PDA

View Full Version : Israel... Why them???


I-25
10-28-05, 11:06 AM
Why is it that when theres a problem israel is always in it??? ;)

Kissaki
10-28-05, 11:27 AM
I had a problem with my internet connection yesterday, but do you think Israel came to help? Bunch of slackers :nope:

I-25
10-28-05, 11:43 AM
LOL!!! :rotfl:

August
10-28-05, 12:05 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/new_sign_24.jpg

Kapitan
10-28-05, 12:25 PM
hmm wonder why

I-25
10-28-05, 02:56 PM
but whats hitler got to do with islam as far as i know he was catholic!

Type941
10-28-05, 05:00 PM
I posted the same question in Iran thread.

mog
10-28-05, 05:12 PM
The problem with Israel is that it's full of Jews, and Muslim fascists just can't have that.

Type941
10-28-05, 05:15 PM
The problem with Israel is that it's full of Jews, and Muslim fascists just can't have that.

Well, than wipe them fascist off the face of the earth. There I said it.

U-552Erich-Topp
10-28-05, 06:31 PM
:) Ja, I always wonder why there is such a problem in Israel. It seems like there is always a problem of one kind or another in that country. Their problems go on and on and on with no end in sight. There is no solution for all the problems they have. :up:

TLAM Strike
10-28-05, 09:38 PM
For that tiny slice, the jihadist Muslims are willing to destroy us all :hulk:How would you feel if someone came in and staked a clamed to Washington DC, or New York or Houston? It’s the principle. :roll:

Onkel Neal
10-28-05, 11:25 PM
BS, as far as I'm concerned, if the Jews want to carve a similar slice out of Texas and give up the Holy Land, I'd welcome them. And the neighbors (Mexico) are a helluva lot better people.

gdogghenrikson
10-28-05, 11:30 PM
BS, as far as I'm concerned, if the Jews want to carve a similar slice out of Texas and give up the Holy Land, I'd welcome them. And the neighbors (Mexico) are a helluva lot better people.

WOW!! I never new racisism is welcomed at subsim

Sea Demon
10-28-05, 11:49 PM
BS, as far as I'm concerned, if the Jews want to carve a similar slice out of Texas and give up the Holy Land, I'd welcome them. And the neighbors (Mexico) are a helluva lot better people.

WOW!! I never new racisism is welcomed at subsim

Some of us actually got the joke. I think you're looking at a hyperbole here. There isn't alot of Suicide Bombers from Mexico trying to blow themselves up on buses full of innocent people. People are so inclined to throw around the "R" word too quickly. :roll:

Sea Demon

Kissaki
10-29-05, 12:15 AM
BS, as far as I'm concerned, if the Jews want to carve a similar slice out of Texas and give up the Holy Land, I'd welcome them. And the neighbors (Mexico) are a helluva lot better people.

Ok, imagine this, then. The UN decide to give the Palestinians (who were forced out of today's Israel) a holy land in Texas, and the Texans in that slice of land had to move. A tiny piece, but how'd you feel?

Abraham
10-29-05, 12:52 AM
BS, as far as I'm concerned, if the Jews want to carve a similar slice out of Texas and give up the Holy Land, I'd welcome them. And the neighbors (Mexico) are a helluva lot better people.
Good one. Shows the mentality to solve conflicts instead of creating them...

Ok, imagine this, then. The UN decide to give the Palestinians (who were forced out of today's Israel) a holy land in Texas, and the Texans in that slice of land had to move. A tiny piece, but how'd you feel?
But you know that this is only half the truth.
You forgot about all the other Jews from all over the US moving towards that tiny slice of desert, often forcibly kicked out by other Americans. But instead of those Texans taking the Jewish houses all over the US, the State of Texas puts them in refugee camps around the tiny slice and none of the other US States want to accept them so they end up getting multi-million dollar refugee subsidies from the UN for doing nothing but complaining about the tiny slice.
In the meantime the Jews take the slice of Texan desert and make it fertile and prosporous.
Only then the US starts whining about the Jewish "occupation" of "American" land.
And uh... don't forget to throw into the equation that the Jews are of course an Indian tribe that happened to live in the Texas area long before European colonisation.
:D

Kissaki
10-29-05, 02:51 AM
But you know that this is only half the truth.
You forgot about all the other Jews from all over the US moving towards that tiny slice of desert, often forcibly kicked out by other Americans. But instead of those Texans taking the Jewish houses all over the US, the State of Texas puts them in refugee camps around the tiny slice and none of the other US States want to accept them so they end up getting multi-million dollar refugee subsidies from the UN for doing nothing but complaining about the tiny slice.
In the meantime the Jews take the slice of Texan desert and make it fertile and prosporous.
Only then the US starts whining about the Jewish "occupation" of "American" land.
And uh... don't forget to throw into the equation that the Jews are of course an Indian tribe that happened to live in the Texas area long before European colonisation.
:D

But this of course will pave the way for a radical right-wing party whose claim it is that the top of the capitalist pyramid is run by money-hungry Jews. The party's leader, who's not even a US citizen but Canadian, rapidly usurps the political ranks and promises to get America out of the deficit it's currently in. A deficit for which the Jews of course are responsible. The culmination comes about when the White House mysteriously is set ablaze, and the blame naturally falls on the Jews. This gives the Canadian upstart an excuse to get a motion passed which renders the system of checks and balances null and void, as it's easier to fix something if one's hands aren't tied.

To reduce corruption, Jews are consequently restricted from governmental positions, and to prevent them spreading all out of control they are also barred from marrying non-Jews. The inevitable conclusion, however, is that the Jews have to go. Anywhere, but not here. For some reason the Jews, wanting to leave, are bogged down in red tape, and those settling down in the neighbouring countries get something of a raw deal because:

Canada, impressed by what their countryman has achieved in the US, naturally wants to be part of this new Great America, which also expands south to include the Sudeten-Americans in Mexico. Guantanamo Base must also be "liberated", because it's trapped on the other side of the Corridor (Cuba). By now the non-aggression pact with Europe starts to look shaky (which was formed when the US and Europe decided to get Iraq together - the UN had said, "do not attack Iraq or else", but as it turned out didn't lift a finger), especially since the UN has just allowed the US to annex left and right as they please. And true enough, the Americans are eventually fed up with the "Euro-trash" across the pond, and so they prepare for military operations on the Eastern front.

Meanwhile, the Jews aren't quite getting out fast enough for the Americans, and what do you know, Canada and Mexico were also infested with Jews. So they are forced into ghettoes at first, but when that doesn't work they're stowed into reservation-camps along with other undesirables (cherokees, iroquis, navajo etc.). The EU hears the reports but shrugs and says, "that's not my pigeon".

And now the stage is set for terriffic uboat battle in the Atlantic.

:D

Abraham
10-29-05, 03:18 AM
You have a real funny way getting out of a trap when you're cornered in a discussion!
:rotfl:

Kissaki
10-29-05, 03:22 AM
You have a real funny way getting out of a trap when you're cornered in a discussion!
:rotfl:

I actually thought that's what you were doing... :-?

Abraham
10-29-05, 03:48 AM
You have a real funny way getting out of a trap when you're cornered in a discussion!
:rotfl:

I actually thought that's what you were doing... :-?
Ha, sounds nice but is not true, I just stepped in the discussion.

But what is your problem with Israel, if any? Do you doubt it's right of existense?
Just a question.

Happy Times
10-29-05, 03:50 AM
What was the area of Israel before the Jewish started to move back? A feudal culture with some dirtpoor peasants growing almondtrees and herding sheep. Some Mufti in Damascus or Kairo took their share of the small profits. Then came the "evil" zionists and bought the crabbiest land from the land owners with overprize. The arabs thought they wouldn last long. But they did well with their irrigation and modern agriculture. So they were jelleous of their succes and the seed of conflict was planted. Same attitude can be seen in their culture in present time. They allways see that everything is someone elses fault, usually Zionists and the West. Some of them have become incredibly wealthy do to natural riches=oil. But they prefer to buy their products and services from abroad, instead of creating their own production and education. They cant get their fighterplanes up but can steer commercial liners after takeoff into buildings :-j

Kissaki
10-29-05, 04:07 AM
Then came the "evil" zionists and bought the crabbiest land from the land owners with overprize.

You mean the purchase of land from absent landlords and the subsequent eviction of the Palestinians who lived there? Can't imagine what they were sore about :roll:

Abraham
10-29-05, 04:12 AM
What was the area of Israel before the Jewish started to move back? A feudal culture with some dirtpoor peasants growing almondtrees and herding sheep. Some Mufti in Damascus or Kairo took their share of the small profits.About 600.000 Arabs according to the first British census around 1920 in the whole of Palestine (incl. West Bank & Gaza Strip); which means that the land was practically empty, apart from a few cities. Then came the "evil" zionists and bought the crabbiest land from the land owners with overprize. The arabs thought they wouldn last long. But they did well with their irrigation and modern agriculture.Not many know that the Zionistic agricultural activities created an immigration of poor Arab peasants to Palestine of 60.000 (10%) between 1920 and 1930. That was allowed by Britain (the colonial power) but in the same period Britain imposed immigration rules to keep the Jewish population artificially low. Otherwise there would have been a Jewish majority in Paslestine in the late '30s...

Happy Times
10-29-05, 04:24 AM
Then came the "evil" zionists and bought the crabbiest land from the land owners with overprize.

You mean the purchase of land from absent landlords and the subsequent eviction of the Palestinians who lived there? Can't imagine what they were sore about :roll: Well thats not the Jews fault if their "masters" decided to sell :doh: And when the war of independence started many left of free will bacause they thought the Jews would be massacred and driven away. If i was Jewish, wouldn let that kind of people to return, would you?

Kissaki
10-29-05, 04:33 AM
You have a real funny way getting out of a trap when you're cornered in a discussion!
:rotfl:

I actually thought that's what you were doing... :-?
Ha, sounds nice but is not true, I just stepped in the discussion.

But what is your problem with Israel, if any? Do you doubt it's right of existense?
Just a question.

I thought you made a humorous comment to diffuse the thread.

But anyway, since you ask, I'll answer:

It was wrong, two milenniums ago, to force the Jews from their lands. It was also wrong, however, to establish the British Mandate of Palestine, granting the Jews access back to their promised land. The Palestinians lived there now, regardless of ancient history, and two wrongs do not make a right. They didn't start minding until anti-semittism flared up again in Europe, however, and the Jews arrived in Israel in great numbers. It was then further wrong to buy more lands without the Palestinian people's consent (the landlords, who didn't even live there, what did they care?), and kick them out subsequently. And now, it is wrong to expect the Israelites to leave their homes for the Palestinians, because that's Israeli land now, and two wrongs do not make a right.

But the occupation of the West Bank and of the Gaza strip (until just recently, anyway) was the main point of contention, anyway. The Palestinians were not the only ones to view that military occupation as illegal.

Happy Times
10-29-05, 04:34 AM
[/quote]Not many know that the Zionistic agricultural activities created an immigration of poor Arab peasants to Palestine of 60.000 (10%) between 1920 and 1930. That was allowed by Britain (the colonial power) but in the same period Britain imposed immigration rules to keep the Jewish population artificially low. Otherwise there would have been a Jewish majority in Paslestine in the late '30s[quote] Yeah and because of that "Palestians" of today are a collection of these dirtpoor peasents from surrounding countries. They are a political tool artificially inseminated by the arab countries and the muslim world.

Kissaki
10-29-05, 04:40 AM
I managed to dig up a quote made in 1907 by the then British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman:

There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilizations and religions.

These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.

No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another... if per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.

Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.

Happy Times
10-29-05, 05:08 AM
I managed to dig up a quote made in 1907 by the then British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman:

There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilizations and religions.

These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.

No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another... if per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.

Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects. Sounds like a wise man :yep:

Abraham
10-29-05, 05:08 AM
The whole problem is really a result of colonialism.

Palestine (including what is now Jordan) was promised to the Jews as a "National Home" in the Balfour Declaration (1917) by Britain, the ruling colonial power that got the Protectorate through the League of Nations. This promise was made for a strange variety of reasons. Britain first split Transjordan and gave it to Sheikh Abdullah, the grandfather of the late king Hussein. Then it promised the Arabs that there would never be a Jewish majority in what was left as/of Palestine.
In the end Britain couldn't keep it's first promise nor it's last and everybody was upset...

Finally, in 1948, the successor of the League of Nations, the U.N., decided to divide the country in equal Jewish and Arab parts and an international zone. This was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs, who started a war (War of Independence) in which they were beaten and Israel was actually enlarged.

This war caused huge refugee problems on both sides. Between 500.000 (Israel) and 725.000 Arabs left voluntarily or were forced out of the war zone and did not return. About 160.000 stayed or returned. In the aftermath of the war 580.000 Jews left Arab countries, often as refugees with their business and belongings being confiscated and immigrated to Israel, where they started a new life.
The Arab leaders on the contrary refused to settle the Arab refugees and put them in huge refugee camps, run by the UN (UNWRA) to keep political pressure upon Israel. This has been an extremely effective policy from a political point of view.

U-552Erich-Topp
10-29-05, 12:13 PM
:) I noticed one of the messages on this thread stated that there was racism on Subsim. Well the bottom line is that you are entitled to express your opinion in this world no matter what it is. It is part of your "freedom of expression" rights. So it's just plain tough if someone doesn't like your opinion on a matter here on the forum or in the world. Acutually if another person doesn't like your opinion then it's really their problem and not yours. A lot of people gave their lives so that you could have your "freedom of expression".

Kissaki
10-29-05, 01:54 PM
I managed to dig up a quote made in 1907 by the then British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman:

There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilizations and religions.

These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.

No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another... if per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.

Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects. Sounds like a wise man :yep:

So you're defending death and destruction for profit, as long as the death and destruction befalls "them"? It is your prerogative to think so, but you can hardly take the moral high ground if you do.

Kind Seas
10-29-05, 02:39 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/new_sign_24.jpg



HUMMMMMMMMMMM

Joel Chapter 3 read it please... that would be in the bible

Happy Times
10-29-05, 05:53 PM
I managed to dig up a quote made in 1907 by the then British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman:

There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilizations and religions.

These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.

No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another... if per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.

Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects. Sounds like a wise man :yep:

So you're defending death and destruction for profit, as long as the death and destruction befalls "them"? It is your prerogative to think so, but you can hardly take the moral high ground if you do. I just think you cant treat democracies and dictatorships with the same rules. When they decide to end the dark ages and start to live like civilized people we can treat them like one. ;)

caspofungin
10-29-05, 06:12 PM
Really? And what's your definition of "civilized?"

Happy Times
10-29-05, 06:24 PM
Really? And what's your definition of "civilized?" Well lets be honest about it. What muslim country doesnt have large scale and repeated human rights issues? Does any western country have these issues on a same scale? And if you blame the poverty i think its only a result of their culture, not our fault :doh:

Kissaki
10-29-05, 06:35 PM
Really? And what's your definition of "civilized?" Well lets be honest about it. What muslim country doesnt have large scale and repeated human rights issues? Does any western country have these issues on a same scale?

Turkey? Northern Ireland?

And if you blame the poverty i think its only a result of their culture, not our fault :doh:

Sure, because the West certainly has no history of exploiting 3rd world countries and causing humanitarian crisis :P

caspofungin
10-29-05, 06:45 PM
oh, i see -- civilization implies a decent record of human rights and lack of poverty. great. does that apply to the bastion of western civilization, the usa? i've never been to finland, but you should visit the us -- i can take you on a tour of downtown detroit, and you can tell all the poor people there how lucky they are to be civilized.

human rights issues and poverty are problems of a government -- a government that lacks leadership or the wiilingnes to take care of its people. that happens all over the world, not just in muslim countries, so to claim that "they" are "uncivilized" on that basis is a fallacious argument, devoid of logic.

let's take saudi arabia -- one of the countries with human rights issues. Specifically, the saudi monarchy uses their power with the courts to imprison any opponents to the regime, where they're tortured. this is the same saudi regime that's been propped up by the west since its inception in 1923.

re poverty -- what western civilized country doesn't have a sizeable portion of its population below the poverty line? Let's bring up saudi arabia again -- the ruling elite live in absolute luxury while part of the population has to make do in abject poverty. Again, the same regime that exists at the behest of the west. Plus, of all the dollars that are made from a barrel of oil, only a small fraction goes to the arab country where that oil was drilled -- the majority of profits go to the oil companies, a situation that the governments are happy to put up with. the quran states that the wealth of a country -- on the land, underneath it, or from the sea -- belongs equally to all the people of that country. but just like in every other major religion, people (ie the arab governments) are willing to ignore those parts that don't give them a benefit. And other people (ie you) seem willing to generalize from the actions of a few, despite what the majority thinks or does.

Happy Times
10-29-05, 06:55 PM
Turkey? Northern Ireland? Your calling Turkey a Western country? :88) :o :cry: :rotfl: Oh , your just asking.. No,its not. Norhern Ireland would be classified as a low scale civil war and i wouldnt count it here. But your really reaching even if i give you that one..Name one muslim country that doesnt have these problems? List might be shorter than that one :roll: Sure, because the West certainly has no history of exploiting 3rd world countries and causing humanitarian crisis How long is this record going to play? It seems that the 3rd world countries are cabable of generating these problems and crisis just fine even without us. :-? Do you really think all is cause of colonization. Ever considered that culture might have something to do with how your society looks like?

Kissaki
10-29-05, 07:13 PM
Turkey? Northern Ireland? Your calling Turkey a Western country? :88) :o :cry: :rotfl: Oh , your just asking.. No,its not. Norhern Ireland would be classified as a low scale civil war and i wouldnt count it here. But your really reaching even if i give you that one..Name one muslim country that doesnt have these problems? List might be shorter than that one :roll:


I listed Turkey as a Muslim country first, because that's the first thing you asked for. Then I listed Northern Ireland as a Western country second, because that's the second thing you asked for.

How long is this record going to play? It seems that the 3rd world countries are cabable of generating these problems and crisis just fine even without us. :-? Do you really think all is cause of colonization. Ever considered that culture might have something to do with how your society looks like?

Would those countries manage to make those crisis' without us? Hard to tell, we haven't given them the chance. As for the initial reasons, the answers are found in history. The quickest way to sum it up would be to liken it to a time-old riddle:

If the crab and the octopus fought eachother, who would win?

The answer is the shark.

Happy Times
10-29-05, 07:26 PM
I listed Turkey as a Muslim country first, because that's the first thing you asked for. Then I listed Northern Ireland as a Western country second, because that's the second thing you asked for. OK,sorry,getting tired :zzz: Wouldnt compare the two personally.
Would those countries manage to make those crisis' without us? Hard to tell, we haven't given them the chance. As for the initial reasons, the answers are found in history. The quickest way to sum it up would be to liken it to a time-old riddle:

If the crab and the octopus fought eachother, who would win?

The answer is the shark. Its nice that you have this hope for better. I just think that cultures sometimes are radically different and the end result is also very different. Looking back at history these different interests sometimes clash and i sense one behind the corner. Thats the human nature.

TLAM Strike
10-29-05, 07:59 PM
Really? And what's your definition of "civilized?" Universal Suffrage and Equal Protection Under the Law are big on my list of requirements... :yep:

Damo1977
10-29-05, 08:31 PM
Going back to the original question........Considering I have attacked the Jews in public and than got classified as a NAZI. Well basically it is easier to blame a minority for your problems, than to accept you have to improve yourself.
But in the Western world, since WW2, we have been 'told' not 'learnt' what happened to the Jewish religion and others and CONCENTRATED on that fact. This is what grates on me nerves, Yes it was evil but get over it, to put it bluntly it happens all the time.

"SUPPORT GWS" no not a typing error "SUPPORT GWS"

caspofungin
10-29-05, 09:04 PM
Really? And what's your definition of "civilized?" Universal Suffrage and Equal Protection Under the Law are big on my list of requirements... :yep:

so the usa wouldn't count as civilized until 1964. bollocks. there's a difference between "western" and "civilized." Not exclusive terms, but not the same, either. so to claim that islamic countries are uncivilized because they don't conform to your own standards or conceits is misusing the term.

TLAM Strike
10-29-05, 09:28 PM
Really? And what's your definition of "civilized?" Universal Suffrage and Equal Protection Under the Law are big on my list of requirements... :yep:

so the usa wouldn't count as civilized until 1964. bollocks. there's a difference between "western" and "civilized." Not exclusive terms, but not the same, either. so to claim that islamic countries are uncivilized because they don't conform to your own standards or conceits is misusing the term. No Equal Protection was granted in 1868 (although not enforced in many states, so those states were breaking the law) and Universal Suffrage in 1920. Yes my view of what is civilized is influenced by the fact that I’m from a western nation with all those crazy ideas like “rights” left over from the Greeks and Romans but subjugating an entire segment of your nations population by not allowing them to vote or drive doesn’t make that nation civilized. Don’t confuse Modernized with Civilized. Compare each nation to its peers and you will see, Yemen against UK? Pre-invasion Afghanistan against USA? Those places almost had no rule of law for crying out loud!

caspofungin
10-29-05, 09:59 PM
i'm not the one that's confused, here -- having lived in both eastern and western countries, i know the difference. "subjugating an entire segment of your nations population by not allowing them to vote" -- like the us pre1968, the point i was trying to make. that doesn't mean the us wasn't civilized or modern -- it was both, yet this inequity was allowed to continue.

"compare each nation to its peers" that's exactly what you aren't doing. you're viewing the world through the crystalline lens that living in a free, western democracy allows you to, making the world simple, black and white. Good for you, and the world would be a better place if it was all about rights and equality. but it isn't -- it's about power and leverage and keeping what you've grabbed for yourself. Arab countries are, politically, hundreds of years behind their western counterparts -- any arab with a modicum of sense will freely admit it. that doesn't excuse extrapolating that political difference to justify a claim that islam as a religion is backwards or uncivilized.

and your shining lights the greeks and romans didn't exactly have equal rights for all. yet again, people are using a fragment of history, out of context, to justify their hyperbole.

TLAM Strike
10-29-05, 10:31 PM
that doesn't excuse extrapolating that political difference to justify a claim that islam as a religion is backwards or uncivilized. I wasn't trying to compare Islam to Western political systems I was trying to compare Mid-Eastern social-political systems to Western ones. I guess as an American I tend view religion and politics as separate entities. Any nation can be civilized regardless of religion; religion just gives a government an excuse to act one way or another.

Abraham
10-30-05, 01:07 AM
I managed to dig up a quote made in 1907 by the then British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman:

There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilizations and religions.

These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.

No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another... if per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.

Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects. Sounds like a wise man :yep:
If true - I'd like to know the source - it sounds like a vintage British colonial policy statement to me: Divide et Impera!

Iceman
10-30-05, 01:46 AM
This is why....


Exodus 19

[1] In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
[2] For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
[3] And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
[4] Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
[5] Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
[6] And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

For all the earth is His....Heaven His throne...Earth His foot stool...and Isreal is the Jewel of His eye.Always was...Always will be.

Abraham
10-30-05, 01:49 AM
Arab countries are, politically, hundreds of years behind their western counterparts -- any arab with a modicum of sense will freely admit it.The question I would pose is: Why?
Because of Colonialism?
Because Islam is backward in the field of political theory?
Because Islam prevents free critical thinking about the relevance of the Quran?
Because Islam was not concieved in an area were there were any states and therefor takes on political power - through the Sharia - itself?
(From Roman Catholic history we know that a religion taking up political power is a recipy for disaster...)
... that doesn't excuse extrapolating that political difference to justify a claim that islam as a religion is backwards or uncivilized.Indeed, because such strong generalisations hold the seeds of their own destruction.
But a valid question is: Is political theory within Islam devellopping and progressing?
If so, I really would like to be enlightened on that subject.
If not, how can Arab countries ever catch up those hundred of years you mentionned.
... and your shining lights the greeks and romans didn't exactly have equal rights for all. yet again, people are using a fragment of history, out of context, to justify their hyperbole.I think the point is that the Greeks struggled (philosophically and politically) with the concept of a 'City State' and the division of political power within it. Their thoughts about dictatorship, democracy and everything in between have shaped the European political culture and the concept of nations as the world knows it today.
... religion just gives a government an excuse to act one way or another.While often true, I think Islam forces Muslim governments into a religious/doctrinary direction.
For instance, there is no rational reason why Israel and its Arab neighbours should not have close economic ties for the benefit of all, except for the doctrinairy, backwards, non-political, religious perception that Israel is 'occupying Muslim land.' That religious principle leads to the political conclusion that Israel should 'disappear'.
A non-doctrinairy, progressive, non-religious, political approach is taken by Europe towards (Muslim) Bosnia with regards to E.U. membership.

caspofungin
10-30-05, 01:58 AM
and my point is that even at the high points of greek democracy, they limited the vote to certain segments of society. and kept slaves. and regarded all other societies as, literally, barbarians (the word comes from how the greeks thought non-greeks sounded like).

see the other thread about my comments regarding politics in islam.

and how can the arabs catch up? i don't know. i'm not one of those people that say, "oh, you can't force democracy on people that aren't ready for it." i mean, the statement is true, but i think the arabs are ready for democracy. the problem is, what's the west going to do if they end up voting for a non-secular society? A society based on islamic laws? are they going to respect that country and its laws? or call it backward and ignorant, and try for a regime change?

nothing is going to change as long as the west is interfering in a haphazard, hypocritical manner. how can you claim to be all about democracy, to the extent of starting a war, when all the key allies in the region are monarchies or dictatorships, propped up with western muscle or money?

because that's what the average arab person sees. a two-faced display of hypocrisy and greed, politics at its worst. and somehow they're supposed to think that the democratic system that allows such bs is what's best for them?

Abraham
10-30-05, 03:34 AM
and my point is that even at the high points of greek democracy, they limited the vote to certain segments of society. and kept slaves. and regarded all other societies as, literally, barbarians (the word comes from how the greeks thought non-greeks sounded like).I don't think that detracts from their progressiveness.
In the Athenian democratic model the whole male population had the right to vote and there was an elaborate system of representation and checks and balances.
Slavery was seen as a natural phenomenon and slaves were often held in (high) esteem.
You should not look at ancient cultures without realising were they came from and were we have come from since.
And 'barbaros' means nothing else but 'stranger', 'non-Greek' or 'not belonging to the Greek culture'. Its current meaning says more about the high develloped Greek culture then about the Greek attitude towards non-Greeks.

and how can the arabs catch up? i don't know. i'm not one of those people that say, "oh, you can't force democracy on people that aren't ready for it." i mean, the statement is true, but i think the arabs are ready for democracy. the problem is, what's the west going to do if they end up voting for a non-secular society? A society based on islamic laws? are they going to respect that country and its laws? or call it backward and ignorant, and try for a regime change?These are indeed the real questions.
As long as (fundamental) Islam forbids any theoretical criticism on its position towards the separation of State and Religion, I don't see much progress for Arab political thinking beyond the narrow limits of the 7th century Arab peninsula. I really wonder whether the Arabs are ready for democracy. At least they should start thinking about it and put religion back where it belongs, in the personal realm.
Your question, caspofungin, is what the West would do if democracy leads to a non-secular society based on Islamic laws.
My answer is that the West should respect that.
My question is more relevant for democracy in the Muslim world: What happens if democracy votes away a society based on Islamic laws? Will democracy prevail or will there be some 'Guardians of the Faith' who will kill democracy as soon as it leads to real Arab progress? Are they going to respect the will of the people?
nothing is going to change as long as the west is interfering in a haphazard, hypocritical manner. how can you claim to be all about democracy, to the extent of starting a war, when all the key allies in the region are monarchies or dictatorships, propped up with western muscle or money?Very true, but politics is the offspring of hypocrisy anywhere, isn't it?
because that's what the average arab person sees. a two-faced display of hypocrisy and greed, politics at its worst. and somehow they're supposed to think that the democratic system that allows such bs is what's best for them?If they want progress, democracy and Human Rights, they should not sit and wait for changes from abroad but should study Europe's struggle towards progress, democracy and Human Rights and act!

Col7777
10-30-05, 04:14 AM
We keep jumping to the ancient past then back to the present bouncing thoughts and ideas and what is written in various holy books etc.

So a few questions, where did it all start?

We read of times before Christ where people worshiped stones, trees, hills and effigy's etc, it is a general consensus that they were wrong, so who says the God/s that a lot of people today worship are right?

I asked this on a different thread, which God is the right God, is it the one you were brought up to believe in by your parents because they were brought up to believe in him and so on?

Who are the Gods and where are they, where do they exist, where is Heaven?

Who is the Devil, and where does he exist and is there more than one devil, we don't hear much of him till someone does something wrong, then it is his work that caused it, then when something good happens it is Gods work?

If we hear of something very unusual and overwhelming and perhaps unexplainable we say it is a miracle, so when Jesus was born to a virgin it was unexplainable, so it was a miracle, in those days there were no scientists as such so it must have been the work of God.
Did they have the foresight to jump on a bandwagon and say Jesus is the son of God?

Have any of you played Chinese whispers, where you get 6 people, 5 go out of the room then you give a message to the remaining one, the next one comes in the room and the message is passed on and so on, by the time it gets to the 6th person that message is totally different, but we believe what was said thousands of years ago?

I once asked this to a minister and he said 'The message hasn't just been passed on by word of mouth it has been written in the scriptures' I asked him but when did they decide to write it all down, after it had reached the 6th person and after, his reply was, I can see you are not convinced, I wish you well, he shook my hand and went on his way.

Abraham
10-30-05, 12:28 PM
I think your posting is off topic, Col7777.
Israel can claim rights of first possession of Palestina/Judea & Samaria or whatever you call it.
Israel can claim that the country was promised by God, but it does not do that.
As far as international law is concerned it is important that Israel was established in a period of 30 years according to contemporary procedures and with final confirmation of the United Nations. There can not be more doubt about the 'legality' of Israel then about the legal existence of East Timor, Jordan, my own country or any other nation.

The second part of your remark concerns the accuracy of the Scriptures. In general it can be said that the New Testament scriptures are written within a short period after Jezus was on earth, a period of 10 to 60 years. It is difficult to establish how accurate the message was passed by word of mouth, but in those days people realised the importance of messages and usually did their utmost to give an accurate description of the story.
The Old Testament has been passed by word of mouth in an extremely accurate way. That has been scientifically established by comparing relatively new texts with archeological findings. There were minimal if any discrepancies.
You certainly can't compare 'Chinese whispers' to Holy Scriptures or historic sources in general.

But again, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is the question why Israel should be whiped of the earth.

Col7777
10-30-05, 12:35 PM
Sorry I thought religion was mentioned, enough said. :oops:

Abraham
10-30-05, 01:22 PM
Sorry I thought religion was mentioned, enough said. :oops:
It's OK and I don't want to patronise you.
Religion was mentionned although the relation between Israeli's and Arabs is of course a political problem, for which theology can't find a fitting answer. It's just that I didn't see any link between the post and the subject.
;)

Dan D
10-30-05, 03:31 PM
But again, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is the question why Israel should be whiped of the earth.

Improper suggestive form of question here, because it implies that Israel should be wiped off the world map.
:D

Abraham
10-31-05, 01:37 AM
But again, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is the question why Israel should be whiped of the earth.
Improper suggestive form of question here, because it implies that Israel should be wiped off the world map.
:D
You caught me there!
To be honest I wanted to manipulate the discussion back to the statement of the new Iranian president in a provocative way.
:up:

Iceman
10-31-05, 01:57 AM
I simply was trying to answer the question...Why Isreal...From "my" studies the answer or question lol... Why Isreal? ...is crystal clear.God's interest in it has been obvious to all nations for centuries and this in itself makes it a center point of the world.I don't think it matters who lays claim to it....I like the Navajo belief in that it is pure silliness to try to posses something like land that you can not take with you in death....or even George Carlins example in that we are like fleas that the earth will soon shake off.. lol..George does a great Earth impersonation.
:sunny:

Neptunus Rex
10-31-05, 08:53 AM
Why is it that when theres a problem israel is always in it??? ;)

Because it's the only thing they can agree on. Without it, they would be squabling (or fighting) amongst themselves over everything else.

caspofungin
10-31-05, 11:14 AM
an excellent point :roll:

U-552Erich-Topp
11-04-05, 08:34 PM
:) Hummm I wonder what the reation would have been in this thread if the title "Israel.......why them" had been "Israel....why not them". Just a thought.