Do you know of a more democratic online Encyclopedia?m3thod wrote:
if you trust wikipedia you deserve to be shot.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
what would you do if someone comes and captures your country? would you just stare? muslims have nothing against jews until they settle suddenly in the middle of arab world.
also in islam everyone has rights to believe what they want. we are not ordered to kill anyone who believes to another religion. just search ottomans. fighting against others means that trying to protlyze disbelievers but not by force. if they insist on not believing, then we dont care because we already made our job.
also in islam everyone has rights to believe what they want. we are not ordered to kill anyone who believes to another religion. just search ottomans. fighting against others means that trying to protlyze disbelievers but not by force. if they insist on not believing, then we dont care because we already made our job.
children children take you personal arguments outside (I mean private messages).
Democratic as you can type and edit what ever you want without citing references or sources? key to any debtae is fact, if you're going to cite work without credible evidence to reinforce your claims then your argument is null and void.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know of a more democratic online Encyclopedia?m3thod wrote:
if you trust wikipedia you deserve to be shot.
In terms of credibility, since anyone can edit the content on Wikipedia, its content should probably be used with a critical eye. There is no telling whether the person who last edited the page was really a knowledgeable expert or someone without any real knowledge of the subject mater who just wanted to edit the page or someone in between. Also, since posting often occurs anonymously, there is a lack of accountability that increases the questions about credibility.
Source: http://athena.libraries.claremont.edu/~ … ource.html
Case in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6423659.stm
Frankly i'm amazed you would trust it.
Last edited by m3thod (2007-04-01 08:30:09)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Islam may allow you to believe anything you want, but many Islamic countries don't let you believe in certain things. For example, it's illegal in Turkey to say that the Armenian genocide happened. Your government prosecutes people who do that.Ottomania wrote:
what would you do if someone comes and captures your country? would you just stare? muslims have nothing against jews until they settle suddenly in the middle of arab world.
also in islam everyone has rights to believe what they want. we are not ordered to kill anyone who believes to another religion. just search ottomans. fighting against others means that trying to protlyze disbelievers but not by force. if they insist on not believing, then we dont care because we already made our job.
Granted, many European countries prosecute you for denying the Holocaust.
Oh god... did you have to pick a link involving NC and Nazies?... ugh... lolherrr_smity wrote:
http://www.nsm88.com/rally/northcarolinarally.html
nuff said
Yeah, we have some dumbasses in my state. I guess part of the burden of the freedom of speech is having to put up with nutcases like these people....
every country has its share of dumbassesTurquoise wrote:
Oh god... did you have to pick a link involving NC and Nazies?... ugh... lolherrr_smity wrote:
http://www.nsm88.com/rally/northcarolinarally.html
nuff said
Yeah, we have some dumbasses in my state. I guess part of the burden of the freedom of speech is having to put up with nutcases like these people....
He’s American and would believe anything lol.m3thod wrote:
Democratic as you can type and edit what ever you want without citing references or sources? key to any debtae is fact, if you're going to cite work without credible evidence to reinforce your claims then your argument is null and void.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know of a more democratic online Encyclopedia?m3thod wrote:
if you trust wikipedia you deserve to be shot.
In terms of credibility, since anyone can edit the content on Wikipedia, its content should probably be used with a critical eye. There is no telling whether the person who last edited the page was really a knowledgeable expert or someone without any real knowledge of the subject mater who just wanted to edit the page or someone in between. Also, since posting often occurs anonymously, there is a lack of accountability that increases the questions about credibility.
Source: http://athena.libraries.claremont.edu/~ … ource.html
Case in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6423659.stm
Frankly i'm amazed you would trust it.
I'm kind of getting sick of these threads started by the retard lowing. You need to do something more constructive my friend.
True dat... I think the point of this thread though was to illustrate that the people in power in certain Islamic countries were the dumbasses in several key points of history.herrr_smity wrote:
every country has its share of dumbassesTurquoise wrote:
Oh god... did you have to pick a link involving NC and Nazies?... ugh... lolherrr_smity wrote:
http://www.nsm88.com/rally/northcarolinarally.html
nuff said
Yeah, we have some dumbasses in my state. I guess part of the burden of the freedom of speech is having to put up with nutcases like these people....
Granted, I think Bush is a dumbass in power, but he's not as bad as this guy was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni
Making blanket statements isn't very constructive either. I disagree with lowing most of the time as well, but at the same time, you can't completely discredit Wikipedia.Whiser wrote:
He’s American and would believe anything lol.m3thod wrote:
Democratic as you can type and edit what ever you want without citing references or sources? key to any debtae is fact, if you're going to cite work without credible evidence to reinforce your claims then your argument is null and void.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know of a more democratic online Encyclopedia?
In terms of credibility, since anyone can edit the content on Wikipedia, its content should probably be used with a critical eye. There is no telling whether the person who last edited the page was really a knowledgeable expert or someone without any real knowledge of the subject mater who just wanted to edit the page or someone in between. Also, since posting often occurs anonymously, there is a lack of accountability that increases the questions about credibility.
Source: http://athena.libraries.claremont.edu/~ … ource.html
Case in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6423659.stm
Frankly i'm amazed you would trust it.
I'm kind of getting sick of these threads started by the retard lowing. You need to do something more constructive my friend.
Where as the Catholic Church just idly sat on the side lines and watched Hitler go about slaughtering the Jews? This is a well known a fact and is publicly regretted by them.lowing wrote:
I posted this in another thread then decided it might be worth its own.
We could have brought the Muslim world to its knees as it appears they deserved.
http://stosstruppen39-45.tripod.com/id10.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/ant … bnazi.html
So it would seem that the Muslim hatred of the Jews reaches farther out than the establishment of Israel in 1947( 2 years after WW2), as we are lead to believe. It is apparent that down right intolerance of others and their beliefs is at the root of all this non-sense. The Muslim world actually allied with Hitler to wipe out the Jews. So much for Israel being the reason for this hatred, it is the Jews that are hated, and persecuted.
What was even more strange is the Muslims were thousands of miles away in the ME when WW2 fought, the Christians had ring side tickets....but that's it blame the Muslims to gloss over the fact the Church did nothing to prevent the wholesale extermination of the Jews on their very doorstep.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Wikipedia is cited generally because it is used by a great many people who all have the ability to add to it. Anything inaccurate or biased can be challenged. It allows us to come to a general consensus. If you would like to accept one groups idea as fact enjoy the kool aide. Anyone who continues to write utter crap is banned.m3thod wrote:
Democratic as you can type and edit what ever you want without citing references or sources? key to any debtae is fact, if you're going to cite work without credible evidence to reinforce your claims then your argument is null and void.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know of a more democratic online Encyclopedia?m3thod wrote:
if you trust wikipedia you deserve to be shot.
In terms of credibility, since anyone can edit the content on Wikipedia, its content should probably be used with a critical eye. There is no telling whether the person who last edited the page was really a knowledgeable expert or someone without any real knowledge of the subject mater who just wanted to edit the page or someone in between. Also, since posting often occurs anonymously, there is a lack of accountability that increases the questions about credibility.
Source: http://athena.libraries.claremont.edu/~ … ource.html
Case in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6423659.stm
Frankly i'm amazed you would trust it.
Example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anti-Semitism
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
http://help.com/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-01 09:18:06)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
At your own peril....Turquoise wrote:
Making blanket statements isn't very constructive either. I disagree with lowing most of the time as well, but at the same time, you can't completely discredit Wikipedia.Whiser wrote:
He’s American and would believe anything lol.m3thod wrote:
Democratic as you can type and edit what ever you want without citing references or sources? key to any debtae is fact, if you're going to cite work without credible evidence to reinforce your claims then your argument is null and void.
In terms of credibility, since anyone can edit the content on Wikipedia, its content should probably be used with a critical eye. There is no telling whether the person who last edited the page was really a knowledgeable expert or someone without any real knowledge of the subject mater who just wanted to edit the page or someone in between. Also, since posting often occurs anonymously, there is a lack of accountability that increases the questions about credibility.
Source: http://athena.libraries.claremont.edu/~ … ource.html
Case in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6423659.stm
Frankly i'm amazed you would trust it.
I'm kind of getting sick of these threads started by the retard lowing. You need to do something more constructive my friend.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You do realise the Muslim world which we should have brought to their knees played an important role in winning WWI?lowing wrote:
I posted this in another thread then decided it might be worth its own.
We could have brought the Muslim world to its knees as it appears they deserved.
http://stosstruppen39-45.tripod.com/id10.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/ant … bnazi.html
So it would seem that the Muslim hatred of the Jews reaches farther out than the establishment of Israel in 1947( 2 years after WW2), as we are lead to believe. It is apparent that down right intolerance of others and their beliefs is at the root of all this non-sense. The Muslim world actually allied with Hitler to wipe out the Jews. So much for Israel being the reason for this hatred, it is the Jews that are hated, and persecuted.
People in desperate circumstances do stupid things, which is no excuse. Nor is it unique to Muslims. The Zionist organisation Lehi were in talks with the Nazis and offered them full support in the war, how is that any different? There are extremists on both sides and neither side is in the right, I just see the Zionists as being more in the wrong.
wiki wrote:
In 1940 and 1941, Lehi proposed intervening in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany to attain their help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine and to offer their assistance in "evacuating" the Jews of Europe. Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig and delivered a letter from Lehi offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state"
You've got it the wrong way round - the Zionists hated the British who were in charge and attempting to safeguard the rights of the Arabs living within Palestine and restrict Jewish immigration to managable levels, as they were committed to do under the terms of the mandate. This is why the Zionist terrorist organisations conducted a war of terror against Arab civilians and British military targets throughout the '30s and 40's, acheiving their desired goal of a British withdrawal allowing a Zionist takeover, which Truman immediately (within minutes) backed, he had suggested this to Zionist leaders prior to this.lowing wrote:
So if the Muslims were afraid of British intentions, why not "eliminate" the British as a race?? Why eliminate the people the British fought for?
I don't think that's true. Britain and the league of nations wanted a joint Arab/Jewish state from the outset and Britain never encouraged the creation of the state of Israel, in fact they did take steps to preserve the rights of the Arab population by introducing quotas on Jewish immigration enforced with naval blockades and border control, quotas which were ignored - we all know how hard it is to keep out determined illegal immigrants.JahManRed wrote:
The Muslims knew Britain's intention to allow Israel to create its own state and shift a million Muslims of their lands. When your peoples lands, history and culture is under threat from the largest super power of the time, you cast your eyes around for friends. "Is my enemy's enemy's my friend?" Britain had made it clear that they were going to allow creation of Israel and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni foresaw a the oppression which continues to this day. He was a nationalist and his first priority was the survival of his country.
The US always pushed for an independent Jewish state and it is through US backing that this was acheived.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-01 09:33:20)
At least you didn't say entirely this timeBertster7 wrote:
The US always pushed for an independent Jewish state and it is through US backing that this was acheived.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Very good points... It goes to show that you can't trust any organized religion.m3thod wrote:
Where as the Catholic Church just idly sat on the side lines and watched Hitler go about slaughtering the Jews? This is a well known a fact and is publicly regretted by them.lowing wrote:
I posted this in another thread then decided it might be worth its own.
We could have brought the Muslim world to its knees as it appears they deserved.
http://stosstruppen39-45.tripod.com/id10.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/ant … bnazi.html
So it would seem that the Muslim hatred of the Jews reaches farther out than the establishment of Israel in 1947( 2 years after WW2), as we are lead to believe. It is apparent that down right intolerance of others and their beliefs is at the root of all this non-sense. The Muslim world actually allied with Hitler to wipe out the Jews. So much for Israel being the reason for this hatred, it is the Jews that are hated, and persecuted.
What was even more strange is the Muslims were thousands of miles away in the ME when WW2 fought, the Christians had ring side tickets....but that's it blame the Muslims to gloss over the fact the Church did nothing to prevent the wholesale extermination of the Jews on their very doorstep.
When it comes down to it, the people who really get things done for the betterment of the world are in charities and, ironically, in government. The Vatican certainly didn't have the military capable of taking on Hitler, but they could have at least stood up to the Nazies in their words and faith. They didn't, because the Catholic Church is full of shit.
bloody peasants!
When all is said and done none of this justifies the maltreatment and heavy handedness being dished out by the state of Israel. The Jews and Arabs have a long and contentious history together, looking back only a hundred or even two hundred years is very short sighted. There have always been extreme views on both the Muslim and Jewish sides, it is from this extremism that lowing's case studies have grown. The Muslim faith can't be neatly painted out to be the 'baddies' on the strength of this cherry picking of history.
Accusing the Muslim faith of hating outsiders (i.e that us non-Muslims are 'infidels') is a common ploy but the Jewish attitude that they are the 'chosen' race is equally as exclusionist. The Muslim faith does not have a Pope figure who dictates blanket attitudes or interpretations of the Qur'an and as such there are no doubt many subtle differences in Islam throughout the Muslim world, to judge the many on the actions and attitudes of the few is ignorant.
PS: Whatever about Wikipedia I think http://christianactionforisrael.org/ant … bnazi.html can be ruled out as an unbiased source!
Accusing the Muslim faith of hating outsiders (i.e that us non-Muslims are 'infidels') is a common ploy but the Jewish attitude that they are the 'chosen' race is equally as exclusionist. The Muslim faith does not have a Pope figure who dictates blanket attitudes or interpretations of the Qur'an and as such there are no doubt many subtle differences in Islam throughout the Muslim world, to judge the many on the actions and attitudes of the few is ignorant.
PS: Whatever about Wikipedia I think http://christianactionforisrael.org/ant … bnazi.html can be ruled out as an unbiased source!
Again good post: For all you say to be true, you must believe that the 1947 borders of Israel would be left alone and not subject to persecution or terrorism by the Muslims. That Israel as you say it should exist, would be left alone in peace with its Muslim neighbors. Is there any action at all by the Muslims now or historically, that would lead you to believe this?? What is it about Muslim behavior now or historically that lends you the belief that the Muslims are tolerant and peaceful?JahManRed wrote:
lowing wrote:
JahManRed wrote:
The Soviet Muslims were living under a Soviet Stalinist Communist regime. They choose what they thought to be the lesser of 2 evils at the time for the survival of their religion and freedom to practice their beliefs.
Your link to the modern Jihad is tedious.
"The German courting of the Soviet Muslims was part of Hitler's lunatic schemes for bringing Turkey into his side and for advancing to control the oil fields in Middle East and Baku."
http://stosstruppen39-45.tripod.com/id10.html
Kinda like the USA's courting of notorious human rights abusers Saudi Arabia and Saddam for their oil.
The British indicated their intent to carve a Jewish state out of Palestine as early as 1917 through the Balfour Declaration:
"The first is the Balfour Declaration of 1917: An official letter from the British Foreign Office headed by Arthur Balfour, the UK's Foreign Secretary (from December 1916 to October 1919), to Lord Rothschild, who was seen as a representative of the Jewish people. The letter stated that the British government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
The Muslims knew Britain's intention to allow Israel to create its own state and shift a million Muslims of their lands. When your peoples lands, history and culture is under threat from the largest super power of the time, you cast your eyes around for friends. "Is my enemy's enemy's my friend?" Britain had made it clear that they were going to allow creation of Israel and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni foresaw a the oppression which continues to this day. He was a nationalist and his first priority was the survival of his country.That's not what I m saying. I am a believer in the two state solution using the 1947 borders. The Israelis and Palestinians are both entitled to their respective states. However I and the international community bar UK & US, am against the illegal occupation of lands outside those borders.lowing wrote:
excellent post:
I guess, protecting your lands, history, and culture from aggression is only reserved for non-Jews. If a Jew does it, it is terrorism. Are you saying that Jews have NO historical presence, and no culture associated with the Middle East? .Because it wasn't the British who were going to occupy the lands.This proves that it was their lands they were concerned with firstly, not exacting revenge. The British were looking away out of there. The Zionists where as aggressive towards the British as the Arabs are/were. See King David hotel and British Garrison attacks on the British by the Zionists for proof. There was no way the Arabs could defeat the British, that would have been suicide. Waiting for a weaker force to move in then strike is just good military tactics. They seeked to avoid that still by siding with the Nazis and have them do it for/with them.lowing wrote:
So if the Muslims were afraid of British intentions, why not "eliminate" the British as a race?? Why eliminate the people the British fought for?In all honesty, Yes and Yes. There is no doubting that Arab culture is brutal. It wouldn't be the first time whole peoples and cultures were wiped out or integrated into/by a conquering nation tho. (Look at the policies the British had in Ireland and Scotland, were a newly wed woman had to spend her first night wed being rapped and hopefully impregnated by the British lord of the area).The different sections of Islam, like Christians (see N.Ireland) have been in fighting for years and the Israelites were involved in that fight too. So in my mind its not Religious intolerance, is intolerance of anyone who is different and that stretches through all society East and West. Muslims are not the only people were the extreme right are intolerant.lowing wrote:
Are you saying that the genocide of the Jews by the Muslims and Nazis was merely a rational pre-emptive measure to make sure Israel is never established. That intolerance for the Jews had nothing to do with it?? Do you honestly believe this??
You can't say that the Muslims supported the extermination of the Jewish people through religious hatred alone, although that may have played a part. If say the Balfour Declaration had declared that Madagascar was to be a future home for the Jewish people at the cost and displacement of the insidious peoples, the peoples wouldn't have walked away without a fight and we may have found Africans fighting in the ranks of the SS. Today we might have a stable Middle east and a southern Africa in even more disarray, if that's possible.
Tell me, before 1947, hell even 1917, what made the Jews so persecuted by the Muslims?? Before Israel. What excuse did they have to hate and terrorize the Jews? If not utter intolerance for others and their beliefs, what?
As far as "ius primae noctis" ( I looked it up )or first night, The world grew up a little didn't it. These barbaric practices no longer exist and haven't for a few centuries. How about the ME crawl out of the biblical times and grow up a little in turn??
Lastly, could someone please show me definitively that the Jews have no historical claim to the land they occupy. That they, themselves were not run off of it in history. And I mean definitively, no question, nothing open to interpretation.
Typical " constructive" responses, I have grown to accept by those who are not intelligent or even witty enough, to come up with a legitimate response.Whiser wrote:
He’s American and would believe anything lol.m3thod wrote:
Democratic as you can type and edit what ever you want without citing references or sources? key to any debtae is fact, if you're going to cite work without credible evidence to reinforce your claims then your argument is null and void.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know of a more democratic online Encyclopedia?
In terms of credibility, since anyone can edit the content on Wikipedia, its content should probably be used with a critical eye. There is no telling whether the person who last edited the page was really a knowledgeable expert or someone without any real knowledge of the subject mater who just wanted to edit the page or someone in between. Also, since posting often occurs anonymously, there is a lack of accountability that increases the questions about credibility.
Source: http://athena.libraries.claremont.edu/~ … ource.html
Case in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6423659.stm
Frankly i'm amazed you would trust it.
I'm kind of getting sick of these threads started by the retard lowing. You need to do something more constructive my friend.
Could someone please show me definitively that the Palestinians have no historical claim to the land they occupy? That they, themselves have no right to rule their own country without the invervention of Israel, without big "Berlin walls", and with some dignity. And I mean definitively, no question, nothing open to interpretation.lowing wrote:
could someone please show me definitively that the Jews have no historical claim to the land they occupy. That they, themselves were not run off of it in history. And I mean definitively, no question, nothing open to interpretation.
What exactly did you expect the Church to do?? I am not defending them by any means, but could they have done? Excommunicate them!!!Turquoise wrote:
Very good points... It goes to show that you can't trust any organized religion.m3thod wrote:
Where as the Catholic Church just idly sat on the side lines and watched Hitler go about slaughtering the Jews? This is a well known a fact and is publicly regretted by them.lowing wrote:
I posted this in another thread then decided it might be worth its own.
We could have brought the Muslim world to its knees as it appears they deserved.
http://stosstruppen39-45.tripod.com/id10.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/ant … bnazi.html
So it would seem that the Muslim hatred of the Jews reaches farther out than the establishment of Israel in 1947( 2 years after WW2), as we are lead to believe. It is apparent that down right intolerance of others and their beliefs is at the root of all this non-sense. The Muslim world actually allied with Hitler to wipe out the Jews. So much for Israel being the reason for this hatred, it is the Jews that are hated, and persecuted.
What was even more strange is the Muslims were thousands of miles away in the ME when WW2 fought, the Christians had ring side tickets....but that's it blame the Muslims to gloss over the fact the Church did nothing to prevent the wholesale extermination of the Jews on their very doorstep.
When it comes down to it, the people who really get things done for the betterment of the world are in charities and, ironically, in government. The Vatican certainly didn't have the military capable of taking on Hitler, but they could have at least stood up to the Nazies in their words and faith. They didn't, because the Catholic Church is full of shit.
Also, this thread is not about everyone else and what the did or did not do. This thread is about the persecution of the Jews and I felt that I have raised a point that by fighting with the Nazis, the Muslims were all about exterminating the Jews before they used the excuse of the creation of Israel.
If you wanna start a Christian persecution thread by all means do so and I will gladly post, I can't stand them historically as well.
Does this mean you can not answer my question??sergeriver wrote:
Could someone please show me definitively that the Palestinians have no historical claim to the land they occupy? That they, themselves have no right to rule their own country without the invervention of Israel, without big "Berlin walls", and with some dignity. And I mean definitively, no question, nothing open to interpretation.lowing wrote:
could someone please show me definitively that the Jews have no historical claim to the land they occupy. That they, themselves were not run off of it in history. And I mean definitively, no question, nothing open to interpretation.
As for yours, I can not, I can however point to thousands of years of persecution BY EVERYONE against the Jews up to and including genocide. This is why to label them as the aggressors is so preposterous to me.
Israel and Palestine have the right to be there. However, I don't see how the Palestinians are guilty for the crimes committed by Hitler. Jews were victims of nazis crimes, and Palestinians are victims of Israel's crimes. For every Israeli killed in this conflict there are 5 Palestinians killed. And don't forget the great standard of living the Palestinians enjoy.lowing wrote:
Does this mean you can not answer my question??sergeriver wrote:
Could someone please show me definitively that the Palestinians have no historical claim to the land they occupy? That they, themselves have no right to rule their own country without the invervention of Israel, without big "Berlin walls", and with some dignity. And I mean definitively, no question, nothing open to interpretation.lowing wrote:
could someone please show me definitively that the Jews have no historical claim to the land they occupy. That they, themselves were not run off of it in history. And I mean definitively, no question, nothing open to interpretation.
As for yours, I can not, I can however point to thousands of years of persecution BY EVERYONE against the Jews up to and including genocide. This is why to label them as the aggressors is so preposterous to me.