|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The beginning of the jihad in Europe? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Jar, "Arabs" is way too broad a term here to describe all the different tribes that have lived in the area, but certainly Palestine had Jews there last century. If the Palestinians want to advance ahead, they have to recognize Israel as legitimate and make peace.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
very good point
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6500 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
Jar, it is historical fact that the arabs arrived in what is Israel and the surrounding nations in the 7th century. There were other peoples, aside from jews, who preceded them, who had died out by then. Others, like the egyptians, were also conquered by the arabs and forcibly converted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Then why do jews get a special claim?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If possible, please support that. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Actually, what he needs to do is to explain the relevance of that.
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL
That too would be nice. But my guess is that he'll want to play moving definitions again. What a complete waste of time. I wish now I had not even bothered posting. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I wish now I had not even bothered posting. Hmmm....maybe he feels the same way?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Steve is right that the area was not as populated until Zionists began to return and develop it. His dates may or may not be off, but it is true that a lot of "Palestinians" such as Arafat are not even from Palestine originally. Arafat is Tunisian I believe. No, no he's not. Please stop supporting base propaganda. I have posted links to the history of that region before at EvC, and to Steve in specific, including estimates from the very organizations he claims were right for setting up Israel. There was a very large population within that region. Not all of it was "nomadic", but even if it were, how does that suggest that they did not have rights over what to do with the land? The discussion was democracy. Unless democracy is rule by those that will use the land to its utmost and bring great wealth, then I am unsure what this side argument has to do with anything. There were many people living there, and only a very small percentage were Jewish. A Jewish national homeland was NOT the democratic process in action. Yes Israelis have used technology and wealth to improve the land in general, as well as to fit the demands of what we enjoy. Thus greater western prosperity signs have appeared. Wonderful. But that is like saying that a corproration should have the right to kick you off your land because it can produce much more than what you would, and consider that "democratic" because it was successful in produce wealth.
Imo, the only solution for the Palestianians is an alliance with Israel, but they don't see it that way. Look there is a difference between what happened then, and what to do now, and how we should discuss what is going on. I totally agree that UNLESS ISRAELIS decide they want to dissolve the state of Israel, or allow it to be a nonracist state, the only choice the Palestinians have is to forget about the past and build their own nation in peace with Israel. Those opposed to the formation of Israel had their chance and they lost. They should move on and nothing is gained by continuing to fight except some theoretical appeals to justice. I also agree that not all Arabic or Islamic groups help Palestinians. Sometimes they use the Palestinians, and even hurt them. Okay that's all fine. But that does not change the facts surrounding what occured, and what Israel is. Is it or is it not a Jewish nation, designed to keep a single religious/racial group as a majority such that all others cannot gain a democratic voice in that nation? Did it not come about by force imposed on a majority population opposed to its creation? This is all very simple, and the answers do not suggest what we should do about it now. I like the US and I want to see it prosper. That does not mean I have to pretend that its prosperity was NOT the result of some horrendous human atrocities against many different races, and was not wholly democratic until late last century... and even still involves some problems as a functional democratic republic. We have to admit to the issues which need to be resolved, in order for them to be resolved. Apparently CS cannot even admit basic facts, much less how they might be interpreted in valid ways separate from his own opinion. This message has been edited by holmes, 11-10-2005 12:28 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I disagree. I've read plenty of first-hand accounts dating back to the 1880s, and it was pretty much as Steve describes. As returning Jews brought prosperity, and there were Jews there at that time as well, non-Jews moved to the area.
I don't see Israel as formed by imposing on a majority at all. The Palestinians sided, for the most part, with the losing side in several wars. They lost and so lost their land. They picked the losing side, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, and now they don't want to own up to that. Let me ask you this. My wife's family line includes the Lee family in VA. The Yankees took their farm and made it into a national cemetary, you know, Arlington National Cemetary, and never gave it back. Well, it's wrong to a degree to take the Lee family property, but we lost and the North won, and that's how it goes. What would you have thought if southerners started making terrorist attacks on DC to get their land back? Would that be OK? The Palestinians lost the war. That's how it goes sometime. This message has been edited by randman, 11-10-2005 12:40 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Apparently you can't distinguish between a secular decision made by a secular democracy, supported by both political parties, and an evangelical movement. Yes I can. I can also distinguish between a legitimate use of secular govt, and a naked powerplay abusing the instruments of democratic govt. But that is besides the point. Much conversion was at the point of a gun throughout the world, whether you want to admit that that was how it happened to create the Xian majorities we now have, or not. Second, the majorities attempt to continue indoctrinating people and prevent other cultures from entering... using force to do so. That is conversion by force.
"Bush lied us into war" refrain as some kind of irrational evidence that "fundies" wanted to attack iraq for religious reasons, I suggest you read Bush's bill before Congress explaining the need for war, and for which both parties voted. Why shouldn't I read the paper produced by Feith who helped develop the strategy for Bush, and states specifically that it is for securing Israel? And that this was admittedly part of Xian and Jewish conservative strategies? I mean why on earth should I read the watered down version presented before congress, and not anything directly written by those that formulated the plan? But that said I do not believe the war in Iraq was to convert. I mean sure Bush now claims it is about converting them to democracy loving people, and then converting the whole region, oh and lest I forget ensuring that Xian evangelists can get in and not be prosecuted, but that is less than simply removing Hussein for many other reasons. Of course Bush did lie to get us into war, that is an established fact. It was that or he was one of the most ignorant and poor leaders this nation has ever produced.
That you deny that israel is a modern liberal democracy is to be absurd and obtuse. It is modern in that it has modern things. It is liberal in that there are some liberal institutions within it, and it is a democracy in the fact that they vote to achieve political decisions. But that does not erase the facts that it was imposed upon an existing population againts the will of the majority, dividing the people up into regions in a process that is deemed illegal today (not to mention anti democratic), in order to achieve a false Jewish majority in an area where it was small minority, and functions to keep nonjews from ever attaining leadership within that nation, including using unequal immigration rights based on religion/race. Sorry steve, you can't erase the problems by asking everyone to judge a book by its cover. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Much conversion was at the point of a gun throughout the world, What are you claiming? The truth is Christianity has always primarily spread through voluntary conversion, not the point of a gun, as you claim. That's how Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, and that's how it spread to India, Ireland, Africa and how it spreading today. It is true Catholicism resorted to persecution and force, but at the same time, Catholic persecution was primarily directed at other Christians already converted to Christianity but labelled heretics by the Catholics. I guess you could say some of Latin America was converted at the point of a gun, but even there, it's not altogether true as much missionary work was done to create converts via volunteer conversions, and the slave traders didn't always like that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I've read plenty of first-hand accounts dating back to the 1880s, and it was pretty much as Steve describes. As returning Jews brought prosperity, and there were Jews there at that time as well, non-Jews moved to the area. Well all I can say is that they were probably biased. I can also find the same thing, including that wonderful claim that the region was "a land without a people, for a people without a land". The facts are there. Yes it was an impoverished territory, and yes Jews have done a fantastic job recovering desert land. That does not change the demographics which are public record.
I don't see Israel as formed by imposing on a majority at all. The Palestinians sided, for the most part, with the losing side in several wars. Well that sure is blaming the victim. If not imposed on them there would be no Israel. How do you think it became a nation? Voted in? That would be the ONLY democratic route and you will see that none was ever taken. It was imposed by foreign powers on the region. The Palestinians were willing to live in a nation with Jews, but this was rejected by Jews and Xians who wanted to create a nation state for Jews, regardless of the facts on the ground. That is the history. Yes, once imposed the Palestinians were (rightfully) opposed and willing to war toward that end. They lost and so now should move on. But to make it seem like Israel simply formed in some democratic way and Palestinians arose to fight it is to ignore facts.
The Palestinians lost the war. That's how it goes sometime. So what you are saying is that you didn't bother reading my post before responding. I specifically said that they lost the war and should move on. I agreed that at this point in time their best shot is to live peacefully and forget theoretical ideas of what should have happened. They lost. What does not change are the facts of how Israel was formed. Just as I don't claim that the native americans got what they deserved after attacking us, and that's why we have the land now. I'm not for Native Americans (or southerners) for fighting lost battles at this point, but I don't believe in revisionist history either. Got it? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Can you show some links detailing this stuff? The reason I ask is it appears the area was ruled by various empires, not Palestianians, and then they separated the land based on majorities, with the majority Jewish area to be Israel or the area with a lot of Jewish presence to be Israel, and then Israel gained more land due to wars.
Now, I'll admit Jewish terrorists played a role and probably helped create the Palestianian terrorists by going down that path. Neither helped their causes, imo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I guess you could say some of Latin America was converted at the point of a gun, but even there, it's not altogether true as much missionary work was done to create converts via volunteer conversions, and the slave traders didn't always like that. Oh come on... Pagans were converted by force by the Romans (once Xianized) and by the Church afterward. Jews were horribly persecuted and were often forced to convert or die as were muslims. Yes, even within Xian ranks there was persecution, just as there is now within Islam. The idea that you are going to rewrite history and pretend that Latin America was largely peacefully converted is nauseating (they were led by CONQUISTadores). And what about the mass reculturalization of North American natives? And somehow you forgot about Africa (like south africa?) and the entire orient region. The horrific efforts of missionaries in places like the Polynesian islands is public record. Asking me to provide evidence for this... which is rather widely available... is as odious and absurd as asking me to provide evidence that the holocaust occured or that Romans really persecuted Xians. You really believe that it was all church socials don't you? By the way, many still resort to intimidation. Here in Amsterdam they march around in the red light district from time to time, sometimes yelling at people. And have recently taken to going into adult movie theaters to stare and sermonize at people. Back in the states some church orgs would take pictures of people or license plates of people that would go to bars or adult places of business to (try and) shame them publically. Thus it is not only conversion to religious principles, but expectations of behavior based on religious beliefs. By the way, it wasn't an Islamic group that just rewrote the definition of science using a legal powerplay in Kansas, in order to undercut science and replace it with forced classroom indoctrination of creation stories... It was Xians. That is why I say Islam is much less a threat to "our way of life" at this time, than fundie Xianity. Militant Islam poses a physical threat, but not a real permanent threat to our way of life at this point in time. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024