How is that relevant?KanBear wrote:
Your statement.....Is incorrect. After Rome sacked Jerusalem(70 CE), nearly all the Jews within the city were murdered. This was the first of THREE revolts by the Jews.CameronPoe wrote:
The jews of the region fled........
66 CE - 73 CE Great Jewish Revolt- killing or enslaving a large part of the Jewish population.
115 CE - 117 CE Kitos Revolt - killed all the revolting Jews
132 CE - 135 CE Bar Kokhba's Revolt - killing or enslaving the remainder of the Jewish population.
This marks the beginning of the Jewish diaspora..
THEN, there's the Jewish revolt in 351-352.
In 438, Empress Eudocia removed the ban for Jews to worship at the temple site...
In 614, Persians captured Jerusalem with the help of Jews...
In 629, Emperor Heraclius dispersed the Jews by massacring as many as possible....
So explain to me again, just HOW they "FLED"......
It's relevant in that it disproves the idea of the Jews leaving said region when in reality, the only reason population decreased was because of killings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diasporaDesertFox423 wrote:
It's relevant in that it disproves the idea of the Jews leaving said region when in reality, the only reason population decreased was because of killings.
Fine, I really shouldn't have used the word "only" in the reply in question.CameronPoe wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diasporaDesertFox423 wrote:
It's relevant in that it disproves the idea of the Jews leaving said region when in reality, the only reason population decreased was because of killings.
Other than semantics on how Jews no longer inhabited Canaan, how is it relevant to today's Palestine and Israel?DesertFox423 wrote:
It's relevant in that it disproves the idea of the Jews leaving said region when in reality, the only reason population decreased was because of killings.
People make the arguement "_____ got here first" followed by "No, the fucking ______ were there 200 years before"Drakef wrote:
Other than semantics on how Jews no longer inhabited Canaan, how is it relevant to today's Palestine and Israel?DesertFox423 wrote:
It's relevant in that it disproves the idea of the Jews leaving said region when in reality, the only reason population decreased was because of killings.
People do, it doesn't make it very relevant to anything though.DesertFox423 wrote:
People make the arguement "_____ got here first" followed by "No, the fucking ______ were there 200 years before"Drakef wrote:
Other than semantics on how Jews no longer inhabited Canaan, how is it relevant to today's Palestine and Israel?DesertFox423 wrote:
It's relevant in that it disproves the idea of the Jews leaving said region when in reality, the only reason population decreased was because of killings.
The fact is the Palestinians were there, then they got screwed over by out of control Zionist immigration and a deliberate campaign of economic deprivement. When the indigenous Arab populace rose up and rioted about this (which got a bit out of hand), Zionist terror groups were formed and a massive terrorist campaign was waged against the Palestinian people and the British administrative forces. Israel was founded by these terrorists, who later renamed the terror groups the IDF.
A similar climate of Arab oppression has existed in Israel/Palestine since then. That is the issue.
Who do you side with? The terrorist invaders or the displaced and oppressed indigenous people?
Seriously... who cares! Let them kill each other, if they are too blind to see past their differences they deserve conflict. The only people are feel sorry for are the children that get brought up there and learn to hate just because the adults are all fuck ups.
Until I knew the history of the conflict, I have to say I felt pretty much the same way. These days it's the Palestinians doing the terrorism and the Israelis brutally oppressing them and they're very clearly both in the wrong.Vilham wrote:
Seriously... who cares! Let them kill each other, if they are too blind to see past their differences they deserve conflict. The only people are feel sorry for are the children that get brought up there and learn to hate just because the adults are all fuck ups.
When I did read up on the history of the conflict I was outraged by the behaviour of the Israelis, which has led me to have quite a dim opinion of them in general since then.
Poll: What Should Palestine Do to Achieve Peace?
(I put it here, because I got a thread closed because it is not allowed to open another thread about this)
Options:
A-Keep fighting in the same way despite who is in charge
B-Hamas is the Solution but they Should Be Less Extremist
C-Fatah is the Solution and Hamas Should Dissapear
D-Hamas and Fatah Should form a Coalition
E-Both Hamas and Fatah Should Dissapear
F-They'll never achieve peace
G-Other
In order to see the stats of the poll get a calculator.
(I put it here, because I got a thread closed because it is not allowed to open another thread about this)
Options:
A-Keep fighting in the same way despite who is in charge
B-Hamas is the Solution but they Should Be Less Extremist
C-Fatah is the Solution and Hamas Should Dissapear
D-Hamas and Fatah Should form a Coalition
E-Both Hamas and Fatah Should Dissapear
F-They'll never achieve peace
G-Other
In order to see the stats of the poll get a calculator.
I support the removal of this thread.. new post are getting lost in this thread.. we should be allowed to talk about palestine/israel and create new topic.
[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
I support the removal of this thread.. new post are getting lost in this thread.. we should be allowed to talk about palestine/israel and create new topic.
JahManRed wrote:
[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
I support the removal of this thread.. new post are getting lost in this thread.. we should be allowed to talk about palestine/israel and create new topic.
By all means do![UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
I support the removal of this thread.. new post are getting lost in this thread.. we should be allowed to talk about palestine/israel and create new topic.
You have a go ahead to open topics. But the moment of flaming, cursing or any other form of offtopic behaviour starts you will either report that immediatly thus helping to moderate those topics, or it will be back to a central topic.
Now go, make your constructive topics and help keep them clean!
I thought this was closed?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
So Palestinians decide to go back to suicide bombing Israelis inorder to end the infighting between Hamas and Fatah. Nice, huh.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16866610/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16866610/
Nice. Blame the actions of one individual on an entire people.rawls2 wrote:
So Palestinians decide to go back to suicide bombing Israelis inorder to end the infighting between Hamas and Fatah. Nice, huh.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16866610/
Perhaps you should also examine why that man performed that last act of suicide. Could it be that his people are under the subjugation of someone who stole their land?
Examine it yes, justify it no.Drakef wrote:
Nice. Blame the actions of one individual on an entire people.rawls2 wrote:
So Palestinians decide to go back to suicide bombing Israelis inorder to end the infighting between Hamas and Fatah. Nice, huh.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16866610/
Perhaps you should also examine why that man performed that last act of suicide. Could it be that his people are under the subjugation of someone who stole their land?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The whole purpose of examining it is to judge whether it's justifiable or not.Kmarion wrote:
Examine it yes, justify it no.Drakef wrote:
Nice. Blame the actions of one individual on an entire people.rawls2 wrote:
So Palestinians decide to go back to suicide bombing Israelis inorder to end the infighting between Hamas and Fatah. Nice, huh.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16866610/
Perhaps you should also examine why that man performed that last act of suicide. Could it be that his people are under the subjugation of someone who stole their land?
ƒ³
Understanding the root cause does not mean you agree with murder. You can examine to understand what actions created the results. You seem to leave little room in your line of thinking. You can condemn and still not agree with the things that led up to it. Someone can do a bunch of drugs and go on a murderous tirade. We know that drugs could have been the problem but ffs that doesn't mean I find murder acceptable. Very few people for whatever reason in this forum have a hard time understanding that two wrongs don't make a right.oug wrote:
The whole purpose of examining it is to judge whether it's justifiable or not.Kmarion wrote:
Examine it yes, justify it no.Drakef wrote:
Nice. Blame the actions of one individual on an entire people.
Perhaps you should also examine why that man performed that last act of suicide. Could it be that his people are under the subjugation of someone who stole their land?
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-09 12:18:58)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I never said I agreed with murder! Nor that two wrongs make a right. All I said was that the purpose of examining something like that is to judge whether it can be justified (even to an extent) or not. How that was translated into "leaving little room" is beyond me.Kmarion wrote:
Understanding the root cause does not mean you agree with murder. You can examine to understand what actions created the results. You seem to leave little room in your line of thinking. You can condemn and still not agree with the things that led up to it. Someone can do a bunch of drugs and go on a murderous tirade. We know that drugs could have been the problem but ffs that doesn't mean I find murder acceptable. Very few people for whatever reason in this forum have a hard time understanding that two wrongs don't make a right.oug wrote:
The whole purpose of examining it is to judge whether it's justifiable or not.Kmarion wrote:
Examine it yes, justify it no.
In this particular case, I cannot agree with suicide bombers. Targeting civilians is unacceptable. Yet, I am convinced that suicide is something nobody can just waltz into. In fact, giving up your own life is probably the hardest decision a man can make. So, I will not just go ahead and condemn that action, without at the same time looking into the cause of it... that which leaves these people with no choice but to die. I will not turn a blind eye to the effects of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. To my mind, anyone who condemns suicide bombings and wishes them to stop must first condemn the region's status quo as that was set by Israel and their allies, and direct their efforts to putting an end to the injustices against the Palestinians, for the latter are primarily the receiving end of aggression. Again, I 'm fully aware of their part in the continuing of this situation and never advocated that they were not to blame.
ƒ³
In a perfect world i would say that violence and murder cannot be condoned but in the face of serious oppression and violence it is part of human nature to fight back. Surely no one could condemn the Jews in the Sobibór extermination camp for their attempts to tackle the Nazis in 1943. Violence begets violence and if Israel is intent on maintaining its "we'll hit them harder than they hit us" stance then they will continue to fuel the desire to fight back via suicide bombings and rocket attacks. The best that region could hope for would be for it reach a state similar to Northern Ireland, which although not perfect has come to accept that violence has no place in its future.
What really annoys me is the way the US allows Israel to do what it pleases. Israel tries to be perceived as a legitimate nation and yet it has no qualms about carrying out state terror, oppressing the Arabs in the region, subjecting them to humiliating 'security' measures and killing large numbers of civilians as part of operations to target Arab political figures. It has amassed nuclear weapons despite the obvious tension such an act would cause in the region (and let's not even get into how they locked up Mordechai Vanunu).
America goes on about the danger of rogue states attaining nuclear weapons and it sits back and lets the most belligerent nation in the world build up one of the most powerful arsenals on the planet. One rule for Israel, another rule for everyone else.
What really annoys me is the way the US allows Israel to do what it pleases. Israel tries to be perceived as a legitimate nation and yet it has no qualms about carrying out state terror, oppressing the Arabs in the region, subjecting them to humiliating 'security' measures and killing large numbers of civilians as part of operations to target Arab political figures. It has amassed nuclear weapons despite the obvious tension such an act would cause in the region (and let's not even get into how they locked up Mordechai Vanunu).
America goes on about the danger of rogue states attaining nuclear weapons and it sits back and lets the most belligerent nation in the world build up one of the most powerful arsenals on the planet. One rule for Israel, another rule for everyone else.
You are fully capable of condemning both actions at the same time. I understand there must be an incredible amount of motivation to drive someone to suicide bomb, but there is nothing on this planet that justifies premeditated murder of innocents (ON BOTH SIDES). We as decent humans, who care about life just as equally can do this. This is why I can not take a side on this issue. For every bs thing that happens there was one that preceded it and one that will follow it. They both simply want to exist yet it only take a few people to throw the entire situation in chaos. We need real solutions not people taking sides. When you take a side (especially if you are an outsider) you become part of the problem. Your judgment is flawed from that point on.oug wrote:
I never said I agreed with murder! Nor that two wrongs make a right. All I said was that the purpose of examining something like that is to judge whether it can be justified (even to an extent) or not. How that was translated into "leaving little room" is beyond me.Kmarion wrote:
Understanding the root cause does not mean you agree with murder. You can examine to understand what actions created the results. You seem to leave little room in your line of thinking. You can condemn and still not agree with the things that led up to it. Someone can do a bunch of drugs and go on a murderous tirade. We know that drugs could have been the problem but ffs that doesn't mean I find murder acceptable. Very few people for whatever reason in this forum have a hard time understanding that two wrongs don't make a right.oug wrote:
The whole purpose of examining it is to judge whether it's justifiable or not.
In this particular case, I cannot agree with suicide bombers. Targeting civilians is unacceptable. Yet, I am convinced that suicide is something nobody can just waltz into. In fact, giving up your own life is probably the hardest decision a man can make. So, I will not just go ahead and condemn that action, without at the same time looking into the cause of it... that which leaves these people with no choice but to die. I will not turn a blind eye to the effects of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. To my mind, anyone who condemns suicide bombings and wishes them to stop must first condemn the region's status quo as that was set by Israel and their allies, and direct their efforts to putting an end to the injustices against the Palestinians, for the latter are primarily the receiving end of aggression. Again, I 'm fully aware of their part in the continuing of this situation and never advocated that they were not to blame.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-10 16:48:33)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I must agree with Kmarion on the point of innocent victims of political struggle. I do however have limited sympathy for soldiers who are killed in battle in conflicts like Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland (during the troubles) and Israel. There are numerous excuses put forward in defence of soldiers, for example that many American soldiers are from dead-end towns with zero employment but the minute you sign up for that job and put that uniform on you have taken a side and must accept that by simply being part of that army you may be seen as an aggressor and a target from any nation or people that army engages with. I'd like to think if i was a German during Hitler's time I'd have had the guts to refuse to do something that I knew in my heart was profoundly wrong and face the consequences with a clean conscience.Kmarion wrote:
there is nothing on this planet that justifies premeditated murder of innocents (ON BOTH SIDES).
The IRA used more acceptable methods during the troubles when they targeted infrastructure with their bombs, warning calls were given to allow time for people to be cleared from the area. This I find acceptable as a strategic tactic in a struggle as it hurts your oppressors economically without hurting innocent people. I understand that this was not the only type of attacks carried out by the IRA and I would not defend all of their actions over the years.