer from the prophet to the question on this practice:
"and you would consider it? No, you should not, for every human that God wills to be born on this earth will be born"

[Heleuiski]

I think it admirable that you are defending your faith.
I wish all Muslims were like you.

[BerberElla]

I think it admirable that you are defending your faith.
I wish all Muslims were like you.

But he has comfirmed that the hadiths say that Mohammed only forbade them to withdraw their penises, instead they should ejaculate inside her. Inside Captive non muslim women.:rant:

That's not admirable that he is defending it, it's sad.:boohoo:

[attila_the_hunny]

But he has comfirmed that the hadiths say that Mohammed only forbade them to withdraw their penises, instead they should ejaculate inside her. Inside Captive non muslim women.:rant:

That's not admirable that he is defending it, it's sad.:boohoo:

The OT isn't all that nice, either.

[BerberElla]

The OT isn't all that nice, either.

Yes, I know....I don't do religion no more, they are all screwed up.

[charred_heart]

I think it admirable that you are defending your faith.
I wish all Muslims were like you.I'm no apologist! Look, Islam has a few basic rules: pray five times a day, give to the poor, no sex before marriage.

If the prophet had told those men that they cannot have sex with the captured women unless they married them, then the guys would have no problem in forcing the women to accept them as husbands. The prophet Mohamed stopped them on the one point they had no alternative for. He also did it in a way that would not have caused a mutiny.

[charred_heart]

But he has comfirmed that the hadiths say that Mohammed only forbade them to withdraw their penises, instead they should ejaculate inside her. Inside Captive non muslim women.:rant:

That's not admirable that he is defending it, it's sad.:boohoo:and have bastard children? Be damned to hell because they committed adultery? See, that's where they backed off.

EDIT:
there's a principle in Islam that states "address people in the language they know". If a man can't understand that rape is bad, show him in another way. The important thing is, if he understands and still does it, then he's guilty of something worse than being uncivilised.

[Heleuiski]

I hate organised religion.

[charred_heart]

I hate organised religion.I know. The good thing is that you don't hate the ones who practice :) errr.. right?

[Heleuiski]

I know. The good thing is that you don't hate the ones who practice :) errr.. right?

Aye you read me right there my friend.

:)

[charred_heart]

The OT isn't all that nice, either.you want to hear the story of the woman that kept a bunch of cats in the cellar of her home and tortured them for the duration of their lives? Yeah, Islam covers a lot of ground.

[Heleuiski]

Awwwwwww Mo I'm gonna give you a HUGE HUG.

*WUBBBBBBBBB*

[BerberElla]

and have bastard children? Be damned to hell because they committed adultery? See, that's where they backed off.

EDIT:
there's a principle in Islam that states "address people in the language they know". If a man can't understand that rape is bad, show him in another way. The important thing is, if he understands and still does it, then he's guilty of something worse than being uncivilised.

They were slaves, their children would have been the mans slave too. No bastard children, the women were right hand possesions now, impregnate her and you have a new slave.

He was against them wasting their sperm, not against the rape itself.

Had he been against the rape, he would have said "Allah said don't rape them, so no sex at all" or something firm like that. He had no trouble setting other rules as firm.

[attila_the_hunny]

you want to hear the story of the woman that kept a bunch of cats in the cellar of her home and tortured them for the duration of their lives? Yeah, Islam covers a lot of ground.

No, I saw it last night on Animal Cops. :P

[attila_the_hunny]

They were slaves, their children would have been the mans slave too. No bastard children, the women were right hand possesions now, impregnate her and you have a new slave.

He was against them wasting their sperm, not against the rape itself.

Had he been against the rape, he would have said "Allah said don't rape them, so no sex at all" or something firm like that. He had no trouble setting other rules as firm.

But they weren't slaves. They were pulling out while raping them so they wouldn't knock them--they were going to use them as ransom.

[Heleuiski]

But they weren't slaves. They were pulling out while raping them so they wouldn't knock them--they were going to use them as ransom.

:rant:

[charred_heart]

They were slaves, their children would have been the mans slave too. No bastard children, the women were right hand possesions now, impregnate her and you have a new slave.

He was against them wasting their sperm, not against the rape itself.

Had he been against the rape, he would have said "Allah said don't rape them, so no sex at all" or something firm like that. He had no trouble setting other rules as firm.What??
he was against the rape, just said it in a diplomatic way. There are verses in te Quran against rape and adultery. The prophet explicitly said "NO, you should not"

BTW in Islam there is a marriage called Misyar that accommodates for those that aonly want to have a relationship but are not prepared to tie the knot yet. In this marriage, there are no legal obligations on both parties, each one can live in their own homes etc. The only condition is that if the mrriage produces children, both parties have obligations to take care of them financially and otherwise. Understandably, Saudi wahabbists have launched a vicious campaign against this proven and legitimate part of Islam :D :D :D